Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16700; 24 Apr 91 4:41 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11141; 24 Apr 91 3:07 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07113; 24 Apr 91 2:02 CDT Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 1:56:21 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #301 BCC: Message-ID: <9104240156.ab00228@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 Apr 91 01:56:10 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 301 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Dangers of Cellular Car Phones [Brandon S. Allbery] Re: Documentation Wanted on January '90 AT&T Outage [Bryan Richardson] Re: Caller*ID From US PBXs [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: Radio Reception on Telephone [R. Kevin Oberman] Re: US Answering Machine in Israel [Danny Padwa] Re: 900 Discussion on CNN [Ronald Greenberg] Restricting Telemarketers [Ronald Greenberg] Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Mark Mortarotti] Re: US Answering Machine in Israel [David Lemson] Back On Line [Dave Leibold] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/AA" Subject: Re: The Dangers of Cellular Car Phones Reply-To: "Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/AA" Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1991 23:45:11 GMT As quoted from by Geoff Goodfellow : > reaction and came across this from a women on her car phone: "My name > is Julia. Longtime listener. I'm very upset that you're canceling > 'Perspectives' and I'm considering canceling my support. Please > reinstate --," followed by the sound of squealing brakes, a crash, > shattering glass, and Julia yelling "Oh s---, you've made me so mad I > just rear-ended the f---er in front of me. Have to go now." Click. Not so funny. I've lost track of the number of times that idiots who were too busy yakking on their cellphones to check for someone in the next lane over have forced me off the road. Me: Brandon S. Allbery Ham: KB8JRR/AA on 10m,2m,220,440,1.2 Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG (restricted HF at present) Delphi: ALLBERY AMPR: kb8jrr.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery KB8JRR @ WA8BXN.OH ------------------------------ From: Bryan Richardson Subject: Re: Documentation Wanted on January '90 AT&T Outage Date: 23 Apr 91 01:31:06 GMT Reply-To: Bryan Richardson Organization: Purdue University In article motcid!crocker@uunet.uu.net (Ronald T. Crocker) writes: > There was some publications around the time of the incident indicating > that the problem was a missing break statement in some C code in the > 4ESS software. It was indicated that the generic was installed in the > offending office in December, was up and running with "no" problems > for three weeks. I know more about this, but am bound by agreements to > not disclose it. This is basically correct at the most detailed level. There were a number of conditions which occurred in the network that day prior to the exposure of the missing break statement, including hardware failures. > The immediate (kneejerk?) reaction by AT&T management was to insist on > everyone at Bell Labs taking a course in C programming, and find a > tool that would highlight missing break statements. Nothing like > shooting the message carrier :->.-- As a member of the 4 ESS development team, I can concretely say that this is an Urban Legend in the making. There are always efforts to improve product quality, and these naturally are intensified after incidents such as these. However, there was no mass mandatory enrollment in C programming courses, at least as of this writing :). Bryan Richardson richarbm@mentor.cc.purdue.edu AT&T Bell Laboratories and, for 1991, Purdue University Disclaimer: Neither AT&T nor Purdue are responsible for my opinions. ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: Caller*ID From US PBXs Date: 23 Apr 91 17:29:58 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article , sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes... > (1) What will Caller*ID show as my number? > (2) What does E911 get as my number? > (3) What would an Ohio Bell trace show as my number? In general, if you are behind a PBX, then the public network knows only about the PBX trunk or group you're on. In some cases the trunk will return a hunt pilot, in others its own number, depending upon how it's set up. But none of the above three services can know your extension number, even though it can be dialed directly. Extension info is passed from the CO to PBX on incoming calls (DID service) only. On Centrex, it would show the number for your extension. Story behind the story: Back in the olden days (when steppers were used), the telco used to provide two kinds of Centrex. Centrex-CO used CO switches; that's what we have today. Centrex-CU put a switch (usually a Bell 701 stepper!) on customer premises and delivered a similar service. (Generally you paid about a quarter/month/phone less for -CU, essentially as compensation for the switchroom space.) Centrex-CU did deliver your extension number for billing purposes, 911, etc. (If they had 911 back then!) This was done via a data link from the switch to the CO, reporting which extension had seized which trunk. When the stepper went away, this service was made available to newer PBX users, under the name "Automatic Identified Outward Dialing" (AIOD). Many PBXs of the day, such as Dimension, supported it. BUT it was frightfully expensive, something like $3/month/extension. Since it didn't bill for WATS or FX, few customers found it useful. When 1983 came (when the FCC ordered all PBXs detariffed; this had noth ing to do with divestiture!), the last few remaining Centrex-CU systems were handed over to AT&T and repriced as PBXs. The previously-bundled trunks, including both DID and AIOD, went under telco tariffs. The total price went WAY up. I'm not sure if modern PBXs even support AIOD. The telcos priced it out of the market. ISDN, on the other hand, includes the capability, so it may make a comeback. (If they don't charge for it. They have no justification to charge, since it's built in to the protocol.) AIOD would make caller*ID behave in the expected fashion. Fred R. Goldstein Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 952 3274 Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let alone a multi-billion dollar corporation? ------------------------------ From: oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov Subject: Re: Radio Reception on Telephone Date: 23 Apr 91 14:54:09 GMT In article , hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin) writes: > Well, a "choke" is a fairly simple device consisting mainly of > capacitors and inductors and the purpouse of which is to short out the > RF radiation before it gets detected in your phone. It can be > effective sometimes, and totally worthless at times. Well, a "choke" is not "a fairly simple device consisting mainly of capacitors and inductors". That's a filter, also commonly called a trap. A choke is simply an inductor which is, in turn, simply a coil. Coils work because they present an impedence which increases with frequency. And you want to block RFI while allowing in audio. I'm not familiar with the impedences in telephones, but I suspect that a 10 mH inductor should do the trick. It would present a 63 K impedence at 1 MHz. Frankly a little PI filter made of two chokes and a capacitor would work better, but just a choke will probably do the job. R. Kevin Oberman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Internet: oberman@icdc.llnl.gov (415) 422-6955 Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing and probably don't really know anything useful about anything. Especially anything gnu. ------------------------------ From: Danny Padwa Subject: Re: US Answering Machine in Israel Date: 23 Apr 91 15:04:43 EDT In article , spolsky-joel@cs.yale.edu (Joel Spolsky) writes: > Does anybody know if an American answering machine will work in > Israel? I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure it will work ... while I didn't quite have my own phone line when I was there last year, many of my friends brought phones (and answering machines, and all sorts of other things) with them, and didn't have much problem. You will need a converter for the power, of course, and a little gizmo to bridge the phone connectors ... if memory serves correctly the box just connects the wires (perhaps with some impedance matching) and is very easily available there. Be careful about the import duties on electronics, however. Danny Padwa Padwa@Husc3.Harvard.Edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 16:10:30 -0400 From: Ronald Greenberg Subject: Re: 900 Discussion on CNN Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park In article : > He said that the FCC had proposed a plan with two major goals: > 1) Require every 900 number to air a "preamble" including three things; > a brief discription of the nature of the service, a clear statement of > the cost or charges involved, and the opportunity to hang up without > incurring any charges. > 2) Require all telcos to provide free blocking to any customer on > request, and make parents of children who make calls to 900 numbers > not liable for the charges. The plan also includes a provision that the telco cannot cut off ordinary service for failure to pay 900 charges. They also ask for comment on whether their proposals should only apply to 900 numbers or should apply to any number that has extra charges for calling it. (There are certain local exchanges like this, e.g. 976 in DC, and I think 700 numbers, and apparently there is nothing to stop the telcos from giving 800 numbers to things that are not free in every way.) Unfortunately, as the plan is written now, it just applies to 900 numbers. Also, I'm pretty sure the FCC is only able to place restrictions on interstate calls. I found out all this when I called the FCC to complain about getting phone calls from machines asking me to call 900 numbers (and other telemarketing calls) and they sent me a copy of their proposal on 900 numbers. They say they are considering some other sorts of regulation on telemarketing calls, but again it would only apply to interstate calls, and they haven't actually decided to do anything so far. It would be nice if one could get copies of FCC proposals on-line. Also, I'm not really sure how members of the public are supposed to express their comments. There is some information about making comments in the material they sent me, but it seems to involve some annoying bureaucratic requirements, and they use some legal terms I'm not familiar with. I may try to get more information out of them on the phone some time, in which case I will post anything interesting that I learn, but if somebody already knows something, I'd be interested in hearing. Ron Greenberg rig@eng.umd.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 16:10:30 -0400 From: Ronald Greenberg Subject: Restricting Telemarketers Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park I did a little more research on the question of restricting telemarketers. On the local end, there is a bill pending in the DC city council to prohibit use of automated dialing machines for soliciting people without a preexisting relationship. (There may be some exceptions, e.g., for charitable organizations; I think the bill is modeled on the MD law.) I was told by a staffer that the bill is expected to pass, and I told them I would like to see it extended to calls by humans, but I don't have any expectation of that happening soon. Unfortunately, I think these state (or district) bills are limited to intrastate calls. I also talked to somebody at the Public Service Commission for DC in the hope that they could do something, especially in the case of the telephone company making telemarketing calls. He said that the corresponding commission in PA tried to stop the telco from telemarketing, and the courts said they couldn't do it. But he couldn't tell me why. I presume it's because it applied only to the telco or because it was done by regulation instead of legislation, since there is restrictive legislation in Florida (and CA?), and it's being considered elsewhere. I also learned from somebody at the FCC that there is proposed legislation in the US Congress to put some kind of limitations on telemarketing, but I haven't yet gotten details. I was pointed to Congressman Markey's office. I think that's because he runs the correct committee rather than because he proposed the legislation. From there I was pointed to somebody named John Kinney, who I believe is a member of the committee staff. I haven't yet managed to talk to him to get details about the bill. If and when I learn more, I'll post. Ron Greenberg rig@eng.umd.edu ------------------------------ From: Mark Mortarotti Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable Date: 19 Apr 91 16:08:42 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino I think the point here is that the Phone Company may own my phone number by not my life. I own my address, and my name. If the phone company wants to publish my number, go ahead. If any one wants to use my name, or address, " P A Y M E "!!! We have been forced over the years to comply what is currently done. I pay a fee to the telephone company to keep my number unlisted. I just realized I can avoid the fee altogether by letting the phone company just print my telephone number, not my name, and not my address. Then any person who whats to use the phone book for wall paper may, and I will not object. Just a thought, Mark ------------------------------ From: David Lemson Subject: Re: US Answering Machine in Israel Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1991 15:04:03 GMT spolsky-joel@cs.yale.edu (Joel Spolsky) writes: > Does anybody know if an American answering machine will work in > Israel? Yes. They work fine. Remember that the power transformer cube will be a 120V one but you'll either need to devote a step-down transformer (one of the 100W ones that puts out a sine wave, not the solid-state ones) or buy a 220V -> whatever voltage the answering machine needs. (Probably be easier to buy it over there or in Europe.) Remember that almost no phones in Israel have Touch-Tone (tm), though. So, don't expect to be able to use beeperless remote unless you buy a small DTMF pad at Radio Shack (which is exactly what I did) and bring it with you. David Lemson University of Illinois Computing Services Consultant Internet : lemson@uiuc.edu UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Apr 91 17:50:00 PST From: Dave Leibold Subject: Back On Line Reply-To: dleibold@attmail.com Greetings from Florida, where things are settling down after the move. Please note that djcl@contact.uucp (woody) will no longer be home; rather, the new dleibold@attmail.com (real name!) is now in effect. So, too, is the modem line at (407) 731.0388 (only up to 2400 baud at present, apologies to those fans of the newly-official V.* standards modems). It's an MCI default carrier line, for those familiar with the new Friends and Family program. (MCI was chosen largely on the strength of a good US-Canada calling plan). Caller-ID is now approved by Florida PSC for Southern Bell; everyone can block their ID for free, though. I saw 1st July as a start-up date; Call Screening is already being marketed. More on the sunny south, carriers, COCOTs, local service installation and other stuff later ... || David Leibold dleibold@attmail.com IMEX 89:480/126 || The Super Continental BBS + 1 407 731.0388 (300/1200/2400) Dave Leibold - via IMEx node 89:681/1 Dave.Leibold@f126.n480.z89.onebdos.UUCP ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #301 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19192; 24 Apr 91 5:57 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18171; 24 Apr 91 4:11 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11141; 24 Apr 91 3:07 CDT Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 2:48:34 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #302 BCC: Message-ID: <9104240248.ab21345@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 Apr 91 02:48:21 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 302 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Comments on History of Telephone Apparatus Manufacturers [M. Dorrian] Experimenting With AT&T's Account Management Service [Michael Dorrian] New MCI Sleaze or Just a Mistake? [Matt L. Armstrong] NJ Bell Selling Mailing List? [Phillip M. Vogel] London Numbers (was: Dublin Number Expansion) [David Heale] Compiling a List of Interesting Audio Response Systems [Robert Virzi] Pay Phones [David Esan] Posted Sign at Payphone [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 01:28 GMT From: Michael Dorrian <0003493915@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Comments on History of Telephone Apparatus Manufacturers Larry Lippman wonders about the status of COMDIAL, the old Stromberg Carlson entity .... Comdial is still alive and kicking in Charlottesville, VA., operating under the same name. As far as I know, Comdial remains the only US manufacturer of telephones (local content - AT&T's phones are assembled in the US from Asian manufactured components). This offers quite a niche on sales to the US government. Their products are often used as key system behind PBX or Centrex. I recollect that they won an anti-dumping suit (filed jointly with AT&T) against the Asian manufacturers. Uncertain of current status. Pacific Telecom (no - not PACBELL!) held a 45% interest at one point. Comdial trades Over The Counter and were in pretty tight straits two or three years ago. Recent {Washington Post} Virginia 30 had them at $80M in sales with 1K employees. Michael Dorrian The RTP Group Mid Atlantic Voice: 703-243-6000 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 01:28 GMT From: Michael Dorrian <0003493915@mcimail.com> Subject: Experimenting with AT&T's Account Management (Call Manager Service) Last month I tested the use of Call Manager on my non-ATT presubscribed business line. On my C&P bill this month I received a breakout of the call by the account code I used as well as a summary sheet listing the number of calls, minutes and charges by account code. I had forgotten to write in about during the moderator's absence (good to have you back Pat!) until I got a call today from my local AT&T rep. Since I haven't used AT&T as my principal carrier since 1982 I was somewhat surprised, especially when she offered to stop by and review my service needs. I asked her what her records showed. " A $.21 call im March " she said. Aha! It appears that I was the only user of Call Manager that was billed by C&P instead of AT&T. The all-knowing billing computer had kicked my record out as an exception report and someone actually followed up on it. I was impressed! I explained to the rep that I was part of a secret cabal probing the ... er rather that I was part of an International users group testing the feature functions of various Long Distance vendors. The rep is still going to come by my office and discuss whatever other undocumented features there are she can offer her accounts and to try to sell me AT&T service. I'll even listen. Question: A previous poster (whose name I lost) stated that he used 10XXX access Reach Out World while not having AT&T as his primary carrier. Was it billed by the local phone company or AT&T? Michael Dorrian The RTP Group Mid Atlantic Voice: 703-243-6000 [Moderator's Note: Interesting you mention this. I also tried the Call Manager service last month on a lark, to see what would happen. My bill from Illinois Bell arrived today, and a couple of the calls are identified by account code, along with a little summary at the bottom of the page. And even though they were zero plus calls with special billing involved, they were still treated under my Reach Out America and Reach Out World plans, with appropriate discounts, etc. So far no one has called me to discuss my requirements however. But apparently there is no need to sign up in advance to use the service. Just entering 0 + ten digits + 15xx sets it up. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 12:07:02 MDT From: "Matt L. Armstrong" Subject: New MCI Sleaze or Just a Mistake? Over the weekend, I was going through some mail that I'd missed seeing earlier in the week and ran across an envelope from MCI which contained "important information about your new MCI service." Curious, I opened it up and read, Dear Valued MCI Customer; Thank you for upgrading to MCI PrimeTime(sm) plus Personal 800(sm) Service, MCI's newest and most innovative advance in long distance service. With PrimteTime plus Personal 800 Service, you get MCI's excellent savings on all your long distance calls. *To your* house. And *from* your house. Surprised and cursing, I ran to the phone to check my 1+ carrier. Still AT&T. Ok, so what's the deal? There's an 800 Service Confirmation Notice inside that lists my address, an 800 number, my "Private Security Code," and my home phone number as being the number that the 800 number will connect to. The literature seems to imply that I have selected MCI as my 1+ carrier and have signed onto their long-distance savings plan. I have no recollection of having asked for such a thing. Unless one of my housemates has foolishly allowed an MCI rep to switch us (he's been pretty good about not impersonating me lately ...), my guess as to the explanation is this: MCI has sent this note hoping to get me (aka J. Random Citizen) to switch to their service by tempting me with the prestige of having my own 800 number which has, conveniently enough, already been established. Since no one can use my 800 number without the security code, anyone using this 800 number has to have been given the code by me. If I've given out the code, it implies that I have agreed to use the 800 number as mine and to use MCI as my 1+ carrier. Does this sound correct? Have I been slimed? They were thoughtful enough to provide cards to write my number and SC on to hand out to all my friends and relatives, and even better, my mom can call me for free on Mother's Day by using my number. (And you know, those long distance rates from seven miles away can really add up out here ...) Curious question: Is this number by any chance used by more than one customer such that MCI uses the "security code" to differentiate between destination numbers, or is MCI just filling up 800 number space? Matt Armstrong - bonzo@edsr.eds.com ...uunet!tantalum.uucp!bonzo ------------------------------ From: "Phillip M. Vogel" Subject: NJ Bell Selling Mailing List? Date: 23 Apr 91 03:36:15 GMT Organization: Bartal Design Group, Inc. Imagine my surprise when I got a mailing from AT&T inviting me to change my long distance service. Well, this would be expected (but still not acceptable), except that there was a pre filled out card with two of my phone numbers on it. Both of these numbers are "unpublished", and have never been serviced by AT&T. Where did AT&T get my numbers? The only explanation I can come up with is that NJ Bell sold it to them. By the way, one of the numbers is serviced by Sprint, and the other by MCI. I intend to call NJ Bell and register a complaint, but I don't expect to get very far. I really take exception to the fact that they charge me monthly for having an unpublished number (in this case two), and then charge other people for calling directory assistance to get the numbers, and on top of all that, they'll give the numbers to anyone with caller id, and if that wasn't enough (and don't you think it oughta be?), they turn around and sell my precious private numbers to a mass marketer. Give me a break, please. Does anybody have any information that may be useful to me in what promises to be a long battle with the phone company? I just can't see letting this slide, but I'm not sure how to proceed. Phil unhappy-in-NJ Vogel Phillip M. Vogel, President | #include "/disclaimers/std.h" Bartal Design Group, Inc. | Domain: phillip@bartal.com 318 Marlboro Road, Englewood, NJ 07631 | (201)567-1343 FAX:(201)568-2891 [Moderator's Note: The fact that your numbers are non-pub has no relevance in this case. The local telco is required, by the terms of the MFJ, to share billing information with the various long distance carriers. If you made *any* call on AT&T (are you positive you have never done so after divestiture but prior to electing your carrier of choice?) then AT&T is entitled to have the name and address which goes with the number. Another explanation is that if your local telco does the billing for AT&T, then AT&T may have paid the local telco to do a mass mailing for them based on telco's records ... with AT&T not actually knowing who got the mailing unless/until you respond. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: London Numbers (was: Dublin Number Expansion) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 10:07:12 BST From: D.Heale@ee.surrey.ac.uk In article , tjo@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Tim Oldham) writes: > > I believe the reason BT didn't choose the "017 & 018" option is that > > they preferred to keep the entire "01..." sequence clear for as yet > > unspecified future use. > I believe (and I don't speak for my employer on this) that as 01 is > already the international dialling sequence (eg the USA is 0101), 017 > and 018 were out of the question, or just plain confusing. I understand that the reason for not wanting to re-use 01 was so the new numbers were distinct from the old ones. This allowed the new numbers to be introduced before the official change-over and the old ones to be detected and a message given after the change without needing to use timeouts. Another reason for not using 017 and 018 would be that that all National Number Groups (the real area codes) that contain a 1 have this as the last digit and BT seem to be gradually phasing out the subdivision of NNGs into more than 1 area code. Thus if the new numbers started 01 it would probably entail increasing the length of the local number to eight digits and keeping 01 as the code. And John Slater writes: > However it's worth pointing out that there is a proposal to > standardise the international access code throughout the world. I > believe "00" is proposed, as this is used in quite a few countries > already. Germany springs to mind. This would fit in with both US and > UK systems without conflict. (Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong! :-) I think this is a European rather that world wide standard. It would conflict with some current numbers in the UK, eg 005 is used for some local premium rate services and and 003 used for BTs non-cellular mobile telephones. I have read that these are both temporary allocations and would be withdrawn at some stage to free 00 for IDD. There used to be a code 0001 for Dublin which could be used before IDD was available to Ireland and continued to be listed with 010 353 ... for the rest of Ireland, however it seems to have been replaced on the latest list I have seen so it may have been withdrawn. David Heale (D.Heale@ee.surrey.ac.uk) ------------------------------ From: Robert Virzi Subject: Compiling a List of Interesting Audio Response Systems Date: 23 Apr 91 14:50:08 GMT Organization: GTE Laboratories Incorporated, Waltham MA Telecommers: A while back in comp.dcom.telecom we had a series of postings with phone numbers of interesting audio response systems -- numbers that you call to hear canned information on a variety of topics played back to you. I think it's time to update the list, as these new services seem to pop up (and ocassionaly disappear) at a rapid rate. Some of them are actually quite useful, while others are not. I have general info lines in mind, not specific services like those tailored to the shareholders of a particular mutual fund. Below are some of the numbers I know of. I would be willing to collect numbers by e-mail, which I will summarize and post. I think this method will conserve some net bandwidth and provide a compact listing for those interested. Although not necessarily excluded, I am generally less interested in 900-numbers. The reasons should be obvious. Bob Virzi rv01@gte.com Number Description ====== =========== 617.333.FILM Film reviews & local theater times keyed to zip code. Try zip codes 02054 and 02142 for examples. This is a fairly unique service and one that I might actually pay for if they didn't give it away free. 617.258.8671 Boston area directions. Enter two street addresses and get amazingly detailed directions. I think this is an MIT project, uses synthetic speech. 206.464.2000 Seattle Times info line. Subsidized by commercials. Has lots of info categories (like the next two) but unusual in its support of 15 min delayed stock quotes on line 9800. Enter ticker symbols in the form 41,81,32* for GTE. 808.296.1818 GTE Directories ON CALL service. Some interesting lines like surf reports (this is in Hawaii). Other topics include TV listings, news, sports, weather, and a unique report on the activities of the armed services. 214.621.2200 Another version of ON CALL, customized for local area. ON CALL promises to be getting stock quotes like the Seattle Times number in the near future. Some games on this service (e.g., telephone golf). 908.236.7000 United Telephone in NJ has (had) a similar to service to the three above, but the user interface was done particularly well. These systems are flaky, what with trying to pick off DTMF during message playing, and their system used some tricks to make the technology *seem* better, if not actually making it *work* better. 602.753.9009 Kingman, Bullhead City, and Lake Havasu City and other areas around Mohave County have their own version of telephone information lines called TeleTips. It has more static infor- mation like how to do taxes and golf tips. 900.xxx.xxxx USA today provides the stock quote service provided by the Seattle Times but for a charge. One improvement they have made is a greatly expanded list of company names that includes common names. So AT&T can be entered ATT, not the cryptic T (the ticker symbol) required by the Times. The number appears in the business section of the paper along with instructions. 900.454.4BUD Provided by Budweiser, they let you call in and listen to a song from a selected list of bands playing in NYC. I have not called this number. 900.HOT.DISC Lets you preview first 30 seconds of each song on a short list of albums (er, CDs). You can switch over to a live operator to place an order. 900.454.3277 Another music preview service specializing in music of off beat, hard to find bands. It has something like 500 bands online, and you need the codes to get to specific bands. Costs a buck a minute and they cut you off after 15 minutes, or so I am told. If you have additions to this list, please include the complete number, a short description, and charges, if you know them, and send me email at the address below. Thanks. ------------------------------ From: David Esan Subject: Pay Phones Date: 23 Apr 91 15:39:02 GMT Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY I noted in a small article in our local small paper, the {Rochester, NY Times-Union} that AT&T is going to test market pre-paid cards for their payphones. These tests will be made in large international airports, particularly JFK in NYC. Cost will be $4.75 for a card that will provide $5 worth of calling. David Esan de@moscom.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 91 3:00:04 EDT From: cmoore@brl.mil Subject: Posted Sign at Payphone In the rest area on northbound I-83 in York County, PA (just across the state line from Maryland -- actually about a mile at least), is a pay phone on the 717-235 Glen Rock exchange. That phone has a sign posted just to the left saying "MCI 22#" and instructions reading something like this: "You may punch the code if you have an account with the carrier. Listen for new dial tone and instructions. You may need to deposit coin." ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #302 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20932; 25 Apr 91 4:06 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04447; 25 Apr 91 2:31 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22006; 25 Apr 91 1:21 CDT Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 1:07:37 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #304 BCC: Message-ID: <9104250107.ab07700@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 Apr 91 01:07:28 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 304 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Cracking Down on Auto-Dialing Telemarketers [Observer, via Don Kimberlin] North Georgia to Get NPA 706 [Bill Berbenich] Sprint Raises 800 Monthly Fee [Steve Elias] Decrease in University Long Distance Telephone Rates [Andrew Hastings] Racine and Things ... [Ninja Master] A Part-Time Job for John Higdon (Seriously! A Help Wanted Ad) [Carl Wright] Pac Bell Billing Disk [Ken Jongsma] Re: 'Dumb' PBX Wanted [Vance Shipley] Help Wanted Obtaining New Service From Indiana Bell [Doctor Math] Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Michael H. Riddle] Re: Voice Recognition Telephones and Security [David Gast] Re: A Very Sophisticated ACD From Dytel [John M. O'Shaughnessy] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 05:32 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Cracking Down on Auto-Dialing Telemarketers Numerous posts in the Digest have addressed several aspects of telemarketing sleaze. Not the least of these has been the auto-dialing type. The following story, a bit belatedly reproduced here, tells how North Carolina has taken some steps to just plain shut them down. From the (called by some the "Disturber", April 13, 1991, page D-1: "N.C. TO CRACK DOWN ON AUTO-DIALER CALLS "RALEIGH - The state is cracking down on the illegal use of telephone auto-dialers after numerous compalints about the machinYs, Attorney General Lacy Thornburg said Friday." (4/12) "`It's time to stop illegal intrusions into our family lives and businesses,' said Thornburg. "The machines automatically dial telephone numbers and play a recorded message when phones are answered. They are typically used to market goods and services or to entice telephone users to makes costly calls to 1-900 numbers. "Under N.C. law it is a misdemeanor to use auto-dialers to market goods and services for profit. Exceptions are made for civic, charitable and political organizations, for media polls and for use of auto-dailers with a live operator who must first ask permission before playing the recorded message. "Thornburg said his office had received complaints from businesses and state agencies, whose phone lines have been overwhelmed by auto-dialer calls." ...The article, of course written and printed in a newspaper, does not indicate if N.C. law includes the exemption for newspapers found in other states. It would be interesting to see if they tried to call their telemarketing sleaze "media polls" so they could operate in the manner of John Higdon's favorite sleazoid, his . ------------------------------ From: bill@gauss.eedsp.gatech.edu Subject: North Georgia to Get NPA 706 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 13:47:04 EDT Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu I heard on the radio during lunch that Northern Georgia is to get NPA 706 in (May?) 1992. Metropolitan Atlanta is to remain in NPA 404. Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Sprint Raises 800 Monthly Fee Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 11:01:10 MDT From: Steve Elias US Sprint has raised their monthly charge for 800 numbers to $15 from $10. eli ------------------------------ From: Andrew Hastings Subject: Decrease in University Long Distance Telephone Rates Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 21:16:50 GMT [Copied from Cursor, Academic Services Newsletter, Carnegie Mellon University, April, 1991. What seems odd to me is that the rates charged back to departments appear to have been decreased across the board, although the article implies that the rates charged by Sprint are lower only on calls to participating institutions. Can anyone give more details about how Sprint's VPN really works? Andrew Hastings abh@cs.cmu.edu 412/268-8734] From: Mary L. Pretz-Lawson, Telecommunications Telecommunications recently installed US Sprint as Carnegie Mellon's main long distance carrier on all of our administrative lines. (Student lines still use AT&T.) Sprint is now our first choice, lowest cost carrier for all of our outgoing domestic US traffic. In addition, we are now part of a Sprint virtual private network (VPN) of universities that includes Stanford, Yale, University of Pennsylvania, Georgia Tech, and others. A virtual network is a long distance service provided through public switched facilities, but configured via software to resemble a private network. Our university VPN defines all of the participating institutions as a single "corporate" network. The result is very competitive long distance rates by capitalizing on the large volume of inter-university calling. Accordingly, we decreased the university long distance rates by about 15 percent effective February 1. Business day rates are now $.20 per minute and non-business day rates decreased to $.14 per minute for interstate calling. Benefits of the Sprint VPN go beyond our long distance voice telephone calls. Since Sprint's network is based on 100% digital, fiber optic technology, it can handle voice, data, and video simultaneously. Specifically, the VPN 56 feature can transmit data at 56 kilobits per second and extend applications such as local area nework (LAN) connectivity to participating universities. If your department needs switched data service or private lines to other educational institutions, you may be able to reduce your costs by moving to this VPN service for data, too. Contact Telecommunications (extension XXXX, yyy@zzz) to find out if schools you connect to for data are part of the VPN network. The change to US Sprint should have been transparent to you. However, if you experience any difficulty with making long distance calls, please notify the Carnegie Mellon operator by dialing "0." Give the operator the time the call was made, the calling and called numbers, and the nature of the problem. The sooner you provide this information to use, the better able we are to trace the problem. ------------------------------ From: Ninja Master Subject: Racine and Things ... Date: 24 Apr 91 22:54:31 GMT Organization: The Hellfire Club Just to clear something up, that switching system talked about in Racine, WI (I believe it was an April 12th post), went down because of a leak in the roof. It shorted out the entire system. WiBell and other BOC's have taken note of this, and will be correcting this design flaw in future buildings. Question ... With ANI's, how different will they be with the new POTS CLID hookup, and those generally used with Corps, etc ... are they essentially the same thing? Is there a different software/physical hookup, or what? Thanks. ------------------------------ From: Carl Wright Subject: A Part-Time Job for John Higdon (Seriously! A Help Wanted Ad) Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1991 03:03:58 GMT My apologies to John, but he hates COCOTS so much that this applies. My latest issue of from the California Payphone Association has the following advertisement: TECHNICIANS NEEDED FOR ENFORCEMENT TESTING THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA * Each visit will be paid. * The average inspection takes 20 minutes. * Visits can be worked into the daily schedule. CALL 415-614-7607. Also present is an article which I quote: ENFORCEMENT TEST TO EXPAND TECHNICIANS SOUGHT THROUGHOUT STATE Enforcement testing will be expanded shortly throughout California. Technicians from all over the state are needed to help carry out the testing. Each visit takes about 20 minutes, and can be worked into the regular daily schedule. CPA (California Payphone Association) will pay for each technician visit. If you are interested in participating, please call Pam Stamer at 415-614-7607. CPA expanded its program of enforcement testing into the LA area in January. In the Bay Area test region the problems are primarily incomplete signage. In LA, CPA technicians are finding much more overcharging for local calls, blocking, and not allowing free access. As in the northern part of the state, vendors found not in compliance are given notice to correct the tariff violation by a certain date to avoid disconnection. Vendors are receiving the test positively. Most recognize the value of running phones well and being in compliance. [Personal note: Almost no one thinks of themselves as the bad guys. WE all have reasons. I'm glad to see the side where the COCOTS are good along with the side where they are bad. It's an interesting newsletter. It lists all the names and phone numbers of the member payphone operators. I get it free. I don't know why. I must have gotten on the right list.] Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105 ------------------------------ Subject: Pac Bell Billing Disk Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 19:55:03 EDT From: Ken Jongsma According to a small article in this months Compuserve magazine, Pac Bell is now offering billing via floppy disk. There is a one time $100 charge for the analysis software, followed by a $15/month charge per disk. Details are available at (415) 542-4541 or the local Pac Bell office. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Subject: Re: 'Dumb' PBX Wanted Organization: SwitchView Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1991 00:55:30 GMT In article 74066.2004@compuserve.com (Larry Rachman) writes: > Does anyone out there know of a 'dumb' pbx product. By that I mean a > box that would connect between a group of stations and a group of > trunks, and switch calls between them, but not under its own control. Redcom makes a product that does exactly that. It is called the MPX. Vance Shipley vances@ltg ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!ltg!vances ------------------------------ From: Doctor Math Subject: Help Wanted Obtaining New Service From Indiana Bell Date: Mon, 22 Apr 91 15:11:27 PDT Organization: Brown Cow Software (a licensed Waffle developer) I live in Indiana Bell territory and all my residential phone lines are served by a #5ESS. The only "feature" available is Call-Waiting (sm). I would rather have forward-on-busy instead, but my Bell "doesn't offer that service". Further questioning reveals that there is no scheduled cutover date for CLASS services, and that the only feature they intend to add in the foreseeable future is some sort of remotely-programmable call forwarding (in addition to the ordinary style of call forwarding). I'm served by a switch capable of forward-on-busy, and for all I know, the software may already be loaded into the switch. How can I make them give me what I want? (Yes, I'm aware that I can't very well "make them" do anything, but considering that I had supposedly unmixable service types for several months -- measured and unmeasured lines in the same house -- I'm betting there might just be a way to get what I want.) Thanks in advance to anyone who can give me some advice. ------------------------------ From: "Michael H. Riddle" Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1991 19:53:50 GMT In mort@hpihoah.cup.hp.com (Mark Mortarotti) writes: > I think the point here is that the Phone Company may own my phone number > by not my life. I own my address, and my name. If the phone company wants > to publish my number, go ahead. If any one wants to use my name, or address, > " P A Y M E "!!! If we're really still on the subject of the Court decision, having read it I can say that the issue was much more narrow. It was stricly one of copyright law and compilation. Much of the discussion here, valuable as it has been, was about public policy and phone numbers. For the purposes of copyrighting white pages, however, the subject is substantially narrower, and that was the basis of the Court decision. <<<< 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: Wed, 24 Apr 91 19:45:31 -0700 From: David Gast Subject: Re: Voice Recognition Telephones and Security Re my comments about how a voice recognition facility by the phone company would further reduce our privacy by tracking every phone call we make and to whom we make it. rmoonen@hvlpa.att.com said: > This can already be done: Make a cash withdrawal from an ATM; the bank > now knows where you are. Place a calling card call from a payphone; > the phone company now knows who you called, and where you are. Walk > into a moderately sized department store, and video cameras will track > you're every move. Getting paranoid already? :-) These examples are true, but having a record of every single phone call we make would be worse than knowing that once per week a cash withdrawal was made by someone with my ATM card or that someone unnamed walked into the store. Additionally, I can pay cash for my phone calls and the phone does not know who made the call (under most circumstances), if voice recognition is on, then they would know (unless I disguise my voice with some type of electronic device that might also change words et al). And the Moderator noted: > [Moderator's Note: And what, pray tell, is the difference between this > and sending someone a written letter who then forges my handwriting > and signs off on some fraudulent documents for me? Maybe we should > stop allowing handwritten communication between people (or individuals > and companies) before this 'existing security hole' gets worse. How > inconvenient do you want things to be just to accomodate your fears > about 'what might happen'? PAT] I think there are several differences. I hear Bush'es voice almost every night on the news. I could record his voice and then easily impersonate him. It would be more difficult, but not impossible, for me to send out letters on his official stationary with his signature on them. It would be easy for someone to call up my bank and say this account 12345 and the last four digits of my SSN are 1234, please send a cashier's check to the ABC Company for $1000. It is harder for that individual to do the above through the mail. It is even more difficult for the individual if the bank confirms the proposed transaction with me before doing it. Additionally, I have heard many complaints about phreaks from you. Why give them another toy that won't do me any good? I don't consider the proposed system convenience. We must pay more attention to security, not less. If I want an eight digit PIN for my phone card or my ATM card, I should be able to get it. If I want to limit myself to $100 per day withdrawals, I should be able to. Is it convenience that I am only allowed to get a four digit PIN that is typically chosen for me and is publically available information like the last four digits of my zip code? You can bet that if a bank, for example, got on the internet, I would not under any circumstances want them to accept any instructions that came through the internet, it is just too easy to impersonate others. On the other hand, I am not so paranoid that I refuse to have an account on the internet. David ------------------------------ From: "John M. O'Shaughnessy" Subject: Re: A Very Sophisticated ACD From Dytel Date: 23 Apr 91 17:42:13 GMT Organization: Open Systems Architects, Inc., Mpls, MN We installed a Dytel box at the Roach Organization when I worked there and helped them move into a new buidling. It's very impressive, and we needed good flowcharts to help us keep up with all the options. John M. O'Shaughnessy osh@osa.com Open Systems Architects, Inc. Minneapolis, MN ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #304 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20940; 25 Apr 91 4:06 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04447; 25 Apr 91 2:27 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22006; 25 Apr 91 1:20 CDT Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 0:31:03 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #303 BCC: Message-ID: <9104250031.ab04013@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 Apr 91 00:30:52 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 303 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson NXX Count 4-15-91 [David Esan] New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department [Winston Lawrence] Live DJ for Music-on-Hold [John Nagle] Prodigy Questions [Arnette P. Baker] Battery Discharger Needed [Peter Hayward] X-Trace Programs / Sources [Henk van de Ven] A New Digest Reader's Introduction [Leroy Casterline] Help Needed Understanding ISDN [William Robert Kent Cousert] Preventing 900 Call Abuse [Kath Mullholand] Prelude Phone Documentation Needed [Kath Mullholand] Area Code List Wanted [David Appell] 212-516 in Use in 1986 [Carl Moore] Decreasing Costs of Transmission [James Borynec] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Esan Subject: NXX Count 4-15-91 Date: 23 Apr 91 15:40:13 GMT Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY Once a quarter I receive the BellCore V&H tape. Using this information I can total the number of exchanges in each area code. The twenty most populous area codes are listed below. After the written text of this article I have included the count for each of the area codes. I have not included the 52? series of area codes that are in use for Mexico, since they are not yet dialable from the US. (Note: Don't ask me when they will be dialable, I don't know although I will guess sometime after 1995.) I have not included the 82? series of area codes which include many more Mexico exchanges, as well as the non-diable locations in the NANP. The fields are: ------------ rank last quarter 213: 736 (1, 7) area code --^^^ ^^^ ^------- number of new exchanges |-------------- total number of exchanges 213: 736 (1, 7) 212: 668 (6, 5) 205: 630 (12, 15) 714: 581 (16, 8) 214: 730 (2, 12) 415: 657 (7, 15) 919: 624 (11, 4) 206: 579 (17, 9) 201: 703 (3, 9) 512: 639 (8, 5) 215: 603 (13, 7) 501: 569 (18, 5) 301: 694 (4, 4) 416: 633 (9, 5) 602: 594 (15, 5) 604: 555 (19, 2) 404: 679 (5, 12) 313: 630 (10, 4) 403: 593 (14, 2) 703: 552 (20, 6) Of the top 20 NPA's we can note: (I have no details on calling patterns in those NPA's not noted, and have no information of impending splits in those NPA's). #1. 213 - due to split to 310 beginning February 1, 1992. #2. 214 - has split to 903. Permissive dialling will end 11/91, and number will be reduced. #3. 201 - has split to 908. Permissive dialling will end this year, and number will be reduced. #4. 301 - due to split to 410 beginning November 1991. #5. 404 - no plans to split at this point. Intra-NPA calls require the dialling of the NPA. Note the large growth of the NPA. #6. 212 - due to split to 917 some time in 1992. #7. 415 - due to split to 510 beginning October 7, 1991. #8. 512 - no plans to split at this point. I have no data on 10 digit dialling for non-local calls. #9. 416 - due to split to 905 in 1993. Intra-NPA calls require the dialling of the NPA. #10. 313 - no plans to split at this point. Intra-NPA calls require the dialling of the NPA. #16. 714 - will split to 909 beginning November 1992. The other area codes are given below. 213 : 736 713 : 547 804 : 462 617 : 370 318 : 329 409 : 285 518 : 250 214 : 730 216 : 541 305 : 460 516 : 370 209 : 329 613 : 283 608 : 243 201 : 703 405 : 539 513 : 450 508 : 365 618 : 325 208 : 277 509 : 237 301 : 694 615 : 529 816 : 447 418 : 359 504 : 324 805 : 276 603 : 231 404 : 679 708 : 527 306 : 446 818 : 358 319 : 324 812 : 274 901 : 221 212 : 668 612 : 524 913 : 433 316 : 358 304 : 324 712 : 271 308 : 197 415 : 657 503 : 523 916 : 424 217 : 355 912 : 320 609 : 266 417 : 196 512 : 639 314 : 522 312 : 418 701 : 351 908 : 314 705 : 265 706 : 189 416 : 633 303 : 512 412 : 417 219 : 344 517 : 312 903 : 264 707 : 177 313 : 630 803 : 504 317 : 416 204 : 344 905 : 311 606 : 264 802 : 175 205 : 630 809 : 494 515 : 407 605 : 342 715 : 310 202 : 264 506 : 175 919 : 624 619 : 493 402 : 407 519 : 342 505 : 310 507 : 263 607 : 163 215 : 603 904 : 491 907 : 406 406 : 341 819 : 307 902 : 261 719 : 159 602 : 594 813 : 490 718 : 403 502 : 336 918 : 306 806 : 259 307 : 152 403 : 593 514 : 481 614 : 402 704 : 332 915 : 304 309 : 258 401 : 133 714 : 581 817 : 480 601 : 393 207 : 332 408 : 299 814 : 257 413 : 130 206 : 579 203 : 480 407 : 380 914 : 331 815 : 291 709 : 256 302 : 110 501 : 569 717 : 466 716 : 373 801 : 330 702 : 288 808 : 254 906 : 109 604 : 555 414 : 465 616 : 373 419 : 329 218 : 288 315 : 254 807 : 105 703 : 552 David Esan de@moscom.com ------------------------------ Subject: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department From: Winston Lawrence Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 16:03:26 EDT Organization: The Dorsai Diplomatic Mission In the HELLO pamphlet that NYNEX sends with its phone bill came the following: To report a fire in New York City, call: (212) 999-2222 (Manhattan), (212) 999-3333 (Bronx), (718) 999-4444 (Brooklyn), (718) 999-5555 (Queens), and (718) 999-6666 for Staten Island. or call 911. The 999 prefix immediately caught my eye as this is (or was) the number that every schoolkid and up in London knew as the emergency services number. Is this a new variation on 911 being started up here? When I tried 999-xxxx the call was immediately halted with a recording saying that the number was incorrectly dialed (this is from Long Island area code 516). Dialing only three digits of any other combination results in a looong timeout. ------------------------------ From: John Nagle Subject: Live DJ for Music-on-Hold Date: 24 Apr 91 05:25:36 GMT Word Perfect's tech support number (1-800-336-3614) now has a live DJ playing music, running ads, and giving live traffic reports. "And right now, the longest wait is twelve minutes on the UNIX support line, with four people waiting. Two callers are waiting on the printer line, and four, with an average wait of five minutes, on the features line. There's no waiting on the other lines." The concept is awesome. John Nagle ------------------------------ From: Arnette P Baker +1 708 224 6437 Subject: Prodigy Questions Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 09:23:00 GMT I am looking for information on Prodigy. I am looking into it because my parents just bought a PC and are looking for things to do with it. They received a Prodigy start up kit (well, they bought the darn thing at Sears) and are interested in it. The first question I have involves e-mail. Can Internet users send e-mail to Prodigy users and vice-a-versa? If yes, how is it done? I also need some comparative analysis of Prodigy vs. Compuserve. Do the two offer similar services besides e-mail? Of particular interest to my Dad are the news service, the travel stuff, and weather. I did follow the discussions a while back about Prodigy "sensoring" e-mail (a practice I despise) and was hoping to discover that Compuserve has virtues to recommend it above Prodigy. I would appreciate replies either by e-mail to kityss@ihlpf.att.com or through posts to this group. Pat - I can not ftp the archives from this location. If you could send me the instructions on "alternative e-mail archive access" I could look at back articles discussing Prodigy. Thanks. Arnette Baker AT&T Network Systems kityss@ihlpf.att.com [Moderator's Note: I've sent you the bitftp help file. For others who cannot use ftp at their site, if you wish information about the bitftp method for accessing the archives, send me a note and I will send you a copy of the help file. When using the help file, substitute 'lcs.mit.edu' and 'cd telecom-archives' in the appropriate places. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter Hayward Subject: Battery Discharger Needed Organization: University of Chicago Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1991 13:46:14 GMT A good six months ago, there was a discussion in this group about a device that would "burn the whiskers" off nicad battery packs, thus defeating the dreaded nicad memory problem. I archived that message, but, now, when I find myself in need of such a device, I cannot locate the message. Can anyone help? Peter B. Hayward University of Maine WX9T ------------------------------ From: Henk van de Ven Subject: X-Trace Programs / Sources Date: 24 Apr 91 13:53:59 GMT Organization: Bull, P.O. Box 22859, NL-1100 DJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands Hello, This is Henk van de Ven , Unix porting co-ordinator for Bull Holland (+BeNeLux). Because of the fact that we are more and more integrating different types of hardware of different manufacturers, there are rising some problems in connections through TCP/IP etc. So I wondered if there are SOFTWARE products that can trace what is happening on an Ethernet cable. If there is some-one who can tell me where to FTP the source from or even better, E-mail the source I would be very grateful. Henk van de Ven Bull Netherlands Internet: henk@bull.nl Hoogoorddreef 66-68 Uucp: nlbull!henk 1101 BE Amsterdam Phone: +31 20 565 2761 Fax: +31 20 565 2921 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 09:31:18 -0600 From: Leroy Casterline Subject: An New Digest Reader's Introduction Cahill Casterline Limited offers microcontroller-based product development services to manufacturers and entrepreneurs. The company has developed expertise in interfacing to, understanding and contending with conditions on the analog telephone network, and would like to make that expertise available to others who are trying to develop customer premise equipment such as toll restrictors, call diverters, feature telephones, etc. The company can be reached at 303/484-2212, on BIX as 'leroy', on Compu$erve as 70540,3307 and on Internet as casterli@lamar.colostate. edu. Please note that I *am* affiliated with Cahill Casterline Limited, and so am not a good person to ask for an objective opinion of these services! ------------------------------ From: William Robert Kent Cousert Subject: Help Needed Understanding ISDN Organization: MIT Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1991 09:23:55 GMT Could someone briefly describe in laymen's terms what ISDN is? Also, is ISDN fast enough for real-time video? Bill Cousert share!bcousert@CPD.Com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1991 12:49:12 EDT From: KATH MULLHOLAND Subject: Preventing 900 Call Abuse In an ideal world, only those who are authorized to pay for a service would be able to order or use that service. For the most part, we can do this. The problem areas are mail order and telephone services. 900 numbers can be dialed without any forethought about where the money will come from to pay for the calls. A friend's daughter ran up over $3000 worth of these calls in one billing period. The daughter, 13, is by no means an adult, able to make a contract for that kind of money. When my friend called the phone company, she got nothing but grief. One representative said, "If you can't control your daughter, you can't expect us to take you off the hook." Her daughter probably was out of control, and has gotten in other kinds of trouble since, but the real issue is, who is liable when a child makes a contract that the parents have not authorized? This, to me, is the key sticking point of 900 services. Possible solutions abound: One mother I know puts a rotary phone with a "dialing block" on it so that the phone can't be dialed at all. (I'd worry about emergencies.) Another puts her phone set in her trunk when she goes to work each morning. (Emergencies still are an issue.) But the most elegant solution I've heard is to remove the PIC from the home telephne line, in essence removing all ability to make inter-LATA calls. This has the added benefit of being unable to call your out-of-state in-laws ... Kath Mullholand UNH Durham, NH [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell takes care of this problem by offering to completely block 900 and/or 976 calls. With the block on your line, those calls cannot be completed, nor can the operator complete the call for you. They offer this blocking free of charge. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1991 12:53:37 EDT From: KATH MULLHOLAND Subject: Prelude Phone Documentation Needed The University of New Hampshire has a hotel associated with it, the New England Center, which has an AT&T Prelude system that serves the Hotel desk and rooms. The documentation is available, but training for new administrators is apparently no longer offered by AT&T. Is there anyone out there using a Prelude who would be willing to be a resource for the Hotel Manager when she needs to reconfigure the system? She is looking for assistance with adding extensions, adding turnks, and moving extensions. You can reply to me direct: k_mullholand@unhh.unh.edu Thanks in advance. Kath Mullholand UNH Durham, NH ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 18:39:23 EDT From: David Appell Subject: Area Code List If anyone has a list of area codes and the area they cover, sorted numerically, could you please send it to me. Thanks. David [Moderator's Note: I would expect you will have at least a half-dozen copies of the area code list by this time tomorrow. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 10:26:29 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: 212-516 in Use in 1986 I made a note of the following, apparently a result of my own July, 1986 visit to that area in New York City: 212-516-8003, in Grand Central Station; 30-second call from it to anywhere in New York state for 25 cents. (Recently, it's been said in this Digest that there is no 212-516 -- it could have been discontinued since I made the above note -- and when I tried to call the above number yesterday or today, I got intercepted in 215, where my outgoing long distance calls go thru.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1991 04:51:00 -0600 From: "James Borynec" Subject: Decreasing Costs of Transmission After looking at some of the developing transmission technologies (notably fiber optics) I have reached some conclusions that I would like to share with the net. I would also appreciate any feedback. 1) The costs of long distance transmission of information is going WAY DOWN. This is because of the incredible bandwith of fiber. You can easily fit one million phone calls onto one 32 strand fiber cable. I suspect that the number of phone calls in New York City at any one time would fit on this cable! 2) The real costs of transmission is really in the multiplexing technology. Getting information on and off these fiber highways is the cost bottleneck. Fortunately, we can build bigger, faster, and CHEAPER multiplexers with the new silicon (and other) technologies. Thus these costs are going down quickly too! Because these costs are going down so very much they will quickly be dwarfed (or indeed may already be dwarfed) by other costs such as local access, accounting of calls, etc. Therefore, for all practical purposes a LOCAL phone calls costs as much as a LONG DISTANCE phone call. Clearly the pricing structures do not reflect these costs (Yet!). My question is - What is AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc going to do when they can no longer reasonably charge more than a local call? Won't this change the industry substantially? Will North America move to a wide area extended flat rate billing zone? How about this - you pay Sprint $10/month to call anywhere in the USA to talk for as long as you want. Jim Borynec jboryne%agt@cs.ualberta.ca james@cs.ualberta.ca 500 Capitor Sqr, 10065 Jasper Ave, Edmonton Alberta, T5J 3B1 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #303 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13274; 26 Apr 91 3:23 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11682; 26 Apr 91 1:39 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08312; 26 Apr 91 0:35 CDT Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 0:35:19 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #305 BCC: Message-ID: <9104260035.ab16560@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 26 Apr 91 00:35:00 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 305 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Preventing 900 Call Abuse [S. H. Schwartz] Re: Preventing 900 Call Abuse [John Higdon] Re: Preventing 900 Call Abuse [Robert J Woodhead] Re: 900 Discussion on CNN [Kath Mullholand] Re: Caller*ID From US PBXs [John Higdon] Re: Wanted: Answering Machine Autodisconnect Circuit [Robert E. Zabloudil] Re: 'Dumb' PBX Wanted [Vance Shipley] Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Randy Borow] Re: AT&T Digital Answering Machine [John Foos] Re: US Answering Machine in Israel [Mike Berger] Re: Computer/Telex Interface [John R. Levine] Re: 'Dumb PBX' Wanted [Daniel Zlatin] Re: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department [Carl Moore] Re: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department [Ed Greenberg] Re: NXX Count 4-15-91 [Carl Moore] Re: Battery Discharger Needed [S. H. Schwartz] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. H. Schwartz" Subject: Re: Preventing 900 Call Abuse Organization: Expert Systems Lab., NYNEX Sci. and Tech., White Plains NY Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 14:33:05 GMT In article K_MULLHOLAND@unhh.unh.edu (KATH MULLHOLAND) writes: > ... [how to block 900 calls] ... > But the most elegant solution I've heard is to remove the PIC from the > home telephne line, in essence removing all ability to make inter-LATA > calls. This has the added benefit of being unable to call your > out-of-state in-laws ... But the PIC only specifies which LD carrier gets your 1+ calls. Does this also stop 10288-1-900-xxx-xxxx? I would think not. No, I'm not going to try it at home. :-) S. H. Schwartz schwartz@nynexst.com Expert Systems Laboratory 914-683-2960 NYNEX Science and Technology Center White Plains NY 10604 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 12:58 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Preventing 900 Call Abuse KATH MULLHOLAND writes: > But the most elegant solution [to unauthorized calls made to 900 > numbers] I've heard is to remove the PIC from the > home telephne line, in essence removing all ability to make inter-LATA > calls. This is not only not an elegant solution; it is not a solution at all. In a similar manner to the way 800 calls are handled, a call to a 900 number is routed to the carrier that is furnishing the 900 transport, NOT to your PIC. Removing the PIC would not stop one single call to a 900 number. And even if it would, how much trouble would it be for someone to dial 10XXX to access any carrier? Removing your PIC does not disable interLATA long distance by any stretch of the imagination. And it will not even slow down carrier-specific calls such as 800/900. > [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell takes care of this problem by > offering to completely block 900 and/or 976 calls. With the block on > your line, those calls cannot be completed, nor can the operator > complete the call for you. They offer this blocking free of charge. PAT] This is indeed the only real method to effectively handle the problem of unauthorized calls to 900 numbers. It also should end the constant discussion over contracts, uncontrollable children, etc., etc. This is offered by Pac*Bell (and many other LECs, no doubt) at the time service is applied for. If a person declines blocking (or fails to order it when faced with a potential problem) then there really should be no slack cut by the LEC at bill time. With the advent of free 900/976 blocking, this whole debate can be concluded at long last. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Robert J Woodhead Subject: Re: Preventing 900 Call Abuse Date: 26 Apr 91 02:35:44 GMT Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Tokyo Japan K_MULLHOLAND@unhh.unh.edu (KATH MULLHOLAND) writes: > One mother I know puts a rotary phone with a "dialing block" on it so > that the phone can't be dialed at all. (I'd worry about emergencies.) One hopes said mom's flock doesn't learn how to hook-tap the phone. Said trick is my favorite bit of phone trivia; I estimate that maybe 2% of the population knows it is possible to dial "without dialing." Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp [Moderator's Note: Certainly hook-tapping will work, but the smaller digits are easier to achieve with accuracy. Tapping out nine, ten and ten more (as in 900) can be tricky unless your finger is agile and quick, and your timing very precise in offices which require it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1991 9:36:26 EDT From: "KATH MULLHOLAND, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, X1031" Subject: Re: 900 Discussion on CNN Ron Greenburg commented that he wondered if the new FCC proposals would apply only to 900 numbers, and that he wasn't sure how to provide input regarding the proposal. You can provide input by writing or calling your Congressional Representative. I called my Senator, and was sent a copy of HR328, which is intended to regulate "Audiotext services" (definition below). It took about four days for it to come in the mail. The bill would not be specific to 900 numbers. Definition: "For the purposes of this Act, the term 'audiotext services' 1) includes various electronic communications products and services that enable users to send or receive information by interacting with a voice processing system via a telephone connection using audio input; 2) encompasses the following types of services: information retrieval from a remote database, messaging capability permitting users to communicate with each other, conferecing services for simultaneous voice conversations; and 3) does not include electronic communications for the purpose of conducting financial transactions." I assume that last is meant to exclude things like ATM machines, but it's also possible that it's meant to exclude the voice response tellers that my Credit Union has recently started using. (And I'm thrilled (not) since they selected one that is extremely poorly written and user unfriendly.) Kath Mullholand UNH Durham, NH ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 12:30 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Caller*ID From US PBXs "Fred R. Goldstein" writes: > I'm not sure if modern PBXs even support AIOD. The ITT 3100 still supports it. I have found it useful for using LD carriers that provide "account code" billing. Used with FGB, the switch calls the 950 number, outputs the company's authorization code, the called number, and then an account code based on the extension making the call. When the bill comes, it lists all the calls BY EXTENSION. Everyone knows this and abuse has dropped to virtually zero. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: "Robert E. Zabloudil" Subject: Re: Wanted: Answering Machine Autodisconnect Circuit Date: 24 Apr 91 19:21:55 GMT Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus Me too. Is there enough interest for a summary? Thanks. [Moderator's Note: Perhaps someone will summarize the mail they received on this subject and send it along. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Subject: Re: 'Dumb' PBX Wanted Organization: SwitchView Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1991 21:25:17 GMT In article 74066.2004@compuserve.com (Larry Rachman) writes: > Does anyone out there know of a 'dumb' pbx product. By that I mean a > box that would connect between a group of stations and a group of > trunks, and switch calls between them, but not under its own control. Redcom makes a product that matches your description. It is called the "MSP" (Modular Switching Peripheral). Redcom Laboratories Inc. One Redcom Center Victor, New York 14564-0995 (716)924-7550 Vance Shipley vances@ltg ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!ltg!vances ------------------------------ From: rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com Date: Wed Apr 24 08:54:14 CDT 1991 Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable Mark Mortarotti had stated that he owns his address and his name. While the latter may be true, the former isn't. According to what I was told years ago by a buddy of mine who works with the U.S. Postal Service, our addresses are NOT are own. The city in which we live has jurisdiction on how our addresses are numbered or arranged. Such cities (apparently with the approval or advice of the Postal Service, according to my friend) can change your address without your approval or even knowledge for that matter. Does this surprise you, Mark? Unfortunately, we'd be surprised (or would we?) to find out just how little control we have over things we consider our "own". Randy Borow AT&T Communications Rolling Meadows, IL. ------------------------------ From: John Foos Subject: Re: AT&T Digital Answering Machine Date: 24 Apr 91 14:45:15 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL How new is the NEW AT+T Answering Machine? I was just reading in {EE Times} last week some manufacturer has release a chip set designed for all solid state digital phone machine applications. As well as a host of advanced features is a recording time of 26 minutes. The article stated several manufacturers will soon release products with this chip set. It could be worth the wait. John Foos Motorola Inc. (708) 632-2000 1501 W. Shure Drive, Arlington Heights, IL 60004 ------------------------------ From: berger@clio.sts.uiuc.edu (Mike Berger) Subject: Re: US Answering Machine in Israel Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1991 19:23:09 GMT spolsky-joel@cs.yale.edu (Joel Spolsky) writes: > Does anybody know if an American answering machine will work in > Israel? Doesn't it run backwards? Mike Berger Department of Statistics, University of Illinois AT&TNET 217-244-6067 Internet: berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Computer/Telex Interface Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 23 Apr 91 11:09:30 EDT (Tue) From: "John R. Levine" In article is written: > Someone was asking about a computer-to-Telex interface. These days, regular hard-wired telex machines are fast disappearing in favor of dial-in/dial-out or store and forward schemes. In the first case, you have a terminal (or a computer, it hardly matters) with a phone number known to your telex carrier. When an incoming telex call starts ringing, the telex carrier calls your terminal and delivers the message in real time. For outgoing calls, you call them in the obvious way. Store and forward services save incoming telexes until you call to pick them up. There are lots of store and forward services, MCI Mail has a telex number associated with every account, Easylink has telex numbers as an option, and all of the other online services such as Compuserve and Genie have some sort of telex gateway. The telex companies also seem to have simpler telex-only store and forward services, e.g. WUI at least used to have one that is separate from MCI Mail, as do RCA and ITT. If you want to connect your computer to the store and forward service in a better way, there are lots of options. AT&T Mail passes messages via uucp, and MCI Mail has both a single-user protocol implemented in packages like Norton Commander, Lotus Express (probably renamed since they sold it to MCI) and Desktop Express for the Mac, and a couple of mail system to mail system protocols. Speaking of Telex, when Western Union sold Easylink to AT&T last year, the press release I saw said they were selling their telex services to AT&T as well. Does anyone know if this actually came to pass and, if so, whether WU's decrepit telex network has improved any? Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 91 07:27:00 EDT From: Daniel Zlatin Subject: Re: 'Dumb PBX' Wanted My $0.02 on the issue of "open architecture" PBX's (but I work on the following product, so could be accused of bias!): Northern Telecom's Norstar system is definitely an open architecture PBX. All of the functions of the system are available to a PC through an interface card (which connects to the KSU as though it were a set). A software library for the PC, available from NT, enables one to write applications similar to those that were mentioned in the original posting. (Of course, I wouldn't classify it as a "dumb" PBX. It has a complete set of built-in functionality; but it is easily enhanced with your own private features.) Daniel Zlatin Norstar Development, Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Ont. daniel@bnr.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 10:24:42 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department 999 in NYC used to have recorded messages like Dial-a-Joke. This was circa 1976. ------------------------------ From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 09:15 PDT Subject: Re: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department My GUESS (and it's only a guess) is that the 911 system in New York City is so badly overloaded with police traffic that they have to route fire traffic another way. "You have reached nine-one-one. To report a crime, press 1, to report a fire, press 2...." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 10:22:14 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: NXX Count 4-15-91 I have this for use of N0X/N1X in area code 512: 512, Texas, 9 September 1990 (1+ NPA+ 7D on all toll calls) Please don't say "ten digit dialing" unless you really do mean without the leading 1. Local calls going across area code boundaries in Dallas/Ft.Worth and Washington DC areas are made with NPA+7D (NO leading 1), with long distance being 1+NPA+7D from those places. For the 201/908 split, I have: 201/908 New Jersey, 1 January 1991 (full cutover 8 June 1991) You write "The other area codes are given below.". Try using "included" instead of "given", because such list also includes the area codes commented on earlier. And what is the meaning of 905 and 706 showing up on such list? (905 and 706 are the now- discontinued pseudo-area-codes for parts of Mexico; 905 has been announced for split of 416, and this Digest just got word of 706 for split of 404 in Georgia -- the first I have heard for a split of 404, which does now use N0X/N1X prefixes.) ------------------------------ From: "S. H. Schwartz" Subject: Re: Battery Discharger Needed Organization: Expert Systems Lab., NYNEX Sci. and Tech., White Plains NY Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 14:29:44 GMT In article hayward@gargoyle.uchicago. edu (Peter Hayward) writes: > A good six months ago, there was a discussion in this group about a > device that would "burn the whiskers" off nicad battery packs, thus > defeating the dreaded nicad memory problem. I archived that message, What does this device do that cannot be accomplished by running down the battery in an ordinary flashlight, tape player, etc.? S. H. Schwartz schwartz@nynexst.com Expert Systems Laboratory 914-683-2960 NYNEX Science and Technology Center White Plains NY 10604 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #305 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29830; 27 Apr 91 2:23 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15979; 27 Apr 91 0:50 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17909; 26 Apr 91 23:44 CDT Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 23:35:45 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #306 BCC: Message-ID: <9104262335.ab12154@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 26 Apr 91 232:35:37 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 306 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Mark Fulk] Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [John Higdon] Re: Comments on History of Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing [D. Kimberlin] Re: Wanted: Answering Machine Autodisconnect Circuit [Rich Zellich] Re: Preventing 900 Call Abuse [Leroy Casterline] Re: 212-516 in Use in 1986 [Ed Greenberg] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Fulk Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1991 18:44:12 GMT In article james@cs.ualberta.ca (James Borynec) writes: > 1) The costs of long distance transmission of information is going WAY > DOWN. This is because of the incredible bandwith of fiber. You can > easily fit one million phone calls onto one 32 strand fiber cable. I don't think you've absorbed the real effect of this yet. I just talked to an optics professor here, who does research into linear optical amplifiers for fiber repeaters. It is now feasible to transmit more than 100 terabits/sec on a fiber; linear optical amplifiers allow up to about 6 Tb/sec even on transoceanic cables. AT&T and NTT just signed a contract to use these fibers (probably at a lower rate at first) in a trans-Pacific cable, and the next trans-Atlantic cables will also use this technology. These cables are slated for service in about 1995. Now a phone call takes about 32 kb/s; let's say 50 kb/s to make the math easier (note: this is not using any kind of fancy compression). 20 phone calls take 1 Mb/s (actually, T1 line at 1 Mb/s handles 32 calls, I think); so 1 Tb/s is 20,000,000 calls. So a trans-oceanic cable consisting of two fibers (one each way) could handle about 120,000,000 calls. In other words, nearly half the people in the US could be talking to people in Asia using those two fibers. > 2) The real costs of transmission is really in the multiplexing > technology. Getting information on and off these fiber highways is > the cost bottleneck. Fortunately, we can build bigger, faster, and > CHEAPER multiplexers with the new silicon (and other) technologies. > Thus these costs are going down quickly too! Actually, you want to do your multiplexing optically too. This is getting easier all the time. How do you think they TESTED those fibers at the high throughputs? The hardest problem arises in connection with packet-switched networks: the last record I heard for packet switches is a degree-32 node handling 150 Mb/s on each connection; it was from BellCore and is called the ``switching fabric.'' The importance of this kind of switching technology might well be mooted by increasing bandwidth: if fibers reach 2000 Tb/s, very much in reach in view of the above, than 200-fiber cables would permit a billion global broadcast HDTV channels. > Because these costs are going down so very much they will quickly be > dwarfed (or indeed may already be dwarfed) by other costs such as > local access, accounting of calls, etc. Therefore, for all practical > purposes a LOCAL phone calls costs as much as a LONG DISTANCE phone > call. Th1e costs will be: subscriber equipment, network interfaces, and right-of- way for cables on land. > Clearly the pricing structures do not reflect these costs (Yet!). My > question is - What is AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc going to do when they can > no longer reasonably charge more than a local call? Won't this change > the industry substantially? Will North America move to a wide area > extended flat rate billing zone? > How about this - you pay Sprint $10/month to call anywhere in the USA > to talk for as long as you want. Unfortunately, the pricing structure reflects the costs of the currently installed equipment, and will continue to do so even after that equipment is obsolete. I suspect that, short of a revolution, the best we will see will be a gradual decrease, and the promise of the new transmission technologies won't be realized until 2010 or so. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 13:19 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission "James Borynec" writes: > Because these costs are going down so very much they will quickly be > dwarfed (or indeed may already be dwarfed) by other costs such as > local access, accounting of calls, etc. > Clearly the pricing structures do not reflect these costs (Yet!). My > question is - What is AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc going to do when they can > no longer reasonably charge more than a local call? Won't this change > the industry substantially? Will North America move to a wide area > extended flat rate billing zone? Do not count on it. As a pivot for discussion, I offer the following: AT&T NEWS BRIEFS SPEC -- ... [Analyst] Denise Jevne thinks that [AT&T] is poised to pocket big bucks when - thanks to regulatory changes - competition heats up in the business of connecting long-distance calls. ... Access charges - currently the exclusive domain of the RBOCs - are the most expensive part of [such] calls. They also happen to be AT&T's biggest cost. As other companies enter the field and these charges fall, AT&T's profits should rise - if the company can avoid passing all the savings to consumers. Access costs now equal about 40 percent of AT&T's revenues. If they fall to 37 percent ... AT&T's profits would leap by as much as 40 cents per share. ... [Column, Herb Greenberg], San Francisco Chronicle, C1. [End Quoted Text] While it is just personal speculation, the probability of a precipitous drop in long distance rates is very small. Long distance rates are purely marketplace-controlled and have very little to do with the cost of providing the service. Can you imagine that (given that the rates for equivalent calls among the various carriers are very close -- within 20 percent) that it costs each carrier practically the same amount to handle the traffic? In case you have not already figured it out, the general method of pricing long distance is to take AT&T's rate and then discount it by some amount. The amount is a compromise between what might attact customers and optimum revenue. Too high and it will not attract customers away from AT&T; too low and not enough money comes in the door. And remember, AT&T's rate is still subject to regulation by the FCC. Lowered costs of operation is what the IECs have long counted on to eventually make the really big bucks. This is what they are working for; it is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. No one, from the investors to the executive board is going to endure the slings and arrows of startup and construction expenses only to "give it all back" when the promised-land technology comes to pass. It is interesting to learn of the new technologies and their promise, but the benefits cost-wise are for the service providers, not for the customers. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 05:36 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Comments on History of Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing In Digest v11,Iss300, Larry Lippman added to the discussion about roots of telephone manufacturing in the U.S., suggesting that Stromberg- Carlson had evolved into Comdial, thus: > Stromberg-Carlson has led a checkered existence in the past twenty > years ... General Dynamics ... moved the corporate headquarters and > much of the operation to Tampa, FL. Minor correction (about 85 miles), Larry. The place Stromberg-Carlson wound up is Lake Mary, FL, a northerly suburb of Orlando, just off I-4 on the way to Daytona from Orlando. Continuing: > Stromberg-Carlson did a significant amount of military business; I > believe that General Dynamics may have absorbed that business into > another division, while leaving Stromberg-Carlson as a provider of solely > domestic telephone apparatus. I am not certain of the subsequent > changes, though. Pretty close to what I heard last year when doing some field debugging of their DCO Series exchanges in rural Mississippi (John Higdon, stay tuned for a special message about what PacBell will inflict upon you shortly!) In fact, G-D bought Stromberg in an attempt to learn about telephony to merge it into military electronic telephone exchanges. After getting an electronic exchange developed, they found they couldn't market the DCO to Telcos. It was just TOO different from military sales, so after getting the technology G-D wanted, they sold the Stromber Florida operation to English General Electric (NO relation to the American General Electric), which very shortly after the purchase, merged with Plessey of England, and the merged name soon changed to GPT/Stromberg-Carlson. It was probably thought to be a technology prize by the British, but read on at the end of this story! Then, in 1990, Siemens of Germany bought 40% of GPT back in England, so what is in Lake Mary today is owned by GPT, in turn largely owned by Siemens. Today's name runs something like GPT-Siemens/Stromberg- Carlson. (no kidding!) Larry continues: > The remains of Stromberg-Carlson changed their name to Comdial during > the early 1980's, but may have now changed it back. I believe they may > have also been acquired by Plessey. In fact, G-D spun off Stromberg's telephone-set manufacturing (which had, like ITT, licensed manufacture of WECo-pattern telephone sets) to the public, forming ComDial, which struggles to survive to this day in Charlottesville, VA. Michael Dorrian reported about this part of the Stromberg evolution in Digest v11, Iss302: > As far as I know, Comdial remains the only US manufacturer of > telephones (local content - AT&T's phones are assembled in the US from > Asian manufactured components). This offers quite a niche on sales to > the US government. In fact, Dear Readers, ComDial remains the place you can still buy a 500 or 2500 set with a STEEL baseplate, in my opinion even better than the plastic one AT&T now sells via Sears and such. They are small enough that I expect you can probably buy just one from the Charlottesville factory ... but I can't guarantee that. ComDial's president, who just died recently was on a personal campaign to make a quality, durable telephone set in the USA, much like the campaign of Zenith's president to keep one US television set factory going. Michael continues: > Recent {Washington Post} Virginia 30 had them at $80M in sales with 1K > employees. That report must have piqued the trade press, for the April 22 reported that ComDial reported it had a 1990 profit for the first time in six years, but analysts said it might be short-lived due to the recession and the Gulf War. The report said ComDial had just laid off 33 more workers to cut its staff to 940, down from 1,200 in 1987. It further reported ComDial had almost been buried by foreign imnports in station sets, so it had expanded to making key systems in 1985, which business had, at a loss, largely sustained it. The report said ComDial's sales were predominantly (65%) through distributors, so I'm sure Macy Hallock knows plenty about them lately. One diversion from Stromberg here, to respond to Larry about a remark concerning GTE and Automatic Electric. Larry quoted: >> GTE began buying companies and feeding business to >> its own manufacturing subsidiary, Automatic Electric. GTE simply >> decided in the 1950's to copy things that Bell had so successfully >> clamped controls on a half-century earlier. Then Larry commented: > In my opinion, GTE/AECo copied little from the Bell System. GTE did many > things the AECo way. My remark was not meant to say GTE/AECo emulated Bell designs. Rather, it was an allusion to GTE copying Bell's business and vertical market structure by acquiring and feeding its own design and manufacture with its captive operating companies. Just like the local Bell companies were BOCs, the GTE ones were GTOCs. They had a great way of fending off aspiring suppliers by telling them they could buy only against approved Materials Requests, which came from Stamford HQ. When one wasted a ticket to Stamford, one was told they could only approve Materials Requests orginating from some unknown place in the Operating Companies. Just like dealing with Bell, smart suppliers knew the cycle starting with lots of multipoint schmoozing, after which a Materials Request would "materialize," specifying one supplier's product, purchased through Automatic Electic. (Can you say, "KS Spec?") But, back to GPT-Plessey-Siemens/Stromberg-Carlson or whatever their name is these days, and that special alert for John Higdon: The General Dynamics legacy left there is what became the thing called the Century Digital Central Office, or DCO. They've managed a market postion of going into RBOCs and getting the "spoiler" slot of Number Two Supplier, just to be a bargaining chip against Northern Telecom. South Central Bell did that, so lots of DCOs are in KY, TN, AL, MS and LA. The DCO has a T-1 (23B+D) connected Remote Line Switch, or RLS. PHaving lost its General Dynamics product control mentors, this combination HAS to be one of the most beknightedly out-of-control pieces of hardware and software junk ever foisted on the telephone industry. The RLS is but a couple of years old and is running through Software Release 17 already! I personally have stood in front of one that had all green lights and no local or remote alarms ... but would offer no dial tone to any subscribers. Telephone people on here will recognize this as perhaps one of the most irresponsible things any public telephone exchange could ever do. And finally, the message for John Higdon: Pacific Telephone has bought these beasts and should be starting installationa about now. (Just thought you'd like the warning so you can convert to all GTE FX's, John!) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 7:46:34 CDT From: Rich Zellich Subject: Re: Wanted: Answering Machine Autodisconnect Circuit Am I missing something obvious in the original question? For an answering machine interrupter of the simplest type, go buy one at Radio Shack for $8. If you want a little nicer one that can be plugged in in "reverse order", you can also use it to protect a modem or extension when you don't want any other extensions picked up to interrupt you; you get one of these two-way interrupters at Venture/Target/etc. for $10. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 16:51:15 -0600 From: leroy Casterline Subject: Re: Preventing 900 Call Abuse > One hopes said mom's flock doesn't learn how to hook-tap the phone... Years ago (how many, I won't say [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #307 BCC: Message-ID: <9104270029.ab25839@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 27 Apr 91 00:29:26 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 307 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: North Georgia to Get NPA 706 [Arnold Robbins] Re: Per Line Blocking? [Peter Creath] Re: Battery Discharger Needed [Barton F. Bruce] Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Carl Wright] Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Michael P. Deignan] Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN [Johnny Zweig] Re: Decrease in University Long Distance Telephone Rates [John R. Levine] Re: US Answering Machine in Israel [Arnold Robbins] Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Jeff Hayward] Re: 'Dumb PBX' Wanted [Lou Kates] Re: New MCI Sleaze or Just a Mistake? [David Fiedler] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: arnold@audiofax.com From: Arnold Robbins Subject: Re: North Georgia to Get NPA 706 Date: 25 Apr 91 22:44:05 GMT Organization: AudioFAX, Inc., Atlanta Georgia In article bill@eedsp.gatech.edu writes: > I heard on the radio during lunch that Northern Georgia is to get > NPA 706 in (May?) 1992. Metropolitan Atlanta is to remain in NPA > 404. Yep. Front page news in this morning's paper. Basically, the current metropolitan Atlanta dialing area will *be* 404, everything else will be 706. The article was pretty nice, it explained how the country was running out of area codes and that Southern Bell "had to fight" to get one assigned to it. Also some speculation as to what will happen when the area codes are exhausted, e.g. making local phone numbers 8 digits instead of 7 or always requiring 1+ten digits, even for local calls. In any case, speculation about area codes here can now be laid to rest. It's official. Arnold Robbins AudioFAX, Inc. Powers Ferry Road, #200 Marietta, GA. 30067 INTERNET: arnold@audiofax.com Phone: +1 404 618 4281 UUCP: emory!audfax!arnold Fax-box: +1 404 618 4581 ------------------------------ From: Peter Creath Subject: Re: Per Line Blocking? Organization: A small corner of Hell Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1991 23:48:46 GMT In article , herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab. com writes: > I also want them to stop LYING and calling it "caller id" when it is > CALLING STATION id. > But, then, the advocates here in this forum think of it as caller id > and describe a great variety of uses that work only when knowing the > calling station happens to identify the calling party. > I can imagine a product that reads the caller id (sic) data and looks > the number up in an internal directory and displays a caller name from > the directory. Because the directory was entered by the owner of the > product, it would show my son's name as the caller. Any time he was > persona non grata, I would have great difficulty getting through. According to the most recent issue of {Popular Science} (in the What's New - Electronics section), they said a new box for Caller ID is now available, one which displays the callers NAME as well as phone number. Now, it didn't specify whether the name was transmitted by the Caller ID system or whether the owner of the box had to program in names and numbers. peterc@taronga.hackercorp.com peterc@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com (same thing...) [Moderator's Note: Well I would rather suspect the owner of the box has to load the information matching certain numbers and names. How would telco know who was calling? All they can say for sure is the number. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Battery Discharger Needed Date: 26 Apr 91 03:41:50 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , schwartz@nynexst.com (S. H. Schwartz) writes: >> device that would "burn the whiskers" off nicad battery packs, thus >> defeating the dreaded nicad memory problem. I archived that message, > What does this device do that cannot be accomplished by running down > the battery in an ordinary flashlight, tape player, etc.? You can rapidly and automatically fully charge even a partially discharged nicad with no danger of shallow discharge memory. Using this charger, you 'repair' a nicad that has such memory. You fast charge with no danger of cooking the battery. ------------------------------ From: Carl Wright Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1991 14:56:40 GMT In article rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com writes: > Mark Mortarotti had stated that he owns his address and his name. Randy goes on to explain that our addresses belong to the local government and the post office to make what they will. I agree with him. Further I believe that Mark's name as a work of original authorship could be copyrightable by his parents. They thought it up and first published it. But Mark could claim that his name is a trademark which marks the results of his work and so long as he uses it, he has rights over the name. Probably the only thing that Mark owns is HIS TIME. Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105 ------------------------------ From: "Michael P. Deignan" Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable Organization: Small Business Systems, Inc., Esmond, RI 02917 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1991 03:23:18 GMT mort@hpihoah.cup.hp.com (Mark Mortarotti) writes: > I own my address, and my name. If the phone company wants > to publish my number, go ahead. If any one wants to use my name, or address, > " P A Y M E "!!! Sorry, its also a matter of public record. You can obtain the same information from a variety of sources (for example, your address from the voter registration files of the city you live in and your phone number from the phone directory.) I'm surprised someone hasn't come up with this scam: 1. Take phone book. 2. Send letter to block of listees which says something to the effect of: "We're including your name and phone number in a mailing list which will be offered for sale to various telemarketing companies. If you would like to be excluded from this list, enclose the attached form (along with a cheque for $5 to cover processing costs)...." 3. Sit back and wait for the cash to flow in from people who want to avoid having their name sold. Michael P. Deignan Since I *OWN* SBS.COM, Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com These Opinions Generally UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd Represent The Opinions Of Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 My Company... ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN Date: 26 Apr 91 15:35:37 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article , share!bcousert%zardoz.uucp@ ics.uci.edu (William Robert Kent Cousert) writes... > Could someone briefly describe in laymen's terms what ISDN is? Also, > is ISDN fast enough for real-time video? Okay, you asked for it. I'll try to be brief. ISDN is the all-digital evolution of the telephone network. It provides a standard set of services over a standard set of interfaces, with a goal of reducing the total number of interfaces from what we need in an analog world. ISDN's main stock in trade is the 64 kbps channel, used to carry digitized voice. (Already the network is mostly digital between COs; ISDN provides a digital local loop too.) It can also carry 64 kbps data, of course, which makes ISDN a lot nicer than a modem for long-haul data use. And it provides access to X.25 packet services, which may make X.25 a lot more accessible in the US market. The Basic Rate Interface (BRI) has two 64 kbps B channels and a 16 kbps D channel; the D channel carries the signaling protocol (a set of messages that takes the place of off-hook, ring voltage, etc.). The D channel can also carry X.25 in its spare time. The Primary Rate Interface (PRI) has 24 channels of 64 kbps apiece, with the "23B+D" combo being common, but higher-bandwidth "H" channels (384, 1472, 1536 kbps) also being possible. Think of the BRI as a phone line and the PRI as a PBX trunk and you'll get the "common" use. With some effort, a BRI can support compressed 112 kbps video, and a PRI can support 384 kbps video. AT&T already provides PRI service from its POPs (including switched 384k); local Bells are fairly slow to offer BRI, though it exists in some areas. That's the tip of the iceberg. (I have a book on the subject coming out in a few months, and even that's just a summary.) Fred R. Goldstein Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 952 3274 Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let alone a multi-billion dollar corporation? ------------------------------ From: Johnny Zweig Subject: Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN Reply-To: zweig@cs.uiuc.edu Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 17:12:55 GMT share!bcousert%zardoz.uucp@ics.uci.edu (William Robert Kent Cousert) writes: > Could someone briefly describe in laymen's terms what ISDN is? Also, > is ISDN fast enough for real-time video? The wires going to your house can carry digital signals at about 150,000 bits per second without much problem. So if you digitize your voice (at 64,000 bits per second) you can have two voice channels on one pair of ordinary copper wires, with room to spare. "But how are we ever going to convince people to toss out their $20 analog phones and buy $300 digital phones?" the question arises. "Aha! If we make it an Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN), we can let people do all kinds of crazy stuff besides just talking, like faxing, email, running home security, and so forth ... That's the ticket!" So there you are. And no, the basic rate ISDN service (the one that does not require coax or optical fiber into your house) is not fast enough for anything but the high-compression/slow-scan type video. I wouldn't want to watch "Monsieur Hire" over the phone just yet. Johnny ISDN ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Decrease in University Long Distance Telephone Rates Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 25 Apr 91 13:32:22 EDT (Thu) From: "John R. Levine" In article you write: > The result is very competitive long distance rates by capitalizing on > the large volume of inter-university calling. Business day rates > are now $.20 per minute and non-business day rates decreased to $.14 per > minute for interstate calling. That's a strange rate. I have regular old residential Sprint Plus with a monthly call volume of about $100 and my interstate evening rate is $0.112 per minute for coast-to-coast calls, less for shorter distances. Perhaps CMU is marking up Sprint's rates a teensy bit. I'd expect VPN rates to be less than regular MTS, otherwise the VPN is pointless. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Reply-To: arnold@audiofax.com From: Arnold Robbins Subject: Re: US Answering Machine in Israel Date: 26 Apr 91 17:31:46 GMT Organization: AudioFAX, Inc., Atlanta Georgia > spolsky-joel@cs.yale.edu (Joel Spolsky) writes: >> Does anybody know if an American answering machine will work in >> Israel? berger@clio.sts.uiuc.edu (Mike Berger) writes: > Doesn't it run backwards? No, you just have to listen from right to left. (-: Arnold Robbins AudioFAX, Inc. 2000 Powers Ferry Road, #200 / Marietta, GA. 30067 INTERNET: arnold@audiofax.com Phone: +1 404 618 4281 UUCP: emory!audfax!arnold Fax-box: +1 404 618 4581 ------------------------------ From: Jeff Hayward Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission Date: 26 Apr 91 18:22:44 GMT Organization: The University of Texas In article james@cs.ualberta.ca (James Borynec) writes: > After looking at some of the developing transmission technologies > (notably fiber optics) I have reached some conclusions that I would > like to share with the net. I would also appreciate any feedback. > Clearly the pricing structures do not reflect these costs (Yet!). My > question is - What is AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc going to do when they can > no longer reasonably charge more than a local call? Won't this change > the industry substantially? Will North America move to a wide area > extended flat rate billing zone? > How about this - you pay Sprint $10/month to call anywhere in the USA > to talk for as long as you want. I've been told that AT&T could still make money at a rate of 1/10 of a cent per minute, no matter where in the North America you go. Here in Texas, long distance charges are completely dominated by the local BOC access fees, 7.5 cents/minute per end. It seems clear to me that our society can best exploit the opportunities that today's telecommunication technology brings by doing distance- insensitive pricing. I'm not so sure about time-sensitivity, but I think that the experience of the IP internet shows that usage insensitivity yields some useful results also. It is certainly the case that the BOCs (and to a lesser extent the IXCs) make an enormous profit on a very inexpensive service. Jeff Hayward The University of Texas System +1 512 471 2444 Office of Telecommunication Services jeff@nic.the.net ------------------------------ From: Lou Kates Subject: Re: 'Dumb PBX' Wanted Date: 26 Apr 91 23:30:07 GMT Reply-To: Lou Kates Organization: Teleride Sage, Ltd., Waterloo In article DANIEL@bnr.ca (Daniel Zlatin) writes: > My $0.02 on the issue of "open architecture" PBX's (but I work on the Does "open" mean that you can use the usual switchhook flash and DTMF tones to command the PBX from extensions or does it mean there are proprietary protocols which you have access to in some manner? Does anyone have a list of "open architecture" PBX's? For other PBX's are there vendor specific methods that would still let anyone control them from a computer? Lou Kates, Teleride Sage Ltd., louk%tslwat@watmath.waterloo.edu ------------------------------ From: David Fiedler Subject: Re: New MCI Sleaze or Just a Mistake? Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services UNIX System 408 241-9760 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1991 07:10:20 GMT edsr!tantalum!bonzo@uunet.uu.net (Matt L. Armstrong) writes: > us (he's been pretty good about not impersonating me lately ...), my > guess as to the explanation is this: MCI has sent this note hoping to > get me (aka J. Random Citizen) to switch to their service by tempting > me with the prestige of having my own 800 number which has, > conveniently enough, already been established. I just started dealing with MCI (because of their new Preferred program) so I hope not. It does sound rather like overzealous marketing. > Curious question: Is this number by any chance used by more than one > customer such that MCI uses the "security code" to differentiate > between destination numbers, or is MCI just filling up 800 number > space? Yes on your first guess. They call it "private 800" service. If you dial an incorrect security code, and you get someone else, do they pay? And then complain to MCI about it? And then MCI pulls the whole shebang? I guess we'll find out. David Fiedler UUCP:{ames,mrspoc,hoptoad}!infopro!david AIR: N3717R "Video for Computer Professionals" BIX: fiedler Internet: fiedler@netcom.com USMail:InfoPro Systems, PO Box 220 Rescue CA 95672 Phone:916/677-5870 FAX:-5873 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #307 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26211; 27 Apr 91 13:43 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04468; 27 Apr 91 12:03 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02928; 27 Apr 91 10:56 CDT Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 10:13:31 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #308 BCC: Message-ID: <9104271013.ab22368@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 27 Apr 91 10:13:16 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 308 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Living in America [Dave Leibold] Pulling the Last Plug [jim@slxinc.specialix.com] CSMA-CD Performance [Harry Erwin] Unauthorized Repair Charges [Tim Irvin] NATA Sourcebook [Leroy Casterline] Remote Three-Way Conferencer [Chris C. Hollands] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 23:21:00 PST From: Dave Leibold Subject: Living in America Reply-to: dleibold@attmail.com Some findings since coming down from the north a few weeks ago to the U.S. of A.... Installing a local line can be particularly expensive. Southern Bell will grab USD$142 to install a new line. Bell Canada would be hard pressed to charge a third of that for an install (definitely not on extra Toronto line I had installed). Southern Bell could be reached from Canada at 1 800 753.0710 for purposes of arranging new service; the live operator who came on (after running through a bunch of touch tone selections on the automated call director) asked how she could provide "excellent" service. Bodacious! Bill and Ted's "Excellent" BOC :-) After many questions (including default long distance carrier, which most Canadians wouldn't be too well versed on), plus a request for a "social security" number (they took the Canadian equivalent; the social insurance #), things were set for an install. Of course, they tried to go after me rather heavily to add on the Call Waiting service to all the other detailed charges. MCI seems to be working out quite well so far. The Customer Service is good, though there is a tendency to take many, many rings before getting an operator live. COCOTs are everywhere ... and fortunately so are Southern Bell's "real" payphones (so far). The COCOTs for the most part seem to allow access to the carriers, though 10288 (AT&T) is the only 10XXX code that seems to be accepted by these things. 950 and 800 number access can be done on at least some of them. The worst COCOTs will attempt to bill for 800 number Directory Assistance (on Southern Bell payphones, 1 800 555.1212 is free). The worst COCOT found thus far was outside a Burger Thing in Boca Raton. The name of the COCOT operator wasn't mentioned (just a phone number in NPA 305). A robot voice would actually come on and ask for $3 for calls to currently non-operational area codes like 909, 706, etc and a lesser fee for "directory assistance" to those area codes. It wouldn't have done much good to talk to the management anyway as they didn't have their act together enough to be able to sell any Whoppers at the time. Sometimes you gotta break the rules :-) A bizarre switching bug happens when 1 700 555.4141 is dialed on a Southern Bell payphone: a canned voice will come out and actually ask for 65c. Weird thing to happen for a carrier check (which I was able to do free from Detroit not too many months earlier). '00' will do quite nicely, though ... default carriers can range from AT&T to MCI, Sprint and Metromedia/ITT. COCOTs like ITI and Telesphere for their "carriers". As a final note, the PBS Nova program featuring a re-creation of the tracing of the German/KGB hacking ring was broadcast. Cliff Stoll played himself in the program, as well as the other participants in the trace, complete with location shots in Germany. Check your local PBS station or TV listings... David Leibold dleibold@attmail.com IMEx 89:480/126 or c/o The Super Continental BBS +1 407 731 0388 Dave Leibold - via IMEx node 89:681/1 Dave.Leibold@f126.n480.z89.onebdos.UUCP [Moderator's Note: Long-time Digest readers will recall that David Leibold corresponded with us regularly from Canada while he was living there. He submitted the Canadian area code and prefix tables available in the Telecom Archives (ftp from lcs.mit.edu). PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Pulling the Last Plug Date: Wed Apr 24 17:29:18 1991 From: jim@slxinc.specialix.com The April 19 edition of the {San Jose Mercury News} had this story in the state news section: Plug pulled on last cord telephone board. Computer replaces four manual switchboards at Kerman Company. KERMAN (AP) - They're pulling the plug on California's last manual telephone switchboard, ending an era when an operator's nimble fingers, not a soulless computer, connected the caller to the rest of the world. "Cord boards" were romanticized in movies. The operators were familiar, friendly voices willing to give extra help in towns across America. "When I got out of school, this was it," Glennda Kountz said. She became an operator for Kerman Telephone Co. after high school almost 20 years ago. But a computer was being installed this week to replace Kerman Telphone's four manual units. Rena McDonald of California Telephone Association said it is the last cord board used by a commercial telephone company in the state. "There might be a farmer somewhere who connects a cord board to his barn," said McDonald, adding that there still are manual switchboards in some rural parts of the nation. A light glows near the top of a black backboard when someone wants to make an operator-assisted call in Kerman. An operator plugs one cord into the lighted slot, finds out where the call should go, plugs a second cord into an outgoing trunk line and dials the number. "I hate to see it go, but I'm looking forward to new challenges," Kountz said. Operators handle 1,000-2,000 long-distance calls a day plus about 300 requests for information. Customers in Kerman already dial most long-distance calls directly, but they have had to dial zero to reach the manual equipment for credit card or collect calls. And some older residents dial zero to get special service. "They ask us to 'call my daughter at Bank of America,'" Kountz said. "We know who she is because we've been here so long. We just go ahead and dial it. "Or they say they want the little store on the corner. You give them that number. That's the good part, dealing with the community." The telephone system in this farming community of 5,400 some 200 miles north of Los angeles has been upgraded bit by bit since William Sebatstian bought the company for $40,000 in 1946. His first telephone office "orginally was a beer parlor," Sebastian recalled. "I lived in the lean-to on the side." Now 75, Sebastian recalls that his first 1930s-style switchboard was more antiquated than the one he's replacing now. "Customers turned a crank, and only half the cords worked," he said. Some computer functions, such as recording calls and billing, have been added gradually to the current manual switchboard, which was purchased about 20 years ago. And Kerman Telephone has expanded into such modern businesses as burglar alarm systems and faxes. "We use the old principle of doing a better job at less cost or doing more at the same price," Sebastian said. Only one person at a time will operate the computer-based switchboard scheduled to start up next week. But Sebastian said his eight operators will keep their jobs, transferring to other areas or adding duties to their board work. ------------------------------ From: Harry Erwin Subject: CSMA-CD Performance Date: 25 Apr 91 12:05:55 GMT Organization: TRW Systems Division, Fairfax VA I'm seeking information on the performance of CSMA-CD protocols. Benchmark results, analytic models, and simulation models are of interest. In part, this is to support the development of a large air traffic control system, and in part this is to follow up on some Lawrence Livermore work on non-stationary statistics in CSMA-CD protocol performance. Harry Erwin Internet: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 18:46:40 EDT From: Tim Irvin Subject: Unauthorized Repair Charges Reply-To: irvin@northstar.dartmouth.edu I got in a (shall be say) spirited discussion with a NET Customer Service Rep about a Repair Charge that was on my bill this month. With out boring y'all with the gory details of my problem. The jist of the conversation centered around this rep trying to scare me into subscribing to the Inside-Wire Maintanence plan. She told me that, hypothetically, my neighbor could call my house, get a busy signal, and think that my line is out-of-order, then proceeds to call Repair. If it turns out I was simply on the phone, and a service man is dispatched that I would be charged for this (as far as I am concerned) unauthorized, and unrequested service call -- unless (of course) I subscribe to their Inside-wire Plan. Could this be right, (or legal)? I let her know what I thought of that, but she persisted. After I got her off this hypothetical situation, I finally convinced her to remove the charge I had called about (had nothing to do with neighbors -- just poorly trained Repair Service Reps), but only after threatening me with a PERMANENT black mark on my records indicating that no further Repair Service charges would ever be taken off my account, no matter what the reason. So, I guess I shouldn't tell any of you my phone number eh?? :) Anybody could now place a couple dozen repair calls in on my phone, and I have to declare bankrupcy. Well, in my rage at the end of this call, I shot a letter off to the NH PUC, and NET with my complaints. Who knows, I maybe even be ignored.... :) Tim Irvin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 16:58:02 -0600 From: Leroy Casterline Subject: NATA Sourcebook The other day, I ordered a copy of the NATA (North American Telecommunications Association) Sourcebook, which arrived today. The sourcebook is a listing of NATA member companies, divided into the following categories: contractors, pay phones, manufacturers, suppliers, telecommunications services and other organizations. The largest section of the book (about 87 of 195 pages, 500 to 600 entries) is devoted to listing contractors, which are cross-referenced by vendor. There are about 115 or so pay phone companies listed (including Amway [yes, that Amway]). There are around 200 manufacturers, 14 suppliers (wholesalers?), 80ish telecommunications services providers, and about 120 'other organizations', which include government agencies and associations. Information provided on each company includes name, address, phone number, and other information which varies from company to company, including contact names, number of employees, year established, and sometimes (not often enough) a few words describing what they do. NATA sells the sourcebook for $38.00 to members and $53.00 to non-members. I got it at no charge as part of a promotion of the _Industry Basics_ (IB) book (buy two IB, get one source book for free). Since I was planning on buying one copy of each book, and IB sells for $40.00 (non-member's price), I saved a few bucks and got an extra copy of IB for one of my engineers. NATA can be reached at 800/538-6282. Leroy Casterline | Cahill Casterline Limited | Fort Collins, Colorado (303) 484-2212 ------------------------------ From: hollands@hale.UUCP (Chris C. Hollands) Subject: Remote Three-Way Conferencer Date: 25 Apr 91 02:54:12 GMT Organization: Hale Telecommunications San Diego CA Hello. I'm new to "comp.dcom.telecom". I need a kind person's help to design a circuit. The circuit is for a device to be used on my office telephone line. I know of no commercially available product that can do what I need this circuit to do. Here is a (probably too verbose) explanation of what I need help with. The purpose of the device is to be able to remotely use the three-way conference call feature offered by the telephone central office. The single-line telephone in my office has three-way conference capability. Somebody can call me at work, then I can put that caller on hold so I can dial a third party, and then I can bring the original caller back on the line. The company I work for also lets me access a private long-haul network that it uses to carry its business long distance calls at economical bulk rates. Often I need to call overseas to Europe or southeast Asia to conduct business, but the time difference sometimes makes it inconvenient to call during normal office hours. Rather than having to drive to my office late at night or in the wee hours of the morning to use that phone, I would like be able to call from my home phone and use the device (attached to the line in my office) to make the economical long distance call. The circuit should operate like this: 1. It will detect an incoming call and go "off hook," similar to the way a computer modem answers a call (minus the carrier tone). (From this point on, the circuit (device) should "beep" if five minutes elapse without detecting a DTMF tone. It should go "on hook" (hang up) several seconds after the beep unless it hears a DTMF tone. Any DTMF tone except "*" should cause this timer to reset for another five minutes. The purpose of the timer is to make the device hang up in the event the caller was cut off. Any time it detects a "*" tone, it should immediately hang up. 2. After answering the call, the device should accept a four-digit security code (DTMF tones) and emit two beeps, indicating to the caller that the security code was correct. If the caller enters an incorrect security code, the device should abruptly hang up and "wait" at least one minute before being able to answer a subsequent call. (The security code will be manually set by concealed thumbwheels or dip switches inside the device. The purpose of waiting a minute after an incorrect code is to discourage someone repeatedly calling to try to learn the code.) 3. If the security code was correct, then after the two beeps the device will accept and store up to 20 DTMF digits, the content of which is the third party telephone number, terminated with a "#" tone meaning "done." (Don't store the "#" tone.) 4. The device will then perform the electronic equivalent of a "hook flash" (approximately 200 to 500 milliseconds duration), which has the effect of putting the original caller temporarily on hold. The hook flash duration should be manually adjustable to allow for telephone central office compatibility. 5. The device will then wait approximately one second (or detect dial tone), and then transmit the stored telephone number as DTMF tones at a normal dialing pace (the way a computer modem dials). 6. When the string of digits has been transmitted, the device will then wait approximately two seconds for the telephone central office to begin processing the call, and then hook flash again to bring the original caller online, thus establishing a three-way conference call. 7. Thereafter, the device will "listen" for a DTMF "*" tone, indicating the end of the conference call, and then hang up, reset itself, and wait for the next call. In this case there is no need to "wait" a minute, as it would have done for an incorrect security code. (As previously mentioned, during the conference call the device will produce a warning "beep" every five minutes. To continue the conversation, the original caller must press any digit or "#". This should reset the timer and allow the conversation to continue another five minutes. However, when both parties finish the conversation, the original caller should press "*" before hanging up, to tell the device to immediately hang up itself.) Also, for the sake of power outage, the device should default to an "on hook" mode. Well, this conceptually simple device is pretty far beyond my experience level. I think it requires a single-chip computer with a bit of programming, perhaps some relays, a DTMF decoder and encoder, a power supply, etc. Thanks in advance for your help. Please reply privately to "cholland@nosc.mil" or post here. Note: I saw Larry Casterline's email about just such a device and I am trying to contact him directly. However, I would still like to build the device I described above. Thanks. Chris Hollands Chula Vista, CA cholland@nosc.mil, hollands@hale.uucp HALE TELECOMMUNICATIONS - Public Access Node, San Diego 619/660-6734 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #308 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20419; 27 Apr 91 23:32 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08269; 27 Apr 91 22:09 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17636; 27 Apr 91 21:05 CDT Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 20:57:35 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #309 BCC: Message-ID: <9104272057.ab12741@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 27 Apr 91 20:57:27 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 309 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Computer/Telex Interface [Leslie Mikesell] Re: Comments on History of Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing [John Higdon] Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN [Rich Szabo] Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN [Phil Weinberg] Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Jack Winslade] Re: Sprint Raises Monthly 800 Fee [Eddy J. Gurney] Re: Wanted: Answering Machine Autodisconnect Circuit [Julian Macassey] Another AT & T Aggregator? [Kyle Rudden] A Mystery Refund From MCI [Doctor Math] SaudiNet Gateway CLOSED [Ken McVay] 900 Blocking [David G. Cantor] Restricting Telemarketers [Steve Baumgarten] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Leslie Mikesell Subject: Re: Computer/Telex Interface Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1991 15:29:02 GMT In article ndallen@contact.uucp (Nigel Allen) writes: > Someone was asking about a computer-to-Telex interface. An easy solution is a connection to attmail since a telex number is automatically provided. You can either get individual or unix accounts. On a unix account, telex messages are received as mail to a user named "telex". Outbound messages might be cheaper through some other service, but unless you do a lot of international business, you probably don't have a lot of outbound telex traffic. Les Mikesell les@chinet.chi.il.us ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 00:51 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Comments on History of Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> writes: > In fact, Dear Readers, ComDial remains the place you can still > buy a 500 or 2500 set with a STEEL baseplate, The recently-purchased 2500 set sitting next to me made by Cortelco in Corinth, MS, has a steel baseplate. It also has a standard mechanical ringer with TWO gongs. > And finally, the message for John Higdon: Pacific Telephone has > bought these beasts and should be starting installationa about now. > (Just thought you'd like the warning so you can convert to all GTE > FX's, John!) I had heard about these things, but had not for one moment considered that any real telco would buy or install them. But then, Pac*Bell is hardly a real telco so what else could be expected? My contacts at Pac*Bell have SWORN that the replacement for my 5XB will be a 5ESS, and that it will appear in time for the CLASS startup in October, and that CLASS WILL be offered. Too bad it is Friday night; there will be some phone calls made about this nightmare. Woe be unto any who have told me what I want to hear just to get this monkey of his back. As far as converting to GTE FX is concerned, I will have the phone removed first. Better to sit in isolation, listening to Beethoven and reading trade journals than to fight with GTE and what it passes off as "service". Near as I can tell, the GTD-5 is the GTE equivalent of the DCO, right? Just ask the Police/Fire departments in Los Gatos! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 15:18:24 -0400 From: Rich Szabo Subject: Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN Reply-To: ac220@cleveland.freenet.edu I am sketchy on how ISDN interacts and co-exists with Plain Old Telephone Service. Does an ISDN line have a "phone number?" If so, what happens if I dial this number from a Plain Old Telephone? Can an ISDN line be used as a voice line so that I don't need a POTS line in addition? Rich Szabo 216-662-1112 internet:ac220@cleveland.freenet.edu rszabo@attmail.com <-- Real Soon Now, so they say ------------------------------ From: Phil Weinberg SPS Subject: Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN Date: 27 Apr 91 00:10:04 GMT Reply-To: Phil Weinberg SPS Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products, Sunnyvale , CA 94086-5303 In article share!bcousert%zardoz.uucp@ ics.uci.edu (William Robert Kent Cousert) writes: > Could someone briefly describe in laymen's terms what ISDN is? Also, > is ISDN fast enough for real-time video? A fairly good aricle describing ISDN and the various Acronyms associated with ISDN can be found in the March 1 issue of EDN. The only major omission in the article (warning - a commercial is coming) was leaving out Motorola as a source of ISDN IC's in the list near the end of the article (pages 80-88). Of course you can also wade through the CCITT, ANSI, and BELLCORE documents to get the actual specs for this service. << Usual Disclaimer >> Phil Weinberg @ Motorola Semiconductor, Sunnyvale, CA 94086-5395 UUCP: {hplabs, mot,} !mcdcup!phil or phil@sjc.mcd.mot.com Telephone: +1 408-991-7385 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 16:47:03 PDT From: Jack Winslade Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission Reply-to: ivgate!drbbs!jsw@uunet.uu.net Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 In recent articles: > Because these costs are going down so very much they will quickly be > dwarfed (or indeed may already be dwarfed) by other costs such as > local access, accounting of calls, etc. Therefore, for all practical > purposes a LOCAL phone calls costs as much as a LONG DISTANCE phone > call. > Clearly the pricing structures do not reflect these costs (Yet!). My > question is - What is AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc going to do when they can > no longer reasonably charge more than a local call? Won't this change > the industry substantially? Will North America move to a wide area > extended flat rate billing zone? > How about this - you pay Sprint $10/month to call anywhere in the USA > to talk for as long as you want. I don't think we're gonna see this in God's lifetime . The Phone Companies will do whatever it takes to maximize their profits. That means maximum $$$ transferred from the pockets of consumers (that's you and me, gang) to the pockets of the corporations. If they *COULD* make more by offering flat-rate service, they would, but I think in practicality it would result in some people abusing it (as in the 1800-0700 PCP connections of a few years ago) and keeping lines open continuously. Selling it by the slice instead of all-you-can-scarf is obviously more profitible for all telecom corporations. Local telcos have been trying to push for the end of flat and/or untimed local service in favor of measured service. They **CLAIM** this 'saves money for many customers' but in truth it simply serves to extract more $$$ from customers' pockets. I **CAN**, however, visualize that in the near future the least expensive portion of a phone call will be the long distance transport from one area to another. I can imagine LD calls costing just slightly over local calls of the same duration, but the most expensive part of any call, local, LD, or international, may very well be the local telco's charge for the local loop portion of the call, whether it is to another local subscriber or the terminal point for an interexchange carrier. However (comma) if I am wrong, I would not gripe. ;-) Good Day! JSW [1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666) ..uunet!ivgate!drbbs ------------------------------ From: "Eddy J. Gurney" Subject: Re: Sprint Raises 800 Monthly Fee Organization: The Eccentricity Group - East Lansing Division Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 16:59:15 GMT In article eli@cisco.com (Steve Elias) writes: > US Sprint has raised their monthly charge for 800 numbers to $15 from > $10. Well, I found this out "the hard way" when I got my most recent bill from them. I had not received _any_ information that this was going to happen, and I immediately called them to complain. They were very nice about it, and said they would credit my next bill with $15. (Why it wasn't just $5 I have no idea, and whether they really will credit it $15 is yet to be seen.) I did have to talk to a supervisor to get the credit. Anyway, the $15 has suddenly made 800 service through Sprint less then desirable. The previous $10/month charge was barely acceptable, but this definitely puts it over the edge. So now I'm once again looking for a LDC to take my 800 service. (I know this was discussed in the Digest a few months ago, which is where I found out about Sprint, but there weren't too many other LDCs mentioned.) So ... any other suggestions as to which LDCs offer personal 800 service at reasonable rates? (Note that MCI is totally out of the question, as they require a "Personal Security Code" and assign a "shared" 800 number.) The bad part is I really like my 800 number through Sprint - it ends in EDDY! Eddy J. Gurney N8FPW --- eddy@jafus.mi.org --- The Eccentricity Group [Moderator's Note: You might ask if Telecom*USA is still offering their 800 service at $2.75 per month plus the cost of the calls. Although MCI has taken them over, the services Telecom*USA always offered before seen to still be available. I still have my three 800 numbers from them. (I had two, but I added their 800 voicemail.) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Wanted: Answering Machine Autodisconnect Circuit Date: 25 Apr 91 04:58:55 GMT Reply-To: Julian Macassey Organization: Co-dependant Orphans Hollywood California U.S.A. In TELECOM Digest V11 #297, is written: >> Could anyone give me pointers to a circuit which would automatically >> disconnect an answering machine when at least one phone connected to >> the line is off hook (picked up), and restore the normal operating >> state of the answering machine, when all phones are back on hook. Go down to your local Radio Shack "America's Technology Store" (Made in Taiwan). Ask for "The Teleprotector Voice and Data Guard". Part Number 43-107. Cost $7.95. Take it home and plug it in to your wall jack and plug the Answering machine into it. If you lift another phone in the house, the answering machine will be cut off. Works with phones that get taken off hook when you are using your modem. In this case, put the teleprotector on the offending phone when the modem is off hook, the phone will be dead. Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian 742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 00:35:05 edt From: Kyle Rudden Subject: Another AT & T Aggregator? Hi fellow telcomers, Recently a representative from a company called World Wide Communications approached our company offering us an alternate long-distance plan using AT & T's Software Defined Network. World Wide doesn't make any money off of us, but gets a rebate back from AT & T. The advantages that the tout in their sales literature include: * No installation charges * No minimum usage * No long term commitment (company can cancel within 90 days) * Monthly bill received from AT & T * All outgoing calls will be placed utilizing the SDN Based upon remembrance of a past thread on aggregators, what is the opinion of fellow Digest readers? Is this the same type of service that would be delivered if all outgoing calls utilized the 10832 access code in front of them? One side note is that we would be issued new AT & T calling cards with different PINs on them. What is the reason for this? In the real world: Bob Baxter UltraSoft Corp., NY (516) 348-4848 On the Internet: KRUDDEN@IC.SUNYSB.EDU ------------------------------ From: Doctor Math Subject: A Mystery Refund From MCI Date: Tue, 23 Apr 91 22:43:15 PDT Organization: Brown Cow Software (a licensed Waffle developer) Something interesting happened to me today ... this month's phone bill included a $10 credit from MCI! A quick check of my various phone lines indicates that I'm still with my chosen long distance carrier (which isn't MCI). I didn't call and ask about it (don't look a gift horse in the mouth, etc.), but I suspect that MCI tried to slam me and failed. This probably came about because about a month and a half ago, I called four or five of the bigger long-distance carriers and asked them to send me some thick, glossy documentation, which they did. My guess is that MCI construed this to mean I wanted their service as default, which I did not. Very strange. ------------------------------ From: kmcvay@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca (Ken McVay) Subject: SaudiNet Gateway CLOSED Organization: 1B Systems Management Limited Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 06:57:35 GMT Mail addressed to the troops in the Gulf theatre can no longer be forwarded via saudinet@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca - at least not until some technical problems within SaudiNet have been addressed and resolved. Major links in the chain, downstream from this site, are no longer processing or forwarding SaudiNet mail, and I must reluctantly close the gateway into the net. If and when the problems are resolved, I will post an announcement here. Until then, any mail received will be regretfully returned to the sender. Ken McVay Co-Ordinator, SaudiNet Canada 1B Systems Management Limited Nanaimo, British Columbia Public Access UUCP/UseNet (Waffle/XENIX 1.64) | kmcvay@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca| TB+: 604-753-9960 2400: 604-754-9964 | ..van-bc!oneb!kmcvay | FrontDoor 2.0/Maximus v1.02/Ufgate 1.03 | SaudiNet 90:82/0 | HST 14.4: 604-754-2928 | IMEx 89:681/1 | ------------------------------ Reply-To: dgc@math.ucla.edu Subject: 900 Blocking Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 08:19:05 +0100 From: "David G. Cantor" In TELECOM Digest V11 #305 John Higdon states: > With the advent of free 900/976 blocking, this whole debate can > be concluded at long last. I wish that were true. The latest (issued, March 1991) San Diego Pac Bell directory states: "Most customers can choose to have California 900 and 976 blocked from their telephone line." And the latest (Also issued March, 1991) Western Los Angeles GTE directory states: "This feature, if available in your area, allows you to block the direct dial of 976 numbers within California and all 900 numbers from your telephone. If you chose this service, you will be unable to place calls to all 976 numbers within California and all 900 numbers." Note that Pac Bell limits blocking to "most customers" and "California 976 and 900" (whatever that means) and GTE has a similar restriction for 976 numbers. If the telcos really wanted to provide complete blocking, they obviously could! Besides, next year the telcos will probably invent 901 numbers, then 902 numbers. David G. Cantor Department of Mathematics University of California Los Angeles, CA 90024-1555 Internet: dgc@math.ucla.edu [Moderator's Note: I assume you meant the last paragraph as a joke since of course we already have '901 and 902 numbers'. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 11:42:14 EDT Subject: Restricting Telemarketers From: Steve Baumgarten Reply-To: baumgart@esquire.dpw.com In Telecom 11/301, Ron Greenberg (rig@eng.umd.edu) writes: > On the local end, there is a bill pending in the DC city council to > prohibit use of automated dialing machines for soliciting people > without a preexisting relationship. [...] > Unfortunately, I think these state (or district) bills are limited to > intrastate calls. [...] I wish we'd do something like this in New York City -- I get weekly calls urging me to "Call 540-SCAM within 30 minutes to get yourself ripped off!" (the 540 exchange is New York Telephone's local equivalent of 1-900 numbers). I rarely get automated calls from out of state, or even for 1-900 numbers. So even though enacting local legislation wouldn't solve the problem completely, it would be a welcome step in the right direction. Steve Baumgarten Davis Polk & Wardwell, New York, NY ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #309 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23459; 28 Apr 91 0:44 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14495; 27 Apr 91 23:13 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08269; 27 Apr 91 22:09 CDT Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 22:00:09 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #310 BCC: Message-ID: <9104272200.ab29663@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 27 Apr 91 22:00:02 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 310 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Shaving Ni-Cads (Removing 'Whiskers') [Jon T. Adams] New AT&T Switches [VOGON News, via Jeff E. Nelson] Number Plan Change in Norway [Morten Reistad] Driving a Beeper From UNIX 'tip/cu' [Greg Maples] Re: Prodigy Questions [Christopher Lott] Boys Town Needs Some Phones [Paul Daubitz, MCIOne, via Donald E. Kimberlin] Caller-ID Chip Specs [Will Martin] MCI - "Follow Me 800" [Bill Huttig] AT&T and 10xxx vs 800 [Bill Huttig] Help For New AT&T Mail User [Rich Szabo] Compuserve ATTMail Gateway [Ken Jongsma] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jon T. Adams" Subject: Shaving Ni-Cads (Removing 'Whiskers') Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 8:58:59 PDT In article schwartz@nynexst.com (S. H. Schwartz) writes: > In article hayward@gargoyle.uchicago. > edu (Peter Hayward) writes: >> A good six months ago, there was a discussion in this group about a >> device that would "burn the whiskers" off nicad battery packs, thus >> defeating the dreaded nicad memory problem. I archived that message, > What does this device do that cannot be accomplished by running down > the battery in an ordinary flashlight, tape player, etc.? Ni-Cad "whiskers" are actually crystalline growths that form within the interior of the battery from the electrolyte and gasses released during charge ans discharge. These crystals are conductive enough that they begin to seriously reduce the capacity of the battery by putting low impedance bridges between the battery terminals. Sometimes, enough can act together to internally short the battery and make it useless. The only practical way to get rid of these crystalline growths is to apply a massive current that will essentially evaporate the crystals. The current pulse must be short enough to prevent undue damage to the battery yet enough current must be applied to destroy the whiskers. I know people who have resurrected their batteries using 50Vdc for several milliseconds. But this technique really only allows a temporary increase in the battery lifespan. Once the crystals have formed en masse, the battery longevity will continue to drop off. jon ------------------------------ From: "Jeff E. Nelson" Subject: New AT&T Switches Date: 26 Apr 91 16:49:08 GMT Reply-To: "Jeff E. Nelson" Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Reproduced with permission from an electronic newspaper, VNS, that circulates within Digital. Jeff E. Nelson Digital Equipment Corporation jnelson@tle.enet.dec.com Affiliation given for identification purposes only <><><><><><><><> T h e V O G O N N e w s S e r v i c e <><><><><><><><> Edition : 2310 Friday 26-Apr-1991 Circulation : 8501 AT&T DISCO Distributed Switching with Centralized Optics (DiSCO) is the prototype of a lightning fast switching system that conveys calls with pulses of light instead of electricity. DiSCO switches, says AT&T, will break the bottleneck that exists when light waves traveling over optical fibers have to be converted into slower moving electrons to go through today's electronic switches. Last May AT&T announced a prototype DiSCO switch that could take eight incoming fibers, each carrying thousands of calls, and patch them through to any one of eight outgoing fibers. Now it has quietly surpassed that with a 16x16 array, and the company says more advances are in the works. The DiSCO comes in a brass package the size of a candy bar and could fit into a conventional AT&T switch, transforming it into a workhorse for big jobs such as high quality videoconferencing. The first photonic switches, using DiSCO or another design, should hit the market by 1995, says AT&T. {Business Week April 8, 1991} ------------------------------ Date: 26 Apr 91 22:35 +0200 From: Morten Reistad Subject: Number Plan Change in Norway In my latest phone bill insert the PTT ("Televerket") announces that the number plan for our country will change completely. Instead of the current seven-digit (two area + five local, or one area + six local) a uniform eight-digit plan is being introduced. Cutover will be in two phases : from June 1st 1992 all calls must use 0 + area code regardless, except for the Oslo (02) area, where this will be optional. Then the cutover to new area codes will happen during 1993. The new numbering plan (pending approval by the Ministry of Communications) is presented as: 22 + 6d Oslo 63-64,66-67 +6d Akershus 69 + 6d Ostfold 61,62 + 6d Hedmark, Oppland, Hamar 31-33 + 6d Buskerud, Vestfold, Drammen 35,37,38 + 6d Telemark, Agder, Kristiansand 51,52 + 6d Rogaland. Stavanger 53,55,56 + 6d Hordaland, Bergen 57,70,71 + 6d Sogn & Fjordane, More & Romsdal 72-74 + 6d Trondelag, Trondheim 75-76 + 6d Nordland 77-79 + 6d Troms, Finnmark, Svalbard There is a not quite persuasive argument about running out of numbers. The old numbering plan is from 1965, and it smells of bad foresight to have to change after only 27 years. A quick calculation gives 7.7 million numbers for 4.0 million people. How does this relate to other countries? Morten Reistad ------------------------------ From: Greg Maples Subject: Driving a Beeper From UNIX 'tip/cu' Organization: DuPont Design Technologies Group Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 00:14:50 GMT We have a small admin team here, and we would like to be able to detect the failure of our UPS's and use that info to phone a beeper with an alphanumeric message. All the pieces are in place but one. We have the Alphanumeric beepers, Motorola PMR2000's. We have the ability to do pretty much anything we want to with our unix system under a power fluctuation. We don't however, have the following: 1) The knowledge of what these beepers want to get to see alphanumeric codes. Legend here has it that these beepers want some form of wierd octets driven from the tone pad, and that these are decoded into alphanumeric. 2) The tip/cu program capable of sending those codes. (This is for a sun 4/370) 3) A sales rep for the beepers that has ANY idea what computer dialing is. He suggests we get a 'keyboard' that hooks to a phone to send these wierd octets. Thanks for any help. Greg Maples | These are my opinions, not yours. Keep your Systems Group Leader | hands off 'em. They're also not the opinions DuPont Design Technologies | of my employer or yours. So there. (c) 1991 maples%ddtisvr@uunet.uu.net | The preceding is an opinion which is mine. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 13:11:51 -0400 From: Christopher Lott Subject: Re: Prodigy Questions Organization: The University of Maryland Dept of Computer Science In article Arnette Baker writes: > I am looking for information on Prodigy. > Can Internet users send e-mail to Prodigy users and vice-a-versa? To the best of my knowledge, no. I believe that this IS possible for Compuserve, due to the kindness of Ohio-State's CIS software staff. >I also need some comparative analysis of Prodigy vs. Compuserve. Do >the two offer similar services besides e-mail? Of particular interest Sorry, can't do comparative analysis. But here's a few thoughts on Prodigy. I was offered their free one-month subscription along with free s/w, so I bit. IMHO the best thing about the service is access to SABRE, the airline reservations system from American Airlines. You can check flights, availability, fares, and place reservations. Then you contact a travel agent to charge the ticket. Prodigy has some travel agent support online, but I don't know how good it is. In terms of privacy, it's somewhat invasive WRT credit cards. The SABRE system won't let you in until you supply a credit card number, but it doesn't do much validation; I've heard a bogus number works great. Lots of other offers want you to type in your credit card number; I never did. Just in case you didn't know this, the reason Prodigy is so cheap is that they show an advertisement on nearly every screen. And during a lengthy screen repaint, they very carefully draw the ad first and let you stare at it while the rest of the screen is being redrawn. To date, I have received no junk mail resulting from Prodigy selling their lists. I made sure by deliberately entering my address with a small mistake, and no junk mail has shown up with THAT as the address. However, it was fun requesting freebies, product info, etc. from the advertisers. Got a swell miata poster and some other goodies; nothing really great though. The stock market quote service (and "portfolio tracker") are nice, if you want to follow your securities closely. There's an endless amount of stuff to burn time with. Games, forums, newsy stories, etc. I have Usenet for that already ;-) Forget about using a 1200 baud modem with Prodigy, unless you're VERY patient. Between modem slowness and system delays, it's SLOW with a 1200. Never used email on it; you get a certain number of messages free each month, and then each one costs you $.25 past that free number. Don't know about their privacy policy, but I wouldn't count on ANYTHING. That's all I can think of right now. If I get another free month somehow, I'll sign up again. But *I* sure wouldn't pay for it. Not when I have free access to Usenet! Christopher Lott \/ Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 cml@cs.umd.edu /\ 4122 AV Williams Bldg 301 405-2721 [Moderator's Teaser: If its *privacy* you want, the latest word is Prodigy violates your privacy regularly. In the next issue of the Digest, I'll be printing (what I feel is) a *very explosive* report I received recently from a regular user of that service. Apparently they have no hesitation or compuction against raping your hard drive in the process of getting you established on line. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 13:36 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Boys Town Needs Some Phones The following message was posted by Paul Daubitz, an independent telecomms consultant, in MCIOne, a closed bbs limited to telecomms consultants. I hope that reposting it here to a wider audience might garner broader support as that venerable orphanage, Boys Town, expands its operations nationwide: 04-24-91 23:17:10 From: Paul Daubitz Subj: Need Key System Donated for Boys Town Boys Town is doing great things with troubled kids. They are starting distributed operations in Los Angeles and New Orleans. The distributed approach allows the kids to remain in their local community and at the same time get help and support. Both operations need key systems with approximate capacity of 12 X 36. They initially will likely need a dozen phones. If anyone can help with a donation of a new or pre-owned system which hopefully includes installation, please contact Paul Daubitz directly. Good corporate citizens have donated over $200,000 in telecommunications equipment to Boys Town in the past two years. Previous donations have come from BellSouth, Solid State Systems, TIE, Best Power Systems and 3M. Interested parties can contact Paul Daubitz at (508) 462-5000 or Fax (508) 462-3001. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 9:51:01 CDT From: Will Martin Subject: Caller-ID Chip Specs The April '91 issue of Electronic Products magazine has a "new-product" announcment for a Caller-ID chip from Sierra Semiconductor Corp. on page 81, and an editorial on the concept on page 7. Here's the chip specs: "The SC11210/211 Caller Indentification Circuit is the first highly- integrated analog front end that supports the Caller Number Delivery feature in a general switched telephone network. It receives and decodes frequency shift key (FSK) modem signals -- sent through telephone lines between the first and second rings -- and allows the caller's number to be transmitted to a user's premises while the phone is on-hook. The device includes a differential-input buffer, a four-pole bandpass filter, an FSK demodulator, a user-selectable energy detect circuit, and a clock generator. The SC11211 version provides support for the power-down and call-progress detect functions and has four energy detect levels. The SC11210/211 operates from a +5V supply and is available in 8- and 14-pin packages. (About $2 ea in qty 10,000 -- available now.)" Contact: Sierra Semiconductor Corp. - Michael Friedman - 408-263-9300 Maybe the availability of this chip will cut the costs of Caller-ID displays and make more PC-interfacing units available, and make it easier for hobbyists to make their own versions. As a practical matter, if a telco implements Caller-ID services, is it going to send the data down the line on each and every call to each and every instrument or line, or is it going to limit the data transmission so that it only goes to people who have paid for it? Would it be cheaper to send it to everyone or to do an edit and send it only to the limited subset? [This might be like touch-tone acceptance used to be in many areas -- it was easier and cheaper (or even necessary) to turn it on for an entire CO or community, rather than enable it just for those who paid the touch-tone premium. Of course, lately we've seen that the telcos have been able to economically discriminate between lines where tone-recognition was paid for and those where it wasn't. So will caller-ID start out with that cost-effective discriminatory ability universally available initially?] Regards, Will wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 15:21:50 -0400 From: Bill Huttig Subject: MCI - "Follow Me 800" In the May 1991 issue of TELECONNECT (page 10) in their News and Scouting section there is a short article stating that MCI will shortly introduce a "Follow Me 800 Line"... You call a MCI voice response unit and give it a new number and all your 800 calls are sent to that number. Bill ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 15:27:33 -0400 From: Bill Huttig Subject: AT&T and 10xxx vs 800 I received some info on AT&T's USADirect Service and it notes an 800 number (800 872-2881) for calls from Bermuda, Dom. Rep. etc.. (I think this for all the countries in the 809 area code). When the number is dialed from my home (407-676 Melbourne, FL) I receive the following recording: "The 800 number you have diailed is not yet in service ... Please try this number at a later date." Does this mean that AT&T will offer access to their network via 800 number in the future? [Moderator's Note: I think what it means is that someone at the local telco serving 407-676 misprogrammed the response code which is played when the number is dialed. I think they meant to say merely, 'the number is not in service from your area ...' PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 15:42:35 -0400 From: Rich Szabo Subject: Help For New AT&T Mail User Reply-To: ac220@cleveland.freenet.edu Could you kind readers please provide some little-documented tips or traps of ATTMail? Real Soon Now, AT&T Mail says my account will be active. I would like to use the UUPC program to avoid e-mail charges. E-mail to my ac220 address for now, please, and I will summarize for the Digest. Rich Szabo 216-662-1112 internet: ac220@cleveland.freenet.edu [rszabo@attmail.com <-- Not Yet But Real Soon Now] ------------------------------ Date: 25 Apr 91 09:45:49 EDT From: Ken Jongsma <73115.1041@compuserve.com> Subject: Compuserve ATTMail Gateway Compuserve has announced that they now have a working email connection to ATTMail. Addressing is as follows: SENDING TO AT&T MAIL (from Compuserve) >x400:(c=us;a=attmail;s=SURNAME;g=GIVEN;d=id:UNIQUE ID) >x400:(c=us;a=attmail;s=jones;g=bob;d=id:bjones) NOTE: The ">x400:" must always precede the address, the address must be enclosed in paren's, and the elements must be separated by a semi-colon. SENDING FROM AT&T MAIL (to Compuserve) To: mhs/c=us/ad=compuserve/pd=csmail/d.id=70008.9004 or To: mhs!csmail!70008.9004 NOTE: User ID MUST be addressed using a period NOT a comma. Ken ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #310 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26087; 28 Apr 91 1:47 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15768; 28 Apr 91 0:17 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14495; 27 Apr 91 23:13 CDT Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 23:04:37 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #311 BCC: Message-ID: <9104272304.ab25741@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 27 Apr 91 23:04:00 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 311 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Mark A. Emanuele] Re: Prodigy Questions [Donald E. Kimberlin] GEnie Management Acting a la Prodigy Management? [Alex Cruz] Re: 212-516 in Use in 1986 [Mark A. Emanuele] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Mark A. Emanuele" Subject: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? Date: 26 Apr 91 19:09:50 GMT Organization: Overleaf Systems, Inc. Fords, NJ I just downloaded this from a local bbs and thought it might be interesting. ### BEGIN BBS FILE ### 218/250: Fraudigy Name: George J Marengo #199 @6974 From: The Gangs of Vista (Southern California) 619-758-5920 The L. A. County District Attorney is formally investigating PRODIGY for deceptive trade practices. I have spoken with the investigator assigned (who called me just this morning, February 22, 1991). We are free to announce the fact of the investigation. Anyone can file a complaint. From anywhere. The address is: District Attorney's Office Department of Consumer Protection Attn: RICH GOLDSTEIN, Investigator Hall of Records Room 540 320 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Rich doesn't want phone calls, he wants simple written statements and copies (no originals) of any relevant documents attached. He will call the individuals as needed, he doesn't want his phone ringing off the hook, but you may call him if it is urgent at 1-213-974-3981. PLEASE READ THIS SECTION EXTRA CAREFULLY. YOU NEED NOT BE IN CALIFORNIA TO FILE!! If any of us "locals" want to discuss this, call me at the Office Numbers: (818) 989-2434; (213) 874-4044. Remember, the next time you pay your property taxes, this is what you are supposed to be getting ... service. Flat rate? [laugh] BTW, THE COUNTY IS REPRESENTING THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. This ISN'T limited to L. A. County and complaints are welcome from ANYWHERE in the Country or the world. The idea is investigation of specific Code Sections and if a Nationwide Pattern is shown, all the better. LARRY ROSENBERG, ATTY Prodigy: More of a Prodigy Than We Think? By: Linda Houser Rohbough The stigma that haunts child prodigies is that they are difficult to get along with, mischievous and occasionally, just flat dangerous, using innocence to trick us. I wonder if that label fits Prodigy, Sears and IBM's telecommunications network? Those of you who read my December article know that I was tipped off at COMDEX to look at a Prodigy file, created when Prodigy is loaded STAGE.DAT. I was told I would find in that file personal information form my hard disk unrelated to Prodigy. As you know, I did find copies of the source code to our product FastTrack, in STAGE.DAT. The fact that they were there at all gave me the same feeling of violation as the last time my home was broken into by burglars. I invited you to look at your own STAGE.DAT file, if you're a Prodigy user, and see if you found anything suspect. Since then I have had numerous calls with reports of similar finds, everything from private patient medical information to classified government information. The danger is Prodigy is uploading STAGE.DAT and taking a look at your private business. Why? My guess is marketing research, which is expensive through legitimate channels, and unwelcomed by you and I. The question now is: Is it on purpose, or a mistake? One caller theorizes that it is a bug. He looked at STAGE.DAT with a piece of software he wrote to look at the physical location of data on the hard disk, and found that his STAGE.DAT file allocated 950,272 bytes of disk space for storage. Prodigy stored information about the sections viewed frequently and the data needed to draw those screens in STAGE.DAT. Service would be faster with information stored on the PC rather then the same information being downloaded from Prodigy each time. That's a viable theory because ASCII evidence of those screens shots can be found in STAGE.DAT, along with AUTOEXEC.BAT and path information. I am led to belive that the path and system configuration (in RAM) are diddled with and then restored to previous settings upon exit. So the theory goes, in allocating that disk space, Prodigy accidently includes data left after an erasure (As you know, DOS does not wipe clean the space that deleted files took on the hard disk, but merely marked the space as vacant in the File Allocation Table.) There are a couple of problems with this theory. One is that it assumes that the space was all allocated at once, meaning all 950,272 bytes were absorbed at one time. That simply isn't true. My STAGE.DAT was 250,000+ bytes after the first time I used Prodigy. The second assumption is that Prodigy didn't want the personal information; it was getting it accidently in uploading and downloading to and from STAGE.DAT. The E-mail controversy with Prodigy throws doubt upon that. The E-mail controversy started because people were finding mail they sent with comments about Prodigy or the E-mail, especially negative ones, didn't ever arrive. Now Prodigy is saying they don't actually read the mail, they just have the computer scan it for key terms, and delete those messages because they are responsible for what happens on Prodigy. I received a call from someone from another user group who read our newsletter and is very involved in telecommunications. He installed and ran Prodigy on a freshly formatted 3.5 inch 1.44 meg disk. Sure enough, upon checking STAGE.DAT he discovered personal data from his hard disk that could not have been left there after an erasure. He had a very difficult time trying to get someone at Prodigy to talk to about this. -------------- Excerpt of email on the above subject: THERE'S A FILE ON THIS BOARD CALLED 'FRAUDIGY.ZIP' THAT I SUGGEST ALL WHO USE THE PRODIGY SERVICE TAKE ***VERY*** SERIOUSLY. THE FILE DESCRIBES HOW THE PRODIGY SERVICE SEEMS TO SCAN YOUR HARD DRIVE FOR PERSONAL INFORMATION, DUMPS IT INTO A FILE IN THE PRODIGY SUB-DIRECTORY CALLED 'STAGE.DAT' AND WHILE YOU'RE WAITING AND WAITING FOR THAT NEXT MENU COME UP, THEY'RE UPLOADING YOUR STUFF AND LOOKING AT IT. TODAY I WAS IN BABBAGES'S, ECHELON TALKING TO TIM WHEN A GENTLEMAN WALKED IN, HEARD OUR DISCUSSION, AND PIPED IN THAT HE WAS A COLUMNIST ON PRODIGY. HE SAID THAT THE INFO FOUND IN 'FRAUDIGY.ZIP' WAS INDEED TRUE AND THAT IF YOU READ YOUR ON-LINE AGREEMENT CLOSELY, IT SAYS THAT YOU SIGN ALL RIGHTS TO YOUR COMPUTER AND ITS CONTENTS TO PRODIGY, IBM & SEARS WHEN YOU AGREE TO THE SERVICE. I TRIED THE TESTS SUGGESTED IN 'FRAUDIGY.ZIP' WITH A VIRGIN 'PRODIGY' KIT. I DID TWO INSTALLATIONS, ONE TO MY OFT USED HARD DRIVE PARTITION, AND ONE ONTO A 1.2MB FLOPPY. ON THE FLOPPY VERSION, UPON INSTALLATION (WITHOUT LOGGING ON), I FOUND THAT THE FILE 'STAGE.DAT' CONTAINED A LISTING OF EVERY .BAT AND SETUP FILE CONTAINED IN MY 'C:' DRIVE BOOT DIRECTORY. USING THE HARD DRIVE DIRECTORY OF PRODIGY THAT WAS SET UP, I PROCEDED TO LOG ON. I LOGGED ON, CONSENTED TO THE AGREEMENT, AND LOGGED OFF. REMEMBER, THIS WAS A VIRGIN SETUP KIT. AFTER LOGGING OFF I LOOKED AT 'STAGE.DAT' AND 'CACHE.DAT' FOUND IN THE PRODIGY SUBDIRECTORY. IN THOSE FILES, I FOUND POINTERS TO PERSONAL NOTES THAT WERE BURIED THREE SUB-DIRECTORIES DOWN ON MY DRIVE, AND AT THE END OF 'STAGE.DAT' WAS AN EXACT IMAGE COPY OF MY PC-DESKTOP APPOINTMENTS CALENDER. CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELF. ### END OF BBS FILE ### I had my lawyer check his STAGE.DAT file and he found none other than CONFIDENTIAL CLIENT INFO in it. Needless to say he is no longer a Prodigy user. Mark A. Emanuele V.P. Engineering Overleaf, Inc. 218 Summit Ave Fords, NJ 08863 (908) 738-8486 emanuele@overlf.UUCP [Moderator's Note: Thanks very much for sending along this fascinating report for the readers of TELECOM Digest. I've always said, and still believe that the proprietors of any online computer service have the right to run it any way they want -- even into the ground! -- and that users are free to stay or leave as they see fit. But it is really disturbing to think that Prodigy has the nerve to ripoff private stuff belonging to users, at least without telling them. But as I think about it, *who* would sign up with that service if they had bothered to read the service contract carefully and had the points in this article explained in detail? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 19:53 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Prodigy Questions In article (Digest v11, iss303), Arnette P. Baker asks: > I am looking for information on Prodigy. I am looking into it because > my parents just bought a PC and are looking for things to do with it > ...question I have involves e-mail. Prodigy's interpretaion of what constitutes "mail," particularly e-mail, has been a particular point of discussion. It seems that from the perspective of a lot of the public, Prodigy wants to have its cake and eat it too, in that they CHARGE you for its delivery, and then CENSOR anything they don't like. Even the Postal Service doesn't look inside your envelope when you mail something, even though that may be something objectionable. We can. of course, understand an electronic bulletin board's System Operator reserving the right to delete items not in keeping with the Sysop's policies. But Prodigy seems to be trying to go a step further, charging you for more than a minimal amount of transmission, and heavily censoring what it transports. This might sound incredible, but the press report I saw at the peak of public outrage concerned Prodigy censoring a message in which a coin collector was asking about "Roosevelt dimes." When he asked the Prodigy staff why they deleted his mail, the unbelievably stupid retort was that "pro{oting personalities is prohibited." When he pressed about what "personality promotion" was involved with Roosevelt dimes, the more unbelievably stupid reason was, "Why, Roosevelt Dimes, the Chicago Bears football player, of course!" I have NOT made this story up. I wish I could recall the publication source to prove it. Incidents like this have caused suficient public outcry that Prodigy is under investigation, as summed up in the following snippet from , 4/22/91: "FAR FROM A PRODIGY" (Network World, April 15, p.4) Prodigy Services Co. is being investigated for possible criminal or civil violations stemming from its electronic-mail pricing and bulletin board editing policies. Users are complaining about the on-line service's recently established 25-cent price tag for every E-mail message after the first 30 allowed per month; they claim that Prodigy's policy pf deleting or editing controversial or obscene' (since when are Roosevelt dimes either controversial OR obscene?) "messages from bulletin boards violates the First Amendment. (DA Probes BBS Practices at Prodigy, by Barton Crockett)." My own opinion is that your parents would be best off to assert one of our few remaining rights, to just take that Prodigy kit and return it to Sears before they cancel the famous Sears money-bakc guarantee. There are plenty of other places to have both bbs recreation and to use "electronic mail" provided by responsible parties. Even MCIMail has a deal where your e-mail (of moderate length) costs only 25 cents per message, while it reaches a far wider range, including real business. And, oh. Compu$erve's "e-mail" to the outside world is really a port to MCIMail, so why not just open an MCIMail account and buy it direct, and cheaper? All you need to do to help is to get an easy-to-use comms program for their Sears-bought PS/1 (I recommend BOYAN as a very easy program for beginners to use, especially if you install it and enter the dialing directory numbers for them) and introduce them to the world of REAL bbs-ing. In fact, if you get onto a commercial e-mail service and request it of our Moderator, he can get the Digest delivered to DOS, MAC or what-have-you there daily! [Moderator's Note: This is correct. TELECOM Digest can be (and is!) delivered to almost every commercial email service in the world. Copies go to MCI Mail, ATT Mail, Telemail/Sprint Mail, Compuserve, Portal, and many others including the Telebox Mail system in Germany. All you have to do is provide me with a working path to get there. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Apr 91 09:56 EDT From: CRUZ_A@ccl2.eng.ohio-state.edu Subject: GEnie Management Acting a la Prodigy Management? Dear Telecom Readers: In the {MacWeek}, April 16th, 1991, Volume 5, Number 14 issue, there is a story about a user lockout in the GEnie on-line service: A Toronto couple requested an explanation of the online service's recent lockout of members who disagreed publicly with GEnie management. Linda Kaplan, a GEnie member for more than five years, had both her internal account and her paid account discontinued last month in what she described as a series of personality conflicts and escalating misunderstandings. She said that GEnie cancelled accounts not on the basis of rules being broken but just because someone lost their temper. Apparently, GEnie officials refused to comment on the matter but said that they would clarify their policies in the future. Ms. Kaplan had a paid account but she mainly used a systemwide free account designed to bring in more users. She said that some account holders were bound by the secret agreements forbidding them from criticizing GEnie, its sysops or executives. She added that friends who inquired about her absence from forums or who questioned management's handling of the incident either in on-line forums or private electronic mail found themselves drawn into the fray. When another long time user, Peter Pawlyschyn, contacted management and inquired about his rights on the service, he found himself censored and harassed. Other members have said that they were reduced to read-only status or had their accounts cancelled after simply mentioning Kaplan's name in postings. Soooooo, here we go again with the issue of censoring certain materials in large online systems. Or is it really an issue? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Alex Cruz Associate, Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications Consultant, American Airlines Decision Technologies ------------------------------ From: "Mark A. Emanuele" Subject: Re: 212-516 in Use in 1986 Date: 28 Apr 91 01:21:20 GMT Organization: Overleaf Systems, Inc. Fords, NJ In article , Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com writes: > I have vague recollections of a service that allowed 25 cent calls all > over New York State for a maximum of 30 seconds. It was specifically > available at Grand Central Station (and probably Penn Station too) and > was designed for "meet me at the station at 5:06" type of calls. I have seen these payphones in Penn Sta. as recently as last month. I needed to call NJ to have someone pick me up at the station. I had four minutes until the train left. Tried to place a BELL ATLANTIC credit card call, dialed 0 + 908 XXX-XXXX got a reorder. Tried JUST 0, got re-order. Phone ONLY took COINS, asked for Four Dollars and Fifteen Cents Please! Made the call AT the station (in NJ) for $.25 Mark A. Emanuele V.P. Engineering Overleaf, Inc. 218 Summit Ave Fords, NJ 08863 (908) 738-8486 emanuele@overlf.UUCP ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #311 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01634; 28 Apr 91 3:53 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20058; 28 Apr 91 2:24 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac01200; 28 Apr 91 1:18 CDT Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 0:45:49 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #312 BCC: Message-ID: <9104280045.ab23029@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 28 Apr 91 00:45:42 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 312 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Roaming Through the Midwest: Cell Phone Comparison [TELECOM Moderator] Florida Caller ID [Bill Huttig] New International Card Numbers [Bill Huttig] Caller ID and Name Being Tested by US West [David Dodell] Re: Per Line Blocking? [Jamie Mason] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 0:24:05 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Roaming Through the Midwest: Cell Phone Comparison I took my two cellular phones with me last week on my trip to Kansas. Here are some observations: The phones: (A system) Cellular One/Chicago. Three Watt 'bag phone' with window mounted antenna. Plugged into the car's cigarette lighter. Technophone MC-915-A. (B system) Ameritech Mobile Communications. Hand held unit from Radio Shack, CT-301. Half-watt output, with small antenna on the unit. Recharged as needed from time to time from the cigarette lighter in the car. The route: From Chicago, south and southwest on I-55 to St. Louis, MO. Then west on I-40 to the intersection of US-54. South and southwest on US-54 through the Ozark Mountains, until we reached Fort Scott, Kansas. Then a couple of local highways going south, including Highway 169. Destination: Independence (Montgomery County), KS. The return route was the same in reverse. Two side trips: From Independence, northwest to Wichita, KS and back (140 miles each way). Also, from Independence south to Tulsa, OK; I think about 60-70 miles each way. We started on Monday at 9 PM, and arrived in Independence early Tuesday afternoon. Returning, we left Friday night about 7 PM, and arrived home in Chicago Saturday about 2 PM. Before leaving home, I consulted with both Cellular One and Ameritech to make sure there would be no difficulty roaming. In addition, Ameritech had 'Fast Track: Follow Me Roaming' in place, which allows the user to notify his home system to send calls to wherever he happens to be by pressing *18 when entering a new cellular service area. Unfortunatly, despite what the national directory said, and Cellular One's own reference materials said about 'NationLink', and the use of *30, *31, and *32 to use that feature, the representative I spoke with insisted it was 'still in the testing stages here.' With that in mind, I call-forwarded my home phone lines to the Ameritech cell phone, then used *18 throughout our trip to enable calls to my home (landline) phones to reach me. My mother 'kept tabs' on us throughout our trip down and back by calling my 800 number in Chicago, and it in turn called the Ameritech cell phone switch, which in turn hunted me down. Since I have 'transfer to voice mail on busy/no answer' from Ameritech, on those occassions when there was no cell service along the way and the call could not be forwarded, it simply went to my voice mail here in Chicago instead. Going south on I-55, both phones went out of 'home' mode and into roaming mode just south of Morris, IL, the outermost limit of the Chicago service area. Ameritech's phone was usable in roaming mode, but Cell One's was not. Even though *711 produced a response saying I was in Cellular One territory, I was told 'the phone was not authorized to make calls'. This was about midnight, and the local office of Cell One had no one on duty to help. And this was despite the rep's assurance earlier that day that it would work. Meanwhile, I punched *18 on the Ameritech phone and from the truck stop in Bloomington, IL I tried making a call from the payphone to my home phone -- the call came through to the cell phone with no delay. In Springfield, IL, *both* phones roamed. Apparently Cell One did not update their switch in Chicago until about midnight, and on doing do, they were also equipped to handle my calls. But I *know* about these things and planned ahead ... what about the less knowledgeable user who simply starts out on a trip and suddenly finds the phone won't work? As we got near the Missouri border, a company called 'Mac Tel Cellular' very briefly took over the Ameritech (B) unit. Before long, Mac Tel was gone, and Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems took over on the B side. Once again, roaming worked fine on the Ameritech unit, and *18 got me connected immediatly for incoming calls. But the A side was messed up again! St. Louis is served by a company called 'Cybertel Cellular', and they would have nothing to do with me. I was told I was not authorized to make calls. When I switched the bag phone over to roaming on the B side however, Southwestern Bell was more than happy to accept me -- an A subscriber -- right along with the handheld B phone. On a lark, I tried an experiment: using the bag phone on the B system instead of its 'normal' A system, I punched in *18, and Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems had no objection, saying calls would presently be transferred to me from my home system ... but it never happened. On the B side, I was able to use follow me roaming through St. Louis. SWB did notify Ameritech to forward calls. I assume they also notified *someone* to forward calls on the A phone also ... (who? were they smart enough to know it was Cell One in Chicago and not Ameritech?) ... but whoever they notified did not do it. Incidentally, throughout the whole trip I tried several times on the A unit to get whatever company I was in to accept *31, but no one would accept it. I guess it is just in the 'testing stages' here as the rep said. In general, coverage was much better this last trip than it was a year ago. We had coverage the entire length of I-55, and for quite a distance west on I-40 from various companies on the B system. Once we got onto US-54, coverage was spotty at best; available here and there for a few minutes at a time on either unit. The carrier we seemed to get a lot was 'United States Cellular'. Both the A (bag phone) and B (handheld unit) would wind up getting the same carrier in many of those little places; I assume the service was mostly 'B', since the handheld phone based on Ameritech could always do *18 and keep getting calls; the bagphone based on Cellular One could make calls, but always on the same carrier as the handheld, but *18 and *31/32 would usually not be accepted. Through much of the Ozark Mountains there is no cell service, nor is there any the last 100 miles of the trip. I checked the phones from time to time and both sat there blankly, saying only 'no service'. Once in Independence, the results were curious: in parts of the town which are higher than others, the little Ameritech half-watt phone would roam through Tulsa, OK -- sixty miles away! The bag phone would work okay also under certain circumstances there. On the trip to Wichita, neither phone had service until we got about forty miles from Wichita, then both started roaming on their respective carriers. Naturally, the Ameritech phone accepted *18, and in fact I got a call from my doctor on the way to Wichita asking why I had missed an appointment a few minutes earlier ... it was entirely transparent, and the doctor did not even know he was being call forwarded through several links to a cell phone driving down the highway outside Wichita! We were in two cars, so I used the handheld to call the Wichita 'A' dialups and then was able to call the bag phone that way ... my brother had the bag phone in the car following us. On the trip to the airport in Tulsa, we started with a poor signal on both phones almost as soon as we were outside Independence heading south, but within a few miles both were roaming nicely on Tulsa on their respective carriers. Coming back, there was nothing of any special note. I kept entering *18 on the Ameritech phone each time we would enter a new service area, and everything seemed to work fine. A very disappointing thing occurred though in the final 200 miles back. We took a slightly different route returning, taking US-54 up into Illinois, then a little side road several miles to where it connected into I-55. This was no problem for the Ameritech phone, but the Cell One phone could not place calls without making prior (credit card) arrangements. I called the customer service for that company (also known as Cellular One, but of Peoria, I believe), and they apologized 'for the trouble caused by my home carrier, Cellular One of Chicago ...'. I asked them what they meant by that, and they said Chicago had cancelled their roaming agreement just a few days earlier. By the time we got within about 100 miles of Chicago, we were all so cranky, sleepy and hostile toward one another (in the car) I decided to crawl in the back of the station wagon and sleep the rest of the way home ... end of testing! Overall, I think the Ameritech unit on the B system worked better, especially considering it only had a little antenna on it and it put out only a half-watt. The bag phone with three watts output was always connected to the window mount antenna (little suction cups that stick on the glass on the inside). There were times the handheld would say there was 'no service' and the bag phone would still have a tiny signal from somewhere, but it was seldom useable. The bag phone also had instances of *appearing* to have service -- it would say it was roaming and have a fairly decent signal for maybe three or four minutes while the handheld did nothing. The tech guy at Technophone said that 'probably there were other signals in the area which confused the phone into thinking there was service' ... I noticed that when this happened -- the bag phone claimed we were roaming but the handheld knew nothing about it -- that attempts to call on the bag phone always failed; it was obviously not a cellular phone signal we were getting, but probably some other form of radio signal. In terms of the quality of the units however, everyone who has talked to me on both cell phones seems to think the Technophone actually sounds a lot better than the Radio Shack unit. Comments and feedback welcome. If you know a little about cellular roaming, please share your experiences and insight. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 15:29:21 -0400 From: Bill Huttig Subject: Florida Caller ID Our PUC approved Caller ID starting July 1. If the SouthernDing-a-Ling (SouthernBell) rep is correct it had per call blocking available. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 15:30:43 -0400 From: Bill Huttig Subject: New International Card Numbers Does any one know when the other (non-AT&T) carriers are going to issue international calling card numbers?) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 18:19:32 mst From: David Dodell Subject: Caller ID and Name Being Tested by US West On , TELECOM Moderator (...!eecs.nwu.edu!telecom ) wrote: > [Moderator's Note: Well I would rather suspect the owner of the box > has to load the information matching certain numbers and names. How > would telco know who was calling? All they can say for sure is the > number. PAT] Actually that is coming. I was at a friend's house who works for US West. I was reading their internal weekly newsletter, and it said that US West was testing a Called ID scheme in Nebraska (I think) that would deliver both the calling number and subscriber name. The article went on to say that this was unique where all other systems only delivered the calling number. 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 ------------------------------ From: Jamie Mason Subject: Re: Per Line Blocking? Organization: University of Toronto Computer Science Undergraduate Student Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1991 22:32:42 -0400 In article Peter Creath writes: > According to the most recent issue of {Popular Science} (in the What's > New - Electronics section), they said a new box for Caller ID is now > available, one which displays the callers NAME as well as phone number. > Now, it didn't specify whether the name was transmitted by the Caller > ID system or whether the owner of the box had to program in names and > numbers. > [Moderator's Note: Well I would rather suspect the owner of the box > has to load the information matching certain numbers and names. How > would telco know who was calling? All they can say for sure is the > number. PAT] Here in Toronto, we have Caller-ID, only the call it 'Call Display', as part of Bell Canada's 'Call Management Services' line of services. The box for Caller-ID that we use is a Northern Telecom widget called 'Interlude'. According to the manual for this device, it will display the name, as well as the number of the calling part, subject to local availability. There is *NO WAY* "the owner of the box" could "to load the information matching certain numbers and names". The box has the following interfaces to the external world: - Two single-twisted-pair modular connector jacks. - One dot-matrix lcd-pixel display. - One buttong on the front - One two-position switch on the back. You plug the phone into one jack, and the wall into the other one. :-) The display displays, the number, the time and date of the most recent call from that number, (and potentially the name). The button on the front used to review the circular buffer of the last five calls. The switch on the back switches between English and French. Holding down "review" while toggling the language switch initiates a self-test and reset. That's it, that's all there is. How will the owner load the data? By bit bashing, using the 'review' button as CLOCK and the "language" switch as DATA? :-) Because of the "Subject to local availability", and the fact that my box works, but does not display names, I must assume that if the name is to be provided, it is provided in the Caller-ID datagram which is inserted between the first and second rings. By the way, I *really wish* it *would* display the name. Either that, or I would appreciate a reverse phone book, by phone number, of Toronto, preferrably on computer. It would also be nice if Bell would release the standard (method of transmission and format) of the Caller-ID datagram, for us curious folk. I can conceive of answering machines, for instance, which could record the number as well as the time on the tape, for those who are shy of answering machines and don't leave a message. I can also coneive of modems which could make the calling number available to the computer ... but this requires devices made by other companies than Northern Telecom to be able to decode the datagram. Jamie ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #312 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22060; 29 Apr 91 1:20 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07749; 28 Apr 91 23:37 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31710; 28 Apr 91 22:31 CDT Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 22:13:22 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #313 BCC: Message-ID: <9104282213.ab14034@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 28 Apr 91 22:13:05 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 313 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Summary: Answering Machine Autodisconnect Circuit [David Nyarko] Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [John Higdon] Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Dave Levenson] Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Daniel R. Guilderson] Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [David Pletcher] Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Jim Borynec] Re: Comments on History of Telephone Apparatus Manufacturers [H. Silbiger] Re: 212-516 in use in 1986 [Leryo Malbito] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Nyarko Subject: Summary: Answering Machine Autodisconnect Circuit Reply-To: David Nyarko Organization: University of Alberta Electrical Engineering Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1991 10:39:58 -0600 I dismantelled an answering machine stopper centered around a phone jack splitter having red and green status indicator LEDS . See article #4 in SUMMARY below. This was a MELTONE device. A figure of the setup (a MELTONE device) is indicated below. GREEN LED IN + |--|>|--| B311 B311 OUT1 + --------*-* *----((...)--(...))---- | |--|<|--| | RED LED IN - | OUT1 - -----*--|------------------------------ | | | *------------------------------ OUT2 + | *--------------------------------- OUT2 - Legend: 1) IN +, IN - : connected to wall socket. 2) OUT1 +, OUT1 - : connected to device you want to disconnected when an extension phone is picked up. (In this case the answering machine will be connected here.) 3) OUT2 +, OUT2 - : connected to telephone or 2nd device. For B311 devices,(Possibly 11volt zeners) (( = black marking on device. (Cathode band) For LEDS Anode ----|>|--- Cathode 4) * : 2 or more wires connected together. Comments: a) Green LED turns on when answering machine accepts call and turns off when machine goes off or any extension telephone is picked up. b) Red LED never turns on. From the circuit, It could turn on if the IN +, IN - are reversed. c) Actually 2nd B311 device near OUT1 + might not be required if the IN + and IN - polarities are not reversed. COMMENTS ARE WELCOME: Email to nyarko@bode.ee.ualberta.ca Please find below the summary of the responses received so far. Item # 2 appears to be incomplete so I have asked if he could please re-mail his response. I have not tried out any of the recommendations. # 1 seems the 1st type I would try. ---------- 1) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 91 09:15:05 CDT From: ho@csrd.uiuc.edu (Samuel W. Ho) Many answering machines now have this capability built in. The way it works is to raise the answering machine's threshold for line voltage detection. The easiest way is to put in a Zener diode of about 12-15V in series with the answering machine phone line connection. If another phone is off hook, the current draw pulls the line voltage low enough that no signal gets to the answering machine through the Zener. The answering machines that do this automatically work by having three voltage ranges detected: 50-90VAC is ring, 12-50V is normal line voltage, below 12V is disconnect. Incidentally, CPC is picked up by the same circuit. (Voltage thresholds vary, depending on how far you are from the central office.) Sam Ho ---------- 2) Date: 22 Apr 91 06:27:29 PDT (Mon) From: pevans@cynic.cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Phillip Evans) advertised as doing exactly what you said you need to do. Mine works fine - it cost about $10. ---------- 3) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 91 12:43:34 -0400 From: irvin@northstar.Dartmouth.EDU I have such a device, called PHONE ALONE. When any extension in the house is picked up, it disconnects whatever device is connected to it (in my case an answering machine), but it is advertised to be used with a phone extension (for privacy). When the extension is hung-up it resets to normal operation. I believe I got this sucker from The $harper Image. If you can't find it let me know and I'll try to find out where it can be had. Tim Irvin ---------- 4) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 91 14:13 CDT From: rvt@sbctri.sbc.com (Roger V. Thompson 7847) Organization: Southwestern Bell Technology Resources, St.Louis, MO I saw a device that seems to do what you want at Walmart last Saturday. It was about the size of a two-way modular jack splitter and had a couple of led's to indicate which side was active. I didn't check the price. Roger ---------- 5) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 91 14:02 CST From: Mike Gordon <99681084%ucs.UWPLATT.EDU@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA> Organization: University of Wisconsin--Platteville Radio Shack has a little donger that does that. It's called the teleprotector and it runs $7.95. (item number 43-107) I built a little bugger that did the same thing and it ran me about $10. (and soldering iron burns on my fingertips :( ) Mike Gordon 99681084@uwplatt.edu University of Wisconsin - Platteville ---------- 6) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1991 19:27:00 -0400 From: "Joel C. Justen" I found one of these at 'Target' which is a large discount store chain here in the US. It's basically just a plug which plugs into the jack, and has two separate plug ports with leds on them for the phone and the answering machine. It detects whether or not the phone has the line or the answering machine, and if it is the phone, it disconnects the answering machine portion. I think you can also find this at Radio Shack if you can find one. Cost? 2.95. --------- 7) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1991 23:19:00 -0600 From: Toby Nixon Well, I can't point you at a "circuit" (you want to build it yourself?) but I can tell you that they sell these at lots of places around Atlanta for about $5.00. I have on on my answering machine at home. Generically, they are known as "answering machine stoppers". --------- 8) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1991 10:19:00 -0600 From: hugh.graham@rose.toronto.edu David, Radio Shack has a FAX/TAD controller as you describe in the Canadian catalogue on p. 88, part 43-8015. It has no CSA or DOC approval, but since it's a passive device perhaps that's not necessary. Anyway, RF on the phone line sometimes prevents this gadget from making up its mind. I have several, and have moved all of them to the grounded lightning block in the basement so that computer and voice are exclusive, and picking up the phone disconnects the answering machine. In the basement they're all decisive. It's also possible that Alberta will have less RF floating around than Metro Toronto... Hugh ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 23:23 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission Jack Winslade writes: > I can imagine LD calls costing just > slightly over local calls of the same duration, but the most expensive > part of any call, local, LD, or international, may very well be the > local telco's charge for the local loop portion of the call, whether > it is to another local subscriber or the terminal point for an > interexchange carrier. The rate structure for calls outside of the innermost band (Zone 1 -- Local) is such that it is already distance unrelated in California. LATA calls are outrageously expensive. During the day, it is cheaper to call NYC on AT&T from San Jose than it is to call San Rafael, sixty miles to the north. Calls within California but outside the LATA are better, but not as good as interstate. A call to my 800 number from say, San Francisco, is $8.60/hr, but a call from San Diego (nearly 600 miles away) is $5.63/hr. This is an example of the stranglehold that LECs still have on the toll market. Pac*Bell still charges a fortune for calls that it carries. I know of someone who ran up over $200 on calls to a girl friend on the other side of town in one month who was just out of the local radius. What he did not realize that he would have been better off if she had lived out of state! In fact, most knowledgeable types who cannot find a good UUCP connection within the local calling radius look for one in another state rather than settle for one in the Bay Area with the ultra ripoff rates. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission Date: 28 Apr 91 12:35:08 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article james@cs.ualberta.ca (James Borynec) writes: > Because these costs are going down so very much they will quickly be > dwarfed (or indeed may already be dwarfed) by other costs such as > local access, accounting of calls, etc. Therefore, for all practical > purposes a LOCAL phone calls costs as much as a LONG DISTANCE phone > call. > Clearly the pricing structures do not reflect these costs (Yet!). My > question is - What is AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc going to do when they can > no longer reasonably charge more than a local call? Won't this change > the industry substantially? Will North America move to a wide area > extended flat rate billing zone? An interesting point! In most industries, the price of goods or services reflect their cost, and also their value to the customer. If the customer perceives that there is increased value in 'long distance' calling, then the customer is willing to pay increased rates. Remember Satellite Business Systems (one of the early alternate long distance carriers)? They were a joint venture of IBM and Aetna, I think. Their rate structure was very simple. While I forget the exact numbers, I think it was 11 cents per minute for calls up to 100 miles, and 21 cents per minute for all other calls. They routed virtually all of their long-haul traffic by satellite. With that technology, it's roughly 45,000 miles between any two Earth stations, regardless of the overland distance between them! The cost is the same, and their pricing reflected that. (They also remained unprofitable throughout their short existence, and were eventually aquired by MCI.) It takes more than one carrier to alter the customer's expectations, but when distance-insensitive pricing becomes common, the big guys will have it, too. If none of the 'big guys' have it, however, it won't become common. 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: Sun, 28 Apr 91 13:46:53 EDT From: "Daniel R. Guilderson" Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission Given that the recent posts about fiber optic transmission rates in the range of terabits per second are accurate, I envision a phone network in which people maintain a continuous live connection to a packet switched network. When that happens, it will make sense to charge a flat rate for most service and in addition a resource usage fee. People who don't make a lot of long distance transfers or transfer huge amounts of data will only be charged the flat rate. I like to try to imagine what it would be like if the internet adopted an RFC which specified a voice interface protocol. All you would need is an ADC and the right software and we could have voice transmissions over the internet. I bet that would really scare the hell out of the telephone companies. I think the lack of bandwidth is the only thing that's keeping it from happening. Daniel Guilderson ryan@cs.umb.edu UMass Boston, Harbor Campus, Dorchester, MA USA ------------------------------ From: Nuclear Warrior Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission Date: 28 Apr 91 20:30:57 GMT Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711 I have been harboring an amusing idea for some time. Wouldn't it be great if one of those rare individuals who wasn't motivated solely by personal and corporate greed was to create a full-service telephone company, hopefully providing long distance (and in some areas, where the LEC was especially lame, local service) at the lowest possible prices? It would charge just enough to hire all the necessary people, provide ample capacity and keep all of the equipment state-of-the-art. Perhaps a public stock offering could be made, and the big benefit would be that $1000 up front would get you five years of unlimited free long distance on your line or something. The amazing thing is that this could actually be done, and it would probably have fascinating effects, effectively bringing the whole country into your local calling area. Any comments? David Pletcher dpletche@jarthur.claremont.edu ------------------------------ From: "James Borynec; AGT Researcher" Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1991 20:15:56 -0600 ivgate!Jack.Winslade@uunet.uu.net (Jack Winslade) writes: > If they *COULD* make more by offering flat-rate service, they would, > but I think in practicality it would result in some people abusing it > (as in the 1800-0700 PCP connections of a few years ago) and keeping > lines open continuously. Selling it by the slice instead of > all-you-can-scarf is obviously more profitible for all telecom > corporations. Note that we will soon have fiber bandwith coming out of our ears. Everyone talking to everyone else across the country will only use up 80 48 strand cables. If you need more capacity along a stretch you just replace the repeaters with newer technology - no need to plow in another cable. This technology changes the WHOLE economics of long distance voice traffic. > Local telcos have been trying to push for the end of flat and/or > untimed local service in favor of measured service. They **CLAIM** > this 'saves money for many customers' but in truth it simply serves to > extract more $$$ from customers' pockets. The problem is that people LIKE flat service. The only way that I can see for people to go to local measured service is if they get long distance service at the same rate. How about this: You pay five cents a minute to call anywhere in the USA (including local calls). jim borynec james@cs.ualberta.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 10:10:58 EDT From: Herman R Silbiger Subject: Re: Comments on History of Telephone Apparatus Manufacturers Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article , 0003493915@mcimail.com (Michael Dorrian) writes: > Comdial is still alive and kicking in Charlottesville, VA., operating > under the same name. > As far as I know, Comdial remains the only US manufacturer of > telephones (local content - AT&T's phones are assembled in the US from > Asian manufactured components). This offers quite a niche on sales to > the US government. > Their products are often used as key system behind PBX or Centrex. Many hotel chains such as Hyatt use Comdial phones in the rooms. They have their own design. What I like about them is that they provide an easily accessibleRJ-11 port on the side of the set. An arrow on the faceplate points to the jack, and is marked "modem". So much more convenient than having to move the bed to get to the wall jack. Herman Silbiger ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 22:17:08 -0400 From: Leryo Malbito Subject: Re: 212-516 in use in 1986 Right. These phones are still in use in Grand Central AND in Penn station. They allow calls to anywhere on Long Island, and up into Westchester. ANAC (958 here in New York) doesn't work from these phones, but through other methods it was determined by myself that the phone numbers of these payphones are 212-516-xxxx, and they don't allow incoming calls. Leryo ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #313 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26817; 29 Apr 91 3:09 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12928; 29 Apr 91 1:42 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11167; 29 Apr 91 0:37 CDT Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 23:43:37 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #314 BCC: Message-ID: <9104282343.ab23931@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 28 Apr 91 23:43:25 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 314 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T and 10xxx vs 800 [Phillip Wherry] Re: Sprint Raises 800 Monthly Fee [Steve Elias] Re: Living in America [Bill Woodcock] On Line Services [John Higdon] Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [J. Philip Miller] Re: 'Dumb PBX' Wanted [Vance Shipley] Re: 900 Blocking [Steve Forrette] Re: Caller*ID From US PBxs [Vance Shipley] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phillip Wherry Subject: Re: AT&T and 10xxx vs 800 Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1991 16:53:42 GMT In article Bill Huttig writes: > "The 800 number you have dialed is not yet in service ... Please > try this number at a later date." > [Moderator's Note: I think what it means is that someone at the local > telco serving 407-676 misprogrammed the response code which is played > when the number is dialed. I think they meant to say merely, 'the > number is not in service from your area ...' PAT] I just tried dialing this number from 804-220 and 804-229. Same message. Phillip Wherry The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA psw@mitre.org [Moderator's Note: I should have tried it also, I guess ... having done so I also get the same message. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Sprint Raises 800 Monthly Fee Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 16:26:54 MDT From: Steve Elias > From: eddy@jafus.mi.org (Eddy J. Gurney) > eli@cisco.com (Steve Elias) writes: > > ...charge for 800 numbers to $15 from $10. > I had not received _any_ information that this was going > to happen, and I immediately called them to complain. Same here. I guess I should have yelled at them more loudly: > They were very > nice about it, and said they would credit my next bill with $15. Wow! You must have chewed them out good, huh? > Anyway, the $15 has suddenly made 800 service through Sprint less then > desirable. Yeah, but they just paid you three months worth of the extra $5 !! You may as well hang with them for a few more months, now. In fact, you could probably yell at them every other month and get more credits out of them -- they're soooooo apologetic and eager to give out credits sometimes! > The previous $10/month charge was barely acceptable, but > this definitely puts it over the edge. It looks that way to me, too. The only saving graces of Sprint's service is the six second billing increments (and the awesome call volume and clarity). Does anyone know of other 800 services which offer six second billing? > [Moderator's Note: You might ask if Telecom*USA is still offering > their 800 service at $2.75 per month plus the cost of the calls. Six second billing? eli [Moderator's Note: No, one minute billing, but the difference between the $2.75 per month and Sprint's $15 per month for a low volume user would require quite a few calls rounded to the next six seconds to make up the difference. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Woodcock Subject: Re: Living in America Date: 28 Apr 91 22:09:00 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz > As a final note, the PBS Nova program featuring a re-creation of > the tracing of the German/KGB hacking ring was broadcast. Cliff > Stoll played himself in > the program, as well as the other > participants in the trace, complete with location shots in > Germany. Check your local PBS station or TV listings... I talked to Cliff not long after they'd finished filming it, and he didn't seem too happy about it. Specifically, they shot one scene in the forest where the German hacker was found burned to death, and the director apparently kept trying to get him to be more "lighthearted" which he found to be in rather poor taste. He said the whole thing was shot on 16mm film, rather than video, but was low budget, so they couln't do more than one or two takes of any scene. Also, apparently almost all the people at Laurence Berkeley Labs played themselves, and got a big kick out of it. He said that only the Intelligence types wouldn't agree to appear in the documentary, and that the producers got some football coaches to play them, although I don't know whether he was thrying to make a joke on that one. :-? bill.woodcock.iv..woody@ucscb.ucsc.edu 2355.virginia.st..berkeley.ca.94709.1315 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 00:45 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Online Services With the recent articles detailing the various horrors of online services, one must conclude that there might be other ways of accomplishing what these services provide. It really should not be surprising that Prodigy, Genie, CompuServe, etc. have shortcomings and limitations when you consider their design purpose and why they were created. If your desire is to communicate and share information with others sharing a common, specialized interest, privately run BBSes should fill the bill nicely. Many are now quite sophisticated with networking and powerful software that serves the users quite well. And best of all, they are free. Each issue of any free computer rag contains page after page of BBS listings. And the rules of any given system are generally much less Mickey Mouse than the pay services. If you want non-interactive information, such as stock quotes, national weather, etc., you might want to check out the various cable channels. These are very convenient in that you do not have to login, or do anything other than tune your TV to the correct channel. I have just discovered The Weather Channel -- it is well done and quite informative. It is also more accurate than the Ken and Barbie weatherpeople on the local news. If you want airline info and the ability to book reservations, you might want to look at the online OAG. Actually there are online specialty services for almost any activity. These are no-nonsense services that provide a quality product. For e-mail and international BBS-style boards, nothing beats UUCP and the Internet. If you are an e-mail junkie, then get yourself a software package that will do UUCP, find a sympathetic host, and go to it. There are no online charges, no restrictions on what you can mail, no restrictions on how much you can mail, in fact, few restrictions at all. You can send and receive unlimited amounts of mail to and from virtually anyone on any system that talks to the outside world. Usenet provides discussion on every topic known to man and is read by people all over the world. Except for the moderated groups (such as this one), a person may post whatever and whenever he likes. I am sure that I have missed many other examples of substitutes for general purpose online operations, but you get the point. Years ago when I discovered Usenet, CI$ went by the wayside. And even the considerable cost of CompuServe was not the issue. The anarchistic nature of Usenet is much more suitable for its purpose (diverse discussion) than the restrictive "grade school style" rules that are part of all the commercial services. While I recognize that there are, for example, commercial interests that Prodigy must protect, that is Prodigy's problem. We, as functional adults, would prefer to be treated accordingly. I seriously doubt that the general purpose online services are incapable of that accomodation. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: "J. Philip Miller" Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 9:53:21 CDT "Mark A. Emanuele" writes: > I just downloaded this from a local bbs and thought it might be > interesting. > Prodigy: More of a Prodigy Than We Think? > By: Linda Houser Rohbough > Those of you who read my December article know that I was tipped > off at COMDEX to look at a Prodigy file, created when Prodigy is > loaded STAGE.DAT. I was told I would find in that file personal > information form my hard disk unrelated to Prodigy. As you know, I > did find copies of the source code to our product FastTrack, in > STAGE.DAT. The fact that they were there at all gave me the same > feeling of violation as the last time my home was broken into by > burglars. The orginal author then speculates: > So the theory goes, in allocating that disk space, Prodigy > accidently includes data left after an erasure (As you know, DOS does > not wipe clean the space that deleted files took on the hard disk, but > merely marked the space as vacant in the File Allocation Table.) > There are a couple of problems with this theory. One is that it > assumes that the space was all allocated at once, meaning all 950,272 > bytes were absorbed at one time. That simply isn't true. My > STAGE.DAT was 250,000+ bytes after the first time I used Prodigy. The > second assumption is that Prodigy didn't want the personal > information; it was getting it accidently in uploading and downloading > to and from STAGE.DAT. I don't think that this explanation has been adequately refuted. When I examined my STAGE.DAT, I found lots of "private" information on the leftover ends of sectors - a sure sign that no erasure of prior information was being done by the Prodigy software. Since this is standard practice in DOS programming we all need to be more careful about this type of problem. I am never able to understand folks who reach in drawer, "erase files from the floppy retrieved", then copy a file over to the disk to give to me certain that I cannot read what was on the disk before! But I digress. Even the experiments reported later in the posting really don't discount this explanation. In that experiment, the user ran from a floppy based disk, but on a system with a hard disk. If I were a Prodigy programmer, I would consider it good programming to look for scratch space on every device available to me. If I could find hard disk scratch space, I would use it. Then when terminating the program I might copy it from the hard disk to the floppy so it would be available to me the next time I ran the program. Whether the space is allocated all at one point in time, is allowed to grow, or is allocated and deallocated dynamically matters not at all. The big problem is that there is always the problem of data from a previous file being included as parts of a new file. If you are concerned about this, you need to get one of the many programs which really do "erase" the file when it is deleted or encrypt all such files - be careful, however, about whether your word processor or compiler doesn't use scratch files that you will need to erase or encrypt as well. If you use Windows that uses a disk scratch file for the support of virtual memory you need to be concerned that something that was core resident isn't out there on your disk now. I don't want to maintain that the Prodigy folks are clean here, only that before we start making chargers that they are actually intentionally uploading information we need more proof. Anyone who is actually interested in this can monitor what is going out to the modem and then make their charges. Just because it is in a scratch data set proves nothing. Also that their customer reps can't answer any technical question about their software reveals nothing other than they are like the telephone company operators we all deal with :-* I also want to attempt to deal with the rapidly developing urban legend about the Prodigy censoring. As far as I am aware of, the censoring of the "Roosevelt Dimes" message etc were in posting to one of their "moderated groups" similiar to what Pat does all the time here :-). It was not in private e-mail. 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 ------------------------------ From: vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) Subject: Re: 'Dumb PBX' Wanted Organization: SwitchView Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1991 22:30:56 GMT In article DANIEL@bnr.ca (Daniel Zlatin) writes: > Northern Telecom's Norstar system is definitely an open architecture > PBX. All of the functions of the system are available to a PC through > an interface card (which connects to the KSU as though it were a set). > A software library for the PC, available from NT, enables one to write > applications similar to those that were mentioned in the original > posting. While I whole heartedly agree that the Norstar is definitely an "open architecture" system (if you don't discount systems with licencing fees and contracts as not open) it is certainly not a PBX. I know this may seem like picking gnats and many, many people on this conference call these type of systems PBX's it is actually a Key System. It does not even have ground start trunk interfaces so it cannot be called a PBX in the traditional sense. It is however a wonderful Key System with a wealth of possibilities using the "open interface". I'm waiting for a Unix version of the toolkit though :). Vance Shipley vances@ltg ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!ltg!vances ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 17:13:06 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: 900 Blocking Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article David Cantor writes: > I wish that were true. The latest (issued, March 1991) San Diego Pac > Bell directory states: > "Most customers can choose to have California 900 and > 976 blocked from their telephone line." > Note that Pac Bell limits blocking to "most customers" and "California > 976 and 900" (whatever that means) and GTE has a similar restriction > for 976 numbers. Some of the older exchanges (such as #5 crossbar) can't handle it on a line- by-line basis. Last year, I had service from 415-848, which was #5 crossbar (since cut over to something else just last month), and to prevent unwanted 900/976 calls, they were blocked from *all* numbers in the exchange. That's right, if you were on that exchange, and wanted to be able to call 900/976 numbers, you would have to change your number to a newer exchange. I assume that this policy is in effect everywhere that Pacific Bell serves. As far as I can tell, the blocking is in effect for ALL 900 numbers, and to California 976 numbers. Although Pacific Bell will allow calls to inter-state 976 numbers, no major long distance carrier will carry them, so they are in effect blocked as well (I tried AT&T, MCI, US Sprint, and ComSystems). The MCI recording said that "MCI does not complete calls to 976 at this time." All the others had more generic "can't be completed as dialed" recordings. And 900/976 calls cannot be billed to a calling card by a LEC or major IXC. A 0+ call to 900 or California 976 will be blocked at the switch if you're calling from Pacific Bell's territory. It used to be that an AT&T operator would complete a calling card call to an inter-LATA, intra-state 976 call if you asked nicely, but now the "policy" forbids it. Notice I say "major" IXC - see my next message! Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Subject: Re: Caller*ID From US PBXs Organization: SwitchView Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1991 22:20:18 GMT "Fred R. Goldstein" writes: > I'm not sure if modern PBXs even support AIOD. The SL-1 (or Meridian 1 if you prefer) by Northern Telecom does. Vance Shipley vances@ltg ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!ltg!vances ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #314 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26959; 29 Apr 91 3:11 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12928; 29 Apr 91 1:46 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac11167; 29 Apr 91 0:38 CDT Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 0:20:41 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #315 BCC: Message-ID: <9104290020.ab25751@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 29 Apr 91 00:20:36 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 315 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson OKI 900 Handheld Cellular Review [Mark Lottor] Whither the AT&T News Line? [Dave Leibold] Saudinet Link Restored! [Ken McVay via Michael H. Riddle] Paradyne FDX 2400 Modem Power Supply Needed [BIRK@trees.dnet.ge.com] Bravo Beeper Docs Wanted [Michael Schuster] Marriage of 900 Numbers and COCOTS [Steve Forrette] Re: Caller ID and Name Being Tested by US West [Steve Forrette] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1991 21:40:33 PDT From: Mark Lottor Subject: OKI 900 Handheld Cellular Review I recently purchased an OKI 900 handheld cellular phone and this is a review of the OKI, along with my comments on the phones I didn't get. I decided to get a handheld phone, and decided I should get a fairly small one for most convenient use. The choice was between the Motorola Micro-Tac, the Fujistu Commander, the Mistubishi 3000/99x, the NEC P-300, and the OKI 900. The NEC P-300 is the largest of the phones and also the heaviest (14oz). It has some neat features like escalating ringing tones. However, it also feels like a square block of wood, and the case felt sort of cheap and not too sturdy. Because of its size and weight I didn't consider it for very long. The Fujitsu Pocket Commander is a pretty neat phone. However, it comes standard with the extra-talk-time battery instead of the slim battery. This makes it heavier than advertisements lead you to believe (11.9oz instead of 10.2), and makes the phone fairly thick and bulky. If you buy the slim battery to get the small size advantage then your talk time goes down to 45 minutes or only seven hours standby. This means that if you talk for five or ten minutes early on, your battery will die out around five hours of use. Besides these problems however, are two missing features. You don't get continuous touch tones from the keypad (only one of two length settings). There is also no got-a-call-in-absense indicator. I needed this so I would know if I missed a call that would then have been transfered to voice-mail. The display is only ten characters wide, too small for displaying both a name and number. Also the mouth piece feels like it will break off if you happen to cough into it. It could be a nice phone if you used the slim battery and only turned it on to make short outgoing calls. The Mistubishi 99x and 3000 phones are probably the smallest of the phones. They come in at 10.4oz, making them pretty light too, but thats with the standard short-life battery. Standby time is nine hours or 45 minutes talk. Again, this translates into much less than nine hours standby if you talk for ten minutes. I needed a phone that could standby for an eight-hour work day even after I had used it a bit. The high-capacity battery makes these times reasonable but adds 1.5 inches to the length of the phone making it as big as the NEC. The physical design of the phone also makes it feel more like a movie-prop or a kids toy than a real working phone. The phone is almost completely flat so it doesn't curve around your face, and the mouthpiece doesn't get anywhere near your mouth. The buttons are also a bit small, even worse on the 3000. The Motorola Micro-Tac / Flip-phone has been around a while now (Rumor has it a new model called the Star-Lite will be out in six months). Again, it comes standard with the thick-heavy battery, so it's short and bulky. It weighs in at 12.3oz. Talk time runs around 75 minutes and standby of 20 hours. When it's flipped open the phone feels pretty nice, although the mouth-piece feels like it might break off easily. Functionality and features are pretty limited compared to the other phones. The phone only has a seven-digit display, and LED at that. Reminds me of the first generation of digital watches and calculators. I kept thinking 'boy is this thing old'. It's also pricey. Then comes the OKI 900. It was announced in January of 1991. Its very slightly larger than the Mitsubishi (its 6.5x2.1x1 inches) and comes standard with the slim battery. It weighs in at 12.7 ounces and so is slightly heavier, and has a talk time of 70 minutes or 12 hours standby. Optional thick battery only adds one ounce but ups this to 24 hours standby! The earpiece and mouthpiece stick out a little, so the phone curves around your face a bit and feels right. The phone also has a really nice solid quality feel to it. The keyboard buttons are big and feel great too, and the keyboard and display can be backlit if you want. The phone comes with two antennas, a short stub (one inch) and a longer flexible one (six inches). This is a slight drawback, but in good coverage areas you can get away with the stub antenna all the time. The OKI was rated best recently in Mobile Office magazine for electrical specifications, and some of this may be due to the phone having a 'real' antenna compared to the little wire that pops out of some of the other portables. This phone has LOTS of neat features, the more interesting described below. The phone has a continuous signal strength meter (unlike the Fujitsu), and a two-line eight-character display. It's also the only phone that can display upper and lowercase letters. Volume controls and lots of settings. Keypad touch-tone volume, ear-piece volume, and ringing volume (each in eight different settings) and four different ring sounds. Ringing and keypad can be muted too. The phone also provides side-tone so you can hear yourself talking in the earpiece (this is useful with handhelds so you can get the microphone at the right distance from your mouth). Optional beeping when leaving or entering service areas and also for one minute intervals when talking. Last call time counter and resettable total-time used counter. Five NAMS. 200 memories that hold eight characters and 32 digits each, searchable by partial name, of which ten are speed dials and ten are secret. Also an additional 32 memories that hold 16 characters and 11 digits for storing roamer access numbers. A phone number FIFO memo scratchpad holds last five numbers entered while talking, any of which can be saved in memory or dialed. Silent-keypad option for entering numbers into scratchpad during conversation, and mouthpiece mute control. Features are accessed thru three circular menus. The main menu gets you to often accessed features. A sub-menu gets you to user preference settings, and an administration menu (accessed with a passsword) lets you select NAMs, program calling-card info, call restriction modes (lots of them), and change your keyboard lock code. An 'online' user manual can be cycled thru to remind you of how to access various random functions. There is also a battery strength indicator bar-graph. Neat features: The phone can be set in a pager mode, where it will answer the phone and beep like a paging terminal. Caller touch-tones in phone number, and phone remembers last nine 'pages' for later recall. In this mode the phone can be set to turn off in five hours, and can also be turned off remotely with a password by calling it up. Ever neater: during conversation with someone, remote person can put phone in DTMF-Receive mode to send you a phone number, and, optionally, cause your phone to hangup the current call and immediately dial the new number! Great if you have a secretary. OKI is also supposed to be coming out with an RJ-11 jack adapter in a few months for use with modems, faxes, answering machines, etc. Getting into programming mode is also interesting. It took me quite a bit of hassling to get the 'secret' dealer password out of the place I purchased the phone at. However, things aren't that secure, as apparently OKI has a master password to unlock any phone. If you buy a phone I suggest you make getting any special dealer passwords a condition of your purchase. A quick call to OKI had the programming mode instructions faxed to me in a few minutes. Entering this mode displays the software version number and your ESN in hex. In this mode you can set up your NAMs and reset memories and air-time counters. You can also change your security code needed for the "administration" user-menu. In programming mode you can also personalize what the display shows when the phone is idle. BAY AREA CELLULAR SERVICE: I had to decide between the two evils of Cellular One/PacTel and GTE. Both rate plans are very similar. I made a spreadsheet of the two carriers and played around with different amounts of calling time and voice-mail charges. Total bills never differed by more than about $10 dollars. GTE could be more expensive if you use voice-mail heavily (they charge air-time rates for receiving and retreiving messages) or if you don't sign up for their one-year contract. I was told C-1 has a better system for portables than GTE. In the end I picked C-1 thru PacTel. The PacTel service rep had me sign a form saying I received a sticker that says conversations on cellular phones are not private; however, I got no such sticker, apparently in violation of California law. The GTE people gave me such a sticker even though I didn't take their service. Calls have some occasional slight noise, and occasional bursts of static and hiss; certainly nowhere near the "you'll hardly know the difference between a cellular call and a land-line call" claims from PacTel and other carriers. Coverage in mountain and coastal areas is practically zero, and hopefully they will add to those areas soon, so I can go out to the beach with a laptop PC and OKI's RJ-11 option! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 91 23:46:00 PST From: Dave Leibold Subject: Whither the AT&T News line? Reply-to: dleibold@attmail.com In previous Digests, a number 1 800 2ATT NOW (??) was mentioned as an AT&T recorded message full of news. This number when dialed from Florida gets a message saying the number is disconnected and gives no further information. Anyone know where the AT&T daily news went? Also, Bell Canada's Telenews line (416) 599.4323 or 1 800 387.9050 (in Ontario and perhaps other parts of Canada) seems to have been reactivated for proceedings on Canadian long distance competition. The line had been moribund since around the time of holidays due to "declining listenership". Dave Leibold - via IMEx node 89:681/1 Dave.Leibold@f126.n480.z89.onebdos.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 09:33:46 cdt From: "Michael H. Riddle" Subject: Saudinet Link Restored! From: kmcvay@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca (Ken McVay) Date: 28 Apr 91 08:49:48 GMT Organization: 1B Systems Management Limited I am pleased to report that the downstream logjam which caused us to temporarily refuse Saudi-bound mail has been corrected, and the mail is moving again. We are also receiving confirmation from returning troops that the mail did indeed arrive, although some of it didn't catch up with the folks it was addressed to until they returned to the States :-) The mail flow remained steady (7-8000 messages a month) until the end of February, when it was interrupted. All mail received between the end of February and the present has been RESENT to Saudi Arabia as of this writing - 1.6 megs arrived there yesterday, and has been distributed to the MPO for delivery. There are still about 200,000 troops in the Gulf, and they NEED to hear from you folks - I will be posting instructions again soon, when we can get caught up with the cancelled APO/FPO addresses and provide a current list. For those of you with current addresses, just continue to use the same format you used prior to this time, and address the messages to: saudinet@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca The upper-left-hand corner of the message body should contain the address in this format: LOCAL FORCES PVT JOHN DOE UNIT ADDRESS (DEPLOYED) OPERATION DESERT STORM APO/FPO ADDRESS The uucp mail headers will be removed at the SaudiNet gateway, so don't forget to include a return address at the END of the letter. The letters are printed in Saudi Arabia, folded three ways, stapled, and delivered to the military for distribution. Public Access UUCP/UseNet (Waffle/XENIX 1.64) | kmcvay@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca| TB+: 604-753-9960 2400: 604-754-9964 | ..van-bc!oneb!kmcvay | FrontDoor 2.0/Maximus v1.02/Ufgate 1.03 | | HST 14.4: 604-754-2928 | IMEx 89:681/1 | ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 12:35:05 EDT From: BIRK@trees.dnet.ge.com Subject: Paradyne FDX 2400 Modem Power Supply Needed Question: Does anyone know where I might get a power supply adapter for a Paradyne FDX 2400 MODEM manufactured by ARK Products. I bought it at a Flea Market with docs but no address for ARK. ?? Thanks in advance. Send reply to birk@trees.dnet.ge.com ------------------------------ From: Michael Schuster Subject: Bravo Beeper Docs Wanted Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 18:50:17 GMT Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY Anyone have an instruction sheet/tech sheet on the Motorola BRAVO beeper? I've been given one with no instructions. The simple things are easy enough to figure out, but I've discovered that holding various buttons while turning on the power will display interesting things. Is any of thos documented? Is this in the Archives somewhere? (If some kind soul with a fax machine has this, they may send it to 212-308-4054 ... thanks!) Mike Schuster | CIS: 70346,1745 NY Public Access UNIX: ...cmcl2!panix!schuster | MCI Mail, GENIE: The Portal (R) System: schuster@cup.portal.com | MSCHUSTER ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 17:24:49 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Marriage of 900 Numbers and COCOTS As if things weren't bad enough, here's a new one (at least for me): Last week, I saw a COCOT whose enclosure booth had a panel advertising 900 numbers. My first thought was "how stupid, everyone knows you can't use coins OR a calling card to bill 900/976 calls." But then, I thought that the sign was probably there for a good reason, so I tried 0 +900 + xxx + xxxx. Sure enough, a ka-bong sounded. I wasn't curious enough to try any further! The carrier was ITI or something like that, I think. I'm tempted to say "Now I've seen everything!", but I know better! Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu P.S. - Boy, is time flying or what? I know it's 1991 now since the yearly "last cordboard in public service was just cut over" message recently appeared! :-) [Moderator's Note: Considering it was a COCOT, you should have held the line to see what sort of outrageous charges would be requested, or if in fact it would simply connect, etc. Let the COCOT owner worry about the charges in the event you decided not to pay / stick around for the connection after being advised of the charge. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 17:56:42 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Caller ID and Name Being Tested by US West Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article David writes: > Actually that is coming. I was at a friend's house who works for US > West. I was reading their internal weekly newsletter, and it said > that US West was testing a Called ID scheme in Nebraska (I think) that > would deliver both the calling number and subscriber name. The > article went on to say that this was unique where all other systems > only delivered the calling number. My Pacifc Bell friend knew something of this. When pressed for details, he indicated that it just used the name in the computer (the listed directory name, I believe), and had no provisions for several people at the same calling number. There may have been a way to specify an "override" string, whose sole purpose was for Calling Name delivery, but I'm not certain. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #315 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21598; 30 Apr 91 0:40 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15446; 29 Apr 91 23:12 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac21051; 29 Apr 91 21:54 CDT Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 21:20:41 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #316 BCC: Message-ID: <9104292120.ab13722@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 29 Apr 91 21:20:30 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 316 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Toby Nixon] Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Leryo Malbito] Re: 900 Blocking [oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov] Re: Per Line Blocking? [Toby Nixon] Re: Whither the AT&T News Line? [Randy Borow] Re: Whither the AT&T News Line? [Bill Huttig] Re: North Georgia to Get NPA 706 [Carl Moore] Re: 'Dumb PBX' Wanted [W.L. Lance] Re: Caller-ID Chip Specs [Brian Cuthie] Re: NXX Count 4-15-91 [David Esan] Re: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department [Matt Blaze] Re: US Answering Machine in Israel [Hank Nussbacher] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? Date: 29 Apr 91 17:48:19 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , overlf!emanuele@kb2ear. ampr.org (Mark A. Emanuele) posted a BBS file containing hysterical raving about Prodigy supposedly snooping through user's disks, uploading and processing confidential information. This is nonsense. The STAGE.DAT file is allocated in large chunks according to the level of usage of the service and the number of different areas you visit. The Prodigy software requests the space from DOS, which allocates it from areas of the disk which previously contained other files. DOS does not erase the old information -- and neither does the Prodigy software. But the Prodigy software does not READ sectors to which it has not first WRITTEN. Any non-Prodigy information in the STAGE.DAT file is left over from deleted files, in sectors to which the Prodigy software has not yet written. Remember that even formatting a disk does not remove old information! I was involved in early beta testing of Prodigy, was a charter member, and have watched HOURS of Prodigy traffic on data line monitors. I have NEVER seen any information transmitted that was not typed by the user, or originated within the software. I've never seen ANYTHING that even remotely gave me the impression that information from previously-delete files was being transmitted. The idea that Prodigy is slow because they're using bandwidth to upload confidential information for analysis is just wrong. Watch your modem lights! Only tiny little bursts of transmission are sent. MOST of the time, the line is completely idle in both directions. The simple fact is that Prodigy is slow because the software is SLOW (it was written in anticipation of us all having very fast CPUs, video cards, and modems before too much longer), not because of some sinister conspiracy to invade our private files. Who could honestly believe that two companies who are big fat targets for lawsuits would do something so supremely stupid and easily detectable? No, the biggest mistake Prodigy made was in not wiping clean newly-allocated disk space in order to remove any questions in this regard -- and I suspect that the next Prodigy software update will do just that, considering the amount of noise that has been generated over this non-issue. We should all be concerned about privacy, but this is grossly misplaced paranoia. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 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: Thanks for an excellent rebuttal, but not everyone sees it quite the same as yourself. See the next message for another thought on this topic. And is there a logical reason for the traipzing back and forth between the C and D drives, as per the next item? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 13:29:52 -0400 From: Leryo Malbito Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? Upon showing V11 issue 311 (the one with Mark's comments) to a tax professional friend, he discovered not only confidential tax info on most of his clients, but logs of Telix sessions which he didn't remember taking, in addition to the entire Telix dialing directory, including passwords, macros, etc. An interesting side note is that Telix is on his D: drive, while stage.dat et al are on his C: drive. He is still searching through his immense (950K) STAGE.DAT file, shouting expletives. ------------------------------ From: oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov Subject: Re: 900 Blocking Date: 29 Apr 91 15:25:02 GMT In article , dgc@math.ucla.edu (David G. Cantor) writes: > If the telcos really wanted to provide complete blocking, they > obviously could! You are making some assumptions about telphone COs that are not valid. A couple of years ago I received a note that my switch is not allow per line blocking of 976 calls and that I had my choice of switching to a new switch (and number) or not having access to any 976 numbers. In other words, since they couldn't do per-line blocking, they blocked 976 calls for the entire switch! I thought that was nice of them. After about 1 uSecond of careful deiberation I decided to sacrifice access to 976 "pproviders". R. Kevin Oberman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Internet: oberman@icdc.llnl.gov (415) 422-6955 Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing and probably don't really know anything useful about anything. ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Per Line Blocking? Date: 29 Apr 91 16:48:49 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , the Moderator commented: > [Moderator's Note: Well I would rather suspect the owner of the box > has to load the information matching certain numbers and names. How > would telco know who was calling? All they can say for sure is the > number. PAT] Actually, they ARE working on including the subscriber name along with the number in future "Caller ID" systems. The name delivered will be the subscriber name associated with number according to the phone company's computers. It _still_ won't constitute "Caller" ID, but "Calling Line" ID. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 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: rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com Date: Mon Apr 29 15:18:46 CDT 1991 Subject: Re: Whither AT&T's Newsline In answer to Dave Leibold's wondering what happened to the AT&T Newsline: it was discontinued via its 800 number. It now can be reached via a normal (meaning YOU pay) POTS number. Why the change? From what we were told, it was due to cost-cutting measures. So what else is new? Randy Borow AT&T Communications Rolling Meadows, IL. ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: Whither the AT&T News Line? Date: 29 Apr 91 16:07:24 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL The newsline discontinued its 800 number. The correct number now is 908-221-NEWS. (I don't see why they want to make people pay for it.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 12:03:58 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: North Georgia to Get NPA 706 Commenting on the newspaper speculation on running out of area codes, I will restate/summarize what has been said in this Digest before: Area codes of the N0X/N1X form are running out, and area codes will then have to generalize to NXX, with the first slew of NNX area codes being of form NN0 (and Mexico then will be getting pseudo-area-codes of 52x form, x not necessarily 0). This will force dialing to change in many areas: Local calls within your own area code should remain 7D (the exceptions I know about are soon to be discontinued if not already: Use of 1+703+7D for extended area calls from "Northern Va." to "Prince William". Use of 1+7D (at least this was available in 1970s) if you are in 215 just outside Phila. metro, have metro-wide service, and are calling points not already included in next lower level of local service; if this metro service has remained available, the leading 1 is being removed, just like for long distance within 215. For local calls to other area codes, check locally for use of 7D or NPA + 7D or 1 + NPA + 7D. Long distance within your own area code should be 7D or 1 + NPA + 7D, with 1 + 7D having to be discontinued. Long distance to other area codes should be 1 + NPA + 7D, with NPA + 7D having to be discontinued. ------------------------------ From: "W.L. Lance" Subject: Re: 'Dumb PBX' Wanted Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 18:17:38 GMT Can anyone give the number for Northern Telecom? Lance Ware Mac and IBM Reseller Try here first:lance@spud.rit.edu | Then here: wlw2286@ultb.isc.rit.edu Last Resort:wlw2286@ultb.UUCP------------Continually computing fractals . . . ------------------------------ From: Brian Cuthie Subject: Re: Caller-ID Chip Specs Organization: Univ. of Maryland Baltimore County, Academic Computing Services Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1991 18:41:07 GMT In article wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil (Will Martin) writes: > As a practical matter, if a telco implements Caller-ID services, is it > going to send the data down the line on each and every call to each > and every instrument or line, or is it going to limit the data > transmission so that it only goes to people who have paid for it? > Would it be cheaper to send it to everyone or to do an edit and send > it only to the limited subset? As far as I know, it actually takes some additional equipment to implement the service. Unlike TouchTone, where the dial registers were simply augmented with DTMF decoders, there is actually special tone generating equipment switched into the call when caller ID is used. In the Bellcore specs TR-TSY-000030 and TR-TSY-000031 (which describe the service and it's physical layer interface) there are words stating "Less than .01 of Average Busy Season Busy Hour (ABSBH) attempts to allocate SPCS transmission equipment for this service should see all circuits busy." (SPCS == Stored Program Control System) BTW: The reason for the ANI coming in between the first and second ringing cycles is that the ringing voltage from the first ring cycle is used to wake up battery powered terminal equipment. brian ------------------------------ From: David Esan Subject: Re: NXX Count 4-15-91 Date: 29 Apr 91 17:59:52 GMT Reply-To: David Esan Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY In article cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 305, Message 15 of 16 > For the 201/908 split, I have: > 201/908 New Jersey, 1 January 1991 (full cutover 8 June 1991) I did not note the dates of the cutover, merely that it has occurred, and that the number of NXX in this NPA will be reduced when the split is complete. In fact I wrote: > #3. 201 - has split to 908. Permissive dialling will end this year, > and number ... will be reduced. which does not contradict your statement, and in fact makes your statement unneccessary. > And what is the meaning of 905 and 706 showing up on such list? I noted in the beginning of my article (as I have noted in the beginning of each article since I began posting this list to comp.dcom.telecom) that the list is based on the V&H tape from BellCore, and that I just am compiling some statistics. BellCore has not removed these area codes from the tape as of 4/15/91. I know that they are no longer in use. Does BellCore? I will also note that as of the posting of the article I was unaware of the proposed split of the 404 area code to 706. This will be in my article of 7/15/91. David Esan de@moscom.com ------------------------------ From: Matt Blaze Subject: Re: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department Organization: Princeton University, Dept. of Computer Science Date: 29 Apr 91 04:29:52 GMT Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com writes: > My GUESS (and it's only a guess) is that the 911 system in New York > City is so badly overloaded with police traffic that they have to > route fire traffic another way. > "You have reached nine-one-one. To report a crime, press 1, to report > a fire, press 2...." Well, kind of. My recollection (based on my experience as a NYC paramedic eight years ago) is that the NYC 911 system is answered by a police ACD operator. They have a pool of operators for each of the five boroughs, but all calls are answered in the same physical location (1 Police Plaza), which also has all the police radio dispatchers. No problem if you are calling for just police help. The fire department, on the other hand, is not completely centralized. Each borough has its own central office, which houses the radio dispatchers, the cables from the street alarm boxes and from each firehouse, and so on. The fire central offices, by the way, are all located in city parks, on the assumption that if there is a really big fire, they will be isoloated and less likely to themselves burn down. If you call 911 to report a fire, the police operator has to figure out that you are calling about a fire, and places a 'three-way call' via a leased-line to a fire department dispatcher in the appropriate borough. Then you have to repeat the location information to the fire operator again, wasting lots of time. The police operators are not as well trained to handle fire calls, which is why they do it this way. So it's always faster to just call the fire department directly. The new numbers are certainly easier to remember (although I still remember the old Manhattan number: 628-2900), and I assume that the new numbers will not require you to drop a quarter into a pay phone to call them, as the old numbers did. By the way, the same thing is (or was eight years ago, at least) also true for emergency medical service (EMS) calls: first you get the police at 911, and then they connect you to the EMS dispatcher after they figure out that you need an ambulance. I don't recall whether EMS has a direct number for the public to call without going through the police first; at least when I worked there, we kind of liked having the cops show up at all our calls. matt [Moderator's Note: When Chicago converted to 911 many years ago from the decades-old POLice-1313 and FIRe-1313 system, there was quite a bit of bickering from the FD brass about delays in answering calls. Even after 911 was cut in, fire continued running parallel for another year. Where calls to POLice were trapped at each central office and delivered to the police dispatchers on various-1313, to identify the neighborhood originating the call, fire calls were only sent one of two ways: everything north of 39th Street went to DEArborn-1313 at the City Hall Fire Alarm Office. Central offices south of 39th Street sent their fire calls to Englewood Fire Alarm at TRIangle-0002. (I never could figure that one out ...). Prior to 911 -- the early seventies here -- fire fighters, paramedics and police officers were being sent on about a hundred phalse alarms daily. When the fire brass found how well 911 served to identify people who do that sort of thing, they quickly swallowed their pride and agreed to let the police answer their calls. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Bar-Ilan University Computing Center, Israel Date: Monday, 29 Apr 1991 09:45:08 IST From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: Re: US Answering Machine in Israel In article , berger@clio.sts.uiuc.edu (Mike Berger) says: > spolsky-joel@cs.yale.edu (Joel Spolsky) writes: >> Does anybody know if an American answering machine will work in >> Israel? > Doesn't it run backwards? My Panasonic answering machine works fine. Needs no modifications. And it even records in English and in Hebrew :-) Hank Nussbacher Israel ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #316 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27113; 30 Apr 91 2:54 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25596; 30 Apr 91 1:19 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13042; 30 Apr 91 0:13 CDT Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 23:22:29 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #317 BCC: Message-ID: <9104292322.ab06761@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 29 Apr 91 23:21:49 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 317 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Caller ID PC Boards Wanted [Michael Almond] Caller ID is a Fraud (was: Per Line Blocking) [Daniel Herrick] Caller ID and Name Being Tested by US West [Bruce Carter] Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer Question About Test Tones [Jason Hillyard] 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993 [Jamie Mason] Microcells: Test Underway in St. Louis [Post-Dispatch, via Rich Zellich] US Phone Connectors [Ruediger Vermoehlen] NEC RadioPager Schematics and/or Documentation Wanted [Brandon S. Allbery] Nynex 832 Plus Cellphone - Request for Info) [David E. Sheafer] Programming Manual for Toshiba Strata SE Needed [James Van Houten] Prestel Uploading Software [Peter Thurston] Your Thoughts and Kindness [Patrick A. Townson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Almond Subject: Caller ID PC Boards Wanted Organization: search technology, inc. Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1991 13:31:49 GMT I've seen several people mention that there are PC interface boards for Caller ID. Would someone tell me the names and numbers for these companies? Thanks a bunch! Michael R. Almond (Georgia Tech Alumnus) mra@srchtec.uucp (registered) search technology, inc. mra@searchtech.com 4725 peachtree corners cir., suite 200 uupsi!srchtec!mra norcross, georgia 30092 (404) 441-1457 (office) ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 91 16:41:00 EDT From: Daniel Herrick Subject: Caller ID is a Fraud (was: Per Line Blocking) In article , herrickd@iccgcc.decnet. ab.com writes: > [Moderator's Note: There are all these 'scenarios' people come up with > -- red herrings, really -- as excuses for not having Caller ID. From > your example above, I take it you would rather force the people to > answer the phone every time it rings -- being unable to tell in advance > who is calling -- rather than sit down with the people as one parent > speaking with another to discuss and correct the misbehavior of your > children. PAT] The threads are confused here, I'll start a new heading. Pat's comment refers to my scenario in which the person in a household who gets the most calls from my telephone does not want to talk with the member of my household who makes those calls, and so I, the telephone subscriber cannot get through to the telephone subscriber in that household on the rare occasion that I want to. I find most of the rantings here about wanting Caller ID (sic) in order to ignore unexpected incoming calls to be quite childish, so I set the scenario in a childish context. The point I was trying to make is that "Caller ID" is a lie. The product is "Calling Station ID". Pat's comment contains the phrase "being unable to tell who is calling". If my number appears on a Caller ID (sic) readout, it probably means that one of four or five (do I count my eldest who will be returning for the summer in a few weeks?) people is calling. However, there is a household around here where the reaction to my number on a Caller ID (sic) readout would be, "Oh, my daughter is over at Liz's and calling from there." This would not prevent me from getting through to them, but my voice would be a surprize. Most of the applications of Caller ID (sic) depend on the false assumption that knowing the number of the originating station enables one "... to tell who is calling". Most of scenarios Pat decries as red herrings are intended to demonstrating the falsity of the assumption. The Lotus Equifax database offering was killed over much smaller potential abuse. I have tried to expose the absurdity of the assumption with lighthearted examples, rather than demonstrate another scenario allowing abuse, in this posting, and the previous. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 16:16:51 -0600 From: bcarter@claven.idbsu.edu Subject: Caller ID and Name Being Tested by US West > Actually that is coming. I was at a friend's house who works for US > West. I was reading their internal weekly newsletter, and it said > that US West was testing a Called ID scheme in Nebraska (I think) that > would deliver both the calling number and subscriber name. The > article went on to say that this was unique where all other systems > only delivered the calling number. Greetings, This service is currently available in (believe it or not) Boise, ID. I believe that we are a test area, and one of the first areas to be provided the service. Now if we can get the ACLU and certain other groups to quit howling about invasion of privacy we may get some decent peripherals, like intelligent call handling based on the caller. Bruce Carter, Courseware Development Coordinator Lab: (208) 385-1859 Faculty Development Lab - Room 213 Office: (208) 385-1250 Simplot/Micron Technology Center CompuServe ID: 76666,511 Boise State University CREN (BITNET): duscarte@idbsu 1910 University Drive Internet: duscarte@idbsu.idbsu.edu Boise, ID 83725 --> Preferred: bcarter@claven.idbsu.edu [Moderator's Note: If the Boys of Boise will be quiet for awhile, huh? Does anyone other than me remember the famous documentary by that name from the early 1960's which discussed the witchunt against people suspected of being gay in Boise during the 1950's? Fanned in large part by the {Idaho Statesman} and its infamous headline, "We Must Crush the Monsters", that was a sad era in your city's history. But I digress ... carry on! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 08:29:38 -0700 From: belanger_f@wmois.enet.dec.com Subject: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer Here's a real good one that I just found out today: I had concerns about third party billing fraud after reading about some instances here, so I called New England Tellyfone today, and here's what the service rep told me. I could put a "block" on my line to prevent third-party billing, for the "amazingly-low-price" (my wording) of $.95 a month per line, and a one-time charge of $11.70 . So, I asked the rep, why should I pay to rectify your lousey security practices regarding third-party billing fraud? (No answer recieved). Then I asked "why can't NET just give everyone a calling card and prohibit third-party billing? (rep says "some people like to do third-party billed calls.) Yea, sure they like to, since it seems easy to rip off the phone company and not pay for the call, rather than use a calling card (which I use). Don't ya just love Ma Bell logic? Fred Belanger [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell gives 'inbound toll restriction' at no charge. My two lines and my distinctive ringing number are configured to automatically refuse collect or third number billing. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jason Hillyard <6600jrh@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> Subject: Question About Test Tones Date: 29 Apr 91 19:08:32 GMT While flipping through the Specialized Products catalog of telecom gear, I saw several devices called "Analog Test Sets" which were capable of generating certain tones for testing purposes. These boxes can generate 404, 1004, 2804, and 3804 Hz tones. I assume these tones are used when measuring line loss. Does anyone know for sure? Also, these boxes can generate a 2713 Hz tone for "activating a Bell 829 loopback device." Does anyone know how this works? Jason Hillyard 6600jrh@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu ------------------------------ From: Jamie Mason Subject: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993 Organization: University of Toronto Computer Science Undergraduate Student Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1991 17:01:05 -0400 Well folks, it's official news now, 416 *will* split in two years. From a Bell Canada pamphlet delivered with the phone bill: ================= 4 1 6 Area Code 416 is stretched too far! 9 0 5 October 4th, 1993, 905 will relieve the tension. In order to meet the increasing demand for telephone ex- changes and numbers, it will soon become necessary to split the 416 region into two area codes. This will enable us to continue to provide you with the high level of service and reliability you've come to expect from Bell Canada. Beginning October 4th, 1993, Metropolitan Toronto will retain the 416 area code number, and all other areas currently served by 416 will switch to the new area code number 905. This will mean a change in your dialing patterns when calling into or out of 416 or 905. These examples provide simple illustrations of how the change will affect you. 1. If you are placing a local call from 416 into the 905 area code, you will dial: 905 + the seven digit number 2. If you are placing a local call from 905 into the 416 area code, you will dial: 416 + the seven digit number Of course there will be no long distance charges for these calls, or changes in your local calling area. 3. However, if you are placing a local call and not dialing into or out of the 416 or 905 area code, you will simply dial the regular seven digit number of the party you are trying to reach. ============= All the typos are mine. Note that 416 has already switched to dialing 1-416-xxx- xxxx for long distance calls *within* 416, so that exchanges which look like area codes (x0x and x1x) can be used. This should have added 179 exchanges, or 1,790,000 new numbers. I guess that is just a kludge, and not enough for the long run. It seems strange to me that they will split the 416 at the Metro Toronto municipal boundary, rather than at the edge of the Toronto local calling area. Looking at a map of 416 territory, I can see that the Toronto local calling area covers approximately 1/3 of the 416 area, but Metro Toronto alone covers only a small fraction of that. The new 416 is going to be tiny, at least in terms of geographic area, compared to the old 416 and the new 905. This is a pity. I enjoyed being in the most overcrowded area code on the continent. :-) Jamie ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 7:38:23 CDT From: Rich Zellich Subject: Microcells: Test Underway in St. Louis Extract from the Business Plus "magazine" insert in the Mon, Apr 29 {St. Louis Post-Dispatch}: _New_Cellular_Telephone_Service_To_Get_Test_Here_ By Jerri Stroud Of the Post-Dispatch Staff Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, AT&T and Southwestern Bell-Technology Resources Inc. will test one of the newest technologies for expanding telephone service next month at a conference in St. Louis. The technology, called microcells, helps provide service in densely populated aread and inside buildings, where cellular radio waves often weaken. Essentially, it's a way to subdivide cells, the building blocks of a cellular telephone system. Each cell in a cellular telephone system has a radio tower that transmits signals from phones within the cell to a central switch and back again. As a user travels through the area, calls are handed off from one cell to another. The cellular structure allows celular companies to use radio frequencies over and over again. Cells can be subdivided as usage grows. Next month's demonstration will be part of the Vehicular Technology Conference sponsored by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. The conference runs May 19-22 at the Sheraton Westport Plaza. The event will be the first public demonstration of a microcell system unveiled by AT&T in January, the companies said. The new technology will allow cells with a radius as small as a few hundred feet. Most cells now are four to 20 miles in diameter. With current technology, cells need a large outdoor tower and a small building or underground vault to house electronic parts. Microcells are suitcase-sized packages that can be installed inside or outside a building, said AT&T spokeswoman Barbara Mierisch. AT&T expects to offer microcells commercially early next year. Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems expects to use microcells to provide better coverage for cellular users in high-density aread, such as airports, sports complexes or downtown buildings, said Walter Patterson, a spokesman for the Dallas-based subsidiary. ------------------------------ From: Ruediger Vermoehlen Subject: US Phone Connectors Date: 29 Apr 91 14:01:39 GMT Organization: RBI - RWTH Aachen Hi NETers! I have a question about the pin assignment of US phone jacks and the purpose of some pins. In a user manual of a modem, I found a diagram of a so called 'RJ12/13' modular jack with lines referred to as R, T, A, and A1. The function of R and T is obvious (analog input/output), while the function of the other two puzzles me. I would appreciate any information anybody can give me about these lines. Please reply by mail. Thanks in advance, Ruediger Vermoehlen ruediger@informatik.rwth-aachen.de ruediger@rwthinf.uucp ruediger%rwthinf.uucp@uunet.uu.net ...!uunet!mcsun!unido!rwthinf!ruediger ------------------------------ From: "Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/AA" Subject: NEC RadioPager Schematics and/or Documentation Wanted Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1991 00:00:08 GMT I just picked up an incomplete NEC RadioPager from a scrap pile. It is complete and functional except for the board/switch/??? which sets the tone(s) it responds to. Now I need the schematics so I can "program" it for my use. (For the net.lawyers out there who keep griping about legality: it's on 158.700 now, but will be moved to 147.210. And get a clue before jumping on people, okay?) [sorry, Pat. I'm still p*ssed at some of the responses I got to the post about cellular telephone manuals. ++bsa] Insofar as I can tell, the part number is R3V2-2B. Thanks in advance, Me: Brandon S. Allbery Ham: KB8JRR/AA 10m,6m,2m,220,440,1.2 Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG (restricted HF at present) Delphi: ALLBERY AMPR: kb8jrr.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery KB8JRR @ WA8BXN.OH ------------------------------ From: "David E. Sheafer, Class of 1989" Subject: Nynex 832 Plus Cellphone - Request for Info Date: 29 Apr 91 09:41:36 GMT Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA If anyone has used a Nynex 832 plus celluar phone, could you let me know of what you think of it. David E. Sheafer internet: nin15b0b@merrimack.edu or uucp: samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b GEnie: D.SHEAFER Cleveland Freenet: ap345 Bitnet: Sheafer_davi@bentley ------------------------------ Date: Sun Apr 28, 1991 4:44 pm GMT From: James Van Houten / MCI ID: 427-2229 Subject: Programming Manual for Toshiba Strata SE Needed Assistance is needed in obtaining a programming manual for a Strata SE KSU. I had one about a month ago but it appears that it has disappeared. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. I would gladly pay reproduction and mailing charges. Thanks in advance. James Van Houten (301) 967-7220 (Voice, Fax, Data) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 16:52:52 +0100 From: Peter Thurston Subject: Prestel Uploading Software This article is directed at UK readers. can anyone help me, I am looking for public domain Prestel uploading software for the Acorn A3000 (or BBC) microcomputer. This is comms software that permits updating of Prestel frames via the Prestel bulk update computer in London. Any help would be appreciated with the protocol for bulk updating. I have already written some code which I use with an experimental service on Prestel, although this does not involve frame editing. Thanks in advance, thurston@mrc-apu.cam.uk.ac ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 0:33:37 CDT From: "Patrick A. Townson" Subject: Your Thoughts and Kindness Individual responses would be almost impossible ... To all of you who wrote me during the past week with expressions of sympathy I send my sincerest thanks for your kind words in my time of grief. If only I had the energy and time to respond personally to each of you. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #317 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00248; 30 Apr 91 3:59 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13337; 30 Apr 91 2:25 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25596; 30 Apr 91 1:19 CDT Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 0:24:22 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #318 BCC: Message-ID: <9104300024.ab31648@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 30 Apr 91 00:23:45 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 318 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 212-516 in Use in 1986 [Danny Padwa] Re: 212-516 in Use in 1986 [wet!@cca.ucsf.edu] The Two Line Solution [Leryo Malbito] Re: Restricting Telemarketers [Mark A. Emanuele] Re: Living in America [Doctor Math] Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN [Toby Nixon] Re: OKI 900 Handheld Cellular Review [John Higdon] Re: New MCI Sleaze or Just a Mistake? [Matt L. Armstrong] Re: Unauthorized Repair Charges [Barton F. Bruce] Re: AT&T and 10xxx vs 800 [Barton F. Bruce] Re: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department [Roy Smith] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Danny Padwa Subject: Re: 212-516 In Use in 1986 Date: 28 Apr 91 15:39:08 EDT In article , Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com writes: > I have vague recollections of a service that allowed 25 cent calls all > over New York State for a maximum of 30 seconds. It was specifically > available at Grand Central Station (and probably Penn Station too) and > was designed for "meet me at the station at 5:06" type of calls. Yup ... that was exactly how this worked. It was introduced back in the days of ten cent local calls in New York. New York Tel introduced these phones in Penn Station, Grand Central (I guess), and JFK International Arrivals (and perhaps other places ... I've only used them at Penn). It was quite a deal ... for a quarter you could call anywhere in the state (even Buffalo!) for 30 seconds ... at which point you got cut off with no warning or mercy. They were quite a hit with the commuter crowd ... I have often found it useful to be able go into the city by train, knowing that when I need to go home, I'll be able to call home to tell Mom which train I'll be on, for only 25 cents. Now that a local call also costs a quarter, the "special" phones are a great deal!! Danny Padwa Padwa@Husc3.Harard.Edu (and a frequenter of the Long Island Railroad!) ------------------------------ From: wet!@cca.ucsf.edu, roger@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: Re: 212-516 in Use in 1986 Date: 29 Apr 91 23:54:09 GMT Organization: Wetware Diversions, San Francisco cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: > I made a note of the following, apparently a result of my own July, > 1986 visit to that area in New York City: > (Recently, it's been said in this Digest that there is no 212-516 -- > it could have been discontinued since I made the above note -- and I can't vouch for the exchange (since I moved out of NY in February, I haven't been within 2500 miles of Penn or grand Central Stations), but, as of Mid-February, the 30-second-to-anywhere-in-the-state phones were still in Penn Station. Since NY Tel went to one-plus dialing several years ago in NYC, there's no reason why there shouldn't be a 516 exchange in 212 area code. Email: roger@wet.UUCP alt: rogerd@well CompuServe: 72730,1010 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 22:12:00 -0400 From: Leryo Malbito Subject: The Two Line Solution With regards to Nelson Bolyard's (nelson@bolyard.wpd.sgi.com) two-line CID solution, I just recalled something from a couple of weeks ago. Upon calling a COCOT, I got a telco tri-tone message stating something to the effect of: "There are no incoming calls permitted to this telephone ..." Da-Daa-Daa... (I think this is the same type of message that Bell Atlantic provides when you have been chosen as a CALL BLOCK(tm?)ed number ... eg, you bother someone, then they block all future calls from your number.) Anyway, I think therefore you might be able to explain the situation, and request this special service from your telco. Leryo ------------------------------ From: "Mark A. Emanuele" Subject: Re: Restricting Telemarketers Date: 28 Apr 91 15:00:24 GMT Organization: Overleaf Systems, Inc. Fords, NJ In article , baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) writes: > I wish we'd do something like this in New York City -- I get weekly > calls urging me to "Call 540-SCAM within 30 minutes to get yourself > ripped off!" (the 540 exchange is New York Telephone's local > equivalent of 1-900 numbers). I once got PAGED to a 540 number when I worked in NYC. The call cost me (actually the company I worked for (ATT)) $35.00. I called the number and got a Phone Sex Message. Mark A. Emanuele V.P. Engineering Overleaf, Inc. 218 Summit Ave Fords, NJ 08863 (908) 738-8486 emanuele@overlf.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Doctor Math Subject: Re: Living in America Date: Sat, 27 Apr 91 12:05:50 PDT Organization: Brown Cow Software (a licensed Waffle developer) Dave.Leibold@f126.n480.z89.onebdos.uucp (Dave Leibold) writes: > Installing a local line can be particularly expensive. Southern Bell > will grab USD$142 to install a new line. Bell Canada would be hard > pressed to charge a third of that for an install (definitely not on > extra Toronto line I had installed). That's a little out of line; I've lived in Pac*Bell and Indiana Bell territories and it's right around $40 ($20 additional in Pac*Bell for various options and first month's service). > COCOTs are everywhere ... and fortunately so are Southern Bell's > "real" payphones (so far). The COCOTs for the most part seem to allow > access to the carriers, though 10288 (AT&T) is the only 10XXX code > that seems to be accepted by these things. Strange as it sounds, I have found that the IndianaBell payphones will only allow 10288; while it is possible to dial other access codes, they all get you AT&T. I called to complain, but I don't think anything will be done. ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN Date: 29 Apr 91 17:11:31 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , ac220@cleveland.freenet.edu (Rich Szabo) writes: > I am sketchy on how ISDN interacts and co-exists with Plain Old > Telephone Service. Does an ISDN line have a "phone number?" If so, > what happens if I dial this number from a Plain Old Telephone? Can an > ISDN line be used as a voice line so that I don't need a POTS line in > addition? An ISDN Basic Rate Interface as two 64000bps bearer channels. Except for the analog local loops, POTS is based on exactly this same kind of channel! Once you get into the CO, you can connect a digitized 64kbps POTS PCM voice channel to an ISDN B channel, and talk just fine. You definitely don't need to keep a POTS line around once you have ISDN. Of course, there's a lot more you can do with that 64kbps channel in ISDN than in POTS -- clear channel 64kbps synchronous transfers, V.110 or V.120 terminal adaption, X.25, etc. When it's being used for 3.1KHz voice or voiceband data, the network knows this so that it can route you to POTS lines (it will reject attempts to connect those other call types to POTS lines). Also, if the network knows you're using the channel for voice or voiceband data, it knows it can do voice compression and multiplexing on the channel -- but this happens primarily on international calls (rarely on domestic calls). Don't tell the network you're using the circuit for voice and then use it for something else, because strange things will happen. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 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: Mon, 29 Apr 91 13:24 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: OKI 900 Handheld Cellular Review Mark Lottor writes: > BAY AREA CELLULAR SERVICE: I had to decide between the two evils of > Cellular One/PacTel and GTE. As a user of both systems, I could have told you precisely what the differences were. > In the end I picked C-1 thru PacTel. > [...] > Coverage in mountain and coastal areas is practically > zero, and hopefully they will add to those areas soon, so I can go out > to the beach with a laptop PC and OKI's RJ-11 option! GTE has perfectly acceptable coverage in the mountain and coastal areas. In fact, it has superior coverage overall, which is, I assume important to most cellular users. Cellular One has a MUCH more aggressive sales presence than GTE Mobilnet, but it is trading on the ghosts of times long past. GTE was the first system in the Bay Area and the "service" was attrocious. It was as bad as PacTel is now in Los Angeles. Coverage was terrible, calls frequently dropped, audio levels varied all over the map, plus a host of other problems. People could not wait for the "A" system to come on line. When Cellular One (PacTel/McCaw) opened for business, GTE Mobilnet customers lined up at the door. I was one of them. And it was a refreshing improvement. In the meantime, however, GTE was building and improving. It outstripped Cellular One in number of cell sites and developed one of the country's finest in-house RF engineering departments. Motorola was given a swift kick in the butt and told to fix the bugs in the EMX "or else". The result has been that GTE is clearly the technically superior system in the Bay Area. It has a wider coverage area and serves that area better than the competition. Since I have had at least one cellular account since it was available, it was no heartache to sign up for the "yearly" commitment (and get the cheaper rates). But Cellular One still has the attitude that is was entitled to in 1986. And times have changed. Since I use my phones heavily in the mountain areas, I would not dream of having Cellular One for my personal accounts. I am also not at all impressed with the "A" carrier roaming agreements, which seem to be more flaky. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 17:00:23 MDT From: "Matt L. Armstrong" Subject: Re: New MCI Sleaze or Just a Mistake? Ugh. It turns out that the housemate that was out of town did indeed order personal 800 service from MCI. He thought it sounded like a useful idea, so he ordered it. The problem was that they couldn't put the service in his name because the line was in my name, so they'd start up P800 in my name and would allow him to switch the billing of the P800 service to his name later. That's why it came mailed to me. However, he ordered it months ago and had forgotten about it. He's now going to tell them to get lost since he's moving out in a month (No, I'm not kicking him out of the house for messing with MCI...). I'm still curious if using the 800 service would have switched my carrier over to MCI or if I'll still get switched sometime down the road because of this. Sorry for the misinformation. Matt ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Unauthorized Repair Charges Date: 29 Apr 91 22:32:15 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , irvin@northstar.dartmouth. edu (Tim Irvin) writes: > I got in a (shall be say) spirited discussion with a NET Customer > Service Rep about a Repair Charge that was on my bill this month. There has long been the threat of a 'maintenence of service charge' for problems that THEY think are your fault. I have always tried to make sure there was a trapdoor by describing a problem as intermittant (unless it was as gross as an open pair). That way if their repair man finds nothing, well maybe he just missed it. Recently I was placing a repair call, and was told there was NO WAY a 'maintenance of service' charge could be levied now UNLESS they came into my house and FOUND it was in my wiring. (I don't know if this is absolutely true). Now that there is the new FCC DEMARC law of 'outside or within 12 inches inside' and ANY reasonable interconnection is 'ok' (need NOT be their demark jack, in fact need not be a jack at all), I will NEVER let them in - EVER. No need to risk needless charges. You were in NH. This is in MA, and who knows what NYNEX has been able to pull in NH, but that is FCC. If you feel ripped off, DO CALL their 'Executive Appeals' phone number. It gets answered: "Office of the President". You generally will be getting a call back from some manager directly in line above your problem within a VERY short time (hours if not minutes). If someone of them is threatening you with black marks on your service record that you KNOW are unfair, just stand your ground firmly but politely. It probably will do you no harm to mention that the next call will be to 'Executive Appeals' and if you get some wise azz that basically DARES you to do it, DO IT - they probably should not be a service rep and if enough people complain they won't be. You simply call the main number - 617-743-9800 - and ask for 'Executive Appeals'. If LD, try collect. Do your own testing to be SURE its broken at the 'DEMARK' with all your inside wiring disconnected, and THEN call repair and TELL THEM the trouble shows at the DEMARK with all inside wiring removed. DON'T pay them monthly for this trivial service. Most of their service reps are really nice and helpful, and if it is clear that you know what you are doing you generally will have no problems. Just be a little patient. The rep may have just finished with some MEGA-PAIN grade customer. ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: AT&T and 10xxx vs 800 Date: 29 Apr 91 22:48:41 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , wah@zach.fit.edu (Bill Huttig) writes: > I received some info on AT&T's USADirect Service and it notes an 800 > number (800 872-2881) for calls from Bermuda, Dom. Rep. etc.. (I think > "The 800 number you have diailed is not yet in service ... Please > try this number at a later date." I got the same from 617, and it sounded as though the intercept was FAR away. Did the original ad offer letters for those numbers? Obviously 288 = ATT, and the 872 could be USA. All together it would be 1-800-usa-att-1. Just a guess. Otherwise it is a bummer to remember. ------------------------------ From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 14:50:46 GMT Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com writes: > My GUESS (and it's only a guess) is that the 911 system in New York > City is so badly overloaded with police traffic that they have to > route fire traffic another way. Why not just add more operators, lines, etc? No, my guess is that it's political (what in New York isn't?). The NYPD and NYFD have a long standing tradition of feuding with each other. Various mayors have attempted, without much success, to mediate the disputes. NYPD claims they have jurisdiction over everthing that's not a fire, while the NYFD points out that since they have all sorts of fancy rescue gear, they should be the ones to cut people out of crushed cars, go scuba diving to get bodies out of the rivers, etc, etc. They also fight about which department is "in charge" of an emergency scene where officers from both departments have responded (have a Fire Marshal give orders to a policeman at a fire scene? About as likely has having American troops under Saudi commanders!) To bring this somewhat back to telecom issues, the radios they have are unable to communicate with each other. I believe the only way a policeman can get fire equipment to a scene is to call 911, and vice versa; this also extends, by-the-way, to the transit cops; they can't talk with the regular cops, and are also always having turf wars. 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #318 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26417; 1 May 91 2:13 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26429; 1 May 91 0:39 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28525; 30 Apr 91 23:32 CDT Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 22:33:52 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #319 BCC: Message-ID: <9104302233.ab06509@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 30 Apr 91 22:33:46 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 319 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Louis J. Judice] Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [ric@ifs.umich.edu] Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Toby Nixon] Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Barton F. Bruce] Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [John Higdon] Re: Shaving Ni-Cads (Removing 'Whiskers') [Steve Forrette] Re: Shaving Ni-Cads (Removing 'Whiskers') [Javier Henderson] Re: AT&T and 10xxx vs 800 [Javier Henderson] Re: AT&T and 10xxx vs 800 [Bill Huttig] Re: 212-516 in use in 1986 [Carl Moore] Re: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993 [Carl Moore] Re: ATT Digital Answering Machine [Roger Clark Swann] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 10:38:38 PDT From: "Louis J. Judice 30-Apr-1991 1328" Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? Really, now... I've seen paranoia in this discussion before, but this really takes the cake. I must say that I just cancelled my prodigy account, but only because it I was only logging into it once a month. Why? Well, first of all, except for the online Sam Goody "song directory" there was nothing left of interest to me. Oh, and the fact that Prodigy is slow enough to put bricks to sleep. But come ON NOW! If you look at pre-allocated data files created on any simplistic operating system without DELETE/ERASE capability you'll find all kinds of data trash left behind by previous programs or users. I remember on RSTS/E in college, allocating HUGE files, dumping them and then pouring through it, looking for interesting junk left behind by OTHER USERS. If anyone REALLY thinks that Prodigy, IBM and Sears are going off and uploading your confidential files to have a look, well, I suggest you power off your computers, unplug your phones, cancel your drivers license and move to the mountains where the CIA, NSA, Trilateral Commission, KGB and Iraqi secret police can't find you! Sorry to be so blunt, but someone has to point out the paranoia aspect of all this! ljj ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 10:13:29 -0400 From: ric@ifs.umich.edu, ic@ifs.umich.edu Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? Just to add my data point: I have searched my STAGE.DAT file several times hoping (:-) to find private data to no avail. The only items I've found in the file are cache'd Prodigy screen dumps and error messages. Perhaps significantly, I use a Macintosh version of the software. Really folks, this sounds much more like typical DOS filesystem bugs than a conspiracy directed by Sears and IBM to gather confidential info from hundreds of thousands of users. But it's a great urban rumor. ric ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? Date: 30 Apr 91 13:54:39 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , leryo@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Leryo Malbito) writes: > Upon showing V11 issue 311 (the one with Mark's comments) to a tax > professional friend, he discovered not only confidential tax info on > most of his clients, but logs of Telix sessions which he didn't > remember taking, in addition to the entire Telix dialing directory, > including passwords, macros, etc. An interesting side note is that > Telix is on his D: drive, while stage.dat et al are on his C: drive. > He is still searching through his immense (950K) STAGE.DAT file, > shouting expletives. Since Patrick asked me to respond to this, I'll at least ask this: has he ALWAYS had Telix on his "D" drive? Or, perhaps, did he move it to "D" in order to make room to put Prodigy on his "C" drive? Are these physically separate drives, or just partitions? And how would Prodigy get logs of Telix sessions? You can't have two programs receiving serial data at the same time. I think the operative phrase here is "he didn't _remember_"; let's not attribute to major corporate conspiracy what is best explained as memory lapse. I think that if ANY of us searched through the "free space" (not currently allocated to a file) on our disks, we'd ALL be surprised. This is only turned into "shouting expletives" when one has been convinced by conspiracy-theorists that one is being spied upon. But it just ain't so. I don't mean AT ALL to come across here as defending Prodigy in any way. _I'd_ like to know why they go out and grab so damn much disk space if they're not going to use it right away! Regardless, there are so many REAL violations of our privacy going on, I think it's a shame that so much energy is being expended on this case. By the way, you would do your lawyer friend a great favor by advising him to NOT store his passwords on his hard disk. Aside from the fact that anyone with physical access to his computer (including burglars) can easily get them, he must now realize that deleting those files means that information can be inadvertently released to others. It's quite simple -- all a program has to do is write a partial sector, and that password data could be left there. It's then possible for XMODEM to send that data to others, and you'd never even know it. Even copying the file will preserve the "garbage" at the end. I've heard stories of "heads rolling" at software publishers when programmers used supposedly "empty" disks to produce the master disks that were bulk-duplicated, boxed, and sold. The problem was, of course, that the disk wasn't clean, but that the old files had simply been "deleted" (and not erased) -- so anybody that did a little "garbage collecting" (it's fun; try it some time) got a good bit of the source code of the product!! It's great fun on a multi-user computer to open a new file for random access, and do a write to an arbitrarily high record number -- the system allocates all of the unused space in between to you, but doesn't erase it, so you can merrily read through everything that the other users of the system supposedly "deleted". If you're on a multiuser system, always use an "erase" program that actually overwrites your files rather than just deleting them, or everything you delete will be available to other users of the system. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 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: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission Date: 29 Apr 91 23:42:24 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , dpletche@jarthur.claremont. edu (Nuclear Warrior) writes: > I have been harboring an amusing idea for some time. Wouldn't it be > great if one of those rare individuals who wasn't motivated solely by > personal and corporate greed was to create a full-service telephone > company, hopefully providing long distance (and in some areas, where > the LEC was especially lame, local service) at the lowest possible You have the right idea. Think of the HORRIBLE impact on the European contries of their individual greedy PTTs. They make the RBOCs look like saints. Realise how fundamental it is to the growth and prosperity of our planet to have communications so darn cheap that ANYONE can easily afford ANY amount of bandwidth they can use. The not millions but BILLIONS of dollars they are about to use to sink the South East Expressway underground in Boston is totally needless. They are perpetuating the ugly downtown mess that originally was 'necessary' only because it was not possible or economical to communicate effectively with other businesses unless you were physically DOWNTOWN. If one tenth of that money were to be invested PERMANENTLY and used to subsidise statewide communication with it being CHEAPER to call anywhere OTHER THAN downtown Boston, and make the WHOLE state a local call to residences, the crying need for this insane artery project would dissappear. Anyone note that even Pop Sci this month mentioned an AT&T software package for Definity PBXes called "HOME AGENT"? You log in or out of your telemarketing response terminal located AT YOUR HOME. When logged in, customer calls will be dynamically routed to you. No gas mileage, no expensive office space rent to support your individual work, and, if in Boston, a little less need to squander billions sinking the smogging expressway. The video teleconferencing codecs that work at 112/128kb will be two or three thousand dollars in a year or so, further allowing businesses to move to their favorite countryside hilltop. Cheap dial T1 could hasten teleconferencing's growth - less compression needed, cheaper codecs. The telco's charter should be 'how much can be done for how little dollars', rather than, sadly, the reverse. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 17:30 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission Nuclear Warrior writes: > Wouldn't it be great if one ... was to create a full-service telephone > company, hopefully providing long distance ... and ... local service > ... at the lowest possible prices? It would charge just enough to > hire all the necessary people, provide ample capacity and keep all > of the equipment state-of-the-art. And maybe charge just enough more to guarantee the investors a twelve percent rate of return. Maybe I missed something, but is that not what our LECs as a regulated monopoly are already supposed to be doing? If you have trouble recognizing any of that in your local telephone utility, perhaps it is because the regulated division is just a tiny speck on the spreadsheets of a megaconglomerate holding company who is manipulating the books, the legislators, the regulators, and its customers to maximize the "unregulated" profits of the parent corporation. I give you Pacific Telesis as an example, not because it is particularly slimy (it is), but because it is typical. Here you see a very powerful corporation, who among many other things, happens to own a telephone utility. This monopoly is guaranteed by statute to earn a given percentage on invested capital. It cannot lose. The government will not allow it. But does this satisfy PacTel? Of course not. It wants to have the last of the regulations removed that prevent Pac*Bell from competing with its own customers. It wants it both ways: a guaranteed rate-of-return AND the ability to compete on a playing field tilted in its favor. ("No one but Pac*Bell should be able to provide intraLATA toll service, but Pac*Bell should be able to manufacture and sell terminal equipment.") That is one holding company's idea of fair. I can think of a lot of people who would be quite happy running an exemplary utility -- providing the best service at the lowest possible cost. But looking at the stepsisters Bell, it is not really very likely that they will get the chance. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Shaving Ni-Cads (Removing 'Whiskers') Organization: University of California, Berkeley I have a friend that swears by this method to ressurect 1.25V nicads: Hook them up (with polarity reversed) to a car battery using jumper cables. My friend's not an EE, but these tricks of his that he swears by usually work. I've not tried this one myself, though. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: Javier Henderson - TMS Group Subject: Re: Shaving Ni-Cads (Removing 'Whiskers') Date: 30 Apr 91 07:15:08 PST Organization: Avnet Computer - CTC Group; Culver City, CA In article , jta@hydra.jpl.nasa.gov (Jon T. Adams) writes: > The only practical way to get rid of these crystalline growths is to > apply a massive current that will essentially evaporate the crystals. > The current pulse must be short enough to prevent undue damage to the > battery yet enough current must be applied to destroy the whiskers. It should be noted that Nicads can explode if the pulse is too strong and/or too long. I've seen it happening before, when a friend was trying to resurrect a few cells, and one went kaboom on him. He knew of the dangers so he was applying the current to the cells while they were inside a clear plastic box. Javier Henderson Engineering Services Avnet Computer Los Angeles, CA henderson@hamavnet.com {simpact,asylum,elroy,dhw68k}!hamavnet!henderson ------------------------------ From: Javier Henderson - TMS Group Subject: Re: AT&T and 10xxx vs 800 Date: 30 Apr 91 07:12:14 PST Organization: Avnet Computer - CTC Group; Culver City, CA In article , wah@zach.fit.edu (Bill Huttig) writes: > "The 800 number you have dialed is not yet in service ... Please > try this number at a later date." > [Moderator's Note: I think what it means is that someone at the local > telco serving 407-676 misprogrammed the response code which is played > when the number is dialed. I think they meant to say merely, 'the > number is not in service from your area ...' PAT] I just tried the 800 number listed in the original message from my phone in Los Angeles and got the same response "to try it at a later date." So the original question as to whether AT&T would offer their network from an 800 number is still valid? Javier Henderson Engineering Services Avnet Computer Los Angeles, CA henderson@hamavnet.com {simpact,asylum,elroy,dhw68k}!hamavnet!henderson ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: AT&T and 10xxx vs 800 Date: 1 May 91 01:01:03 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article Barton.Bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes: > Did the original ad offer letters for those numbers? Obviously 288 = > ATT, and the 872 could be USA. All together it would be 1-800-usa-att-1. > Just a guess. Otherwise it is a bummer to remember. No, The original 'ad' is a wallet size card from the AT&T International Department. I knew that the 288 got you ATT but I didn't think about the 872. I don't have trouble remembering numbers. I just forget where they go to. Bill ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 10:12:17 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: 212-516 in use in 1986 If such 25-cents-for-call-within-NY-state phone appears in JFK, I overlooked it when passing thru JFK for my trip to England late in 1989. What prefix would be used there? As for use of 212-516: It's already been noted that out of courtesy you do NOT use a nearby area code as a prefix. But since the phone on which 212-516 appears is not set up for incoming calls, it's OK to use a nearby area code as a prefix on it. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 10:25:25 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993 So you too will have ten digits (NPA + 7D) for local calls across the new 416/905 border. This is what you will hear for local calls across the new 301/410 border in Maryland, if you listen to the helpline at 800/477-4704 and punch in a prefix which will have local service across that border. But from downtown Toronto, you will have local service into 905? That's being handled differently from Maryland, where if you are local to Baltimore you go into 410, and if you are local to Washington DC you stay in 301. ------------------------------ From: Roger Clark Swann Subject: Re: ATT Digital Answering Machine Date: 30 Apr 91 02:35:11 GMT Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics Someone was asking here recently about the ATT digital answering machine. I just received a flyer from Sears that includes: ATT Digital Answering System 1337 - All digital technology, etc Sale price $99.99 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #319 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26521; 1 May 91 2:15 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26429; 1 May 91 0:43 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab28525; 30 Apr 91 23:32 CDT Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 23:30:53 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #320 BCC: Message-ID: <9104302330.ab12273@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 30 Apr 91 23:30:23 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 320 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Caller*ID Specifications Needed [Tony Harminc] Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN [Johnny Zweig] Re: Answering Machine Auto-Disconnect Devices [Tony Harminc] Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Ralph W. Hyre] Re: Caller ID PC Boards Wanted [Jim Langridge] Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Roy M. Silvernail] Re: Third Party Billing Fraud and New England Tel's Answer [Steve Forrette] Georgia Relay Center Report [Fidonet ABLED Echo via Nigel Allen] Noise on the Line [Chip Yamasaki] Conference Bridges - State of the Art [John Nagle] New Area Code Won't Work From Hotel [Robert M. Hamer] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 13:34:34 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Caller*ID Specifications Needed David Berman wrote: > Question: Does anyone reading know what is sent out? How the phone > number or alpha information is encoded on the ring cycle? Has it been > done in a reasonable way so that decoding is sensible? (etc) Addresses > the future? > Or: Does anyone know where such information is published for > reference? This is rather old, but the only answer Dave received was flip, and not very helpful. So here again is the official place to get Bell Canada's version of Call Display technical disclosure information: Bell Canada Director - Switched Network Services 220 Laurier Avenue West Ottawa, Ontario K1G 3J4 +1 613 781-3655 The document is "Call Management Service (CMS) Terminal-to-Network Interface", Interface Disclosure ID - 0001, November 1989. (The document number may give you a clue as to how long this service has been running :-)) I was not charged for this document, but Bell does reserve the right to charge for it in future. It is only 18 pages so it seems unlikely they would charge a lot. They are required to disclose this information to anyone, so any charge would be administrative only - i.e. they cannot sell the information. Phone and find out. Please note that it is incorrect to call this "the Canadian Caller*ID standard". This document describes only what is being implemented by Bell Canada in its service areas. Other Canadian telephone companies may well implement something quite different, though it isn't too likely. Tony Harminc ------------------------------ From: Johnny Zweig Subject: Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN Reply-To: zweig@cs.uiuc.edu Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 19:36:08 GMT ac220@cleveland.freenet.edu (Rich Szabo) writes: > I am sketchy on how ISDN interacts and co-exists with Plain Old > Telephone Service. Does an ISDN line have a "phone number?" If so, > what happens if I dial this number from a Plain Old Telephone? Can an > ISDN line be used as a voice line so that I don't need a POTS line in > addition? Your local Central Office probably digitizes your POTS signal as soon as they get their (4ESS or higher) hands on it. ISDN phones actually have a number along with port-number like thingies I forget the name of that specify particular devices that may be connected to a single interface. But it should certainly be possible to call a seven-digit number and talk to your friend Joe down the street from POTS. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 14:00:02 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Answering Machine Auto-Disconnect Devices I forwarded the discussion on the $5 zener diode devices to a friend who does not read this list. His comments follow: Greetings: Tony you may want to repost this. The device with the zeners does not have DOC (Canadian) approval because it does NOT meet Canadian standards and cannot be approved here. It does meet the more lax US standards, although even that is open to some interpretation. It is a series device and does require approval according to tariffs. It works on most lines but does not work under all circumstances (not due to stray RF but the characteristics of the line and various qualities of telephone connected). If you're interested I'll write a longer epistle on these devices. I have designed one and have gotten it approved in both Canada and the US. Regards, Howard If anyone is interested enough I can post Howard's further comments. He is quite familiar with the standards approval process in both countries. Tony Harminc ------------------------------ From: "Ralph W. Hyre" Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission Date: 30 Apr 91 21:28:20 GMT Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati In article John Higdon writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 306, Message 2 of 6 > "James Borynec" writes: >> Will North America move to a wide area extended flat rate billing zone? > [No] ... executive board is going to ... "give it all back" > when the promised-land technology comes to pass. > ... the benefits cost-wise are for the service providers, not for the > customers. Well why can't consumers band together, form a non-profit organization, and build their own phone network to provide service at cost? Amateur radio operators do this already. Subscriber equipment costs more than telephones, but you get free bandwidth. One could use microsatellites and radio links to provide enough capacity to get a network up to a critical mass of subscribers cheaply, then you could run fiber as your network grows to dwarf all others :-) Even with the expense of acquiring rights-of-way could be mitigated by asking for 'donations' from member/subscribers. - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. Internet: rhyre@attmail.com Amateur Radio: N3FGW UUCP: attmail!cinpmx!rhyre Snail Mail: 45150-0085 [ZIP code] or: att!cinoss1!rhyre Phone: +1 513 629 7288 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 08:41:29 edt From: jlangri@relay.nswc.navy.mil Subject: Re: Caller ID PC Boards Wanted In Volume 11 : Issue 317, Michael Almond writes: > I've seen several people mention that there are PC interface boards > for Caller ID. Would someone tell me the names and numbers for these > companies? Classmate-10 from MHE Systems is available from Bell Atlantic Business Supplies. Their phone is: 1 800 523 0552. I recently evaluated the Classmate-10 for my company. For a $50 bill, I was impressed. Jim Langridge | jlangri@relay.nswc.navy.mil | NICCS OA Synetics Corp. | (703) 663 2137 | jlangri 24 Danube Dr. | (703) 663 3050 (FAX) King George, VA.| 22485-5000 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy From: "Roy M. Silvernail" Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 21:45:06 CDT Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN Given the conflicting opinions about Prodigy and the STAGE.DAT file, I believe there is a fairly easy way to determine the truth. I have a TSR utility that will record every DOS call made by a program. If I had a Prodigy kit, I would run it under this TSR and examine the resulting DOS call log for unusual actions. If, indeed, the STAGE.DAT file is copying erased information, nothing untoward may be intended. However, if the logfile shows Prodigy's front-end snooping about on my hard drive partitions, I think that will speak for itself. Anybody got a spare (virgin) Prodigy kit to donate to the investigation? Roy M. Silvernail roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu roy@cybrspc.uucp (maybe!) [Moderator's Note: You are welcome to try this experiment, and by all means report back on the results, but the consensus here over the past two days in messages is that the whole thing is really a non-issue ... just a case of Prodigy grabbing up 'empty' space to store stuff. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 04:35:32 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer Organization: University of California, Berkeley > [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell gives 'inbound toll restriction' at > no charge. My two lines and my distinctive ringing number are > configured to automatically refuse collect or third number billing. PAT] I asked Pacific Bell about this a few months ago, and they said that they would only do it after I received at least $100 in phraudulent calls. You know, it costs them so much to flip that bit in my account profile. I think the real reason is that having my lines blocked would prevent ME from doing third number billing when that's what I really wanted, thus reducing their revenue. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu [Moderator's Note: IBT was glad to do it; the only thing I disliked was that they did it in the middle of a billing period. The bill which came the next month was a nightmare to read, with every single item pro-rated up to the date of the change, then charged again for the remaining days. They managed to screw up my Reach Out America and Reach Out World account when they stopped it and restarted it on the same day. Apparently 'flipping that bit' requires rebilling the whole account for the month. The brief instant AT&T was not the default carrier was sufficient to get Ma all aggravated and sending me letters about how much I could save by joining one of the plans, etc. It was a messy thing. I nearly always have record changes and service orders done on the cycle billing date to avoid the confusion. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Nigel Allen Subject: Georgia Relay Center Report Date: 28 Apr 91 23:10:18 I found the following message, which appears to be a press release from the Georgia Relay Center, on the FidoNet ABLED echo. The press release does not indicate who operates the relay center, so I do not know whether Southern Bell or another telephone company is running the service. (Perhaps it is being run under contract to the telephone companies by an outside organization, such as one that provides services to the deaf and hearing-impaired as well.) Thanks to Tzipporah Benavraham of 1:278/632.0 for posting it originally. 04/23 1213 GEORGIA RELAY CENTER REPORTS FEW PROBLEMS WITH NEW ... NORCROSS, GA (APRIL 23) - The new Georgia Relay Center that enables deaf, hearing-impaired and speech-impaired Georgians to hold telephone conversations with people who can hear has handled more than 8,000 calls since its April 1 opening. While the vast majority of callers have successfully reached the center, a few customers have encountered problems because they did not include the digits "1-800" when dialing the center's toll-free 800 numbers. Deaf, hearing-impaired or speech-impaired customers using Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf or "TDDs" reach the center by dialing 1-800-255-0056. Hearing callers using a regular telephone call 1-800-255-0135. Regardless of where in the state callers are located, they must dial the entire eleven digit toll-free TDD or hearing number to reach the center. The Georgia Relay Center operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. During a relay call, a communications assistant serves as a link between a hearing caller and a caller using a TDD. The assistant speaks to the hearing caller and types the conversation to the TDD user. The center only relays calls made between locations within the state of Georgia. Conversations relayed by the center are held in strict confidence. All calls made using the center are billed at AT&T or local telephone company rates, with a 25 percent discount applied to regular long-distance prices. There is no additional charge for the center's relay service. The Georgia Relay Center was established by the Georgia Public Service Commission. CONTACT: Dan Coulter, 404-810-7373 (office) or 404-995-3889 (after hours), or Bill Blair, 404-810-7241 (office) or 404-664-3623 (after hours). ------------------------------ From: Chip Yamasaki Subject: Noise on the Line Date: 30 Apr 91 01:22:33 GMT Organization: U.S. D.O.L - Occupational Safety & Health Admin. I've got a problem with REAL BAD bursts of noise (or something like it) on my system. The situation is this: I have an ITT 386 system running SCO Xenix (286, don't ask why) which I'll refer to as "the 386", and an ALR MultiAccess system running SCO Unix Sys V 3.2.2 which I'll refer to as "the 486". The 386 has 9 T2500 modems on a 16 line rotary with the interface locked in at 9600 baud and they are plugged into ports on ITTs MTS multiport cards. The 486 has 2 T2500s on non-rotary lines at 19,200 plugged into the ALRs multiport option boxes. The two systems have a direct cable at 9600 to log into the 486 from the 386. I am getting bursts of "noise" that are terrible when I dial in from home (25 miles, normally good lines) using a Codex 2400 bps or Telebit T2500 on a PC. The noise happens only occasionally and comes in occasional bursts. It happens more when I am in the 386 system and most when I am in the 486 from the 386. At first I thought it could be the rotary giving problems when another call comes in (and I still think that may be a contributor), but I get it on the 486 sometimes. Does anybody know anything about the T2500 that might contribute to the problem? Does anybody know anything about problems with noise on rotary lines when a call comes in to a neighboring number? Does anybody know anything about problems with SCOs serial port drivers that might make them generate garbage if they are under stress? Any other ideas? Any help would be greatly appreciated. This is driving me nuts! Charles "Chip" Yamasaki chip@oshcomm.osha.gov ------------------------------ From: John Nagle Subject: Conference Bridges - State of the Art Date: 30 Apr 91 03:54:42 GMT What are some good references to read on current low-noise conference bridge technology? MCI is now offering 300-party conference calls; how is this handled? I know there have been recent advances in microprocessor controlled conference bridges designed to handle the psychophysics and social aspects of the problem better, and need more info. John Nagle ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 09:16 EDT From: "Robert M. Hamer" Subject: New Area Code Won't Work From Hotel I recently stayed in the Omni Newport News (in Newport News, VA) while doing four days of cousulting there. (It is a very nice hotel. I like Omnis.) While there, I wanted to call my wife, who is currently staying in a Residence Inn, outside of Princeton, NJ. (Try selling a house in Virginia, buying in New Jersey, all the while when both of us travel on business, and her "home" since December has been a Residence Inn.) That Residence Inn is in area code 908, recently split off from 201, still reachable via permissive dialing through area code 201. I dialed 908-xxx-xxxx, and got an ITT-Metromedia operator, who told me that I couldn't dial that number from wherever I was (and he really didn't know where I was, either.) I tried it again, and got the same result. I called the hotel operator and front desk, who assured me that I should just be able to dial the phone number and everything should work automatically as it usually does in a hotel. I tried it again and got the same result. At that point I thought, "Ah, ha! Perhaps some table either in the hotel's PBX doesn't know about area code 908, or some table at ITT-Metromedia (who obviously handles the hotel's long distance) doesn't know about 908, so I dialed the call as a201-xxx-xxxx. Bingo. It worked. I wrote a letter to the manager, dropped it off at the front desk. I stayed there three more days, and never heard from the manager. I wonder if he/she tossed the letter in the wastebasket. However, this is another instance where I feel sorry for the poor everyday consumer who barely knows that there are multiple long distance companies, has no idea that 10xxx codes are available, and has no idea that area codes have been split, ever. I doubt that it would have occurred to me that the area code table might be wrong had I not been some sort of telecom phreak. Has anyone else had a similar experience? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #320 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29567; 1 May 91 3:30 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02485; 1 May 91 1:50 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac26429; 1 May 91 0:44 CDT Date: Wed, 1 May 91 0:01:28 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #321 BCC: Message-ID: <9105010001.ab08464@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 1 May 91 00:01:09 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 321 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Metro HighBill Has an AOS! [Douglas Scott Reuben] Follow-Me Call Forwarding [Scott Hinckley] Bay Area Cellular [Steve Forrette] Re: Bay Area Cellular [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30-APR-1991 01:04:06.73 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Metro HighBill has an AOS! Tired of COCOTs which force you to use some slimey high priced Alternate Operator Service? Decided to buy a carphone to avoid getting overcharged on your calling card? Well, if you Roam into Metro Mobile's Northeast system, or Cell One's Boston system, a nice little AOS-like firm will take the number you are trying to call, a credit card or calling card, place the call for you, and bill you for the privilege. How much does all this cost? A mere $1.95 per minute! Well, actually, this is not all that bad. Here's what happened: I forgot to set my phone back to the "A" carrier in Connecticut (as many may have heard, my *favorite* cell co ;) ), and instead came into their system "looking" like a "B" customer from GTE Mobilnet/San Francisco. Normally, or should I say, previously, this was never a problem. As GTE Mobilnet/SF does not, to my knowledge, have a roaming agreement with Metro Highbill, the call would always be intercepted and instructions given to make a free call to *611 to see if they can set you up for temporary service. Presently, however, this no longer happens. When I turned on my phone and tried calling myself (to see if it was working), I got connected to someone who identified herself ONLY as "The Roaming Operator", and the following conversation ensued: Operator> This is the roaming operator, can I have the number you are calling? Me> Ummm ... "roaming operator" ... I'm not roaming [which was wrong]. Is this Metro Mobile? [Since it was 11PM, and Metro would never hear of 24-hour customer service, I found it odd that a person was there to take calls]. Op> Yes, sir, we are associated with them. What is the number you are trying to call? Me> Err... 856-2655 Op> Sir, I NEED the area code to complete your call... Me> The same area code that Metro is in ... I always dial this way ... 203! [not knowing that this wasn't Metro] Op> I will NEED the complete number, area code first, then the number ... Me> (tell her the number again) ... By the way, why can't I dial this myself, I always used to... Op> (no answer) ... I need your calling card or a credit card. Me> [Ok, now this was getting weird] Huh? Why? Who IS this? Metro Mobile never asked for this sort of info before!? Op> Sir, do you want me to place the call for you or not? (very rudely) Me> Well, I'm not giving my card number out to just anyone at the other end of the phone. Who are you and what will this cost me? Op> It will cost approximately $1.95 per minute. What is your card number? Me> Who are you? Op> I want to know your card number (!!!!!!! - pretty pathetic!) Me> Look, there is obviously a problem here. I am a Metro Mobile/CT customer. Have been for a few years. This never happened before. I want to tell customer service about this when ... Op> (cutting me off) Sir, the number for customer service for Metro Mobile is 688-xxxx [can't recall, I use the 800 number]. Thank you. [and then she hung up.] I don't like being hung up on, so I called back, told her what I think of being hung up on, she said nothing, and then I repeated my demand to know who I was dealing with: Op> You are dealing with Cellular One. Our number is (617) 890-1725. ...so I said "Thank You" as if I was glad to get rid of her (which I was), and waited until today to call the number. The 617-890 prefix is used, in part, by Cell One/Boston. They are owned, I believe, by Southwestern Bell's Cellular outfit. The person I talked to said this was a new system, started a few weeks ago, called "Roam Express". It is intended to collect all roamers which do not have roaming agreements as they enter a service area, and allow them to place calls through their calling cards or credit cards, for $1.95 per minute. All that really happens is that instead of the call being sent to a recording which says "Call customer service to set up roaming", the call is sent to one of the operators, who will take your card number and place the call for you. They don't do an ESN check or anything like that (although they said they may do so in the future. I'm not sure it is really necessary since you pay the bill directly via your credit/calling card and are NOT billed via your mobile company.) Nothing was stated about RECEIVING calls, but this should be possible. ie, "Roam Express" can have an 800 number that you call into or something. Metro seems to be doing something with its roam ports -- if you call its 203-930-7626 port, and enter a GTE/SF number (415-710-2xxx), rather than get the usual message "The mobile number you are attempting to reach has either left the car or travelled beyond the service area", the call just "dies". No ring or anything. I *suspect* that they may be re-routing all calls to "B" roamers which do not have pre-existing roaming agreements to "Roam Express", but that the system isn't fully in place yet. Cell One/Boston, which according to Roam Express also has this system has not changed the procedure by which "B" calls are rejected at the port - ie, you call the 617-633-7626 port, enter a 415-710-2xxx number, and you will get intercepted right away. Roam Express claims that they are presently serving Metro Mobile/Northeast (that's: CT, RI, Western Mass, and Southeastern Mass,like New Bedford, etc.), and Cell One/Boston, one area of Florida, a system in Colorado, and a few of the upstate or midstate NY systems. (I tried the US Cellular system for Poughkeepsie, which comes in around the mountains surrounding Kent, CT along US-7, and they didn't have this, so perhaps they are referring to Albany and areas further north. The NYC system, the Orange County system, and the US Cell system all don't have it, and the next one north is Albany. Of course, I believe US Cell accepts "B" roamers, at least from GTE, so there is no need for Roam Express there ...) New York City's system should get this by next week (Metro One), and Cell One/South Jersey by the middle of May. The rates are the same all over: $1.95 per minute. I am not sure if they bill for incomplete calls or not. There is no daily roam charge. The $1.95 is high enough to cover the airtime charges as well as the toll charges and I suspect make a good deal of profit on the longer calls. (Perhaps the cell companies charge Roam Express for airtime? Maybe that's why the "roam operator" who I initially spoke with rushed me off the phone ... hmmm.) In any event, it seems like a useful system, but the deceptive way they try to get your business by pretending to be the local mobile company and not disclosing the rates until you ask reminds me a LOT of an AOS. They already have a message which says "Metro Mobile, one moment while you are connected to the roaming operator", and thus they could easily have a message saying "You are being transferred to an operator who can place calls for you. The rates are XXXX, and you will be billed separately, on your credit or calling card, for these calls." And $1.95 per minute seems a bit high, although not much more than you pay Hertz or someone to rent a phone. Roaming is a bad enough already; I don't need yet ANOTHER company trying to make a quick dollar off of roaming and to do it in a way which an AOS outfit would be proud of. It figures Metro Highbill would be one of the first to sign up! :) (Yet oddly, they don't assess a daily roam charge to other *"A"* roamers, at least not the last time I checked. Weird ... I can't imagine Metro giving up $3 for anything!) Guess that's it ... if anyone has more info on this 'service', please let me know. Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: Scott Hinckley Subject: Follow-Me Call Forwarding Date: 30 Apr 91 13:13:31 GMT Reply-To: scott@hsvaic.boeing.com I was in Atlanta this weekend (interesting story about Bell/COCOT phone when I track down some more details) and saw follow-me call waiting advertised. You just call up (some number) at have your calls forwarded to you. If you change locations you call up and change your forwarding again. From the advertisement it did not appear that you needed to enable call forwarding from home before using the follow-me feature. Scott Hinckley Internet:scott@hsvaic.boeing.com|UUCP:...!uunet!uw-beaver!bcsaic!hsvaic!scott DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions, they do not|+1 205 461 2073 represent the opinions or feelings of Boeing or its management| BTN:461-2073 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 05:23:58 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Bay Area cellular I have to take exception to John Higdon's comments about the cellular situation in the San Francisco Bay Area. I too have been a customer of both systems, and find Cellular One to be much superior. This opinion is based mostly on my personal experiences, rather than quantitative data such as the number of cell sites, etc. In October 1987, I purchased my cellphone, an in-car NovaTel 385. I'm really pleased with the way it's worked for me over the years. (I'm told that they are a lot like credit reports - "either 1's or 10's, mostly 1's", but I got a 10, I guess.) I don't have much experience with 600 mW handhelds. I initially signed up with Cellular One, and had it for a couple of years. I then lived in Seattle for 18 months, and when I came back, I decided to give GTE a try, largely based on John's reports. It lasted for less than two months before I was so fed up that I switched back to Cellular One. There were several smaller reasons for switching, such as the inability of customer (dis)service to deal with technical problems (they said "call the people at the switch directly, using this number", which was never answered). But my main problem was with roaming. As we know, the "B" carriers have this wonderful thing called Follow Me Roaming. I often have the occasion to travel into the Sacramento market, and sometimes to LA, so roaming is very important to me. After hitting *18 in Sac, it would take around 15 minutes before calls would "roam", and of course it would reset sometime in the evening and be unusable and unactivatable for a few hours. And when it was on, it sometimes just wouldn't forward. I had instructed someone to call me if there were changes in a meeting schedule, and hit the roof when I found out that I wasted an hour of my time going to meet him when he tried in vain to reach me. The "A" carriers in California and Nevada had a really slick system called Super Cellular. Your calls forward to you whereever you are. All you do is hit SEND when you enter a new market, and forwarding is activated *instantly*. Not in 15 minutes, not in 15 seconds, but right away, reliably, every time. Plus, you get all your custom calling features as well, something Follow Me Raoming didn't offer. I heard talk that the B systems in California were working on something like this, and maybe it's working now, but that's a couple of years later. As far as coverage, I found that Cellular One was superior. Perhaps GTE was better at the far edge "fringe" areas, but I was having problems in the middle of town! For one thing, Cellular One had coverage through the Caldecot Tunnel, since 1987 (GTE got it in 1990). When I first saw this advertised, I thought it was pretty much a gimmick, but I've been surprised just how many times it's come in handy. John's San Jose home is about an hour away from the tunnel, so his priorities are probably different. Just after getting my Cellular One account reactivated, I made my last "B" call to cancel my GTE account. When asked why I was switching to CellOne, I mentined the signal quality issue. Maybe someone was interfering for dramatic effect (:-)), but the static was incredible on the line. We could barely hear each other. And I was on I-880 in Oakland, hardly an out-of-the-way place. And the worst part was that my left arm would get this voilent twitch every time I wrote GTE right after "Pay to the Order of" on my checks. I'm sure John has similar stories with the carriers reversed. Maybe we're both right, and it's just that each carrier has concentrated on a different end of the bay. I'm looking forward to hearing of his CellOne horror stories! Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 10:43 PDT From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Bay Area Cellular Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows On Apr 30 at 5:23, Steve Forrette writes: > There were several smaller reasons for switching, [from GTE to > Cellular One] such as the inability > of customer (dis)service to deal with technical problems (they said "call > the people at the switch directly, using this number", which was never > answered). But now it is the other way around. I recently had an unusual problem at an area known to be good for reception. I got right through to GTE repair service, they took the report and called me back at home twice in the coming days to follow up. I also got an internal number for reporting any other reception problems. At the time I turned off my last Cellular One account, people who took reception reports always told me to have my radio checked because "since Cellular One's system is so superior," the problem had to be with my equipment. > But my main problem was with roaming. The only trouble I have ever had with roaming (the *18 "follow me roaming" seems to work just fine) was when I was on Cellular One. About half the carriers in California refused to give me roaming privleges unless I coughed up with a credit card. I understand that that has changed, but an associate with CellOne still complains that he has trouble roaming on "A" carriers in other states. I have never had problems with the "B" carriers. > Plus, you get all your custom calling features as well, something Follow Me > Raoming didn't offer. I heard talk that the B systems in California were > working on something like this, and maybe it's working now, but that's a > couple of years later. It is. And it does not matter who is first, it is the present that counts. > For one thing, Cellular One had coverage through the > Caldecot Tunnel, since 1987 (GTE got it in 1990). When I first saw this > advertised, I thought it was pretty much a gimmick, but I've been surprised > just how many times it's come in handy. John's San Jose home is about an > hour away from the tunnel, so his priorities are probably different. And did they advertise it. Every single commercial trumpeted coverage through the Caldecot Tunnel, as if nothing else mattered. Of course, this major technological feat is accomplished by locating a cell site at one end. Of course, Steve is correct: my home is an hour away from this magic spot, and besides when I travel up there I can go directly to the destination at either end without going through the tunnel (just like I can go to either Oakland or San Francisco without using a bridge). The problem at the time was that Cellular One did not have acceptable coverage in my driveway! I was very happy that Cellular One had conquered the Caldecot Tunnel, but it was most disconcerting to lose calls as I was reaching my home. I live in the Willow Glen district of San Jose -- hardly a fringe or out of the way place! > I'm sure John has similar stories with the carriers reversed. Maybe we're > both right, and it's just that each carrier has concentrated on a different > end of the bay. I'm looking forward to hearing of his CellOne horror > stories! No real horror stories; I just did not feel that Cellular One (despite the aggressive advertising) was really providing me with the service I was paying for. I had bad luck with roaming, coverage, and customer service. But the voice mail is a little cheaper! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #321 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02232; 1 May 91 4:30 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04506; 1 May 91 2:57 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac02485; 1 May 91 1:50 CDT Date: Wed, 1 May 91 0:52:44 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #322 BCC: Message-ID: <9105010052.ab20813@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 1 May 91 00:52:30 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 322 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Radio Interference to Phones [Julian Macassey] RJ-11 Jacks in Hotel Rooms [Steve Forrette] Has Anyone Heard of This? [John Higdon] GTE Calling Card [Ken Jongsma] To Readers in Ithaca, NY, USA [Steve Gaarder] Help Needed With AT&T PBX [Arnette P. Baker] Radio Shack Computerized Phone Accountant [Mark J. Elkins] MCI Around Town Eliminated - No Advance Notice [Bruce Waldman] Cable & Wireless 800 Service [Steve Forrette] Tele-Trivia: Why Cotton Balls in Handsets?? [Dave Mc Mahan] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julian Macassey Subject: Radio Interference to Phones Date: 29 Apr 91 17:07:06 GMT Reply-To: Julian Macassey Organization: Crepuscular Insomniacs Hollywood California U.S.A. There has been much banter recently on the subject of interference to phones by various radio transmitters. I sent some documents about this to the original poster and let the slanging continue. Late last week I received my copy of "QST" the "American Rifleman" mag of the Radio Amateur Association in the US (American Radio Relay League). There on Page 22 of the May 1991 issue was an article "Basic Steps Towards Eliminating Telephone RFI". This is not a wonderful article. It has a few things wrong. Let me just state a few things about telephone interference. I have had some experience with telephone RFI. I used to work for some phone manufacturers. We used to get customers calling in and whining because their phones were terrible phones and lousy radio receivers. Most reported cases of RFI are from Commercial AM (Medium Wave) broadcast. There are a few reasons for this: 1. They are on most of the time. 2. They use AM which can be understood when rectified unlike FM/CW/SSB etc. 3. The Broadcast stations run higher power and sites once safely in the boonies pushing 50Kw are now often smack in the middle of Yuppie-ville. Nothing whines like an unhappy Yuppie - They have the time, they have the money, they are the lawyers. If you use real phones - Not gas station give-aways - you should have few RFI problems. If you do persist in using a phone sensitive to RFI, it can be fixed, it just requires more skill. The phone police will not be happy if you open a phone and insert a capacitor, this contravenes FCC Part 68 etc. But if you don't tell people that you are breaking the law with a hot soldering iron, they will only love you when the problem goes away. Unfortunately, many people complain of interference when there is none. These people will cause much grief as they are hard to satisfy. I have a collection of three documents which our esteemed Moderator may wish to run in the digest. I can always e-mail them to maidens (and masters) in distress. The docs are as follows: (1) An ASCII copy of FCC Field Bulletin FO-10. Dated 1986. About 7K in length. (2) An ASCII copy of Bell System Practice (BSP) 500-150-100 " Radio Signal Suppression for Telephone Sets". Dated 1974. About 10K in length. This was the official "Ma Bell Party-line". Has good advice in it. (3) An ASCII copy of a February, 1988 article in {Popular Communications Magazine}. This is written by myself and gives some hints on handling the dreaded RFI problem. About 12K in length. Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian 742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice (213) 653-4495 [Moderator's Note: If you wish to send them along, they'll be put in the archives where interested readers can obtain them. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 20:08:29 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: RJ-11 Jacks in Hotel Rooms The recent message about the Comdial hotel phones with an RJ11 data jack on the side reminded me of an experience I had a couple of years ago at Motel 6. At the time, they had a radio commercial devoted to their telephone policies. "Free local calls, no surcharge for calling card calls, and all our phones use modular jacks, so you can plug in your computer and send in all your orders." I was surprised - a general audience commercial talking about modular jacks, data transfer, etc. Their phones don't have extra jacks like the Comdial phones, but they are plugged into modular jacks, so you just unplug the phone and plug in your device. The problem was that the little release clips were broken of the male end of the RJ11 connector on each end (as if this is going to prevent someone from taking the phone!). I complained to the front desk, explaining not only that it was silly, but that their own commercials specifically touted the ability for the guest to plug in his own device. The first response was "What? Why would you need to plug in your computer to the phone?" After explaining the concept of "dialing in", the response was "I don't know nothin' about the phones - sorry." (Exact English preserved.) As a side note, I also had my voice card with me, and set up voice mail for my room extension. My mom was taken aback when calling, but somehow has come to expect things like this from me. Too bad the front desk never had the occasion to call my room when I wasn't there. Their reaction would have been priceless! Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 22:18 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Has Anyone Heard of This? For the fourth time in about as many weeks, I have received a pre-recorded marketing spiel on my 800 line (probably directed at the POTS number). It is the same thing every time, but the fact that it comes in on this particular line indicates that the calling entity has no idea who or what it is calling. There is no way that the outside world can associate me with this line. The female voice indicates that she has tried to reach me five times and this is the last time (on every one of the calls). To claim my prize it will be necessary to call a number and give my validation number, "C5" (which is spoken in a voice that sounds like a Hollywood alien on drugs -- supposed to be a computer voice?). I must do this within 24 hours to claim my prize, which will otherwise be given to someone else. The number, 312 292-9000, (Patrick -- I realize Chicago is a big place, but have you by chance heard of this scam?) is always busy. I suspect that if one gets through, he will be directed to a 900 number. If anyone wants to use my "validation number", be my guest. You need not impersonate me, since there is no possible way the operation has any ability to connect me with the number it called to reach me. But be sure you let us know what it is all about! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: I found out only a few things. All the numbers between 312-292-9000 and 312-292-9049 *always* are busy. The first couple dozen immediatly cut to a busy signal when dialed; the numbers in the upper range (9040 through 9049) click, appear to get forwarded somewhere, then also return a busy signal. The first thirty or so of the numbers are listed two ways: 'Combined Credit Service, Inc' and 'American Consumer Services', both of 2320 North Damen Avenue in Chicago. The remainder of the numbers (from about 9035 up to 9049) give a CNA report of 'no record on file' (as opposed to non-pub). The numbers from 9050 up to at least 9099 are not in service. I tried several of the numbers just now (midnight) and got a busy on everything I tried; my assumption is the numbers are out of order or perhaps not in service but incorrectly programmed in the switch, etc. If I think of it, I will check out 2320 North Damen in the criss cross at my office tomorrow. There seem to be very few working numbers in the 312-292 exchange. I tested at random and mostly got 'not in service' or 'has been disconnected' messages. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: GTE Calling Card Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 7:33:19 EDT From: Ken Jongsma I should preface this by saying that I worked for GTE in a previous incarnation. Although the division I worked in was not connected with telephone operations, it too ocasionally exhibited certain 'GTE' traits. But I digress... Today I received my 'new' GTE credit card. Nothing has changed (number wise), so the only reason I can see that they sent it was that it has a new graphic design on it. (Well, that's enough to change _my_ calling habits. How about yours?) Anyway, some comments: 1) GTE is trying perpetuate the myth that AT&T started about eight years ago, when AT&T went to great expense trying to convince everyone that they no longer had a telephone credit card, but really had a 'calling card'. Several years later, AT&T was quoted in one of the industry trades complaining that people weren't treating their 'calling cards' like credit cards. Sheesh! Hey Folks: If it looks like a credit card, it's a credit card. My Amoco card only works at Amoco and not at Sears. It's also a credit card and not a post payment automotive services finance device. 2) GTE has dropped the international number from the card with no explanation. 3) Consider the following quote from the card instructions: With your GTE Calling Card, convenient, economical calling priviledges become as close as the nearest phone. Whether you're using a public or private phone, calls with your card go through quickly and easily! When you make calls with your GTE Calling Card, you also avoid the higher charges associated with collect calls or billing to a third number. And, you'll never have to cut your calls short because you've run out of change. Report all lost or stolen [...] How to use your GTE Calling Card: [Paraphrased - krj] 1. Press "0" plus the area code and number you're calling. 2. Wait for the tone and enter your GTE Calling Card number. Not one word about COCOTs and the dangers of blindly entering your card number after the tone. Ouch! Then again, maybe they like the commissions they get for billing COCOT calls. :( Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 14:44:07 EDT From: Steve Gaarder Subject: To Readers in Ithaca, NY, USA Is there any interest among my fellow TELECOM readers in Ithaca in a local telecom-related mailing list? We could pass around local telecom trivia, and perhaps arrange some group activities, such as a tour of one of the local step-by-step switches. Let me know, Steve Gaarder gaarder@theory.tn.cornell.edu ------------------------------ From: Arnette P Baker +1 708 224 6437 Subject: Help Needed With AT&T PBX Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 15:41:00 GMT Somehow since I work for AT&T (in the switching division) I am considered a family expert on "everything" phone related - even if I'm not! My sister called today because her law firm is having "trouble" figuring out how to program their new AT&T PBX. What they want to do, and what their AT&T sales rep. told them she had no idea how to do, is to have their system provide distinctive (two-ring) ringing for outside calls and regular (single ring) for inside calls. Their system as she described it to me is DID AT&T PBX 75XE (or 7500XE) with DCS and a T1 link between their Belleville and St. Louis offices. They have extension dialing between the two office buildings located about 15 miles apart. If they dial "9" they are dropped to the Belleville CO, but if they dial "0" they are routed to a SWB (St. Louis Mo.) operator. This seems strange to me, but it is one of those crazy Intra-LATA, InterState set ups. Anyway, I figured I would get more accurate information more quickly from this group than from trying to work my way through sales/support bureacracy when it really isn't my job. Thanks, Arnette Baker AT&T Network Systems kityss@ihlpf.att.com ------------------------------ From: Mark J Elkins Subject: Radio Shack Computerized Phone Accountant Date: 30 Apr 91 16:29:17 GMT Reply-To: Mark J Elkins Organization: Mark's Machine (Working for Olivetti Africa) Whilst in the USA (I live in Johannesburg), I purchased a 'Computerized Phone Accountant' from Radio Shack. It is attached to the phone line and then will print onto its internal paper printer all call details such as number dialed and call duration or call duration on incoming calls. What I was really looking for was this type of machine with an RS232 interface so I could suck the info into my Unix box. I've already written software that can work out the cost from number/time/duration info. Anyway - the CPA is noisy and likes to print out info whenever the receiver is taken off hook - even when no numbers are dialed. The unit I bought has already worn its inker dry and the thing really eats paper. I'd really like to either 'add' an RS232 interface or find an alternative with such an interface. Can anyone enlighten me? The only other modification I'd like to do to this is to get it to monitor up to about four lines. If 'mje@mje99' bounces - try 'mje@olsa99.uucp' - which seems to be on most maps. Olivetti Systems & Networks, Unix Support - Africa UUCP: {uunet,olgb1,olnl1}!olsa99!mje (Mark Elkins) mje@olsa99.UUCP (Postmaster) Tel: +27 11 339 9093 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 00:25:11 -0400 From: Bruce Waldman Subject: MCI Around Town Eliminated - No Advance Notice Well they've done it again. Look carefully at your phone bill this month, and you'll see that calls made >= April 1 are now surcharged 75 cents, not 25 cents. It was just a short time ago that they imposed the 25 cent surcharge, again with no prior notification. Of course, the MCI representative will inform you that you should have known, because it was clearly stated on your March bill. I dug it out, of course, and there is no hint anywhere on the bill! Like last time, they offered to credit the difference ... it never came last time, and I won't hold my breath this time either. That's it. MCI is really screwed up when it comes to implementing these decisions or they think that we are too stupid to notice. And of course, I probably wouldn't have noticed either if the bill wasn't so large. Bruce Waldman bw@gnu.ai.mit.edu bw@harvarda.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 91 20:20:15 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Cable & Wireless 800 Service With the discussion of Sprint's recent rate increases, I thought I'd tout the carrier I have, Cable & Wireless. (No relation, just a happy customer). They charge $10/month, plus usage. six second billing, with a thirty second minimum per call. Rates are: day $.19/min, evening $.16/min, night/weekend $.13/min. These are mileage insensitive, and both inter and intra state. Basic service covers 48 states. For $10/month extra, you can get a "programmable" option, which allows you to change the number your 800 calls are routed to as often as you wish. This is the only service of this type that I know of, although I think MCI recently announced plans to offer such a thing in the future. Also, they gave me the number I wanted without any hassle since it was unassigned. You can call them at 800/486-8686. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: Dave Mc Mahan Subject: Tele-Trivia: Why Cotton Balls in Handsets?? Organization: Dave McMahan @ NetCom Services Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1991 20:21:00 GMT I have been asked why standard desk top telephones have a cotton ball stuffed into the handset. Unscrewing the earpiece (not the microphone) gives access to this little wonder. Why is it there? Dave McMahan mcmahan@netcom.com {apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!mcmahan ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #322 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17586; 2 May 91 4:46 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03844; 2 May 91 3:14 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad31589; 2 May 91 2:06 CDT Date: Thu, 2 May 91 2:03:51 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #324 BCC: Message-ID: <9105020203.ab08555@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 2 May 91 02:03:23 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 324 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Mark Teegarden] Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Gordon Burditt] Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Arup Mukherjee] Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Syd Weinstein] Re: Online Services [Gregory G. Woodbury] Re: Georgia Relay Center Report [John R Hall] Re: Georgia Relay Center Report [Peter L. Thomas] Re: Georgia Relay Center Report [Arnold Robbins] Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN [W. H. Sohl] Re: A Mystery Refund From MCI [herbison@ultra.enet.dec.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Teegarden Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute, IN Date: 1 May, 1991 00:00:00 In article hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes: > I was involved in early beta testing of Prodigy, was a charter member, > and have watched HOURS of Prodigy traffic on data line monitors. I > have NEVER seen any information transmitted that was not typed by the > user, or originated within the software. I've never seen ANYTHING > that even remotely gave me the impression that information from > previously-delete files was being transmitted. As you have pointed out, you were then associated with Prodigy and probably have at least some small ties with the company from your association. This will make your opinion/experience invalid in the eyes of some people on the net (that's just the breaks, pal). Also, you pointed out being involved with Prodigy very early on. Software could have since changed. But, since you mentioned the use of a data line monitor ... Have any of you Prodigy users out there tried putting a data analyzer or some other form of monitor on the serial line between your modem and computer? Would you be willing to risk doing this to discover what really does go out over the line? I would be interested in knowing the result as would many other people here watching this thread. If possible it would be good to know how many characters are transmitted to Prodigy and even a capture of the characters sent (is most likely compressed, which is why it probably takes some time). I am sure that there are some people who would be glad to take on the task of analyzing any data you should find that would normally go out on the line. If it is true that these files are being uploaded to Prodigy, there should be some physical evidence in the actual volume of transmission. Normally there should be very little transmission to Prodigy. If you are going to make the claims against Prodigy, please take some time to back them up. It shouldn't be that hard, and everyone following the thread will appreciate hearing the results. -- -- Mark Teegarden mjt@acd4 uunet!acd4!mjt mjt@acd.com -- P.S. Could someone please post a wiring diagram for an RS232 Y-cable that could be used to attach the serial line of a second PC to monitor the serial transmissions of the first one that is running the Prodigy Software without wreaking havoc on the communication to and from the modem? Can this be done inexpensively? ------------------------------ From: Gordon Burditt Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? Date: 1 May 91 20:58:23 GMT Organization: Gordon Burditt > [Moderator's Note: Thanks very much for sending along this fascinating > report for the readers of TELECOM Digest. I've always said, and still > believe that the proprietors of any online computer service have the > right to run it any way they want -- even into the ground! -- and Prodigy doesn't have the right to rip off copies of my company's software from its customers. Regardless of what's in the service contract, people can't sign away rights they don't have in the first place, and third-party commercial software doesn't generally come with redistribution rights. If Prodigy is uploading the contents of hard disks, how can they avoid doing this? Proprietary software need not consist entirely of .COM and .EXE files, or any other formula based on file names to avoid. > that users are free to stay or leave as they see fit. But it is really > disturbing to think that Prodigy has the nerve to ripoff private stuff > belonging to users, at least without telling them. But as I think > about it, *who* would sign up with that service if they had bothered > to read the service contract carefully and had the points in this > article explained in detail? PAT] I suspect that MOST contracts are written in a way that no sane person would sign up for it if they assumed that the other party (who wrote the contract) would take full advantage of the terms to their disadvantage. For example, PSI offered an e-mail service where you were allowed to send mail TO psi and FROM psi. Nobody else! (That they didn't mean it that way is besides the point). Telephone companies can change your phone number at any time. Would you subscribe if you knew they're going to do it every half hour? Would you buy expensive electronic equipment from someone who was going to sell lists of names, addresses, and what was purchased to organized crime? I was inclined to believe the uninitialized-disk-space theory. The test with a fresh-formatted floppy (assuming that this means what everyone but MS-DOS thinks it does - a destructive format that erases data) seems to disprove that. I wonder, however, about uninitialized memory. A lot of things showing up in clean-wipe tests seem to be data likely to be accessed during boot. Could someone prepare a bulk-erased and then formatted floppy, delete all TSRs from memory, run a program to clear user-available memory (without booting), then install Prodigy on the floppy? I'd expect to find directory contents (including the hard disk) of directories in the path, read while scanning for commands. I would like to see evidence that this data actually appears on the line. Since it's compressed, how about demonstrating sufficient volume of transmission back to Prodigy? Of course, it's possible they are hiding a few bytes in each packet ACK. It is, of course, possible to conduct "marketing research" on the contents of customers' disks without any huge STAGE.DAT file with "incriminating evidence" in it, just given a proprietary program to access the service. Every five minutes, the service could send a query "does this user have ", and all the program has to do is look around and send back one bit with an answer. This, they match against the registered owner list. So what if they don't have a trademark on the file names for Lotus 1-2-3? It could also upload files deemed interesting while the user is reading the interesting advertisments :-). Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon ------------------------------ From: Arup Mukherjee Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? Date: 2 May 91 00:12:28 GMT Reply-To: Arup Mukherjee Organization: University of Pennsylvania In article overlf!emanuele@kb2ear. ampr.org (Mark A. Emanuele) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 311, Message 1 of 4 > doubt upon that. The E-mail controversy started because people were > finding mail they sent with comments about Prodigy or the E-mail, > especially negative ones, didn't ever arrive. Now Prodigy is saying > they don't actually read the mail, they just have the computer scan it > for key terms, and delete those messages because they are responsible > for what happens on Prodigy. They said WHAT? Did Prodigy "officially" admit this somewhere? I had a feeling that this might be happening, but I thought I was just getting paranoid! I remember that on one of the Prodigy boards someone posted a message saying that they had written to the FCC about the matter, and received a reply to the effect that Prodigy would be violating FCC rules if it were restricting private mail betweem two adults. Prodigy responded that they only did such things to bulletins, and private e-mail was never interefered with. Does anyone know of an admission to the contrary? ------------------------------ From: Syd Weinstein Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? Reply-To: syd@dsi.com Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc. Huntingdon Valley, PA Date: Wed, 1 May 1991 13:25:46 GMT Toby Nixon writes: > It's great fun on a multi-user > computer to open a new file for random access, and do a write to an > arbitrarily high record number -- the system allocates all of the > unused space in between to you, but doesn't erase it, so you can > merrily read through everything that the other users of the system > supposedly "deleted". If you're on a multiuser system, always use an > "erase" program that actually overwrites your files rather than just > deleting them, or everything you delete will be available to other > users of the system. I know its off the topic, but ... if you are on a multi-user system and this technique works for you ... switch. That is terrible security and the vendor deserves not to be in business (don't name names, I know several which work this way). Since most of our multi-user readers are on UNIX, this trick will not work on UNIX systems. Two reasons: First, UNIX does not allocate the intervening space in the file. It just allocates the blocks you write to. The OS returns 0's for all other blocks read that are not yet allocated. Second, UNIX does not write partial sectors, nor depend on the contents of the file to mark end of file. However, root using the raw partition can always farm the free space looking for interesting info, but then it can also look at all the files and look for interesting info too. Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900 syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235 ------------------------------ From: "Gregory G. Woodbury" Subject: Re: Online Services Organization: Wolves Den UNIX Date: Wed, 1 May 1991 13:25:37 GMT John Higdon wrote about using uucp and Usenet to take the place of the "high-cost" online services like GEnie and CI$ (I like that particular visual pun). While many (or even most) local BBSes or Usenet servers are "free", this is not always the case and it may get worse. UUnet and UUpsi and Portal and others are Usenet providers that charge (sometimes quite a bit) for feeding you Usenet and providing uucp connectivity. As of July 1st, add another one to the list. I was just informed by "mcnc" (formerly one of the "backbone cabal" sites) that to continue my uucp/usenet connectivity, it will cost me $200/month! Adding this insult to the recent injury of losing RTI as a newsfeeder in this region has the news readers of the are understandably confused. My site, for one, cannot afford to pay that kind of money for news, and it is unlikely that I will start charging for access (since that would allow GTE to change my computer line to a "business line" which I also cannot afford). The only hope is that I will find some friendly site at a local university (Hi Duke!) which will allow me to get the full feed from them that I currently get from mcnc. Since Duke is part of the MCNC run "CONCERT" subnet of SURAnet, they may not want to allow general public use of the resources that they pay for. If ISDN does get into the home, and "toasternet" ever gets made, it will only come about if some changes are made in the cost recovery algorithms used by the phone companies. Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...mcnc!wolves!ggw [use the maps!] Domain: ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw%wolves@mcnc.mcnc.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 91 09:33:15 EDT From: John R Hall Subject: Re: Georgia Relay Center Report Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories AT&T is the service provider for the Dual Party Relay in Georgia as is the case in Alabama, California, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Montana, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Virginia. ------------------------------ From: "Peter L. Thomas" Subject: Re: Georgia Relay Center Report Organization: The Aerospace Corporation Date: 1 MAY 91 07:34:55 In article , Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1. fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) writes... > The press release does not indicate who operates the relay center, so > I do not know whether Southern Bell or another telephone company is > running the service. (Perhaps it is being run under contract to the This service is fairly new, and I know very little about aside from the surcharge for it which appears on every Southern Bell customer's bill. This leads me to think that Southern Bell is at least subsidizing the service, if it is not running it directly. Pete ------------------------------ Reply-To: arnold@audiofax.com From: Arnold Robbins Subject: Re: Georgia Relay Center Report Date: 1 May 91 16:28:25 GMT Organization: AudioFAX, Inc., Atlanta Georgia In article Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1. fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) writes: > The press release does not indicate who operates the relay center, so > I do not know whether Southern Bell or another telephone company is > running the service. Southern Bell runs it. I posted an article here with a copy of the announcement as it came in my phone bill a few months back. > The Georgia Relay Center was established by the Georgia Public > Service Commission. It is paid for by *all* Georgia customers of Southern Bell; there is a monthly surcharge of several cents. You'd have to check my original article for the exact rate. Arnold Robbins AudioFAX, Inc. Powers Ferry Road, Suite 200 / Marietta, GA. 30067 INTERNET: arnold@audiofax.com Phone: +1 404 618 4281 UUCP: emory!audfax!arnold Fax-box: +1 404 618 4581 ------------------------------ From: "24460-W. H. Sohl(L145" Date: Wed, 1 May 91 12:52:30 GMT Subject: Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN Reply-To: "24460-W. H. Sohl" Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ ac220@cleveland.freenet.edu (Rich Szabo) writes: > I am sketchy on how ISDN interacts and co-exists with Plain Old > Telephone Service. Does an ISDN line have a "phone number?" If so, > what happens if I dial this number from a Plain Old Telephone? Can an > ISDN line be used as a voice line so that I don't need a POTS line in > addition? The answer is absolutely YES. The ISDN line is an access technology that includes POTS if the line is ordered with the POTS capability. Major deployments of ISDN that have already occured and have been reported in the media include, McDonald's headquarters in Illinois, several major oil companies in Texas, and numerous other deployments around the USA. The estimate at this time is that there is around 100,000 ISDN lines installed. Most, if not all, of the installed lines are to business customers. Bill Sohl (K2UNK) || email Bellcore, Morristown, NJ || UUCP bcr!taichi!whs70 (Bell Communications Research) || or 201-829-2879 Weekdays || Internet whs70@taichi.cc.bellcore.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 91 13:47:36 PDT From: "B.J. 01-May-1991 1616" Subject: Re: A Mystery Refund From MCIok > Something interesting happened to me today ... this month's phone bill > included a $10 credit from MCI! A quick check of my various phone > lines indicates that I'm still with my chosen long distance carrier > (which isn't MCI). I didn't call and ask about it (don't look a gift This must be part of some judgment against MCI for slamming. In punishment for changing the long distance carrier for random telephone lines, someone is forcing them to give refunds to random telephone lines. B.J. [Moderator's Note: I don't really think this is the case. There may be a class-action suit against MCI for slamming, but I have not heard of it. But in class actions I am familiar with, the settlement usually calls for injured parties to at least submit some sort of claim form with the court and evidence of what occurred. Any other ideas? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #324 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17601; 2 May 91 4:46 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03844; 2 May 91 3:11 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31589; 2 May 91 2:05 CDT Date: Thu, 2 May 91 1:26:50 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #323 BCC: Message-ID: <9105020126.ab23498@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 2 May 91 01:26:40 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 323 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Why the Cotton Ball is There [Lots and Lots of You] Telemarketing Tip [John Higdon] Call Forwarding and Call Accounting [Steve Forrette] On the Road to Kansas and Back [Tony Harminc] Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Robert Dinse] Re: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993 [Guy Middleton] Re: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department [Dan Jacobson] Question About an Odd Number [Rob Knauerhase] Looking for WE 'pod' Speakerphone [Joe McGuckin] Crossed Line Woes [Clive Feather] A Stupid Touch-Tone Menu System [Roy Smith] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 2 May 91 0:07:17 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Why the Cotton Ball is There The question was: In article mcmahan@netcom.com (Dave McMahan) writes: > I have been asked why standard desk top telephones have a cotton ball > stuffed into the handset. Unscrewing the earpiece (not the microphone) > gives access to this little wonder. > Why is it there? The answers came from many of you. Here is a random sampling, and my thanks to all who wrote, even if you are not included below: From: Perry Stokes Subject: Re: Tele-Trivia: Why Cotton Balls in Handsets?? Date: 1 May 91 10:41:34 GMT Organization: The Free Software Foundation That is there for acoustic purposes , it helps keep the sound from traveling up to the earpiece. To understand what I mean, pull out the cotton and see if you can notice the difference. From: Jeff Bogart Date: 1 May 91 14:29:47 GMT The cotton balls suppress sound from the earpiece so that it does not feed back into the mouthpiece. Some feedback is necessary and most is controlled internally in the "network" (the little block with screws all over it). Try a four-wire phone for a wierd sensation - no audible feedback as you speak! From: Daniel A Margolis Date: Wed, 1 May 91 10:42:07 EDT Well I don't know if this is the "real" reason, but I think it's to keep the wires from rattling around. I have a handset with no cotton, and it makes a lot of noise. From: Gordon D Woods Date: Wed, 1 May 91 12:16:17 EDT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > Why is it there? To reduce acousticly generated sidetone. From: Chris Petrilli Date: 1 May 91 16:59:20 GMT Organization: Free Software Foundation The reason, I believe is that in conventional phones (i.e. those with carbon mikes) such as the Western Electric models sold by the Bell companies, the receiver is hollow, and without the cotton ball (or something else to absorb sound energy) you would get feedback from the ear piece to the mike. None of the "new" phones I have have this "feature", but the old Western Electric on the wall in the kitchen (which, BTW, has been there for 25 years and still works wonderfully, as long as you hit it once in a while to keep the carbon mike working correctly) does have the cotton ball "feature". From: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Wed, 1 May 91 10:01 PDT You may be disappointed at the low tech reason. The hollow handset forms an accoustic chamber behind the earpiece, which you will notice is open in the rear. This is not unlike a speaker enclosure. Just as you will notice that most speaker enclosures contain fiberglas or some other sound dampening material, the cotton in the handset is there for the same reason. Experiment: remove the cotton. You will notice an inferior, "peaky" sound on your calls. Replace the cotton and you will notice an improved, "flat" response. From: Mike Berger Date: Wed, 1 May 1991 18:48:30 GMT > Why is it there? Probably for the same reason aspirin bottles are stuffed with cotton: To keep it from rattling around. The wire running through the handset will stay in one place but can still be removed or replaced if necessary. From: Kurt Freiberger Date: 1 May 91 20:35:29 GMT Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University Well, they had to put it SOMEwhere!!!! 8-} Seriously, though, I believe that it is an attempt to reduce the feedback via that nice conduit from the earpiece to the microphone. The hybrid gives the proper level and they wouldn't want to rely on the acoustics. Cheers. [Moderator's Note: So it was either done to help with the accoustics or to serve as a strain relief for the wire inside. Take your pick. Or as Kurt says, they had to put it somewhere! Again, thanks to all who wrote. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Apr 91 22:01 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Telemarketing Tip It has been many glorious weeks since my last "Are you receiving the paper OK?" from the {San Jose Mercury}. A number of people have written to ask if I ever succeeded in making the calls stop and if so how it was done. The answer appears to be "yes" and the method was simple and obvious. It finally came to a crashing end when I called Pac*Bell and complained about it as harassment. One call to the business office resulted in calls to the Mercury and a number of followups to determine if the problem had been corrected. I suspect that if there are a number of complaints that Pac*Bell might just shut the operation down. Which brings me to the purpose of this message. I would strongly suggest and request that anyone in the San Francisco Bay Area who is fed up with the constant calls from the Mercury call the Pac*Bell business office and complain. This will accomplish two things. You should get no more calls from the telemarketer on that topic (which is what you really want), and you may be instrumental in shutting down the whole operation (which is what a lot of us would like). A clue that this action is dreaded by the telemarketer was the reaction I received when I so informed the head of the operation. He said point blank that he really would have preferred that I had not called "the telephone company". So, if you are tired of those {San Jose Mercury} calls, call the phone company. It may be as simple as that. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 19:25:51 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Call Forwarding and Call Accounting I recently signed up for Call Accounting with US Sprint. It costs $5 per month per account, no matter how many lines you have on the account. After dialing 1+ inter-LATA calls, a tone prompts for a code. When you sign up, you can request a code length of two to five digits, and have it such that any code of the appropriate length works, or only certain ones, effectively giving you a PIN for long distance calls. I've had it for a few weeks now, and I really like it. I've always had problems with remembering which calls needed to get billed out to customers, and which were mine. This will more than pay for itself by ending the calls I was eating because I wasn't sure. I should have thought about this before I ordered it, but this setup has a strange interaction with call forwarding. Since Sprint doesn't know that a call from my number resulted from call forwarding, the original caller is prompted to enter an account code if I forward to an inter-LATA destination. Fortunately, call forwarding will remember a 10XXX code, so I can always use AT&T for call forwarding when I need to. Another interesting point is that the call accounting works even from my cellular phone. I have Cellular One of SF, presubsribed to US Sprint (a configuration that I know Mr. Higdon is envious of), and I get prompted for the account code. This implies that Sprint is getting the ANI indicating my cellphone's directory number in real time. Otherwise, their switch would have no way of knowing to prompt for the code. A call a few months ago to one of the MCI 800 numbers mentioned in the Digest that reads back the ANI revealed that the directory number was NOT given, but some shared, undialable number was indicated instead. So, apparently the Cellular One switch is configured much like many PBXs, in that inter-LATA calls go direct to the long distance carrier, probably over T1, and the calling phone's ANI is delivered as well. But for intra-LATA or 800 calls, regular (shared) lines to Pacific Bell are used, and the ANI delivered is meaningless. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 13:17:04 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: On the Road to Kansas and Back > Going south on I-55, both phones went out of 'home' mode and into > roaming mode just south of Morris, IL, the outermost limit of the > Chicago service area. Not *the* Morris, IL - the home of the ESS trial in the 1960s ? Tony H. [Moderator's Note: Why yes, *the* Morris. It was also the home for many years of 'rate and route', the place long distance operators around the USA would call to get dialing information on obscure places not listed in their flip charts (this was long before every town and wilderness area was listed on the computer terminal.) Old-timers will recall that rate and route was accessed at 815 plus 141. Morris was a big beehive of activity for domestic long distance calls in the days before DDD; a lot like White Plains, NY was for international calls. On the same subject of my recent automobile trip, I recieved a note from Ray Bretthauer , but attempts to mail an answer to him bounced. He pointed out an error in my travel itinerary saying that I-40 could not have been correct. He assumed I meant I-70. Yes, Ray, I think I did mean that. We were on the highway which goes straight east and west from St. Louis to Kansas City. I-70 I think... then at the intersection of 54 we went south / southwest on it. Years ago as as child I remember this trip also, but then we went on US 66 much of the way. PAT] ------------------------------ From: nanook@eskimo.celestial.com (Robert Dinse) Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission Date: 29 Apr 91 18:19:59 GMT Organization: ESKIMO NORTH (206) 367-3837 SEATTLE WA. In article , fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) writes: > Now a phone call takes about 32 kb/s; let's say 50 kb/s to make the There are multiplexing schemes that only require 32kb/s for a voice channel but they destroy high speed data and fax so are rarely used in this country. The normal T1-cxr uses 64kb/s (8 bits times 8 Khz sample). > 20 phone calls take 1 Mb/s (actually, T1 line at 1 Mb/s handles 32 The standard T1 rate is 1.544 Mbits/sec and carries 24 not 32 channels. ------------------------------ From: gamiddle@watmath.waterloo.edu (Guy Middleton) Subject: Re: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993 Organization: University of Waterloo Date: Wed, 1 May 1991 05:02:52 GMT In article cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: > But from downtown Toronto, you will have local service into 905? Yes, indeed. Calls to the cities just outside Metro Toronto (Scarborough, Mississauga, etc) are now local, and will remain so, but these cities will be moving to 905. So downtown-to-Mississauga would be dialed as 905-xxx-yyyy, but to somewhere else, further away in 905, would be dialed as 1-905-zzz-yyyy. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 08:37:31 GMT From: news@cbnewse.att.com Subject: Re: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department Reply-To: Dan_Jacobson@ihlpz.att.com Organization: AT&T-BL, Naperville IL, USA Well, I guess if I don't know the emergency numbers for the town I'm in I just dial 0 for operator (except if I'm in an office building with it's own internal corporate phone system ... then all bets are off.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 91 00:34:04 -0500 From: Rob Knauerhase Subject: Question About an Odd Number Yesterday, someone asked me if I knew what the number (800) 555-0000 was for. I didn't, so I tried dialing it and got the following message: "You have reached the AT&T long-distance network. Thank you for choosing AT&T. This message will not be repeated." I have since tried it from my home phone (with Sprint as dial-1 carrier, not that it should matter for an 800 number, but just in case) and got the same message. Dialing 10xxx and the number results in an error message for 222, 333, and 288. So, does anyone know what purpose that number serves? Robert C. Knauerhase University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Dept. of Computer Science, Gigabit Study Group knauer@cs.uiuc.edu, rck@ces.cwru.edu knauer@scivax.lerc.nasa.gov [Moderator's Note: All long distance carriers translate 700-555-4141 into some other number. In fact, I think *everything* in the 700 series is translated and sent elsewhere ... but to answer your question, you will get the same message from 700-555-4141 when calling on a line which defaults to AT&T, or a line on which you prefaced the call with 10288. When AT&T takes your call and sees what you have dialed, they pass it along to the 800 number you noted. There exist similar numbers for Sprint, MCI and other carriers. When dialing the 700 number from a line defaulting to one of those carriers (or by using their 10xxx code from any phone) the same thing occurs: the carrier sees it and translates it to the number playing their version of the same message. If you dial the 'direct number' for the carrier involved you will always get their message regardless of the carrier you used to dial it. The reason dialing 10xxx in front of the 800 number failed was because the prefix portion of an 800 number, i.e. the three digits following the 800 (800-xxx-something) serve the same purpose, and your local telco routes the 800 call based on those three digits to the carrier assigned to use them. Dialing 10xxx + 800-xxx would either be redundant or a contradiction, depending on which carrier 'owned' the first and/or second group of xxx. In other words, you can't route a call over MCI lines by way of AT&T, or a call over AT&T lines by way of Sprint, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joe McGuckin Subject: Looking for WE 'pod' Speakerphone Organization: Island Software Date: 30 Apr 91 21:33:07 I want to buy a Pod style speakerphone. Joe McGuckin oilean!joe@sgi.com Island Software joe@parcplace.com (415) 969-5453 ------------------------------ From: Clive Feather Subject: Crossed Line Woes Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 7:48:21 BST [Taken from the Sun (a UK low-grade newspaper) about three weeks ago. Emphasis in the original] Secrets aired! ============== Two raunchy girls turned the airwaves blue when the BBC broadcast their love secrets live. Thousands of listeners to Radio Lincolnshire heard them discussing *SUSPENDERS*, half-cup *BRAS*, and their boyfriends' sexual *FANTASIES*. The show is piped in from neighbouring Radio Nottingham by British Telecom. BBC bosses blame a crossed line. Clive D.W. Feather | IXI Limited clive@x.co.uk | 62-74 Burleigh St. Phone: +44 223 462 131 | Cambridge CB1 1OJ (USA: 1 800 XDESK 57) | United Kingdom ------------------------------ From: roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: A Stupid Touch-Tone Menu System Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Wed, 1 May 91 17:27:33 GMT If you want to hear a stupid intro to a touch-tone menu system, try calling 800-843-7751. It starts out "Welcome to Cambridge Systems"; so far, pretty reasonable. Then it says "If it's after 5:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, press 1". I'm supposed to tell it what time it is!? 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #323 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29129; 5 May 91 1:17 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07612; 4 May 91 23:43 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10189; 4 May 91 22:38 CDT Date: Sat, 4 May 91 22:36:22 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #324 BCC: Message-ID: <9105042236.ab07812@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 4 May 91 22:36:10 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 325 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? [Bill Gripp] Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? [John Higdon] Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? [Randy Borow] Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? [John R. Hall] Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? [Steve Wolfson] Re: RJ-11 Jacks in Hotel Rooms [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer [John Higdon] Re: Caller*ID Specifications Needed [Michael H. Riddle] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Gripp Subject: Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? Reply-To: Bill Gripp Organization: Bank of New York Date: Wed, 1 May 91 15:50:40 GMT In article John Higdon writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 322, Message 3 of 10 > For the fourth time in about as many weeks, I have received a > pre-recorded marketing spiel on my 800 line (probably directed at the > POTS number). It is the same thing every time, but the fact that it > comes in on this particular line indicates that the calling entity has > no idea who or what it is calling. There is no way that the outside > world can associate me with this line. > The female voice indicates that she has tried to reach me five times > and this is the last time (on every one of the calls). To claim my > prize it will be necessary to call a number and give my validation > number, "C5" (which is spoken in a voice that sounds like a Hollywood > alien on drugs -- supposed to be a computer voice?). I must do this > within 24 hours to claim my prize, which will otherwise be given to > someone else. > The number, 312 292-9000, (Patrick -- I realize Chicago is a big > place, but have you by chance heard of this scam?) is always busy. I > suspect that if one gets through, he will be directed to a 900 number. > [Moderator's Note: I found out only a few things. All the numbers > between 312-292-9000 and 312-292-9049 *always* are busy. The first > couple dozen immediatly cut to a busy signal when dialed; the numbers > in the upper range (9040 through 9049) click, appear to get forwarded > somewhere, then also return a busy signal. The first thirty or so of > the numbers are listed two ways: 'Combined Credit Service, Inc' and > 'American Consumer Services', both of 2320 North Damen Avenue in > Chicago. Well I called from here in New York City at 11:30 eastern time and got through. They asked for my name, phone number, if I had a checking account, and validation number. They then told me that I had been called because I had been selected to receive one of four special prizes! (which are part of an "advertizing campaign"): 32" Sony TV with remote control $2000 cashiers check Round trip vacation to Jamaica (Queens, NY? =8^) ) $1000 savings bond And after they had verified my name and validation number against their list of winners (remember, they never really called me) they told me that I also won a special bonus of a seven day trip to Orlando, FL (consisting of two round trip airline vouchers). After some sales speil about saving money and trying to convince me to join their "buying club" they asked me for the number of my checking account. Well I don't carry it with me (heh heh heh) so I could honestly say "I don't know". They deduct the $199.98 membership fee directly from your checking. They gave me some more speil and said they would call me back when I have my check book available. Gee, and I just used up my last check last Sunday and won't get any from the printers for another three weeks =8^). Sorry, just another phone scam. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 91 12:55 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? It always seems a little peculiar to answer one's own posts, but once again the power of the press has come to bear. I received a call from a gentleman this afternoon, who after establishing his credentials, informed me about the "prize" that I would have won upon calling the Chicago number. The number in Chicago is assigned, as Pat pointed out, to a marketing company and has been in service since September. It is 100% scammola; the prize is a trip to Sunny Orlando and a "vacation on the beach". No kidding! All expenses paid except food, lodging, and transportation -- or something like that. The beach thing is interesting since San Jose is closer to the Pacific Ocean than Orlando is to the Atlantic -- and I do not consider my home to be beachfront property by any stretch of the imagination! So if anyone is interested, use my "C5" verification number and enjoy your holiday in Orlando. I think I will pass. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com Date: Wed May 1 11:57:33 CDT 1991 Subject: Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? John Higdon, I'm asking Patrick to indulge me here as I tell you both what I found out regarding your telemarketing calls from 312-292-9000. I decided to dig deeper than Pat did (or deeper than he's able to, for that matter). Accessing the telemarketer's account, I learned much stuff. What I found out was quite interesting, so here goes ... First, the name of the "business" is "Combined Credit Service," as Pat had mentioned earlier. According to my records, they have only a few lines (they appear to have a hunt feature which doesn't reveal all its respective numbers, of course. They make all their outgoing calls off line numbers 292-9027 and 9028. Line number 9015 is used to accept collect calls (I'd bet from the people they call!) from all over the country. Lines 9000 through 9014 appear to be the DID lines receiving individuals' calls like yours, John. BTW, the several times I called their numbers, each attempt was NOT busy and was answered: "Awards Center, may I have your area code and phone number?" Looking through their long-distance calls (lots, too! Somebody from my company ought to sell 'em Pro Wats :-) ), they make hundreds of calls to most of the country, over 35 states from what I counted. California is one of their frequent places to call. Of course, it IS an overly-crowded state with plenty of places to call, but that's another matter, John. Most of their calls are of relatively short duration, from one to five minutes; however, there are some longer than 45 minutes! I thought you might be interested, John, about their calling patterns to the San Jose area. They made numerous such calls to the following San Jose prefixes: 224, 263, 448, 974, 298, 987, 996, 987, 272, 985, 748, 246, 441, and 978. Of these calls, only two showed repeated calls to the same number. Each prefix had many calls to different numbers, though. The 985 and 974 exchanges seem to be their favorites. How they got these numbers is beyond me, since many of the ones they dialed are non-published numbers. BTW, their calls were not done in any particular order or sequence; they seem to be random ones with little in common. John, if you want to discuss this particular aspect further, please E-mail me directly, as I probably shouldn't drag it on here any more than is necessary. Now, for the good stuff. I eventually called this joint and gave them my phone number (fake, of course), as well as John's claim #. Some annoying guy checked and said "Congratulations, Randall," (I used only my first name) "you have been computer-selected to receive ..." Geez, how special, I thought. The prizes he had described included a "31-inch, color Sony TV w/ remote control..." Blah, blah, blah. He went on and said that since I gave him this "special claim number," I was the proud recipient of a seven-day vacation to Orlando, Florida! Wanna go with, John? We could tour Disney World, and ... anyway, he explained to me what exciting things were in Orlando (his words): "Disney World, sunny skies, and beautiful beaches alongside the ocean." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, folks, but isn't Orlando in the middle of the state? Beaches? In Orlando? I've been there a couple times, and I'm STILL having difficulty trying to find the Orlando Ocean. :-) BTW, I wish we Chicagoans had sunny skies here. I wonder what that must be like. Looks like we'll all have to go to Orlando to find out. Enough of my digressing into sarcasm, though. To make a long story short, he finally got to the most important part of his shpiel: the costs to ME, the consumer. For *only* $199.98 for a year's membership, I could become a member of American Consumer's Bureau (they sure have plenty of names), "an organization of over 200,000 happy members, including members like IBM, Chrysler, .." For this "small fee," I could receive over $300 in grocery coupons, saving me "from five to six hundred dollars a year" in grocery costs (but there's only so much I could do with those 10c Charmin coupons). Other stuff I'd get, but you people get the point. All in all, John, just another typical telemarketing sleaze job. From the looks of their bill, though, they sure get to a LOT of people. I hope this information helped. Randy Borow AT&T Communications Rolling Meadows, IL. DISCLAIMER: The above represents the opinions of me only and not Ma Bell. She's busy enough on her own to worry about us little guys. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 91 12:44:34 EDT From: John R Hall Subject: Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories The 312-292-9000 number is indeed for American Consumer Services at 2320 North Damen in Chicago. John, you really missed out on a great opportunity. Your "C5" validation number was good for one of the following gifts: 1. 32" Sony Color TV 2. $2,500 Cashier's Check 3. 2 fully-paid r/t tickets to Jamaica 4. $1k Savings Bond In addition, the computer showed that you were eligible for a bonus gift! The bonus gift was a seven-day vacation to Orlando with two round trip ticket vouchers and "competitively priced" hotel accomodations at selected hotels through their designated travel agent. The only catch to this was that you have to pay $199.98 to join their Buyer's Club which sells things such as life/health insurance, auto club, tires, etc., etc. Oh, and you would have had to make a decision on the spot since the computer "will erase this transaction after you hang up" and you won't be eligible for the gifts. I stopped by on the way home last night to visit them. They are in a 1/2 block long old red brick building with glass-blocked windows so you can't see inside. Located in the same building is the Toledo Body Shop (with a cardboard sign on the door pointing to another entrance for American Consumer Services). Sure enough, their name is on the door, but curiously the doors were open even though the place was empty except for one man I saw there. I only poked my head in far enough to see a big room with modular partitions and desks set up in the back. Connected to this building in the back is a Cellular One phone installation place. There's also a big sign saying "The Carpet Place" with the same entrance as ACS. There's also a big "Available" sign on the building with a number but no realtor name. I think ACS make take their phones off-hook at night, since there was no conversation on the 9000 number according to the operator. Their "Customer Service" number is 312-292-9015 and did answer with voice mail saying their business hours are 9-5 Central time. John [Moderator's Note: Admittedly, my tests were only during the overnight hours. If they take thre phones off the hook at 5 PM central time, that might explain why John got busy signals if he called during (his) late afternoon or early evening. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 91 09:29:52 CDT From: Steve Wolfson Subject: Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? I dialed (312) 292-9000 at about 9:30 a.m. on May 1. A voice answers the phone "Good Morning, Award Center, May I have your area code and telephone number?" I decided not to try and see what that did for me. Steve Wolfson ------------------------------ From: Robert J Woodhead Subject: Re: RJ-11 Jacks in Hotel Rooms Date: 1 May 91 07:52:27 GMT Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Tokyo Japan forrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) writes: > The problem was that the little release clips were broken of the male > end of the RJ11 connector on each end (as if this is going to prevent > someone from taking the phone!). This is commonly done in hotel rooms. Any dedicated travelling modemer carries a small screwdriver for impromptu ECO'ing of hotel phones. In a pinch, you can use a paperclip or the tang on the end of a Bic pen to worm the jack out. I always travel with a two way splitter and install it as soon as I get into the room. Inveterate Motel-6 Modemer's can be recognised by dialing scripts in their terminal programs that look like this: ATDT 6,1XXXYYYZZZZ,,,,,,,AAABBBCCCCDDDD This gets the outside line, dials the long distance number, waits long enough to get the bong (varies between five and seven seconds depending on the Motel 6), and dials a credit card number. I wish all Hotel telephone systems were as simple and straightforward (and fair!) as the big 6's are... ;^) Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 91 01:34 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer Steve Forrette writes: > I asked Pacific Bell about this a few months ago, and they said that > they would only do it after I received at least $100 in phraudulent > calls. This is the standard response that the front line is told to give people who casually call in about this. In fact, Pac*Bell will give you billed number screening (as they did me) without one cent of fraud being involved if you simply press the matter with a supervisor. I have both collect call and third number blocking on both my residence and business accounts. Initially, I got the "there has to be a problem before we do this" baloney, but when I started talking tarrifs, we cut through the BS and I got it done. A number of associates have had this same experience: first, denial -- then compliance upon insistence. I suggest you call back and beat them up. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell gave it to me with no questions, and in fact the rep said unofficial company policy is they would love to get rid of third number and collect billing anyway if it were possible; but there are a lot of people who seem to prefer it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Michael H. Riddle" Subject: Re: Caller*ID Specifications Needed Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln Date: Wed, 1 May 1991 12:04:00 GMT In TONY@mcgill1.bitnet (Tony Harminc) writes: > Bell Canada Director - Switched Network Services > 220 Laurier Avenue West Ottawa, Ontario K1G 3J4 > +1 613 781-3655 > The document is "Call Management Service (CMS) Terminal-to-Network > Interface", Interface Disclosure ID - 0001, November 1989. For US specs, a file in the archives (lcs.mit.edu, cd telecom-archives) has the ordering information: caller-id-specs.bellcore. I don't know if this has any applicability to Canada or not. <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> riddle@hoss.unl.edu | University of Nebraska ivgate!inns!postmaster@uunet.uu.net | College of Law mike.riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org | Lincoln, Nebraska, USA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #325 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01874; 5 May 91 2:24 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26683; 5 May 91 0:48 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07612; 4 May 91 23:44 CDT Date: Sat, 4 May 91 22:42:11 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #325 BCC: Message-ID: <9105042242.ab01186@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 4 May 91 22:36:10 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 325 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? [Bill Gripp] Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? [John Higdon] Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? [Randy Borow] Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? [John R. Hall] Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? [Steve Wolfson] Re: RJ-11 Jacks in Hotel Rooms [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer [John Higdon] Re: Caller*ID Specifications Needed [Michael H. Riddle] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Gripp Subject: Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? Reply-To: Bill Gripp Organization: Bank of New York Date: Wed, 1 May 91 15:50:40 GMT In article John Higdon writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 322, Message 3 of 10 > For the fourth time in about as many weeks, I have received a > pre-recorded marketing spiel on my 800 line (probably directed at the > POTS number). It is the same thing every time, but the fact that it > comes in on this particular line indicates that the calling entity has > no idea who or what it is calling. There is no way that the outside > world can associate me with this line. > The female voice indicates that she has tried to reach me five times > and this is the last time (on every one of the calls). To claim my > prize it will be necessary to call a number and give my validation > number, "C5" (which is spoken in a voice that sounds like a Hollywood > alien on drugs -- supposed to be a computer voice?). I must do this > within 24 hours to claim my prize, which will otherwise be given to > someone else. > The number, 312 292-9000, (Patrick -- I realize Chicago is a big > place, but have you by chance heard of this scam?) is always busy. I > suspect that if one gets through, he will be directed to a 900 number. > [Moderator's Note: I found out only a few things. All the numbers > between 312-292-9000 and 312-292-9049 *always* are busy. The first > couple dozen immediatly cut to a busy signal when dialed; the numbers > in the upper range (9040 through 9049) click, appear to get forwarded > somewhere, then also return a busy signal. The first thirty or so of > the numbers are listed two ways: 'Combined Credit Service, Inc' and > 'American Consumer Services', both of 2320 North Damen Avenue in > Chicago. Well I called from here in New York City at 11:30 eastern time and got through. They asked for my name, phone number, if I had a checking account, and validation number. They then told me that I had been called because I had been selected to receive one of four special prizes! (which are part of an "advertizing campaign"): 32" Sony TV with remote control $2000 cashiers check Round trip vacation to Jamaica (Queens, NY? =8^) ) $1000 savings bond And after they had verified my name and validation number against their list of winners (remember, they never really called me) they told me that I also won a special bonus of a seven day trip to Orlando, FL (consisting of two round trip airline vouchers). After some sales speil about saving money and trying to convince me to join their "buying club" they asked me for the number of my checking account. Well I don't carry it with me (heh heh heh) so I could honestly say "I don't know". They deduct the $199.98 membership fee directly from your checking. They gave me some more speil and said they would call me back when I have my check book available. Gee, and I just used up my last check last Sunday and won't get any from the printers for another three weeks =8^). Sorry, just another phone scam. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 91 12:55 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? It always seems a little peculiar to answer one's own posts, but once again the power of the press has come to bear. I received a call from a gentleman this afternoon, who after establishing his credentials, informed me about the "prize" that I would have won upon calling the Chicago number. The number in Chicago is assigned, as Pat pointed out, to a marketing company and has been in service since September. It is 100% scammola; the prize is a trip to Sunny Orlando and a "vacation on the beach". No kidding! All expenses paid except food, lodging, and transportation -- or something like that. The beach thing is interesting since San Jose is closer to the Pacific Ocean than Orlando is to the Atlantic -- and I do not consider my home to be beachfront property by any stretch of the imagination! So if anyone is interested, use my "C5" verification number and enjoy your holiday in Orlando. I think I will pass. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com Date: Wed May 1 11:57:33 CDT 1991 Subject: Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? John Higdon, I'm asking Patrick to indulge me here as I tell you both what I found out regarding your telemarketing calls from 312-292-9000. I decided to dig deeper than Pat did (or deeper than he's able to, for that matter). Accessing the telemarketer's account, I learned much stuff. What I found out was quite interesting, so here goes ... First, the name of the "business" is "Combined Credit Service," as Pat had mentioned earlier. According to my records, they have only a few lines (they appear to have a hunt feature which doesn't reveal all its respective numbers, of course. They make all their outgoing calls off line numbers 292-9027 and 9028. Line number 9015 is used to accept collect calls (I'd bet from the people they call!) from all over the country. Lines 9000 through 9014 appear to be the DID lines receiving individuals' calls like yours, John. BTW, the several times I called their numbers, each attempt was NOT busy and was answered: "Awards Center, may I have your area code and phone number?" Looking through their long-distance calls (lots, too! Somebody from my company ought to sell 'em Pro Wats :-) ), they make hundreds of calls to most of the country, over 35 states from what I counted. California is one of their frequent places to call. Of course, it IS an overly-crowded state with plenty of places to call, but that's another matter, John. Most of their calls are of relatively short duration, from one to five minutes; however, there are some longer than 45 minutes! I thought you might be interested, John, about their calling patterns to the San Jose area. They made numerous such calls to the following San Jose prefixes: 224, 263, 448, 974, 298, 987, 996, 987, 272, 985, 748, 246, 441, and 978. Of these calls, only two showed repeated calls to the same number. Each prefix had many calls to different numbers, though. The 985 and 974 exchanges seem to be their favorites. How they got these numbers is beyond me, since many of the ones they dialed are non-published numbers. BTW, their calls were not done in any particular order or sequence; they seem to be random ones with little in common. John, if you want to discuss this particular aspect further, please E-mail me directly, as I probably shouldn't drag it on here any more than is necessary. Now, for the good stuff. I eventually called this joint and gave them my phone number (fake, of course), as well as John's claim #. Some annoying guy checked and said "Congratulations, Randall," (I used only my first name) "you have been computer-selected to receive ..." Geez, how special, I thought. The prizes he had described included a "31-inch, color Sony TV w/ remote control..." Blah, blah, blah. He went on and said that since I gave him this "special claim number," I was the proud recipient of a seven-day vacation to Orlando, Florida! Wanna go with, John? We could tour Disney World, and ... anyway, he explained to me what exciting things were in Orlando (his words): "Disney World, sunny skies, and beautiful beaches alongside the ocean." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, folks, but isn't Orlando in the middle of the state? Beaches? In Orlando? I've been there a couple times, and I'm STILL having difficulty trying to find the Orlando Ocean. :-) BTW, I wish we Chicagoans had sunny skies here. I wonder what that must be like. Looks like we'll all have to go to Orlando to find out. Enough of my digressing into sarcasm, though. To make a long story short, he finally got to the most important part of his shpiel: the costs to ME, the consumer. For *only* $199.98 for a year's membership, I could become a member of American Consumer's Bureau (they sure have plenty of names), "an organization of over 200,000 happy members, including members like IBM, Chrysler, .." For this "small fee," I could receive over $300 in grocery coupons, saving me "from five to six hundred dollars a year" in grocery costs (but there's only so much I could do with those 10c Charmin coupons). Other stuff I'd get, but you people get the point. All in all, John, just another typical telemarketing sleaze job. From the looks of their bill, though, they sure get to a LOT of people. I hope this information helped. Randy Borow AT&T Communications Rolling Meadows, IL. DISCLAIMER: The above represents the opinions of me only and not Ma Bell. She's busy enough on her own to worry about us little guys. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 91 12:44:34 EDT From: John R Hall Subject: Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories The 312-292-9000 number is indeed for American Consumer Services at 2320 North Damen in Chicago. John, you really missed out on a great opportunity. Your "C5" validation number was good for one of the following gifts: 1. 32" Sony Color TV 2. $2,500 Cashier's Check 3. 2 fully-paid r/t tickets to Jamaica 4. $1k Savings Bond In addition, the computer showed that you were eligible for a bonus gift! The bonus gift was a seven-day vacation to Orlando with two round trip ticket vouchers and "competitively priced" hotel accomodations at selected hotels through their designated travel agent. The only catch to this was that you have to pay $199.98 to join their Buyer's Club which sells things such as life/health insurance, auto club, tires, etc., etc. Oh, and you would have had to make a decision on the spot since the computer "will erase this transaction after you hang up" and you won't be eligible for the gifts. I stopped by on the way home last night to visit them. They are in a 1/2 block long old red brick building with glass-blocked windows so you can't see inside. Located in the same building is the Toledo Body Shop (with a cardboard sign on the door pointing to another entrance for American Consumer Services). Sure enough, their name is on the door, but curiously the doors were open even though the place was empty except for one man I saw there. I only poked my head in far enough to see a big room with modular partitions and desks set up in the back. Connected to this building in the back is a Cellular One phone installation place. There's also a big sign saying "The Carpet Place" with the same entrance as ACS. There's also a big "Available" sign on the building with a number but no realtor name. I think ACS make take their phones off-hook at night, since there was no conversation on the 9000 number according to the operator. Their "Customer Service" number is 312-292-9015 and did answer with voice mail saying their business hours are 9-5 Central time. John [Moderator's Note: Admittedly, my tests were only during the overnight hours. If they take thre phones off the hook at 5 PM central time, that might explain why John got busy signals if he called during (his) late afternoon or early evening. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 91 09:29:52 CDT From: Steve Wolfson Subject: Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? I dialed (312) 292-9000 at about 9:30 a.m. on May 1. A voice answers the phone "Good Morning, Award Center, May I have your area code and telephone number?" I decided not to try and see what that did for me. Steve Wolfson ------------------------------ From: Robert J Woodhead Subject: Re: RJ-11 Jacks in Hotel Rooms Date: 1 May 91 07:52:27 GMT Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Tokyo Japan forrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) writes: > The problem was that the little release clips were broken of the male > end of the RJ11 connector on each end (as if this is going to prevent > someone from taking the phone!). This is commonly done in hotel rooms. Any dedicated travelling modemer carries a small screwdriver for impromptu ECO'ing of hotel phones. In a pinch, you can use a paperclip or the tang on the end of a Bic pen to worm the jack out. I always travel with a two way splitter and install it as soon as I get into the room. Inveterate Motel-6 Modemer's can be recognised by dialing scripts in their terminal programs that look like this: ATDT 6,1XXXYYYZZZZ,,,,,,,AAABBBCCCCDDDD This gets the outside line, dials the long distance number, waits long enough to get the bong (varies between five and seven seconds depending on the Motel 6), and dials a credit card number. I wish all Hotel telephone systems were as simple and straightforward (and fair!) as the big 6's are... ;^) Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 91 01:34 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer Steve Forrette writes: > I asked Pacific Bell about this a few months ago, and they said that > they would only do it after I received at least $100 in phraudulent > calls. This is the standard response that the front line is told to give people who casually call in about this. In fact, Pac*Bell will give you billed number screening (as they did me) without one cent of fraud being involved if you simply press the matter with a supervisor. I have both collect call and third number blocking on both my residence and business accounts. Initially, I got the "there has to be a problem before we do this" baloney, but when I started talking tarrifs, we cut through the BS and I got it done. A number of associates have had this same experience: first, denial -- then compliance upon insistence. I suggest you call back and beat them up. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell gave it to me with no questions, and in fact the rep said unofficial company policy is they would love to get rid of third number and collect billing anyway if it were possible; but there are a lot of people who seem to prefer it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Michael H. Riddle" Subject: Re: Caller*ID Specifications Needed Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln Date: Wed, 1 May 1991 12:04:00 GMT In TONY@mcgill1.bitnet (Tony Harminc) writes: > Bell Canada Director - Switched Network Services > 220 Laurier Avenue West Ottawa, Ontario K1G 3J4 > +1 613 781-3655 > The document is "Call Management Service (CMS) Terminal-to-Network > Interface", Interface Disclosure ID - 0001, November 1989. For US specs, a file in the archives (lcs.mit.edu, cd telecom-archives) has the ordering information: caller-id-specs.bellcore. I don't know if this has any applicability to Canada or not. <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> riddle@hoss.unl.edu | University of Nebraska ivgate!inns!postmaster@uunet.uu.net | College of Law mike.riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org | Lincoln, Nebraska, USA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #325 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04605; 5 May 91 3:22 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02461; 5 May 91 1:54 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26683; 5 May 91 0:49 CDT Date: Sat, 4 May 91 23:54:02 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #326 BCC: Message-ID: <9105042354.ab20241@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 4 May 91 23:53:51 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 326 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: New Area Code Won't Work From Hotel [Andrew Hastings] Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Paul S. Sawyer] Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Daniel R. Guilderson] Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Andy Sherman] Re: Comments on History of Telephone Apparatus Manufacturers [Dan Margolis] Re: The Two Line Solution [Dave Levenson] Re: ATT Digital Answering Machine [Michael Schuster] Filesystem Paranoia Notes (was: Fraudigy) [Ken Dykes] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: abh@pogo.camelot.cs.cmu.edu (Andrew Hastings) Subject: Re: New Area Code Won't Work From Hotel Date: 1 May 91 20:11:16 GMT Organization: Carnegie Mellon University, SCS In article HAMER524@ruby.vcu.edu (Robert M. Hamer) writes: > I doubt that it > would have occurred to me that the area code table might be wrong had > I not been some sort of telecom phreak. Has anyone else had a similar > experience? I stayed at Hyatt Rickys in Palo Alto about five years ago, shortly after Stanford University's numbers moved from 497-xxxx to 723-xxxx. I tried dialing a number at Stanford (a local call) from my hotel room, and got an intercept from the hotel PBX claiming that the number was invalid. I dialed the hotel operator, explained what had happened, and she put the call through after promising to update the PBX database. Andrew Hastings abh@cs.cmu.edu 412/268-8734 ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission Date: 2 May 91 14:20:31 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article , Barton.Bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes... > The not millions but BILLIONS of dollars they are about to use to > sink the South East Expressway underground in Boston is totally > needless. They are perpetuating the ugly downtown mess that > originally was 'necessary' only because it was not possible or > economical to communicate effectively with other businesses unless > you were physically DOWNTOWN. Sigh. Once again, the "futurists" come out with an idea that works only so far as you don't follow up on the Law of Unintended Consequences. Don't get me wrong: I make a living in telecom, and think that keeping it expensive is a Bad Thing too. But Downtowns serve a purpose. Let's go way, way out beyond the pale of reality and assume that talking on a phone, picturephone, high-bandwidth-virtual-reality-phone, etc., could be as effective as face-to-face communication. (Yeah, right.) Just for argument, let's assume that fantasy and go to the next step, where businesses can be located on any convenient hilltop. In such an environment, concentrations of the workforce (downtown) go away. But people still have to work somewhere. Clearly our homes don't cut it: While a significant fraction of the population _can_ work at home _some_ of the time, our homes aren't big/quiet enough to support much of our modern office gear, and the human interaction of being in an office with co-workers is rather useful -- to me at least! So we end up with less-concentrated offices. (And with offices in the suburbs, housing can be farther from the city, causing creeping suburbanization. Soon there are no farms left for a hundred miles. Been to NJ lately?) We end up with Los Angeles. We end up with sprawling suburbia, where you can't have public transit since there's no concentration of workspaces to run the transit lines to! I work in the exurbs and commute _out_ from town (the easy way!), but it's a car or else! The Expressway in Boston carries a fraction of total commuter traffic; trains carry a huge load of those who work downtown. Much Expressway traffic in Boston is passing _through_; there's an ocean next door, so you just can't go east a bit. And if you have a sprawling, decentralized environment, what do you think that does for telecom costs? Most of the subsidies that we pay in non-residential telecom go to pay for the longer local loops needed in non-urban areas. Downtowns make money for telcos. Downtowns allow competitors like Teleport to have a chance. Who could afford to run fiber to all the newly-paved hilltops? Telco, as a monopoly, maybe. But it's not efficient. > The telco's charter should be 'how much can be done for how little > dollars', rather than, sadly, the reverse. It's true that telcos' historical "rate of return" regulation has encouraged over-investment, but there's no free lunch. Somebody has to foot the bill, and "futuristic" Californication of America won't solve it. Fred R. Goldstein Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 952 3274 Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let alone a multi-billion dollar corporation? ------------------------------ From: "Paul S. Sawyer" Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services Date: Wed, 1 May 91 15:12:02 GMT In article John Higdon writes: > I give you Pacific Telesis ... Since this sounded like a horrible, contageous disease to me, I wondered if it was a real word. My desk dictionary says: telesis: progress that is intellgently planned and directed : the attainment of desired ends by the application of intellegent human effort to the means. Does "truth in advertising" apply here, John? The next, possibly related entry, is: telesthesia: an impression supposedly received at a distance without the normal operation of the organs of sense. :-) Paul S. Sawyer {uunet,attmail}!unhtel!paul paul@unhtel.unh.edu UNH CIS - - Telecommunications and Network Services VOX: +1 603 862 3262 Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3523 FAX: +1 603 862 2030 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 91 12:42:36 EDT From: "Daniel R. Guilderson" Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission > Well why can't consumers band together, form a non-profit organization, > and build their own phone network to provide service at cost? Amateur > radio operators do this already. Subscriber equipment costs more than > telephones, but you get free bandwidth. Forming a non-profit phone network is pure fantasy. I fantasize about it all the time. The more I fantasize the more I realize it's just that. There's absolutely no precedent for it. I can think of a lot of successful non-profit organizations but nothing on the scale of AT&T, MCI or Sprint. I have another idea. Let's deregulate the telecommunications industry and merge it with the rest of the communications industry. We'll throw the phone companies, the cable companies, the LAN/WAN companies and anyone else who wants a peice of the action into a battle royal. The competition will be so vicious that prices will have to fall. Eventually there would be a shakeout and we would be left with a few very lean and mean competitive communications companies. Any new technologies would then be offered quickly as a competitive advantage. Of course the RBOCS and the long distance carriers would fight this idea tooth and nail. Daniel Guilderson ryan@cs.umb.edu UMass Boston, Harbor Campus, Dorchester, MA USA ------------------------------ From: Andy Sherman Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission Date: 1 May 91 20:37:31 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ In article , jah@margo.ots.utexas.edu (Jeff Hayward) writes: |> I've been told that AT&T could still make money at a rate of 1/10 of a |> cent per minute, no matter where in the North America you go. I doubt *anybody* could make money at $0.001 per minute. I'd like to see this number justified. |> It is certainly the case that the BOCs (and to a lesser extent the |> IXCs) make an enormous profit on a very inexpensive service. Since when is the cost of installing and running the transmission media the only cost of the call? You got switching, you got operators, you got billing, you got marketeers (No, that's not a dirty word. Somebody has to figure out what services you want to buy). Also, you've got shareholders (in our case, a lot of "widows and orphans") who expect a reasonable return on their investment and you've got a need to fund R&D. Where, praytell, would all this "cheap" transmission have come from if AT&T had just marked up past transmission costs a few percent? If you amortize the past costs of inventing and developing digital transmission and digital switching and try to fund future trends, you're not going to sell services for $0.001 per minute. Do remember that the Internet was developed with Defense Department money. The service can be cheap because it was subsidized. Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 91 10:29:12 EDT From: Daniel A Margolis Subject: Re: Comments on History of Telephone Apparatus Manufacturers 0003493915@mcimail.com (Michael Dorrian) writes: > As far as I know, Comdial remains the only US manufacturer of > telephones (local content - AT&T's phones are assembled in the US from > Asian manufactured components). This offers quite a niche on sales to > the US government. Actually, AT&T does manufacture telephones in the USA. I know for a fact that the telephones used with MERLIN communications systems (also with System 25 PBXs) are manufactured in the USA (not just assembled). Many of the residential phones are manufactured overseas, however. Dan Margolis ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: The Two Line Solution Date: 1 May 91 17:52:56 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , leryo@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Leryo Malbito) writes: > Upon calling a COCOT, I got a telco tri-tone message stating something > to the effect of: "There are no incoming calls permitted to this > telephone ..." Da-Daa-Daa... > (I think this is the same type of message that Bell Atlantic provides > when you have been chosen as a CALL BLOCK(tm?)ed number ... eg, you > bother someone, then they block all future calls from your number.) Actually, NJ Bell (part of Bell Atlantic) provides a recording which is not preceded by the SIT tone, and says: "The number you are calling is not accepting calls at this time" if the called party has blocked calls from the calling party. 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: The recording from IBT is exactly the same here. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Michael Schuster Subject: Re: ATT Digital Answering Machine Date: Wed, 1 May 91 22:53:26 GMT Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY In article ssc-bee!ssc-vax!clark@ cs.washington.edu (Roger Clark Swann) writes: > Someone was asking here recently about the ATT digital answering > machine. I just received a flyer from Sears that includes: > ATT Digital Answering System 1337 > > - All digital technology, etc Sale price $99.99 Thanks. The inquiry was mine, but perhaps I was not clear enough. Randy Borow posted in early April about a =second model= of the AT&T Digital Answering machine which had the =additional= features (these are =not= in the 1337's that I've seen) of: -time/date stamping of incoming emssages -voice prompts -remote progrmaming with rotary phone. Mr. Borow (rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com) has not received/answered my mail, so I can't ask him what, exactly, he says he played with at an Illinois AT&T Phone Center Store. He says there are TWO models. Mike Schuster | CIS: 70346,1745 NY Public Access UNIX: ...cmcl2!panix!schuster | MCI Mail, GENIE: The Portal (R) System: schuster@cup.portal.com | MSCHUSTER [Moderator's Note: Well since he reads the Digest regularly, I know he will see your message here, and perhaps be in a position to answer it soon. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 91 08:09:21 EDT From: Ken Dykes Subject: Filesystem Paranoia Notes (was: Fraudigy) > From: hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) > Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? > X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 319, Message 3 of 12 > In article , leryo@gnu.ai.mit.edu > (Leryo Malbito) writes: > I think that if ANY of us searched through the "free space" (not > currently allocated to a file) on our disks, we'd ALL be surprised. No, dont say *ANY* of us ... some of us have more than the "basic user's" knowlege of things computer-like. I routinely use a "wipedisk" program which cleans unallocated sectors. (Optional choice of zeros, ones, three wipes with 0/1/alternate-bit- pattern.) It should be noted that an "explicit delete file" is not required on the part of a user. Most text-editors use temporary "work files", every time you do an editing/word-processing session, COPIES of your data are splashed into workfiles and then released to the world when you quit the edit/word-process session. A lot of other software also uses temporary work files. (This may also be a way a "drive d: got drive c: data", if you allocated your temporary/work directory on that drive.) There is also another place in the DOS filesystem (filesystem? ha!) that can bite you. Files are allocated/grown a SECTOR at a time (say 512 bytes). So if you write 100 bytes to a file plus the EOF-mark, chances are good there will be 411 old-data bytes at the end of the file. Since this sector is "allocated" the wipedisk concepts don't reach them. These are a little tricker to take care of :-) I mention this sector aspect to avoid claims of: "I wiped my disk, then some *old old old data* RE-APPEARED!" Chances are it was "stuck" to some newer file, and the new file was later released which also freed up that not-quite-a-sector of antique data. > ...on a multiuser system, always use an > "erase" program that actually overwrites your files rather than just > deleting them, or everything you delete will be available to other Religous claim: a DECENT system would do this either at release-time or (less ideally) before re-allocating to another file. but alas, very few decent systems... For your own machine, you could write any program in just about any language (heck even a slow .bat exec file) to grow one huge file, writing it full of null or random byte-values until you get a file-growth denial (no more room left on disk) then release that huge file. voila! unallocated space no longer contains private information) If you wish to write your own erase-a-single-file program, remember to overwrite/erase the entire PHYSICAL file size, not just the logical data filesize. Rules to live by: - Secure/sensitive data should never be stored in computer media. - Since you *will* store this sort of data anyway, use encryption wherever possible. - ERASE rather than simply delete files. - catalog/directory structure information/sectors should be considered sensitive data too. - dont use a production/sesitive-data machine for routine BBS-ing and networking. - be *aware* of what the software you use is actually doing -- it may not have fraudulent *intent* but may be the tool of an "accident" in data exposure. - do not assume this is a complete set of things/rules to watch for. Ken Dykes, Thinkage Ltd., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada [43.47N 80.52W] kgdykes@watmath.waterloo.edu [129.97.128.1] watmath!kgdykes ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #326 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07249; 5 May 91 4:33 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00413; 5 May 91 2:59 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac02461; 5 May 91 1:54 CDT Date: Sun, 5 May 91 0:59:39 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #327 BCC: Message-ID: <9105050059.ab07250@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 5 May 91 00:59:20 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 327 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson New Area Code For North Georgia [gilpatrick@odixie.enet.dec.com] Need Ideas on a Telecom Project For Kids [Daniel A. Margolis] Re: Roaming Through the Midwest: Cell Phone Comparison [Douglas Mason] Information Wanted on Chapel Hill Phone System [Dale Neiburg via J Covert] Introducing Call Management Service in Montreal Area [Stewart Clamen] Re: 'Dumb PBX' Wanted [Vance Shipley] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: New Area Code For North Georgia Date: Wed, 1 May 91 07:24:01 PDT From: gilpatrick@odixie.enet.dec.com This article is from the 4/25/91 edition of {The Atlanta Journal}. I'll transcribe directly, errors and all. There was a map accompanying the article that showed the counties that will be in the new 706 area, except that the AC boundry does not align with county lines. It also showed Columbus GA in 706. Columbus is already in 912 and will stay there. TWO AREA CODES SET FOR N. GEORGIA; OUTSIDE METRO ATLANTA TO GET 706 By Bill Hulstead, with Susan Laccetti & John Harmon (Atlanta Journal) The number is up for North Georgia. It has outgrown the 404 telephone area code. So, in May 1992, some North Georgia residents will be getting a new area code. Here's how it will work: - The metro Atlanta area will keep the 404 area code. Anyplace Atlanta residents can call as a local number will stay in the 404 area code. - Everywhere else in the 404 area will change to 706. So if you live in the 404 area and Atlanta is a long-distance call away, your area code is changing. Southern Bell was running out of numbers in the 404 area code, said Carl Swearingen, the company's president for Georgia operations. Besides natural population growth, more numbers were being taken up by popular new devices such as cellular telephones and facsimile machines. Think that's a problem? Just wait: the country is running out of area codes. "There are just 152 area codes in existence," said Southern Bell spokeswoman Pamela Fuller. "Of those, 144 are in use today and the remainder are tentatively assigned." Which meant Southern Bell had to fight to get the 706 area code. It also means that, by 1995 at the latest, there won't be any more codes available. Nobody thinks the country will stop growing, so something will have to give. Two possibilities are being considered. One is adding an extra digit to numbers dialed for a local call. So, by 1995, instead of dialing, say, 555-1212, you may have to dial 5555-1212. DIAL 10 NUMBERS? Another solution is to require that ten digits be dialed for local calls, just like you do for long-distance calls. That means you would have to dial 1-404-555-1212 just to reach your neighbor. The telephone system is simply running out of area codes and prefixes. Fewer are available than you might think because area codes can't be used as prefix numbers and prefix numbers can't be used as area codes. For instance, you'll never see a prefix that uses 404, the area code. In metro Atlanta's outlying counties, where the 404 area code will soon be just a memory, civic leaders think the change could be a mixed blessing. "We'd like to be in metro Atlanta," said Dick James of the Newton County Chamber of Commerce, located jut outside the toll-free zone. "But there is a certain amount of charm to being a little rural." In Helen, which is host to three million visitors annually, Welcome Center Manager Millie Clements said the change will be an inconvenience at first. The change means some counties -- including Cherokee, Henry and Douglas -- will have two area codes. The telephone company set the area code lines so people who now call Atlanta without paying a long-distance charge can continue to. Customers in Cherokee's Woodstock area, where Atlanta numbers are a local call, will stay on 404. North of that, customers will be in the 706 area code and continue to pay long-distance charges to call Atlanta. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 91 10:52:53 EDT From: Daniel A Margolis Subject: Need Ideas on a Telecom Project For Kids Where will our future telecomers come from? Well maybe, we can help a few kids get started early. We have a program where we bring a few eighth-graders into our labs during the summer. Last year, I was in charge of finding a project for them. I wanted them to build something that had to do with telephones, but I couldn't find a telephone kit. So, I took apart some 2500 sets and made my own "kit." I would like to do a similar project this year, but unfortunately, I don't have any more of those phones. The "modern" phones are just a circuit board inside a rectangular box. There just isn't that much to take apart. I'm looking for ideas. What kind of project can I give the students that will involve telecom? I have approximatly two hours per day for five days. They are not old enough to understand electronics, so they need things that are mechanical and pretty intuitive, but give them a sense of accomplishment. Is there a build-a-phone kit on the market? Thanks, Dan Margolis ------------------------------ From: Douglas Mason Subject: Re: Roaming Through the Midwest: Cell Phone Comparison Organization: Consultants Connection, Jenison MI Patrick - Since you have one of the RS handheld cellulars, I was wondering what your opinion is of them. I don't live too far away from you (across the big 'ol pond) and the prices around here have been in the $299 range for the RS handheld. One of the local cell shops sells a Motorolla (can't remember the model) at only $299 as well. Looks identical to the RS model, except for it has an actual LED display (rather than LCD) and is white in color. What has actual street use been like for your RS? What is battery life and talk time like? What accessories do you have or does it come with? I would appreciate any information you can give. Since this is a personal purchase, I would normally look to misc.consumers, but I caught that you owned the model I was interested in and I've respected your opinion in the past. Thanks for your time and your work in comp.dcom.telecom. Sincerely, Doug Mason - Network Admin douglas@wybbs.mi.org ITM Corporation douglas%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!douglas [Moderator's Note: The Radio Shack CT-301 in on sale here now also for $299. When I bought it the price was quite a bit higher. The battery life for me has typically been 12-13 hours at a time, with each five minutes of calling decreasing the battery life by about an hour. It takes one hour to charge completely, however I've had to replace the battery pack twice in the thirteen months I've had the phone due to the battery going bad and not holding a charge. In a densely populated urban area with cell sites close together, the choice of antenna is unimportant. You can use the one that comes with the unit or get one of the 'low-profile' 1/8 wave antennas -- a little stub like thing about a half-inch long -- if desired. Don't let them sell you one of the 'five db gain' jobs ... they are totally a waste of money in an urban area. If you plan to roam a lot, then you might need a better quality antenna. Overall, I like the unit and the performance is pretty good. Thanks for your comments about the Digest. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 91 13:45:15 PDT From: "John R. Covert 01-May-1991 1646" Subject: Information Wanted on Chapel Hill Phone System [Moderator's Note: Message forwarded to the Digest. PAT] From: Dale Neiburg Subject: Information Wanted on Chapel Hill Phone System Organization: NPR Engineering In volume 11, issue 297, Thomas B. Clark III of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill recounts some puzzling problems with wrong numbers on his hunt group. I have no wisdom to offer on that, but would be interested in knowing how the Chapel Hill phone system works generally. Reason being: when I attended UNC-CH (graduated '67), the town phone system was operated by the University, as were the town laundry, the hotel, the water works, and lots of other things. Back in those days, it had the reputation of being abysmal. How Bad Was It? It was so bad that being taken over by GTE was a big improvement. Sorry, I don't have any anecdotes about my personal experiences with the ancien regime. I was enrolled there for only four years, and there was a five-year waiting list to get a phone.... Disclaimer: Opinions are mine, not NPR's or GTE's. UNC and I gave up speaking for each other in 1967. ------------------------------ From: Stewart Clamen Subject: Introducing Call Management Service in Montreal Area Reply-To: clamen+@cs.cmu.edu Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University Date: 1 May 91 18:14:12 [The following is from a 3/4 page ad in the {Montreal Gazette} of Friday, April 19. I presume newspaper distribution restrictions don't apply to advertisements, so this transcription is complete modulo- graphics. -- SMC] INTRODUCING CALL MANAGEMENT SERVICE Four new Bell features that put you in charge of your calls. You have a busy lifestyle and The MONTREAL AREA is one of your value your privacy. Your the first to be offered Call home is you safe place. The Management Service (CMS) from telephone is your vital link Bell Canada - 4 features that to the outside. give you greater control over your telephone ... and your lifestyle. --------- CALL DISPLAY: Let's you see CALL RETURN: Allows you to the caller's originating return the last call you number BEFORE you answer. places or received. Imagine choosing which phone How many times have you run calls to take. Deciding how frantically for the ringing to answer the call or telephone? With Call Return, returning the call at a more you can let it ring. When convenient time. With Call it's more convenient for you Display (*) and one of Bell to speak, simple dial a code Canada's Call Display and you'll be connected with companion products, you see the last caller. the caller's number before you answer. And the choice And how often have you wasted is yours. time trying to get through on a busy line? Use your Call (*) This is the only Call Return turn code a special Management feature that ring will let your know when requires a special visual the number is free. display device. From the multi-functional Maestro(TM) telephone to simple display devices, such as Call Identifier (TM) Model 110, CALL SCREEN: Screens unwanted that attach to your existing callers before your phone even equipment. Bell offers you a rings. selection of companion Wouldn't it be nice to products to suit your reroute unwelcome calls and requirements and your budget. only receive the calls you want? Call Screen lets you easily program up to 12 calling numbers. If any of them call you, they'll CALL TRACE: Now you can do automatically get this something about harassing message: "The part you are calls. trying to reach has chosen not to take calls at this time." You can also add the At last there's a way to help last caller to your list -- put an end to harassing phone even if you don't know the calls. With Call Trace, just number. You'll enjoy more hang up if you receive a peace and privacy. You won't threatening or harassing get unwanted calls. And call. Then dial a code and you'll still be accessible to the caller's number can the people you want to speak automatically be recorded by to. Bell and made available should you want to take legal action. --------- SOME RESTRICTIONS APPLY. Call Management Service is available to single-line residential and business customers in the Montreal calling area, and currently operates on direct-dialed local calls that are served by CMS technology. The service is gradually being extended to include long distance calls. If a CMS feature cannto operate on a particular line, a display or appropriate voice announcement will let you know. CMS may not be availablein your area. CMS DETERS ANNOYANCE CALLERS. Call Management Service makes an important contribution to privacy and security in one's everyday life. The very existence of CMS deters annoyance callers -- wheater you personally subscribe to the service or not. Those callers who make annoyance calls wil think twice if they're not sure whether the person they're caling is a CMS subscriber. Therefore, every time you make a call to someone who is a CMS subscriber, you telephone number will be transmitted to that person (subject to technical limitations) ... unless you use operator-assisted dialing. This also applies to unpublished numbers. --------- CMS FEATURES MAY BE SUPPRESSED BY THE CALLER ON REQUEST Bell provides customers with the option of preventing their telephone numebrs from being transmitted to the called party. If you wish to ensure that your telephone number is not transmitted when calling certain parties, you can dial "0" and inform the Operator accordingly. The Operator wil put your call through without transmitting your telephone number. A charge of 75c per call applies. Certified shelters for victims of domestic violence are exempt from the operator-assisted dialing fee. Bell is currently in the process of identifying eleigble shelters in the Montreal area, and invites shelter representative to call their local Bell Business Office regarding certification procedures. If you live in the Montreal local calling area, order today by calling 279-8636. BELL Answering your call. -------------- Stewart M. Clamen Internet: clamen@cs.cmu.edu School of Computer Science UUCP: uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu" Carnegie Mellon University Phone: +1 412 268 3620 Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, USA Fax: +1 412 268 1793 ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Subject: Re: 'Dumb PBX' Wanted Organization: SwitchView Date: Wed, 01 May 1991 22:27:41 GMT In article Lou Kates writes: > Does "open" mean that you can use the usual switchhook flash and DTMF > tones to command the PBX from extensions or does it mean there are > proprietary protocols which you have access to in some manner? What is meant by "open architecture" is the ability to allow computers to become involved in the processing of calls. This is accomplished over an interface between the computer and the PBX that has been given the generic term "Request and Status Link" (RSL). The computer sends requests to the PBX such as "connect phone A to trunk B" and the PBX sends status messages such as "trunk C is ringing set B". In some cases the PBX may make requests of the computer such as "which phone can take a call now?". > Does anyone have a list of "open architecture" PBX's? For other PBX's > are there vendor specific methods that would still let anyone control > them from a computer? Some of the vendors I am aware of are: Northern Telecom AT&T Rolm NEC There will be an ANSI Draft standard soon under the term SCAI (Switch Computer Apllication Interface). Vance Shipley vances@ltg ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!ltg!vances ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #327 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09157; 5 May 91 5:34 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02095; 5 May 91 4:04 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00413; 5 May 91 2:59 CDT Date: Sun, 5 May 91 1:56:46 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #328 BCC: Message-ID: <9105050156.ab10678@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 5 May 91 01:56:39 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 328 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Tele-Trivia: Why Cotton Balls in Handsets?? [Gord Deinstadt] Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Murdo McKissock] Re: Remote Three-Way Conferencer [Jon Sreekanth] Re: MCI Around Town Eliminated - No Advance Notice [Scott Hinckley] Re: Restricting Telemarketers [Ronald Greenberg] Re: Call Forwarding and Call Accounting [Steve Elias] Re: Question About a Strange Number [Bill Huttig] Re: Bravo Beeper Docs Wanted [Jeffery L. Wisniewski] Re: Why the Cotton Ball is There [Herman R. Silbiger] Re: Caller ID and Name Being Tested by US West [Peter Marshall] Re: Caller ID and Name Being Tested by US West [Paul Sutter] Re: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993 [Mark Brader] A Choice of Sending Fax or Leaving Voice Recording [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gord Deinstadt Subject: Re: Tele-Trivia: Why Cotton Balls in Handsets?? Date: Wed, 1 May 1991 19:48:45 -0400 Organization: GeoVision Corp., Ottawa, Ontario mcmahan@netcom.com (Dave Mc Mahan) writes: > I have been asked why standard desk top telephones have a cotton ball > stuffed into the handset. Unscrewing the earpiece (not the microphone) > gives access to this little wonder. It's not that they put it there deliberately. It just kinda forms there. You know. Lint. Ear lint. :-) Gord Deinstadt gdeinstadt@geovision Gotta cut back on those Q-tips. [Moderator's Note: There's nothing like a good laugh to start off an issue of the Digest ... but later on in this issue a much more detailed explanation of coton balls and hadset types is presented. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 91 11:06:56 bst From: Murdo McKissock Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable > Mark Mortarotti had stated that he owns his address and his name. > While the latter may be true, the former isn't. According to what I > was told years ago by a buddy of mine who works with the U.S. Postal > Service, our addresses are NOT are own. The city in which we live has Very true. After all, the city determines the name in the first place. A couple of years ago Glasgow renamed one of their squares "Nelson Mandela Place". It was the location of the South African Consulate. I imagine they didn't change their letterhead. ------------------------------ From: Jon Sreekanth Subject: Re: Remote Three-Way Conferencer Date: Thu, 2 May 1991 13:59:29 GMT In article hollands@hale.UUCP (Chris C. Hollands) writes: > The purpose of the device is to be able to remotely use the three-way > conference call feature offered by the telephone central office. > Well, this conceptually simple device is pretty far beyond my > experience level. I think it requires a single-chip computer with a > bit of programming, perhaps some relays, a DTMF decoder and encoder, a > power supply, etc. Thanks in advance for your help. > Note: I saw Larry Casterline's email about just such a device and I am > trying to contact him directly. However, I would still like to build > the device I described above. Thanks. If you've already contacted Larry, that's one good off-the-shelf solution. If you don't mind programming, you can do most of what you wanted with your own modem. Assuming you have a modem in a PC in your office, you have most of the pieces. I think most modems don't have DTMF detectors, but they can generate DTMF. Hayes compatible modems have standard, interrupt driven responses to telephone line activity and to program commands. I don't know the bit locations and such, but it should be possible to do the following: Program a TSR (terminate and stay resident), and leave your pc at work powered up. The modem will sense an incoming ring, pick up the phone, and then hang up. Then it dials your home number (that gets you the security you need), waits, flashes the switchhook, gets another dial tone, and makes the second call. Getting it to hang up after the call is over is a little messier, but once you and the other party hang up, there should be a dial tone after a few seconds, and the modem can sense that to hang up. If you have a fax card based on the Yamaha chip, the chip has a DTMF decoder, so that's a complete solution. I don't know about Rockwell and Sendfax(tm) type chips (anyone know ?). Programming all this stuff might take more time than it's worth, of course. 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 ------------------------------ From: Scott Hinckley Subject: Re: MCI Around Town Eliminated - No Advance Notice Date: 2 May 91 14:18:08 GMT Reply-To: scott@hsvaic.boeing.com In bw@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Bruce Waldman) writes: > cents, not 25 cents. It was just a short time ago that they imposed > the 25 cent surcharge, again with no prior notification. Of course, > the MCI representative will inform you that you should have known, I was informed of noth of these changes on my MCI bill one month before each change. I have all but stopped using the card method of calling since they implemented the charge. I have called and explained to them why their revenues are now $30-$50/month lower but they seem to think they will make more money this way. If anyone out there knows of a company with competative rates ($.11 or less for 200 miles) and an around-town feature (or a <$.75/call card charge). I would like to hear about it. Scott Hinckley Internet:scott@hsvaic.boeing.com UUCP:...!uunet!uw-beaver!bcsaic!hsvaic!scott DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions, they do not|+1 205 461 2073 represent the opinions or feelings of Boeing or its management| BTN:461-2073 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 91 10:54:59 -0400 From: Ronald Greenberg Subject: Re: Restricting Telemarketers Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park In article I wrote: > I also learned from somebody at the FCC that there is proposed > legislation in the US Congress to put some kind of limitations on > telemarketing, but I haven't yet gotten details. I've gotten more information now. The bill is HR1304 and Markey is the original author; there are also a number of co-sponsors. The bill would establish a national list maintained by the FCC of people who do not want to receive calls from telemarketers. There would be no charge to get on the list; it would be sold to businesses wishing to do telemarketing. There would be fines ("substantial penalties" according to the staff person I talked to) for telemarketers calling people who are on the list. The law would apply to both interstate and intrastate calls. The advice given of how to support this bill is to contact your congressional representatives. Ron Greenberg rig@eng.umd.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Call Forwarding and Call Accounting Date: Thu, 02 May 91 09:56:39 MDT From: Steve Elias forrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) writes: > Fortunately, call forwarding will remember a 10xxx code, > so I can always use AT&T for call forwarding when I need to. I tried call forwarding (72#) to a 10xxx number back in framingham and natickham, mass last year. And it didn't work. What gives? Steve, are you talking about busy-call-forwarding or call-forwarding- no-answer or the manually controlled 72# kind? I've never asked the NYNEX business cats if it's possible to busy-call-fwd or call-fwd-no- answer to a 10xxx number, but it wasn't possible to do that using 72#. eli ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 91 13:34:18 -0400 From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: Question About a Strange Number 800-555-0000 is the same as 10-288-1-700-555-4141. Although they end up at the same place, any AT&T 800 number ending in 0000 gives you that recording. I think the original idea was to reserve 0000 on all 800 exchanges to identify the owner of that exchange. But it does not hold true for other 800 providers. Bill ------------------------------ From: jeffery l wisniewski Subject: Re: Bravo Beeper Docs Wanted Date: 2 May 91 19:45:30 GMT Organization: Ohio State University, Dept of Computer and Information Science Mike Schuster in Article 17635 wrote: > Anyone have an instruction sheet/tech sheet on the Motorola BRAVO > beeper? I've been given one with no instructions. The simple > things are easy enough to figure out, but I've discovered that > holding various buttons while turning on the power will display > interesting things. Is any of thos documented? Is this in the > Archives somewhere? (If some kind soul with a fax machine has > this, they may send it to 212-308-4054 ... thanks!) I have a Bravo Beeper through a company called USAMobile in Cleveland, Ohio. My office gave me it and did not give me any instructions either. Here is what I have found: I am sure you know how to call up your pager and enter a phone number but what many people do not know is that you can insert blank spaces or '-' in the display also. To insert a '-' in the display you simply press a "*". To insert a blank space you press two "*" and to erase what you have already put in and start over press 3 "*". You Press: You Get: ---------- -------- 1234567 123-4567 123*4567 123-4567 123**456*7890 123 456-7890 123*4567**111 123-4567 111 12345698*** to try again! This can useful for a few things. Our office uses it to code our pages. For example, if it is an important message and requires immediate attention they will page with the phone number followed by a blank and then '111'. If the call is not that important or if we have a message waiting they may use "222". I think I have a copy of the booklet in the office but I will not be in until Saturday. I could fax it to you then if you like. I hope this helped! jeffery l wisniewski The Ohio State University DISCLAIMER: My ideas are my own. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 May 91 19:40:38 EDT From: Herman R Silbiger Subject: Re: Why the Cotton Ball is There Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories I worked for some 18 years at (AT&T) Bell Labs in the Speech Transmission Quality Group. My group was responsible for the measurement of telephone transmission quality, and we devised may subjective tests of telephone transmission parameters to measure this quality by subjective tests. One factor which affects perceived quality is what telephone people call sidetone, and psychoacousticians call auditory feedback. In normal speech, some of the acoustic energy of your voice reached the ear through the air, and some internally. The perception of your own speech is one of the cues you use to control your speech level. When one ear is covered with a receiver cap, part of the acoustic feedback path is missing. The paramaters of the network in the telset feed back some electrical energy from the transmitter (microphone) to the receiver (earphone) to replace the lost acoustic energy. This actually can (and was sometimes) used to control the user's speech level. However, mainly it is desirable to replace some of the acoustic sidetone by electrical sidetone for a more natural experience. People have become so used to this feature that they experience as phobe as "dead" if the sidetone is missing. Since it was so desirable to control sidetone exactly, acoustic sidetone through the handset had to be controlled. Handsets before the "G" handset (the handset on the original "500" set only had a narrow path in the handle, and did not transmit much acoustic energy. The receiver in those sets also had a closed back. With the the 500 set and the G handset came the U1 receiver, which was of the ring armature type. The back of the U1 is open. More modern molding techniques and plastics made a lightweight, hollow handset possible. The combination of the U1 receiver and the G handset provided a high acoustic sidetone level, and severely reduced the perceived transmission quality. Thus, the cotton ball was inserted into the handle to control the amount of acoustic feedback. The size and weight of the cotton ball were tightly specified by Western Electric. Herman "Golden Ears" Silbiger ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 09:25:04 -0700 From: Peter Marshall Subject: Re: Caller ID and Name Being Tested by US West Re: Bruce Carter's comment in 11/317, 4/29; Boise is not only a "test area," but a signficant one, with results likely to have effects beyond Idaho, following a relatively large, six-month market trial incorporating NT's Calling Name ID. Yet, re: Bruce's comment about getting ACLU et.al. to "quit howling about invasion of privacy;" would seem he may have a bit of a sticky wicket as of yesterday, when the Idaho PUC granted part of an ACLU Petition for Reconsideration of the PUC's earlier decision that due to passage of a bill largely deregulating a range of US West services, the PUC lacked jurisdiction over CID. The IPUC has therefore decided to re-open the underlying question involved as to whether CID as per the Boise trial is a "basic" service under Idaho law, after previously assuming it wasn't, contrary to the position of its own counsel. The staff position stated more recently also viewed CID as a function of "basic" service as Idaho defines the term. Patience, Bruce.... Peter Marshall ------------------------------ From: Paul Sutter Subject: Re: Caller ID and Name Being Tested by US West Date: 3 May 91 01:57:42 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA I really hope Pacific Bell adopts "caller-name" delivery, like the field trials in Idaho. As soon as the service is available, I will make two calls to the phone company: 1) "Please disconnect my phone, I am moving out." 2) "Please connect my phone, I am moving in; my name is Saddam Hussein" Just think of the fun when I get a call from "Sir Isaac Newton"; I will know it is my brother. When "Jack Daniels" is calling, I will know it's my old friend from school. This will be much easier to remember than the phone number, and no violation of privacy! Some caution should be exercised when selecting a new "name", however. If you choose "Dan Quayle" to appear on your outgoing calls, people will probably not answer just on the off-chance that it actually is Dan Quayle calling. Also, since I am the type to list my name in the phonebook, I will get a secondary listing with my true name. Of course, only the billing name will go out with my calls. I might have to add Saddam's name to my mailbox so that I can get the bills. A good idea? Paul Sutter sutter@apple.com [typical, unoriginal disclaimer about my opinion and those of my employer] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 May 1991 03:07:00 -0400 From: Mark Brader Subject: Re: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993 Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada > But from downtown Toronto, you will have local service into 905? Yes. Area 416 will be precisely the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. The local calling area from anywhere in Metro is the same, and extends for some distance beyond the Metro boundary in all directions (except south, of course, since Lake Ontario is there). As usual, the area code split will not affect the local calling area. Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 91 10:32:54 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: A Choice of Sending Fax or Leaving Voice Recording I called a number where I was then given the option of faxing (hit * to do that) or of leaving a voice recorded message. I don't think I had heard of that before. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #328 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01760; 5 May 91 14:58 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20723; 5 May 91 13:13 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15199; 5 May 91 12:08 CDT Date: Sun, 5 May 91 11:37:51 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #329 BCC: Message-ID: <9105051137.ab10002@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 5 May 91 11:37:45 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 329 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Ted Papes, Prodigy President, via Tom Lowe] Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Louis J. Judice] Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [deanp@sequent.com] Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Ron Dippold] Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Daniel Herrick] Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Seng-Poh Lee] Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Dick Binder] Spreading Rumors (Was: Prodigy or Fraudigy ???) [Louis J. Judice] Non-Empty Disks (was: Prodigy or Fraudigy ???) [Bill Vermillion] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: tel@cdsdb1.att.com Date: Thu, 2 May 91 08:50 EDT Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? The following is quited directly from Prodigy Today (5/2/91). It was posted in the Service Info Section: [Begin Quote] Members have asked recently about the privacy of the information that they store on their coumputers as it relates to their use of the PRODIGY service. The privacy of your personal information is of primary importance to us. We know that our members consider this kind of information proprietary; so do we. [ The following was underlined ] The PRODIGY service does not read, collect, or transmit to the Prodigy Services Company any information or data that is not directly connected with your use of the service. [ End of underline ] Recently there was an unsubstantiated and false newspaper report suggesting that members' personal information -- unrelated to their use of the PRODIGY service -- is being transmitted to our computers from our members' computers. This is simply not true. It never has been. Member privacy has always been a top priority for Prodigy. In fact, we were active participants, with the ACLU, in the drafting and passage of the Electronic Communication Act of 1986. Ted Papes President, Prodigy Services Company [End Quote] ---------- Disclaimer: I am just a user of Prodigy who happened to see this posted and sent it on for your information. Tom Lowe ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 91 07:53:40 PDT From: "Louis J. Judice 02-May-1991 1033" Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy > I know its off the topic, but ... if you are on a multi-user system > and this technique works for you ... switch. That is terrible > security and the vendor deserves not to be in business (don't name > names, I know several which work this way). Since most of our > multi-user readers are on UNIX, this trick will not work on UNIX > systems. > Two reasons: First, UNIX does not allocate the intervening > space in the file. It just allocates the blocks you write to. The OS > returns 0's for all other blocks read that are not yet allocated. > Second, UNIX does not write partial sectors, nor depend on the > contents of the file to mark end of file. Not to stray even further off the topic, but I would caution readers that in a production environment, this "feature" would probably end up requiring a lot more I/O, especially on a fragmented disk. Your best bet is to use file highwater marking techniques on timesharing disks and permit preallocated files on disks holding large production databases. My guess is that most big UNIX database systems work the latter way, using raw I/O. And of course other operating systems, like VMS, also let you "go both ways." :) ljj ------------------------------ From: deanp@sequent.com Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc. Date: Thu, 2 May 91 16:09:56 GMT I ran a protocol analyzer during my session with Prodigy yesterday -- about an hour's worth -- and saw no personal data being transmitted from my PC. If anyone's interested I can post a few hundred bytes of the trace. ------------------------------ From: Ron Dippold Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Date: Wed, 1 May 91 18:20:15 GMT In article hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes: > In article , overlf!emanuele@kb2ear. > ampr.org (Mark A. Emanuele) posted a BBS file containing hysterical > raving about Prodigy supposedly snooping through user's disks, > uploading and processing confidential information. Let me say first that I don't think they're doing it, however, I can see why someone might think so. Also, I don't believe the article said that they _were_ uploading, just that they could. > [how STAGE.DAT is created] > The idea that Prodigy is slow because they're using bandwidth to > upload confidential information for analysis is just wrong. Watch your > modem lights! Only tiny little bursts of transmission are sent. MOST > of the time, the line is completely idle in both directions. The I hate to tell you this, but I do watch the modem lights, and there are many times that the computer should not need to send data to Prodigy when it is most definitely doing so. Usually when it is sending the info about a new screen for STAGE.DAT, it seems to spend a _lot_ of time talking back to Prodigy. It's probably just ACKs and other chatter, but it certainly appears suspicious, and that's the problem. I, too, wondered why the hell it was sending all that stuff back and exactly what it was sending. > simple fact is that Prodigy is slow because the software is SLOW (it > was written in anticipation of us all having very fast CPUs, video > cards, and modems before too much longer), not because of some > sinister conspiracy to invade our private files. Who could honestly > believe that two companies who are big fat targets for lawsuits would > do something so supremely stupid and easily detectable? > No, the biggest mistake Prodigy made was in not wiping clean > newly-allocated disk space in order to remove any questions in this > regard -- and I suspect that the next Prodigy software update will do The biggest mistake Prodigy made was to completely alienate its customers with arrogance and incredible high-handedness, to not train its customer service people better (so they know what the hell is going on instead of just denying everything), and in handling the E-mail affair so badly (okay, three mistakes). GEnie and CompuServe both have software that perform the same function as the Prodigy software and take over your machine in the same way, but you don't hear people worried about that. Why? Because people trust GEnie and CompuServe and they don't trust Prodigy. Train of thought: "Hmm, what's all this stuff doing in my STAGE.DAT? You don't think Prodigy could be harvesting my hard drive, do you? Why would a big company with the backing of IBM and Sears risk alienating their customers like that? On the other hand, they've never seemed to give a damn before about alienating their customers, and then there's that E-mail stuff. You know, I bet those b*stards would have the chutzpah to do it." Not that I think they are, but it is easy to see how someone could think so. Prodigy has a _serious_ image problem. I don't think anyone could log onto a "normal" local bulletin board, ask about Prodigy, and continue to use it once he/she reads the replies. Someone asked what they could possibly do with the data that's sent (assuming it was, of course). 1 MB per user is a lot to store. However, I could do a _lot_ with one item from every user's hard disk: their directory tree. Small, doesn't take much time to send, and tells you a lot about the person, much more so if you send it every now and then and compare it to the latest copy. The STAGE.DAT is sort of a red herring. If they wanted to send stuff from your hard drive, they wouldn't need to put it in STAGE.DAT first. Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks. | Ron Dippold ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 91 11:11:00 EDT From: HERRICK, DANIEL Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? In article , leryo@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Leryo Malbito) writes: > Upon showing V11 issue 311 (the one with Mark's comments) to a tax > professional friend, he discovered not only confidential tax info on > most of his clients, but logs of Telix sessions which he didn't > remember taking, in addition to the entire Telix dialing directory, > including passwords, macros, etc. An interesting side note is that > Telix is on his D: drive, while stage.dat et al are on his C: drive. > He is still searching through his immense (950K) STAGE.DAT file, > shouting expletives. Look in the file config.sys in the root directory of the boot disk for a line that says "buffers=40" or some other number. DOS sets aside this number of buffers. When your program writes one byte to a file it goes into the appropriate location in one of those buffers and then the whole buffer is written to disk. Carrying along whatever data was last moved through that buffer. The typical number of buffers will hold a lot of data from whatever you were doing before starting Prodigy to copy into stage.dat. This is the most likely mechanism for data kept only on D: to appear in stage.dat on C:. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 May 91 15:37:24 -0400 From: "Seng-Poh Lee, Speedy" Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? Organization: FSF Guest Machines For the last few days, the Prodigy highlights screen has a message proclaiming that the users information is safe and that Prodigy does not upload data from the users computer. This is from the President of Prodigy, so they are taking this seriously. They also have a further description of how users info got into STAGE.DAT, and it follows the deleted sectors theory. I think after Prodigy messed up the e-mail issue, they are responding faster to this issue. However, although they emphatically claim that they do not get hold of any data NOT RELATED to the running of the Prodigy, this still leaves some avenues open. For example, they could claim that they need your path information to run Prodigy. This path information, however also happens to give them an idea of what type of programs you run on your machine. This would fall right in line with their marketing research. In any event, if Prodigy wanted to get info from your system, they don't have to store it in STAGE.DAT. The Prodigy software is written in such a way that new modules can be downloaded to your PC and then executed. This COULD include a program to scan your disk, and upload stuff without a trace of residual data. While I don't think the current STAGE.DAT issue is related to any uploading, I do think that Prodigy has the means to do a lot more if they wanted to. For example, lets say they investigate a complaint of abusive mail from a user (They reserve the right to read private mail under these circumstances). They could also download a module to that users PC to scan other files for abusive text, as part of building a case against that user. Is that justified? I have a funny feeling that this is not the end of it. Big brother is here and he runs your BBS! Seng-Poh Lee splee@gnu.ai.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 91 16:13:26 -0400 From: Simplicitas gratia simplicitatis Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? Toby Nixon writes: > ... even formatting a disk does not remove old information! I beg to differ. Vehemently so. I used to design controllers for both floppy and hard disks - I did it for about 14 years, using SSI and MSI chips and, later, LSI controller chips. The formatting operation must by its very nature destroy the old data. Formatting is a write operation that is done without reading to verify position. It writes both the sector preambles and the data fields instead of only the data fields. LSI chips have a register into which the controlling hardware loads the data pattern to be written into every byte position in the data fields. Not wiping out old data in a formatting operation would mean that the data fields weren't being written - this makes no sense because the propose of a formatting operation is to put readable information on a previously unused disk. The previous claim, that data is in the freshly-allocated sectors by virtue of their having been marked in the FAT as available, is true. You say Prodigy doesn't upload this stale data. If I were paranoid, I'd respond that of course you would say that -- after all, as a beta tester you're probably going to be on Prodigy's side in any such argument. After reading both sides of this discussion, I'm not at all comfortable with the idea that I would have to use Prodigy's software --- most other BBSs let you use any old telecomms package. Maybe it's just as well that Prodigy doesn't sell a package for the Apple II. Dick Binder (Simplicitas gratia simplicitatis) Digital Equipment Corporation DEC Easynet: DECVAX::BINDER 110 Spit Brook Road, ZKO3-3/Y32 uucp: ...!decvax.dec.com!binder Nashua, NH 03062 Internet: binder@decvax.dec.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 May 91 05:55:31 PDT From: "Louis J. Judice 04-May-1991 0845" Subject: Spreading Rumors (Was: Prodigy) It's a tribute to the wide circulation of this Digest and the popularity of BBS systems - here at DEC, I received no less than twelve copies of the "Prodigy/Fraudigy" article from various sources in my internal E-mail. When I looked at the headers, I found that most originated in one place, but ended up being routed virtually all over the company - I bet 50% of our E-mail subscribers received a copy of it one way or another. I sent the well written counter-argument (by the Hayes person, whose name escapes me) to the top level of each routing chain, so it will be interesting to see if a less hysterical article gets fowarded so rapidly. What worries me is - let's say Prodigy was a startup company, and it was ruined by the negative publicity generated by this nonsense. Could the ORIGINAL poster be responsible? Could intermediate mail systems or BBS's be held liable? The oddest thing about this is when you ask someone who flies into your office "would you REALLY believe that IBM/Sears would REALLY do such a thing", the answer is always - "Well, No, of course not". "So, why forward the article?" ljj ------------------------------ From: Bill Vermillion Subject: Non-Empty Disks (was: Prodigy or Fraudigy ???) Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL Date: Fri, 3 May 91 16:11:53 GMT In article hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes: > I've heard stories of "heads rolling" at software publishers when > programmers used supposedly "empty" disks to produce the master disks > that were bulk-duplicated, boxed, and sold. The problem was, of > course, that the disk wasn't clean, but that the old files had simply > been "deleted" (and not erased) -- so anybody that did a little > "garbage collecting" (it's fun; try it some time) got a good bit of > the source code of the product!! Sort of bit of trivia here on that comment. Years ago I got one of the original Adventure Disk from Scot Adams. He had just coverted these to disk basic (but before his compiled versions). Scott sold me a fresh copy and I took it home. I discoved his adventure editor on the disk. I told him about this and that he ought to check his masters more carefully. About a year later I got a call from Scott. He had sold an article and the rights to publish his Basic Adventure Editor to BYTE magazine, and he found that he had NO copy of the orginal. I had the only one he knew about, although others who had the early disks (there were only one and two at that time) probably had them on their disk. So the final article, published around 1981 or so, happened only because I got "nosy" and started probing my disk. Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #329 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03784; 5 May 91 15:52 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08468; 5 May 91 14:17 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20723; 5 May 91 13:13 CDT Date: Sun, 5 May 91 12:36:45 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #330 BCC: Message-ID: <9105051236.ab29473@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 5 May 91 12:36:26 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 330 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: GEnie Management Acting a la Prodigy Management? [Amanda Walker] Wiring Diagram for RS232 Y Cable [David E. A. Wilson] They're Coming to Get Me! [Doctor Math] Re: Payphones and Such [Dave Leibold] Re: Introducing Call Management Service in Montreal Area [Jamie Mason] Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? [Daniel Herrick] Re: Cable & Wireless 800 Service [Eddy J. Gurney] Re: New Area Code Won't Work From Hotel [Carl Moore] Re: A Mystery Refund From MCI [Bill Woodcock] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amanda Walker Subject: Re: GEnie Management Acting a la Prodigy Management? Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA Date: Thu, 2 May 91 22:12:16 GMT CRUZ_A@ccl2.eng.ohio-state.edu writes: [about GEnie vs. Linda Kaplan] > Soooooo, here we go again with the issue of censoring certain > materials in large online systems. Or is it really an issue? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sigh. From what I understand, this is one of the more annoying recent developments on the timesharing service front. Here are the facts as I understand them: From her messages on GEnie, Linda Kaplan presents herself a quite annoying person with no sense of humor and precious little sense of how courtesy applies to public communication. A "sysop" of one GEnie round table (who is responisble for being a pseudo-moderator, keeping discussions on track, putting out flamewars, etc.) got sufficiently irritated with her behavior on his round table that he locked her out of it for a while. Linda subsequently started complaining, and roudned up support from a large group of ex-Prodigy people (who are, after all, quite reasonably sensitive to electronic censorship). Unfortunately, these people then assumed that GEnie management was just like Prodigy management, and started jumping to conclusions and making "pre-emptive" accusations to GEnie and GE management. This, needless to say, did not do much to endear them to GEnie management, especially since this "debate" (combined with Prodigy-style volumnious Email) evidently ended up causing resource problems within GEnie. I do not know if it has been resolved, but I will be quite annoyed if a bunch of disgruntled ex-Prodigy users end up instigating a self- fulfilling prophecy, and turning the best public timesharing service I have used into a hostile environment, or shut it down completely (which GEIS might well do if GEnie ends up being too much trouble). I have quite a number of people of friends who depend on GEnie (one of whom is hearing impaired and uses email as her lifeline to the outside world), and I resent people screwing things up for everyone else because one person cried wolf. Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda ------------------------------ From: David E A Wilson Subject: Wiring Diagram for RS232 Y-Cable Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University Date: Fri, 3 May 91 03:45:59 GMT acd4!mjt@uunet.uu.net (Mark Teegarden) writes: > P.S. Could someone please post a wiring diagram for an RS232 Y-cable > that could be used to attach the serial line of a second PC to monitor > the serial transmissions of the first one that is running the Prodigy > Software without wreaking havoc on the communication to and from the > modem? Can this be done inexpensively? HOST End MODEM End DB-25F DB-25M 4 (RTS) >--------------------------------------> 4 (RTS) 5 (CTS) <--------------------------------------< 5 (CTS) 20(DTR) >--------------------------------------> 20(DTR) 6 (DSR) <--------------------------------------< 6 (DSR) 8 (DCD) <--------------------------------------< 8 (DCD) 7 (GND) --------+------------------------------- 7 (GND) 2 (TxD) >---------------+----------------------> 2 (TxD) 3 (RxD) <-----------------------+--------------< 3 (RxD) | | | | |a |b | \ | \ | \ SPDT switch a=monitor TxD | \ b=monitor RxD | | | | MONITOR DB-25 7 (GND) 3 (RxD) connector to suit tty/pc This should work if plugged into your modem and the cable from your PC to the modem plugged into the DB-25F. If the monitoring computer does not use a DB-25 then the pin numbers at the bottom of the diagram will change. The monitoring pc/tty may also require loopback connections to enable its receiver: typically this would be 4-5 & 20-6-8 joined in the monitor DB-25. David Wilson Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong david@cs.uow.edu.au ------------------------------ From: Doctor Math Subject: They're Coming to Get Me! Date: Thu, 02 May 91 13:31:17 PDT Organization: Brown Cow Software (a licensed Waffle developer) judice@sulaco.enet.dec.com (Louis J. Judice 30-Apr-1991 1328) writes: > If anyone REALLY thinks that Prodigy, IBM and Sears are going off and > uploading your confidential files to have a look, well, I suggest you > power off your computers, unplug your phones, cancel your drivers > license and move to the mountains where the CIA, NSA, Trilateral > Commission, KGB and Iraqi secret police can't find you! Heh ... You left out the DIA and Secret Service, not to mention all those other Dark Government Groups that keep an eye on Citizens who participate in the Usenet Underground :-) I'm sure all I'd have to do is type in the "wrong" thing and they'd all show up at 3 AM to bust my door down and take me away. Let's give it a try: RED BOX BLUE BOX Oh no, I can hear the glass in my front door breaking! No! Wait! You don't want me! Nooooo!!! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 21:51:00 PST From: Dave Leibold Subject: Re: Payphones and Such Reply-to: dleibold@attmail.com Danny Padwa wrote in the Digest: % In article , Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com % writes: % > I have vague recollections of a service that allowed 25 cent calls all % > over New York State for a maximum of 30 seconds. It was specifically % > available at Grand Central Station (and probably Penn Station too) and % > was designed for "meet me at the station at 5:06" type of calls. % Yup ... that was exactly how this worked. It was introduced back in % the days of ten cent local calls in New York. % New York Tel introduced these phones in Penn Station, Grand Central (I % guess), and JFK International Arrivals (and perhaps other places ... % I've only used them at Penn). It was quite a deal ... for a quarter % you could call anywhere in the state (even Buffalo!) for 30 seconds % ... at which point you got cut off with no warning or mercy. Downtown Miami has a few of the "Anywhere America" payphones; it costs 30c/minute to call to any place in the USA. It costs $1/min to call Canada or points in (809) like Bahamas, Jamaica, etc., and (if memory serves correctly) $2/min overseas. There are some COCOTs at a nearby convenience store that will allow calls to a few select 900 numbers on relatively harmless topics (a sports line was one of the choices from what I recall). The charges for these calls didn't seem too far out of line from other 900 numbers, though the COCOTs undoubtedly might take a super big gulp of cash in other ways. David Leibold replies to: dleibold@attmail.com or c/o The Super Continental BBS +1 407 731.0388 Dave Leibold - via IMEx node 89:681/1 Dave.Leibold@f135.n82.z89.onebdos.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Jamie Mason Subject: Re: Introducing Call Management Service in Montreal Area Organization: University of Toronto Computer Science Undergraduate Student Date: Sun, 5 May 1991 09:27:23 -0400 In article clamen+@cs.cmu.edu quotes: > The MONTREAL AREA is one of the first to be offered Call > Management Service (CMS) from Toronto has had it since April 22. I think Ottawa has had it for a while now. Why don't they just say Montreal is the Nth area to be offered CMS, subsituting the correct, but impressively low, N? Does anyone have a list of cites which have a full scale Caller-ID system in place, or to be in place REAL soon? > The service is gradually being extended to include long distance calls. Since at least two other Canadain cities have CMS, why does Bell Canada not extend it to long distance NOW? > If you live in the Montreal local calling area, order today by calling > 279-8636. This quote almost exactly matched a pamphlet Bell Canada sent to Toronto customers with their phone bill. It was sent three months ago, announcing the service and inviting questions/orders. The Toronto number is (416) 585-2500. Does anyone know the date when these services will go on-line in Montreal? I would love to have seen the French ad for CMS. French ads are almost always more original and amusing than the equivalent English ones, except the ads which are direct translations of the English. I am surprised that this message had to wait until someone at NWU read the Gazette. Don't we have any Telcom readers in Montreal? I have been asked by several Telcom readers to post my experiences with CMS to the Newsgroup, since the Caller-ID discussion has a low fact:speculation ratio. Maybe some Montreal readers would be interested to see what is coming their way? I will post the article as soon as I have finished composing it. It is somewhat long. I am glad to see CMS expanding so rapildly. I think that, despite itself, Bell Canada is doing the Right Thing with CMS ... or at least a close approximation of the Right Thing, for a sufficiently liberal "close". Jamie ------------------------------ From: HERRICK, DANIEL Subject: Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? Date: 3 May 91 12:21:40 EST [John Higdon's description of prerecorded phone invitation to call a number in (312) land and some of Pat's report on his investigation truncated.] > numbers from 9050 up to at least 9099 are not in service. I tried > several of the numbers just now (midnight) and got a busy on > everything I tried; my assumption is the numbers are out of order or [...] > the 312-292 exchange. I tested at random and mostly got 'not in > service' or 'has been disconnected' messages. PAT] Maybe people in that neighborhood take the phone off the hook before they go to bed. Do you often call all the numbers in some range around midnight? Have you programmed your computer to help you make these calls? I enjoyed your report, but Good Grief! Pat. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com [Moderator's Note: I tried numbers which were 99 percent certain to be business numbers (had they been connected); i.e. numbers ending in hundreds and/or thousands. I also tried some which CNA reported as 'no record located', which almost invariably wind up being either actually not in service or in service as DID trunks behind a PBX or extensions on a centrex, etc ... not exactly the sort of thing which makes up residential phone service. And no, I would *never* program a computer to simply start dialing down the line at any time of the day or night. I concentrated primarily on the 9000 - 9099 group, with a few 'random' picks elsewhere based on what CNA records said and my own knowledge of how numbers would likely be assigned here. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Eddy J. Gurney" Date: Wed, 1 May 1991 14:17:26 EDT Subject: Re: Cable & Wireless 800 Service (MCI and Telecom*USA, too) Steve Forrette mentioned that Cable & Wireless provides 800 service for rates comparable to U.S. Sprint before they jacked up the price $5/month. Plus, they optionally provide remote programming of the forwarding number for your 800 calls. I checked C&W out when I was originally looking into the 800 LDCs, and unfortunately, they only offer it in certain area codes. Mine is not one of them. :-( I called them again today and confirmed this is still the case. (If anyone is interested, it is 517; Lansing, MI.) I also called MCI about their "Follow Me 800" service, but the representatives did not have any information available at this time, and said "you will be hearing more about it." I guess we'll see about that. I wonder if this too, will be a "shared" 800 number, or if they will finally assign you your own number. Finally, our Moderator's 800 carrier, Telecom*USA, has been consumed by MCI, and will not allow new customers to add 800 service at the incredible monthly rate of only $2.75/month. They direct all your calls to MCI, where they try to sell you MCI Personal (Shared) 800 with the infamous "personal security code". I guess Pat is just lucky he jumped on the bandwagon when he did! :-) So the search continues for an 800 LDC besides U.S. Sprint. Any more suggestions? I'll keep everyone posted. Eddy J. Gurney N8FPW -- eddy@jafus.mi.org -- The Eccentricity Group [Moderator's Note: Except that *existing* customers of Telecom*USA at the time of the MCI merger are still being serviced through Telecom*USA customer service, and they still let us add/delete or change around our 800 numbers as desired for $2.75 each. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 91 9:18:58 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: New Area Code Won't Work From Hotel To summarize, there are sometimes problems in reaching new area codes or prefixes. It makes you wonder about which poor souls will end up in the first NNX area code. From 1973 to 1980, there may have been problems in making calls from the U.S. east coast to prefixes of N0X/N1X form in area 213 (Los Angeles etc.; currently 213/818, and later to become 213/818/310). At least there would have been a problem in explaining it to operators on the east coast, with such problem going away only when NYC got N0X/N1X prefixes. Someone in this Digest complained of people having trouble reaching him in the then-new area code 508 in Massachusetts; it split from 617 in 1988. Several years ago, I had to ask an operator to make a call for me to a new prefix (301-850), because my attempt to make a 0+ call to it did not work (0-850-xxxx, the correct syntax at the time for 0+ within Maryland when originating outside the DC area). And I know of someone who had trouble reaching 202-994. This Digest also had a complaint last year about someone not being able to complete a local call of the form NPA + 7D from a hotel (in the VA suburbs of DC) to either MD or DC. In this case, he had to work around by using 7D, which still worked at the time. ------------------------------ From: Bill Woodcock Subject: Re: A Mystery Refund From MCI Date: 5 May 91 00:03:44 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cru Somebody wrote: > Something interesting happened to me today ... this month's phone > bill included a $10 credit from MCI! A quick check of my various > phone lines indicates that I'm still with my chosen long distance > carrier (which isn't MCI). I didn't call and ask about it herbison@ultra.enet.dec.com wrote: > This must be part of some judgment against MCI for slamming. In > punishment for changing the long distance carrier for random > telephone lines, someone is forcing them to give refunds to random > telephone lines. Patrick Wrote: > I don't really think this is the case. There may be a class-action > suit against MCI for slamming, but I have not heard of it. But in > class actions I am familiar with, the settlement usually calls for > injured parties to at least submit some sort of claim form with the > court and evidence of what occurred. Any other ideas? I dunno. I've always used AT&T, and they've called me with incentives to switch to AT&T about once a month for the last year. Their databases must be fouled up somehow. I invariably tell them that I'm already using AT&T (and I am; I've checked) and they invariably apologize, and say that they'll remove my name from their list, and I invariably recieve some of the little AT&T funnymoney credits in my next phone bill. I've got three lines at home, so it really adds up. My LD service is almost paying for _itself_ now. :-) Bill Woodcock BMUG NetAdmin bill.woodcock.iv..woody@ucscb.ucsc.edu. 2355.virginia.st..berkeley.ca.94709.1315 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #330 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id ab06498; 5 May 91 16:59 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06780; 5 May 91 15:22 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08468; 5 May 91 14:17 CDT Date: Sun, 5 May 91 13:58:11 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #331 BCC: Message-ID: <9105051358.ab21758@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 5 May 91 13:58:00 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 331 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: ATT Digital Answering Machine [David Fiedler] Re: Whither the AT&T News Line? [Dave Leibold] Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Daniel Herrick] Re: Caller*ID From US PBXs [Steven S. Brack] Re: Third Party Billing Fraud and New England Tel's Answer [K. Mullholand] AT&T Partner System: A Reasonable Choice? [olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu] Making Comments to FCC [Ronald Greenberg] Thanks for Advice on Panasonic KSU [Jim Youll] Information Needed on Bell Atlantic Answer Call [Kevin Brown] Adding a Modem to System 85 Set [Jeff Wasilko] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Fiedler Subject: Re: ATT Digital Answering Machine Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services UNIX System 408 241-9760 Date: Sun, 5 May 1991 06:37:59 GMT panix!schuster@cmcl2.nyu.edu (Michael Schuster) writes: > In article ssc-bee!ssc-vax!clark@ > cs.washington.edu (Roger Clark Swann) writes: >> Someone was asking here recently about the ATT digital answering >> machine. I just received a flyer from Sears that includes: >> ATT Digital Answering System 1337 >> >> - All digital technology, etc Sale price $99.99 > Thanks. The inquiry was mine, but perhaps I was not clear enough. > Randy Borow posted in early April about a =second model= of the AT&T > Digital Answering machine which had the =additional= features (these > are =not= in the 1337's that I've seen) of: > -time/date stamping of incoming emssages > -voice prompts > -remote progrmaming with rotary phone. I got my father an AT&T 1330, which has one cassette and up to 30 seconds of digitized outgoing messages, plus time/date stamping. The user interface is a bit tricky for non-programmer types, and the voice quality isn't the greatest, but it only cost $69.95 at a local discount store. David Fiedler UUCP:{ames,mrspoc,hoptoad}!infopro!david AIR: N3717R "Video for Computer Professionals" BIX: fiedler Internet: fiedler@netcom.com USMail:InfoPro Systems, PO Box 220 Rescue CA 95672 Phone:916/677-5870 FAX:-5873 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 91 22:28:00 PST From: Dave Leibold Subject: Re: Whither the AT&T News Line? Reply-to: dleibold@attmail.com Thanks for a number of responses with respect to the AT&T daily news report... rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com replies: > In answer to Dave Leibold's wondering what happened to the AT&T > Newsline: it was discontinued via its 800 number. It now can be > reached via a normal (meaning YOU pay) POTS number. Why the change? > From what we were told, it was due to cost-cutting measures. So what > else is new? I'm not sure if the cost savings rationale is as simple as it sounds ... wouldn't AT&T people just have to start dialing long distance or WATS to get their news? Also, if AT&T had the 800 network, would they not have had the capability to connect the newsline directly to their network? The new POTS number would seem to entail extra dealings with a local telco. But I'm neither an accountant nor technician for AT&T, so perhaps someone out there has a better idea of the situation. Perhaps cutting the volume of calls to the news line is one motivation for this change. Bill Huttig wrote: > The newsline discontinued its 800 number. The correct number now is > 908-221-NEWS. (I don't see why they want to make people pay for it.) Why, so that MCI and Sprint can now make some coin off the deal :-) Presumably, the news line number isn't eligible for MCI's Friends and Family program. David Leibold dleibold@attmail.com disclaimer: just wondering about the nuances of the situation.... Dave Leibold - via IMEx node 89:681/1 Dave.Leibold@f135.n82.z89.onebdos.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 91 10:14:00 EDT From: HERRICK, DANIEL Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission In article , dpletche@jarthur.claremont. edu (Nuclear Warrior) writes: > I have been harboring an amusing idea for some time. Wouldn't it be > great if one of those rare individuals who wasn't motivated solely by > personal and corporate greed What are you waiting for? Surely you are such a person. > was to create a full-service telephone company, hopefully > providing long distance (and in some areas, where the LEC was > especially lame, local service) at the lowest possible prices? We have a new industry starting, calling themselves Alternative Carriers, offering local service in competition with the established local exchange carriers. > It would charge just enough to hire all the necessary people, > provide ample capacity and keep all of the equipment state-of-the-art. Is this opportunity real? Has your phone company hired a lot of unnecessary people? Do they have the money to swap out 1985's state of the art equipment for 1991's state of the art equipment? > Perhaps a public stock offering could be made, and the big benefit > would be that $1000 up front would get you five years of unlimited > free long distance on your line or something. I remember another offer that isn't made any more - $1000 up front gets you one week a year in the new tower hotel at Heritage USA for the rest of your life. There are four of those in my family that someone else bought and gave us. We did camp there once. Nice place. > The amazing thing is that this could actually be done, and it would > probably have fascinating effects, effectively bringing the whole > country into your local calling area. Any comments? There is a Robert Heinlein novel that sheds some light on the economics of big enterprises entitled "The Man Who Sold the Moon". There was another post a few back in this thread that repeated some common misconceptions about the relationship between cost and price. The price is determined by what people are willing to pay. In long distance service, AT&T provides a benchmark. Someone else who wants to persuade you to buy their service and not AT&T's has to do one of the following: 1. Convince you their service is better than AT&T's and worth a higher price than AT&T charges. 2. Convince you that they will give you comparable phone service to what you have been getting from AT&T for a comparable price and they will be nicer to you than AT&T is. 3. Convince you that you will be happy with their lower quality phone service because it costs so much less. Those considerations determine selling price. Cost does not enter in to the calculations. The provider of the service learns from the market what he can sell it for, the price. He has to find a way to make his costs low enough that he makes a profit at that price. Or go out of business when he runs out of money. The question I put after the first quoted passage above is serious. If you have a better idea, offer it to the marketplace. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ------------------------------ From: "Steven S. Brack" Subject: Re: Caller*ID From US PBXs Reply-To: "Steven S. Brack" Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix (sponsored by U. of Denver Math/CS dept.) Date: Sat, 4 May 91 00:06:57 GMT In article goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 301, Message 3 of 10 > In article , sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu > (Steven S. Brack) writes... >> (1) What will Caller*ID show as my number? >> (2) What does E911 get as my number? >> (3) What would an Ohio Bell trace show as my number? > In general, if you are behind a PBX, then the public network knows > only about the PBX trunk or group you're on. In some cases the trunk > will return a hunt pilot, in others its own number, depending upon how > it's set up. But none of the above three services can know your > extension number, even though it can be dialed directly. Extension > info is passed from the CO to PBX on incoming calls (DID service) > only. Ohio State's PBX is an NT SL100. It is possible to dial a 7D number from outside the system & reach my phone, or almost any other. I apologize if I wasn't clear about the system OSU uses. OSU actually bought Ohio Bell's old 42X- exchange CO, and uses it for both its switch and its offices. Funny seeing a windowless building with offices in it. From my conversation with their switch engineer, OSU has T1 to Ohio Bell, and a Litel POP. It's not your "typical" PBX system. > On Centrex, it would show the number for your extension. > Centrex-CU did deliver your extension number for billing purposes, > 911, etc. (If they had 911 back then!) This was done via a data link > from the switch to the CO, reporting which extension had seized which > trunk. > When the stepper went away, this service was made available to newer > PBX users, under the name "Automatic Identified Outward Dialing" > (AIOD). Many PBXs of the day, such as Dimension, supported it. > I'm not sure if modern PBXs even support AIOD. > AIOD would make caller*ID behave in the expected fashion. I know local services getting ANI don't get the "true" number, and (after much cajoling and pleading) the ONI read back to me by Sprint (we switched to them a few weeks ago -- Sprint has some network interface problems with our lines, but that "will be fixed in the next software upgrade") was for the trunk I was on, not my actual number. Our system occupies the entirety of the 292- & 293- prefixes, with about 1000 extra internal numbers not directly reachable from the Bell side. PS: I had an interesting tour of OSU's telecom facility. They have great plans for the future, including full ISDN and other goodies. Personally, I'm waiting for Ohio Bell to sue for "unfair competition" 8) 8) Steven S. Brack sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu I am not speaking for the Ohio State University. Now, if only I could convince them of that 8) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 1991 11:46:34 EDT From: KATH MULLHOLAND Subject: Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer Recently, Belanger noted that New Enland Tel offers: > here's what the service rep told me: I could put a "block" on my > line to prevent third-party billing, for the "amazingly-low-price" (my > wording) of $.95 a month per line, and a one-time charge of $11.70 . UNH uses this toll restriction to prevent students from billing third party calls to our lines from whereever they happen to roam. It works very well, as long as the potential "phrauders" considerately use AT&T or their local RBOC. Calls from any other carrier are often charged, and receiving creidt is difficult to impossible. With the proliferation of 0+ vendors our out there, it promises to get even harder to control. I wish the FCC would rule that third party callling is not allowed -- credit cards and other charging alternatives are so prevalent, it seems silly to keep this "dark age billing technology". Kath Mullhland UNH Durham, NH [Moderator's Note: After having IBT set up my two lines and my distinctive ringing number (three phone numbers total) to automatically deny collect and third-number billing, I tried testing it through a variety of carriers to see what would happen. AT&T, Sprint, MCI and Telecom*USA immediatly recognized the block, and their operators would not even bother to inquire (from me) to see if the calls were accepted. Denial was automatic, as it also was via a couple alternate operator services. I had confederates around the country try to get through using the big three carriers, with no success. Someone tried to get through using ITI, and I was called by their automated system, but I refused the charges. PAT] ------------------------------ From: olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu Subject: AT&T Partner System: A Reasonable Choice? Date: Sun 5 May 1991 00:00:00 I'm looking for a simple key system for use in my home, and it looks like the AT&T Partner will do most of what I want (especially, the ability to work with ordinary single-line phones). For me, the big plus for AT&T is that they have retail stores I can just walk into. The minuses are: - inability to use all the features from ordinary phones, and - price. The retail prices from the AT&T phone store are: - $400 for each Partner system module (2 outside lines, 6 extensions) - $160 for each Partner multi-line phone (needed to use the full functionality of the system) My question is whether I'm likely to do much better with other systems such as Panasonic, enough to make it worthwhile to hunt for someone willing to sell them to me. Thanks in advance for any help. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 91 11:07:53 -0400 From: Ronald Greenberg Subject: Making Comments to FCC Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park In article I wrote: > It would be nice if one could get copies of FCC proposals on-line. > Also, I'm not really sure how members of the public are supposed to > express their comments. There is some information about making > comments in the material they sent me, but it seems to involve some > annoying bureaucratic requirements, and they use some legal terms I'm > not familiar with. I happened to run into somebody who works for the FCC, and he said that you really can just send any comments about FCC proposed regulations or things you would like them to regulate to any obvious address. So I guess that would be: Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20554 Apparently, all the legalese about "ex parte presentations" and "Sunshine Agenda" and requirements for sending copies are not really things you have to worry about. I think some of this is about stopping people from making covert comments to individual decision makers at the FCC. With regard to the FCC's proposed regulations on 900 numbers that started this discussion, it looks like they wanted comments by April 24 and reply comments by May 24, but I don't know if there is any real significance to those dates. Ron Greenberg rig@eng.umd.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 May 91 12:51:54 -0400 From: Jim Youll Subject: Thanks For Advice on Panasonic KSU (This seems like the most efficient way. Lots of people gave advice.) Thanks to everyone who advised me on the purchase of my first-ever KSU. I now have a Panasonic '616 and it is working out wonderfully. I thought it would help organize things better around here, but it's working beyond my expectations. If anyone wants info on the system, mail me. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 91 11:24:37 EDT From: Kevin Brown Subject: Information Needed on Bell Atlantic Answer Call Does anyone know if Bell Atlantic's answer call service is compatible with identa-ring ? I'm a college student and what I would like to do is have my number be the main number with the identa-ring and keep that on call forward inhibited to the answer call service all the time. My parents' number could then be the dependent number and always be answered at home by them as normal. Well, but with the distinctive ringing pattern. Please respond by e-mail, I don't always get a chance to read the group. Thanks in advance. Kevin Brown Box 72 Moravian College, Bethlehem PA 18018 CSNET/INTERNET: brownK@moravian.edu UUCP...!rutgers!liberty!batman!brownK ------------------------------ From: Jeff Wasilko Date: Fri, 3 May 1991 20:29:27 EDT Subject: Adding a Modem to System 85 Set I just had my phone switched from an 'analog' (standard 2500 set) to a AT&T ten button 'digital' set on our System 85 to gain an additional two lines. In doing that, I lost the ability to use a modem on the line. Is there any way to use a standard telephone device (like a modem or answering machine) with this phone? It's got a second eight-pin RJ- jack on the back marked 'OTHER'... The identifiying numbers on the phone are: RF90IL-19, Z7403D01B and 845P11. Any source for a device to add a standard RJ-11 device to this phone would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! Jeff Wasilko, RIT Communications ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #331 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09214; 5 May 91 18:00 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15055; 5 May 91 16:28 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06780; 5 May 91 15:22 CDT Date: Sun, 5 May 91 15:16:29 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #332 BCC: Message-ID: <9105051516.ab24598@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 5 May 91 15:15:55 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 332 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Audivox Program Codes Wanted [David E. Sheafer] Programming Manual for Fujitsu 7300LT Cell Phone Wanted [Amanda Walker] Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me! [Phydeaux] Cellular One vs. GTE Cellular [David Gast] Cellular Slowdown [Ken Jongsma] New AT&T Smart Phone [Ken Jongsma] Finding Place Names From Various US Services [Dave Leibold] Japan and Modems [Jim W. Lai] Alone on a Country Road With Only a COCOT For Help [Scott Dorsey] Calling From 416 Area [Tony Harminc via Carl Moore] Touch-Tone vs. Rotary - A Frustrating Experience [Will Martin] Differences in T1/E1 Standards [Bud Couch] Telemarketing Database [Bob Frankston] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David E. Sheafer, Class of 1989" Subject: Audivox Program Codes Wanted Date: 1 May 91 23:13:53 GMT Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA A while ago someone posted programming codes for Audiovox Cellular telephones. Could somone forward this information to me? I've been unsuccessful in finding them in the telecom archives. David E. Sheafer internet: nin15b0b@merrimack.edu or uucp: samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b GEnie: D.SHEAFER Cleveland Freenet: ap345 Bitnet: Sheafer_davi@bentley ------------------------------ From: Amanda Walker Subject: Programming Manual for Fujitsu 7300LT Cell Phone Wanted Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA Date: Thu, 2 May 91 22:18:04 GMT I'm looking for the programming manual for a Fujitsu 7300LT. I can get it into programming mode, but I seem to only be able to set NAM #1 (the 7300 has 4). As an alternative to a manual, does anyone know how to put in the phone number and home system number for the other NAMs? That's actually all I care about. Thanks, Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 91 09:56:25 PDT From: Phydeaux Subject: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me! Hi! During a recent flight, I had my phone turned on and noticed the 'roam' light was on. I tried to place a call but it didn't go through. We were at about 39,000 feet, and I didn't expect it to. It would stay on 'roam' for a few seconds and then go to 'NoSvc'. But, when we were down to about 15,000 feet I noticed the 'roam' light was on continuously. I tried to dial again and it worked like a charm. I was using a .6 watt Motorola "Ultra Classic" portable with the small (1/8 wave?) antenna, and I wasn't even in a window seat! I realize that you're "not supposed to" do things like this, but if anything had happened I could always have called 911 ;-) *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* reb@ingres.com or reb%ingres.com@lll-winken.llnl.GOV ICBM: 41.55N 87.40W h:558 West Wellington #3R Chicago, IL 60657 312-549-8365 w:reb ASK/Ingres 10255 West Higgins Suite 500 Rosemont, IL 60018 708-803-9500 [Moderator's Note: You should have tried a few more tests of things you're 'not supposed to do', such as *711 to ask what carrier it was, and 0 for the operator to find out what place was getting your call. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 91 16:05:18 -0700 From: David Gast Subject: Cellular One v GTE Cellular John Higdon wrote: > I just did not feel that Cellular One (despite the aggressive > advertising) was really providing me with the service I was paying for. Sure. If you have a good product, you don't need to advertise. When you don't have a good product, you spend all your money on advertising how good your product is rather than spending money making it better. ------------------------------ Date: 02 May 91 19:27:31 EDT From: Ken Jongsma <73115.1041@compuserve.com> Subject: Cellular Slowdown The current {Business Week} has an interesting article on the state of Cellular Service today. Apparently, there has been a substantial slowdown in the growth of cellular and the cellular companies are having to start paying attention to "Service." (What a concept!) Some details: 1) Revenue growth dropped from 71% to 36% in one year. 2) PacTel Cellular average monthly revenue dropped from $104/month to $91/month in one year. 3) Bell Atlantic transfers you to a "Save Team" when you try to drop them as a carrier. BA thinks it keeps 25% of those trying to drop. (High Pressure Tactics? "You drop - We know where your car is.") 4) Industry churn rate is 36% per year, up from 24%. 5) Voice Mail causes customers to spend 15-20 minutes more per month on the phone. (And they generally charge extra for this!) 6) Industry averages $600-$900 spent in marketing for each new customer. Save Teams are nothing new. Try dropping your American Express card. You'll get transfered to someone who'll try to talk you into keeping it, even offering to give you a credit towards the annual fee. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries 15.1041@compuserve.com Grand Rapids, Michigan jongsma@benzie.si.com [Moderator's Note: I've had the same feeling about the cellular market ever since the greatly discounted (and sometimes free!) cell phones started appearing on the market tied to specific carriers. When Fretters offers cell phones for $29 in connection with one year service commitments to Ameritech, you know someone is starting to feel a pinch! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 02 May 91 19:26:17 EDT From: Ken Jongsma <73115.1041@compuserve.com> Subject: New AT&T Smart Phone There is an interesting ad in the current issue of {Business Week}, placed by AT&T Network Systems. The ad states that AT&T will be offering a new "smart" phone in 1992. The picture shows something that looks like a beige Etch-a-Sketch with a handset attached to one side. There is no dial pad. Instead, the screen is apparently touch sensitive and programmable. One portion of the screen shows a dial pad, with the remainder divided into soft key menu selectors. The ad copy states that the phone is programable such that one key could be labeled "Friends." Pressing that key would bring up a sub- menu with all your friends listed. Pressing a particular key would dial that friend. The copy goes on to say that the phone could be used for banking, airline reservations and other services. No details are given as to what type of service is required to support this phone (ISDN, POTS?) Perhaps Randy Borow or one of the AT&T people has more details. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries 15.1041@compuserve.com Grand Rapids, Michigan jongsma@benzie.si.com [Moderator's Note: Based on some other messages coming into the Digest queue at this very minute, I expect to be hearing from Randy Borow very soon anyway ... maybe he will be able to answer this also. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 91 23:02:00 PST From: Dave Leibold Subject: Finding Place Names From Various US Services Reply-to: dleibold@attmail.com The results of trying to find a place name from the various long distance operators in the U.S. are interesting. In this case, each operator was presented with the exchange 416-771, which is a brand new Thornhill, Ontario prefix (active as of the end of March). It's a tad unfair to spring something that new on anyone, but let's see what happened... #1 - US Sprint: Dial 10333 + 0 for their operator ... they answer in a reasonable time, but were unable to find out where 416-771 was, other than that the area code was in Ontario. #2 - MCI: Dial 10222 + 0 for MCI operator ... one thing about MCI's operators is that they can take quite a long time to answer. After giving 416-771 to them to find a place for it, the operator said "one moment" many times (an explanation for the large number of rings?!?), had an interim location of "Canada" then ultimately gave "Toronto" as the answer. Close, but not quite icing on the cookie. #3 - AT&T: 10288 + 0 ... without much delay, the AT&T operator seemed to be the right choice, and came up with Thornhill without much trouble. This only reflects an early evening trial, and may not be too scientific, but it gives a bit of an idea as to what place name finding can be had. Finally, I tried doing a place name from a Metromedia/ITT operator some other day and they weren't able to find that stuff out. Dave Leibold - via IMEx node 89:681/1 Dave.Leibold@f135.n82.z89.onebdos.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Jim W Lai Subject: Japan and Modems Organization: University of Waterloo Date: Fri, 3 May 1991 01:00:16 GMT Looking through the ads of a Japanese computer magazine, I was puzzled by the high cost of modems compared with North America. No US brands were for sale. Can anyone explain the nature of this situation? I also noticed the Japanese modem brands were not sold in the US either. ------------------------------ From: Scott Dorsey Subject: Alone on a Country Road With Only a COCOT For Help Organization: NASA Langley Research Center Date: Fri, 3 May 1991 01:17:21 GMT There we were, stuck on a lone country road with a blown transmission. We stopped at a deserted gas station, and there it was. A COCOT. Abominable creation of hell. Dialed 411, and got a request to enter twenty-five cents, which was all we had on us. Hung up. Picked up the phone, dialed 10288, but after dialing the zero we got an annoying beeping tone. So there was only one thing left. Calling the operator. We typed zero. And waited. And waited. And waited some more. After a bit, we got a machine telling us to dial 1 to make a collect call or 0 if we wanted a human operator. So we dialed zero, and waited some more. Got some repetitive beeps, too. But eventually someone answered "ITI Operator." We told them we wanted the AT&T operator. She told us to hold the receiver away from our ear because we'd hear a tone, and then to wait twenty seconds for the operator. We got a blast of 2600, then a quick beep before the line went dead. And about half a minute later "C&P." C&P is the local phone company, and I made sure that I wasn't talking to an AT&T operator. I said I was having trouble dialing 411, and asked if they could connect me, which they did. And I asked for the number, got it, hung up and placed my call. I suspect if I had tried again for the operator, asked for AT&T again, and got C&P, the C&P operator would have completed my local call for free. But I wasn't pressing my luck. scott ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 91 13:26:14 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Calling From 416 Area With the permission of Tony Harminc , I am forwarding the following remarks: ----- Forwarded message: [From Carl Moore: 905 was recently announced for split of 416.] Amusingly, when I dial 1+905+7D from here (416) I get routed to a message from 619 saying that the dialing procedure for Mexico has changed - use 011+52+, in English and Spanish. Somehow you'd think a switch in what will be the new 905 would be the first to be updated! [Use of 0+ within area 416.] ...it is explicitly stated (in the front of the phone book where it explains how to use a calling card) that although you *can* use a calling card for a local call ($.75) you cannot dial it with 0+. You must dial 0 and wait for the operator. If you try 0 + 416 + 7D and it is a local call, you get the recording saying "the number dialed is not a long distance call - please do not dial 1 or 0 before the number". If it is long distance it goes through to the ka-bong/operator just fine. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 May 91 12:42:10 CDT From: Will Martin Subject: Touch-Tone vs. Rotary - A Frustrating Experience What is the percentage in the US these days of telephones with touch-tone capability (on touch-tone-accepting lines) vs rotary phones? Are there now more TT than rotary phones? (If so, any idea when TT passed the 50% mark?) Is this statistic available for residential vs. business lines? (I would venture to guess that the business percentage is far higher than the residential -- maybe business is now 100% Touch-Tone [except for those few areas where TT is not yet available]?) What inspires this is a frustrating experience yesterday calling a company (Rhino Records, at 800-432-0020) from my home, where I have only rotary POTS. I got a voice-mail menu, which said to press 1 for this and 2 for that, or to hold on if one had a rotary phone. I waited through a couple iterations of that noise, and then got a ring signal. However, after it rang six times, another recorded voice came on and said "to return to the operator, press zero". No option was available at that point for someone on a rotary phone! Eventually, another voice said "Thank you" and hung up. I went through this nonsense six times! On the seventh occurrence, I got a "busy" instead of a ring from the sub-menu, or whatever you call it, and thereafter, I got a busy when dialling the 800 number so I just gave up. (An added annoyance was that they don't open up until 9:30 AM Pacific time, so I had to wait until 11:30 Central to even begin this futile process.) Today, at work, from a phone with TT capability, I called again and managed to get to a real operator, after wading thru a couple levels of voice mail menus, and eventually got connected to a real person to whom I explained their problem with the phone-order system. I had had a $75 order I had just about decided to forego, and I emphasized how they were losing business from any and all callers with rotary phones. (Personally, if it was my business and I received such a report from a customer [or ex-customer], I'd rip the damn voice mail system out and go back to having human beings answer directly... :-) But I wonder just what percentage of potential customers are they cutting off with this cruddy system of theirs? Maybe, if rotary usage is so low now, they can afford to ignore that segment of the market. [Interesting thought: I was calling to order vinyl LPs from their close-out sale, because they're terminating those. I woder how well rotary phone usage correlates with the use of LPs vs. CDs. Maybe that's why they didn't get orders for LPs any more -- all us LP enthusiasts still have rotary phones and could never get thru to order any! :-)] Regards, Will wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil ------------------------------ From: Bud Couch Subject: Differences in T1/E1 Standards Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Fri, 3 May 1991 18:51:37 GMT In article nanook@eskimo.celestial.com (Robert Dinse) writes: > used in this country. The normal T1-cxr uses 64kb/s (8 bits times 8 > Khz sample). >> 20 phone calls take 1 Mb/s (actually, T1 line at 1 Mb/s handles 32 > The standard T1 rate is 1.544 Mbits/sec and carries 24 not 32 > channels. I think that the confusion lies in the difference between US (and Japan) *T1* rates and the CEPT (European *E1* standards. Both use a channel rate of 64 Kb, but not the same frame, signaling, or channel structure. T1 uses 24 channels of 8 bits, whereas the CEPT systems have 32 channels of 8 bits. Only 30 of those are used for end-to-end transmission, the remaining two channels are for signaling, framing and maintenence. The E1 line rate is 2.048 Mb/s. T1 has an extra bit assigned for framing, etc, and may steal an lsb from each channel for signaling every sixth frame. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew ... standard BS applies ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 May 91 18:16 GMT From: Bob Frankston Subject: Telemarketing Database It would be nice if there were protocols for querying line properties such as "no telemarketing". This seems much cleaner than maintaining a separate database. Keeping separate databases linked is a nightmare. For example, suppose you are blocking for a given service and the next party to get your phone number doesn't want blocking, what are the odds of the database being correctly maintained? Of course, any such central database is fraught with its own dangers. Do I want the telco's to start keeping a centralized database on me? (As if they don't already). ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #332 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11865; 5 May 91 19:04 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12038; 5 May 91 17:33 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac15055; 5 May 91 16:28 CDT Date: Sun, 5 May 91 16:20:41 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #333 BCC: Message-ID: <9105051620.ab06301@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 5 May 91 16:20:34 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 333 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Data-PCS Petition to FCC (Apple Petition) [Bill Stevens] NYNEX Applies for "Phonesmart" Services, Including Caller ID [John Covert] MCI Suspends New 900 Applications [John Boteler] Directory of 800 Prefixes Wanted [Steve Shellans] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Stevens Subject: Data-PCS Petition to FCC (Apple Petition) Date: 3 May 91 16:22:08 GMT Reply-To: data.pcs@applelink.apple.com Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA Dear Reader, On January 28, 1991, Apple Computer filed a petition with the Federal Communications Commission, requesting the creation of a new radio band, which we call "Data-PCS". May 10, 1991 is the FCC's deadline for comments from the public on this important issue. If created, Data-PCS will enable all computer manufacturers to produce high performance wireless communications products for the United States. Please review the following information, and consider what benefits YOU might gain from the creation of this new communications capability. Instructions are included for writing directly to the FCC. Alternately, you may simply "reply" to this posting, which will return your electronic comments to Apple Computer. We will forward all such replies to the FCC. The preferable approach, of course, is to mail a personal letter to the Chairman of the FCC, as described below. Thank you, William M. Stevens manager, Wireless Communications Research Apple Computer P.S. A "text" version of Apple's "Data-PCS" petition may be obtained via anonymous FTP from: ftp.apple.com /pub/fcc/datapcs.txt If you desire a copy of the petition but are unable to obtain it via this method, please reply to this posting (at data.pcs@applelink.apple. com), and indicate that you are requesting a copy of the petition. April 24, 1991 An Open Letter from David Nagel, Vice President for Advanced Technologies, Apple Computer, Inc. Apple recently asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to allow radio frequencies to be used for wireless data communications. We call this new technology "Data-PCS," for Data Personal Communications Service. It will permit high-capacity computer information to be communicated among people using personal computers, throughout a radius of about 50 meters indoors. Today there is no provision in the law assuring this function -- and we need your help to make Data-PCS possible. Apple is asking that computers be able to communicate wirelessly the way they do on wired networks (at high speeds and sharing the network equitably). We are asking that a small part of the airwaves be made available to all computer manufacturers and users, without requiring radio licenses or having to pay for using the airwaves. Apple's vision of Data-PCS particularly focuses on "spontaneous" computer communications, whenever and wherever you want to access resources or collaborate with others having similarly equipped PC's or other compatible equipment. The convergence of wireless communications and computers, particularly portable computers, will dramatically change the nature of computing. People in business, scientists, engineers -- those in all walks of life -- will be liberated from the constraints of physical networks. Creativity and personal productivity will be enhanced. Students and teachers will no longer be confined to a rigid classroom set-up. Instead, computing, communications, and therefore learning, will take place everywhere. John Sculley, Apple's CEO, recently said: "The key strength of twenty-first century organizations will be not their size or structure, but their ability to simultaneously unleash and coordinate the creative contributions of many individuals." Data-PCS is one of the tools that will enable individuals to realize this vision. Data-PCS is being featured in numerous newspapers, magazines and professional journals. Recently IBM, NCR, Tandy, Grid and other computer companies have told the FCC that they strongly endorse the need for radio spectrum for Data-PCS. But Data-PCS is now a vision, not yet a reality. It will not happen unless the FCC adopts new Federal regulations. Radio spectrum is a scarce and valuable commodity, sought for many functions. Apple is asking the FCC to give Data-PCS "equitable" consideration when viewing needs for spectrum. When the FCC passes new regulations, Apple and a host of other companies can make Data-PCS real. The most powerful voices in support of Data-PCS will be those of users like yourself. I ask you to write to the FCC, not only stating your support but, to the extent you are willing, explaining how you might find Data-PCS of value to you and your organization. Suggestions on how to direct your comments are attached. The FCC's formal review process on Data-PCS has a next major milestone May 10; I hope you'll write by then. Thank you for considering this issue. The true value of Data-PCS will only be realized when it is available to all of us. I hope you share our vision and will help make it come true. Very truly yours, Supporting Data-PCS: Please write a letter using the reference number the FCC assigned our petition for Data-PCS: "RM-7618." You should address and send your letter as follows: (On your institution's letterhead if possible.) (Date) Hon. Alfred C. Sikes, Chairman Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 Reference: Rulemaking 7618 Dear Mr. Chairman: We (I) understand that Apple Computer, Inc. ("Apple") has asked the FCC to allocate spectrum to establish a new radio service ("Data-PCS") for local area high speed communications among personal computing devices. We are writing to urge you to grant Apple's request (RM-7618). (Please describe in the text your views on how Data-PCS could be important to you.) Respectfully submitted, Your name and title or function If you would like a copy of Apple's Petition to the FCC for Data-PCS, or if you have questions, please call (408) 974-4674 or email to: internet: data.pcs@applelink.apple.com applelink: data.pcs ------------ A SUMMARY of Apple's Data-PCS Petition to the FCC (FCC RM 7618) Apple Computer, Inc. ("Apple") proposes that the FCC initiate a rulemaking to allocate 40 MHz in the 1850-1990 MHz band to a new radio service to be used for high-speed, local area data communications services ("Data- PCS") between and among people using personal computers. FCC action is urgently needed because the computer industry is rapidly developing technologies to meet the requirements of computer users, and to bring the power of computing to people who, for a variety of reasons, have been beyond its reach. The development of computer technology over the past decade has been characterized by three trends: 1) computers are increasingly being networked, using cabling and common carrier facilities, to give users access to information from a variety of sources; 2) the media of computing are changing from simple text and numbers to new, information-rich data types: sound, speech, graphics and complex imagery; and 3) technology improvements are allowing computers to be made smaller and much more mobile than ever before. As personal computer technology now moves from the desk-top to the briefcase, the networking and portability features will become mutually inconsistent unless the networking capability becomes as personal and portable as the computer itself. With such a networking capability, a person could communicate with his or her peers and could access files, peripherals, and the gateways of wired and wireless data networks, all within a "local area" of 50 meters. The development of Data-PCS, therefore, will facilitate spontaneous, collaborative computing in the work-place and in educational settings, thereby increasing the productivity and efficiency of people in these environments. There are, however, presently no technologies and no radio services that can be used to create the shared electronic space necessary for collaborative computing, principally because no existing technology or service can assure consistent, high-quality, high- capacity data communications in a spectrum-efficient manner. Apple, therefore, is proposing the creation of a new radio service to be devoted primarily and exclusively to local area, high speed data communications to support collaborative computing and spontaneous networking. As conceived by Apple, a Data-PCS radio service would: * be accessible to users of personal computers without imposition of licensing obligations, network connection fees, or air-time charges; * be open to any computer manufacturer's products and any network access and usage scheme that complies with the regulatory requirements; * be regulated in a manner that assures non-discriminatory access to assigned frequencies by compatible devices for like purposes; and * have flexibility built into the initial regulatory scheme to encourage innovation in and the evolution of Data-PCS technologies and services. In particular, Apple urges the Commission to allocate 40 MHz between 1850 MHz and 1990 MHz for Data-PCS, preferably 1850-1890 MHz, because these frequencies have optimum propagation characteristics for local area, in-building use. Such an allocation will allow several networks with data rates of, for example, 10 Mbps (rates comparable to EtherNet or other highspeed wired LAN technologies of today), to coexist in the same location. The Commission should model the basic regulatory structure for Data-PCSon Part 15 of the FCC Rules, relying on manufacturers and the equipment authorization process rather than on individual licensing, to assure compliance with regulatory requirements. These regulatory requirements would: * confine Data-PCS transmissions to a maximum power limit of one watt of output power; * permit the use of antenna directionality, to take full advantage of re-use of frequencies; * require all users to transmit data in packetized form, with a required minimum period of "listening" for traffic before transmitting and a maximum permitted duration of continuous channel occupancy; * require manufacturers to disclose the channel usage and access schemes employed by all Data-PCS equipment, with the exception of encryption schemes, and not authorize systems using schemes intended to exclude fair access to the frequencies by others; * require manufacturers to assign each transmitter a universal ID to be transmitted in each transmission sequence; and * along with all PCS equipment and similar devices, protect the health and safety of users by including such devices under the general guidelines of GEN Docket No. 79-144. Finally, Apple requests that the FCC expedite consideration of this proposal and not defer action awaiting resolution of the many complex questions associated with establishment of a regulatory framework for voice PCS. There is an immediate and critical need for Data-PCS, which cannot be met using any other frequencies or radio services. Unlike voice PCS, Data-PCS is not simply a more efficient, or a less expensive, means of providing an existing service. The Data-PCS capability does not exist at present. It will require substantial investments to create Data-PCS, let alone to develop it to its full potential. Those investments cannot be made until the FCC allocates sufficient bandwidth and establishes the operating conditions that will enable Data-PCS to flourish. The urgent need for Data-PCS is underscored by international considerations facing the U.S. computer industry. At present the U.S. industry leads the world in personal computer technology, but it is being strongly challenged by Japanese companies. The U.S. industry, if it is to remain competitive, must be in the forefront of developing a wireless capability for personal computers. It can do so if the FCC creates an environment for Data-PCS now, in advance of WARC-92. Initiative by the FCC will encourage the spread of Data-PCS with a de facto U.S. standard and thus will substantially enhance the competitive posture of U.S. computer manufacturers in the world market. Filed January 28, 1991 with the Federal Communications Commission. Placed on Public Notice by the Commission February 8, 1991. Initial "Comments" were due April 10 and "Reply Comments" are due by May 10. Any party may offer comments or reply comments. Please call (408) 974-4674 for a copy of the complete Petition as filed. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 May 91 16:09:22 EDT From: "John R. Covert 02-May-1991 2056" Subject: NYNEX Applies for "Phonesmart" Services, Including Caller ID LEGAL AD -------- D.P.U. 91-64 New England Telephone and Telegraph Company ("NET" or "Company") is seeking permission from the Department to offer a new service called Phonesmart. The proposed service includes four separate service features: Caller ID; Repeat Dialing; Call Return; and Call Trace. NET proposes to offer these services to one-party residence and business customers including Centrex but excluding PBX trunk, foreign exchange or foreign central office customers. The Company proposes to offer the service initially only on the North and South Shore of the Boston Metropolitan area. According to the Company, the Caller ID feature would display the telephone number of the calling party on a display device purchased separately by the customers. The Company proposes to make available to customers the capability to block the passage of their telephone number on a call-by-call basis, free of charge. The Department will conduct a public hearing on the above matter at its hearing room, 1210 Leverett Saltonstall Building, 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, Massachusetts on Wednesday, May 29, 1991 at 2:00 p.m. A procedural conference for parties who have formally intervened will be held on May 30, 1991 at 10:00 a.m. at the Department's offices. ------------------------------ Subject: MCI Suspends New 900 Applications Date: Sat, 4 May 91 11:19:00 EDT From: John Boteler MCI dropped the shoe yesterday by announcing that it was suspending all new orders for 900 service due to "eight figure losses" in that department. How does any company let things get that bad before taking action? Did their overabundance of sleazy programs lead to excessive caller refusals to pay, and therefore to the losses? Or was it good old fashioned mis-management? (bill@toto exempt from the above questions.) John Boteler bote@csense {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling ------------------------------ From: Steve Shellans Subject: Directory of 800 Prefixes Wanted Date: 3 May 91 20:31:48 GMT On my answering machine, I often find people have called and have left an 800 number for me to call back. When I call back, I often find they are in a different time zone, and I get a recorded message saying, "Business hours are ....." Is there some kind of directory or list of *prefixes* for 800 numbers showing which state they are in? That way I would know when would be an appropriate time for me to call back. (Yes, I realize there are potentially several hundred of these, but such a listing would fit on a few pages.) Thanks, Steve Shellans [Moderator's Note: In olden-times, when AT&T was the sole player, 800 prefixes did indeed match up to specific states or geographic areas. They were also tied into 'calling bands', indicating if calls to the 800 number would be accepted nationwide, or only from certain states. Now, statewide only or limited area 800 lines are rather scarce. Most folks have nationwide coverage on their 800 lines, and the prefixes denote *which carrier* handles the traffic except in AT&T's case where their (numerous) prefixes still to some extent denote a geographic area and/or type of call to be accepted. In the Telecom Archives we have a directory of 800 prefixes and who belongs to what. But the general rule now is an 800 number, regardless of prefix could be anywhere in the USA. For Telecom Archives, use anonymous ftp to pull the desired files: ftp lcs.mit.edu cd telecom-archives. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #333 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20082; 5 May 91 22:11 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13238; 5 May 91 20:40 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23736; 5 May 91 19:35 CDT Date: Sun, 5 May 91 19:15:48 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #334 BCC: Message-ID: <9105051915.ab10910@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 5 May 91 19:15:44 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 334 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Hollings and the RBOCs [John Higdon] Any Calling Cards Without the 75c per Call Charge? [Joel Spolsky] Experimenting with AT&T's Call Manager Service [Sander J. Rabinowitz] Can the Local Telco be the Default Carrier? [Carl Moore] How is the Cost of Features Calculated? [Jeff Sicherman] ANI Caller ID Information Wanted [Peter B. White] Question About Centrex [Christopher Lott] Information Wanted on "Call Home America" 800 Service [Dave Close] Re: A Mystery Refund From MCI [Alan R. Gross] Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Nigel Allen] Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [John R. Levine] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 3 May 91 18:35 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Hollings and the RBOCs If this is not reaching for justification, I do not know what is: [quoted from today's AT&T's Newsbriefs] BELL DEBATE -- ... In 1990, Congress [passed] the Americans with Disabilities Act. The law provides that telephone companies ensure that people ... who use TDD devices have the same access to the telephone network that others do [but] it ignored the needs of people who do not use TDDs. That's why legislation sponsored by Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.) to allow the seven [RBOC]s ... to enter research and manufacturing, is so important. ... Lifting the [MFJ] restrictions would give the Bells ... incentives to invest in their networks and would spur development of new products such as "prescriptive hearing service," that would tune an individual's telephone line to accommodate hearing loss. ... [Frank Bowe, college professor], Viewpoints NY, p. 119, New York Newsday, 5/2. [end quote] Does anyone imagine that CPE vendors and manufacturers cannot come up with equalization for a phone line and provide devices for the hard of hearing? What a lame reason for supporting Hollings LEC giveaway. Ernest Hollings' bill allows the RBOCs to manufacture telephone equipment in direct competition to the current marketplace suppliers. All of the concerns about cross subsidization aside, the time has come for the RBOCs to face the reality that if it is competition they want, it is competition they will get. There is no stretch of fairness that dictates that LECs can compete in the equipment business while others are barred from competing in the dial tone business. The RBOCs have had a soft, cushy, cash cow long enough. But rather than use the obscene profits from this guaranteed money-making business to reduce costs to the public, RBOCs such as Pac*Bell want to parlay this wealth into vast empires. Using creative accounting techniques, it is little trouble to siphon off money from the regulated side of the operation to fund vulturistic practices on the non-regulated side (and convince brain dead PUCs that regulated rates need to be increased in the process). NYNEX not so long ago showed us how easy this is to do. After carefully considering the various arguments pro and con from many on this forum, as well as others, I have become convinced that competition will in the short term and possibly in the long term result in the massive screwing of the average and even not-so-average telephone user. The beneficiaries of LEC competition will be those who can bypass anyway. Those who cannot bypass (you and me) would be stuck with subsidizing a futile attempt by the regulated LECs to hang on to the major customers. My alternative suggestion is to restructure the MFJ so as to forbid any entity that owns a regulated LEC (or group of LECs) from engaging in any other related business. It is hard to shed crocodile tears for Pacific Telesis, who prints full page ads crying about how it is prohibited from offering all sorts of space age services, when it is operating a regulated monopoly that is quaranteed to make a specific rate of return. No gambles, no risks, just recession-proof, easy money. If this isn't enough for the current operators of local telephone networks, then maybe they should sell to yet to be created corporations that would be happy to run such a focused enterprise. If Pacific Telesis wants so badly to compete in the equipment and information services markets, then perhaps it could sell Pacific Bell to a group of investors whose purpose would be to run the best regulated monopoly it could. What is wrong with that, you say? The whole point of Pacific Telesis becoming involved in the equipment and other markets would be to use its advantage in owning the local network. Take away that advantage and you would find that this burning desire to manufacture and provide other services would suddenly dissipate. No amount of accounting safeguards can prevent deleterious cross subsidization. And Mr. Hollings' bill contains not even a pretense of provisions to protect the consumer. If this bill becomes law we will be on the road to a return to those thrilling days of yesteryear. But instead of Ma Bell, we will have all of the Mothers Bell. What they may lack in regulatory clout will be made up for with financial might. It may be time to break up the breakup. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Joel Spolsky Subject: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge? Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158 Date: Sat, 4 May 1991 20:31:44 GMT I just got my AT&T Universal bill, and noticed that over 50% of the cost of my long distance calls is due to the 75 cent per-call surcharge which they tag onto all calling card calls. (I guess their ads claiming you pay "only low AT&T rates" are a little bit dishonest). Are there calling cards without this extra fee? PS: Thanks to all those who answered my question about answering machines in Israel! Joel Spolsky spolsky@cs.yale.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 May 91 16:47 GMT From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <0003829147@mcimail.com> Subject: Experimenting with AT&T's Call Manager Service The Moderator wrote the following recently with regard to AT&T's Call Manager service: > ...apparently there is no need to sign up in advance to use the service. > Just entering 0 + ten digits + 15xx sets it up. Is this a new service that's starting up only in certain geographical areas? The above dialing sequence produced the usual AT&T calling card prompt, and the extra four digits appear to be discarded. [I regret that I didn't see the original post that was referenced by the Moderator.] Sander J. Rabinowitz | sjr@mcimail.com -or- | +1 615 661 4645 Brentwood, Tennessee | sander@attmail.com | Just moved 8-) | The usual disclaimers apply. [Moderator's Note: When I used it here (0 + NPA + 7D - pause for tone - enter 15xx), the call was processed, and the billing came to my line the following month with notations on the bill entitled 'account code xx', where 'xx' was the two digits I had entered after the '15' when making the call. It appears nothing further is required to use this service. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 91 12:03:26 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Can the Local Telco be the Default Carrier? As you have seen in this Digest and elsewhere, the local companies have a waiver permitting them to serve as long distance carrier for calls between Philadelphia and southern NJ NYC and northern NJ. You do see default carriers listed on payphones, and sometimes I have seen companies I haven't heard of before. (Yes, the complaints about COCOTs include comments about getting a company you've never heard of before, but on a NJ Bell payphone in Voorhees I saw a company I hadn't heard of before: American Network Exchange in Orlando, Florida.) But I do not recall the local phone company ever appearing as a default carrier on phones in areas where the above waiver applies (admittedly I haven't looked that much); is it because you'd have to list a different carrier for calls beyond the range of the waiver? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 May 91 13:14:58 -0700 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: How is the Cost of Features Calculated? Organization: Cal State Long Beach Is it just my paranoid, conspiracy-seeking mind or do the RBOC's always seem to introduce all these new, fancy services with a monthly price tag of between $3 and $8. I was under the impression that these are all tariffed and that revenue must reflect cost with a standard profit allowance. It seems an incredible coincidence that they *all* would turn out to lie (sic) in such a commonly narrow cost range unless phone company overhead was a major factor in the cost of every service. My suspicious mind would suspect they have found there is a magic range of acceptibility of price beyond which customers more critically examine the cost/benefits of services and the companies seek to keep offerings within this safe range. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 May 91 10:35:14 -0700 From: peg!pbwhite@igc.org Subject: ANI Caller ID Information Wanted I am currently writing a paper on social aspects of Caller ID, or more correctly Calling Number Display. Can anyone tell me whether there was any public debate in the U.S when the FCC authorized Automatic Number Identification for the long distance carriers? If there wasn't any debate, how can we explain the different response to Caller ID? Are there any good FCC sources for information of this kind? Comments, information, suggestions appreciated. Peter B. White Monash Information and Communications Technology Centre Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia home phone + 61 3 817 2483 fax + 61 3 817 5875 office phone + 61 3 565 5421 fax + 61 3 565 5412 APC Networks - peg:pbwhite AARNet/ACSNet - pbwhite@peg.pegasus.oz.au Internet - pbwhite@peg.apc.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 May 91 14:12:41 -0400 From: Christopher Lott Subject: Question About Centrex While helping a friend move, I got a good look in the basement phone room of a large (16 floors, some 15 apts/floor) apartment building. What I didn't understand what that it was much more than a bunch of punchdown blocks, and there was a prominent sign "to C&P installers: this is a Centrex system" or something like this. Now he didn't have to dial anything special to reach an outside line, and as far as I know, there was no special anything about his phone. No single digit to reach the doorman, and when the front desk wanted to reach him, they had to dial (what looked like) a full seven digits. So what gives? The installation was quite large; is it possible that they have a small number of trunk lines coming in to that spot? A mini-switch!? Sure was a *lot* of wire in that room. Several very large (100-pair?) cables coming in and a lot of punchdown blocks. Even found his line on one ;-) chris... [Moderator's Note: It may be they had a front door to apartment intercom phone system with the equipment in the central office and dedicated pairs to each apartment. That system, frequently called "Enterphone" is a type of centrex. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Close Subject: Information Wanted on "Call Home America" 800 Service Date: Sun, 05 May 91 02:45:50 GMT Organization: Shared Financial Systems, Dallas, TX Has anyone any experience with "Call Home America", a personal 800 provider in Texas. Rates $3.25/month plus usage. Sounds too good. 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. ------------------------------ From: locke@tree.uucp (Alan R. Gross (1-1-90)) Subject: Re: A Mystery Refund From MCI Reply-To: locke@.PacBell.COM (Alan R. Gross (1-1-90)) Organization: TREE BBS (916)332-4930 Sacramento, CA Date: Sun, 5 May 91 00:40:02 GMT In article herbison@ultra.enet.dec.com (B.J. 01-May-1991 1616) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 324, Message 10 of 10 >> Something interesting happened to me today ... this month's phone bill >> included a $10 credit from MCI! A quick check of my various phone >> lines indicates that I'm still with my chosen long distance carrier >> (which isn't MCI). I didn't call and ask about it (don't look a gift > This must be part of some judgment against MCI for slamming. In > punishment for changing the long distance carrier for random telephone > lines, someone is forcing them to give refunds to random telephone > lines. > [Moderator's Note: I don't really think this is the case. There may be > a class-action suit against MCI for slamming, but I have not heard of > it. I agree, even though it does look suspiciously like two pic switch fees. I haven't read anything on this either, but there are a couple of things it could be. Most LD carriers have mass billing error recovery programs in place that will automatically credit overcharges, once they find that the bill system isn't billing as tariffed. In these cases, you get the credit without an explanation, most of the time. If the person who had the credit recieved collect calls through MCI, or had MCI as a carrier in the past, this is a possibility. The other thing it could be is a simple bill error where you got someone else's credit -- possibly the LEC & MCI's bill software programs aren't communicating well. It could also be an MCI promotion, that has yet to be announced -- did you check the bill to make sure that the overall amount of your bill was reduced? If not, it could be a "try us" credit, which might sit there until used. Randall A. Gross csusac.ecs.csus.edu!tree!locke @ the UNIX Tree BBS, Sacramento, CA ucbvax!ucdavis!csusac!tree!locke Sprintmail: A.R.Gross DISCLAIMER: Ego loquito ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 May 91 09:24 EDT From: Nigel Allen Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ryan@cs.umb.edu (Daniel R. Guilderson) writes in Vol. 11, Issue 326, msg. 4: > Forming a non-profit phone network is pure fantasy. > ... There's absolutely no precedent for it. Recall that in the early years of the 20th century, the Bell companies were more interested in serving the cities than the sparsely populated rural areas. So new rural telephone companies sprang up. Some were owned by the local doctor or general merchant. Others were established as cooperatives or membership corporations. (There are some conceptual differences between cooperatives and non-profit groups, but in practice they're pretty similar.) Isn't UUNET set up as a non-profit organization? And aren't a lot of the regional NSFnet networks similarly set up? Now, I recognize that the rural telephone examples were monopolies, albeit marginally profitable ones, and what we are discussing is a competitive non-profit phone network, I don't think one could readily be set up (apart from something like shared tenant services in a co-operative apartment building or office complex), but there is plenty of historical precedent for people getting together to meet their own telecommunications needs when the established carriers weren't interested in serving their needs. Nigel Allen ndallen@contact.uucp ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 5 May 91 13:50:06 EDT (Sun) From: "John R. Levine" In article you write: > I have another idea. Let's deregulate the telecommunications industry > and merge it with the rest of the communications industry. ... > Of course the RBOCS and the long distance carriers would fight this > idea tooth and nail. Perhaps. A plausible outcome of this scenario is that everyone except the deepest pockets would end up bankrupt, and we'd be left with AT&T and the RBOCs more monopolistic than now. Or maybe General Motors or IBM. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #334 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26329; 6 May 91 0:44 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23824; 5 May 91 22:47 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31597; 5 May 91 21:42 CDT Date: Sun, 5 May 91 20:55:49 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #335 BCC: Message-ID: <9105052055.ab29384@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 5 May 91 22:55:48 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 335 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia: New Files in Archives; New Debate Here [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Bravo Beeper Docs Wanted [Michael Schuster] Re: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993 [Nigel Allen] Re: Information Wanted on Chapel Hill Phone System [Stephen Tell] Re: AT&T Partner System: A Reasonable Choice? [John Higdon] Re: Need Ideas on a Telecom Project For Kids [Andrew Payne] AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [John Palmer] Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Robert Woodhead] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 5 May 91 19:54:48 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: New Files in Archives; New Debate Here Our correspondent Julian Macassey has forwarded those files he promised relating to radio interference on phone lines. They have all been forwarded to the telecom archives, and will be available for pulling by interested readers beginning sometime Monday (when I've had a chance to go to the archives, edit them and put them in the directory. Look for the files 'radio-phone.interference' with .1, .2 and .3 following. These should prove useful to folks who have trouble with radio interference in their phone lines. My thanks to Julian for sending them along. In case you had forgotten, the telecom archives is located at MIT, and can be accessed by anonymous ftp: ftp lcs.mit.edu cd telecom-archives. In the final two messages in this issue of the Digest, a new topic of debate is presented for your consideration. In a recent issue of the Digest, John Higdon discussed a sleaze-bag telemarketing operation here in Chicago and asked for information. Several of us contributed what we found out, including Randy Borow, who contributed some inside information obtained in his position as an employee at AT&T. Although the information presented by Borow was largely innocuous, and for the most part obtainable by others -- although not very easily -- I've received a couple posts from readers who took offense at what they believe is a violation of privacy of the *telemarketer* through this release of information. Please read these two final messages today, then send your opinion. I'll print several, including a rebuttal from Mr. Borow if any is forthcoming, then will probably ask that the discussion continue in telecom-priv once the essential points have been aired here. I hope the new week ahead is a good one for you! Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Michael Schuster Subject: Re: Bravo Beeper Docs Wanted Date: Sun, 5 May 91 18:47:48 GMT Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY In article wisniews@cis.ohio-state.edu (jeffery l wisniewski) writes: > I have a Bravo Beeper through a company called USAMobile in Cleveland, > Ohio. My office gave me it and did not give me any instructions > either. Here is what I have found: [findings deleted] > I think I have a copy of the booklet in the office but I will not be > in until Saturday. I could fax it to you then if you like. Thanks. Also thanks to the four people who faxed me the "idiot sheet" for this beeper. It's a start. You can buy the tech manuals for these from Motorola. Call 708-576-7418 with the model number at hand, and they'll give you the part number for the manual. Then call 800-422-4210 to order. The manuals cost $5, unfortunately the minimum order is $25. I was in the midst of setting up a "group" order with some folks who had responded, but I lost contact with them. Mike Schuster | CIS: 70346,1745 NY Public Access UNIX: ...cmcl2!panix!schuster | MCI Mail, GENIE: The Portal (R) System: schuster@cup.portal.com | MSCHUSTER ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 May 91 09:46 EDT From: Nigel Allen Subject: Re: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993 Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6G 1V3 As Mark Brader points out, area code 416 will serve precisely the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, which includes the cities of Toronto, York, Etobicoke, Scarborough and North York, and the Borough of East York. All these cities have been a single Bell Canada exchange, Toronto, for a good many years, although I prize my 1953 Toronto-area phone book which lists manual telephone numbers for Agincourt (then a rural community in northern Scarborough, now just icky suburban sprawl). Metropolitan Toronto is responsible for some municipal services, such as transit, police and ambulance services, while the area municipalities (Toronto city, North York, etc.) handle garbage collection, fire-fighting, etc. Anyway, the delightful coincidence about the new area code boundary coinciding with a political boundary brings with it a further coincidence: Since Canadian postal codes begin with a letter assigned by geography (A = Newfoundland and Labrador, B = Nova Scotia... Y = Yukon), and since Metropolitan Toronto postal codes all begin with M (I'm M6G 1V3) while the areas adjacent to Metro Toronto have codes beginning with L, the postal code boundary coincides with the new area code boundary. If your postal code begins M, you remain in 416; if you are now in 416 and your postal code begins with L, you switch to 905. I mention this because some U.S. readers observed that new area code boundaries in Maryland would not coincide with zip code boundaries. Nigel Allen ndallen@contact.uucp [Moderator's Note: This is about the same thing that happened here in Chicago. 312 is exclusive to postal code 606xx, while 708 is found in the 600, 601, 604, and 605xx areas. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Stephen Tell Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Chapel Hill Phone System Date: 5 May 91 21:32:44 GMT Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill In article Dale Neiburg requested information on the Chapel Hill phone system. I just arrived in Chapel Hill recently (OK, two years ago) and don't know very much of the history, but I can get the discussion started. > I have no wisdom to offer on that, but would be interested in knowing > how the Chapel Hill phone system works generally. Reason being: when > I attended UNC-CH (graduated '67), the town phone system was operated > by the University, as were the town laundry, the hotel, the water > works, and lots of other things. Back in those days, it had the > reputation of being abysmal. > How Bad Was It? It was so bad that being taken over by GTE was a big > improvement. Actually, GTE didn't take over, Southern Bell did. Someone once told me that there were discussions with both GTE and Southern Bell at the time though. Southern Bell took over the whole system, and now UNC has a huge Centrex system, with two prefixes, 962 and 966. They have five-digit dialing between them. Other Chapel Hill and Carrboro (the little town right next door) prefixes are 929, 932, 933, 942, 967, and 968. Having the other local prefixes start with "9" is convenient; if you forget you're behind a centrex, the second dial tone after the "9" reminds you that somthing special is going on. I don't know much about the Centrex; here in Computer Science we're behind a nice digital PBX. > I was enrolled there for only four years, and there was a five-year > waiting list to get a phone.... Back in September, I got a second line in my appartment in less than a week, and most of the waiting was for a free day in my schedule to stay home and wait for them. He had to come back a second day after I had arranged to get access to the attic through another appartment; it seems there is a splice box up there in addition to the typical green metal box on the side of the building with the protectors and a punchdown block. He characterized the whole installation as more of that "old University mess." The installer said that they are still trying to get the outside plant cleaned up to their current standards, even though its been years since the university ran things. He was complaining that his boss wanted him to clean things up in every cross-connect box he opened, instead of just doing the minimum necessary for the job at hand, but not allowing the extra time this would take on every service call. Steve Tell tell@cs.unc.edu H: +1 919 968 1792 #5L Estes Park apts CS Grad Student, UNC Chapel Hill. W: +1 919 962 1845 Carrboro NC 27510 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 May 91 15:37 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: AT&T Partner System: A Reasonable Choice? olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu writes: > My question is whether I'm likely to do much better with other systems > such as Panasonic, enough to make it worthwhile to hunt for someone > willing to sell them to me. While the price of the Partner system is certainly competitive (almost as inexpensive as the Panasonic), it sounds as though one of your major criteria would be better satisfied by the Panasonic. The Panasonic allows full use of the features from any standard single line phone. This means access to all trunks, extensions, paging and special stations such as doorphones. They can also forward, participate in pickup groups, system speed dial, SMDR, etc., etc. Some people from AT&T were going to tell me how wonderful the Partner was and how fantastic the single line support was, but I never heard back from them. No wonder; the single line support is hurting compared to the Panasonic KSUs. Panasonic equipment (now manufactured in Great Britain) is widely available. Any major telephone supplier can sell it to you. Examples: NTD 800 426-1024 Procom 800 PRO-COM1 The equipment can also be obtained from a Graybar Electric near you, but be prepared to dicker on the price; Graybar has not yet learned that its prices are way out of line. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: payne@theory.tn.cornell.edu (Andrew Payne) Subject: Re: Need Ideas on a Telecom Project For Kids Organization: Cornell Theory Center Date: Sun, 5 May 1991 12:37:48 GMT In article dam@mtqua.att.com (Daniel A Margolis) writes: > We have a program where we bring a few eighth-graders into our labs > during the summer. Last year, I was in charge of finding a project > What kind of project can I give the students that will involve > telecom? Try building a network. Have the students bring an extra phone from home, or pick up a bunch of cheapies at K-mart. Add 48V and off you go ... Next, build a "switchboard" with a bunch of jacks so you can have operators manually route calls. Then, build another switchboard and set up "long distance" links between them. Set up a connection to one of your lab's extensions so they can make "international" calls home. Have the students run the wire, set up the extensions, and operate the switchboards. I doubt you'll have time to build all of this stuff in a week, but a little pre-fabrication combined with on-site assembly by the students and you should have something appropriate for the time you have. Andrew C. Payne, N8KEI UUCP: ...!cornell!batcomputer!payne INTERNET: payne@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu ------------------------------ From: jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) Subject: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! Organization: CAT-TALK Conferencing Network, Detroit, MI Date: Sun, 5 May 91 11:49:13 GMT In article rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com writes: > I'm asking Patrick to indulge me here as I tell you both what I found > out regarding your telemarketing calls from 312-292-9000. I decided to > dig deeper than Pat did (or deeper than he's able to, for that > matter). Accessing the telemarketer's account, I learned much stuff. > What I found out was quite interesting, so here goes ... > First, the name of the "business" is "Combined Credit Service," as Pat > had mentioned earlier. According to my records, they have only a few > lines (they appear to have a hunt feature which doesn't reveal all its > respective numbers, of course. They make all their outgoing calls off > line numbers 292-9027 and 9028. Line number 9015 is used to accept > collect calls (I'd bet from the people they call!) from all over the > country. Lines 9000 through 9014 appear to be the DID lines receiving > individuals' calls like yours, John. BTW, the several times I called > their numbers, each attempt was NOT busy and was answered: "Awards > Center, may I have your area code and phone number?" (more details omitted) > Randy Borow AT&T Communications Rolling Meadows, IL. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > DISCLAIMER: The above represents the opinions of me only and not Ma Bell. > She's busy enough on her own to worry about us little guys. WHAT THE HELL IS THIS!! Do all of you realize what Mr. Borow just did!!! He used his privilege as an AT&T employee to access PRIVATE telephone records about a subscriber of AT&T and has now broadcast them to the entire world. And we all though that our privacy was in jeapordy by because of the goverment !!! Mr. Borow, I am going to make a copy of your article and send it to AT&T security. You sir, have violated a trust. The trust the was given to you when you were given access to those records. Those records are none of the public's business. You most surely have violated the terms of your employment and perhaps several laws. I have no sympathy for the telemarketing firm in question. Its just another scam, but if this individual will release private phone records in such a manner, then all of our privacy is in danger. John Palmer CAT-TALK Conferencing System | E-MAIL: +1 313 343 0800 (USR HST) | jp@Michigan.COM +1 313 343 2925 (TELEBIT PEP) ********EIGHT NODES*********** ------------------------------ From: Robert J Woodhead Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! Date: 5 May 91 14:01:52 GMT Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Tokyo Japan rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com writes: > I'm asking Patrick to indulge me here as I tell you both what I found > out regarding your telemarketing calls from 312-292-9000. I decided to > dig deeper than Pat did (or deeper than he's able to, for that > matter). Accessing the telemarketer's account, I learned much stuff. > What I found out was quite interesting, so here goes ... Err, is anyone else a little shocked that our good friend Randy accessed someone's long distance phone records and aired them out in the public view? The fact that the company that made the calls is most likely sleazy is immeterial, I would think. The record of their phone calls is private, and IMHO Randy had no legitimate reason to go snooping through them, and certainly should not have published this information. Doesn't AT&T have rules about disclosing call information to third parties -- and if they don't, shouldn't they? Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp [Moderator's Note: Well thus far, its just been you two guys who have mentioned this. Regarding Mr. Palmer's suggestion that he will send a copy of the original message to AT&T Security, my suggestion would be to save yourself the phone call (and the fax paper on the other end). There are several security people from various telcos and LD companies reading the Digest; I'm sure the original message has made the rounds by now. We'll see what others think in Monday's issues of the Digest. I'll try to print a representative sample, including a rebuttal from Randy Borow if he chooses to send one. Depending on the volume of stuff received, the thread will be forwarded to telecom-priv after a day or two if necessary. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #335 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06117; 6 May 91 4:28 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01814; 6 May 91 2:54 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac05544; 6 May 91 1:49 CDT Date: Mon, 6 May 91 1:24:41 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #336 BCC: Message-ID: <9105060124.ab29982@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 6 May 91 01:24:19 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 336 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: MCI Suspends New 900 Applications [John Higdon] Re: A Choice of Sending Fax or Leaving Voice Recording [John R. Levine] Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [Peter da Silva] Re: Per Line Blocking? [Bruce Klopfenstein] Re: Driving a Beeper From UNIX 'tip/cu' [Peter da Silva] Re: Introducing Call Management Service in Montreal Area [Tony Harminc] Re: ANI Caller ID Information Wanted [Tony Harminc] Re: Directory of 800 Prefixes Wanted [Tony Harminc] Single-Mode Polarization Preserving Optical Fibers [N. Pakdaman] Mysterious Answering Machine Event [Jonathan Mark] The Suspense Continues ... [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 5 May 91 17:22 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: MCI Suspends New 900 Applications John Boteler writes: > MCI dropped the shoe yesterday by announcing that it was suspending > all new orders for 900 service due to "eight figure losses" in that > department. This is the opposite of the way Telesphere (who recently called it quits completely, advising its long distance customers to select another provider) handled its 900 service. First, it required information providers to post an "uncollectables" bond that was handy for use as capital for Telesphere's general use. Then when it needed more money, it simply withheld payment to the providers, claiming that it suffered heavy collection difficulties on that account. When the providers (Telesphere's customers) got together, they discovered everyone seemed to have "collection difficulties" at the same time or particularly when call counts were high. Many providers, expecting a big monthly check because of high volume, were given the bad news by Telesphere that not only would they not be getting any money for the month, but that an additional deposit would be required. Since Telesphere provided no ANI nor any accounting detail whatsoever, the providers had to take Telesphere's word for it. Eventually, information providers wised up and there are now many lawsuits against the long distance company. Some providers have even been paid off to get them to drop an action or to refrain from filing one. Sprint and AT&T provide ANI data to the provider so that if there is collection difficulty, the provider can take matters into his own hands. Also, he can keep track of who calls and how much and make sure that no individual caller runs up a major bill that would be unpaid due to claimed hardship. For this reason, neither Sprint nor AT&T will likely have the problems that MCI or Telesphere claim. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: Re: A Choice of Sending Fax or Leaving Voice Recording Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 5 May 91 13:52:28 EDT (Sun) From: "John R. Levine" In article you write: > I called a number where I was then given the option of faxing (hit * to > do that) or of leaving a voice recorded message. I don't think I had > heard of that before. I've sent faxes to such an answering machine. It actually works quite well, since you don't really have to push *, it recognizes fax pilot tone which makes it usable with sending faxes not dialed by humans. The main drawback is that if you actually want to talk to the human being you have to wait for the beep and say "Hey, Mike, pick up the phone" until he hears you and realizes that it's not a fax. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Mon, 6 May 1991 01:26:16 GMT goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes: > So we end up with less-concentrated offices. (And with offices in the > suburbs, housing can be farther from the city, causing creeping > suburbanization. Soon there are no farms left for a hundred miles. > Been to NJ lately?) That's a good point ... for places that have a reason for existing other than a concentration of workers. For places like Scenic Houston, whose only advantage is low property values (thanks to it being built in a swamp on the edge of some really nice country I'd much rather live in), this would be a nice change. A bigger problem is that this can only work for service jobs. The number of jobs that *create* wealth that can also be telecommuted is relatively small (I'm in one ... actually the service part of my job is the only part I *can't* telecommute!). The most important jobs (manufacturing) can't telecommute at all without major expense. peter@taronga.hackercorp.com ------------------------------ From: Bruce Klopfenstein Subject: Re: Per Line Blocking? Date: 6 May 91 02:49:02 GMT Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. From article , by peterc@taronga. hackercorp.com (Peter Creath): > In article , herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab. > com writes: >> I also want them to stop LYING and calling it "caller id" when it is >> CALLING STATION id. > According to the most recent issue of {Popular Science} (in the What's > New - Electronics section), they said a new box for Caller ID is now > available, one which displays the callers NAME as well as phone number. My understanding is that the "enhanced" Caller ID services would display the directory name of the number from which the call originated. Hence, if I call from a friend's house, his/her name will be displayed, not mine. Therefore, once again, it is not Caller ID at all. 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 ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: Driving a Beeper From UNIX 'tip/cu' Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Mon, 6 May 1991 01:43:38 GMT ddtisvr!maples@uunet.uu.net (Greg Maples) writes: > 2) The tip/cu program capable of sending those codes. (This is for > a sun 4/370) Don't use tip/cu. You don't need any interactive response, so just write a program in C, Perl, TCL, shell, lisp, basic, or IBM JCL that does this: Opens /dev/whatever_your_version_of_unix_calls_the_line Sends "+++" delay 1 second Sends "ATH\r" delay 1 second Sends "AAAAAA" delay 1 second Sends "ATDT,,," Closes /dev/whatever This will get the modem's attention no matter what mode it's in, and send the stuff. Try this: --------------- #!/bin/sh Usage='beeper ' Tty='/dev/modem' Pbx='9w' Commas=',,,' # Adjust delay for your beeper arrangement. # case $# in 2) ;; *) echo Usage: $Usage;; esac Beeper=$1 # These are the numeric magic codes we use. case $2 in information) Message='4110000';; warning) Message='6110000';; fatal) Message='9110000';; esac ( stty -echo -nl echo -n '+++'; sleep 1 # You did say you were using Suns echo 'ATH'; sleep 1 echo -n 'AAAAAA'; sleep 1 echo "ATDT$Pbx$Beeper$Commas$Message" ) > $Tty peter@taronga.hackercorp.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 May 91 22:55:55 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Introducing Call Management Service in Montreal Area Jamie Mason wrote: > In article clamen+@cs.cmu.edu quotes: >> The MONTREAL AREA is one of the first to be offered Call >> Management Service (CMS) from > Toronto has had it since April 22. I think Ottawa has had it > for a while now. Why don't they just say Montreal is the Nth area to > be offered CMS, subsituting the correct, but impressively low, N? CMS was introduced in Montreal and Toronto on the same date. Ottawa/Hull and Quebec were the first (1990). Bell has published a rough schedule for the major urban centres in its operating area. There will be plenty of local publicity when it arrives - why get excited about the exact date ? > Does anyone have a list of cites which have a full scale > Caller-ID system in place, or to be in place REAL soon? The above mentioned are it for now in Bell Canada's area. There are quite a few in the US now. I'd be interested to hear about Caller*ID outside the (technologically nearly-identical) US/Canada systems. I have seen references to it in the UK - can a reader there fill us in ? >> The service is gradually being extended to include long distance calls. > Since at least two other Canadain cities have CMS, why does > Bell Canada not extend it to long distance NOW? Because Signaling System # 7 (CCS7) is not available in the entire long distance network yet. Also, it is not clear whether Bell will have to re-apply to the CRTC for permission to offer Call Display for long distance calls. I'm sure they think they don't, but someone (me? :-)) will almost certainly try to force them to. > I am surprised that this message had to wait until someone at > NWU read the Gazette. Don't we have any Telcom readers in Montreal? Perhaps the rest of us who read about it thought it was too long, boring, and familiar to send to the Digest :-) Tony Harminc ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 May 91 23:58:09 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: ANI Caller ID Information Wanted peg!pbwhite@igc.org wrote: > I am currently writing a paper on social aspects of Caller ID, or more > correctly Calling Number Display. > Can anyone tell me whether there was any public debate in the U.S when > the FCC authorized Automatic Number Identification for the long > distance carriers? If there wasn't any debate, how can we explain the > different response to Caller ID? Are there any good FCC sources for > information of this kind? Caller*ID is something that most people can understand to at least some extent. Even the hypothetical grandmother techno-peasant can probably be shown a Call Display box and understand what it does. ANI information passed by one large company to another is virtually impossible to explain to the grandmother, and distinguishing the possible social evils of ANI vs anything else that big companies may be perceived to do to people is even more difficult. I think it's as simple as that. Will your paper be generally available? I would be very interested in seeing a copy. Tony Harminc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 May 91 00:12:31 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Directory of 800 Prefixes Wanted Steve Shellans asked for a directory of 800 Prefixes. The Moderator's reply included the statement: > .... But the general rule now is an 800 number, regardless of > prefix could be anywhere in the USA. In fact an 800 number could be almost anywhere at all - not just in the USA. Several countries within world numbering zone 1 (Canada, USA, Bermuda, and Carribean islands) use the 800 pseudo area code for toll-free calls. In many cases these numbers are reachable cross- border (if the subscriber is paying for cross border coverage). But even an "ordinary looking" 800 number could ring in a European country or Hong Kong, or any one of many places. Similarly an "ordinary looking" 0800 number in the UK could ring in Canada or the USA. I get quite fed up with people who call me from the USA and leave an 800 number that can't be reached. They seem to assume that if they have paid for "all states" service, they have covered the world. I don't even have the choice of paying for the call -- there is just no way to reach such a number. Tony Harminc ------------------------------ From: Mehran Moshfeghi Subject: Single-Mode Polarization Preserving Optical Fibers Organization: Philips Laboratories, Briarcliff Manor, NY. Date: Mon, 6 May 1991 01:05:52 GMT I am posting this for a friend. Please respond to: npak@ibm.com. Thanks. Hi, I am looking for dispersion shifted (from 1.3uM) fiber that is single mode and polarization preserving. Any length beyond 100m would be fine, however optimum length is approximately 700m. Corning has single-mode dispersion shifted fibers, but it is not polarization preserving. Do you have any leads or sources for this type of fibers. Thanks, N. Pakdaman Please respond to : npak@ibm.com ------------------------------ From: bitmap@polari.UUCP (bitmap ) Subject: Mysterious Answering Machine Event Date: 6 May 91 03:35:19 GMT Organization: Seattle Online Public Unix (206) 328-4944 My brother-in-law recently experienced an event which defies explanation. Maybe someone here can guess what's going on? * Two weeks ago, a telephone company switching problem had his incoming calls going to another number (which differed only in one digit), and that number's calls going to his number. The problem was corrected after a caller complained to the telco (US West). * One week ago, he discovered that the outgoing message on his answering machine had mysteriously been changed. The new message was a standard greeting in an unfamiliar voice, which stated a phone number which was the number his line had been wrongly connected to. He called the other number and talked to a woman (whose voice might have been the same on the tape) who said she didn't know anything about it, and furthermore that she didn't have an answering machine. The manual for his answering machine tells how to read incoming messages remotely (using a one-digit password), but does not say how to set the greeting remotely. It is unlikely that anyone broke into his house to do it, because the place is guarded by a security system and three dogs. The phone company had no explanation. My brother- in-law did have a few house guests (relatives with a local small-town cop) around that time, but the voice on the tape didn't match the voice of anyone who was there. Can anyone guess what might have happened? Might this be some kind of weird scam? We'd be interested in any guesses you can make. Thanks, Jonathan Mark uunet!polari!bitmap ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 May 91 1:12:06 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: The Suspense Continues ... Someone in a security department somewhere deep within the bowels of the Mother Company send me a private note Sunday night saying that Randy Borow's message had been duly printed out and provided to Central Region security in Oak Brook, IL. They have no need for duplicate copies from other 'thoughtful readers' who were ... 'wondering if they had seen it yet ...' . So save your phone calls and printer/fax paper for now. We should know more within a day or two. I'll print some of your responses here most likely Monday night. Naturally, further comments from Randy or an authorized spokesperson from AT&T will be immediatly rushed into circulation. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #336 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25291; 7 May 91 0:07 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08839; 6 May 91 22:20 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10823; 6 May 91 21:12 CDT Date: Mon, 6 May 91 21:02:37 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #337 BCC: Message-ID: <9105062102.ab11885@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 6 May 91 21:02:21 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 337 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Disclosure of Customer Information (AT&T) [Lauren Weinstein] Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Gregg Townsend] Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Syd Weinstein] Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Doug Faunt] Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [John Stanley] 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Brad Hicks] Digest Reader Annoys Authorities in El Lay [Ron Schnell] Why the Bong? [Bernard Fran Collins] PRO-2010 Scanner Mods Needed [Jean-Marc Odinot] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 6 May 91 12:39:09 PDT From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: Disclosure of Customer Information (AT&T) Like others reading the TELECOM Digest, I was amazed to see the recent message where an AT&T Communications employee apparently used his access to customer data to conduct a "private" investigation of a "contest/telemarketing" operation, then published the "results" via TELECOM. Immediately after seeing his original message, I sent the author private email asking for an explanation. Of particular interest to me was whether he was acting in violation of AT&T confidentiality rules, or whether the rules would have permitted such actions. I received a reply back from him today. In essence, he says that he made a mistake in making the information public, and that AT&T rules do *not* permit such disclosures from customer data. He also says that some of what he said in that message was obtained directly from a conversation with the telemarketer. In any case, it is obvious from his original message that he did access the customer records of the firm in question, and did obtain information regarding long distance calling patterns and telephone number usage information from those records. However obnoxious some may feel the firm to be, their telecom records are still deserving of the same security and confidentiality we all (should!) expect, and should not be subject to "private" investigations and disclosures outside of official channels. This is unfortunately symptomatic of the growing range of situations where the data collected on individuals and organizations in the course of their normal business is available to too many persons without authorization or "need to know". The amount of information that can be obtained with essentially no security controls, or often at the best semi-useless, pseudo-controls such as social security number, is vast and growing. In the telecommunications arena, the problem has grown greatly with the breakup of the Bell System -- it seems like customer telephone data is floating around almost freely between the local telcos and the private long distance carriers these days. But the same sorts of problems exist in many other areas of our lives, and only seem to be getting worse, not better. I believe that the time has come for another look at the Privacy Act in terms of how it does, or does not, protect consumer (both individual and business) information and who (both inside and outside of the firms collecting the data) has access to that information. I believe that meaningful, uniform minimum standards must be established for automated systems that allow consumers to access various account balances or similar data by telephone. The excuses of the firms providing these systems that it would be "too difficult for consumers" to remember a passcode or even know their account number (i.e. the ongoing Sprint account information case) must be treated as the unacceptable responses that they are. Consumers need protection both from the employees of the firms who maintain the data (whether or not such employees act with malicious intent is not the issue) and from outside person who can gain access to such data through the often non-existent security of these systems. Many of the companies involved state that they are providing all of the security required by law. OK then -- if they don't feel a need to go beyond the current law to a meaningful level of protection, the time has come to improve the laws to take into account the realities of the information age. And there isn't a moment to lose. --Lauren-- [Moderator's Note: Lauren is a long-time reader of the TELECOM Digest, whose participation goes back to the first issues in 1981. Due to the press of other business, he can't submit articles as often as he did in the past; so when I contacted him Sunday night asking for a piece today, I was very pleased when he agreed to write. Lauren is also the author of "The Day the Bell System Died", a song in the Telecom Archives which I reprint here from time to time. Thanks, Lauren! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gregg Townsend Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! Date: 6 May 91 21:49:29 GMT Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson Robert J Woodhead writes: > Err, is anyone else a little shocked that our good friend Randy > accessed someone's long distance phone records and aired them out in > the public view?.... Pat wrote: > Well, thus far, its just been you two guys who have mentioned this ... Well, if you're keeping score, put me down on the side of those who think it was improper. It was a disturbing breach of trust. Gregg Townsend / Computer Science Dept / Univ of Arizona / Tucson, AZ 85721 +1 602 621 4325 gmt@cs.arizona.edu 110 57 16 W / 32 13 45 N / +758m [Moderator's Note: Because there were no Digests issued Friday morning due to my illness, there was a backlog of stuff over the weekend. Many readers are not in their offices over the weekend, and did not see the original item or the early responses until today. I'm not keeping score, nor was I saying the first two were isolated in their complaints. They were merely up to date in their reading. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Syd Weinstein Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! Date: Sun, 5 May 91 22:21:57 EDT Reply-To: syd@dsi.com I didn't reply right away, Pat, because I was also in shock... only 1/2 :-) I worked at one time for United Computer Systems, Inc., a division of United Telecom (Long pre-Sprint Days).... We all had to read and sign the operators non disclosure stuff, and it definately handled cases like his. It was immediate grounds for dismissal. It was spelled out in clear terms. Accessing records without cause, disclosure of records of calling patterns to any third parties, or disclosure of phone calls was not only against rules, it was illegal and we could be procusuted, and a reference to the appropriate statue for my state was stapled to the booklet. Whether he gets ignored, a repriamand or canned depends on AT&T, after all he is not in LD department is he? But that anyone can access the records is a bit much. Perhaps AT&T does need to do some re-thinking re security. 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: Sun, 5 May 91 21:37:10 -0700 From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 Subject: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! qI guess I didn't realize exactly what he'd done, but I must agree that it was a breach of trust to have done so. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! From: John Stanley Date: Mon, 06 May 91 13:41:15 EDT Organization: Mad Scientist kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp!trebor@uunet.uu.net (Robert J Woodhead) writes: > rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com writes: > > I'm asking Patrick to indulge me here as I tell you both what I found > > out regarding your telemarketing calls from 312-292-9000. I decided to > > dig deeper than Pat did (or deeper than he's able to, for that > > matter). Accessing the telemarketer's account, I learned much stuff. > > What I found out was quite interesting, so here goes ... > Err, is anyone else a little shocked that our good friend Randy > accessed someone's long distance phone records and aired them out in > the public view? Yes. I have been considering the effort it would take to review the Telecom Digest archives to locate the address of the AT&T Chairman of the Board or President or whomever it is. If I were the business in question, I would be talking to my lawyer right now. I KNOW that it would be a dark day on the sun before AT&T got any more of my (apparently high volume) traffic. While the passing of this information between LD carriers for use in marketing LD services might be arguably ethical, using one's position within AT&T to broadcast this stuff to the general public certainly is NOT. The fact that the company whose records were made public is a telemarketing scam is no defense. The information provided by Mr. Borow did not add any proof or disproof of the nature of their business, and as such, was completely immaterial to the discussion. If an AT&T employee feels free to publish long distance records for this company, what would make us think that he wouldn't do it for anyone else he took a dislike to? And if Mr. Borow does it, how many others? Gentlemen, Big Brother is watching, and it is NOT the government! [Moderator's Note: Thus far, no word (officially; I've received a confidential mailing) from AT&T or Randy on the state of affairs in Oak Brook today, but I'm told the situation is grim. Due to the backlog of Digests over the weekend, some people are just now getting around to reading the weekend issues; so we will see what tomorrow's mail brings on this subject. I hope Randy will at least reply. I can understand his possible embarassment, but hope he stays in touch with us. And a reply from AT&T would be appropriate also. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 06 May 91 16:07:12 EDT From: "76012,300 Brad Hicks" <76012.300@compuserve.com> Subject: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud i] Is it my imagination, or is wire fraud what the Secret Service charges you with if they don't like you but can't think of anything else? This item comes out of the 04/01/91 issue of {Electronic Mail and Micro Systems} (EMMS), vol. 15, no. 7, pages 23 to 24, Eric Arnum (ed.): "Lastly, a 23-year-old 'entrepreneur' in Manhattan got himself a 540 number -- one of the local Dial-It audiotex lines. He used one of those Demon Dialers that calls a list of telephone numbers in sequence, and programmed it to call local exchanges popular with pagers. He then left an alphanumeric message to call his 540 number. "The system allegedly called 50,000 pagers and got 2,000 'pagees' to call back. And since his audiotex program was $55 a call, he pocketed over $70,000 in profit. Or so he thought. One of the victims [note word choice -- JBH] had a friend in the U.S. Secret Service. The entrepreneur is now facing 50,000 counts of wire fraud." Note that according to Eric Arnum, in this case an "entrepreneur" has "victims". Entrepreneurs don't have victims, they have customers or clients. Only criminals have victims. The only other place I've seen this particular usage was from a Communist Party member complaining about the black market in Moscow. He meant the same thing, too: people paying fair market price for a good or a service they received. I see no lies and no coercion. The people who were charged got what they paid for, a $55 audiotex message. Is there anybody in Manhattan who can afford a pager who doesn't know that 540 numbers are toll calls? If there are two thousand yuppie scum who are stupid enough to return a page to a toll number, and they do this for no reason other than that they were asked to, how can it possibly be illegal or even unethical? (I think Eric Arnum can be reached at either EMMS@mcimail.com or 2735375@mcimail.com; I know that I can be reached preferably at jbhicks@mcimail.com or at 76012.300@compuserve.com.) cc: Eric Arnum Electronic Mail and Micro Systems MCI Mail: 273-5375 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 May 91 10:47:27 -0700 From: Ron Schnell Subject: Digest Reader Annoys Authorities in El Lay [Moderator's Note: Another of our kind in the spotlight. PAT] Reprinted from {Los Angeles Times} Sunday, May 5, 1991 Page J1 Wrong Numbers - Julio Moran - L.A. Times Staff Writer Ever get a phone bill so large that you're [sic] sure it could not be right because you couldn't possibly have talked that long to that many people, only to discover that the bill is correct and you were wrong? Well, GTE California customers, take heart. This month, you may be right. The phone company serving three million customers statewide -- including most of the Westside, South Bay, and Orange County -- said a computer glitch caused the overbilling of as many as 1.7 million customers statewide, nearly all in Southern California. The overbilling involves so-called ZUM calls, usually eight to 12 miles away from where the call is made, according to Larry Cox, a GTE spokesman. A glitch in the computer software billed those calls as more expensive toll calls during a four- to six-week period in March and April. Cox said the average customer was overbilled by between $2 and $3. However, at least one Westwood customer said his business-phone bill was overcharged hundreds of dollars and that his home phone was i]overbilled by about $10. Ron Schnell, who runs a computer software company called Secure Online Systems, said he normally would not have looked at his business-phone bill except that a friend asked him about his average monthly bill. He said he discovered the overbilling and called the phone company. He said he was upset that the company is not planning to notify customers. ``It annoyed me that it wasn't publicized,'' he said. ``There are probably lots of people who will pay their bills without even knowing they are being overbilled.'' GTE's Cox said the company is not sending corrected bills because of the high cost involved, but he said that the company will determine how much each customer has been overcharged and will credit customers beginning June 7 with the overcharge amount plus 3% interest. ``We apologize for the inconvenience, and we're asking for a little bit of patience and understanding,'' Cox said. GTE has 460,000 customers in the Westside, 160,000 in the South Bay and 200,000 in Orange County. Cox said that most customers in those communities were overbilled only if they made ZUM calls. Cox said the cause of the glitch has not been determined, nor has the company estimated the total amount of money that was overbilled. --------- [Ron's note - Gee, 3% interest after three months. I wish my credit card would give me that rate. I don't really like the fact that people are being forced to loan money to the phone company. They should really be forced to give a higher percentage.] ------------------------------ From: Bernard Fran Collins Subject: Why the Bong? Date: 6 May 91 20:01:23 GMT Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF Perhaps this has been discussed before. Is there a good reason why a credit card call must contain a pause in the dialing in order to wait for the bong? Why can't the card number be delivered to the LD carrier without such a pause? Is there a shortcut? What does the bong really do anyway? Skip Collins, collins@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu ------------------------------ From: Jean-Marc Odinot Subject: PRO-2010 Scanner Mods Needed Date: 6 May 91 13:53:01 GMT Organization: Gipsi SA, Montigny le Bretonneux, France q Hi netWorkers, I'm looking for people using the "Realistic PRO-2010". I got one, and would like to know if somebody has done any hard/software patches on it. Please e-mail, there is so many news each day. Thanks in advance, edgard@cao.gipsi.fr tel: +33 (1) 30 60 75 47 fax: +33 (1) 30 60 75 90 tlx: 699 262 F Mail: petit maillet muni d'un long manche flexible (Larousse) [Moderator's Note: I assume you are looking for mods which are meaningful in Europe. There are a lot of things the guys do with the radios over here in the USA which would be of no benefit to you over there. What did you want, more channels, frequencies, or? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #337 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00656; 7 May 91 2:08 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10607; 7 May 91 0:26 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29680; 6 May 91 23:20 CDT Date: Mon, 6 May 91 22:13:07 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #338 BCC: Message-ID: <9105062213.ab20695@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 6 May 91 22:12:48 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 338 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department [Daniel Senie] Re: GEnie Management Acting a la Prodigy Management? [Jim Budler] Re: How is the Cost of Features Calculated? [Bruce Klopfenstein] Re: The Two Line Solution [Perry Stokes] Re: Hollings and the RBOCs [Marvin Sirbu] Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer [Carl Moore] Re: New Area Code For North Georgia [Carl Moore] Re: Cable & Wireless 800 Service (MCI and Telecom*USA, too) [Bill Huttig] Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge? [Ronald Greenberg] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Daniel Senie Subject: Re: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department Date: 5 May 91 15:18:01 GMT Organization: Daniel Senie Consulting, Clinton, MA A previous poster asks why New York wouldn't simply hire more 911 operators. I have a good story about this. Many years ago (late 70's) I spent a summer at the Polytechnic Institute of N.Y. (in Brooklyn). i]One of the professors for the summer program I attended specialized in using discrete modeling to analyze problems. We were there learning how to do this, using tools such as GPSS. The City had retained him to analyze the 911 service back then to determine how to improve response time. The City also asked IBM and AT&T for analyses at the same time. IBM, predictably, recommended that the solution was a new computer system. AT&T/New York Tel (the pre-breakup days), predictably recommended a new phone system. The professor did a proper study using discrete modeling, measuring time durations of operator tasks, frequency of calls, etc. and built a model. A carefully constructed model allows for controlled alteration of parameters (such as increasing the number of calls per hour, etc.) and gives very good predictions of the outcomes. His model showed that they needed a few more operators, and that the phones and computers in use were not the bottleneck. The City, of course, bought the phones and computers, and didn't hire any additional operators. Response time did not improve. When I lived in NYC, I always kept the phone numbers for the local police and fire stations near the phone. If there was an emergency you really didn't want to risk life and property on 911 response times. Daniel Senie UUCP: uunet!lectroid!peanut!dts Daniel Senie Consulting ARPA: peanut!dts@lectroid.sw.stratus.com 48 Elm Street CSRV: 74176,1347 Clinton, MA 01510 TEL.: 508 - 365 - 5352 ------------------------------ From: Jim Budler Subject: Re: GEnie Management Acting a la Prodigy Management? Organization: Silvar-Lisco Date: Mon, 6 May 1991 06:16:01 GMT In article amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) writes: > Sigh. From what I understand, this is one of the more annoying recent > developments on the timesharing service front. Here are the facts as > I understand them: > From her messages on GEnie, Linda Kaplan presents herself a quite > annoying person with no sense of humor and precious little sense of > how courtesy applies to public communication. A "sysop" of one GEnie > round table (who is responisble for being a pseudo-moderator, keeping > discussions on track, putting out flamewars, etc.) got sufficiently > irritated with her behavior on his round table that he locked her out > of it for a while. Linda Kaplan has been around on Compuserve and GEnie for a long time. Long enough that she was given a free account on GEnie. I don't think you can say she doesn't understand "how courtesy applies to public communication". The sysop got her free account pulled. > Linda subsequently started complaining, and roudned up support from a > large group of ex-Prodigy people (who are, after all, quite reasonably > sensitive to electronic censorship). Unfortunately, these people then > assumed that GEnie management was just like Prodigy management, and > started jumping to conclusions and making "pre-emptive" accusations to > GEnie and GE management. This, needless to say, did not do much to GEnie management said "shut up or we'll pull your account, too", undoubtedly to make the ex-Prodigy folk feel at home. > I do not know if it has been resolved, but I will be quite annoyed if > a bunch of disgruntled ex-Prodigy users end up instigating a self- > fulfilling prophecy, and turning the best public timesharing service I > have used into a hostile environment, or shut it down completely > (which GEIS might well do if GEnie ends up being too much trouble). I don't know if has been resolved either, but from the April 23 issue of {MacWeek}: "GEnie replaces general manager involved in on-line controversy". GEnie denies it is due to the controversy, of course. Although I doubt that Linda will get her free account back, the removal of the man who made the "shut up or be kicked out" statement will perhaps make people feel that GEnie is at least trying to understand that people expect freedom of speech in their network services. > I have quite a number of people of friends who depend on GEnie (one of > whom is hearing impaired and uses email as her lifeline to the outside > world), and I resent people screwing things up for everyone else > because one person cried wolf. I like GEnie, but also don't think she cried wolf. I think she had a dispute with a sysop, and neither person involved knew how to take it off-line and resolve it properly. The boss got dragged in, and then he didn't know how to handle it properly, either. This is really a case of interperson dispute. The fact that one person was a person of authority, and his boss backed him, made it a national issue. At this point GEnie's "boss" GE Information Services has stepped in and replaced Bill Louden as General Manager, while denying it is due to this. I take this to indicate that GIS (GEIS?) doesn't like censorship and am happy. Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com | Proud Silvar-Lisco +1.408.991.6115 | MacIIsi 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086 | owner ------------------------------ From: Bruce Klopfenstein Subject: Re: How is the Cost of Features Calculated? Date: 6 May 91 12:23:44 GMT Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. From article , by sichermn@beach.csulb. edu (Jeff Sicherman): > Is it just my paranoid, conspiracy-seeking mind or do the RBOC's > always seem to introduce all these new, fancy services with a monthly > price tag of between $3 and $8. I was under the impression that these > are all tariffed and that revenue must reflect cost with a standard > profit allowance. I attended a recent presentation by a Bell Atlantic representative who explained how the charge for Caller ID was reached. According to him, it was purely market research. That is, through focus groups, telephone surveys, and possibly other techniques, Bell Atlantic found out what people said they would be willing to pay for Caller ID. Based upon their reading of that research, they charge what they feel the market would bear. The perceived value of the service dictates the pricing scheme. I am very interested in other responses to Jeff's question regarding the regulated aspect of pricing. Bruce C. Klopfenstein | klopfens@andy.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 ------------------------------ From: Perry Stokes Subject: Re: The Two Line Solution Date: 6 May 91 12:58:34 GMT Organization: The Free Software Foundation In article dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: > In article , leryo@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Leryo > Malbito) writes: >> Upon calling a COCOT, I got a telco tri-tone message stating something >> to the effect of: "There are no incoming calls permitted to this >> telephone ..." Da-Daa-Daa... >> (I think this is the same type of message that Bell Atlantic provides >> when you have been chosen as a CALL BLOCK(tm?)ed number ... eg, you >> bother someone, then they block all future calls from your number.) > Actually, NJ Bell (part of Bell Atlantic) provides a recording which > is not preceded by the SIT tone, and says: "The number you are calling > is not accepting calls at this time" if the called party has blocked > calls from the calling party. That system is never going to work as well as planned. Rather than giving a message saying something, the phone should just sound as if it's ringing off the hook. The offending party would just assume they're never answering the phone. If you have a message saying "They don't want to accept your call.." then anyone with half a brain will just try calling from another number. (pay phone, friends phone, etc) Perry Stokes stokes@ai.mit.edu 512-836-2163 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 May 91 10:27:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Marvin Sirbu Subject: Re: Hollings and the RBOCs In several recent messages John Higdon has asserted that Pacific Bell is "guaranteed" a cushy rate of return. While historically that was true, it is no longer true as of 1991. Both at the State of California level and at the Federal level, Rate of Return (ROR) regulation has been replaced by a system of price caps. The price caps have been set initially at a level which would guarantee a rate of return of 11 - 13%. However, the cap is AUTOMATICALLY cut each year in real terms by 4.5% (Federal) or 6.5%(State). Thus, unless Pacific Bell is continually lowering its costs by at least that much, it will find itself making less than the initial 11-13%. In 1988 Nynex agreed to a price cap plan where it promised to cut rates in real terms at the same rate as inflation -- about 4.5% per year (What it actually agreed to was to freeze prices in nominal dollars which amounts to the same thing.) By the end of three years its rate of return had dropped to about 8%, or less than you could get by buying a truly no-risk Treasury Bond. Nynex was unable to meet the productivity target it had agreed to with the NY PSC and saw its profits drop substantially. Now before you laugh and say "Any fool should be able to cut prices by 4.5% per year given the rapid improvements in technology," remember that as technology costs drop, the remaining labor costs (e.g. outside plant repairs, operator services, etc.) become a higher and higher percentage of the total. Thus, further improvements in technology have less and less impact on total costs. I'm sure that there is plenty of slack at Pacific Bell so that it can achieve 6.5% reduction in real terms for a few years. It will be interesting to see for how long they can keep it up. Marvin Sirbu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 May 91 10:53:55 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer If answering service operators answer your phone, you may want to instruct them regarding third-party and collect calls. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 May 91 11:29:42 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: New Area Code For North Georgia Columbus, Georgia (zipcode 319xx) is in 404, not 912. So it will apparently go into 706. It's been said before: Phone prefixes and area codes won't necessarily line up with county boundaries. (Examples: The trouble with the people in New Castle County, Delaware who are on 302-653, which is mostly in Kent County; and my finding that Highland, Md., in Howard County, is on 301-854 and will NOT go into 410.) The rest of this message deals with the TRANSCRIBED ARTICLE only! Notice that the local calling instructions from the big city (in this case, Atlanta) will not change. I don't know what the meaning of "had to fight to get the 706 area code" is; 404 area already has N0X/N1X prefixes, and when it starts running short again, it has to apply for a split. In the following excerpt, the second sentence is contradicted by the messages you have seen in the Digest regarding N0X/N1X prefixes. Unless there is an NPA + 7D setup for local calls across area code borders, 404 is "legally" available as a prefix in 404, but out of courtesy (to avoid confusion when you give a number out orally) is not used as such there. > The telephone system is simply running out of area codes and prefixes. > Fewer are available than you might think because area codes can't be > used as prefix numbers and prefix numbers can't be used as area codes. > For instance, you'll never see a prefix that uses 404, the area code. Local calling areas and long distance charges are NOT changed by a split. The METHOD for making some calls does have to change. > The telephone company set the area code lines so people who now call > Atlanta without paying a long-distance charge can continue to. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 May 91 13:39:47 -0400 From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: Cable & Wireless 800 Service (MCI and Telecom*USA, too) Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article eddy@jafus.mi.org (Eddy J. Gurney) writes: [Stuff about C&W deleted] C&W should be able to provide 800 service to any number since they have it ring to a POTS line. The rep might have thought that you wanted long distence service also ... which they don't offer from all locations yet. > I also called MCI about their "Follow Me 800" service, but the > representatives did not have any information available at this time, > and said "you will be hearing more about it." I guess we'll see about > that. I wonder if this too, will be a "shared" 800 number, or if they > will finally assign you your own number. Follow Me will work with existing 'shared' 800 numbers starting May 15 and will cost $1 per change. You can call Customer service and they will chnage the ring number for you for up to 60 days. (It might be 90.) They said if the system is up it should be changed within an hour. You can also call two weeks in advance and give them an effective time/date for any changes. > So the search continues for an 800 LDC besides U.S. Sprint. Any more > suggestions? You have a choice of ATC which resells Telecom*USA's $2.75 type service or 'Call Home' which also resells the same service. I dont have the rates or details of the programs anymore. You can check with Directory Assistance for the phone numbers. (ATC is only in the southeast US). Maybe you should also call AllNet at 1-800-773-2020 (I think) their rates are close to C&W's I think. Let me know what you decide. > [Moderator's Note: Except that *existing* customers of Telecom*USA at > the time of the MCI merger are still being serviced through > Telecom*USA customer service, and they still let us add/delete or > change around our 800 numbers as desired for $2.75 each. PAT] Telecom*USA would not let me modify my service. It started as a Telesystem account to a SouthernNet account before it became Telecom*USA. I still have a Telesystem calling card on it. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 May 91 17:51:46 -0400 From: Ronald Greenberg Subject: Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge? Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park In article you write: > I just got my AT&T Universal bill, and noticed that over 50% of the > cost of my long distance calls is due to the 75 cent per-call > surcharge which they tag onto all calling card calls. (I guess their > Are there calling cards without this extra fee? I use ITT as my long distance company. Calls cost the same as from home as long as I call 950-0ITT (then the phone number and authorization code). In theory, 950-0ITT does not work everywhere; in such places you have to call an 800 number and pay a surcharge. But every place I have wanted to call from, the 950 number has worked; basically any reasonable metropolitan area should be no problem. Ron Greenberg rig@eng.umd.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #338 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05583; 7 May 91 4:05 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28286; 7 May 91 2:31 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00700; 7 May 91 1:27 CDT Date: Tue, 7 May 91 0:24:35 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #339 BCC: Message-ID: <9105070024.ab01709@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 7 May 91 00:24:25 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 339 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia: Issues 324 and 325 [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Toby Nixon] Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Harold Barker] Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge? [Greg Oliveau] Re: Touch-Tone vs. Rotary - A Frustrating Experience [Jiro Nakamura] Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission [G. M. Roeber] Re: Need Ideas on a Telecom Project For Kids [Daniel Jacobson] Re: RJ-11 Jacks in Hotel Rooms [Mitch Wagner] Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN [John Boteler] Re: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993 [Mark Brader] COCOT's and California Law [John Bruner] Radio Shack Handheld [Ed Greenberg] 600: 600 ohm Transformer : What Does it Mean? [Jon Sreekanth] 212-516 Still There [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 6 May 91 23:39:13 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: Issues 324 and 325 A numbering mixup has caused some confusion. Issue 324 came out last Thursday. Due to illness, I did not send out any issues on Friday or Saturday until late Saturday afternoon. I then sent 325, but it said 324 in the header (but 325 in the body). I immediatly corrected it and mailed it again with 325 correctly shown in the body and the header. So, you got two issues of 325, one of which was called 324. You should have received the real 324 a couple days earlier. With that in mind, search through your back issues. If you still feel you did not get 324, please let me know and I will resend it. PAT ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? Date: 6 May 91 20:14:29 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , binder@decvax.dec.com (Simplicitas gratia simplicitatis) writes: > The formatting operation must by its very nature destroy the old data. > Formatting is a write operation that is done without reading to verify > position. It writes both the sector preambles and the data fields > instead of only the data fields. ... This is true, of course, for the initial low-level format of a disk. But a subsequent FORMAT command does nothing but rewrite the FAT and directories to show that the file spaces is all available. This is why a "deformat" program (e.g., Mace) that keeps a copy of the FAT and directories in inner cylinders can recover an accidentally-formatted hard disk by simply copying the saved information back to the outer cylinders. Nothing will recover from a low-level format, of course (although NSA and CIA supposedly have ways to even read this data by examining the residual magnetism in the media between tracks -- but I doubt it). Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 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: Harold Barker Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc. Date: Mon, 6 May 1991 18:47:03 GMT In article deanp@sequent.com writes: > I ran a protocol analyzer during my session with Prodigy yesterday -- > about an hour's worth -- and saw no personal data being transmitted > from my PC. If anyone's interested I can post a few hundred bytes of > the trace. If Prodigy has an once of common sence they will have turned off this feature (if it ever existed) as soon as this little discussion started. [Moderator's Note: At least I have an ounce of common sense! :) With your message, we have to close this thread as some people tell me they are starting to get bored to tears. I am too. Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Greg Oliveau Subject: Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge? Date: 7 May 91 00:43:31 GMT Organization: Teledyne Controls, Commercial Aircraft Products Division spolsky-joel@cs.yale.edu (Joel Spolsky) writes: > I just got my AT&T Universal bill, and noticed that over 50% of the > cost of my long distance calls is due to the 75 cent per-call > surcharge which they tag onto all calling card calls. (I guess their > ads claiming you pay "only low AT&T rates" are a little bit > dishonest). > Are there calling cards without this extra fee? Hmm. I don't think my USSprint card has a fee - at least it's not itemized as such. Probably the 'setup' charge is hidden in the first three minutes of use. Greg Oliveau Voice 213.820.4616.x2598 Teledyne Controls, Fax 213.820.0183 Commercial Aircraft Products Division ------------------------------ From: Jiro Nakamura Subject: Re: Touch-Tone vs. Rotary - A Frustrating Experience Organization: Shaman Consulting Date: Mon, 6 May 1991 21:26:56 GMT For my new line, I deliberately didn't order touch-tone service even though I have touch-tone phones. It's ridiculous to get charged $2.20 (NYNEX) a month for something that saves NYNEX money by cutting down on computation time. Once I get my line, I'm going to see if it supports touch-tone anyway. If not, it's my modem/fax line anyway, so it doesn't seriously bother me. I think almost all new phones sold in the U.S. have touch-tone and pulse. Some have touch-tone only (el-cheapo (tm) brand). In Japan, I've seen pulse only phones, but haven't seen a single one in America. Jiro Nakamura jiro@shaman.com Shaman Consulting (607) 253-0687 VOICE (607) 253-7809 FAX/Modem ------------------------------ From: roeber@cithe1.cithep.caltech.edu Subject: Re: Decreasing Costs of Transmission Date: 6 May 91 15:34:09 PST In article , dpletche@jarthur.claremont. edu (Nuclear Warrior) writes: > I have been harboring an amusing idea for some time. Wouldn't it be > great if one of those rare individuals who wasn't motivated solely by > personal and corporate greed was to create a full-service telephone > company, hopefully providing long distance (and in some areas, where > the LEC was especially lame, local service) at the lowest possible > prices? You do not need a rich philanthropist for this. All you need is a free market, with any entry barriers low enough to be surmounted by startup capital. Public utility monopolies were created in response to high entry barriers (e.g., all that copper), with the theory that one regulated company was better than no companies, or one surviving unregulated one.[1] Now, if technology has improved to the point that the barriers are not so formidable as to preclude easy entry to the market, theoretically we need merely point this out to the populace and the government, and the market will be deregulated. Then, the motivations of "personal and corporate greed" will be the very agents that bring us this great service. Unfortunately, this is where economics is replaced by politics. And until the market is deregulated, even a rich philanthropist can't bring you a competing service. [1] Caveat: This applies to the American system. Here, in France and Switzerland, the PTT is just another government-run "service," and you could no more compete with it than you could form your own police force. But then again, Adam Smith wasn't French. Frederick G. M. Roeber | CERN -- European Center for Nuclear Research e-mail: roeber@caltech.edu or roeber@cern.ch | work: +41 22 767 31 80 r-mail: CERN/PPE, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | home: +33 50 42 19 44 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 May 91 20:52:24 EDT From: Daniel Jacobson Subject: Re: Need Ideas on a Telecom Project For Kids Reply-To: Dan_Jacobson@ihlpz.att.com Organization: AT&T-BL, Naperville IL, USA In article dam@mtqua.att.com (Daniel A Margolis) writes: > We have a program where we bring a few eighth-graders into our labs > during the summer. Last year, I was in charge of finding a project > What kind of project can I give the students that will involve > telecom? Have 'em electronically thumb thru TELECOM Digest! Then the rest of USENET netnews. It should leave them with the tele]communications itch for good. ------------------------------ From: Mitch Wagner Subject: Re: RJ-11 Jacks in Hotel Rooms Organization: UNIX Today! Date: Mon, 06 May 91 18:33:17 GMT In article kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co. jp!trebor@uunet.uu.net (Robert J Woodhead) writes: > Any dedicated travelling > modemer carries a small screwdriver for impromptu ECO'ing of hotel > phones. In a pinch, you can use a paperclip or the tang on the end of > a Bic pen to worm the jack out. Is that what you call the end of a pen? A "tang"? No kidding! :-) Seriously, I find the end of the pen or paperclip works best. Why burden one's self down with unnecessary supplies when one can as easily forage off the land? (So to speak.) > get into the room. > Inveterate Motel-6 Modemer's can be recognised by dialing scripts in > their terminal programs that look like this: > ATDT 6,1XXXYYYZZZZ,,,,,,,AAABBBCCCCDDDD > This gets the outside line, dials the long distance number, waits long > enough to get the bong (varies between five and seven seconds > depending on the Motel 6), and dials a credit card number. I wish all > Hotel telephone systems were as simple and straightforward (and fair!) > as the big 6's are... ;^) And inveterate business travellers can be sometimes be spotted by checking their comm dialing directories. I'm a GEnie addict, and a private detective would find my ProComm dialing directory containing numbers for GEnie nodes in Long Island, the San Francisco Bay Area and Cambridge, Mass. Why wouldn't something like the Motel 6 dialing scheme work on another hotel? I've never actually tried to charge a modem call, but it seems that you could just program the following string in: ATDT 9,1(XXX)YYY-ZZZZ,,,,,,,,,,AAAABBBBCCCCDDDD With ABCD being the credit card number... and ,,,,, being the pause for the bong. That should work fine. Just about every hotel I've ever stayed in had you dial "9" for outside, collect, 800 and credit card calls, and "8" for long distance calls. Oh, well. I'm due to travel next first week in June. I shall perform the appropriate experiments and report back. Mitch Wagner VOICE: 516/562-5758 GEnie: MITCH.WAGNER UUCP: wagner@utoday.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN Date: Mon, 6 May 91 15:21:11 EDT From: John Boteler Toby Nixon typed: > Rich Szabo writes: >> Can an ISDN line be used as a voice line so that I don't need a >> POTS line in addition? > You definitely don't need to keep a POTS line around once you have > ISDN. Unless the power fails at your location. Then, no more ISDN. OOPS! John Boteler bote@csense {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 May 1991 00:01:00 -0400 From: Mark Brader Subject: Re: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993 Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada > Calls to the cities just outside Metro Toronto > (Scarborough, Mississauga, etc) are now local, and will remain so, but > these cities will be moving to 905. Harrumph. Scarborough is, of course, *in* Metro Toronto. In case anyone actually cares, the complete list of municipalities in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and which will therefore be staying in 416 is: Borough of East York, City of Etobicoke (the k is silent, incidentally), City of North York, City of Scarborough, City of Toronto, and City of York. The last is not to be confused with the Regional Municipality of York, which includes all of the former County of York *except* Metro Toronto, and will be in 905. Names of municipalities eliminated in 1954 when Metro was formed, or in 1966 when it was reorganized, many of which are still used for postal address purposes, include: Agincourt, Don Mills, Downsview, Forest Hill, Islington, Leaside, Long Branch, Mimico, New Toronto, Rexdale, Swansea, Weston, and Willowdale. These ex-places will all remain in 416. If you have the postal address of a place, it will be in 416 if and only if its postal code starts with the letter M. (Ignoring any anomalies at the Metro boundary, that is.) Clear? By the 1991 phone book, the prefixes in Metro Toronto are as follows. Errors are mine. 461-3,5-7,9 means 461 462 463 465 466 467 469. 221-5,9; 231-7,9; 240-9; 250-3,5,6,9; 260,1,4-7,9; 281-9; 290-3,6-9; 321-4,6,7; 340,1,3,5,8; 350,1,3,9; 360-9; 391-9; 421-5,9; 431,8,9; 440-9; 461-3,5-7,9; 480-9; 490-9; 502-4,9; 510,2,5,6; 530-9; 581,3,5,6,8; 590-9; 601,3,4,9; 614; 620,1,2,6; 630,1,3,5,6,8; 650-4,6-8; 661,3,5,7; 674,5; 690,1,3-6,8,9; 724; 730,3,6,9; 740-9; 750-2,4-9; 760-3,6,7,9; 777,8; 781-5,7,9; 798; 860-9; 870,2; 920-9; 932,3; 941,4,7; 954; 960-9; 971-9; and 980-2. Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 May 91 09:20:58 CDT From: John Bruner Subject: COCOT's and California Law I just returned from a week in southern California. The hotel in which I stayed provided AT&T long-distance from the rooms with no surcharge, which was great. However, at one point I needed to use a payphone on the premises to place a long-distance call. I discovered that they were all COCOT's "served" by ITI, and they all refused to accept any long-distance carrier access codes. Isn't this a violation of California law -- aren't all payphones, both real utility phones and COCOT monsters, required to provide access to all carriers? If so, could someone send me a citation of the appropriate statute? I'd like to write a letter to the manager of the hotel suggesting that they pressure the owners of the COCOT's (who rented the payphone spaces under a long-term agreement with the hotel) into cleaning up their act. John Bruner Center for Supercomputing R&D, University of Illinois bruner@csrd.uiuc.edu (217) 244-4476 ------------------------------ From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Date: Mon, 6 May 91 07:53 PDT Subject: Radio Shack Handheld Douglas Mason asks about the Radio Shack Handheld Cellular phone, comparing it to the Motorola 8000. Just to set the record straight ... the RS handheld is made by Nokia. Although it has the same form factor as the Motorola, it isn't one. ------------------------------ From: Jon Sreekanth Subject: 600: 600 ohm Transformer : What Does it Mean? Date: Mon, 6 May 1991 21:41:06 GMT This is probably a simple question : what is the meaning of a spec such as a transformer being 600 ohm : 600 ohm ? For example, some telecom transformers (phone line interface transformers) are spec'ed this way. My understanding is if a transformer is ideal, it reflects the secondary impedance to the primary. So, if a transformer primary is connected to the telephone line, and the secondary is left open circuited, the AC impedance that the telephone line sees is infinity, right? If the secondary is shorted, the telephone line should see an AC short; if the secondary is connected to a 600 ohm load, the telephone line should see 600 ohm. In summary, what does the magic 600:600 spec mean ? Any 1:1 transformer should be interchangeable, and line matching really means the secondary should be terminated into the proper impedance. What am I missing ? 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, 6 May 91 15:58:45 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: 212-516 Still There I was in Grand Central Station yesterday. 212-516 prefix, on two phones for "25 cents, 30 seconds, anywhere in NY state" is still there. Notes posted on it say no incoming service (that's why we figured it was OK to use a nearby area code as a prefix). It also says: No local calls operator with "No" and "calls" being twice the height of the stacked words "local" and "operator". ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #339 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02478; 8 May 91 5:26 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05889; 8 May 91 3:50 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24032; 8 May 91 2:42 CDT Date: Wed, 8 May 91 2:23:19 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #340 BCC: Message-ID: <9105080223.ab28321@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 8 May 91 21:23:11 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 340 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson CLASS in Pac*Bell [Jim Gottlieb] Weird Payphone [Bernard Fran Collins] RJ Wiring for AT&T 258A? [Christopher Tengi] Identify This Instrument [Donald Ekman] Eighth-wave, or Quarter-wave? [Harris Boldt Edelman] Washington/Baltimore Cellular One Update [John Boteler] PET Codes for a Motorola PMR2000 Beeper [Greg Maples] AOS Regulation [Gordon Burditt] Re: GEnie Management Acting a la Prodigy Management? [Amanda Walker] GTE Hawaiian Tel Takes Action Against "Slamming" [Timothy Newsham] You're All A Bunch of Terrorists [Jim Bowery, Info-Nets via J. Phil Miller] Long Distance Carrier Near Philadelphia [Carl Moore] Panasonic "832" Program Docs Wanted [Chris Chung, via Douglas S. Reuben] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: CLASS in Pac*Bell Date: 6 May 91 22:07:31 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles A Pacific*Bell product announcement states in part: Pacific Bell plans to equip over 7,000,000 lines in California by the end of 1991 with these new COMMSTAR Custom Calling Features [the usual CLASS features]. Pacific Bell plans to make these services available to the 213, 818, 415, and 408 area codes of LATAs 1 and 5 in 1991. We expect to add area codes 714 and 805 in LATA 5 and 707 in LATA 1 by the end of 1992. ------------------------------ From: Bernard Fran Collins Subject: Weird Payphone Date: 6 May 91 22:23:33 GMT Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF Over the weekend I had reason to visit an old mansion in Baltimore. While there, I asked to use a public phone and was directed to a broom closet which contained what appeared to be an overgrown touch-tone deskphone. There was a slot to take quarters and a sticker that said local calls only. I found that a dial tone was given when the receiver was lifted. But when trying to dial out normally, the phone would only produce one DTMF unless the number I pressed was 0. If I pressed 0, it would let me continue; otherwise, the keypad was disabled. I never tested the thing by actually depositing a quarter in it. But I did not have to. I found that I could dial anywhere I wanted, local, LD, credit card, international etc., as long as I kept the key touches very short in duration. They had to be short enough to slip by the phone's decoder but long enough to be detected by the CO. This phone was a piece of junk. In about one minute I was able to bypass its skimpy security and dial anywhere I wanted. Of course, I am an honest person and would never take advantage of such a situation. It is quite useful for such establishments to have payphones for use by the public. But devices such as these unfortunately make possible the ripoff of their unwary owners. Skip Collins, collins@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu ------------------------------ From: Christopher Tengi Subject: RJ Wiring for AT&T 258A? Date: 6 May 91 21:25:22 GMT Organization: Princeton University - CIT Can anybody out there post the definitive method of pairing (with color code) for the AT&T PDS scheme? I saw a post in comp.dcom.lans that gave the following diagram: WH OR WH BL WH GR WH BR OR WH GR WH BL WH BR WH (RJ-45F) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | | | | | | | | pairs: T2 R2 T3 R1 T1 R3 R4 T4 +--+ | +--+ | +--+ +--------+ The trouble I have is with pair 4. Which pin is really tip, and shouldn't it be white/brown? Also, is pair 2 really on pins 1 and 2, or is it on 3 and 6? Thanks, Chris UUCP: ...princeton!tengi VOICEnet: 609-258-6799 INTERNET: tengi@princeton.edu FAX: 609-258-3943 BITNET: TENGI@PUCC ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 May 91 19:40:47 PDT From: Donald Ekman Subject: Identify This Instrument Somewhere along the line I've acquired an old telephone instrument, which I can't identify as to where it might have been made and used. Perhaps someone can help me. It's an Elliot Ness style, upright phone, with separate transmitter and receiver, the latter being suspended from a fork on the side. There is no dial, but the instrument obviously was intended that one might be fitted, at least as an option, so presumably it does not predate the Strowger switch. Inside the (rather heavy) base plate is a simple wiring diagram, and various bits of notation, the most prominent of which says: TELE No. 150 (MARK Z34) When the DialAuto No. 10 is not fitted, terminals T & TD must be strapped. In the wiring diagram, the transmitter is identified as Trans No. 1, while the receiver is identified as Recr Bell No. 1A. Anybody know where this thing comes from? And when? Thanks, Donald E. Ekman | Disclaimer: Loral Space Systems/Loral | doesn't think I have Palo Alto, CA USA | any opinions. They ekman@wdl1.wdl.loral.com | are probably right. ------------------------------ Subject: Eighth-wave, or Quarter-wave? Date: 6 May 91 19:24:15 PDT (Mon) From: Harris Boldt Edelman PAT often refers tentatively to the small, stub- or button-like antenna for his cellular handheld set as an 1/8-wave antenna. It's perhaps time to nip an incipient TELECOM-legend in the bud, and suggest that the little antenna is more likely to be a helically-wound 1/4-wave, than any kind of 1/8-wave. Anyone want to confirm this? Harris mixstate@stb.info.com hbe@bertha.jpl.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Subject: Washington/Baltimore Cellular One Update Date: Mon, 6 May 91 15:28:01 EDT From: John Boteler Cellular One decided to join MCI in the "By the way, we forgot to tell you about these changes" department, effective June 1, 1991. Plan U, the Unlimited Plan, is no more as a stand alone plan. Existing subscribers will be 'grandfathered' to $39.95/month plan P1, but will be placed under a 500 minute cap. Above this cap, rates will be $0.55/minute prime and $0.05/minute non-prime. *** Cellular One Prime Time is now the same as Bell Atlantic, 0900 to 2100 hours weekdays. *** You will be able to get a 'rider' on other existing plans to get Plan U, which will have no cap. For example, if you have a typical business-use plan now, you will be able to add unlimited service onto it for $35/month extra. Other changes no doubt have yet to come to light, but from where I sit, this removes any substantive differences between the wireline and non-wireline carriers in the National Capital area. One point in favor of BAMS is their recent expansion of service on the Eastern Shore, essentially allowing subscribers to place non-toll calls to Ocean City and Salisbury, Maryland for example. Get the rundown from Cell One for all the details; I could be totally screwed up on this info :) John Boteler bote@csense {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling ------------------------------ From: Greg Maples Subject: PET Codes for a Motorola PMR2000 Beeper Organization: DuPont Design Technologies Group Date: Mon, 6 May 91 22:02:44 GMT Well, I received very few responses to my last posting, so here goes. What I want to do is to be able to send specific alphanumeric sequences to my Motorola PMR2000 beeper. There are two 40 character lines of display. The vendor is absolutely confused and unable to answer my questions about how this is done. About all they can tell me is "Wee sell a MS-DOS program that 'reprograms' (hah!) your modem to do this... you can also buy a terminal for a phone line to send out messages." This is really dumb. I've heard that there is a version of the UNIX program 'tip/cu' that knows how to reformat the codes this beeper wants from standard ascii. If this exists, I'd like to know where I can get it. Also, I need to find out what the 'PET' protocol is ... this is apparently what the beeper understands for command sequences. Does anybody know anything about this? This is a Motorola product. Is anybody from Motorola listening? Thanks, Greg Maples | These are my opinions, not yours. Keep your Systems Group Leader | hands off 'em. They're also not the opinions DuPont Design Technologies | of my employer or yours. So there. (c) 1991 maples%ddtisvr@uunet.uu.net | The preceding is an opinion which is mine. ------------------------------ From: Gordon Burditt Subject: AOS Regulation Date: 7 May 91 04:07:36 GMT Organization: Gordon Burditt From a Southwestern Bell bill insert (capitalization mine; theirs was all caps): A new law that protects your rights as a telephone customer was recently signed by President Bush. The "Telephone Operator Consumer Services Improvement Act" is the Federal Government's response to customer complaints about the practices of some companies that provide operator services. For example, this law ensures that the company handling an operator-assisted, long-distance call is identified twice before a customer incurs any charges. Previously, there was no Federal law requiring identification of the company. When you dial a Southwestern Bell telephone operator to place a long-distance call, you may hear a mechanized voice state the company name. An operator will then come on the line to assist you. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon ------------------------------ From: Amanda Walker Subject: Re: GEnie Management Acting a la Prodigy Management? Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA Date: Tue, 7 May 91 08:32:26 GMT In article jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) writes: > I don't think you can say she doesn't understand "how courtesy applies > to public communication". Well, I was very ... underwhelmed with how she presented herself on GEnie during most of this brouhaha. Granted, I only became aware of it at the end of March, and went and read stuff retroactively, but to be quite honest, it left with with the desire to avoid interacting with her on any basis. Maybe this is a snap judgement on my part, but it is one based on her own actions. > GEnie management said "shut up or we'll pull your account, too", > undoubtedly to make the ex-Prodigy folk feel at home. Well, I didn't see it that way, although Bill Louden did have an outburst that was pretty unprofessional. I think he was provoked, but I agree that he acted inappropriately. > I like GEnie, but also don't think she cried wolf. I think she had a > dispute with a sysop, and neither person involved knew how to take it > off-line and resolve it properly. This I certainly agree with. > The boss got dragged in, and then he didn't know how to handle it > properly, either. This is really a case of interperson dispute. No argument here. > The fact that one person was a person of authority, and his boss backed > him, made it a national issue. I think it was aggravated by many of the people who got involved, and turned a private dispute into a public crusade. Luckily, it seems to have pretty much died down without having caused any real damage. > At this point GEnie's "boss" GE Information Services has stepped in > and replaced Bill Louden as General Manager, while denying it is due > to this. Chuckle. I guess Bill just wanted a change of scenery. I have to admit he was not an optimal choice for dealing with irate users :). Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 May 91 23:15:46 hst From: Timothy Newsham Subject: GTE Hawaiian Tel Takes Action Against "Slamming" This month's telephone bill included a surprising little notice, considering it's GTE and all :) -- Quote mode on -- For Your Information... In the past, you selected a carrier for your long distance service, such as AT&T, MCI, U.S. Sprint, etc. Since then, we have become aware of consumer concerns regarding unauthorized changes in customers' long dis- tance carriers. These occurrences are rare, but can be confusing to customers. If you sign and return an authorization form, which is available from GTE Hawaiian Tel, it will be put on file to prevent a change in your designated long distance provider without your prior written authorization. This optional authorization form and service is offered to GTE Hawaiian Tel customers free of charge. The normal charge will apply, however, if you change your long distance provider. To obtain an authorization form, or if you have any questions, please call our Equal Access Help Center at (800) 643-6789. [GTE logo] Hawaiian Tel Communications Excellence -- Quote Mode Off -- So, is this a PR thing or did a law pass forcing BOCs to do this? ------------------------------ From: "J. Philip Miller" Subject: You're All A Bunch of Terrorists Date: Tue, 7 May 91 6:15:41 CDT Pat - I don't recall if you read info-nets, but if you didn't see this, or don't have it in the que, you might be interested in it for posting. -phil Date: Mon, 6 May 91 15:03:43 PDT From: ames!scubed!pnet01.cts.com!jim@Think.COM (Jim Bowery) Subject: You're All A Bunch of Terrorists Just thought y'all might like to see this in case you either weren't aware of it or hadn't seen the actual language: Senate Bill 266 Mr. Biden for himself and Mr. DeConcini introduced the following bill which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. A BILL To prevent and punish domestic and international terrorist acts, and for other purposes. Section 1. Short Title. This act may be cited as the "Comprehensive Counter-Terrorism Act of 1991". < lots of death penalties and fun draconian things > Title II -- Preventing Domestic and International Terrorist Acts Subtitle B -- Electronic Communications Sec. 2201. Cooperation of telecommunications providers with law enforcement. It is the sense of Congress that providers of electronic communications services and manufacturers of electronic communications service equipment shall ensure that communications systems permit the government to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and other communications when appropriately authorized by law. ------------- You might consider writing your Senator and/or Representative and expressing your opinion on this piece of, uh, legislation. Jim Bowery 619/295-3164 The Coalition for PO Box 1981 Science and La Jolla, CA 92038 Commerce ------------- 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, 7 May 91 10:13:26 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Long Distance Carrier Near Philadelphia A default long distance company I have seen very recently (on at least one pay phone in the Middle Atlantic area -- I live in Delaware) is another firm I haven't heard of, but is quite close by: Call Technology Corp. 100 Stevens Drive Lester, PA 19113 This would put it near the Philadelphia International Airport. ------------------------------ Date: 7-MAY-1991 16:03:36.47 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Panasonic "832" Program Docs Wanted Hi... I'm posting for a friend of mine. Please send responses to his address below. Thanks in advance for any help! From: Christopher Chung I have a Panasonic Model 832 Cellular Phone. I have been having some trouble trying to figure out how to reprogram it. If anyone has any information on to access the program mode on the phone, I'd greatly appreciate hearing from you. Thanks, Chris Internet: chris@brownvm.brown.edu Bitnet: chris@brownvm.bitnet ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #340 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05486; 8 May 91 6:46 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01547; 8 May 91 5:00 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac05889; 8 May 91 3:50 CDT Date: Wed, 8 May 91 3:25:01 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #342 BCC: Message-ID: <9105080325.ab04346@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 8 May 91 03:24:53 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 342 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Security Conference [CTC Wang Labs] Media Errors in SJGames Raid by Secret Service [Brett Slocum] Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Carl Moore] Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Robert J. Woodhead] Collect and Third-Party Screening [Kath Mullholand] MCI Halts Billing For Sex Lines [Henry Mensch] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 May 91 18:48 GMT From: CTC Wang Labs <0004248165@mcimail.com> Subject: Telecom Security Conference You are invited... The Communications Fraud Control Association presents it's Seventh Annual Conference: TELECOM SECURITY '91 ==================== June 19-21, 1991 Le Meridien, New Orleans CFCA, the nation's clearinghouse for communications fraud information, is proud to present Telecom Security '91, its seventh annual conference to provide up-to-date remedies for newly discovered vulnerabilities. Join industry security specialists, engineers, lawyers, vendors of protective services and products, and members of the law enforcement community at the nation's most comprehensive conference focusing on curtailing telecommunications fraud. You will learn how to safeguard today's telephone systems, and see the latest telecommunications security products and services. Don't miss it. AGENDA ====== Wednesday, June 19 ================== 12:30-2:30 p.m. The Unblocking of 10XXX. ----------------------- Stimulated by the fact that the FCC is required to determine by July 17 the manner in which 10XXX should be unblocked, discussion will cover how fraud is committed over non-LEC pay telephones and through hotel PBXs, including measures that could effectively curtail this fraud, with probable costs and benefits. 3:00-4:30 p.m. DISA Fraud Update. ----------------- How PBXs are being compromised by this insidious form of intrusion; the latest in system safeguards, and what ICs, LECs and vendors can do to curb this abuse. Discussion will cover the petition to the FCC associated with the recent Pacific Mutual case. 4:45-5:30 p.m. An Update On International Fraud. ------------------------------- Chairman Don Jones, of the Forum for International Irregular Network Access (or FIINA), reviews fraud trends and the crime scene in overseas markets. FIINA is an international consortium dedicated to cooperating for the purpose of reducing fraud on the world's telecommunications networks. Thursday, June 20 ================= 9:00-10:30 a.m. Billing Validation Strategies For The 1990's. ------------------------------------ An explanation of how validation strategies work, in view of the transition from an X.25 System to LIDB, and associated risks and how such strategies could affect third party billing and AOS post- billing fraud. 11:00-Noon Explaining Security Costs & Benefits. ------------------------------------ How to obtain the resources needed for investigations and security. Covers methods for determining the dollar value of prevention by properly presenting financial impact, while estimating the cost of losses and the benefits of security measures, and how to best present it to management. 2:00-3:30 p.m. What Makes A Prosecution Successful. ----------------------------------- A review of the process, from arrest to trial. Why some approaches work, while others don't. 4:00-5:30 Social Engineering. ------------------ New versions of an ongoing fraud that entails manipulating information in order to steal proprietary data will be presented, followed by an explanation as to the most effective ways to apply different communications media to warn customers of new scams, with the appropriate protective measures. Friday, June 21 =============== 8:30-10:00 a.m. Securing the Digital World. -------------------------- Covers current ISDN voice and data penetration levels and applications. Introducing subscriber services. How ISDN will affect carriers in the next decade. 10:15-11:00 Cellular Fraud. -------------- An explanation of why some units are more vulnerable, with a review of the latest countermeasures. Fraud trends, including the growing involvement of organized crime and the use of illegal tumbling devices. 11:00-Noon What's On Your Mind? ------------------- An opportunity to discuss issues involving legal, investigative and early detection systems and the forms of service theft not covered in the conference. Questions submitted at registration (see form for details) will be addressed initially. If time allows, questions will be permitted from the floor. Widely regarded as the nation's authority on all aspects of telecommunications fraud, CFCA helps prosecute offenders, implement protection, publicize consumer advice, assist police and promote international understanding. The group's brochure series on specific problems; it's faxed weekly Fraud Alert and journal Communicator are the nation's only periodicals devoted to telecommunications crime issues. This is CFCA's 31st conference dealing with timely, high-tech crime topics in the past six years. REGISTRATION ============ Due to the sensative subject matter covered in this conference, CFCA reserves the right to screen participants who are not association members. No one will be admitted without first having been approved by the conference staff. All payments and registrations must be received by June 14, 1991. Registration Fees: ----------------- Prepaid After by May 26 May 26 --------- ------ Members $495 $545 Eligible Nonmembers $595 $645 Law Enforcement $145 $195 To receive a registration form, please call CFCA at (703) 848-9768. Communications Fraud Control Association ======================================== 7921 Jones Branch Drive, Suite 300 McLean, VA 22102 (703) 848-9768 ------------------------------ From: Brett Slocum Subject: Media Errors in SJGames Raid by Secret Service Organization: csdd Date: Tue, 7 May 1991 10:23:03 -0500 With regards to the 911 Investigation involving Craig Neidorf and Steve Jackson Games: The following list recently appeared on the Illuminati BBS (512-447-4449). It was written by Steve Jackson. Many of you will know some of this, but I thought it would be good to clear up all this: THE TOP TEN MEDIA ERRORS ABOUT THE SJ GAMES RAID 5-03-91 As this story has developed, occasional errors creep into news stories - and many of them have taken on a life of their own. Some reporters, working from their clipping files, have turned out stories that are almost 100% free of facts. There are a lot of those floating around ... but here are our Top Ten. 10. Steve Jackson Games is a computer game company. No we're not. None of our games are computer games. We use computers to WRITE the games, like every other publisher in the '90s. And the game that was seized, GURPS CYBERPUNK, was about computers. But we' not a computer game company any more than George Bush is a gardener. 9. GURPS Cyberpunk is a computer game. No it's not. Aieeeeee! It's a roleplaying game. It is not played on a computer. It's played on a table, with dice. 8. We're out of business. No we're not. It's been reported that we are bankrupt, or filing for bankruptcy. It was very close, and we're not out of the woods by any means - we did have to lay off half our staff ... but we're not dead yet. 7. We were raided by the FBI. No we weren't. We were raided by the US Secret Service. The FBI had nothing to do with it. (In fact, when Bill Cook, the assistant US attorney named in our suit, was doing his "research," he talked to the FBI. They told him he didn't have a case. We have this from FBI sources!) 6. Some of our staff members were arrested by the Secret Service and charged with hacking. No they weren't. No member of our staff was arrested, indicted, or charged. Nobody was even QUESTIONED after the day of the raid. 5. This was part of Operation Sun Devil. No it wasn't. Sun Devil was a totally separate project, aimed at credit card fraud. Because it had a neat name, it got a lot of headlines. Since computers were involved, some reporters got the two confused. The Secret Service helped the confusion along by refusing to comment on what was, or wasn't part of Sun Devil. Sun Devil was not a "hacker" investigation. So says Gail Thackeray, who was its spearhead. 4. The raid was after GURPS Cyberpunk. No it wasn't. The Secret Service suspected one of our staffers of wrongdoing, using his computer at home. They had nothing connecting his alleged misdeeds with our office, but they raided us anyway, and took a lot of things. One of the things they took was the GURPS Cyberpunk manuscript. Their agents were very critical of it, and on March 2 in their office, one of them called it a "handbook for computer crime." Since their warrant was sealed, and they wouldn't comment, our best guess was that they were trying to suppress the book. They did suppress it, though apparently it was through bureaucratic inertia and stonewalling rather than because it was a target of the raid. 3. There was a hacker threat to sabotage the 911 system. No there wasn't. This story has been cynically spread by phone company employees (who know better) and by Secret Service spokesmen (who probably believe it, because they still don't understand any of this). They're using this story to panic the media, to try to justify the illegal things they've done and the huge amount of money they've spent. What happened was this: A student got access to a phone company computer and copied a text file - not a program. This file was nothing but administrative information, and was publicly available elsewhere. Bell South tried to value it at $79,000, but in court they admitted that they sold copies for under $20. There was no way this file could be used to hurt the 911 system, even if anybody had wanted to. To say otherwise shows an incredible ignorance of the facts. It's as though a banker claimed "This criminal made an illegal copy of the list of our Board of Directors. He can use that to break into our vault." 2. We have an employee named Lloyd Blankenship. He spells his name Loyd, with one L. And the Number One "false fact" ever reported about this story . . . 1. Steve Jackson Games is the second largest game company in the USA. Don't we wish! Brett Slocum or NOTICE: my address has changed! "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. This one's mine, not my company's." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 May 91 11:00:31 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud 540 (the one in NYC and NY suburbs, that is) is apparently not as well known as 976 prefix and 900 "area code". Besides, 201-540 is a "regular" prefix in Morristown, NJ, and it's necessary for the ads for New York 540 to state that such programs are not available in NJ. So it would be relatively easy to pull a "fast one" telling people in NY to call a 540 number, right? ------------------------------ From: Robert J Woodhead Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud Date: 7 May 91 09:19:48 GMT Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Tokyo Japan 76012.300@compuserve.com (76012,300 Brad Hicks) writes: > I see no lies and no coercion. The people who were charged got what > they paid for, a $55 audiotex message. Is there anybody in Manhattan > who can afford a pager who doesn't know that 540 numbers are toll > calls? If there are two thousand yuppie scum who are stupid enough to > return a page to a toll number, and they do this for no reason other > than that they were asked to, how can it possibly be illegal or even > unethical? Oh get real, Brad. There was clear fraudulent intent here. Said "entrepreneur"'s intent was to trick people into calling the 540 number, collect the $55 a call, and abscond with the money. There wasn't coercion, but there was a definite lie. The fact that the intended targets were "yuppie scum" is immaterial (and an ad-hominum argument -- you should be ashamed!) to the issue. And in point of fact, "540" is much less well known that "900." This swine was using the telephone to blatantly defraud people in a callous and totally inexcusable way, and I hope he gets a day in jail on each of the 50,000 counts, served CONSECUTIVELY. I'll admit, he was an ingenious swine, but that's beside the point. If anything, this case points out the need for regulations on charge lines such that 1) they must state up front how much the call will cost, and 2) hangups within a certain grace period are not charged. RESPONSIBLE service providers are already doing this. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 May 1991 11:19:53 EDT From: KATH MULLHOLAND Subject: Collect and Third-Party Screening We just received our April bill. We have screening on 300 phones, and received bills for ten of them. A total of fourteen calls were billed. Two were collect calls from "MTL PQ" billed by AT&T (No credit will be given -- international calls aren't covered by the screening.) Nine are calls that were allowed to be dialed by the operator to independent phone companies. (Credit possible, depending on the exact circumstances.) Two are collect calls billed by Operator Assistance Network on behalf of AMNEX (? American Express, Maybe ???). (New England Tel says no credit will be issued. Exact quote -- "We give you curb-a- charge so that we won't bill you, but Other Companies will bill you because they don't have access to our screening." This is from oudr intelligent, educated rep -- no sarcasm -- who knows her stuff, not some drone.) The last call is collect, billed by Zero Plus Dialing, Inc. (Their 800 customer service number returns a busy signal when dialed.) Just another day in the life. Kath Mullholand UNH Durham, NH ------------------------------ From: Henry Mensch Date: Tue, 7 May 91 15:00:15 -0700 Subject: MCI Halts Billing for Sex Lines In an article in today's {San Fransisco Chronicle}, a different reason is offered for MCI's decision to not provide billing service for 900-service providers ... "An MCI spokeswoman said that the MCI policy would cover programs and advertisements, either recorded or live, "that offer sexual stimulation or sexual arousal." They go on to say that "the companies will continue to handle calls for other kinds of 900 services." Now, who's telling the truth here? Henry Mensch / Advanced Decision Systems / ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #342 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05680; 8 May 91 6:54 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01547; 8 May 91 4:57 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05889; 8 May 91 3:50 CDT Date: Wed, 8 May 91 3:00:16 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #341 BCC: Message-ID: <9105080300.ab22366@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 8 May 91 03:00:07 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 341 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Disclosure of Customer Information [Robert Jacobson] Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Jeff Sicherman] Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Marc T. Kaufman] Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Nigel Allen] Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Ed Hopper] Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Kirk Davis] Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Andrew Peed] Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Peter da Silva] The Phone Company and Personal Information [David Gast] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Jacobson Subject: Re: Disclosure of Customer Information Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle Date: Tue, 7 May 1991 03:24:28 GMT In California, the Telephone Privacy Act, passed in 1986, makes it absolutely illegal for telephone companies to disclose personal calling records or any other personal information, other than what is found in the published directories, without the customer's consent or a court order. Bob Jacobson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 May 91 23:09:37 -0700 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! Organization: Cal State Long Beach Note that I don't hold PAT morally responsible for having 'printed' it, but Mr. Moderator, were you asleep at the switch? I would think your background, attitudes and dedication to weeding out articles would have raised an alarm in your mind. [Moderator's Note: Yes, it raised alarms. But after thinking about it from both angles, I decided to go ahead with it. Maybe tomorrow I will explain why. Unofficially and off the record I was told this evening that AT&T continues to review the matter, and that the {New York Times} made an inquiry on this at AT&T corporate offices. More details when I have them and am free to discuss them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA Date: Tue, 7 May 1991 04:25:06 GMT In article syd@dsi.com writes: > We all had to read and sign the operators non disclosure stuff, and it > definately handled cases like his. It was immediate grounds for > dismissal. It was spelled out in clear terms. Accessing records > without cause, disclosure of records of calling patterns to any third > parties, or disclosure of phone calls was not only against rules, it > was illegal and we could be procusuted, and a reference to the > appropriate statue for my state was stapled to the booklet. I understand this, and think it is proper, however ... how then can one of the LD carriers call me and say: "Mr. Kaufman, we have analyzed your long distance calling pattern -- and you can save $x by subscribing to our service". Surely, what's ok in one context must be ok in another. Maybe we just never knew that it was possible. I don't condone making this kind of information public, but I can't get outraged over it because I always expected it to happen. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 May 91 17:33 EDT From: Nigel Allen Subject: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada My two cents worth: I think Randy Borow acted improperly, but I don't think any serious harm was done. I was disturbed when I saw the original message, and considered sending a message to Patrick. A footnote to this incident for privacy activists: I believe that the Telegraph Act (federal Canadian legislation, probably passed in the first quarter of this century) makes telegraph company employees swear an oath to keep messages confidential. In that sense, I think that anyone who deals with sensitive information about other people, whether they work for a hospital or telecommunications company, has an obligation to make sure that any information they disclose about their work does no harm. Saying something in private to Patrick would have done no harm; posting something publicly about the calling patterns of a telemarketing company that could not be identified would probably do no harm. While the telemarketing company in this case did not lose anything by having its calling patterns disclosed, I think AT&T suffered by appearing to be a telecommunications carrier whose employees don't keep proprietary information confidential. That having been said, Randy didn't do this out of a desire for profit. He deserves to be yelled at by his boss, not fired. Nigel Allen ndallen@contact.uucp ------------------------------ From: ehopper@attmail.com Date: Tue May 7 09:46:20 CDT 1991 Subject: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! I too was shocked by Randy's disclosure of proprietary customer information. Such an action is definitely NOT condoned by AT&T. In fact, it is a violation of the AT&T "Code of Business Conduct" which all employees review and sign periodically. The problem here is the failure of the individual. Randy apparently is (perhaps "was") employed by the marketing organization and therefore had legitimate business reason to access this information. He did not, however, have legitimate cause to invade the customers privacy by disclosing information on that customer to others without a need to know. Some other comments about access by AT&T employees to confidential information caused me to engage in some reflection about security of that information. Let me tell you my perceptions. As an employee of Computer Systems, I have access to certain automated systems that are used by various elements of the company. For example, I have access to DOSS, the ordering/records system for PBX and computer customers. I do not have access to (nor do I even know the names of) the long distance records systems. I don't need to know, therefore I can't get in. This is typical of all AT&T systems. While security was somewhat lax in some non-critical areas a few years ago, all corporate systems now require individual accounts and passwords. You can only get an account by having appropriate management authorization and a need to know. Thus, I can look at equipment records, but not long distance. I do have access to general marketing information for long distance, pbx and computer systems. General marketing information is not customer specific. Instead it's things like price lists and tariffs, product announcements and some design tools. In other words, I couldn't do what Randy did as my division has no need for access to these systems. Was it a breach of trust? Absolutely. Unfortunately a moment of indiscretion may end up costing Randy quite a bit. That is unfortunate. I hope he is only reprimanded and not terminated. I fear the latter, however. Ed Hopper AT&T Computer Systems (Speaking only for myself.) ------------------------------ From: kirk davis Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! Organization: Interactive Systems Corporation Date: Tue, 07 May 1991 19:38:31 GMT Pat, I've been a reader of the digest for while now, but this is my first posting (A lurker speeks!). I've enjoyed your comments & postings and I hope you don't take offense to this. I've gotta say when I read the original post, my jaw dropped. I couldn't believe a ATT employee could make a mistake like this. I also feel that Pat made a almost equal mistake in not bouncing the message back. It's always been my impression that one of the reasons this group is moderated is to keep people from getting into trouble (blue box, red box, etc ... there I said it and I'm *glad* I said it). So this guy is a ATT employee (target) who posted first and thought about it later. Half the people on the net are guilty of this. I'd suggest we let it go ... even still we all know what's going to happen. Kirk Davis (kirkd@ism.isc.com) ------------------------------ From: Andrew Peed Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! Date: 7 May 91 14:58:01 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL Now hold the phone, folks. IF the telephone customer in question had been a private citizen, I too would be outraged at Mr. Borow's publishing of this information. HOWEVER, American Consumer Services (or whatever it calls itself) is operating as a public-service company, and as such is (or should be) open to public scrutiny. I see absolutely NO problem with Mr. Borow's publishing what he did. This is information that anyone off the street could concievably get, either by asking the company directly, or if necessary by going through the Better Business Bureau or even legal channels. If I remember my American Government lecturer's comments correctly, the Constitution of the United States explicitly guarantees the right of privacy to INDIVIDUALS, not corporations. As I see it, corporations, particularly those that operate in the public interest, should be open books for us, the public, to read and base our consumer behavior upon. (Now look what you've made me do. I've gone and ended a sentence with a preposition. If my high school English teacher hunts me down and kills me, it'll be all your fault.) From what Mr. Borow posted, I think that we can gather that their product is a run-of-the-mill scam, but that their operating procedures are all above board. I don't have any problem with that; let the buyer beware. Andrew B. Peed Motorola, Inc. ..!uunet!motcid!peed Cellular Infrastructure Group (708) 632-6624 1501 W.Shure Dr., Arlington Heights, IL, 60074 ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Wed, 8 May 1991 02:59:09 GMT Well, I must say this was a pretty dumb thing to do. The adrenaline rush at realising he could help these poor folks on the net obviously blew his judgement out of the water. Of course, the response from our favorite direct marketer is probably punishment enough... Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS +1 713 568 0480 2400/n/8/1 Taronga Park. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 May 91 21:41:45 -0700 From: David Gast Subject: The Phone Company and Personal Information I agree that it was improper for an AT&T employee to post information about a telephone user's account to this forum if that information was obtained from confidential AT&T sources. We should take a larger view of the episode and consider if his personal actions are really so out of line when compared to corporate policy. At one time I believe that these actions would have been completely out of line with respect to corporate policy, but with current plans to sell ANI, CID, TTGI, and the like the emphasis on privacy has been reduced. (The following is quoted from Marc's article referenced below). "Protection of Personal Data in the United States," by William Caming (The Information Society, pp.117-119, vol, 3., no. 2 (1984)). Mr. Caming was for many years general counsel for AT&T. "In testimony before the Privacy Commission, I said in behalf of AT&T that we unreservedly pledged ourselves to . . . ensure that the Bell System's commitment to the spirit of "Fair information" principles was being fully realized. . . . "Over the years, the Bell System has staunchly supported the concept that the protection of its customers' communications and business records is of singular importance. Time and time again, we have stressed to the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission and on other public forums that the preservation of privacy is a basic concept in our business. . . "Access to these records is rigorously restricted. They are not released except pursuant to subpoena, administrative summons, or court order valid on its face. . . . Exceptions to the foregoing policies are extremely few in number." ----- end of quoted text ----- The problem in large part, I believe, is because telephone companies like most of commercial America do not believe in privacy. Marketing is perceived to be more important than privacy. Yesterday's paper had a front page article about a person who was stealing mail and then collecting credit cards by filling out the unsolicited credit card offers. The paper noted that this one person could have caused up to $200,000 damage. While that figure may be and probably is inflated and while I certainly do not condone the actions of the mail thief, part of the problem has been caused by the very actions of the credit card companies. If they did not go around invading consumer's privacy and then sending out unsolicited and unwanted offers that the PO will not forward to the correct address because they are third class mail, these thieves would not be able to go around and fill them out. Last year I sent an article to the Digest which was written by Marc Rotenberg of CPSR. (I believe that article is available as rotenberg.privacy.speech in the telecom archives). Part of that article was a letter to Dr. Bonnie Guiton in the US Office of Consumer Affairs. He was writing primarily against selling TTGI (Telephone Transaction Generated Information). The telephone companies want to sell information about every single call every single person makes. While we can be shocked and outraged that an AT&T employee would provide information about an allegedly sleazy business's phone records, why don't we make the same fuss when the telephone companies propose to sell this information to anyone who will pay including sleaze? Many readers of this forum believe that AT&T should be able to sell ANI information on incoming 800 numbers.? How would these readers feel if AT&T proposed to sell 800 calling patterns to anyone that wanted to buy them? Some readers of this forum believe that local telephone companies should be able to sell CID info to the receiver of a phone call even if the caller objects. Suppose that the telephone companies proposed to sell CID info to anyone who wanted to buy? Suppose that the company you call starts selling this information? The problem is that society has not thoroughly debated much less decided that the protections of the Communications Act of 1934 should be eliminated. As Marc wrote: Perhaps the clearest statement in support of telephone privacy can be found in the original Federal Communications Act of 1934: No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any communications and divulge or publish the existence, contents, sub- stance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person. (Section 605). As the Congress recognized in 1934, telephone privacy means more than simply protecting the contents of the communication from unlawful disclosure. The confidentiality of phone communications extends as well to toll record information, and the broader category of TTGI. John Stanley seems to support my argument that marketing is more important than privacy when he writes: While the passing of this information between LD carriers for use in marketing LD services might be arguably ethical, using one's position within AT&T to broadcast this stuff to the general public certainly is NOT. I hardly see how passing the information between LD carriers can possibly ethical. Does marketing suddenly make an ethical activity ethical? Additionally, passing the info among LD carriers could be construed as collusion under the anti-trust laws. If I call someone, I expect that information is private and confidential. Finally, I can hardly agree that the marketing department should be privy to any information that the general public should not be. As a result, marketing departments should not receive personally identifiable information. David ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #341 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00751; 9 May 91 5:29 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11465; 9 May 91 3:36 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23132; 9 May 91 2:25 CDT Date: Thu, 9 May 91 1:25:30 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #344 BCC: Message-ID: <9105090125.ab08320@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 9 May 91 01:25:25 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 344 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Touch-Tone vs. Rotary - A Frustrating Experience [Derek E. Terveer] Re: RJ-11 Jacks in Hotel Rooms [Toby Nixon] Re: Spreading Rumors (Was: Prodigy) [Ron Dippold] Re: You're All A Bunch of Terrorists [Tom Gray] Re: Eighth-wave, or Quarter-wave? [cylink!root@uunet.uu.net] Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Mike Andrews] Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? [Weaver Hickerson] Re: Long Distance Carrier Near Philadelphia [Tim Irvin] Re: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993 [Tony Harminc] Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Michael B. Scher] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Derek E. Terveer" Subject: Re: Touch-Tone vs. Rotary - A Frustrating Experience Organization: Joel's Home System Date: Tue, 7 May 1991 17:58:56 -0500 jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) writes: > For my new line, I deliberately didn't order touch-tone service even > though I have touch-tone phones. It's ridiculous to get charged $2.20 > (NYNEX) a month for something that saves NYNEX money by cutting down > on computation time. Once I get my line, I'm going to see if it > supports touch-tone anyway. If not, it's my modem/fax line anyway, so > it doesn't seriously bother me. I agree. For my data line, I specifically ordered it with just pulse and not tone because I didn't want to pay the extra few bucks a month for something that would be practically invisible to me. My (Unix) system does all the dialing whenever it wants and I don't supervise it. And it matters little to me whether the dial portion of a particular call at 3am took 1.2 seconds or 4.7 seconds. The only potential disadvantage that I see is if I want my Unix box to call long distance and use some sort of calling card code number or something like that that requires touch-tone. Haven't run into that problem yet in over five years of running this system. derek det@nightowl.mn.org ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: RJ-11 Jacks in Hotel Rooms Date: 8 May 91 00:59:04 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagner) writes: > I've never actually tried to charge a modem call, but it seems that > you could just program the following string in: > ATDT 9,1(XXX)YYY-ZZZZ,,,,,,,,,,AAAABBBBCCCCDDDD > With ABCD being the credit card number... and ,,,,, being the pause > for the bong. If you put in ten commas (as you mention), you're going to be pausing so long that the operator will have come on the line after the bong tone, and s/he won't appreciate getting blasted with your credit card number! If you use commas, you will have to tinker with it at each hotel to get the number of commas right, so that the credit card number starts to dial within about five seconds after the bong in order to avoid getting the operator. What I do instead is use the "@" dial modifier, e.g.: ATDT 8W0XXXYYYZZZZ@AAABBBCCCCDDDD The "@" (Wait for Quiet Answer) dial modifier is supported in most modems today. It causes the modem to pause, listening for some sound in the call progress signalling band, followed by five seconds of silence, and then continue (five seconds are required to differentiate a "quiet answer", used in some direct inward system access features, from the normal four-second pause between ringback tones). The BONG tone triggers it in most modems, because the last part of the BONG is a decaying dial tone (which falls in the call progress band). Sometimes the five seconds is too long and the operator comes on the line, but usually just trying again works OK. If it turns out that the operator ALWAYS comes on the line before five seconds of silence has expired, you don't have much choice but to revert to a series of commas (and tinker until you get them right, and hope that the time it takes the hotel PBX to send you to AT&T is fairly consistent). You could, of course, always use ONE comma, and then use the S8 register to set its length. This may make it somewhat easier to "tinker", without having to edit the phone number. FYI, I'm calling into our Vax in Atlanta right now, charging the call to my corporate AT&T Calling Card, having used the method described above. Works great. Only blasted the operator one time so far this trip! Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 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: Ron Dippold Subject: Re: Spreading Rumors (Was: Prodigy) Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Date: Wed, 8 May 91 03:52:05 GMT In article judice@sulaco.enet.dec.com (Louis J. Judice 04-May-1991 0845) writes: > The oddest thing about this is when you ask someone who flies into > your office "would you REALLY believe that IBM/Sears would REALLY do > such a thing", the answer is always - "Well, No, of course not". "So, > why forward the article?" The easy response to this is that corporate policy is not always what ends up being implemented. If the constomer representatives are so incredibly ignorant about Prodigy and Prodigy policies (as they were shortly before this hit the news), it's makes you wonder how far up the ladder this goes. In addition, we know all about those wacky programmers ( :) ), such as the one who got Microsoft in big trouble with his "Warning, pirated copy, wiping hard disk" message or whatever it was. On the surface, it would be really, really, stupid for Prodigy to engage in information theft, wouldn't it? Yep. So: Infoworld Magazine reports that Soap Opera Now, a weekly newsletter covering TV soaps, has sued Prodigy Services Company. Apparently, Prodigy started an online soap opera service last August and a number of stories from Soap Opera Now began appearing online verbatim. Michael Kape, editor of the 6500 subscriber weekly arranged for publication of a totally fictitious story with the consent of the story's subject. According to Kape, it appeared on the Prodigy service with virtually the same wording. The lawsuit seeks damages of $38 for each of Prodigy's 700,000 subscribers. Prodigy refused to comment on the story. Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks. | Ron Dippold ------------------------------ From: Tom Gray Subject: Re: You're All A Bunch of Terrorists Date: 8 May 91 17:13:40 GMT Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) writes: > It is the sense of Congress that providers of electronic > communications services and manufacturers of electronic communications > service equipment shall ensure that communications systems permit the > government to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and other > communications when appropriately authorized by law. All this really states is that the government should have the right to wire tap if it gets a search warrant. I don't see anything draconian about this. You may also note that this text does NOT specicifically refer to encryption. How can the government wire tap a subscriber multiplexer system and not violate the privacy of many innocent people. This text could be read to include this case. The equipment provider must provide means that enable the government to intecept a single party whithout infringing on the rights of others. Privacy boxes such as these are now provided to prevent users of public WAN's from having access to all of the data on the net. Only information destined to a node is allowed to pass the privacy box. All that this text really does is to bring wire tapping into the current era of multiplexers and shared bandwidth. If this technology is available, the government would be compelled to use it. it could not cite compelling national interest to intercept all communications on a link. It would have to limit itself to a specifically restricted set of communications. ------------------------------ From: Operator Subject: Re: Eighth-wave, or Quarter-wave? Organization: Cylink Corp. Date: Wed, 8 May 91 17:44:26 GMT > It's perhaps time to nip an incipient TELECOM-legend in the bud, and > suggest that the little antenna is more likely to be a helically-wound > 1/4-wave, than any kind of 1/8-wave. The antenna could be a 1/4 wave, but definitely not helically-wound. That would needlessly reduce the efficiency of the antenna. If it has that little coil in the middle, it could be one of several combinations. It could be a half wave stacked on top of a 1/4 wave, or 5/8 over 1/4. If there is also a lump at the base of the antenna, possibilities increase to 1/2 over 1/2, 5/8 over 5/8, 5/8 over 1/2. The best way to tell is to measure the antenna with a ruler. [Moderator's Note: The antenna is 1/2 inch in length. It got broke accidentally, so I opened it up to look inside. It appears to be many, many feet of wire wrapped around a core in the center. The company selling them referred to it as a '1/8 wave loaded antenna'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mike Andrews Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX Date: Mon, 06 May 1991 04:09:51 GMT The excrement has hit the fan. This Prodigy legend was reported on CNN today. A representitive of Prodigy denied emphatically that they were collecting *any* information on their subscribers. The CNN reporter ended the report with Prodigy's statement that they were fixing this problem in their software, adding sarcastically, "a problem that they deny they have..." As was mentioned on PBS's "Nova" a few weeks ago, Prodigy DOES collect information on its members. It tracks the demographics of the user and where they go in the service to find the customer's interests so that the ads that appear are tailored to those interests. There was no mention of whether Prodigy sells that information to others. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Has Anyone Heard of This? Organization: Holos Software, Inc., Atlanta, GA Date: 7 May 91 09:46:55 EDT (Tue) From: Weaver Hickerson Concerning these telemarketing sleazes. I have a friend who, after getting his MBA (Accounting) and MHA (Hospital Admin), went to work doing stuff like this. Much to the chagrin of his father the endocrinoligist. The common theme seems to be you get something for nothing, which we all know does not happen. He's called me from work a few times to chat, and you can always hear several sales pitches going on around him. "Did you know that you should feel incredibly lucky that we chose you to be the winner of a free (only $199.00) vacation at a hotel in Florida, which we have an arrangement with that we will buy empty rooms for $10.00 a night?" (I read between the lines) Part of the appeal of their sales pitch now is that, if the customer does not have a checking account (no ACH transfer), and no credit card, they provide a 1-900 number for the customer's convenience. Just call the number and the $199.00 will be billed to your phone bill. What a benefit! Oh, and that's not all. They'll also send by a FedEx courier to pick up your money. Every angle covered. I wonder if he could arrange for me to visit the "service center". It would probably be enlightening. Oh well, at least he's not working for the "credit repair" service anymore. That one cost him some lawyer's fees and restitution, after he was arrested for "owning and operating a credit repair service", which he neither owned or operated. The owner had already split town. They spent all their time calling up people with poor credit and guaranteeing that they would either arrange financing for a car or refund the $250.00 (cash) payment. Maybe I can get him to post an "insider's view". Weaver Hickerson Voice (404) 496-1358 : ..!edu!gatech!holos0!wdh ------------------------------ Reply-To: irvin@northstar.dartmouth.edu Subject: Re: Long Distance Carrier Near Philadelphia Date: Wed, 08 May 91 11:50:10 EDT From: irvin@northstar.dartmouth.edu In TELECOM Digest V11 #340, Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) writes: > A default long distance company I have seen very recently (on at least > one pay phone in the Middle Atlantic area -- I live in Delaware) is > another firm I haven't heard of, but is quite close by: > Call Technology Corp. > 100 Stevens Drive > Lester, PA 19113 > This would put it near the Philadelphia International Airport. I will probably regret admitting this, but that is my brother-in-law's firm. It is an AOS/COCOT company, with a big portion of the business devoted to prisons. You're correct about the location, right smack dab next to the Philadelphia Airport. It is not a new company; he has been aound since the before the early days of COCOTs (back when the PUCs were trying to figure out what to do with these guys.) Prior to that Call Technology was a long distance consulting firm (your business calls XX, YY, and ZZ the most, so IXC ABC would be the best company for these routes, etc.) Just to save my reputation here, I also am not a fan of COCOTs (not that I would admit that at our Thanksgiving family reunions). I do generally look for that "genuine Bell" logo on pay-phones. But from looking at his operation, I'd have to (biasedly) say that Call Tech. is a pretty tame critter in a jungle of sleazoids. Tim Irvin NORTHSTAR Dartmouth College ------------------------------ From: Tony Harminc Date: Tue, 7 May 1991 00:01:00 -0400 Subject: Re: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993 > If you have the postal address of a place, it will be > in 416 if and only if its postal code starts with the letter M. > (Ignoring any anomalies at the Metro boundary, that is.) Except for companies like mine who plan to run an entire building (data centre) on FX lines across the boundary. So even though our data centre address is in Markham and has an "L" postal code, the phone numbers will all remain in 416. This brings up several potential glitches: what happens when someone dials 911 (ANI/ALI will show the address of our Toronto building where the PBX trunks are; callers trying to look up our number in the Markham directory won't find it (unless we pay for a listing there); etc. > << list of Metro Toronto prefixes deleted >> I wonder what's going to happen to cellular prefixes when the 905 split happens. Currently I don't think most cellular subscribers think too hard about exactly where their phone is based. Perhaps some Metro subscribers will discover that they've really been outside Toronto all this time. Tony Harminc (Reminder: only my eMail address is in Montreal; I'm in Toronto) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 91 12:11:12 -0400 From: "Michael B. Scher" Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud cmoore@brl.mil writes: > 540 (the one in NYC and NY suburbs, that is) is apparently not as well > known as 976 prefix and 900 "area code". Besides, 201-540 is a > "regular" prefix in Morristown, NJ, and it's necessary for the ads for > New York 540 to state that such programs are not available in NJ. > So it would be relatively easy to pull a "fast one" telling > people in NY to call a 540 number, right? Quite correct. Actually most of the Morristown, NJ 540 numbers belong to MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, so the scam with beepers was even more pointed. Many of the beeper-holding people could well have been MD's "tricked" into calling in for an emergency. The joke's really a lulu if you begin to think of it like that. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #344 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01048; 9 May 91 5:38 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23132; 9 May 91 2:24 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12475; 9 May 91 1:10 CDT Date: Thu, 9 May 91 0:33:54 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #343 BCC: Message-ID: <9105090033.ab01210@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 9 May 91 00:33:46 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 343 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Why the Bong? [Edwin D. Windes] Re: Why the Bong? [Carl Moore] Re: Why the Bong? [Barton F. Bruce] Re: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department [Mark Eckenwiler] Re: 600: 600 ohm Transformer : What Does it Mean? [Rolf Meier] Re: Digest Reader Annoys Authorities in El Lay [Barry Margolin] Re: Hollings and the RBOCs [John Higdon] Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge? [John R. Levine] Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge? [David E. Sheafer] Re: Paradyne FDX 2400 Modem Power Supply Needed [Donald E. Kimberlin] Re: CLASS in Pac*Bell [Jason Hillyard] Wanted: Suppliers For Panasonic Key Systems [Kent Hauser] Bellcore and the NNX Area Codes [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 May 91 10:36:00 EDT From: Edwin D Windes Subject: Re: Why the Bong? Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL In article collins@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Bernard Fran Collins) writes: > Perhaps this has been discussed before. Is there a good reason why a > credit card call must contain a pause in the dialing in order to wait > for the bong? The telephone number is collected by your local office. The card number is collected at an operator system. Before you hear the bong, your local switch has to route the call out to an operator system, and the equipment that collects your card number has to be connected to your call. Lots of work to do. > Why can't the card number be delivered to the LD > carrier without such a pause? If a LD carrier is handling the call, they collect the card number after the call reaches their operator system. Ever hear the new "bong/AT&T..."? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 May 91 11:05:05 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Why the Bong? The bong you hear after dialing (optional LD carrier access code+) 0 + NPA + number (or 0+number where permitted in place of 0+NPA+number) is a prompt for one of two things: 1. Punch in credit card number. 2. Get a human operator on the line for collect, third party billing, person to person call, or to take credit card number if you cannot punch it in (as on rotary dial phone). ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Why the Bong? Date: 8 May 91 03:25:07 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , collins@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Bernard Fran Collins) writes: > Perhaps this has been discussed before. Well, yes it has. But not for a while. > Is there a good reason why a credit card call must contain a pause > in the dialing in order to wait for the bong? ... bong really do > anyway? The local carrier isn't interested in your credit card number, so you have to wait till the LD carrier is listening. You just might be on a circuit that has a tone to pulse converter active that needs to be shut off. The BONG tone is actually the # key to knock off the TT->DP converter, and then it fizzles off to sound distinctive. Someone will probably publish the exact specs again. ------------------------------ From: Mark Eckenwiler Subject: Re: New Phone Numbers for NYC Fire Department Date: Tue, 7 May 91 12:28:38 GMT Organization: The Witherspoon Excludables In article peanut!dts@uunet.uu.net (Daniel Senie) writes: > The City, of course, bought the phones and computers, and didn't hire > any additional operators. Response time did not improve. > When I lived in NYC, I always kept the phone numbers for the local > police and fire stations near the phone. If there was an emergency you > really didn't want to risk life and property on 911 response times. Recent experience bears out this observation. Last December, there was a fire in one of the Brooklyn subway tunnels. Literally dozens of citizens called 911 to request fire and ambulance assistance -- the primary danger being *extreme* smoke inhalation -- only to get no answer, to get cut off during a transfer, or to get the response that squad cars were on the way. When the proper emergency services were eventually dispatched, they were sent at first to a station on a *different* subway line. A number of passengers died, as I recall. There was a *HUGE* series of recriminations after the fact, and 911 is being (in theory) revamped, although NYC's present budget woes probably preclude any meaningful improvement. Mark Eckenwiler eck@panix.uucp ...!cmcl2!panix!eck ------------------------------ From: Rolf Meier Subject: Re: 600: 600 ohm Transformer : What Does it Mean? Date: 7 May 91 13:10:13 GMT Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article jon_sree@world.std.com (Jon Sreekanth) writes: > In summary, what does the magic 600:600 spec mean ? Any 1:1 > transformer should be interchangeable, and line matching really means > the secondary should be terminated into the proper impedance. You are essentially correct. However, for telephony, the reference impedance is usually 600 ohms (or sometimes 900 ohms), and so you want to easily know the matching impedance. Therefore, a 1200:600 transformer is the same as a 2:1 transformer, but the former figure more easily shows that it will match 1200 ohms to 600 ohms. Also, the dc resistance of telephony transformers is around 40 ohms, which is much less significant at 600 ohms as if it was used for 8 ohms. So, another reason for using 600:600 is to indicate that it is for high impedance applications. Don't try to use it for your stereo speakers. Rolf Meier Mitel Corporation ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Digest Reader Annoys Authorities in El Lay Reply-To: barmar@think.com Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA Date: Tue, 7 May 91 16:19:18 GMT In article ronnie@sos.com (Ron Schnell) writes: > GTE's Cox said the company is not sending corrected bills because > of the high cost involved, but he said that the company will determine > how much each customer has been overcharged and will credit customers > beginning June 7 with the overcharge amount plus 3% interest. ... > [Ron's note - Gee, 3% interest after three months. I wish my credit > card would give me that rate. I don't really like the fact that > people are being forced to loan money to the phone company. They > should really be forced to give a higher percentage.] Unless they meant 3% annualized interest, it's actually a pretty good deal. 3% after three months is equivalent to 12.5% interest annually. While credit cards generally get more than this from you, it's better than most investments, and it's effectively tax free (they're not going to send a 1099, are they?). And people who waited until close to the end of the March billing cycle before paying, but pay early in the June cycle, will only have leant the month for about 2-1/2 months, which works out to over 15% APR. Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 May 91 10:43 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Hollings and the RBOCs Marvin Sirbu writes: > In several recent messages John Higdon has asserted that Pacific Bell > is "guaranteed" a cushy rate of return. > However, the cap is AUTOMATICALLY cut each year in real terms by 4.5% > (Federal) or 6.5%(State). Thus, unless Pacific Bell is continually > lowering its costs by at least that much, it will find itself making > less than the initial 11-13%. And guess who wrote this procedure in general and in detail. And then fought tooth and nail, making promises that still have not been kept to convince public opinion and the regulatory bodies to embrace it. Currently, the profits are obscene under the price cap regulation. Bells all over the country have blown vast portions of labor forces out the door. Labor costs have dropped DRAMATICALLY and equipment costs and maintenance have dropped as well and yet -- and YET -- the average LEC customer is paying MORE for his service than five years ago. It does not take a master mathematician to uncover the fact that RBOCs are cleaning up. > In 1988 Nynex agreed to a price cap plan where it promised to cut > rates in real terms at the same rate as inflation -- about 4.5% per > year (What it actually agreed to was to freeze prices in nominal > dollars which amounts to the same thing.) Compared to the headroom of the intitial agreement and the real difference between cost and revenue this is chump change. > By the end of three years > its rate of return had dropped to about 8%, or less than you could get > by buying a truly no-risk Treasury Bond. Nynex was unable to meet the > productivity target it had agreed to with the NY PSC and saw its > profits drop substantially. As determined by whom? When was the last time you ever heard of a full audit of an LEC by either legislative or regulatory entities? How short your memory is (or how gullible you are)! Nynex, if you will recall, got zinged for its "creative accounting" (which was so blatant that it did not require a full audit) in which it sold equipment to itself via its unregulated division at list-plus prices. This had the effect of showing a substantial expense on the part of the regulated side, reducing profits considerably. Where did all this ratepayer money go? To the unregulated division, of course. And this was just something one RBOC got caught at. This is most likely the tip of the iceberg in regards to telco scams. It might even have been done so that Nynex would be caught and would take the heat (and light) away from some more nefarious schemes. BTW, if Nynex told the PUC-equivalent that it could no longer survive under the current regulations, do you suppose it would be told "too bad"? > I'm sure that there is plenty of slack at Pacific Bell so that it can > achieve 6.5% reduction in real terms for a few years. It will be > interesting to see for how long they can keep it up. If the Hollings bill passes, it should survive indefinitely and then some. The telephone company will just take care of us as it used to. In whatever manner it chooses. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge? Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 7 May 91 11:30:47 EDT (Tue) From: "John R. Levine" In article you write: > Hmm. I don't think my USSprint card has a fee - at least it's not > itemized as such. FON card calls are surcharged about 75 cents, similar to AT&T and MCI calls. If you have Sprint Plus, the volume discount plan, FON card calls are counted toward the total call volume that determines the discount for direct dialed calls, but the FON card calls themselves don't get the discount. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: "David E. Sheafer, Class of 1989" Subject: Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge? Date: 7 May 91 09:45:41 GMT Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA In article , oliveau%tdycapd@uunet.uu. net (Greg Oliveau) writes: > spolsky-joel@cs.yale.edu (Joel Spolsky) writes: >> Are there calling cards without this extra fee? > Hmm. I don't think my USSprint card has a fee - at least it's not > itemized as such. Probably the 'setup' charge is hidden in the first > three minutes of use. The US Spring FONcard charges .50, .75 or 1.25 for the call depending on if it is interLATA call or an IntraLATA call and if you are using a rotary phone. If memory serves me right most calls are charged an additional .75, same as AT&T. David E. Sheafer internet: nin15b0b@merrimack.edu or uucp: samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b GEnie: D.SHEAFER Cleveland Freenet: ap345 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 91 02:45 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Paradyne FDX 2400 Modem Power Supply Needed In Digest v11 iss315, [BIRK@trees.dnet.ge.com] asks: > Does anyone know where I might get a power supply adapter for a > Paradyne FDX 2400 MODEM manufactured by ARK Products. I bought it at a > Flea Market with docs but no address for ARK. ?? While this may be one idividual's request, there are quite a few ARK FDX 2400 modems in closets around the country simply because a new power supply could not be easily found. This reply will hopefully be useful to more than one inquirer: ARK Electronic Products of Melbourne, FL was absorbed by Paradyne of Largo, FL which was subsequently purchased by AT&T. AT&T/Paradyne can still provide replacement power supply adapters for FDX 2400 units. We recently obtained two, but it took some time and probably will cost us significant money for what the item is. The reason for this delay and cost is that in an unfortunate design choice, the ARK designers chose an unusual plug ... the one that was on the Chief Engineer's TI 57 calculator (remember those?). As a result, when the TI warehouse ran out of replacement calculator power supplies, the world ran out of FDX 2400 power supply adapters. Paradyne did later, however, get more made, and if they are now again out of stock, the source data for that unit with the oddball plug is: Ault (transformer manufacturing) Inc. part 326-4026-T11. In fact, the FDX 2400 is essentially a board laid out by Rockwell for use of its chip set, and probably operates on 9 Volts AC. The Ault transformer is a 26 VAC, 40 Volt-Amp unit, which is center-tapped, and seems to have the FDX 2400 using only half its secondary. Thus, if you have a small bit of skill, you can probably open up an FDX 2400, and find it has only two wires from the board to the oddball power connector, and try running the modem for a short time on 9 Volts of batteries. (The current needed is too much for a single 9 Volt transistor radio battery.) If it operates, just find yourself a safe source of 9 Volts AC, and you've done the job. The ARK FDX 2400 is a very feature-rich modem, so be prepared to spend some time figuring out how to option it and use all the things it offers you. ------------------------------ From: Jason Hillyard <6600jrh@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> Subject: Re: CLASS in Pac*Bell Date: 8 May 91 18:32:27 GMT In article jimmy@denwa.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) writes: (re: Commstar) > Pacific Bell plans to make these services available to the 213, > 818, 415, and 408 area codes of LATAs 1 and 5 in 1991. We > expect to add area codes 714 and 805 in LATA 5 and 707 in LATA > 1 by the end of 1992. Are there any plans for area code 619? Jason Hillyard 6600jrh@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu ------------------------------ From: Kent Hauser Subject: Wanted: Suppliers For Panasonic Key Systems Date: 7 May 91 17:37:05 GMT Organization: Twenty-First Designs, Wash, DC Could someone recommend a good supplier for the Panasonic key system equipment? I need both the system unit and feature phones. Thanks. Kent Hauser UUCP: {uunet,sundc,uupsi}!tfd!kent Twenty-First Designs INET: kent@tfd.com (202) 408-0841 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 91 16:36:49 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Bellcore and the NNX Area Codes (No, NNX area codes have not come yet; 310,410,510, not yet in use at this writing, still fit the N0X/N1X form.) Could someone review the plan for NNX area codes? Specifically, is Mexico still to get the pseudo-area-codes of 52x where x is not necessarily 0? The first slew of NNX area codes is to be of form NN0, with the past-or-current idea that some area codes will thus be able to retain 1+7D (intra-NPA long distance) by not using PREFIXES of NN0 form. Bellcore has or had something to say about the NN0/NNX format, right? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #343 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27573; 10 May 91 4:16 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20236; 10 May 91 2:48 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05558; 10 May 91 1:42 CDT Date: Fri, 10 May 91 1:25:25 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #345 BCC: Message-ID: <9105100125.ab14235@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 10 May 91 01:25:12 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 345 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Higdon Hurt in Motorcycle Accident [TELECOM Moderator] Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Robert M. Hamer] Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Ed Hopper] Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [David L. Phillips] Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [David Esan] Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Dan Herrick] Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! [Christopher Lott] Controversy: Sleaze vs. Public Trust [Bill Cattey] Re: The Phone Company and Personal Information [David Snearline] Last Laugh! Name of New Merged NCR/ATT Leaks Out! [Donald Kimberlin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 May 91 0:33:06 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Higdon Hurt in Motorcyle Accident I am sorry to report that our friend John Higdon was hurt in an accident involving his motorcycle a few days ago, and had to be placed in the hospital. He was wearing his helmet, so the accident was not as bad as it might have been. He was released from the hospital Thursday, and is resting at home. We all wish him a speedy recovery. He said he'll be taking a few days off from writing to the Digest until he has recovered from the accident. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 91 08:18 EDT From: "Robert M. Hamer" Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records PUblic!! kirk davis wrote: > I also feel that Pat made a almost equal mistake in not bouncing > the message back. It's always been my impression that one of the > reasons this group is moderated is to keep people from getting into > trouble (blue box, red box, etc ... there I said it and I'm *glad* I > said it). I, too, feel it would have been appropriate for you to bounce the note back to Randy with a "Are you absolutely sure you want to do this?" message. In my view, one of the reasons you moderate ought to be to help protect us from doing anything really stupid. This was, on Randy's part. He'll probably get canned. I'm not at all saying it's your fault; it's his. But we all do something really stupid at some time in our lives, and if someone is in a position to ask "Are you really sure you want to do it?" I think it appropriate. ------------------------------ From: ehopper@attmail.com Date: Wed May 8 11:09:59 CDT 1991 Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! Andrew Peed writes: > Now hold the phone, folks. > IF the telephone customer in question had been a private citizen, I > too would be outraged at Mr. Borow's publishing of this information. Nonsense, all customers have a right to privacy. Just because a person or group of persons forms a corporation to do business does not mean that they are not entitled to privacy. > HOWEVER, American Consumer Services (or whatever it calls itself) is > operating as a public-service company, and as such is (or should be) > open to public scrutiny. I see absolutely NO problem with Mr. Borow's > publishing what he did. What in the world is a "public-service company"? True, these people are probably typical telemarketing sleaze (TTS for short), but that does not abrogate their rights. Why should they be open to public scrutiny? If they break the law, sure. But this type of invasion is inappropriate. I am, quite frankly, alarmed at this attitude that the sin of capitalism is an excuse for all types of excess. > This is information that anyone off the street could concievably get, > either by asking the company directly, or if necessary by going > through the Better Business Bureau or even legal channels. I think that's stretching it by a mile. I doubt that the company in question would give you that information, particularly if you advised them that you intended to publish it to Telecom. The BBB is, of course, a joke. They have virtually no investigative ability and certainly no authority. Pursuing legal channels would require that one show cause as to why one needed this information and why one had a right to this information. I doubt that anyone in this case, including the original recipient of the call, would be able to support such a request in court. > If I remember my American Government lecturer's comments correctly, > the Constitution of the United States explicitly guarantees the right > of privacy to INDIVIDUALS, not corporations. As I see it, > corporations, particularly those that operate in the public interest, > should be open books for us, the public, to read and base our consumer > behavior upon. I am not sure your lecturer knows what he is talking about. Corporations are "persons" under the law. They can own property and exercise a number of other rights. I know of no place where a court has specifically held that corporations, simply because they were corporations, had no right to privacy. Would you really want that? Without a corporate right to privacy, a letter you send to your bank, for example, could be opened at the post office for the amusement of all. Ed Hopper ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Wednesday, 8 May 1991 13:56:12 EDT From: "David L. Phillips" Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! In article , motcid!peed@uunet.uu.net (Andrew Peed) says: > IF the telephone customer in question had been a private citizen, I > too would be outraged at Mr. Borow's publishing of this information. > If I remember my American Government lecturer's comments correctly, > the Constitution of the United States explicitly guarantees the right > of privacy to INDIVIDUALS, not corporations. In fact, if I remember MY lecturer's comments (from far too long ago) as well as more recent business dealings, in law, corporations are treated as persons. That is one of their main differences from partnerships and proprietorships. So they have the same right to privacy as the rest of us. ------------------------------ From: David Esan Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! Date: 7 May 91 18:02:27 GMT Reply-To: David Esan Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY In article jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 335, Message 7 of 8 > WHAT THE HELL IS THIS!! Do all of you realize what Mr. Borow just > did!!! > He used his privilege as an AT&T employee to access PRIVATE telephone > records about a subscriber of AT&T and has now broadcast them to the > entire world I too was shocked by the original article and wondered where Randy got the information. I think that this could be construed as industrial espionage. Think about it, if your competition knows that you are calling a certain number or numbers often they can use this to figure your future plans or beat you to the punch. They could also intrude on personal issues (the CEO is calling his/her new girlfriend/ boyfriend (you may pick and choose, any combination could be embarrassing)) that could adversely affect the continuation of the business. My vote is that Randy's actions were wrong. David Esan de@moscom.com ------------------------------ From: HERRICK, DANIEL Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! Date: 9 May 91 09:41:57 EST In article , sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: > Note that I don't hold PAT morally responsible for having 'printed' > it, but Mr. Moderator, were you asleep at the switch? I would think > your background, attitudes and dedication to weeding out articles > would have raised an alarm in your mind. I spent some time thinking about Pat's position with this little imbroglio. My first thought was that Pat could have kept things less drastic for his informant by just returning the posting saying he could not publish such a thing. However, this action would have left both of them open to blackmail - Pat for possession of contraband, his informant for having extracted it and then tried to coverup. Pat would never be able to demonstrate that he had destroyed all copies, and he sent a receipt for the original. Second possibility. Pat could have told his informant his action was improper and passed the information on to some authority in AT&T (postmaster@host is one possibility), while not publishing. This introduces the possibility of the informant being taught some wisdom without being fired. However, the story would have leaked out. There would have been screams of a coverup. AT&T lower-middle management might have tried to suppress the event without dealing with the systemic problem of inadequate controls on sensitive data. Third possibility. Pat does what his informant asked him to do when he submitted the contraband. Publish it to the world. And pursues whatever private action he considers appropriate. The informant has to be fired. Pat is not responsible for this event. comp.risks will have a new topic. AT&T will have to answer publicly for bad design and controls. The fallout will include non-technical management at many companies noticing that they should understand the safeguards on sensitive data. Summary. Pat had an ethical choice. All paths he could have chosen had undesirable results. I think the one he chose was well chosen. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ------------------------------ From: Robert J Woodhead Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! Date: 10 May 91 03:25:02 GMT Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Tokyo Japan ndallen@contact.uucp (Nigel Allen) writes: > In that sense, I think that > anyone who deals with sensitive information about other people, > whether they work for a hospital or telecommunications company, has an > obligation to make sure that any information they disclose about their > work does no harm. And who decides whether the disclose did harm? Who gets to play "God?" > Saying something in private to Patrick would have done no harm. Again, sez who? Who knows what Patrick, or anyone else might be tempted to do with the information? The reason there are RULES about confidentiality is to reduce the temptation to play God! > While the telemarketing company in this case did not lose > anything by having its calling patterns disclosed, I think AT&T > suffered by appearing to be a telecommunications carrier whose > employees don't keep proprietary information confidential. I'd disagree with your first point -- I'm willing to bet that said company's lawyers would disagree too, if they found out about it. You're right on point two, though. The loss to AT&T could be quite significant. > That having been said, Randy didn't do this out of a desire for > profit. He deserves to be yelled at by his boss, not fired. What Randy "deserves" is to be treated like any other employee who committed this infraction of "the rules." Whether or not the disclosure was "harmless" is besides the point. kaufman@neon.stanford.edu (Marc T. Kaufman) writes: > In article syd@dsi.com writes: >> disclosure of records of calling patterns to any third >> ----- >> parties, or disclosure of phone calls was not only against rules, it >> was illegal and we could be procusuted, and a reference to the >> appropriate statue for my state was stapled to the booklet. > I understand this, and think it is proper, however ... how then can > one of the LD carriers call me and say: "Mr. Kaufman, we have analyzed > your long distance calling pattern -- and you can save $x by > subscribing to our service". Mark, in this case, you are the party of the second part, not the infamous party of the third part. It's perfectly OK for the phone company to tell you "we've looked at how YOU make phone calls with US and you can save money" but not for THEM to tell US what phone calls YOU made. (Geez, I shudda been a lawyer ;^) ) Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 91 12:41:52 -0400 From: Christopher Lott Subject: Re: AT&T Employee Makes Private Phone Records Public!! Hi Pat, Here's my vote, if you're tallying them: You blew it. A moderator shouldn't post something this inflammatory. Mr too-eager-att-employee is in deep doo-doo, and it could have been avoided. If I were to send some slime in that libels various folks, you'd reject it. He libeled himself, in essence, and you sent it. Don't be personally offended, please. I think you do a great job. But you were waaaaaay out to lunch that day. chris... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 May 1991 19:56:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Cattey Subject: Controversy: Sleaze vs. Public Trust I received a call from what I now know to be American Consumer Services. I would like to do anything I can to get them shut down. Even though what they are doing may well be perfectly within the letter of the law, it is a sleazy scam and I'd like to purge the world of such abuse. I think that John Palmer and Robert Woodhead are overreacting to Randy Borow's posting. I suspect that if I did a little digging, I, a non-employee, could obtain the very same information he did. (I might have to tell a lie almost as bad as the one that our telemarketers tell when they say the've already called me when they have not.) I think that Mr. Borow has unfortunately exposed himself to undue risk. The information he gives us doesn't really add to the story, and it has the potential for getting him in trouble for exposing what may be private records. I think the REAL tragedy will be if Mr. Borow is prosecuted (persecuted?) while the American Consumer Services continue to attempt to dupe the unsuspecting consumers. Let us please discuss legal and reasonable ways to help shut down American Consumer Services, and leave Mr. Borow alone after his possible breach of trust in his enthusiasm for trying to help nail them. Bill Cattey ------------------------------ From: David Snearline Subject: Re: The Phone Company and Personal Information Organization: University of Michigan Engineering Date: Wed, 8 May 1991 10:47:21 GMT Along with the rest of the readers of the TELECOM Digest, I too was shocked when I read the Randy's post regarding the calling patterns of the local telemarketing scam. While I do not condone posting confidential information to the net, I am glad that he did, for the very reason that it reminds us how easily "private" information regarding our lives is accessed. The particular information that Randy posted was interesting, but not particularly damaging. I am sure that in this age of electronic information, far more sensitive information is distributed to individuals or corporations whom we would rather not have it. Randy's particular mistake was broadcasting the information in a public place, substituting the invasion of privacy on the part of the telemarketer for his own. Hopefully the net community will learn from this experience. David Snearline CAEN Network Operations University of Michigan Engineering ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 May 91 23:21 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Last Laugh! Name of New Merged NCR/ATT Leaks Out! Here's some "inside" news that's making the rounds of AT&T plant employees today. The name of the new merged AT&T/NCR is going to be: Cash Registers And Phones --- figure out the short form for yourself! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #345 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17457; 10 May 91 23:31 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14116; 10 May 91 22:08 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32432; 10 May 91 20:55 CDT Date: Fri, 10 May 91 20:52:45 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #346 BCC: Message-ID: <9105102052.ab01517@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 10 May 91 20:52:38 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 346 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Transatlantic Calling History [Dave Marthouse] Re: AT&T Call Manager Service [Jack Dominey] MFJ Info Services [Peter Marshall] Line Noise Problem [Steven Gutfreund] 410 Area Code in Maryland [Shih-ping S Sun] Transformer Impedence Matching [Bud Couch] BC Telephone Phase Out Rotary Phones [Mathew Zank] Deregulation in Telecom [David Gast] Interesting Hotel Phone [Steven King] Inexpensive Data Connections Needed [Lou Birk] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: n2aam@overlf.UUCP (Dave Marthouse) Subject: Transatlantic Calling History Date: 7 May 91 13:37:23 GMT Organization: Overleaf Systems, Inc. Fords, NJ I would like information on the first transatlantic call from North America to Europe. When was it made? What mode was used? I assume it was radio. If so, what form of modulation was used and what frequency was it on? Any other technical or historical information would be appreciated. Dave Marthouse Internet: n2aam@kb2ear.ampr.org Fidonet: dave marthouse 1:107/323 Packet ax25: n2aam @ w2emu-4.nj.usa.na ------------------------------ From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Tue May 7 08:46:01 EDT 1991 Subject: Re: AT&T Call Manager Service Replying to an ongoing thread, recently added to by Sander J. Rabinowitz <0003829147@mcimail.com>: > Is this a new service that's starting up only in certain geographical > areas? The above dialing sequence produced the usual AT&T calling card > prompt, and the extra four digits appear to be discarded. > [Moderator's Note: When I used it here (0 + NPA + 7D - pause for tone > - enter 15xx), the call was processed, and the billing came to my line > the following month with notations on the bill entitled 'account code > xx', where 'xx' was the two digits I had entered after the '15' when > making the call. It appears nothing further is required to use this > service. PAT] A quick check of the latest AT&T sales brief, dated 2/7/91, shows that our Moderator is once again correct. Here's a summary of what I found: - No sign-up is required. If the service is available in your area, you can start using it immediately. - The service can use two or four digits; as Pat described it, the format would be 0 + NPA + 7D (tone) 15xx OR 15xxxx. - It's available to customers using DDD, PRO WATS, or Reach Out America if the customer is either directly billed by AT&T, or by a former Bell Operating Company. Call Manager is apparently not available in GTE or other independent company areas. EXCEPTION: NYNEX and SNET only provide Call Manager billing to PRO WATS customers. The biggest drawback to the service that we small business salesdrones have seen is that the codes are optional. Many of our customers would like to use forced authorization codes instead. Jack Dominey AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA v: 404-496-6925 AT&T Mail: !dominey or bsga05!jdominey ------------------------------ Subject: MFJ Info Services From: Peter Marshall Date: Tue, 07 May 91 07:47:04 PDT Per the 4/8 edition of TELECOMMUNICATIONS WEEK, there have been two days of oral argument before Judge Greene on 4/18-19 focused on issues of the MFJ's info services restriction. Some of the ten topics Greene outlined for oral argument included: "In determining whether the lifting of the information services restriction would be anticompetitive, to what extent may the court consider and what weight may it give to the pre-divestiture history, ... and regional company anticompetitive acts, if any, since 1984?" "What weight is the court required to give to the views of the Department of Justice on legal, factual,or mixed issues?" "What opportunities, if any, exist for the subsidization of information services in funds or in kind from monies received by the regional companies as a result of their regulated telephone activities?" "May a regional company acquire and use for the development or marketing of information services information obtained about customers in the course of its regulated business?" "By what specific methods could regional companies discriminate effectively against particular classes of competing information services providers?" "Do telephone information services constitute a separate market, or are they part of a broader information services market?" "What is the current status and effectiveness of FCC and state regulations with respect to information services?" "Can cable, cellular, or other technology at this time provide sufficient access to information services to decrease or eliminate the dependency of information services providers on the local exchange system?" halcyon!peterm@seattleu.edu The 23:00 News and Mail Service - +1 206 292 9048 - Seattle, WA USA ------------------------------ From: Steven Gutfreund Subject: Line Noise Date: 7 May 91 16:55:09 GMT We have been experiencing significant problems with FAX SEND/RECIEVEs. This conisist mostly of chopped in half pages and failed send/recieves. I suspect line noise. Does anyone have any advice that would be effective in getting New England Tel to look into this? Any particular directions I can give them to make them consider this seriously? Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund sgutfreund@gte.com GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA harvard!bunny!sgutfreund ------------------------------ From: Shih-ping S Sun Subject: 410 Area Code in Maryland Date: 7 May 91 18:56:57 GMT Organization: Princeton University Being stuck here at P.U., I have missed most of the stuff about 410 in MAryland ... at the risk of being repetitious, could someone bring me up to date on exactly what areas will be affected? The latest I had heard was that: - 410 will be implemented in NOvember 1991 but you can still use either 301 or 410. - in November 1992, you MUST use 410 to dial 410 numbers. Has this changed? Is it accurate at all? S. Spencer Sun - P.U. '94 - #1 @6909 WWIVnet - 609/258/8877 ------------------------------ From: Bud Couch Subject: Transformer Impedence Matching Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Tue, 7 May 1991 18:48:12 GMT In article jon_sree@world.std.com (Jon Sreekanth) writes: > This is probably a simple question : what is the meaning of a spec > such as a transformer being 600 ohm : 600 ohm ? For example, some > telecom transformers (phone line interface transformers) are spec'ed > this way. > My understanding is if a transformer is ideal, it reflects the > secondary impedance to the primary. So, if a transformer primary is > connected to the telephone line, and the secondary is left open > circuited, the AC impedance that the telephone line sees is infinity, > right? If the secondary is shorted, the telephone line should see an > AC short; if the secondary is connected to a 600 ohm load, the > telephone line should see 600 ohm. > In summary, what does the magic 600:600 spec mean ? Any 1:1 > transformer should be interchangeable, and line matching really means > the secondary should be terminated into the proper impedance. The RESISTANCE (ohms) of the wire in that transformer. The keyword in your question is "ideal". It is possible to make transformers that approach ideal. Unfortunately, at audio frequencies, this means lots of iron and copper. (Reminds me of the old joke about AE at Northlake: truckloads of coal, iron and copper ore in the back door, *tons* of step-by-step out the front.) For both cost and size purposes, compromises are made which result in some portion of the impedence seen at the terminals being the resistive components of the transformer. How significant this portion is is a function of the impedences being matched. The transformer you cited as 600:600 has perhaps two or three ohms of resistance in the windings of each side. This is acceptable at 600 ohms, but would cause serious problems if someone attempted to use it at 50 ohms. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew .. standard BS applies ------------------------------ From: Mathew Zank Subject: BC Telephone Phase Out Rotary Phones Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services UNIX System 408 241-9760 Date: Tue, 7 May 1991 21:06:45 GMT British Columbia Telephone says it will phase out basic rotary desk telephones, also after june it will not be able to supply refurbish rotary telephones to new customers. Matthew Zank - Eau Claire, Wi Internet: zank@netcom.com -or- 0003690668@mcimail.com UUCP: apple!netcom!zank BITNET: zank%netcom.com@CUNYVM ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 May 91 14:46:20 -0700 From: David Gast Subject: Deregulation in Telecom Over the past several months there have been repeated posts to the effect that decreasing regulation will result in lower communication costs. I don't believe it and past evidence does not support it. First off, in CA the PUC granted GTE and PacTel deregulation to a large extent. Prices have not fallen. The quid pro quos from the deregulation deal have not happened. In fact, I believe that GTE is in the process of proposing that the monthly charge go from about $10.00 to $25.00. An increase of only 250%. :-( (This change also seems to go against the spirit of the deregulation deal if I understand that deal correctly). Second, AT&T was granted some deregulation. Another one of these "if we have deregulation we will have incentive to work more efficiently." Instead of lowering its prices as much as it would have before deregulation, however, AT&T has decided to just keep the extra profits. Daniel R. Guilderson wrote: > Let's deregulate the telecommunications industry... We'll throw the > phone companies, the cable companies, the LAN/WAN companies and anyone > else who wants a peice of the action into a battle royal. The > competition will be so vicious that prices will have to fall. Eventually > there would be a shakeout and we would be left with a few very lean and > mean competitive communications companies. Any new technologies would > then be offered quickly as a competitive advantage. It sounds good on paper, but I don't believe that the real world works like this. What happens is that the big boys push the upstarts out of business and formally or informally start a cartel. Consider Airlines. We deregulated and many new airlines formed. Now most of them are out of business. The remaining airlines are hardly lean (the upstarts that are now out of business were lean) and they don't have to be because in most major markets one or two airlines control almost all the landing slots. In St. Louis, for example, TWA has something like 83%. They got this penetration by merging with the number two carrier in St. Louis. Long lines has been much the same. Most of the smaller carriers have been forced out of business and now we have the situation where there is at least an implicit understanding in the market place that it makes no sense to lower prices because AT&T will lower its prices as well and the result will not be an increase in market share, but lower profits. Additionally, I do not believe that having just a few competitors ever leads to technological advance as quickly as when there are many competitors. Consider cars when there were for all practical purposes only the big three. Consider cars now when there are many more competitors in the U.S. market. Consider main frame computers dominated by one company with several smaller ones. Now consider microcomputers and workstations with many, many competitors. You can do things on a microcomputer today that you still cannot do on main frames. After the shake out, "any new technologies would" *not* "be offered quickly as a competitive advantage." I think that John Levine is right on target: > A plausible outcome of this scenario is that everyone except the deepest > pockets would end up bankrupt, and we'd be left with AT&T and the RBOCs > more monopolistic than now. Or maybe General Motors or IBM. David Gast ------------------------------ From: Steven King Subject: Interesting Hotel Phone Date: 7 May 91 13:13:23 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group, Arlington Hgts IL Just came back from Ann Arbor and my sister's commencement from the University of Michigan. (And her transition from a starving college student to a starving high school teacher.) She put me up in the Comfort Inn, which has a very interesting phone system. First off, this hotel is reasonably new. I'd say less than two years judging from the location and construction. The door locks are mag stripe readers and the keys look like credit cards. This is a technology whose time has not yet come. I got the key to work only about 75% of the time, my sainted-but-not-technologically-inclined mother had about a 50% hit ratio. At one point the mag stripe on my key got corrupted and would open the outside door (which would take any room key) but not our room door. But on to the phones. The room, a standard cheap-rate double room, had three phones. One by the beds, one on the desk, and one in the bathroom. (Remember the HP "What if?" television ads from a few years back? You know, where the HP engineer is driving through the desert and gets and idea, phones back to the office and says "What if...?" just before the voice over kicks in? I think the same ad should be re-done using that bathroom phone. But I digress.) The bathroom and bedside phones were standard hotel offerings, but the desk phone was a slick Siemens model. I've never seen its equal in a $50 a night room, or even in more expensive hotel rooms. It had a couple dozen speed dial buttons. Most were programmed with room service, housekeeping, etc. The leftovers had local businesses, like Pizza Hut. No advertising on the phone, just a button labelled "Pizza Hut". Nice. The phone had a 12 digit display of the number you were dialing, last-number redial, and speakerphone! It also had a connect-time clock, but a little experimentation showed that the clock just recorded time from roughly one ring. It didn't sense supervision, just assumed your party would pick up by one ring. As long as that clock isn't the billing clock I'm happy. No RJ-11 jack on the phone for data, but the phone plugged into the wall with RJ-11 that you could easily pull. Come to think of it, the wall plate had two RJ-11 jacks so you didn't even have to bother unplugging the phone. The sheet next to the phone mentioned that local calls were 75 cents (boo hiss!), and there was a 75 cent surcharge for long distance. It didn't mention a surcharge for 800 numbers or calling cards, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it. I used my calling card a few times, but my dad paid for the room and I never saw the bill. The AOS used was "Telesphere", which I didn't trust longer than it took me to dial 10288. I got AT&T and happily made my calls. The sheet did say that Telesphere was the default long distance carrier, but I don't think it mentioned how to reach the other ones. Top points for hardware, but the software (billing) is still par for the course. At least hotel designers (one hotel designer, at any rate) are taking the information age into account when they build new hotels! Steven King, Motorola Cellular (...uunet!motcid!king) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 May 91 07:58:10 EDT From: BIRK@trees.dnet.ge.com Subject: Inexpensive Data Connections Needed I am looking into connecting unix to unix long distance and the least expensive connection I can find is PC Pursuit. Does anyone have any comments on this or other telcommunication means that work well for connecting via anon uucp or regular PC BBS. The real purpose is to run uucp and FTP but I have almost given up on an inexpensive FTP and have only been able to find hosts that will FTP for an extra monthly charge. Send replies to: birk@trees.dnet.ge.com Lou Birk Sumneytown, Pa ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #346 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23548; 11 May 91 2:11 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10544; 11 May 91 0:20 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09613; 10 May 91 23:09 CDT Date: Fri, 10 May 91 22:09:53 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #347 BCC: Message-ID: <9105102209.ab05243@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 10 May 91 22:09:26 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 347 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Did AT&T Sacrifice Randy? [TELECOM Moderator] *-Prefixed Calls on Cellular Phones: Uniformly Coded? Free? [Mark Seiden] Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Teleputing via Don Kimberlin] Japan and Modems [David Gast] Keith Spicer to Resume Chair of Canadian RTC [Globe & Mail via Chas. Mingo] Expansion of PacBell's Local Calling Area [John C. Fowler] Re: How is the Cost of Features Calculated? [Steve Forrette] Re: The Phone Company and Personal Information [Steve Forrette] Re: RJ Wiring for AT&T 258A [Bob Schreibmaier] Pac Bell Pays 7% Interest [Howard Gayle] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 May 91 21:09:51 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Did AT&T Sacrifice Randy? So the story goes, a reporter from the {New York Times} called AT&T this week to speak with Randy Borow about the fiasco ... and was told by someone, "He doesn't work here anymore..." I've been told AT&T planned to take some sort of disciplinary action this Wednesday past. I guess they did. Perhaps Randy was sacrificed as an example for other employees tempted to shoot their mouth off for fun or profit. Randy has not been in touch with the Digest since *the* message appeared, so personal verification is not possible right now. I do wish he would contact us. Understanably, he is embarrassed at this point, and probably not wanting a lot of contact with us ... but he'll be welcome when he wishes to return to the group. PAT ------------------------------ From: Mark Seiden Subject: *-Prefixed Calls on Cellular Phones: Uniformly Coded? Free? Date: 8 May 91 00:48:16 GMT Organization: Seiden and Associates, Inc, Stamford, CT I am curious (yellow) about * prefixed calls on cellular phones. Has anyone got a list? Are they uniform across service providers? (fat chance) ... I noticed that some of the California providers have traffic information lines, etc. Doug Reuben recently pointed out that although *611 is free, one *might* be charged a roaming charge, which is then removed when one complains. Are all of the *-prefixed calls free (and supposed to be free of roaming charges?) Does anyone know how these are implemented? When they translate to a real phone number, is there any way of determining the translation? When I was recently in New Orleans, Bell South Mobility advertised that 911 was "always free." (It was unclear whether roamers would be charged a roaming fee.) Is this typical practice? [Moderator's Note: In many large urban areas 911 won't work correctly from cell phones -- at least the dispatchers cannot get a reading on your location. Here in Chicago, *999 gets the Minutemen, a division of the Illinois State Police who handle expressway and interstate highway duty. 911 gets a recording saying to call the operator to report the emergency. And 911 is never 'free' ... to the caller, yes, but the charges are always reversed to the emergency agency, at least from landline phones. I assume cellular is the same where 911 is available, such as New Orleans. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 91 01:56 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent The "Hayes AT Command Set," a defacto standard used by virtually every dial-up modem for more than a decade, has had some of its functions patent protected, but that has not kept it from being virtually freely used. Perhaps Hayes has kept a low profile on the matter, preferring to let its name be spread by such wide use. However, some news did recently occur that Hayes will, on occasion protect its rights. The following is excerpted from an electronic newsletter called {The Teleputing Hotline}, dated April 30, 1991: "HAYES WINS DOUBLE DAMAGES IN PATENT SUIT "The Hayes modem standard now has the force of law. U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti doubled damages owed by Everex Systems, VenTel and OmniTel to Hayes Microcomputer Products for "willful violation" of the Hayes modem patent. The patent, for an escape sequence with guard time, is at the heart of the `Hayes AT' command set since it specifies how a PC will go from the online mode to the command mode. Hayes compatibility has become a de facto standard in PC modems of all speeds. Conti, who also awarded Hayes court costs, said that willful infringers must not be allowed to wait five or six years, then pay a low 1.75% royalty to the owner of a valid patent. "Dennis Hayes said that, since a jury found in January his patent was valid, `a number of people have come forward and talked to us about licenses. Some have been concluded agreements and some negotiations are underway.' The defendants in San Francisco will appeal, and Hayes must also defend itself in Minneapolis against another infringer, Multitech. Hayes added that the U.S. policy, increasing protection for copyrights and patents, is now being emulated worldwide." ----------- (Those interested in obtaining a subscription to {The Teleputing Hotline} can contact the publisher at: 215 Winter Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30317; FAX: 404-378-0794; Phone: 404-373-7634; MCIMail: 409-8960; GEnie: nb.atl; CompuServe: 76200,3025.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 May 91 20:14:25 -0700 From: David Gast Subject: Japan and Modems > Looking through the ads of a Japanese computer magazine, I was puzzled > by the high cost of modems compared with North America. No US brands > were for sale. Can anyone explain the nature of this situation? I know that U.S. made modems like telebits work in Japan because I have used them in Japan. You really should not decide what is available and/or what works based on who is advertizing in a particular magazine. It is also possible that some U.S. companies have sold the rights to market their modems in Japan to another compnay or that there are joint venture projects such as Fuji-Xerox that do not include the American name. Finally, you do not mention if you read Japanese, but if you don't it is possible that the Japanese in the ads would have explained the situation. At any rate, one can buy U.S. modems in Japan. ------------------------------ From: Charlie Mingo Subject: Keith Spicer to Resume Chair of Canadian RTC Date: 07 May 91 18:04:28 From the Toronto {Globe and Mail}, May 7 1991, at B6 "SPICER TO TAKE [CANADIAN RADIO & TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION] CHAIR AGAIN Former chief dismisses 'fairy tale' of commission revolt should he return. "Keith Spicer has served formal notice that he plans to resume his job as the country's chief broadcast regulator on schedule, despite rumours earlier this year that his return would spark mass resignations among CRTC commissioners. "Dismissing the rumours of a revolt as 'a fairy tale organized by one commissioner,' Mr. Spicer said yestersay that he had informed the Clerk of the Privy Council, Paul Tellier, last Friday that he plans to resume his position as chairman of the Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission effective July 1. He added that he confirmed this in a letter yesterday. "He refused to name the CRTC commissioner in question. "Mr. Spicer unexpectedly resigned from the CRTC chairman's job effective last Nov. 1 -- after only 14 months at the helm -- to head the Citizens' Forum on National Unity. However, in making that appointment, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney said that Mr. Spicer would return to his CRTC post once the forum had completed its work. "Mr. Spicer will have to be formally reappointed CRTC chairman before he reassumes his duties. "There have also been some rumblings that some of the statements he has made while running the national unity forum might have angered the Prime Minister and his staff. "While acknowledging that some members of the Prime Minister's staff 'might like to shoot the messinger,' Mr. Spicer said in an interview from Ottawa that he doubts Mr. Mulroney would withdraw the written commitment he made to return him to the CRTC. "He added that it will take another four to seven weeks to complete his national unity report. "While expecting to resume his duties officially as of the beginning of July, he said he would like to take a few weeks holiday 'to recover some perspective.' "He also said that he had informed current CTRC chairman David Colville over the weekend of his intention to return. 'I hope and expect he will stay with the CRTC,' he added. "Mr. Colville confirmed through a CRTC spokesman that he and Mr. Spicer had talked but said that would be inappropriate to comment further until an appointment is made. "There were rumours several months before Mr. Spicer left the CRTC that the commission was in disarray and that most of the commissioners were allied against him. However, he dismissed those at the time as third-hand gossip of the sort that greets new chief executives at any company or organization. "As for the more recent talk, which surfaced in late March, Mr. Spicer said yesterday that he had done 'some checking through friends there [at the CRTC] and it's totally unfounded ... there is absolutely not the slightest threat of a mass resignation.' "Although Mr. Spicer would not name names, there is speculation that the source of the rumours may have been CRTC vice-chairman Fernand Belisle, who is widely thought to have designs on the top job himself. However, the CRTC spokeman said Mr. Belisle had no comment on the matter. "During his first stint as CRTC commissioner, Mr. Spicer appeared to make a good impression on members of the TV production community and on consumer lobbyists who had felt that the regulator had grown too cosy with the broadcasters and cable-TV companies it regulates. "However, not surprisingly, he appeared to win few friends in the regulated industries. In particular, he battled with cable companies when the CRTC decided to lower the boom on cable rate increases about a year ago." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 May 91 22:26:58 PDT From: "John C. Fowler" Subject: Expansion of PacBell's Local Calling Area Pacific Bell will be expanding its local calling area from eight miles to twelve miles beginning June 1. I just got my notice today detailing all the wonderful new exchanges that are soon to be free local calls. The funny thing, though, is that "976" is included as a free exchange in my list! I have to wonder how much confusion that will cause. "Mommy, can I dial this number I saw on cartoons?" "I don't know, honey; is it on the list of free numbers?" "Yep." "Okay." John C. Fowler, jfowler@ucsd.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 91 01:20:19 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: How is the Cost of Features Calculated? Organization: University of California, Berkeley > The price is determined by what people are willing to pay. In long > distance service, AT&T provides a benchmark. Someone else who wants > to persuade you to buy their service and not AT&T's has to do one of > the following: > 1. Convince you their service is better than AT&T's and worth > a higher price than AT&T charges. > 2. Convince you that they will give you comparable phone service > to what you have been getting from AT&T for a comparable price > and they will be nicer to you than AT&T is. > 3. Convince you that you will be happy with their lower quality > phone service because it costs so much less. I think that one pricing technique has been left out: 4. Set your price at two to three times AT&T's rate, and illegally program your COCOT or Hotel PBX so that the caller cannot reach AT&T. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu [Moderator's Note: But hopefully soon, the programming of public systems so that AT&T cannot be reached will be treated as a vey serious offense and dealt with accordingly. I suspect AT&T is staying away from 800 access and insisting on equal availability via 10288 for very good reason. I think it is part of a game plan to force the hand of the sleaze purveyors, to make them comply. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 91 02:33:41 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: The Phone Company and Personal Information Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article David writes: > Many readers of this forum believe that AT&T should be able to sell > ANI information on incoming 800 numbers.? How would these readers feel > if AT&T proposed to sell 800 calling patterns to anyone that wanted to > buy them? I think this would be improper. The reason I support the unconditional delivery of ANI for incoming 800 calls is that the recipient is paying for the call. If someone doesn't want to be identified, they shouldn't ask someone else to pay for the call. Revealing the information to a third party without the caller's permission is another issue entirely. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: Bob Schreibmaier Subject: Re: RJ Wiring for AT&T 258A Date: 8 May 91 12:46:29 GMT Organization: QRM Central, Middletown, NJ > Can anybody out there post the definitive method of pairing (with > color code) for the AT&T PDS scheme? I saw a post in comp.dcom.lans > that gave the following diagram: > WH OR WH BL WH GR WH BR > OR WH GR WH BL WH BR WH > (RJ-45F) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > | | | | | | | | > pairs: T2 R2 T3 R1 T1 R3 R4 T4 > +--+ | +--+ | +--+ > +--------+ > The trouble I have is with pair 4. Which pin is really tip, and > shouldn't it be white/brown? Also, is pair 2 really on pins 1 and 2, > or is it on 3 and 6? I used to work on PDS about umpteen years ago (back when I had a job!). Let's see if my memory serves correctly. If I can map the pins assignments on the 8-pin jack to where they go on a 110A connector block (replacement for the old 66 blocks) we can get this right. It's a very strange mapping and I have no idea about where it came from historically. The 110A block actually is easier to understand in that it is laid out as tip-ring pair 1, tip-ring pair 2, tip-ring pair 3, and tip-ring pair 4. Like so: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | | | | | | | | 110A block T1 R1 T2 R2 T3 R3 T4 R4 The mapping of the eight-pin modular jack to 110A is: 8-pin 110A 5 (T1) 1 4 (R1) 2 1 (T2) 3 2 (R2) 4 3 (T3) 5 6 (R3) 6 7 (T4) 7 8 (R4) 8 So, actually, Tip of pair 4 is on pin 7 and Ring is on pin 8. In the PDS wiring scheme, pair 4 is typically used for powering of adjuncts via a power supply either connected locally or placed in a satellite closet. Usually had -48 volts on pin 7 and ground on pin 8. However, it was also used with the 355B and 355BF protective adapters for RTS/CTS hardware flow control with the AIM4 boards on the AT&T Information Systems Network packet data switch (if you have any interest). Lessee now ... regarding your question of color codes, I believe you have them right, but my memory is foggy on that one. But your pairing is correct. Pins 4-5 are pair 1, pins 1-2 are pair 2, pins 3-6 are pair 3, and pins 7-8 are pair 4. I sure hope this helps rather than confuses more! Bob Schreibmaier K2PH | UUCP: ...!attmail!dxis!k2ph a.k.a. "The QRPer" | Internet: k2ph@dxis.attmail.com Middletown, New Jersey | ICBM: 40o21'N, 74o8'W ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 May 91 16:02:51 PDT From: Howard Gayle Subject: Pac Bell Pays 7% Interest Reply-To: howard@hal.com I just got new service from Pacific Bell. I chose to pay an $80 deposit rather than answer credit-application type questions. They claim they'll refund the deposit in one year, with 7% interest. This is a higher interest rate than any local bank money market account I know of. Too bad they won't take a bigger deposit! :-) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #347 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25670; 11 May 91 3:10 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20510; 11 May 91 1:31 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10544; 11 May 91 0:21 CDT Date: Fri, 10 May 91 23:33:16 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #348 BCC: Message-ID: <9105102333.ab05659@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 10 May 91 23:33:08 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 348 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Answering Machine Software [Brenda Ramsey] Quarter Waves, Eighth Waves, Ocean Waves ... [Ed Greenberg] Looking at Anterior Technology and Geoffrey Goodfellow [Alan Reiter] Pactel and Group W Cable in Chicago [Andrew Daniel] Cordless Modem? [Andrew Klossner] AT&T Goofs on Mailing [Ken Jongsma] Re: Collect and Third-Party Billing [Tony Harminc] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brenda Ramsey Subject: Answering Machine Software Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Date: Wed, 8 May 91 15:42:46 GMT I am looking for software to will run on a PC (IBM, or clone, Mac) which can accomodate at least 80 voice mailboxes. Something where each user forward his/her phone to a dedicated number onto which the pc is attached. Currently our phone system is Northern Telecom and they do offer a voice mail option, but it is rather expensive for all the users who would want to use it. Vendors, comments, suggestions will all be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Brenda Ramsey (213) 825-2778 UCLA Computer Science Department ramsey@CS.UCLA.EDU ..!(uunet,ucbvax,rutgers)!cs.ucla.edu!ramsey ------------------------------ From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Date: Wed, 8 May 91 09:05 PDT Subject: Quarter Waves, Eighth Waves, Ocean Waves A previous poster commented that the short stubby antenna on a handheld cellular phone is a helically wound 1/4 wave, rather than a 1/8 wave as had been previously posted. He asked for confirmation. I don't think it would unwind to an exact quarter wave, but it would be about right, and it will be the correct length for the best possible match, which is what is desired. Unfortunately, as a vertical antenna, it needs a ground plane, and it doesn't have one. Thus it won't be all that efficient. A much better antenna for a handheld is the six inch or so jobbie that is fat for the lower half and thin for the upper half. What we have here is a center-fed, half-wave, vertical dipole, drawn below horizontally: <---- down to radio // up to sky ---> --------------------------\ ===============================+------------------------- --------------------------/ The === represents feedline, and the center of the feedline is connected to the upper (rightmost) radiator. The shield of the feedline is connected to the lower (leftmost) hollow section, at the center. This antenna will be much more efficient than the stubby one, since the lower section of the dipole acts as a ground counterpoise. Considering the fact that you've got .6 watts and you're trying to make it out of the shopping center half the time, the best thing you can do for your cellular service is a good antenna. Ed_Greenberg@hq.3mail.3com.com [Moderator's Note: What about amber waves of grain? My problem with the larger antennas is that I carry the phone under my jacket, and each time I bend over I stab myself with the antenna as well as abuse the antenna by causing it to get a little bent out of shape. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Looking at Anterior Technology and Geoff Goodfellow Date: Wed, 08 May 91 09:10:32 MST From: Alan Reiter <0003535091@mcimail.com> [Moderator's Note: Geoffrey Goodfellow passed along an advance copy of the article below, which is will be appearing in the next issue of {Mobile Data Report}. It will also appear in the mobile data conference. PAT] PC, RF Companies Testing E-Mail Gateway Service A small Silicon Valley company wants to be the country's leading "middleman" connecting electronic mail networks with mobile communications systems. Anterior Technology in Menlo Park, Calif. isn't well known on the East Coast and has only five employees, but it's talking to such big names as Pactel Paging, Poqet Computer, Skytel and Ardis to test wireless e-mail services. The founder and president of Anterior, Geoffrey Goodfellow, is one of the few people who are familiar with both computer and mobile communications. He established Anterior in 1988 to provide e-mail and electronic communications hub services. So far, his primary customers include corporations that want to connect their local area networks (LAN) with other LANs via Internet. Internet is a major online network serving educational and research institutions. It's not like the relatively slow public e-mail networks and the "ante" to go on line is generally more expensive. For example, Internet subscribers usually generally lease lines for transmission speeds of 56,000 bits/second or 1,440,000 bits/second (T1), say Goodfellow. The leased lines and higher-speed modems are expenses many companies can't justify, which is why they use Anterior. Anterior has one 56,000 bits/second leased line and will be leasing another one. The company also has a rack of 10 Telebit Trailblazer modems operating at 19,200 bits/second. Well known software companies, such as Oracle and Autodesk, along with "one-room consultancies," primarily in the San Francisco Bay area use Anterior's gateway services, says Goodfellow. Anterior also provides gateway services to such e-mail networks are MCI Mail, AT&T Easylink Services and Telemail. Recently, some mobile communications companies have been testing electronic mail integration over Anterior. The Menlo Park firm receives the messages, formats them and sends them over such networks as Pactel, Skytel and Ardis. E-mail transmissions over wireless networks certainly is not a new topic, but there has been a significant increase in interest by paging operators. The nationwide paging company, Skytel, has been testing with Anterior for almost two months, says Jai Bhagat, executive vice president and a director at Mobile Telecommunication Technologies, Skytel's parent company. So far, the tests seem to be going well, but Skytel hasn't decided what to do it the tests are successful," Bhagat. Last month, Skytel announced that the Federal Communications Commission would allow the company to implement a second nationwide 900 MHz channel. Skytel has some 93,000 pagers on its original channel, but only a handful -- perhaps 100 -- are alphanumeric. The problem of spectrum congestion is the overriding factor. With a second channel, Skytel is exploring a variety of enhanced data services. The company also hopes that the speed of current paging systems, 1,200 bits/second, will be increased four or five times within the next few years. Will high-speed pagers be able to work on the same channel as today's units? "That's the million dollar question," says Bhagat. Today, pagers at 512 bits/second and 1,200 bits/second can operate on the same channel. Goodfellow has been testing ten Motorola Advisor pagers for e- mail transmissions. The Advisor is "too complicated ... it has too many buttons," he says. Goodfellow's not the only person who's criticized the Advisor for being overly complicated, but the Advisor is one of slickest pagers on the market. Mitch Kapor, founder of Lotus Development Corp. and ON Technology and chairman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is using one of the ten pagers. The packet-switched RF operators, such as Ardis and Ram Mobile Data, have been interested in the the concept since their companies were established. Ardis has held "first preliminary discussions with Geoff", and will be signing up Anterior as a software developer, says Mike Fabri, a marketing manager at Ardis in Lincolnshire, Ill. Ardis will begin testing his system this year, Fabri says. (sidebar) Goodfellow's Passions Goodfellow has been interested in computing and mobile communications since his high school days, and is one of the relatively few people who are familiar with both types of networks. He dropped out of high school during his senior year to take a jpb as a weekend computer operator at Stanford Research, Inc. (SRI) in 1974. He began using electronic mail system (Arpanet) since he was 17, and spent lots of time hanging around SRI during his school days. Goodfellow was a member of the senior research staff at SRI's Computer Science Laboratory. He became interested in wireless communications some 20 years ago when he saw a picture of a prototype Motorola Dynatac portable cellular phone in the cover of Popular Science. When he was in Hawaii in 1974 he used a Texas Instruments Silent 700 acoustically-coupled terminal transmitting at 300 baud, and borrowed an Aloha packet radio to access his e-mail at SRI in California. In 1981, he began using the Metragram alphanumeric pager and always thought of it as an extension of his electronic mailbox. While American Radio Telephone Service (ARTS) first started testing cellular in the Baltimore/Washington, D.C. area, he wrangled a tour of its Columbia, Md. facility through a friend of his in the Pentagon, Goodfellow began friendly with the ARTS engineering staff, and in the early 1980s he was able to borrow some of the first Motorola Dynatac's to use when he visited Washington for SRI. (ARTS was granted the first non-wireless cellular license and is now known as Cellular One). When ARTS started commercial operation in 1984, he ordered a $4,000 Dynatac sent to him via overnight mail -- even though he was based in Menlo Park and no cellular service was even available. Goodfellow just wanted to have the phone to use when in Washington. Through ARTS, he knew Andrew H. Lamothe, Jr., who helped design the early system. Goodfellow left SRI in 1986, and for three months in 1986 worked at Cellular Radio Corp., which Lamothe established. Goodfellow also worked on cellular roaming/handoff standards. He is co-author of The Hacker's Dictionary: A Guide to the World of Computer Wizards. ------------------------------ From: andrew daniel Subject: Pactel and Group W Cable in Chicago Date: 8 May 91 16:36:25 GMT Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. Has anyone heard anything lately about Pactel's bid to purchase Group W Cable in Chicago? Also, I am writing my thesis on telco/cable cross-ownership, from a consumer policy oriented angle. I am examining the positions held by the telcos, cablecos, NLC, and the FCC. If anyone has any info about this subject I would really appreciate it if you could send it along to me. Thanks in advance for your help. Drew Daniel BGSU School of Mass Communication ------------------------------ From: Andrew Klossner Subject: Information Wanted on Cordless Modem Date: 8 May 91 17:07:58 GMT Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon I just got my first cordless phone (an AT&T unit, very nice!) and a good laptop, and started wondering if anyone manufactures a connection. Has anybody heard of a mechanism for connecting a laptop's internal modem to a cordless phone? This would be useful for, say, sitting out in the back yard reading news without having to string a phone line. (I know about *cellular* modems, but that's much too expensive.) -=- Andrew Klossner (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew) [UUCP] (andrew%frip.wv.tek.com@relay.cs.net) [ARPA] ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T Goofs on Mailing Date: Wed, 8 May 91 19:58:52 EDT From: Ken Jongsma I received an interesting letter from an American Transtech, a division of AT&T, today. Some weeks ago, I had received an annual report from NYNEX. The only thing is, I'm not a NYNEX stockholder. I tossed it out. The letter read: Recently, you may have been surprised to receive a copy of the 1990 NYNEX Annual Report at your home or business. We apologize for having inadvertently mailed the report to you and would like to take a moment to explain how the mailing error occurred. As a mailing agent for NYNEX and many other large corporations, American Transtech is responsible for delivering millions of annual reports to selected individuals each year. NYNEX, like all our clients, provides us with a computer tape containing the names and addresses of people who will receive its report, and that information is used to prepare mailing labels. Unfortunately, through an oversight on our part, we inadvertently used the wrong tape for the NYNEX mailing, substituting one provided by another customer. We discovered our mistake too late to prevent delivery of the NYNEX report to you. American Transtech takes full responsibility for this error, which was beyond the control of NYNEX. We can assure you that this was an isolated incident, and that no personal information about you was released publicly or duplicated in any way. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you. ------ Aside from the tie to two phone companies, I found this letter interesting for several reasons. 1) It would appear that AT&T still does things for the RBOCs, albeit at an arms length. 2) I found the last paragraph fascinating. Here's a company that had an operator screw up and mount an incorrect tape. Most companies would have dropped the matter, yet AT&T assures us that no personal information was released or duplicated. I wish more companies were that sensitive to privacy issues. Personal Comment: I thought the timing was opportune, given the recent Digest incident. I also think that people have come down too hard on Randy. When I saw the original message, I sent Randy a note saying that I found it interesting but thought it _might_ be sensitive data. He quickly replied that he screwed up. Nobody is perfect. Calling in Robert Allen, corporate security and {The New York Times} (!!!!!) on the poor guy is a bit overkill. 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: Especially the {NY Times}. All the news that fits, they print. Perhaps you heard that the paper is being prosecuted on criminal charges in Florida (since they do business there selling papers, they are under the jurisdiction of the law in that state) for having printed the name of the rape victim in the Kennedy / Smith case. I think AT&T might have handled Randy's case more leniently had not the Times stuck their nose into the matter. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 May 91 12:21:19 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Collect and Third-Party Billing KATH MULLHOLAND wrote: > We just received our April bill. We have screening on 300 phones, and > received bills for ten of them. A total of fourteen calls were > billed. Two were collect calls from "MTL PQ" billed by AT&T (No > credit will be given -- international calls aren't covered by the > screening.) .... Back in the "good old days" there was a scheme to prevent collect calls to coin phones: within each CO prefix one entire thousands block was set aside for coin phones, and operators had a list of which numbers were suspect. (For far away places they had to contact Rate & Route who had grand master lists, or even sometimes inward operators if the place was really out of the way.) So for instance in many areas all numbers of the form NNX-0XXX were at least potentialy coin phones and a collect call to such a number would not be completed without further checking. This scheme certainly worked internationally. Now I assume this information is all in a database somewhere - surely they can't still be using the "thousands digit" scheme, can they? So if calling card numbers can be verified internationally in a second or two, why can't collect and third-party prohibition be handled similarly ? Tony Harminc [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell still puts all their coin-phones in the 9xxx range for the reason you mention. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #348 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12240; 12 May 91 3:13 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09501; 12 May 91 1:44 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03215; 12 May 91 0:35 CDT Date: Sat, 11 May 91 23:36:14 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #349 BCC: Message-ID: <9105112336.ab26523@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 11 May 91 23:35:51 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 349 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Privacy Debate Moved to Other List [Telecom Privacy List Moderator] Best Telco PR Video ... and Guess Who Made It [Robert Jacobson] Re: You're All A Bunch of Terrorists [Andy Oakland] Re: You're All A Bunch of Terrorists [Michael H. Riddle] Re: You're All A Bunch of Terrorists [Marc T. Kaufman] Re: You're All A Bunch of Terrorists [Bud Couch] Re: Calling 905 from 416 Area [John R. Covert] Re: Calling 905 from 416 Area [Carl Moore] Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN [John Nagle] Re: Touch-Tone vs. Rotary - A Frustrating Experience [John McHarry] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 11 May 91 23:14:17 EDT From: Telecom Privacy List Moderator Subject: Privacy Debate Moved to Other List I think it is time to move the discussion about Randy Borow's posting about a company's phone traffic to telecom-priv. For those of you who have heard not about telecom-priv, it is a maillist dedicated to issues of telecom privacy. To get on the list send a request to telecom-priv-request@pica.army.mil. I think the key questions on this are: o Should the posting have been made? o Should the posting have been trashed by the Telecom Moderator? ( Sorry Pat, even though I agree with your decision it is probably something that should be discussed.) o Does the fact that the company in questions is a sleazeball company have any bearing on the issue? o If the rumours are true about Randy being "sacificed' (sp) are true did AT&T overreact? dennis (Dennis Rears -> moderator of telecom-priv) P.S. God do I hate 2400 baud!!!! [Moderator's Note: About 30 messages in the queue here as of Saturday night were moved over to Randy in bulk; he will be sorting things out and running them starting probably Monday. The backlog here *even with those messages moved out* is still at an all time high. There have been numerous software problems again in the past few days. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Robert Jacobson Subject: Best Telco PR Video ... and Guess Who Made It Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle Date: Sun, 12 May 1991 03:07:35 GMT Recently I had occasion to speak at the ComForum sponsored by the National Engineering Consortium. The NEC, headquartered in Chicago, is a sort of unofficial think tank for the telecommnications industry. During this event, a composite video was shown, to illustrate the many new services being created by the telephone companies. (The tape, by the way, is available from the NEC, under terms I do not know.) On the tape there was the obligatory wallscreen monitor (a sort of giantized version of the Knowledge Navigator), interminably dull documentaries on voice-actuated this and that being developed in laboratories, and a couple of dazzling but (so far as I could tell) experiments being carried out at various universities in the video field. What really caught my eye was a 12 minute human interest story, set in the year 2010 AD, about the collaborative design of a toy rabbit. Oh, so trivial, you say. But the film actually became more complex. The apparently Japanese designer had a Caucasian wife and a Eurasion daughter; the yuppie toy company executives, supposedly (one thinks) in Los Angeles, are eventually joined by their Asian boss. So where is everyone? The point sinks in pretty quickly: in the telecommunications world of the future, at least on this video, location and nationality are less and less relevant. By the way, the designer's daughter, at home while she recuperates from a cold, solves the design problem stumping development of the multimillion dollary cuddly. Happy Endings all around. Simply the best -- and most human -- promotional tape ever made by a telco. So are you surprised to learn it was produced by NTT, the Japanese telephone company? Not me. Bob Jacobson ------------------------------ From: Andy Oakland Subject: Re: You're All A Bunch of Terrorists Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Date: Thu, 9 May 91 12:45:52 GMT In article mitel!Software!grayt@uunet. uu.net (Tom Gray) writes: > In article phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. > Philip Miller) writes: >> It is the sense of Congress that providers of electronic >> communications services and manufacturers of electronic communications >> service equipment shall ensure that communications systems permit the >> government to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and other >> communications when appropriately authorized by law. > All this really states is that the government should have the right to > wire tap if it gets a search warrant. I don't see anything draconian > about this. > You may also note that this text does NOT specicifically refer to >encryption. Actually, this "sense of Congress" resolution has been causing us here at MIT Project Athena great distress, because it effectively bans certain types of encryption. We're working on "privacy enhanced email," which is email guaranteed to be unreadable by anyone except the person to whom it was directed. Thanks to public and private key encryption, even the system operator can't read these messages. But since the resolution demands that the "plain text" of all messages must be available to the government, this privacy enhanced mail effectively becomes illegal! Andy Oakland Project Athena Advanced Development Group sao@athena.mit.edu ------------------------------ From: "Michael H. Riddle" Subject: Re: You're All A Bunch of Terrorists Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln Date: Thu, 9 May 1991 13:32:22 GMT In Tom Gray writes: >> It is the sense of Congress that providers of electronic >> communications services and manufacturers of electronic communications >> service equipment shall ensure that communications systems permit the >> government to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and other >> communications when appropriately authorized by law. This is probably one of those bills where a lot of concerned people will disagree on the effect, but I for one disagree with you. Perhapas my disagreement is founded on over twenty years' experience in military communications, which is admittedly a specialized subset of the profession. Anyway, the phrase "plain text" has a rather particular meaning. I've /never/ heard it used except to differentiate from cipher text. ( I use "cipher" in a general sense, to include codes, although technically they are different.) Part of the reason for concern is that this section appears in the middle of a bill (238Kbytes on my disk) that addresses: (quote) S. 266 1991 S. 266 SYNOPSIS: A BILL To prevent and punish domestic and international terrorist acts, and for other purposes. (unquote) Additionally, substantially the same language: (quote) 1991 S. 618 MARCH 15, 1991 -- VERSION: 1 PART II-ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS SEC. 545. COOPERATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROVIDERS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT. It is the sense of Congress that providers of electronic communications services and manufacturers of electronic communications service equipment shall ensure that communications systems permit the government to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and other communications when appropriately authorized by law. (unquote) appears in an even longer bill, S. 618 (238Kbytes) dealing with: (quote) S. 618 1991 S. 618 SYNOPSIS: A BILL To control and reduce violent crime. (unquote) Perhaps its the conspiracy theorists at work, but many of us see this "sense of the Congress" as granting a "hunting license" to NSA. Perhaps you remember the discussion (continuing even today in sci.crypt and elsewhere) whether the NSA designed the DES so it could be broken. Given their ability to place Secrecy Orders on cryptographic devices, those that would not trust some government agencies find it easy to believe the allegation that Biden and Deconcini mean exactly what they say -- they want government agencies to break any cipher text. For example, while I haven't heard of it, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that some drug operations used digital voice encrypted radios in their operations. They are well-enough organized in other aspects of their business. The problem is that secrets can't be held forever, and if there is a way to break it, then the "enemies" of legitimate users of cryptography are less secure. Trade secrets and industrial espionage aren't exactly rare terms these days. Some people just feel that no one has a reason to listen in on their calls for any reason. When ISDN comes a little more into service, digitial encryption will become (I think) affordable for the masses. The RSA patent expires in a few years, and for text it's fairly workable. Finally, as a legal thought, if a court ordered a wire tap, the agencies could recover the ciphertext, and if evidence were sufficient, I'm sure they could then order production of the keys. (I know this is less workable in practice, since destruction of superseded keys should be a priority.) Anyway, whether or not the bills get enacted, there /is/ sufficient reason to become concerned. <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> riddle@hoss.unl.edu | University of Nebraska ivgate!inns!postmaster@uunet.uu.net | College of Law mike.riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org | Lincoln, Nebraska, USA ------------------------------ From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Subject: Re: You're All A Bunch of Terrorists Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA Date: Thu, 9 May 1991 17:21:15 GMT In article phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) writes: -> (A proposed Senate resolution:) [Moderator's Note: Text omitted here. See prior messages. PAT] In article Tom Gray writes: > All this really states is that the government should have the right to > wire tap if it gets a search warrant. I don't see anything draconian > about this. > You may also note that this text does NOT specicifically refer to > encryption. On the contrary, the phrase "plain text contents" specifically refer to the proposal that encryption providers should (must?) provide a back door through which the encryption can be compromised. The interesting (to me) speculation is how the timing and content of this proposal relate to Motorola's proposal to sell STU-3 equipped telephones to the general public so that they can carry on conversations privately over cellular phones. [the STU-3 is a DES encryption digatal voice unit]. It is known that certain Federal law enforcement agencies are very unhappy over that proposal. (Which leads into the Computers, Freedom and Privacy thread ...) Why should there be a PRESUMPTION that electronic communication is NOT subject to privacy when such things as the US Mail are specifically private by law. [There's a mailgroup for privacy issues, right? how much traffic does it get? I might subscribe if it doesn't take all day to read ...] Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) [Moderator's Note: Yes, there is such a list. See the first message in this issue. Write to 'telecom-priv-request@pica.army.mil'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bud Couch Subject: Re: You're All a Bunch of Terrorists Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Thu, 9 May 1991 15:48:17 GMT In article phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) writes: [Moderator's Note: Text omitted. See earlier messages this issue. PAT] -------------- > You might consider writing your Senator and/or Representative and > expressing your opinion on this piece of, uh, legislation. The U.S. Congress is just now catching up to the third world on this one. Although most people see this as a requirement that any encrypting method used be "breakable" by NSC, it also seems to say that telecom switching equipment should allow easy access (read: wiretapping) by government officials. I have seen a number of RFP's for switching equipment issued by Taiwan, Malaysia, and Indonesia (and I have heard that other countries RFP's are similar) which require the ability to remotely monitor *any* call at any time. Software was also *required* that allowed this remote site to scan the call record database. You don't have a problem with this, do you? After all, an honest person has noting to hide. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew... standard BS applies ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 91 12:28:44 PDT From: "John R. Covert 10-May-1991 1502" Subject: RE: Calling 905 from 416 Area > Amusingly, when I dial 1+905+7D from here (416) I get routed to a > message from 619 saying that the dialing procedure for Mexico has > changed - use 011+52+, in English and Spanish. Somehow you'd think a > switch in what will be the new 905 would be the first to be updated! Something is wrong here. When I dial 1+905 from a REAL 416 phone, I immediately get the recording "We're sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialled." Right after the 1-905. No more digits required. And this has always been the case, even before 905 and 706 were taken out of service. The old 905 and 706 area codes NEVER worked from Canada; they were special area codes that worked from the U.S. only. I suspect that Tony is calling from a PBX with some sort of smart routing. Apparently his PBX has some lines to some point in the U.S., which it uses for calls to non-Canadian area codes. john ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 91 15:58:49 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Calling 905 from 416 Area OK, I have revised the bottom of my area-code-history file to read: On February 1, 1991, area codes 706 and 905 (used in the U.S. for calling parts of Mexico) were discontinued. Country code 52 was to be used in their place. This made 706 and 905 available for use elsewhere. ------------------------------ From: John Nagle Subject: Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN Date: 9 May 91 07:09:07 GMT csense!bote@uunet.uu.net (John Boteler) writes: > Unless the power fails at your location. Then, no more ISDN. > OOPS! No, ISDN sets can be powered from the phone line. The power situation is ingenious. Normally, you can draw (I think) 400ma off-hook from an ISDN line. This should be enough for a reasonable phone, and maybe a digital answering machine as well. If the CO has a power problem (maybe when commercial power is out) the DC polarity of the line is reversed, and you can then draw only some lesser amount of power. Maybe your dial light will go out. But the phone should still work. Now, which ISDN phones properly comply with the spec? John Nagle ------------------------------ From: John McHarry Subject: Re: Touch-Tone vs. Rotary - A Frustrating Experience Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford MA Date: 9 May 91 11:54:35 GMT "Derek E. Terveer" writes: > I agree. For my data line, I specifically ordered it with just pulse > and not tone because I didn't want to pay the extra few bucks a month > The only potential disadvantage that I see is if I want my Unix box to > call long distance and use some sort of calling card code number or > something like that that requires touch-tone. Haven't run into that Most autodial modems, eg. Hayes compatible, can be set to switch to tone for the second part of the sequence. I used to do that quite often. I have one phone that switches to tone for the remainder of the current call only when you key in # with the switch set to dial pulse, cute. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #349 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14444; 12 May 91 4:17 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04905; 12 May 91 2:51 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09501; 12 May 91 1:44 CDT Date: Sun, 12 May 91 1:02:06 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #350 BCC: Message-ID: <9105120102.ab10432@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 12 May 91 01:01:46 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 350 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [S. H. Schwartz] Re: 50K Counts of Wire Fraud [Ed Greenberg] Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Weaver Hickerson] Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Charles Bryant] 1-900-SPACE-SCAM Case Settled [Ed Hopper] Omaha Utility Victim of Phone Fraud [Jack Winslade] Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer [David Neal] Re: Higdon Hurt in Motorcyle Accident [Jeff Sicherman] Re: Higdon Hurt in Motorcyle Accident [Jonathan White] Re: Why the Bong? [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. H. Schwartz" Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud Organization: Expert Systems Lab., NYNEX Sci. and Tech., White Plains NY Date: Wed, 8 May 91 16:59:30 GMT > I see no lies and no coercion. The people who were charged got what > they paid for, a $55 audiotex message. Is there anybody in Manhattan > who can afford a pager who doesn't know that 540 numbers are toll > calls? If there are two thousand yuppie scum who are stupid enough to > return a page to a toll number, and they do this for no reason other > than that they were asked to, how can it possibly be illegal or even > unethical? Slow down, hotshot. I didn't know that 540 = toll until an operator told me. In fact, up to a few years ago, 540 was the exchange for automated ringback. And I am most certainly -not- a yuppie, not to mention a "yuppie scum," as any of my colleagues can tell you. :-))) I don't live in Manhattan, and I don't have a pager, but if someone left an apparently local number on my ans machine, I wouldn't think twice about calling back. I won't speculate about the legality of this event, as my employer has a particular interest in telephony, :-) but I hope this guy gets what he deserves. S. H. Schwartz schwartz@nynexst.com Expert Systems Laboratory 914-683-2960 NYNEX Science and Technology Center White Plains, NY 10604 [Moderator's Note: What the guy did was certainly not very nice, but I cannot really see the difference between what he did and someone who calls a large number of people at random with a recorded announcement saying to call a 900 number, then quickly glossing over the cost of the call (to the 900 line). Surely with the recorded voice calls urging one to call a 900 number there will be children who call without permission and people who still are not aware of the cost. If the folks who urge you to call a 900 number don't get prosecuted, then neither should the joker who paged a bunch of people to call his 540 number. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Date: Thu, 9 May 91 06:54 PDT Subject: re: 50K Counts of Wire Fraud > Quite correct. Actually most of the Morristown, NJ 540 numbers belong > to MORRISTOWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, so the scam with beepers was even > more pointed. Many of the beeper-holding people could well have been > MD's "tricked" into calling in for an emergency. The joke's really a > lulu if you begin to think of it like that. I work in a group of 40 pager equipped folks. We range from telecom literate folks who maintain the Wide Area Dialup and PBX, to temps who move machines and plug in cables. We have people who don't understand AOS's, people who don't understand long distance carriers, even people who use (gasp) COCOT's! We work in Santa Clara, in the 408 area (please make a note of it.) One thing we all DO know, is that up about half way through Sunnyvale is an imaginary line separating 408 from 415. If we get a page that says 764- 5003, chances are we'd realize that it's in 408. After all, we work there. We recognize we're being paged from work. I'd imagine it's easier than that when there's a river -- an actual body of water -- that you have to pay a buck or two to get over (or under, for that matter) -- in the way. If I were in NYC, and were paged to my employer, the hospital in New Jersey, my first reaction would be "Oh damn, I have to make a long distance call to find out what they want now." Nonetheless, I want to disagree with the poster who said that the callers who answered their pagers got what they deserve. They _are_ innocent victims by definition, since they didn't know that the call was going to be expensive. I hope they make an example of the perp. It was de---thhhh---picable. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud Organization: Holos Software, Inc., Atlanta, GA Date: 9 May 91 14:38:09 EDT (Thu) From: Weaver Hickerson In article 76012.300@compuserve.com (76012,300 Brad Hicks) writes: > Is it my imagination, or is wire fraud what the Secret Service > charges you with if they don't like you but can't think of anything > else? Is it my imagination, or is wire fraud what the SS charges you with when you have committed wire fraud? (Description of guy speed dialing exchanges to leave messages on pagers.) > Note that according to Eric Arnum, in this case an "entrepreneur" has > "victims". Entrepreneurs don't have victims, they have customers or > clients. Only criminals have victims. I'd say they were definitely victims, of a lowlife criminal. > The only other place I've seen this particular usage was from a > Communist Party member complaining about the black market in Moscow. > He meant the same thing, too: people paying fair market price for a > good or a service they received. > I see no lies and no coercion. The people who were charged got what > they paid for, a $55 audiotex message. Is there anybody in Manhattan > who can afford a pager who doesn't know that 540 numbers are toll > calls? If there are two thousand yuppie scum who are stupid enough to > return a page to a toll number, and they do this for no reason other > than that they were asked to, how can it possibly be illegal or even > unethical? Brad, this is the most ignorant thing I have ever seen. "Yuppie Scum" as you call them, if having a pager is the data point, might be an ER doctor or nurse, a plumber, a janitor, HONEST WORKING PEOPLE. Some people have a pager so the wife can call them to order Haagen Daas on the way home. Some pagers allow you to dial the last paged number by pressing a button on the pager, without ever looking at the number. The "entreprenuer", in my opinion, is the scum in this picture. And you sir, are running close second. Next time you're in the emergency room and your doctor is paged, imagine if he suddenly stops to think ... "Is that a toll call, or not. Hmmmm??". Nah, couldn't happen as long as your doctor is a "yuppie scum". Weaver Hickerson Voice (404) 496-1358 : ..!edu!gatech!holos0!wdh ------------------------------ From: Charles Bryant Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud Organization: Datacode Communications Ltd, Dublin, Ireland Date: Thu, 9 May 91 09:24:15 GMT In article kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co. jp!trebor@uunet.uu.net (Robert J Woodhead) writes: > This swine was using the telephone to blatantly defraud people in a > callous and totally inexcusable way, and I hope he gets a day in jail > on each of the 50,000 counts, served CONSECUTIVELY. I'll admit, he > was an ingenious swine, but that's beside the point. Perhaps we need a sense of proportion. That's 136 years. I don't see how he could be given a more severe sentence. That would mean that you consider it as bad as if he had murdered all of the people he defrauded. Note that it was inevitable that he would be caught so there is no need for a huge penalty to serve as a deterrent to others. A fine should be perfectly adequate. Charles Bryant (ch@dce.ie) ------------------------------ From: ehopper@attmail.com Date: Fri May 10 15:52:35 CDT 1991 Subject: 1-900-SPACE-SCAM Case Settled KTRH Radio in Houston reports that a deal will be cut today between the operators of the "win-a-ride-on-a-Soviet-Spacecraft" 900 number contest and the Harris County District Attorney. The deal drops criminal charges in return for the promise not to conduct such a contest again and to refund money to all who participated in the previous contest. In addition, any money not claimed by the public by August will be split between the Texas Attorney Generals office and the Harris County DAs Office as illegal gambling proceeds. Ed Hopper ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 May 91 22:12:31 CST From: Jack Winslade Subject: Omaha Utility Victim of Phone Fraud Reply-to: ivgate!drbbs!jsw@uunet.uu.net Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 From the front page of the evening {Omaha World-Herald}, May 8, 1991 Long Distance Scam OPPD LEFT HOLDING BILL FOR THOUSANDS OF CALLS By James Allen Flannery, World-Herald Staff Writer Thousands of telephone calls -- including a substantial number to foreign countries -- were illegally charged last month to an 800 number assigned to the Omaha Public Power District. The FBI, which is investigating the calls, said a number of other businesses -- particularly on the East Coast -- are similarly being victimized. "Because telephone technology is changing, the ways people accomplish fraud are changing," said a spokesman for US West in Omaha. People familiar with the phone scam said callers gain access to elaborate voice mail systems, punch in certain phone extensions and receive access to open lines that allow them to dial anywhere in the world at the victim company's expense. An FBI spokesman said ferreting out the abusers would be difficult. "There's not much domestic law enforcement authorities can do unless the company that provides the service and the victim company can identify the subject placing the call." OPPD officials said they think they have taken corrective action. They estimated that the utility has been charged "tens of thousands of dollars" for fraudulent calls. An exact accounting was being prepared Wednesday. "We discovered late last week that there was an excessive number of international long distance calls being billed to our account by people who had accessed our computer system," OPPD President Fred Petersen said. "Bizarre things have happened with our telephone system," he said. Somebody has figured out a way to access our system. We're working out a way with US West, AT&T, and the FBI to stop it completely." BUSY WEEKEND About 1000 telephone calls were placed Saturday and another 1000 Sunday through OPPD's 800 number. That is about 20 times the normal weekend volume. OPPD officials declined to disclose the destination of the calls. Persons familiar with the scam said a number of calls were to the Dominican Republic. Communications workers for the utility spotted the fraud last week when OPPD received its monthly telephone bills. OPPD's security force was alerted. Then the FBI and the toll fraud division of US West in Denver were contacted. Petersen said OPPD immediately reduced the number of lines on which 800 calls can be placed. Normally, he said, there are 10 such lines. But some of the lines remained open over the weekend so investigators could monitor the calls and try to determine where they were coming from. EAST, WEST COAST LINES People familiar with the probe said the calls appeared to be coming from telephones on the East Coast and West Coast. OPPD is basing its estimates of the extent of the fraud on the number of apparently illegal calls in the first few days of April. Calls made then showed up in the utility's last telephone bill. "Outside callers were able to access by calling our long-distance number, or 800 number, and getting an outgoing line," OPPD spokesman Gary Williams said. He said the 800 number was established about three years ago to provide energy assistance information to OPPD customers in 13 Nebraska counties. Williams said OPPD has monitored calls and is taking action "to protect the system." He declined to be specific. Where did the calls originate ? "WE're playing close to the vest on that, Williams said. UNDER REVIEW He said there was nothing to indicate that OPPD employees placed the calls. "It is under review how we will pay for it," Williams said. "I don't think we're embarrassed by it," he said. "We're angry about it as we would be with any improper use of our facilities. From what I hear, we're not the only outfit it's happened to." ------------- Good Day! JSW ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 91 15:51 CDT From: David Neal Subject: Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer In this month's SouthWestern Bell Bill, there is note explaining that the PUC has ruled that 976/900 calls must be blockable for free on a one time per line basis. The page specifically states you can only turn blocking on or off for both 976 and 900 calls. Subsequent requests for changes in service are billable, but no mention of cost was made. A pre-paid postage ballot is also enclosed for you to check and return should you want to change your current service, ie, to go from non-blocking (the default for 99% of the world, no doubt) to blocking. All in all pretty nice, but it took a PUC ruling :-). David Neal - Unix Contractor at large -- dan@chemsh.uucp ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 91 00:01:44 -0700 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: Higdon Hurt in Motorcyle Accident Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > I am sorry to report that our friend John Higdon was hurt in an > accident involving his motorcycle a few days ago, and had to be placed > in the hospital. He was wearing his helmet, so the accident was not as > bad as it might have been. Did anyone get the license number of the Pac*Bell truck that hit him ? :-) > He was released from the hospital Thursday, and is resting at home. We > all wish him a speedy recovery. He said he'll be taking a few days off > from writing to the Digest until he has recovered from the accident. Seriously, even when his posts seemed borderline bellanoia, he gives a lively jolt to the sometimes mundane tone of daily postings. I hope the accident hasn't blunted his sword or led him to see the true way of corporate fealty. Get feisty (again) soon. [Moderator's Note: It looks like John is back ... we have a message from him in this issue. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 May 91 12:58:05 -0400 From: jonathan white Subject: Re: Higdon Hurt in Motorcyle Accident Glad to hear that John Higdon will be o.k. Is there a snail mail address for cards? jonathan [Moderator's Note: See his signature in the final message of this issue. But please! Let's not turn this into a Craig Shergold thing with zillions of cards from all over the world. Why not send email instead? He'd probably like it just as well. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 91 22:28 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Why the Bong? Bernard Fran Collins writes: > Is there a good reason why a > credit card call must contain a pause in the dialing in order to wait > for the bong? Why can't the card number be delivered to the LD > carrier without such a pause? This is because only the credit card number is given to the IEC directly by customer. When you dial '0+7D/10D', that part of your input goes to the LEC, not the long distance company. The local LEC switch connects to the appropriate IEC and then transmits that number to them. At that point the customer is connected directly to the IEC, which "Ka-Bongs" signifying a request for the calling card number via DTMF. The pause it necessary to allow the LEC to do the requisite switching and signaling of the IEC. > Is there a shortcut? No, you must wait for the switching to complete between the LEC and IEC before you input the card number. > What does the bong really do anyway? The leading edge of the bong is a '#' DTMF tone pair, the purpose of which is to disable any DTMF-Pulse converters that may be used by the LEC to complete the call so that they do not interfere with your credit card key-in. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #350 ******************************