Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15841; 20 Jul 91 6:02 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32202; 20 Jul 91 4:25 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16633; 20 Jul 91 3:20 CDT Date: Sat, 20 Jul 91 3:04:37 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #551 BCC: Message-ID: <9107200304.ab11650@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 20 Jul 91 03:04:31 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 551 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Getting Off a Party Line [B.J. Herbison] Re: Getting Off a Party Line [Mark Terrible] Re: Information Wanted on Portable Faxes and Fax Boards [Rick Farris] Re: More Automated Paging [Mike Molleck] Re: PacTel Information Wanted [Scott Hinckley] Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals [Dave Mausner] Re: RJ11, 12,13 [Stephen Tell] Re: Serious RFI Problem - The Solution [Dale Gass] Re: Serious RFI Problem [Jonathan Mark] Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [Bob Frankston] Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z [Scott Hinckley] Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z [Steve Thornton] Anyone Know Mr. ZZYZZYXY? [Rick Broadhead] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 Jul 91 14:11:57 PDT From: "B.J. 18-Jul-1991 1708" Subject: Re: Getting Off a Party Line DOUG@ysub.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell) writes: > D & ML were told that they couldn't switch from a two-party line to a > private line unless the other party on the line agrees. The other > party doesn't want to, so they feel 'stuck'. > Any advice (short of offering to pay the other party's connection > charge or praying that party lines be eliminated?) If they order a second line, will that be a party line as well? If not, order a second line and, once it works, cancel the first line. The drawback of this is changing your phone number. B.J. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jul 91 01:11:31 -0400 From: mole-end!mat@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Getting Off a Party Line > They can't make him keep the telephone service. Can't he just cancel, > and then request a new single-party line as new service? Or get an `extra' ordinary line, but continue to eavesdrop (NOT talk) on the party line ... which should cure the neighbors. (This man's opinions are his own.) From mole-end Mark Terribile ------------------------------ From: Rick Farris Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Portable Faxes and Fax Boards Organization: RF Engineering, Del Mar, California Date: Fri, 19 Jul 91 18:00:30 GMT In article zukicn@wnre.aecl.ca (Nermin Zukic) writes: > In any case, I am searching for information on personal/home > officce/portable faxes and fax boards, pros and cons for each - > preferrably from experience. The August {Unixworld} (just now appearing on the newsstands) has a roundup review of fax products. It doesn't answer all the questions you asked, but it does hit some of them. Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 rfarris@rfengr.com ...!ucsd!serene!rfarris serenity bbs 259-7757 ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jul 91 16:02:33 EDT From: Mike Molleck <76376.1274@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: More Automated Paging A while back, there was a discussion of using modems to dial out to paging services. I've written my own LAN monitoring software for MasterCard, and I'm trying to get it to page me when something needs attention; can you all stand a few more questions on this subject? I remembered reading in TELECOM Digest that many paging services offer a dial-in port specifically for modems, so I called CyberTel Paging and (after a little run-around, this isn't the kind of call they're used to receiving) spoke at length with an engineer there. Apparently this is more complicated than it was made to sound here. Rather than having a prompt-and-response system, CyberTel depends on the remote system building a text file according to something called the "IXO protocol" and sending that when it dials in. Does anyone have a copy of that protocol spec that they'd be willing to send to jbhicks@mcimail.com, CompuServe [76376,1274], AppleLink B0186, fax 314-275-6228, voice 314-275-3645, or SnailMail to Brad Hicks, MasterCard International, 12115 Lackland Rd., St. Louis, MO 63146? (Please don't recommend anonymous FTP or any other form of Internet file transfer; my only Internet connection is through email services.) Failing that, where would I look for such a thing? The CyberTel tech also tried pushing me towards software or hardware that is specifically designed for alpha-numeric paging ... but admitted that I'd have a nightmarish time trying to control either one from another piece of software. One further note for anybody else who's thinking about doing this: the engineer at CyberTel also insisted before telling me anything that if I'm going to write my own software to the IXO protocol, I coordinate my test with their technicians ... apparently, if you build the packets wrong, it can have a severe impact on the system. J. Brad Hicks Senior Macintosh Specialist MasterCard International ------------------------------ From: Scott Hinckley Subject: Re: PacTel Information Wanted Date: 18 Jul 91 23:33:43 GMT Reply-To: scott@hsvaic.boeing.com In SYSMATT@ukcc.uky.edu (Matt Simpson) writes: > 408-555-1212 got me the reply that there was no PacTel Products in San > Jose. Another try got me a more ambitious operator who checked under > some other location, which I didn't catch when she told it to me, and > found the 957-6300 number. ... > cordless phone, or where I could look for more info? Next time try the 800 directory (1-800-555-1212). PacTel Products - (800)426-2372 VoiceNet:Scott Hinckley | ATTnet:+1 205 461 2073 | Compuserve:70461,1706 Internet:scott@hsvaic.boeing.com | UUCP:...!uw-beaver!bcsaic!hsvaic!scott US snail:110 Pine Ridge Rd / Apt# 608/ Huntsville / AL / 35801 DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1991 11:11:22 CDT From: "Dave Mausner, X4450" Reply-To: dlm@hermes.dlogics.com Subject: Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals > Moderator's Musings: [musings deleted] I doubt, for the moment, that IBT will be required to file because the establishment hates drug dealing in poor neighborhoods and this is easy, clean, and makes good press. As for the other LATA, etc considerations, it's doubtful that local users (other than drug dealers) will be affected. Dave Mausner, Sr Tech Consultant / Datalogics Inc / Chicago IL / 312-266-4450 dlm@hermes.dlogics.com NU TI 74 ------------------------------ From: Stephen Tell Subject: Re: RJ11, 12,13 Date: 19 Jul 91 19:32:51 GMT Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill In article fontaine@sri.ucl.ac.be (Alain Fontaine) writes: > I am trying to make sense of a modem manual wrutten for the US market. > Reference is made to RJ12 and RJ13 jacks, which seems to be > wiring variations on a 'physical RJ11'. Strictly speaking, I believe that "RJ11" means a six-position modular plug with only two pins actually used -- pins three and four for a standard POTS phone line. I'm not sure which is supposed to be Tip and which Ring, and it doesn't much matter since most phones are polarity insensitive anyway. As near as I can tell, the "RJ" designations refer to a combination of a particular physical plug and electrical assignent of the pins. RJ12 adds two more wires in addition to the phone line of RJ11; pins two and five of the six position modular plug are used for the "A" and "A1" signals. "A" and "A1" are for an auxiliary contact closure made by the phone (or modem) when it goes off-hook. It is used to interface a single-line instrument to a "1A2" or equivilent key system so that the indicator lights on multi-line phones light properly when the single-line set or modem is in use. > The (very small) diagram > shows a box labeled 'Line Circuit', whose purpose seems to synthetize > two signals called 'A' and 'A1' from the usual Tip and Ring. I suppose it is possible to do this; probably the device senses loop current in the phone line to activate the contact closure. The prefered way is to use another relay controlled by the modem's microcontroller. You can't just use a double-pole relay to take the modem off hook and close A/A1 because you don't want the A/A1 signal to chatter while pulse dialing. > Any volunteer to elaborate? (I can stand a technical explanation -- > despite the fact that I use a computer, I am still an electrical > engineer > 8-) ....). Thanks. Just last night I modified my Supra modem to support an RJ12 jack so it will light the indicators on the little key system I've put together out of surplus ITT parts. It is a very easy modification to make to any modem using the Intel 89024 chip set; the digital section has an output pin to control the A/A1 relay. The AT&j command then controls whether the A/A1 relay closes when the modem goes off hook. I'll be writing up the modification for the Digest. There are lots of other uses for the A/A1 contact closure besides key system control. Two that come to mind are: (1) setting up a phone-line in use indicator without resorting to the several voltage-sensing circuits recently posted here, very few of which will work properly under all conditions. (2) using that relay to activate another relay that cuts off all of the other phones in the house when the modem is in use. These are both low-tech, simple, reliable solutions to problems that can also be solved in other ways as well. Like the 1A2 key system, they use simple technology, but a lot of copper wire! Steve Tell tell@cs.unc.edu H: +1 919 968 1792 #5L Estes Park apts UNC Chapel Hill Computer Science W: +1 919 962 1845 Carrboro NC 27510 ------------------------------ From: Dale Gass Subject: Re: Serious RFI Problem - The Solution Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Atlantic Canada Branch Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1991 20:34:16 -0300 In article jonathan@cs.pitt.edu (Jonathan Eunice) writes: >> that I'm having a very serious problem of radio interference with my >> telephone service, affecting both voice and data. I'm hoping that some > my solution turned out to be a Radio Shack RFI filter device. Not the > ones designed for phones, which I was talking about, but rather Archer > Snap-On Chokes (cat. no. 273-104, about $8 a pair). They attenuated > the noise down to almost nil. Not being an engineering type, this question may have no validity, but here goes: I have a similar problem, but am curious as to what effect a choke would have on high speed modem throughput, where the modem is squeezing all it can out of the line. While certainly acceptable for voice, would chokes affect the useful throughput of a phone line for modulated data? Or are the frequencies they affect strictly out of the normal range used by modems. (I believe that my particular problem is due to a cheapie phone, since I've tried other phone which work fine, but I am still curious as to whether or not a choke would affect data throughput.) > phones and generic "old, non-electronic" phones were recommended, > while AT&T phones were surprisingly badly panned), finding a local ham > or telecom genius to come rid me of my problem, complaining to telco, (BTW: Our phone company in Nova Scotia, Maritime Tel & Tel, said that their phones have some form of filter built-in to help reduce radio interfere in areas of our city that are prone to it.) Dale Gass Mortice Kern Systems Atlantic Canada Branch Business: dale@east.mks.com Pleasure: dale%mkseast@iisat.uucp ------------------------------ From: jonm@microsoft.UUCP (Jonathan MARK) Subject: Re: Serious RFI Problem Date: 18 Jul 91 16:29:15 GMT Reply-To: jonm@microsoft.UUCP (Jonathan MARK) Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA In article jonathan@cs.pitt.edu (Jonathan Eunice) writes: > I've just moved to a hill upon which a radio transmitter is located... > I can often hear a particular radio station very strongly over the > phone ... Certainly call the FCC -- they will send you a complaint form to fill out. The radio station may be required to take measures to clean up their signal. I get the impression that the FCC is pretty tough about this sort of thing. Jonathan Mark uunet!microsoft!jonm [not speaking for my employer] ------------------------------ From: frankston!Bob_Frankston@world.std.com Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? Date: 19 July 1991 22:19 -0400 The esteemed Moderator sounds like a telephone operator when saying that you cannot place free calls from oversees because you cannot place free calls from overseas. But the question was why, if the caller IS willing to pay, is there no mechanism. Sounds like a great revenue opportunity for a telco. In fact, this is needed domestically when DA gives out an unreachable 800 number. ------------------------------ From: Scott Hinckley Subject: Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z Date: 19 Jul 91 01:58:28 GMT Reply-To: scott@hsvaic.boeing.com In Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com writes: >This year, in San Jose and Santa Clara, "A" is listed as being at: The only 'A' in the Huntsville telephone directory is: A TO Fraternity I assume the ATOs listed it that way on purpose to move it from AT to A. VoiceNet:Scott Hinckley | ATTnet:+1 205 461 2073 | Compuserve:70461,1706 Internet:scott@hsvaic.boeing.com | UUCP:...!uw-beaver!bcsaic!hsvaic!scott US snail:110 Pine Ridge Rd / Apt# 608/ Huntsville / AL / 35801 DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 91 16:21:15 EST From: Steve Thornton Subject: Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z OK, I can play this game too. The '91 Boston directory, including Brookline, Cambridge, and Somerville, starts off with 16 entries under "A", beginning with A Beacon Bos........... A Boston MA............ A 437 Boyl Bos......... A 419 Boylston Bos..... A Cambridge MA......... which suggests that they sort by the second _word_ first (Beacon is a street, Boston is a city, Boylston is a street) and then the number, even if the number comes first, which is wierd. The last entry is Zzyzzy Aaron, which beats Chicago and San Jose, at least. Steve Thornton / Harvard University Library / +1 617 495 3724 netwrk@harvarda.bitnet / netwrk@harvarda.harvard.edu [Moderator's Amusement: Not so! 'Beacon' with a lack of street number in Boston sorts before 'Boston' with a lack of street name. Furthermore, 'Boyl' as a short form of Boylston sorts before 'Boylston' as the full form of the street name. Here, there was just some arbitrary decision by a data entry clerk somewhere. Had the first 'Boyl' been expanded to its full spelling, then it (being an identical name on an identical street) would have sorted *after* the 419 entry. In the process of sorting, 'Boyl' is not the same as 'Boylston', which would come later. And 'Cambridge' with a lack of street name sorts after 'Boston' with a lack of street name and both 'Boyl' and 'Boylston'. The sorting always goes as shown below and continues to the point where something is not identical to other similar entries: last/first/middle/street name/number on street/phone number PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 91 20:32:50 EDT From: Rick Broadhead Subject: Anyone Know Mr. ZZYZZYXY? In TELECOM Digest #543, the Moderator writes: > And continuing to hold last place, as he has for at least thirty years > is "Zzyzx, Isadore 1706 S. Halsted, 942-1695", who the directory notes > is a purveyor of general merchandise. I own and treasure a copy of Dmitri Borgmann's {Language on Vacation} [Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965]. Mr. Borgmann, who was an authority on the oddities and curiosities of the English language, noted the following in his chapter on letters and letter patterns: "Ripley, of "Believe It Or Not" fame, once located the surname ZZYZZ in Los Angeles. We regarded this palindrome as most noteworthy until we discovered that the current (1964-65) Chicago telephone directory lists the surname ZZYZZYXY. Appropriately, the first name of the individual listed is ZYZZY!" I believe that tops the Moderator's "Mr. Zzyzx." Pat, are you sure Isadore Zzyzx has held the record for the last thirty years? Rick Broadhead ysar1111@VM1.YorkU.CA [Moderator's Note: I honestly can't remember if he has been *last* all those years -- he certainly has otherwise been next to last. :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #551 ******************************  ISSUES 552 - 560 ARRIVED IN MIXED UP ORDER. ALL ARE PRESENT BELOW.  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11462; 21 Jul 91 5:07 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29542; 21 Jul 91 3:35 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04847; 21 Jul 91 2:28 CDT Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 2:13:37 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #552 BCC: Message-ID: <9107210213.ab07029@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 21 Jul 91 02:13:15 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 552 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Lightning Protection for Modems [Jess Anderson] Re: Lightning Protection for Modems [Chris Boaro] Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [Stuart Lynne] Re: Serious RFI Problem [Doctor Math] Re: The Big Losers [Doctor Math] Re: B.C., Canada - Long Distance Telephone Service Choices [H. Silbiger] Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals [Brian Cuthie] Re: More Automated Paging [Bob Frankston] Re: Serious RFI Problem [Andrew Payne] Re: Schematic for Model 500 Phone [Bob Hale] Statistics on Bell's Breakup [Harper's Magazine via root@monty.cc.nd.edu] How Can I Obtain Cell Site Maps? [Phydeaux] Simple Computer / Phone Link Wanted [Jerry Leichter] ONA and Europe's Open Service Architecture [Jose Diaz-Gonzalez] No More 301-826 Accident Exchange? [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jess Anderson Subject: Re: Lightning Protection for Modems Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison Date: Sat, 20 Jul 91 09:22:25 GMT In article samsung!athenanet.com! kabra437@uunet.uu.net (Ken Abrams) writes: > From a very narrow, purist point of view, however, there really is no > such thing as lightning "protection". The suggestions Barton made are > really good advice for spikes and surges induced by all kinds of > things (lightning included) but NOTHING will save equipment connected > to the outside wires when those wires take a direct hit within a > couple of hundred yards of your building (pure dumb luck might help in > some cases). One pure dumb luck story, coming up. My phone stopped working one night about a month ago after a particularly loud crack of thunder. The phone people were out the next day, and sure enough there was a dead short on my wire, one pole over from the one in the corner of my back yard, where I'm attached. That's about 130 feet from my demark. Like a fool, I stayed online when this storm rolled up, though I did reach over and switch my Unix box off, in other words, not much of a step. What the lineman found was that lightning had struck that pole, and the only damage done to the cable was to fuse one pair of wires: mine. Upon fixing that, he immediately discovered yet another dead short on my pair, one more pole in the direction away from my house. The wire was melted and fused at that spot too. He figured the lightning bolt had struck one pole (he thought it was the nearer one), traveled along the wire and exited at the next pole. So I got away with it that time. I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth, however, and am definitely shopping for high-grade protection for both power and communications lines. On this occasion, I'm just very glad that Thor decided to take the road less traveled than the one to my house. Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson NeXTmail w/attachments: anderson@yak.macc.wisc.edu Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888 ------------------------------ From: Chris Boaro Subject: Re: Lightning Protection for Modems Organization: SCS/Compute, Inc. Date: Fri, 19 Jul 91 19:18:10 GMT In linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) writes: > In article Lance Moxley (Lance-Moxley@ > uiuc.edu) writes: >> The other night I lost my third modem in three years due to an >> electrical storm. ... My question is, what are some ways to >> avoid this problem in the future? Ha! You think that's bad ... we lost 12 out of 13 US Robitics HSTs in a single electrical storm a few weeks back! It was interesting that only the HSTs got fried, even tho we have 60 or so generic 2400 baud modems. It was also obvious that the surge came from the phone lines, since two of the modems weren't even plugged into the power, just the phone!! It was especially amusing when we called the phone company to complain, and they STILL tried to tell us it was a power problem. > I got the little box for about $12.95 from a company called Direct > Micro (I think; don't have the info here at hand). If anyone wants > more info, e-mail me. Could you post Direct Micro's phone number if you have it? (I do not yet have a reliable e-mail address). We are probably going to buy a large box from "Black Box" that can provide protection for about 50 lines. It's a patch board kinda thing and pretty pricey at $650. Chris ------------------------------ From: Stuart Lynne Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? Organization: Wimsey Associates Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1991 07:51:58 GMT In article TELECOM Moderator notes: > are only for use within certain states or other specific regions of > the USA. The companies which subscribe to 800 service can elect > *where* they are willing to receive calls from. And by definition, 800 > service is a *domestic* offering within the USA for USA callers. There > is no tariff which provides for calling an 800 number from outside the > USA. It is possible to make calls which you pay for to a gateway in > the USA which in turn will extend the call to an 800 number. But the > 800 subscriber does not authorize international toll charges, which is > why you are blocked from calling him by that method. PAT] Hmmm ... when did Canada join the US :-) As of the early 1980's 800 service was extended across the US Canada border. Subject to the same economic considerations of course. It is more expensive than just offerring within the US (or within Canada) so not that many companies offer. It is one of the first things I look for when deciding if I want to do business with a US supplier. Does their 800 number work in Canada? For example AT&T has an 800 number for ordering books, it is a different number up here, but does (the last time I tried it) terminate down in the US. The operator that answered my call did not know I was calling from Canada. SCO (Santa Cruz Operation) has one common 800 number that works in both the US and Canada for sales. Stuart Lynne Computer Signal Corporation, Canada ...!van-bc!sl 604-937-7785 604-937-7718(fax) sl@wimsey.bc.ca ------------------------------ From: Doctor Math Subject: Re: Serious RFI Problem Date: Fri, 19 Jul 91 00:40:49 EST Organization: Department of Redundancy Department john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > curiosity, I took the field intensity meter and measured the signal at > the front door of the office building. It read 2.5 VOLTS. (AM signals Reminds me of an old blurb (seventies?) in Popular Electronics about a guy who lived next to a radio tower where the signals were so strong that they would excite flourescent tubes. When asked what he did about it to sleep at night, he replied, "Oh, I just stick them in the closet, man.". ------------------------------ From: Doctor Math Subject: Re: The Big Losers Date: Fri, 19 Jul 91 00:21:06 EST Organization: Department of Redundancy Department john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Allowing the greedy RBOCs the ability to manufacture equipment is bad > enough, but allowing them to sell it to themselves will destroy any > benefits that may have come out of the MFJ. Judge Greene is dead! Long live Judge Greene! Uh, yeah. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jul 91 08:17:19 EDT From: Herman R Silbiger Subject: Re: B.C., Canada - Long Distance Telephone Service Choices Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article , patth@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Patt Bromberger) writes: > Our current service is provided by AT&T and when I spoke to customer > service about the equipment we still rent from AT&T the representative > said to just unplug the phone and take it with us :-) > We'd just like to know if there are better choices than AT&T. I think you can keep your AT&T credit card if it is one of the new ones which are not tied to your telephone number. Then you could use it to make your calls to the US. Herman Silbiger ------------------------------ From: Brian Cuthie Subject: Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals Organization: Univ. of Maryland Baltimore County, Academic Computing Services Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1991 13:36:03 GMT > [Moderator's Note: The shopkeeper who does not want someone hanging > around -- drug dealer or otherwise -- need only request that the > person leave the premises, provided his discrimination is lawful; i.e. > drug dealers are not protected by law. PAT] Geesh! Pat, what portion of the world do *you* live in ? If it was this easy for the average shopkeeper, or citizen for that matter, to expell the drug dealers from their premises, do you think that we would have to resort to any of these whacko ideas ? The police are busy enough as it is that they are not going to come running every ten minutes when Norman the shopkeeper calls to complain about the aledged drug dealers hanging around his pay phone. BUT: I think the IBT idea is almost as rediculous. Like many others that have posted here, the plan to limit coin usage is not going to deter the drug dealers at all. It will only make them come up with some other plan. Stealing calling cards is certainly an obvious one. There are many others, I'm sure. ------------------------------ From: frankston!Bob_Frankston@world.std.com Subject: Re: More Automated Paging Date: 20 July 1991 09:45 -0400 IXO protocol? There was a small handheld terminal from the 80's (84?) called the IXO. It had a 16 character display. I wonder if the "IXO" protocol is its legacy. ------------------------------ From: payne@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Andrew Payne) Subject: Re: Serious RFI Problem Organization: Cornell Theory Center Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1991 13:16:33 GMT In article jonm@microsoft.UUCP (Jonathan MARK) writes: >> I've just moved to a hill upon which a radio transmitter is located... >> I can often hear a particular radio station very strongly over the >> phone ... > Certainly call the FCC -- they will send you a complaint form to fill > out. The radio station may be required to take measures to clean up > their signal. I get the impression that the FCC is pretty tough about > this sort of thing. No, no, no! As a first step, do NOT contact the FCC! This is akin to slapping your neighbor with a lawsuit because she's playing her radio too loud. Instead, try to resolve it yourself first (as has been discussed). If that fails, try contacting the radio station: their engineer has probably heard many complaints similar to yours and should have some suggestions. Finally (and ONLY finally), contact the FCC. But you will probably be disappointed: it may take the better part of a year to get a response to your inquiry. And when you do get a response, you may be evn more suprised. For many people in your situation (e.g. "I live next door to a broadcast transmitter"), the FCC often considers the problem yours. Why? Transmitters are rarely at fault (as has been pointed out), especially broadcast transmitters that have been on for years and weathered a storm of complaints already. The problem is most likely in your phone. Consumer electronics often aren't happy in a high-RF environment. Lack of shielding, bypassing, and filtering and you've got a phone that picks up am 870 as well as your pocket radio. Andrew C. Payne, N8KEI UUCP: ...!cornell!batcomputer!payne INTERNET: payne@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu ------------------------------ From: Bob Hale Subject: Re: Schematic For Model 500 Phone Organization: Brooktree Corporation Date: Thu, 18 Jul 91 15:05:07 GMT I've had a number of requests for the schematic of the model 500 telephone. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to respond to some of you because the mailer here won't take a path with an @ in it; I can only mail to bang paths such as uunet!!. The schematic is a hand drawn one; if you are interested then send me an SASE at the address below and I'll return a copy of it. Bob Hale ...!ucsd!btree!hale Brooktree Corporation ...!btree!hale@ucsd.edu 9950 Barnes Canyon Road San Diego, CA 92121 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 91 17:45:27 EST From: Operator Subject: Statistics on Bell's Breakup Item in {Information Week}, reprinted from {Harper's}, July 1991 p.60: After Ma Bell became seven regional holding companies (RHCs) in 1984, customers expected full competition from their local phone carriers. Instead, customers have seen seven regulated phone monopolies and unregulated corporations serving RHC shareholders. Not convinced? While new technology was expected to cut costs, the average local phone bill has risen 56% more than inflation since 1984. However, long distance rates have *dropped* 31% over the same period. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 91 13:50:15 PDT From: Phydeaux Subject: How Can I Obtain Cell Site Maps? I'd like to find out where the cell sites are for Cellular One/Chicago. They refuse to help me with dropped calls except to say "check your antenna, there are lots of cells in your area." ... Does anyone know how to go about this? Besides the dropped calls, I'm also curious about where they placed them. *-=#= 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 91 07:04:40 EDT From: Jerry Leichter Subject: Simple Computer / Phone Link Wanted I'd like to be able to have my system send me Email (at a known, remote location) informing me when someone called and left a message. I could then call in and check the message. There are certainly plenty of fancy PC-based voicemail systems and such like things that could do the trick, but that's a fairly expensive way to go. Can anyone think of a good, quick hack to accomplish this? (Just a simple way to send some information down an RS-232 line when the answering machine has recorded a call would be sufficient.) Not expecting much, but trying to be cheap ... Jerry ------------------------------ From: Jose Diaz-Gonzalez Subject: ONA and Europe's Open Service Architecture Date: 18 Jul 91 15:25:19 GMT Organization: GTE Laboratories Incorporated, Waltham MA Hi there, The subject line says most of it. I am looking for specific documents that detail what COMPUTER III is and what is the expected architecture of ONA. Also, I have read ("A New Network Architecture for ONA and ONP" Salles, J.M., Telecommunications, Vol. 23, No. 7, 1989) that the Europeans are ellaborating a general service model (along the lines of OSI layers/dimensions) that is called the Open Service Architecture. Does anyone have pointers to information on any of these? Cheers, Jose ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 91 9:57:49 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: No More 301-826 Accident Exchange? I just got to a library which had the (June) 1990 and 1991 editions of the Garrett County (Maryland) phone book by C&P. That's the westernmost county in Maryland; I was looking it up because I received an inquiry regarding the absence of 301-826 Accident exchange. The call guide lists the various calling areas, including Accident and Friendsville (the Friendsville exchange is 301-746), which apparently have the same calling area. It's my GUESS that 826 was closed down and its subscribers put on 746, because I am seeing 746 printed for both Accident and Friendsville. [Moderator's Muse: Maybe they misprinted it by accident. :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #552 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15149; 21 Jul 91 7:16 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20454; 21 Jul 91 5:42 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29491; 21 Jul 91 4:36 CDT Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 3:32:20 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #553 BCC: Message-ID: <9107210332.ab24237@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 21 Jul 91 03:31:54 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 553 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Sprint (Finally) Informs its Customers [Mark Miller] Sprint Plus Change Letter [Ken Jongsma] MCI Bill Insert [Sean Williams] Oops ... Not a Telemarketer [Bill Parrish] Long Distance Operator Dialing Techniques [mission!randy@uunet.uu.net] Being Charged by Third Carrier [Walter Morales] LD Carriers: Which is Best and Least Expensive? [jayms@cunyvm.bitnet] Church 900 Hotline Program [Dave Leibold] New FCC Cable Rules - Copy Wanted [Jack Powers] Calling Party Lines / Ringback [mission!randy@uunet.uu.net] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Miller Subject: Sprint (Finally) Informs its Customers Date: Fri, 19 Jul 91 19:11:55 EDT Well, Sprint is finally informing it's customers of it's changes to it's Sprint Plus plan. In the mailbox I just got a letter from the "President, Consumer Services Group", whose full text is attached. The most humorous part is the second paragraph: You are our number one priority. For this reason, when we make changes at Sprint that may affect you, I want to make sure you receive the information quickly and directly. Does anyone out there think that this notice was received "quickly and directly??" Not me. To be fair, I think that Sprint realized their error, perhaps they got a lot of heat, since they are taking a very gratuitous tone in the letter, and accompanying brochures. Also, they included a "no-strings-attached" $5.00 gift certificate! (No need to worry about what to cross out or not to sign it :-)) That will at least appease me for the time being. --- Full text of letter - typos mine - line breaks/formatting Sprint's --- Dear Customer, I'd like to take this opportunity to personally thank you for being a valued Sprint customer. You are our number one priority. For this reason, when we make changes at Sprint that may affect you, I want to make sure you receive the information quickly and directly. We recently restructured our rates for your service, Sprint PLUS(sm). This adjustment includes a modest increase for some customers' rates (an average of less that three percent). It allows us to offer you larger discounts at lower spending levels, providing significant savings. In addition, you pay no minimums and there are no restrictions whatsoever. Best of all, these discounts apply around the clock and around the country for all your direct-dial state-to-state calls. The accompanying brochure and SPRINTLINE(sm) newsletter explain Sprint PLUS in detail and introduce you to the personalized benefits of our new Sprint Priority(sm) Customer Program. Please take a moment to read this information. Let me say in closing that we appreciate your loyalty to Sprint and care about you as a customer. With that in mind, we are enclosing a $5.00 gift certificate. good for free long distance. We look forward to satisfying your long-distance needs with the best quality, service and value in the telecommunications industry. Sincerely, Dave Schmeig President Consumer Services Group ----------------- Mark T. Miller miller@dg-rtp.dg.com uunet!xyzzy!miller ------------------------------ Subject: Sprint Plus Change Letter Date: Sat, 20 Jul 91 13:38:26 EDT From: Ken Jongsma It would appear that Sprint has been getting quite a bit a reaction to their changes to Sprint Plus. Basically, they deleted the provision for billing evening and night calls at the same rate, increased and extended the volume discounts slightly, and effectively raised rates about 3%. Anyway, today I received a form letter from the president of Sprint's Consumer Services Group. He acknowledges the rate change, thanks me for being a customer and included a check good for a $5 credit on my next phone bill. He mentions my affiliation with USAA, so I'm not sure if this letter is going to everyone, or just USAA members. 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: It sounds like there were slightly different versions of the letter (depending on certain special affiliations, etc) all of which said about the same thing. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 91 19:52 GMT From: Sean Williams <0004715238@mcimail.com> Subject: MCI Bill Insert From the latest MCI Bill: Effective August 1, 1991, MCI is making changes which will affect long distance bill. * The per minute rate for MCI Card calls using the 950-1022 access will be reduced by 3.4%, and the 950-1022 access surcharge will increase to $0.75. * Volume Discounts for intrastate Dial 1, Card, and Operator Service calls are being eliminated, and the price of each intrastate call will be rounded down to the nearest cent. * The Around Town feature will be eliminated for intrastate MCI Card calls. * These changes are subject to the approval of the Pennsylvania PUC. ... Just thought you'd like to know! Sean E. Williams | seanwilliams@mcimail.com Spectrum Telecommunications | Have a Nice Day! PO Box 227 | <> Duncannon, PA 17020-0227 | voicemail +1 717 957 8127 ------------------------------ Subject: Oops ... Not a Telemarketer Date: Thu, 18 Jul 91 13:46:21 PDT From: bparrish Yesterday morning, we got a call, asking for my wife or myself by name from "MCI INTERNATIONAL"... saying they had a telegram for us. Well, we have had so many crazy telemarketing calls recently, my wife handed me the phone, and I said in a not-so-pleasant voice "Is this some sort of telemarketing gimmick?". The voice at the other end said "No, it's a telegram, can I read it to you?". I still wasn't convinced, so in a rather sour voice, I said "OK, read it to me"... as I was preparing to read the guy the riot act. Well ... it was a real telegram from a friend in Switzerland saying they were coming to visit. I apologized to the guy, and said I'd had an awful lot of screwy telemarketing calls recently, including some from MCI. He was real nice about the whole thing, considering my prior tone of voice. His comment "yeah, I know ... I always hang up on 'em". Bill Parrish (bparrish@rose.hp.com) HP Roseville CA ------------------------------ From: mission!randy@uunet.uu.net Subject: Long Distance Operator Dialing Techniques Date: Fri Jul 19 14:43:18 1991 I really enjoyed PAT's story about how long distance was done in the old days. It reminded me that I haven't had trouble reaching a long distance number in years, but it used to be fairly common. I'd dial a number and hear something funny (like an odd busy signal). I'd call the operator and explain. With me on the line, she'd try the number (I'd hear the familiar "beepa-boopa-beepa-boppa" signalling) and get the same response. Then she'd ring another operator, who answered with something I forget. My operator would say "Yes, operator, routing for , please." The second operator would reply something like "23+". My operator would then call another operator and give her the number. (I always thought it was funny that the operators addressed each other as "Operator" -- very formal and polite). At this point, I would usually be connected and my operator would stay on the line long enough to verify that I'd gotten through. I assume from PAT's story that my operator was finding out how to call the local operator for where I was calling? What is the "+" all about? [Moderator's Note: She was trying to find out how to call the local (or 'inward') operator in the place you wanted. The route would have been something like this: '213 plus 057 plus 121 for operator, 213 plus 057 plus for number'. I do not remember the exact terminology. The route consisted of the area code, a special three digit number to get into the exchange, and a code to reach the operator there. As often as not, 121 got the operator, and 141 got directory assistance. There were (are) other codes: I think 181 gets the operator who handles toll stations and/or manual ring-down places in that area code, etc. This dialing information for the operator came from the Rate and Route Bureau in Morris, IL, itself something like 815 plus 131 to reach the clerks who looked up the routing, all of which is now computerized and available directly to the operator. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Walter Morales Subject: Being Charged by Third Carrier Organization: Oregon Health Sciences University Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1991 03:53:32 GMT Hi, A while back ago I asked for help to get my money back when I was sure I used my AT&T card and my bill showed another company's charge, about four times what it should have been. After five months, and writing to the FCC, the company finally reimbursed me for the charges. Thanks a lot for the people that helped me. Walter Morales [Moderator's Note: Only five months? Gee, did they give you priority service, or what? You'd have been better off simply not paying in the first place, and notifying your local telco (assuming they handled the billing) why not. Then they (local telco) would have had to carry it in their inter-company chargebacks for five months instead of you messing around with it. I suspect they would have gotten the credit faster anyway. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center Date: Saturday, 20 Jul 1991 17:14:40 EDT From: JAYMS%CUNYVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu Subject: LD Carriers: Which is Best and Least Expensive? OK, this should start some controversy: Which is the best and most inexpensive LD carrier for residence customers? Has anyone actually looked at this for the average customer and calling pattern. What comparisons have you seen on this? Also, which is the cheapest calling card or travel card. [Moderator's Note: This has never been resolved. It is purely an applications thing, based on your personal calling patterns. There is no 'average customer'. We have published chart after chart, and comparison after comparison here. What did we prove? PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Church 900 Hotline Program From: Dave Leibold Date: Sat, 20 Jul 91 17:47:02 EDT Organization: Brave New World BBS, Delray Beach, FL {The Door} magazine (formerly titled {The Wittenburg Door}) is printed by California-based Youth Specialties, and has a regular feature entitled "Loser of the Month", also known as the "Green Weenie". This is awarded to dubious achievements such as the one featured in the May/June, 1991 issue (#117). In that issue, the award went ot a "Church 900 Hotline" program. A memo was addresses to "Church Leaders Looking for Revenue-Generating Opportunities" from one "Betty A. Douglas" representing a company that wasn't specified. One clue was that they gave a demonstration number to call: 1 900 535 %%%% extension 700, presumably on a Sprint 900 number if the 535 prefix is as mentioned in a recent table (this does not necessarily mean that Sprint itself was involved in this promotion, other than possibly providing network to the hotlines). It is unclear as to whether this is a church service organisation or just an opportunistic secular 900 reseller trying to work a market. The idea was that churches could sign up at no cost to them for what seems to be a voice mail 900 number. Each call to this number gets a recorded message that would be updated by the church. Cost to dial this number is $2, $1 of which goes to the church, the other dollar is pocketed by the company handling the promotion. Why have a collection plate with a revenue efficiency of 100% when you can settle for 50% instead?? Some of the bizarre advantages to such a service include (as quoted from the memo): "Sing a hymn and encourage the caller to sing along." "Allows congregants greater contact with the Pastor and church on a 24 hour basis (especially beneficial during times of personal crises, depression, etc)." --- to which {The Door} comments in sarcastic mode: "(Oh, absolutely. A 900 number allows greater contact with the pastor? From a tape recording on a 900 number? ***Especially beneficial during times of personal crises and depression???*** Nothing cheers a person up more than a tape recording of a generic message by a pastor.)" {The Door} announces the award as follows: "To the Church 900 Hotline Program, we would like to reach out and present our toll-free Green Weenie for finding yet another way to make folks believe that people in the Church have their minds permanently off the hook. For further information, dial 1 800 xxxx LOSER" [The 800 number is censored since it actually reaches some collision/ auto wrecking number ... a not-so-good move on the part of {The Door} here...] All in all, a good old answering machine or local access voice mail service would be better choices for such services ... dleibold@attmail.com djcl.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu shark.cs.fau.edu!bnw!djcl [Moderator's Note: In fact it was a church in New York State which first started the 'Dial-A-You Name It' concept back about 1954. Other than recorded weather forecasts, they were first with the concept of subscriber (rather than telco) maintained recorded announcements. For many years, recorded announcements were purely religious in nature. In the late 1960's, others started using this method to deliver information to the public, including Sherman Skolnik's 'news' program on 312-731-1100, which continues today. By the middle 1970's there were all sorts of these things running, always on free lines. Premium charges to 976 started in the late 1970's I think, and many of the non-religious information lines migrated over about that time. An article in TELECOM Digest in 1989 noted the 35th anniversary of recorded announcement programs. PAT] ------------------------------ From: POWERS@ibm.com Subject: New FCC Cable TV Rules - Copy Wanted Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1991 00:00:00 GMT I see from the trade papers that the Federal Communications Commission has made new rules placing some cable systems (based on amount of local competition) back under municipal regulation. I would very much like to get the text of these new rules (ascii or paper) as soon as possible. Any help with that would be very much appreciated. Jack Powers powers@ibm.com phone 408/927-1495 fax 408-927-4001 ------------------------------ From: mission!randy@uunet.uu.net Subject: Calling Party Lines / Ringback Date: Fri Jul 19 14:27:14 1991 Recently, I asked about the easy ringback on my GTE-supplied phone service, and was told it was for party lines (a GTE staple, it seems). Pardon my ignorance, but just how does one call party line subscribers? Does everyone share the same phone number, but with their own number of rings, with the caller having to dial the number, count the rings, hang up, and then call back? Or is it more automatic? Never having experienced party lines, I'm curious. Thanks. [Moderator's Note: In old manual systems, the number was the same and had a letter at the end. Your number was 123-R, another person on the party line was 123-J, and someone else was 123-M. On automatic exchanges, the number was usually the same except for the final digit, so that you had 555-2368, the other guy had 555-2369, etc. Under the manual system, when the operator queried 'number please' you responded by saying, "party line, 123-M'. You had to advise the operator, since otherwise when she took the tip of the cord and 'tested' (something the operator had to do if the switchboard was multipled to several positions) it would naturally be busy and she would respond 'line is engaged' and disconnect. With automated dialing, you dialed a special code to indicate you wished to call someone on the party line. In both cases, after dialing or passing the number you wished to call you would replace the receiver, so the line could be rung. In the manual systems, when the party answered, the operator would advise them to hold for a call. In the automated systems, you were expected to read the phone book and realize that once the ringing had stopped you were to pick up the receiver right away and start talking to get the other person's attention before they hung up. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #553 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17248; 21 Jul 91 8:17 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03847; 21 Jul 91 6:47 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20454; 21 Jul 91 5:42 CDT Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 4:52:50 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #554 BCC: Message-ID: <9107210452.ab18942@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 21 Jul 91 04:52:44 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 554 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Oops ... Not a Telemarketer [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Serious RFI Problem [John Higdon] Re: Serious RFI Problem - The Solution [Patton M. Turner] Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [Al L. Varney] Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [Brendan Jones] Re: New 1991-92 Phone Books Arrived Today [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 4:14:41 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Re: Oops ... Not a Telemarketer In issue 553 of the Digest, Bill Parrish talks about receiving a phone call and assuming incorrectly that a telemarketer was calling. He responded in a suspicious way, expecting that the caller was trying to trick him. Making assumptions like this, and responding rudely to the caller without knowing for certain what the call is about can have serious consequences depending on *who* is calling, and why. Consider a recent experience of mine: In my full time employment, I work for a group of attornies. Actually, the majority of my work is for the chairman of the firm, but that is not too relevant here. I had in my possession an NSF check for about $24,000.00 which a company had tendered to a client of our firm in exchange for merchandise which had been sent COD (Cash on Delivery). No fools, our client had not wanted to extend open account credit to the firm in particular, since they did not feel safe in doing do. The merchandise was delivered, then the check bounced. Prior to advising the client to file suit against the president of that company personally for treble damages (since the law in that state allows for judgment of three times the amount of the worthless utterance, and allows that officers of corporations can sometimes be held personally responsible for bad checks, depending on circumstances), I thought I would call the company and see what was going on. I asked for the president by name, and got his secretary. *She* was not going to put the call through until *she* learned everything about my business. Usually I do not speak with secretaries of presidents, etc. I talk only to the person(s) who can correct whatever complaints I have. I don't go through public relations departments, account payable departments, bookkeepers, etc. "What are you selling?" she demanded to know. "I don't sell anything. I wish to speak to Mr. Jones. Now. He is there, the switchboard told me he was there." "Well, what is this about?" "Frankly madam, it is none of your business. If the president tells me to discuss it and work it out with you I will be doing so." "He is not going to talk to you. He does not want to buy anything, and will only hang the phone up on you." "Is that right? You know madam, you have really lousy telephone habits. A really terrible attitude. Your boss doesn't want to buy anything? Tell him you bought him a lawsuit. Tell him your arrogant and rude way of handling phone calls has caused him to get sued. Have a nice day lady." (I hung up.) A quick check of the corporate records file with the appropriate government authority in that state produced the name of the registered agent, the person authorized and obligated to accept process of service in legal matters. Typically, that person is an attorney, and that was true in this case also. I called him, introduced myself and after detirmining that he did indeed represent the company as their active legal counsel told him the problem at hand, and asked if he could intervene with his client to get the matter resolved. I told him I had been unable to get through to Mr. Jones, because his secretary refuses to put calls through. He said he would look into it for me ... and sure enough, about twenty minutes later, Mr. Jones personally called me. Actually, first his secretary called me, with a 'hold on for Mr. Jones' message. I told her I did not have time to hold on, and hung up! :) Within a minute or two the phone rang again, and Mr. I'm-to-special-to-answer-the-phone- and-risk-that-it-might-be-a-telemarketer was on in person. We chatted awhile and he asked for a couple hours to look into the problem and get a wire transfer off to me to redeem the check. I told him I'd call back later in the afternoon to get the details, and we set a time for our next conversation. When I called back later, the secretary again answered the call. But this time there was no delay in putting the call through; no back-talk from her at all. No surprise to me! So, two lessons here: Be careful who you get rude with on the phone until you know you can afford to be rude with them, and when it is the other way around and you have complaints with a company, don't let an underling put you through your paces. Go right to the person who can change things the way you want them changed. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jul 91 10:00 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Serious RFI Problem jonm@microsoft.UUCP (Jonathan MARK) writes: > Certainly call the FCC -- they will send you a complaint form to fill > out. The radio station may be required to take measures to clean up > their signal. I get the impression that the FCC is pretty tough about > this sort of thing. The FCC will send you the standard sheet on how to RF-proof your equipment. The assumption (and rightfully so) is that the station involved is operating quite legally, within the terms of its license. If you move into the near field of a station, it is NOT the station's responsibility to redesign your substandard equipment so that it does not receive RF. The FCC does not get "tough" with stations that are simply carrying out their public trust. There is a rule that requires NEW stations that begin or change operations to solve "blanketing" problems within a one-mile radius of the transmitter. They are required to do this for one year following the commencement of operation. But existing stations are not required to solve any and all RFI problems that occur every time someone new moves into the near field. A word of advice: many chief engineers are so bored with their jobs that it would be a welcome challenge to help someone RF-proof some equipment. This help could be invaluable and you should seek it out. You will NOT get it if you come on as though the station "owes" it to you. And more likely than not, a complaint to the FCC will not even be forwarded to the station. If it is, then you may kiss off any free help you might have received. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jul 91 20:34:23 CDT From: "Patton M. Turner" Subject: Re: Serious RFI Problem - The Solution Dale Gass writes: > I have a similar problem [RFI], but am curious as to what effect a choke > would have on high speed modem throughput, where the modem is > squeezing all it can out of the line. While certainly acceptable for > voice, would chokes affect the useful throughput of a phone line for > modulated data? Or are the frequencies they affect strictly out of > the normal range used by modems. First, the choke is only effective in attenuating RF frequencies. The impedence of a choke is proportional to the frequency. Thus they can be very effictive at AM broadcast band frequencies (500+ kHz) while passing low frequency signals such as audio (100 to 3000 Hz for us non audiophiles). While I don't know the bandwith of the modem, it must fall in or near these frequencies to be passed on telco POTS lines. Regardless, you will not add any more high frequency attenuatation than exists from the load coils already on your line (assuming you live a half mile or more from the CO). The problem with AM signals is their ease of demodulation. The AM signal is a high frequency sine wave whose amplitude is the audio signal. All that is needed to demodulate the signal is a diode to rectify the signal and some capacitance to ride the peaks of the rectifed signal. This is the way crystal radios work. In addition to the broadcast band, AM is used in the shortwave, CB, and VHF aircraft bands. As long as the RFI hasn't been demodulated the choke should work. I would assume this is the case since a higher quality phone worked fine. Disclaimer: I have no connection to Auburn University Telcom/ETV, I just use their phones. Patton Turner KB4GRZ pturner@eng.auburn.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jul 91 21:25:09 CDT From: Al L Varney Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? Organization: AT&T Network Systems In article TONY@mcgill1.bitnet (Tony Harminc) writes: [Takes PAT to task for an incorrect answer on international 800.] > There are several complicating pieces to this puzzle: > - the number 800 looks like an area code, but it isn't. It is known > as a SAC - Special Area Code. It doesn't represent a location. That's Service Access Code (I think). It doesn't have an AREA. > - 800 service has been around for a long time (1960s) in the USA, > and was first implemented on crossbar switches. It was an engineering > triumph (or masterful kludge), but its very design excluded international > service. It was an administrative nightmare, and switch developers had/have lots of kludges in the ESS(tm) code to make it work. Terminating INWATS should be dead, but the effects linger on. You can't eliminate the code because folks have found un-documented ways of using every kludge ever made. There's probably still some lingering AMA processing code sitting in every Accounting Center computer .... > There is no syntactic way of telling if an 800 number is in > Canada or the USA or Bermuda. > So why can't you dial a USA 800 number from Sweden ? Mainly because > the USA company involved doesn't want to pay for you do call them, or, > far more likely, simply hasn't even considered that there is a whole > world out there outside the USA who might like to call them. It's > much more a question of attitude than one of technology. Well, lets just add some "technology" issues yet unmentioned: 1. Because there are some users of 800 numbers with very small customer regions, it is common to re-use that 800 number many times throughout the country. For example, Blue Cross of Kansas has an 800 number (good only in Kansas), but the number may well be reused in the Southwest USA by a local PBS station and in Maine by a dairy coop. So the basic problem here is that 1 800 number can lead to many destinations. 2. Even with a "national" or "international" 800 number, the customer can elect to have attempts turned on for only selected hours. Outside these hours, the carrier's 800-database will route you to an announcement, computer, answering system, etc. But if you called the "real" number, you would get "no answer". It is not uncommon for the database to return different numbers based on call volume, time-of-day, holiday schedules, and of course caller location. So even with a "special" access method into the North American area, how would an automated system know how to present an incoming call to the telephone network? Would it use some pre-set "calling party" and LATA numbers to determine how to translate the 800 number to its "real" number? How would you select Blue Cross of Kansas from the others? It seems that what is really needed is some "Information Service" that can give you the "listed" number of any business, service, etc. Then you can call them in the normal manner. Does such a system exist, if I only know the NAME of a company, not the city/state? Maybe the 800-555-1212 service should also list such numbers??? And I agree that any business with ANY international market should advertise a non-800 number as well. Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 11:55:27 +1000 From: brendan@otc.otca.oz.au In comp.dcom.telecom tr@samadams.princeton.edu (Tom Reingold) wrote: > Suppose the company with the 800 number is willing to accept > international calls. Can it? I'm in Australia, and once I dialed Fred Pryor Seminars in the USA to book a place in a seminar they were having here in Sydney. Fred Pryor has no offices in Australia, so they run it from the USA using their 800 toll free number in the USA, coupled with international toll free access. I dialed 0014 (Australia's international toll-free access number) followed by their 800 number. The call went through without a hitch, and was answered by a fellow with a nice American accent :-) The call from my end was *free*. So, yes, 800 numbers can be dialed from overseas if the company also wants to pay for international toll free access. Brendan Jones ACSnet: brendan@otc.otca.oz.au R&D Contractor UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!brendan Services R&D Phone: (02)2873128 Fax: (02)2873299 |||| OTC || Snail: GPO Box 7000, Sydney 2001, AUSTRALIA [Moderator's Note: But the catch is, you dialed 0014 to get the process started -- not 800. Numbers (in the USA/Canada) beginning with '800' are limited to calls originating in the USA/Canada. It is true there is nothing to prevent a US company from setting up a deal with the telco in Australia to assign a number beginning 0014 which will then be forwarded here collect. It's just that 800 is not the way it works. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jul 91 13:28 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: New 1991-92 Phone Books Arrived Today Paul Wexelblat writes: > This raises an issue; I have an unlisted phone. (No need to go into > why.) I asked my business office (NYNEX) to list my number under a > random name (Then I could tell my friends that they could look up e.g. > Harry Fuzzdingle, or some such, if they forgot/lost my number.) The > business office said that I couldn't do that!!! > Is this generally true?? It may not even be true with NYNEX. For some reason, certain reps decide what can and cannot be done regarding special requests related to telephone service -- decisions which do not necessarily reflect regulations or even general practices. For instance, many Pac*Bell reps will still tell you that you must pay for an unlisted number even though you have other service at the residence or business. And they will be most insistent on the matter. Pac*Bell, for one, will gladly do what you suggest. I had a number listed in a bogus name for some time. The name in the listing and the name in the billing are completely separate issues. My suggestion is to go for it again and speak to a supervisor. If that fails, get a quote from chapter and verse of the appropriate regulation. If it is a rule, it is written down somewhere. I have a friend who has a voice BBS. At one point, because of complaints from some irate parents, Pac*Bell attempted to regrade his service from residence to business. After many exchanges with various people at Pac*Bell (who were not willing to give an inch), he called an executive and, with tariff in hand, went over each point that defines business vs residence service. It turned out that Pac*Bell did not have a regulatory leg to stand on and the matter was dropped. Do not let a lowly business office representative become the last word on your telephone service. You may indeed be out of luck, but make sure that eventuality comes from a hard and fast regulation and not from some rep's laziness when faced with the prospect of having to learn how to fill out some new form. > NOTE: They had no problem with listing random names for a listed > phone, a common occurence with shared housing, they just would not do > it for and unlisted/unpublished number. Huh? Once listed in the "bogus" name, it is no longer an unlisted/ unpublished number, is it? Maybe your problem was that of semantics. Say, "I want a listed number. Here is how the listing should read...". > They did not think I was just trying to avoid the unlisted/unpublished > number charges, I offered to pay them. Why? Once listed, it is not unlisted anymore. Do not offer ANYTHING! And make them back up EVERYTHING with documented regulations! 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 #554 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08178; 22 Jul 91 5:57 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28041; 21 Jul 91 22:57 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17323; 21 Jul 91 21:52 CDT Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 21:18:35 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #555 BCC: Message-ID: <9107212118.ab22983@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 21 Jul 91 21:18:24 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 555 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Larry King Gets What He Deserves [Dave Leibold] Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [F. Davidson] Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [David Lesher] Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [Robert Lindh] The Point is, GIVEN it is Not Possible to Call 800 Numbers [Nigel Roberts] Toll-Free Access in Various Countries [Dave Leibold] Re: Sprint Rate Change [Doctor Math] Re: Getting Off a Party Line [John Palmer] Re: Statistics on Bell's Breakup [Barry Margolin] Re: B.C., Canada - Long Distance Telephone Service Choices [John Higdon] Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z [Brandon S. Allbery] MCI Can't Connect Me [Daniel M. Rosenberg] MCI to Get New Customer Service Computers [Bill Huttig] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Larry King Gets What He Deserves From: Dave Leibold Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 00:06:47 EDT Organization: Brave New World BBS, Delray Beach, FL John Higdon writes: > Is Larry King on so tight a budget that he uses this scam (of letting > lines ring for 30 minutes until the call is ready to air)? The vast > majority of national talk shows use an 800 number, put the calls on > hold, and just chalk up the cost as a necessary business expense. Not many callers get on the air on his show for that matter ... as for tight budgets, there seemed to be no threat of bankruptcy when LK announced an alternate Atlanta number earlier this week. The 404 number was for people who had difficulty in reaching the usual Washington DC number. As for 800, a talk show in Canada some years back said they didn't go to an 800 number because they claimed that the phone company would get overloaded with calls, and that more meaningful results happened if people had a financial stake in what they were about to say over the air. Rogers Cable in Toronto had a practice of taking phone numbers of callers to their talk shows. Just before a caller was to go on air, Rogers would phone the caller back, and they would be on air shortly thereafter. dleibold@attmail.com, djcl.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu etc. etc.... ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1991 11:12:48 GMT In article varney@ihlpf.att.com (Al L Varney) writes: > It seems that what is really needed is some "Information Service" that > can give you the "listed" number of any business, service, etc. Then > you can call them in the normal manner. Does such a system exist, if > I only know the NAME of a company, not the city/state? Maybe the > 800-555-1212 service should also list such numbers??? And I agree > that any business with ANY international market should advertise a > non-800 number as well. I don't know if this could be done, but how about a number translation service. You give information the 800 number you want to contact, they give you a "real" number that can be dialed. With SS7 the database lookup is easy (was with SS6 too). With regional numbers it would be necessary to know the location of the the terminating line, and there would also have to be "unlisted" numbers. Hmmm. Guess that answers that question ... too much trouble unless someone pays for it. (Until relatively recent times very few 800 numbers were dialable from Alaska. I just wouldn't do business with companies that didn't advertize with numbers that I could dial, and my preference was being able to dial an 800 number.) Floyd L. Davidson | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine floyd@ims.alaska.edu| but not for opinions. |Science suffers me as a guest. ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 11:24:14 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers I've reported before and will reiteriate: Several people in Latin American countries such as El Salvador and Costa Rica have told me that they have used USA Direct to reach domestic INWATS numbers. They've been charged some fee of several dollars for doing so. Others have said, but I have not confirmed, that this only works for ATT's 800 numbers, not other carriers. wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 18:34:05 +0200 Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? From: Robert Lindh Reply-To: Robert.Lindh@eos.ericsson.se Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB In article dan@sics.se (Dan Sahlin) writes: > Here in Sweden, I can call directly automatically to almost anywhere > in the world, but it impossible for me to call an 800-number in North > America, even if I ask for operator assistance. > Why is that so? I think that some US companies have ordered 020-numbers in Sweden for Swedish customers to use when the customer want to reach them without any cost for the customer. (020 is the prefix used in Sweden when the called party is to pay the costs of the call.) If I remember correctly, I saw an advertisment on cable TV that among other things told the 020-number to be used in Sweden to be connected to an AT&T operator. I have no idea about the physical location of this AT&T operator, he/she could be in Sweden or in the US, I guess. The service was called 'US Direct' or something similiar. ------------------------------ From: N Roberts Subject: The Point is, GIVEN it is Not Possible to Call 800 Numbers Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK. Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1991 17:40:01 GMT So why are most U.S. companies so insular as to only give out their 800 number?? Don't they wan't overseas business? Hats off to software marketeer Express Technology of Arizona who advertise in the British magazines and provide an 0800 number for us to call free of charge from the U.K. to Arizona. Automatic Disclaimer: The views expressed above are those of the author alone and may not represent the views of the IBM PC User Group. Nigel Roberts; P. O. Box 49; MANNINGTREE; Essex; CO11 2SZ; United Kingdom Tel: +44 206 396610 or +44 860 578600 (cellular). Fax: +44 206 393148 Email: nigel@ibmpcug.co.uk aka G4IJF (no, I'm NOT on packet radio!) ------------------------------ Subject: Toll-Free Access in Various Countries From: Dave Leibold Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 00:11:40 EDT Organization: Brave New World BBS, Delray Beach, FL I'm interested in collecting toll-free access codes used in various countries. If there are any additions or corrections to this list, please send *net-mail* to dleibold@attmail.com (perhaps the best return path at this point). An updated list can be posted when enough entries are collected. North America 1 800 NXX XXXX Sweden 020 ... UK 0800 XXX XXX [also 0345 XXX XXX charged local rate] Mexico 91 800 ... Australia 008 ??? This list isn't giant, and there should be plenty more of these; in any responses, please include how the call is dialed domestically, and if possible how many digits are in the toll free numbers ... dleibold@attmail.com (and other accounts...) ------------------------------ From: Doctor Math Date: Sat, 20 Jul 91 18:04:52 EST Organization: Department of Redundancy Department Subject: Re: Sprint Rate Change In today's mail came an envelope marked "IMPORTANT RATE INFORMATION". It was from Sprint. Inside there was a lovely form letter which started off by "personally" thanking me for being a "valued Sprint customer". The second paragraph was even better: "You are our number one priority. For this reason, when we make changes at Sprint that may affect you, I want to make sure you receive the information quickly and directly." It goes on to describe how "we recently restructured our rates" and how such adjustment "includes a modest increase for some customers' rates", which will allow them to provide "signifigant savings". Nowhere do they actually tell me what the new rates ARE, which leads me to think that I am getting a snow job. If they want to make sure that I receive the information "quickly and directly", why are they telling me after the fact? According to some readers in this group, the rate increase was effective around the first of June. Now, almost two months later, I am being notified of the changes. The last paragraph reads, in part, "Let me say in closing that we appreciate your loyalty to Sprint and care about you as a customer. With that in mind, we are enclosing a $5.00 gift certificate, good for free long distance." Somehow this sounds like gentle persuasion to make sure that I remain a "valued Sprint customer". I'm not using the word "bribe" because, as we all know, a multi-million dollar company would never bribe anybody. ;-) :-( I thought about switching to AT&T when I first picked up the thread about the new rate increases. Now, it's gonna happen first thing Monday morning. ------------------------------ From: jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) Subject: Re: Getting Off a Party Line Organization: CAT-TALK Conferencing Network, Detroit, MI Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 22:24:41 GMT Party lines are still common. My grandmother in Roseville, MI (a suburb of Detroit, exchange 313-774) is still on one. No one from Michigan Bell has ever called and offered to take her off of it. (I mention this since I heard that the BOC's were trying to get rid of all party lines). Looking at my "Initial BSE and CNS Availability Within the AOC's Deployment Areas" document, I see that her switch is a #1AESS. Maybe its still economical to provide such services with an older switch like that. CAT-TALK Conferencing System | E-MAIL: +1 313 343 0800 (USR HST) | jp@Michigan.COM +1 313 343 2925 (TELEBIT PEP) ********EIGHT NODES*********** ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Statistics on Bell's Breakup Reply-To: think!barmar@bloom-beacon.mit.edu Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 21:53:40 GMT In article root@monty.cc.nd.edu (Operator) writes: > Item in {Information Week}, reprinted from {Harper's}, July 1991 p.60: ... > While new technology was expected to cut costs, the average local > phone bill has risen 56% more than inflation since 1984. However, long > distance rates have *dropped* 31% over the same period. This was to be expected. It was well known at the time of the divestiture that AT&T was subsidizing local phone rates by inflating long distance rates. After the breakup, both of them were adjusted to be closer to their actual costs (note that I said "closer", not "close"). My guess is that much of that 56% local rate increase was shortly after the breakup, during this adjustment period. Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jul 91 15:52 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: B.C., Canada - Long Distance Telephone Service Choices Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) writes: > Customer service number (604) 811-2323? Is this something like those > business-office numbers in California which cannot be reached from > outside of California? No, because an area code is required for call completion. Presumably, if you dial the full ten-digit number from anywhere your call will go through. The Pac*Bell 811-XXXX system uses no area code or special area code. You dial the seven digits, period. For instance, 811-5000 is the number for the billing office in San Jose. I can dial that number from my home telephone (408), or from a friend's telephone in 415, or from a business associate's telephone in 619, or anywhere else in the state by dialing the seven-digit number. There is no area code associated with it, even though the number physically terminates in the 408 area. That is why it cannot be reached from anywhere that does not support this system (which would be anywhere outside of California and parts of Nevada). Technically, it should not be reachable from any telephone not served by Pac*Bell since it is Pac*Bell's internal arrangement. But PB wields sufficient influence in these parts that it became easier for GTE, Contel, and a host of others to just carry the traffic rather than deal with all of the "trouble" reports that would be generated by the incompletion of calls. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jul 91 15:36:42 -0400 From: "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" Subject: Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z Reply-To: allbery@ncoast.org Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast) As quoted from by NETWRK@harvarda. harvard.edu (Steve Thornton): > OK, I can play this game too. The '91 Boston directory, including Brookline, > Cambridge, and Somerville, starts off with 16 entries under "A", beginning > with > A Beacon Bos........... > A Boston MA............ > A 437 Boyl Bos......... > A 419 Boylston Bos..... > A Cambridge MA......... The Cleveland, OH business white pages (the residences are in front and are fairly bland) starts with 36 A's grouped together (and subgrouped by east or west side), then a single A following, then: A Aa A Aa AaAABACA Plumbing Co (!) Someone evidently wanted to be certain.... The Lake County business WP starts similarly, but with three grouped entries for A (in the same format as the Cleveland one: individual entries are labeled as "Mentor Av. Area", etc. I suspect it's all the same organization, and may be Ohio Bell itself), then with A Aaaaaron Maximum Security Corp. Not real imaginative, that one.... The last Z's in the various directories/sections are: ZZYBO L (Cle. Res.) ZYMLER DAVID P DC (Cle. Bus.) ZYROMSKI Robt N (LC Res.) Zurn Industries, Inc. (LC Bus.) I guess being the *last* entry in the book has no appeal here. :-) Me: Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH: DC to LIGHT! [44.70.4.88] Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG Delphi: ALLBERY uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ------------------------------ From: "Daniel M. Rosenberg" Subject: MCI Can't Connect Me Organization: World Otherness Ministries Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1991 17:14:35 GMT A friend of mine left his number in Ventura County, California; area code 805 exchange 987 (name-place Camarillo, which our dial-1 carrier, MCI, managed to provide). Dialing the number however, resulted in a few clicking noises, then disconnect. The MCI operator couldn't make heads or tails of it, and transferred me to customer service. Customer service had me an "All our representatives are busy" hold with some truly rancid muzak (a new song every fifteen seconds, followed by silence, including an oboe version of "Bye Bye Miss American Pie"). After about five minutes on hold, customer service disconnected me. 10288-1-805-987-xxxx worked (instantly) I might add, immediately afterwards. Does MCI just not bother to establish continuity to some places? I don't get it. # (NeXT)Mail: dmr@roadkill.stanford.edu dmr%roadkill@stanford.bitnet # Stanford Metapage Project ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: MCI to Get New Customer Service Computers Date: 21 Jul 91 17:47:28 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL I was speaking to a MCI rep in GA a couple days ago and she metioned that they were going to be getting new computers in the CS office. She did not know if it would affect the billing computer but she said it should provide information quicker. Maybe they are going to be converting over to the TELECOM*USA type computers where they can provide call history within 24 - 48 hrs. Bill ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #555 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17820; 23 Jul 91 2:04 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12421; 23 Jul 91 0:28 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07758; 22 Jul 91 23:22 CDT Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 22:17:50 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #557 BCC: Message-ID: <9107222217.ab05793@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 22 Jul 91 22:17:46 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 557 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Getting Off a Party Line [John Higdon] Re: Getting Off a Party Line [Ed Greenberg] Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals [Mark Linimon] Re: Church 900 Hotline Program [Jeff Carroll] Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [A. Kandappan] Re: MCI Can't Connect Me [John Higdon] Telephone Codes in Berlin, Germany (was Former West Berlin) [Richard Budd] Re: Lightning Protection for Modems [Doctor Math] ATC's New Billing System: Carriers With More Than One PIC [Bill Huttig] First GSM Network Delivered [Robert Lindh] Calling USA Toll Free From Abroad [Ole J. Jacobsen] Retraction, re GTE Seattle Switches [David Barts] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 00:08 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Getting Off a Party Line jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes: > Within the AOC's Deployment Areas" document, I see that her switch is > a #1AESS. Maybe its still economical to provide such services with an > older switch like that. An older switch like that, indeed. The first 1A processors went on-line in 1976. That makes it fifteen years old, tops. Big deal. An era is about to come to an end for me. The switch that serves my home, a #5 crossbar, will no longer exist in about a month. It will be replaced with a #5ESS. The central office was built to serve the (then) very southern outskirts of San Jose. The year was 1956. Suddenly the orchard farmers, country dwellers, and the dennizens of "New Almaden" had a state-of-the-art telephone system. The new office sported DDD, an almost unheard of thing in 1956. Not only could a subscriber dial calls around the Bay Area, but to locations all over the country. And unlike other areas of the country to have DDD introduced, there were no "access codes", "circle digits", or any other nonsense to deal with. The rest of San Jose was to wait until 1961 for that capability. This is the equipment that I grew up with. In my travels around the country, I have had telephones served by every conceivable CO switch, but the benchmark has always been the crossbar that I knew as a kid (and never really left). The devices and gadgets that I built over the years were tested and perfected on this very CO. So after thirty-five years, it is about to go away forever. Readers of this forum have endured my railings about the backwardness of Pac*Bell largly due to the continuance of this equipment in daily service. Yet, now that it is scheduled for replacement, there is this little nostalgic reaction that has crept in. I look forward to the new services, features, and capabilities that will be available shortly, but I will miss, in a small way, hearing those familiar sounds that have been for me a lifetime of telephone service. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 10:01 PDT Subject: Re: Getting Off a Party Line The poster tells of being unable to obtain private line service, unless THE OTHER PARTY is willing to convert as well. Some tariff checking may be in order here. You might inquire as to under what tariffs the telco is allowed to deny private line service. It may well be a wiring issue, if your "partner" and you share a long line out of town or something, but then the issue should be wiring charges, not monthly charges. As John Higdon frequently points out, the various companies don't always follow the rules unless called on them. You know, it's unclear why the telco wouldn't want to convert you. After all, at least YOU would be paying a higher rate. They could probably pair your partner up with the next person who wants to convert, and if he has to have de facto private line service for a while, the expense wouldn't be that great. I recall a story published here in the Digest a while ago, about a local telco that used to pair (actually quad) people up with old busybodies, in order to encourage the people to convert to private service. When they did, the busybody would be reassigned to another party line to continue the company's incentive program for private line service :-) I recall a title like "Party Line Ladies From Hell." We could probably be amused by a repost of that, if anybody has it handy. edg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 12:00:36 CDT From: Mark Linimon Subject: Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals > More than 50 payphones in the 8th and 37th wards will no longer accept > coins between 6 PM and 6 AM. [or similar hours] All the previous discussion has ignored the plight of people who do not work the first shift. I would imagine in the area described that there would be quite a population of second and third shift workers. Disclaimer: I'm just on loan to Tandem. They have no opinion in this matter, as far as I know. Mark Linimon [Moderator's Note: IBT has since modified the hours the phones will operate coinless to be 7:30 PM to 4:00 AM I believe. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Church 900 Hotline Program Date: 22 Jul 91 18:37:17 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics I noticed recently that during the recent general convention of the Episcopal Church in Phoenix, the church operated a 900 number for curious Episcopalians who wanted the latest lowdown on what was going on on the convention floor. The charge was $0.50/minute; I have no information as to the identity of the carrier or the quality of the information. Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: arun@tinton.ccur.com (Arun Kandappan) Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? Organization: Concurrent Computer Corp., Tinton Falls, NJ Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1991 18:29:18 GMT In article frankston!Bob_Frankston@ world.std.com writes: > The esteemed Moderator sounds like a telephone operator when saying > that you cannot place free calls from oversees because you cannot > place free calls from overseas. But the question was why, if the > caller IS willing to pay, is there no mechanism. Sounds like a great > revenue opportunity for a telco. In fact, this is needed domestically > when DA gives out an unreachable 800 number. I just saw an article about calling 800 numbers from India. I do not know the tariff or if the caller has to pay the international portion of the call. However, it is not available in all parts of India, but only from one city. arun ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 23:42 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: MCI Can't Connect Me "Daniel M. Rosenberg" writes: > Does MCI just not bother to establish continuity to some places? I > don't get it. My primary complaint against the OCCs in the early days was that these companies treated long distance service with about the same seriousness as pizza delivery. If it all broke down, so what? You (the customer) could always use AT&T, right? It appears that this is still the case. Frustratingly bad customer service, slipshod switch programming (which is what you experienced above), and other chronic problems that are insoluble have repeatedly sent me back to AT&T. Now, I am about to enter into a brave new world. I have ordered a T1 from Sprint that will have a host of services: WATS, 800, etc. Let us how Sprint does with industrial-style services after screwing up my home long distance service royally. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 09:15:45 EDT From: Richard Budd Subject: Telephone Codes in Berlin, Germany (was Former West Berlin) Carl Moore writes in TELECOM Digest V11 #475: > Given the recent messages about unified Germany, you might note that > the former West Berlin has city code 30 under country code 49. As you > probably know, Berlin is deep inside the former East Germany. And the Moderator notes: > Moderator's Note: Prior to the unification, (or now for that matter) > how were 'local' calls between East and West Berlin dialed? PAT" The answer to your question, Pat, is both before unification and now, you dial a '9' to reach East Berlin from West Berlin and vice versa. However, you do need to dial the country and city code if calling from the former West Germany to East Berlin or the former East Germany into West Berlin. The country code for West Berlin was 49, the same as West Germany's code before reunification, while the city code remains 30. The former German Democratic Republic's code was 37 and it is still being used for the time being until the Deutsche Bundespost renumbers the area codes throughout reunited Germany. The former East Berlin has a city code of 2, which is dialed from the former West Germany and all of the former East Germany outside of Berlin. However, from West Berlin, to dial East Berlin you dial '9' instead of the country and city codes. I believe this was because of Berlin's pre-unification status and because East Germany's telephone company controlled West Berlin's telephone service. I do remember well having to dial '9' from the only opportunity I ever had to telephone between West and East Berlin, in 1982. (I got through, too.) I never had a chance to find out how it worked from East Berlin to West, but a nineteen year old apprentice working in Berlin who took advantage of the fall of the Berlin wall to rent an apartment in the East for only a third of what he was spending in West Berlin tells me its the same way from East to West. Because a telephone call between West and East Germany is still an international call, an extra '0' must be inserted at the beginning. Another zero is added to the city code when calling into another city code in the former West Germany, but not from the former East Germany. A chart might explain it better. Calling To Calling From West Berlin | East Berlin West Berlin | 9+ East Berlin 9+(?) | Former W. Germany 030+ | 0/037/2+ Former E. Germany 0/049/30+ | 2+ TELECOM Digest has talked about 12 countries who use Country Code 1. Germany is the only country as far as I know that has more than one country code (37 and 49). Whether this anamoly remains depends on how the telephone systems of the two Germanys are reunified. According to the {New York Times}, the Deutsche Bundespost is planning to accomplish that in early 1992. Richard Budd Internet: rcbudd@rhqvm19.vnet.ibm.com VM Systems Programmer Bitnet: klub@maristb.bitnet IBM - Sterling Forest Phone: (914) 578-3746 ------------------------------ From: Doctor Math Subject: Re: Lightning Protection for Modems Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 04:15:29 EST samsung!athenanet.com!kabra437@uunet.uu.net (Ken Abrams) writes: > really good advice for spikes and surges induced by all kinds of > things (lightning included) but NOTHING will save equipment connected > to the outside wires when those wires take a direct hit within a > couple of hundred yards of your building (pure dumb luck might help in > some cases). A friend of mine tells me that a military-surplus SOLA 5KVA line conditioner will protect equipment from such spikes. The dimensions of the unit are something like two feet square and four feet high. I'd really like to get my hands on one of these and put it in my basement, on stilts and on its own branch circuit with a large breaker and some very heavy wiring. Pointers (like where to get one) appreciated. ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: ATC's New Billing System: Carriers With More Than One PIC Date: 21 Jul 91 18:00:08 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL I have four different accounts with ATC because of the mergers in the past couple years. I was wondering how this is going to effect billing when they get all the accounts on the system. I have a account with the old MicroTel which has already been converted (both lines) one with the old TELUS (both lines) and two with the old SouthTel different calling plans. (A six-second billing for short distance calls and Ring America for calling my aunt). Currently they have several PIC's: The 789 MicroTel PIC and the 824 Transcall Am PIC is billing on the new computer. Do customers who are assigned the 789 PIC and dial 824 get billed through ATC or does the charge show up on the local bill? What happens when they add the other PIC's (031 TELUS and 002 Americall) which bill together from TELUS's system? Also Biz-Tel and Phone One uses them as the carrier ... (700 555 4141 responds when using 606 or 751 (I think) as ATC. Where will these calls bill without BIZ-TEL and Phone One accounts but an ATC account? Will all these calls show up on the same account or will they just show up randomly ... or will the PIC's determine which account? This leads me to the question of why do the some of the carriers keep more than one PIC. MCI kept all the SBS Skyline PIC's but US Sprint only kept United Telecom's. Why? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 18:06:35 +0200 From: Robert.Lindh@eos.ericsson.se Subject: First GSM Network Delivered A quote from a press release from Ericsson: "Today, July 1st ... the first networks have now been delivered on time, by Ericsson. In the pioneering countries, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, the first GSM networks are now operational." I work for Ericsson, yes, but I do not know anything more about it. I am just quoting the press release. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 20:40:24 PDT From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" Subject: Calling USA Toll Free From Abroad We, (Interop, Inc.) had toll-free numbers in England, France, Germany and Italy last year for about eight months. All the numbers (0800 in UK, I forget the rest) "terminated in" (forwarded to) our main number in the US. The service was hideously expensive and did not get used much, so we had it disconnected at the end of eight months. (We were hosting some public tutorials in London on a one-time basis and were trying to attract attendees from the continent). Since toll-free numbers aren't that common in Europe (even the old "Freephone" system in the UK did not seem to be very popular) we concluded that people just weren't "into" this 800 business. Here is a thought: You currently cannot call regular 800 numbers in the US from abroad. The way I understand 800 service to work is that domestically the *called* office does not return answer supervision, hence the call is free. Would it not be possible for the "entering point" (the office which receives the international trunk) to return answer supervision for 800 calls dialled from abroad and then the "domestic portion" would be "free" as before? In other words, the international caller would pay for a call to the US, the business would pay for any remaining toll charges incurred domestically. Sounds simple, but it probably isn't ?? Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report Interop, Inc., 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View, CA 94040, Phone: (415) 962-2515 FAX: (415) 949-1779 Email: ole@csli.stanford.edu ------------------------------ From: polari!davidb@sumax.seattleu.edu Subject: Retraction, re GTE Seattle Switches Date: Sat Jul 20 22:44:26 1991 Mmph muh mmm mmmph! (That's the sound of me trying to talk with my foot in my mouth.) I recently submitted something stating that all GTE NW switches in the Seattle area were 5ESS. An acquaintance that works at GTE just send me E-mail saying that only the Bothell CO is 5ESS; all the others are GTD-5. David Barts N5JRN davidb@polari.uucp ...!uunet!apex!camco!ars2!polari!davidb ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #557 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18780; 23 Jul 91 2:27 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12421; 23 Jul 91 0:32 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac07758; 22 Jul 91 23:22 CDT Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 23:09:30 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #558 BCC: Message-ID: <9107222309.ab06377@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 22 Jul 91 23:09:21 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 558 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson RJ12 Jacks, A & A1 Signals, Modems and Bell Phones [Nelson Bolyard] Credit Card Surcharges - Any Reason For These? [David Leibold] Bellcore Acronyms - Help Needed [Brendan Jones] Leasing Satellite Channels [Mohan Palat] US Sprint Providing One-Way Service [Eric T. Kiser] MCI's Friends and Family Won't Leave Me Alone! [Christopher Phish] Operation Telephone 1965 [Popular Electronics, 9/61 Issue via Doctor Math] How Many With Touchtone? [Larry Rachman] International 800 Calling [Ed Hopper] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nelson Bolyard Subject: RJ12 Jacks, A & A1 Signals, Modems and Bell Phones Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc. Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1991 20:00:34 GMT There's been some discussion of the role of the A and A1 signals, and their various uses recently, and even an offer to distribute copies of the schematic of old Bell desktop phones. There are several aspects of those signals that I haven't seen mentioned yet, that might not be apparent from the old phone schematics, that might be important to people who intend to devise gizmos that implement/use those signals. The old Bell desktop phones had leaf switches under the phone cradle (the "hook switch"). One switch connected the tip-ring circuit to either the bell or the sound circuit. The second leaf switch was normally left unattached in normal residential installations, but anyone with a screwdriver and the ability to trace the wires could hook it up. The second switch was used for various purposes, usually in conjunction with the A-A1 pair of wires. In some offices, the switch was used to connect a message-waiting light to the A-A1 pair when the phone was on-hook. In other installations, the switch was used to merely short the A-A1 wires when the phone was off-hook. These leaf switches were designed so that as one put the receiver in the cradle, the A-A1 switch opened BEFORE the tip-ring circuit opened, by at least a few milliseconds. This timing was crucial for use with multi-line phone systems (e.g. the 1A2 system). In 1A2 systems, if the A-A1 circuit was still closed when the tip-ring circuit went open, this meant that the call was going on hold, and the 1A2 system would not release the call. The red or black Hold button worked by shorting the A-A1 signals while the tip-ring connection opened. The other use of the A-A1 pair that I haven't seen mentioned was by genuine Bell 212A modems (and possibly other Bell modems) that had no built-in out-dialing capability. Bell 212A modems generated a small current on the A-A1 pair, to sense if they were shorted together or not. Since these modems had no built-in dialing facility, out-dialing was achieved by connecting a telephone and the modem in parallel on the line. To place an out-dialed call, one lifted the handset, dialed the number, and when the modem on the other end answered, one pressed the "data" button on the phone, and held it down until the local modem began to send carrier. This data button looked remarkably like the hold button, and worked in much the same way. It shorted the A-A1 signals together, thereby telling the modem that it should "originate" the data path if a carrier signal was being received, or "answer" the call (generate a carrier) if none was being received. Some of these modems came with a little plastic box with a three position switch that you could stick onto the side of an ordinary phone. This switch acted as a substitute for the data mode switch, and was wired to the A-A1 signals. The switch could be left closed (for auto-answer), left open (for voice), and had a third momentary contact position for going into data mode after outdialing a call. As I recall (it's been about nine years since I had one of these old modems), phones that had been wired with the leaf switch on the A-A1 pair wouldn't work with Bell 212A modems, because the modem would go into data mode as soon as the phone was taken off hook. If I've mis-remembered any of the details of how the old Bell modems used A-A1, I'm sure some of the Digest's readers will gently correct me ;-). Nelson Bolyard nelson@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!whizzer!nelson Disclaimer: Views expressed herein do not represent the views of my employer. ------------------------------ Subject: Credit Card Surcharges - Any Reason For These? From: David Leibold Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 19:59:13 EDT Organization: Brave New World BBS, Delray Beach, FL I wonder why carriers are surcharging for calls made with credit cards? This seems to be a holdover from the days when operator assistance was required to take down a card number (and thus a rate higher than DDD was applied). It seems that card numbers can be handled directly by the carrier, while direct dial requires some interaction with a local telco, so it might seem that card calls are actually cheaper to process than direct dial; but that could be a tariff or carrier-telco matter. Perhaps the reasons that card calls are 75c or more expensive than a similar DDD call might be similar to those reasons why touch tone service incurs extra charges from many telcos ... value and convenience of service ... (?) dleibold@attmail.com djcl@bnw.delray.fl.us djcl.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Bellcore Acronyms - Help Needed Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 10:07:52 +1000 From: brendan@otc.otca.oz.au I have been looking at a diagram called "Bellcore's Standard Interfaces" (Figure 8-3) in a Bellcore book called "The Impact of Evolving Communications Technologies". The diagram essentially shows the Bellcore standards adopted between various telecoms network elements and the use of CCS7. The problem is, not all of the acronyms used in the figure are explained in the book. Would some Bellcore guru know what the following acronyms are? BCR RUSI SSP FCIF SCCS TOP LUSI SEAS UPL NMA SOP USL Please reply via email. Any info appreciated! Brendan Jones ACSnet: brendan@otc.otca.oz.au R&D Contractor UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!brendan Services R&D Phone: (02)2873128 Fax: (02)2873299 |||| OTC || Snail: GPO Box 7000, Sydney 2001, AUSTRALIA ------------------------------ From: Mohan Palat Subject: Leasing Satellite Channels Date: 22 Jul 91 17:13:46 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL A local organization wants to provide a live feed of a specific event (TV program) in Asia. I guess the commercial satellite agencies in the US have to be contacted for this. Can anyone provide any leads or info on this - i.e, whom to contact, leasing rates, etc. Thanks for any info. Mohan Palat email: uunet!motcid!palat ------------------------------ From: Eric T. Kiser Subject: US Sprint Providing One-Way Service Date: July 22, 1991 Organization: Wright Patterson AFB, OH I have been a US Sprint customer for a few years now, and have never experienced any real problems with them -- until recently. For about the last six months, a fair amount of calls placed from Dayton, OH to Huntington, WV result in the Huntington to Dayton link becoming severely attenuated (about 60 db down) a few minutes into the call, while the other direction is unaffected. There is never any warning, never any noise or other signal anomalies prior to the failure. Of course the call remains in progress, and the other link is still active, but it is **very** weak. This problem has never occured in the other direction, nor has it ever happened to both sides of the conversation at the same time. In fact, I have never noticed the problem while calling any destination other than Huntington. I've not wasted any of my time contacting Sprint about this. Instead I thought I would pose the problem to the Digest to obtain a more intelligent response. Any comments/theories ??? In Sprint's pin-drop commercial, they never claim that you can hear the pin drop in *both* directions! :-) Eric T. Kiser / WPAFB, OH kiser@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil CI$: 71241,661 (513) 257-4028 <=> (513) 299-8704 ------------------------------ From: "The Squire, Phish" Subject: MCI's Friends and Family Won't Leave Me Alone! Organization: Fantasy, Incorporated: Reality None of Our Business. Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 02:26:24 GMT You've heard MCI's Friends and Family promotion: If you're an MCI customer, and you list your friends and family, you get n% off when you call them at certain times. And if they're not an MCI customer, you can give them their name and phone number, and they'll call and sign them up! Great? Nope! I've received a few valid calls, each time telling me that [name of relative] wants me to sign up for MCI. I politely tell them that I'm an AT&T customer, quite happy, and no thanks. Each time. Then I started getting calls saying that [name of random individual] wants me to sign up for MCI. Apparently, they'll just call the numbers given, even if they're wrong. So I called MCI and asked that they not contact me again. They said that they have no way to guarantee this, but would fill out a complaint report after taking my name, address, and phone number. You can bet that I'll be calling my friendly service identification number often :-) More to follow (or not, and I hope not...) Christopher(The Squire, Phish); (805) 542-0336/H chris@hypnos.calpoly.edu (129.65.62.35) 756-2005/W AIX System Administrator, Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo. [Moderator's Note: You know what you need to do is contact that Bulmash fellow, and have him add MCI to the list of offensive telemarketers. Maybe he could staighten them out. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Doctor Math Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 05:13:14 EST Organization: Department of Redundancy Department Subject: Operation Telephone 1965 Found this gem in {Popular Electronics} V15 #3 (Sept. 1961), pp41-44,98-100. By Ken Gilmore. Words his, typos mine: The time: a day in 1965. You're planning to spend the afternoon at a friend's house. But you're also expecting an important telephone call. You pick up your phone, dial first a special code number, then your friend's number. This done, you leave for his house, knowing that all calls to your number will be automatically switched to his. When you return home that evening, you dial another code number and incoming calls are once again routed to your own phone. This special service -- and dozens of others just as advanced -- will soon be available to you. Already, a prototype all-electronic telephone central office is in operation in Morris, Illinois. And it's delighting subscribers with services which make present-day systems seem as obsolete as a hand-crank on an old-fashioned wall telephone. SPECIAL SERVICES: Within a few years -- as versatile all-electronic equipment replaces the present relay-switching systems -- your phone will perform such tricks as these: o You're talking to a friend about a new stereo amplifier you're planning to buy. But you need more information. So without either of you hanging up, you simply dial your dealer's number. A few seconds later he is connected into the circuit, and all three of you can discuss the amplifier at will. You can even continue calling additional numbers -- as many as you like -- and all will be connected so that everybody can talk to everyone else. o There are several numbers you call regularly. A word to the central office, and each of these "regulars" is assigned a special two-number code. Then, instead of having to dial the usual seven-digit number each time, you simply dial "12" when you want your office, "13" for the corner drugstore, "14" for a friend you call often, and so on. o You run a small business and don't want to miss any incoming calls. You make the proper arrangements, and if your office line is busy when someone dials it, your home phone rings automatically. If your home phone is busy, too, a third number -- perhaps an answering service -- will ring, and so on for as many alternate numbers as you wish. These are just a few of the scores of special services you'll enjoy when electronics takes over completely. With the new system, switching and routing of call -- now done by relatively slow-moving relays -- will be accomplished with no moving parts at all. Hordes of electrons rushing through transistors, diodes, and glass tubes will do the job, and they'll do it within *millionths* of a second. Thus, the all-electronic system will be able to perform thousands of different operations, carrying out extremely complex switching operations impossible with present equipment. ------------- It goes on to describe how these new marvels of technology work. If there is sufficient interest, I would be willing to tackle punching in the rest of the article, sans diagrams and photographs. This copy of the magazine also has a SPECIAL: Editors Report on the RADAR SPEED TRAP DETECTOR, pictured on the cover (in color, no less!). It is small enough to be held in the hand and is labeled "RADAR SENTRY" by Radatron, Inc. (patent pending). [Moderator's Note: This reminds me of how much fun it is to go back and re-read Orwell's "1984" from time to time. Written many years earlier, it was either very prophetic and way off base, depending on your viewpoint. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 91 13:18:50 EDT From: Larry Rachman <74066.2004@compuserve.com> Subject: How Many With Touchtone? I'm working on a proposal that requires some statistics on what percentage of the population of the United States is Touchtone equipped, on both a total and city-by-city (especially northeast) basis. Does anyone have this information available, or know where I can find it? Reply either directly, or here. Lawrence Rachman, WA2BUX 74066.2004@compuserve.com FAX:516-427-8705 ------------------------------ Subject: International 800 Calling From: ED HOPPER Date: Mon 22 Jul 91 10:01:14 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, TX - 713-997-7575 There has been a lot of discussion about this issues and I'd like to offer a few insights based on what I know about the issue. I think that in this case, like a lot of these problems, various people make decisions about how a product is structured based upon their best estimate of how things are going to used by customers. I think this is the case here. Consider the following: 1. 800 service is sold by AT&T (and I am sure by the other carriers) based upon the desired area to be covered. If you want, say, just Texas, you get just Texas. If you want the US, you get the US. If you want the US + Canada, you get that and so on. In addition, AT&T (and again, I believe the other major carriers) offer 800 service on an international, country-by-country basis. If you, as an 800 number customer, want coverage of Sweden, you can buy it. If you don't want coverage of Sweden, you don't get it. 2. It is an objective (at least, I believe of AT&T) that 800 = Free Call. Of course, COCOT's and AOS sleaze have tarnished that, but AT&T's objective, at least when I was selling the service, was for that to be the case. They never wanted a customer coming to them and saying "How come I was charged $8.00 to call 1-800-555-XXXX???". 3. It is AT&T's assumption that the customer (i.e., the recipient of the 800 number calls) will be smart enough to tailor his advertising to accomodate the 800 service he is ordering. In other words, don't advertise a domestic US 800 number in Sweden. Now let's bounce these assumptions against this situation: 1. 800 toll free service, dialable from Sweden is available. The company our Swedish friend wanted to call didn't choose to buy it. 2. AT&T and the other relevant telcos and PTT's don't want to engineer the network to complete 800 calls to the US for a fee in order to comply with item number two above (800=Toll Free) and taking into account that the incidents of demand for this should be low due to items one and three. I would suggest that those people who find themselves in this situation go and pound on the 800 customer to comply with common-sense and provide a dialable number in his advertising. That's the answer, not re-engineering the network to accomodate stupidity on the part of advertisers. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #558 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03645; 23 Jul 91 4:14 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17274; 23 Jul 91 2:41 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15220; 23 Jul 91 1:33 CDT Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 1:13:57 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #560 BCC: Message-ID: <9107230113.ab15165@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 23 Jul 91 01:13:48 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 560 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia: New Archives Files / How to Use Archives [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Simple Computer / Phone Link Wanted [Jon Sreekanth] Re: New 1991-92 Phone Books Arrived Today [Jack Winslade] Re: Statistics on Bell's Breakup [Tarl Neustaedter] Re: Sprint (Finally) Informs its Customers [Mark Miller] Re: Infamous Quotes About the Telephone [Brett G. Person] Re: Serious RFI Problem [Jonathan Mark] Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas [Steve Forrette] Re: Why Carry New AT&T Card When Old One Still Works? [Steve Forrette] Re: International 800 Calling [Armando P. Stettner] Plain Old Telephones [Olin Sibert] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 0:40:49 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: New Archives Files / How to Use Archives Digest participant Bill Huttig has edited and submitted two new files for the Telecom Archives which will be uploaded and available for review later this week. One file is a revision of the 800 exchange list which identifies carriers by the exchanges they use. This will replace an earlier version of the list in the archives. The other file is an updated list of 10xxx codes, also intended to replace the older version currently available. I will be working in the archives later this week as time permits and will put these files up for your use. Just as a reminder, the Telecom Archives is available by anonymous ftp from lcs.mit.edu: ftp lcs.mit.edu login anonymous give your.name@site.name for password cd telecom-archives The archives can also be accessed using a mail-ftp server, and the one suggested for your use is described in the help file below: From: "Doug Davis at letni.lonestar.org" Subject: Help File Date: 27-May-91 23:14:40 CST (Mon) This mail server is pretty simple minded, commands are sent as a single line in the body of the message. The ``Subject:'' (if any) will be returned as the subject line from the mail off of this site. This way you can keep track of your own requests. The following commands are available. Pretend the parser is stupid and spell and space them exactly as they are listed here. Anything else in in the body of the message will be quietly ignored. Path:{rfc-976/internet/@) return address for yourself} The parameter of this command should be internet style notation for your username. If your machine is not locateable on the internet via an MX record or gethostbyname() don't bother trying this, since the returning mail will undoubtably be lost. Command:[sub-command]{parameters/filenames} Currently the only supported subcommand right now is "send" with the parameters being the filenames separated via spaces to be sent via return mail to you. For example, to get the index file, send the server a message with the line below in the body of the message. Command: send index This will cause the index of available files to be sent back to you. Also, this is a system V site (hey it was cheap) so you will have to request the file via it's short time. Some later version of the server software will work with the longer names. Oh, yeah, in the above, means the space-bar, i.e. a character with the value of 0x20 hex. Not the word itself. Mailing addresses: telecom-archive-request@letni.lonestar.org: The mail server itself telecom-archive-server@letni.lonestar.org: Returning mail to you will come from this address. Mail sent TO this address will be silently ignored. doug@letni.lonestar.org: My address. Other notes, There is a 500k (per-day) limit on messages leaving the server. If the backlog has exceeded this you will be sent a short note saying your request is acknowledged and how many requests are in the queue before yours. Also presently the back issues of the Digest are being reformatted and are not presently available, my hope is to finish them by the first part of June. doug (Mon May 27 1991) ---------- Pat again: If you have not visited the archives recently, you really should get a copy of the current index of files available, and you can do so by following the instructions given above. Thanks to Bill Huttig for the work involved in the updates. Look for them probably Wednesday or later in the week. PAT ------------------------------ From: Jon Sreekanth Subject: Re: Simple Computer / Phone Link Wanted Organization: The World Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 04:35:17 GMT In article leichter@lrw.com (Jerry Leichter) writes: > I'd like to be able to have my system send me Email (at a known, > remote location) informing me when someone called and left a message. > I could then call in and check the message. > There are certainly plenty of fancy PC-based voicemail systems and > such like things that could do the trick, but that's a fairly > expensive way to go. Can anyone think of a good, quick hack to > accomplish this? (Just a simple way to send some information down an > RS-232 line when the answering machine has recorded a call would be > sufficient.) If you have a modem, then put the modem in parallel with your phone and answering machine. Use the modem's ring detect to figure out that four rings happened (or whatever number the answering machine picks up at). You have no way of knowing if the caller left a message or just hung up when your answering machine picked up the call, but it's a beginning. Regards, Jon Sreekanth Assabet Valley Microsystems, Inc. | Fax and PC products 346 Lincoln St #722, Marlboro, MA 01752 | (617) 876-8019 jon_sree@world.std.com | ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 22:04:32 cst From: Jack Winslade Subject: Re: New 1991-92 Phone Books Arrived Today Reply-To: ivgate!drbbs!jack.winslade@uunet.uu.net Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha For several years, the last listing in the Manhattan white pages was the surname Zzzyandottie [sic]. Yes, three 'z's. At the time (early 70's) there was speculation by certain phone 'enthusiasts' that it was a ringer name to thwart crank calls by kids picking the last one in the listing. (Uh, hello, Mr. Zzzyyandottie, is your refrigerator running ??) Good Day! JSW Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5 [200:5010/666@metronet] Omaha, Best-Connected BBS City. (200:5010/666.0) ------------------------------ From: Tarl Neustaedter Subject: Re: Statistics on Bell's Breakup Date: 23 Jul 91 04:08:29 GMT Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc. In article , ryan@cs.umb.edu (Daniel R. Guilderson) writes: > I don't know but my basic local phone bill went from about $22 to $28 > in the past two years. There is something wrong here. My data line (including touch-tone (tm) for additional charge) is $16.93/month, and we are both covered by the same Mass. Public Utilities Commission. You probably have some expensive services you aren't aware of. Tarl Neustaedter tarl@vos.stratus.com Marlboro, Mass. Stratus Computer Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions. ------------------------------ From: Mark Miller Subject: Re: Sprint (Finally) Informs its Customers Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 10:36:08 EDT [Moderator's Note: Mr. Miller received replies in his mail from people who read his article in issue 553 of the Digest. He responded to those people in mail, and sent a copy here. PAT] In article is written: > Also, they included a "no-strings-attached" $5.00 gift certificate! All three of you said you you did not get the gift certificate. I don't know why I got it (no complaints though :-)), I did make a fairly angry call one night, after reading about this in misc.consumers, I stopped just short of canceling out. I told them to send me the new rate sheet, and then I would consider not cancelling after I looked it over. Did that make any difference, who knows ... Carol said she sent a polite letter, and didn't get the gift certificate. Perhaps there is still some use for unbridled anger :-) Regards, Mark T. Miller miller@dg-rtp.dg.com ...uunet!xyzzy!miller ------------------------------ From: Brett G Person Subject: Re: Infamous Quotes About the Telephone Date: 23 Jul 91 05:20:36 GMT Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND I don't have the exact quote, but I think Mark Twain declined the invitation of Bell to invest in the telephone by saying that he couldn't imagine that people would pay to chatter to each other over wires. I think I got this from that stupid infomercial for wire-less cable. Brett G. Person North Dakota State University uunet!plains!person | person@plains.bitnet | person@plains.nodak.edu ------------------------------ From: jonm@microsoft.UUCP (Jonathan MARK) Subject: Re: Serious RFI Problem Date: 23 Jul 91 03:55:58 GMT Reply-To: jonm@microsoft.UUCP (Jonathan MARK) Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA I've definitely been persuaded that I gave bad advice -- one shouldn't immediately call the FCC about an RFI problem. I should have realized that it's only decent to try to resolve problems person-to-person (or person-to-corporation) before complaining to any part of the government. This would apply especially strongly to government agencies known for strong enforcement, when you are not even certain that any rules are being broken (the consumer equipment may be poorly designed). Thanks for your very polite responses, Jonathan Mark jonm@microsoft.com [not speaking for my employer] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 20:19:40 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? Organization: University of California, Berkeley > Hey! Don't forget Canada. We can call most US 800 numbers from here! For those of you keeping track, the Cable & Wireless 800 service ($10/month for the basic service + $10 more if you want to be able to reprogram the destination number on the fly) has a Canadian option for $15/month extra. This enables your same number to be accessed from Canada as well as the US. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 20:13:47 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Why Carry New AT&T Card When Old One Still Works? Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article "Bill" writes: > I have noticed that MCI and US Sprint are trying to push LEC billing, > which I think is bad since it takes a lot longer to get credits and a > statement than the IXC and the LEC cycle dates are different). I think that one of the main advantages to LEC billing is the incentive the customer has to paying the long distance bill on time -- the penalty for being too late is disconnection of LOCAL service. The way it is now, the worst that MCI or Sprint can do is threaten you with a collection agency, and block your long distance service, the latter of which 10XXX can take care of right away. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: "Armando P. Stettner" Subject: Re: International 800 Calling Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 05:55:43 GMT The 800 (toll free) numbers are implemented using a data base look up using the called number, the calling number (probably the area code and exchange), time of day, and for some services, the congestion or load or presure (as you like) at the called number. A packet containing the calling number and called number is routed within a CCS7 packet (implemented in the original CCIS or CCS6) to a database server (known in AT&T as an NCP for network control point). This database server takes into account all the factors described in the above listed information (along with some other stuff, depending upon the services subscribed to by the called party) and does the proper mapping. This architecture is essentially the same for MCI and Sprint, though differing in implementation. Some of the LEC's also have their own mapping capabilities, using a similar architecture or structure. This explaines why some calls work only with in a state or some less-than-national geography. [Note that not all LEC's/RBOC's use CCS7 (out-of-band signaling) to communicate call routing/billing instructions with the IXC's (AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc.); some of these LEC's actually convert back to in-band signaling (those old DTMF tones) for the signaling and the IXC converts back to OOB at their point-of-presence (POP)!] The main reason, as I understand it, for not being able to dial 800 numbers from outside the country is because of the lack of support for CCS7 and/or NCP access from across the borders. For some of the international things that do work, such as the 0800's from England and the like, I would assume that there is an international mapping made by an English resident database server or ``number mapper.'' Hope this sheds some light on the issue. Armando Stettner Now-a-private-consultant.... ------------------------------ From: Olin Sibert Subject: Plain Old Telephones Reply-To: sibert@Oxford.COM (Olin Sibert) Organization: Oxford Systems, Inc. Arlington, MA Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 03:42:49 GMT I am looking for some Plain Old Telephones. Can anyone here suggest where I might be able to purchase some? Specifically, I'm looking for a few Princess model phones, in white (or, if all else fails, black, but no other colors), with 12-button touchtone pads, either incandescent or LED dial illumination, and real bells that go "brrr...ing" instead of "bleat, bleat". I'm also looking for an old Bell small office keysystem, around eight stations plus dial intercom. Phones should be 2500 desk model, 12-button touchtone, four lines plus intercom plus hold. I'd also like to find one or two wall-mount six button units, but that's not as important. Again, white preferred, black acceptable, but no other colors. I imagine new/reconditioned is out of the question, so anything used that doesn't show serious signs of wear is fine. A good supply (or better yet, manufacturer/distributor, if any still exist) of spare parts, great hulking cables and connectors, etc. would also be valuable. I figure there must have been millions of these not too many years ago. They can't all have been melted down for scrap, can they? Or, failing all that, what recommendations might y'all have for fancy modern telephones that do basically the same thing as the old ones (but likely with more buttons)? Please reply to me directly; I do not read this list regularly. Thanks. Olin Sibert |Internet: Sibert@Oxford.COM Oxford Systems, Inc. |UUCP: uunet!oxford!sibert ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #560 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08442; 23 Jul 91 6:13 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae20808; 23 Jul 91 5:07 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07758; 22 Jul 91 23:22 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04899; 22 Jul 91 22:09 CDT Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 21:25:41 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #556 BCC: Message-ID: <9107222125.ab03525@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 22 Jul 91 21:25:38 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 556 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Lightning Protection for Modems [Jim Graham] Re: Lightning Protection for Modems [John Higdon] Re: Lightning Protection for Modems [Barton F. Bruce] Re: How Can I Obtain Cell Site Maps? [Dave Leibold] Re: How Can I Obtain Cell Site Maps? [Ed Greenberg] Re: Statistics on Bell's Breakup [Daniel R. Guilderson] Re: Serious RFI Problem [Jack Decker] Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z [Douglas Martin] Re: Swedish Televerket Changes Policy on AXE Services [Al Donaldson] Re: County Seat Phone Numbers [Mickey Ferguson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Graham Subject: Re: Lightning Protection for Modems Organization: Amoco Corporation, Telecommunications Network Design Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1991 15:25:53 GMT In article samsung!athenanet.com! kabra437@uunet.uu.net (Ken Abrams) writes: > [....] when those wires take a direct hit within a ^^^^^^^^^^ I've been following this thread with great interest (the modem I'm using even as I type is a Telebit T-2500, connected to a 16 MHz 286 that I just bought, which is then connected to lots of Ham gear --- the thought of a lightning hit scares me ...), but so far, the conversation (at least, what I've seen of it) has dealt with the (more severe) problem of a direct hit. I'd like to throw in another problem ...static discharge resulting from near misses. I mention this mainly because of an experience while I was in school at Texas A&M. A thunderstorm was approaching, but didn't seem to close at the time --- so nothing was really unplugged yet. Then, w/o any warning, we took a very near miss. The TV (which was off) lit up and glowed for a second. All of the lights that were turned on (and thus, connected to the main power feed) went off. All of the lights that were turned off lit up very brightly for a second. Everything then reversed itself to normal. Oh, my hair was more or less standing on end ... :-) Over the next week, every single light that had been turned off (almost every light in the house) blew. The lights that had been turned on (and apparently didn't take the static charge's full effect) were safe. The final amplifier stage of my stereo amplifier had to be replaced (the power transistors tested as a solid short in all directions on a Fluke 77), and the power xformer shorted out (not completely --- just enough to cause problems) and had to be replaced as well. The computer wasn't damaged (as far as we know), but the surge suppressor was still plugged in (it wasn't hurt either). Now, my question is this --- with static charges dancing around in the case of a near miss, if you unplug your computer and modem completely, you've just lost your ground ... which might have saved it from that static discharge (and it might not have). Will a surge suppressor still help in this case, assuming that it isn't connected to a ground (i.e., the wall outlet)? Perhaps with a good surge suppressor, the static discharge of a near miss isn't even a concern --- but the possibility that it is concerns me. Anybody have any thoughts on this one? jim Standard disclaimer....These thoughts are mine, not my employer's. Share and Enjoy! (Sirius Cybernetics Corporation, complaints division) 73, de n5ial Internet: zjdg11@hou.amoco.com or grahj@gagme.chi.il.us Amateur Radio: TCP/IP: jim@n5ial.ampr.org (44.72.47.193) Packet: BBS went QRT for good...still searching for new one. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 21:25 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Lightning Protection for Modems Chris Boaro writes: > Ha! You think that's bad ... we lost 12 out of 13 US Robitics HSTs in > a single electrical storm a few weeks back! It was interesting that > only the HSTs got fried, even tho we have 60 or so generic 2400 baud > modems. While lightning is seldom a problem on the California coast, even we are aware of the rule that says, "Lightning takes the path of least resistance -- which is usually provided through the most expensive piece of equipment." John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Lightning Protection for Modems Date: 22 Jul 91 04:58:40 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. > yet have a reliable e-mail address). We are probably going to buy a > large box from "Black Box" that can provide protection for about 50 > lines. It's a patch board kinda thing and pretty pricey at $650. If you want to add serious protection to any site that gets MANY pairs of phone wires in, it is really SIMPLE to do. The big problem is getting quality protectors bought and mounted for a home or on desk environment that involves only a few pairs. Most sites that get MANY pairs get them on an RJ21x jack that is really a 25 pair telco connector. Let telco hand it off to you that way rather that battling for the 'anything-goes' interface you now technically can get. Buy the CO grade 25 pair (or larger) protector blocks pre-equipped with 25 pair connectors IN and OUT. Get a short 25 pair cable preconnectorized M-F for each RJ21x 25 pair interface to be protected. Disconnect whatever cable you had that plugged into the RJ21X jack, and plug it into the output of the new protector. Connect the RJ21X to your new protector with a 25 pair cable. Keep the cable going into the protector AWAY from any leaving it! There are PLENTY of other options, this is just trying to make it VERY simple. The Porta Systems 25 pair block with 25 pair cable connectors in and out (MALE in, FEMALE out) preloaded with 25 of their premium 230 volt Delta protectors (95BCDXN-230) I am pretty sure is part number 0581-32-31511-6. Graybar, Anixter, AllTel, NorthSupply, TWComm Corp, or any *TELEPHONE* supply house sells these. This isn't cutting edge technology. This is simply buying the 'good stuff' telcos use to protect their COs, but that isn't marketed for 'data-suckers' (tm) where less substantial hardware at mega-markup brings juicy profits. Run FAT copper wire from the protector block to a nearby substantial ground. (What a substantial ground is is well beyond this note.) Additionally, if this ground is shared with the ground from the OUTPUT of an computer grade isolation transformer where the NEUTRAL is legally BONDED to ground right in your computer room, and ALL your devices are powered from this transformer, so much the better. Make sure there is plenty of surge protection on the power, too. Note that such a transformer, though often bought and used seperately (e.g. Topaz), is often a component in say a UPS setup. With a common local ground for both power and phone, and CO ESS grade protectors, nothing at your site should get whacked. There is simply no way to get damaging voltages between wires of the same or different services, including GROUND. FWIW, you want as much protection as early on in your building as possible for both power and phones. Telco generally provides this first stage for their wires, and you best get something for the power at your service entrance. These first ones should snub as much energy as possible for incoming spikes. Adding your own protection right at your equipment, hopefully a considerable distance from the service entrance, is really a second wall of defense. I am simply suggesting using the PREMIUM of the units that are fully qualified for use at 'front-line' at the service entrance or in the CO between the cable vault and the ESS machines. Used this way as the second wall of defense, your equipment should be quite safe. Not to upset too many pet notions some have, but the isolate 'green' ground in the orange outlets is potentially a serious liability if you are trying to eliminate spike damage. If you caught the common horse sense in the immediate local common ground for power and phone protection and see that it linits chances for damaging voltages between wires from different services that enter your equipment, try to reconcile that with the isolated ground from an orange outlet philosophy that precludes bonding that ground to other grounds locally. Now consider that ten feet of 'GREEN' wire of ANY guage (let alone hundreds of feet) could have even HUNDREDS of ohms impedence at the frequency of some spike. 'just because they say to do it, doesn't make it right'. But that is another topic for another time. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: How Can I Obtain Cell Site Maps? From: Not Leon D Zetekoff Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 23:39:34 EDT Organization: Brave New World BBS, Delray Beach, FL Phydeaux writes: > I'd like to find out where the cell sites are for Cellular > One/Chicago. They refuse to help me with dropped calls except to say > "check your antenna, there are lots of cells in your area." ... Does > anyone know how to go about this? If Cell One doesn't want to talk (it may depend on who you're getting; is there a way you can talk yourself through to their engineering department?) ... there are other routes to try. To build a cell tower is not a trivial task and would certainly require things like licensing and building permits. Perhaps the city has a public record of building permits available, or zoning regulations, that would relate to the cellular sites. I don't know who would be responsible for licensing, but the FCC or the appropriate public service commission may have public record of this. So ... keep looking, asking and plugging away. If the truth doesn't come out, perhaps a case could be made to the appropriate authorities (local, state, federal) to make this information available for public examination, if this isn't the case already. Having said that, I should try this detective stuff while I'm down in this neighbourhood. :-) dleibold@attmail.com djcl.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu shark.cs.fau.edu!bnw!djcl IMEX 89:82/135 Fido: 1:3609/7 ------------------------------ From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 09:40 PDT Subject: Re: How Can I Obtain Cell Site Maps? You may not be able to get maps, but these things are kind of hard to miss. Look for a low tower or pole, maybe 40-50 feet, with a triangular array of antennas on top. That's your cellsite! ------------------------------ From: "Daniel R. Guilderson" Subject: Re: Statistics on Bell's Breakup Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1991 05:02:04 GMT In article think!barmar@bloom-beacon. mit.edu (Barry Margolin) writes: > My guess is that much of that 56% local rate increase was > shortly after the breakup, during this adjustment period. I don't know but my basic local phone bill went from about $22 to $28 in the past two years. That's more than 25% right there. Parts of the bill have gone up over 33% in the same time period. The stinky thing is that there's nothing I can do about it. It's pay or no play. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 07:44:00 EDT From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Serious RFI Problem In a message dated 13 Jul 91 20:05:24 GMT, jonathan@cs.pitt.edu (Jonathan Eunice) writes: > I can often hear a particular radio station very strongly over the > phone. Both our Panasonic two-line and AT&T one-line phones are > affected. The silly "RFI filter" gizmos sold at Radio Shack, etc have > >nil< effect. Our telephone company says, "Your lines are clean. It's > your phones that are picking up the radio." They suggest buying some > very old style telephones without much electronics in them; they say > these will be less susceptible to interference. Buying obsolete > equipment is, IMO, a poor solution. On the other hand, if there were > decent RFI-immune phones available, I will buy new equipment. I used to live across the street from a radio station, so I know how frustrating this can be. Three suggestions: 1) First, INSPECT all your phone wiring for bad connections ... either screws or connectors not properly tightened, or bad splices. A bad splice can act as a detector of Radio Frequency Interference (RFI). Note: If you get the interference when you plug a phone into your network interface box (where the telco's wiring meets yours), then it's quite possible that there may be a bad splice or poor connection in the drop wire to your home, or in the phone company's cables near your home. 2) If all your connections seem okay, try using two .02 microfarad mylar capacitors rated at 600 volts or more, connecting one lead to each wire of your talking pair and the other lead to a good earth ground (the network interface box may be the best place to do this). In other words, Red wire 0------||-----+-----||-----0 Green wire .02 uf | .02 uf | | 0 Ground You can also try this near a particular phone that's giving you problems. Also, in cases of minor interference, you may want to try smaller values (down to .001 microfarad), since smaller values would be less likely to affect audio frequencies and possibly interfere with your data transmissions. 3) Try using choke coils in SERIES with each wire of the phone line. You want coils with low DC resistance but high RF resistance. I think AT&T may market a device that contains something like this, but you might want to try raiding the electronic "junk box" first, if you have one. If the coil has low DC resistance (I would say under 100 ohms, but perhaps someone else could be more specific on this), give it a try. Hope this helps! Via D'Bridge 1:1/211 07/18 18:59 Jack Decker, via 1:120/183@fidonet (royaljok.fidonet.org) Internet: Jack.Decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org UUCPnet: {...}!uunet!mailrus!umich!wsu-cs!royaljok!154!8!Jack.Decker ------------------------------ From: Douglas Martin Subject: Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1991 08:24:49 -0600 The first and last several entries in the Edmonton phone directory are: A A A A A A A A A H 26c Pizza A A A A A A Auto & Truck Parts A A A A A A H Lama Pizza A A A A A A A Homemade Steak & Pizza A A A A C J Moving & Supplies A Division of Sherwood Moving & Storage Ltd A A A A H Pizza 73 A A A Affordable Plumbing A A A Alarm Systems A A A Courtesy Autobody & Towing (15 more start with A A A) Zytaruk Zzzzee Best Plastics of Canada Inc ZZZZZYZ'S Enterprises and Auto Ltd. douglas@cs.ualberta.ca 73547.3210@compuserve.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 12:52:18 EDT From: Al Donaldson Subject: Re: Swedish Televerket Changes Policy on AXE Services Reply-To: Al Donaldson Organization: ESCOM Corp., Oakton VA (USA) In article hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin) writes: > Now, let's see if U.S. phone companies will follow suit and remove all > fees on CLASS service. Maybe around 2050 or so ... If we're really lucky, then maybe by 2050 we won't have to pay extra for touchtone service. Al al@escom.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 11:37:42 PDT From: Mickey Ferguson Subject: Re: County Seat Phone Numbers One thing my old hometown area did which makes sense is to provide numbers to the county services and offices which are local calls for anyone in the county. What used to be a toll call is now free. Every place ought to be able to call its county offices without charge. (I think they set it up where there were local exchange number for the different areas, but it also could be done with localized 800 services. Mickey Ferguson Rolm Systems fergusom@scrvm2.vnet.ibm.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #556 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08083; 23 Jul 91 17:05 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17274; 23 Jul 91 2:37 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15220; 23 Jul 91 1:33 CDT Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 0:26:14 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #559 BCC: Message-ID: <9107230026.ab12516@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 23 Jul 91 00:26:09 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 559 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Justice Terms Equal Access Unfeasible [Radio Comm Report via L. Donnelly] Unusual Phone-Sex Line [Linc Madison] New GTE Dallas Directory Fun [Linc Madison] Why Not Alias 301-688 and 301-878 to Both MD Area Codes? [Carl Moore] Auto-Answer Phone Query [Steve Kass] What's The Best E-Mail? [Donald R. Newcomb] Re: Sprint Rate Change [John Higdon] Re: Calling Myself / Call Return [Steve Forrette] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 20 Jul 91 16:07:34 cst From: Leroy Donnelly Subject: Justice Terms Equal Access Unfeasible Reply-To: ivgate!drbbs!leroy.donnelly@uunet.uu.net Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha From the July 22nd edition of {Radio Communications Report}: Justice TERMS EQUAL ACCESS UNFEASIBLE FOR USE IN CELLULAR WASHINGTON - In a potential setback to long-distance carriers, the Justice Department said Bell Cellular operators should not be subject at this time to equal access requirements for interexchange calls handed off between cellular systems because such arrangements cur- rently are not technologically viable. The department's June 12 recommendation will now be considered by U.S. District Judge Harold Greene, overseer of the 1984 breakup of American Telephone & telegraph Co. that created the seven regional Bells. The consent decree, which set out terms of the divestiture, bars regional Bells from manufacturing, long distance and infor- mation services. The long-distance, or interexchange, restriction comes into play in the handing off and forwarding of Bell cellular calls that cross restricted local access and transport areas, or LATAs. Equal access allows telephone subscribers a choice in long-distance companies and mandates easy across-the-board access to a particular long-distance carrier. "As this Court and Department repeatedly have stated, the RBOCs (Regional Bell Operating Companies) may not avoid their duty to provide equal access, where technologically feasible, simply because providing equal access involves some of additional expense," said Justice in the 17-page report. However the department added that recent industry input "makes it clear that there is not certainty that it will ever be feasible to provide equal access for intersystem hand-off, and it is impossible to predict with any precision, when, if ever, such technology may evolve." Greene called for a report on the status of equal-access technology last September in ruling that Bell cellular calls could be handed off between adjoining cellular systems even when traffic crosses LATA boundaries, without forcing Bells to adhere to the equal access requirement in accomplishing the hand-off. At that time, Greene declined to impose the equal access on inter- systems Bell celluar hand-offs out of concern that such a requirement might make it difficult for calls to go uninterrupted between cel- lular systems and because it was unclear whether technology would permit it. Greene, though, ruled equal access would apply to automatic call delivery, a function akin to call forwarding. The issue, while seemingly technical in nature has significant business implications for competing long distance companies -- like AT&T and MCI Corp. -- and also for Bell cellular operators who want to build wide-area cellular networks to compete against their nonwireline counterparts. Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5 [200:5010/666@metronet] Omaha, Best-Connected BBS City. (200:5010/666.0) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 01:50:53 PDT From: Linc Madison Subject: Unusual Phone-Sex Line I was flipping through a freebie newspaper, past the ad for 1-800-XXX-XXXX phone sex line (advertised as "Not a 900 number! Not a 976 number! Not an 800 number! Call 1-800-XXX-XXXX ....) when I noticed one of a format I've never seen before. The content of the service is standard multi-connection chat line, but the number is advertised as 011-599-6868. (That's +599 6868 for international readers.) The ad says something about no surcharges, just the regular call charges. 599 is Netherlands Antilles, which has a couple of one-digit city codes listed, but nothing for 6. How do you suppose this works? Does the PTT in Netherlands Antilles operate the service, or give a kickback of its landing fees to the company that does? Also, that's gotta be in the running for the shortest phone number in the world. -- Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu = ucbvax!tongue1!linc Disclaimer: I have no connection to the government or telephone company of the Netherlands Antilles, having never even been nor called there. [Moderator's Note: Are you *positive* you didn't call there? Confess now, or I'll ask Randy to review the records and post his findings. :) Someone once described phone-sex lines to me as 'a service that everyone calls at one time or another, but no one will admit to using. When I have tried it using various carriers (MCI/ATT/Sprint) -- strictly as research for the Digest, of course (of course!!) -- I have never gotten past the busy signal. It must be extremely popular. I think what happens is the international carrier bills the normal rate for a call to the NA, and whatever remittance they make in the normal course of settling accounts with the PTT there is sufficient to keep the proprietors of the service happy. Other ideas, anyone? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 01:42:33 PDT From: Linc Madison Subject: New GTE Dallas Directory Fun I was recently in Dallas, visiting my parents and attending my high school reunion. While there, I chanced to glance through a bit of the GTE phone book which had recently been delivered. A few noteworthy bits of trivia: (1) The 301/410 split is covered in the area code map, but they got it backwards! They show Baltimore keeping 301 and Washington suburbs going to 410. (2) The city code for London is still listed as 1. (3) The area code splits in California (415/510 and 213/310) are omitted, I think (may be wrong on this one). It was also full of other oddities particular to Dallas calling patterns and such, plus explanation of features like cancel call waiting (70#, or 70 from rotary), with no mention of the fact that the feature may not be available on your phone. (My parents have CW but not CCW; 70# gives fast busy. This is from 214-466). The other interesting thing is that the above features are all from the Carrollton directory (suburb near the airport). The listings for Dallas are in a separate GTE Dallas directory, which is now distributed to GTE customers instead of the SW Bell Dallas directory which they used to give out. The GTE Dallas directory has no preface pages -- just the listings themselves. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu = ucbvax!tongue1!linc ...soon to be in 510 land! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 8:59:36 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Why Not Alias 301-688 and 301-878 to Both MD Area Codes? (In Maryland, currently served only by 301 area code, 688 is Fort Meade and 878 is Fort Ritchie.) I suggested that 688 and 878 might be aliased into both 301 and 410 areas because they are both local to both DC and Baltimore city. This would leave the local calling instructions from DC and Baltimore city completely unchanged after the 301/410 split: Local calls from DC would be 7D within DC, and 301 + 7D or 703 + 7D respectively to MD and VA suburbs. Local calls from Baltimore city would be 7D. Some local calls originating in suburbs between DC and Baltimore city will cross the 301/410 border and thus must change from 7D to NPA + 7D. For those who don't already know, the 800-477-4704 C&P help line claims that 688 and 878 will stay in 301. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1991 13:18 EDT From: SKASS@drew.bitnet Subject: Auto-Answer Phone Query A friend of mine is looking for an auto-answer speaker phone for a bedridden relative. He's seen one at Sears for $300, but that sounds a bit steep to him and to me. Any recommendations would be appreciated, for products or for ways to adapt a non-auto-answer speakerphone to make it answer automatically. Steve Kass/ Math&CS/ Drew U/ Madison, NJ 07940/ skass@drew.bitnet ------------------------------ From: Donald R Newcomb Subject: What's the best e-mail? Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1991 16:30:01 GMT I am investigating the features of various electronic mail systems available to individuals. I would appreciate any assistance anyone can give with this project. I have started by looking at 20 common features that are important (to me) and tabulating them in a matrix. The features are: A. Can send mail to various networks and systems: 1. Intermail: Internet, SPAN, UUCP, BITNET and all the systems connected by Internet. 2. Telemail: Sprint Mail, NASA Mail etc. 3. MCI Mail 4. Compuserve 5. GEnie: General Electric's E-Mail 6. TELEX: Unrestricted World-wide Telex 6a. Personal Telex #. User has a personal TELEX number for receiving Telex vs. common Telex number using a code in the message to route the message. 7. Paper Mail: Delivery by USPS. 8. Dialcom: Tymnet E-mail 9. FAX B. X.400 addressing: Utilizes and receives X.400 addressed messages. C. Packet network connections. D. Telnet: Access to and from Internet Telnet. E. Usenet: Has Usenet News F. Binary File Transfer. Has a way to transfer binary files. G. File Store: User has at least 360K characters of storage. H. 800#: Access from toll-free 800 number for lower 48 states. I. Receipt: Sender can request an automatic receipt when a message is read. J. Auto-forward: User can set mailbox to automatically forward incoming mail to _any_ possible destination. (The acid test is to forward incoming e-mail to a FAX) The systems compared, so far, are: 1. Telemail 2. MCI Mail 3. ESL (Western Union EasyLink) 4. GEnie (Star*Services) (not same as Quickcom) 5. Pinet (American Institute of Physics) 6. World (Software Tool & Die, world.std.com) 7. UUCP (Generic Public access UUCP host) 8. Compuserve 9. Fidonet This first-cut analysis does not really tell which service might be most cost-effective. To do that, one would need to compare a market- basket of projected usage. Since most services have complex pricing schedules, such an analysis could be difficult, at best. Features-Read Down Costs ($US) |---------------------------------------|------------------ |I|T|M|C|G|T|P|T|P|D|X|F|P|T|U|B|F|8|R|A| S | A | H | |n|e|C|o|E|e|e|e|a|i|.|A|a|e|s|i|i|0|e|u| e | n | o | |t|l|I|m|n|l|r|l|p|a|4|X|c|l|e|n|l|0|c|t| t | n | u | |e|e| |p|i|e|s|e|e|l|0| |k|n|n|a|e|#|e|o| u | u | r | |r|m|M|s|e|x|o|g|r|c|0| |e|e|e|r| | |i| | p | a | | |n|a|a|e| | |n|a| |o| | |t|t|t|y|S| |p|F| | l | | |e|i|i|r| | |a|m|M|m| | | | | | |t| |t|o| | | | |t|l|l|v| | |l| |a| | | |N| | |X|o| | |r| | | | | | | |e| | | | |i| | | |e| | |f|r| | |w| | | | | | | | | | |#| |l| | | |t| | |e|e| | |d| | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Telemail |$ $ $ $ ? $ Y N $ ? Y $ S N N $ $ $ Y N ? ? MCI Mail |$ $ $ $ $ $ Y N $ $ Y $ S N $ $ ? N 35 ESL |D $ $ $ ? $ Y $ $ $ Y $ N N N $ ? $ N 0 300* Genie |N N N N Y N N N N N N N P N N ? ? $ ? N 0 60 0-18 Pinet |Y Y Y Y ? $ D N D D N $ ? Y Y Y Y Y N N 15 0 10-19 World |Y Y Y Y ? D D N D D N D C Y Y Y Y N N Y 0 60 2-8 UUCP |Y Y Y Y ? D D N D D N D ? N N Y Y ? N Y Compuserve|$ $ $ $ ? $ ? N ? ? ? $ $ M N Y Y $ ? N 75? Fidonet |Y Y Y Y ? ? ? N ? ? N ? N N N ? ? N N ? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Key: Y=Available feature at no extra cost. N=Not available. $=Available, an extra charge for usage applies. D=Feature available with subscription to DASnet.* S=Sprint (Telenet) Packet Network C=Compuserve Packet Network T=Tymnet Packet Network P=Private Packet Network M=Multiple Packet Networks ?=Unsure *=Minimum sum of usage charges Note:(*) DASnet is a service that provides systems and individuals with gateways to a variety of incompatible e-mail systems. A monthly charge of $4.75 plus usage charges apply to DASnet services for individuals. For information contact, "help@11.das.net". Several systems (Compuserve, GEnie, Telemail etc) provide other valuable services such as airline reservations, Dow-Jones news, discount stock brokerages and flower ordering. While these may be important services, they fall outside the bounds of this study. Donald Newcomb newcomb@world.std.com [Moderator's Note: Thank you for a very interesting and well-prepared analysis. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jul 91 23:31 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Sprint Rate Change Doctor Math writes: > I thought about switching to AT&T when I first picked up the thread > about the new rate increases. Now, it's gonna happen first thing > Monday morning. Two things I can say about AT&T. One is that AT&T's rates do not seem to change as often as a person changes his socks. To keep up with MCI, Sprint, and all the rest is an impossibility. Their rates would literally have to be printed in the commodity prices section of the newspaper for an individual to be really informed. The other is that on the infrequent occasions when AT&T does change its rates, it is usually in a downward direction. And then this usually sets off some scurrying on the part of MCI and Sprint to perform some cosmetic surgery on their respective rate cards -- to convince the public that they are STILL at least a fraction of a percent below AT&T. I was talking to a Sprint rep shortly after an AT&T rate reduction. When I pointed out that the prices she was quoting me were HIGHER than AT&T, she was momentarily flustered and then recovered, pointing out (correctly) that AT&T had just lowered rates and that Sprint would be having a reduction shortly "in order to remain competitve". Frankly, it is comforting to still patronize the industry leader. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 20:02:50 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Calling Myself / Call Return Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article David Barts writes: > As far as I know, all GTE Northwest switches in the Seattle area are > 5ESS. I asked a GTE craftsman this question just a month ago. He > then proceeded to give his opinion of the GTD5; I can't remember > exactly what he said but I distinctly remember the phrase "piece of > junk" figuring prominently in his description. About two years ago, I received "service" (if you oculd call it that) from GTE while living in Mill Creek, WA, on the 206-338 exchange. The switch was unlike anything else I had ever used (I had always lived in an RBOC area before). I assumed that it was some funky GTE creation, probably a GTD-5, and it was definately a peice of junk. It exhibited the strange behavior, recently described in the Digest, when calling your own number if you have call waiting. The most annoying things were that the flash interval was non-standard, so hitting the FLASH button on my AT&T cordless phone would not activate call waiting. And, hitting OFF then TALK would always result in terminating the first call. Also, the ringing sound that the caller hears wasn't in synch with the ringing voltage, which made using TollSaver on the answering machine more difficult. The FLASH button has worked just fine on every 1AESS I have been on, and now on a "D5RS", whatever that is. (This new beast, which I think is a "rural" digital switch from NT, has its own set of quirks, which I shall describe in another message). Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #559 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28942; 24 Jul 91 0:51 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08737; 23 Jul 91 23:03 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06291; 23 Jul 91 21:55 CDT Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 21:11:53 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #561 BCC: Message-ID: <9107232111.ab02294@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 23 Jul 91 21:11:44 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 561 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: RJ12 Jacks, A & A1 Signals, Modems and Bell Phones [John Higdon] Re: RJ12 Jacks, A & A1 Signals, Modems and Bell Phones [David Lesher] Re: Why Carry New AT&T Card When Old on Still Works? [Andy Sherman] Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals [Bob Frankston] Re: MCI's Friends and Family Won't Leave Me Alone [wegeng@arisia.xerox.com] Re: Getting Off a Party Line [roeber@cithe1.cithep.caltech.edu] Re: How Many With Touchtone? [Paul Wexelblat] Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [Mark Brader] Re: International 800 Calling [Armando P. Stettner] Re: Serious RFI Problem [Andrew Payne] Re: Serious RFI Problem [Daniel Herrick] Re: New 1991-92 Phone Books Arrived Today [Daniel Herrick] Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z [Gordon Burditt] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 00:49 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: RJ12 Jacks, A & A1 Signals, Modems and Bell Phones Nelson Bolyard writes: > These leaf switches were designed so that as one put the receiver in > the cradle, the A-A1 switch opened BEFORE the tip-ring circuit opened, > by at least a few milliseconds. This timing was crucial for use with > multi-line phone systems (e.g. the 1A2 system). In 1A2 systems, if > the A-A1 circuit was still closed when the tip-ring circuit went open, > this meant that the call was going on hold, and the 1A2 system would > not release the call. The red or black Hold button worked by shorting > the A-A1 signals while the tip-ring connection opened. The above is just the opposite of how 1A2 signaling works. When a phone goes off hook, the tip/ring loop closes and the A/A1 circuit closes, both through the hook switch contacts. When the telephone user wishes to put the call on hold, he pushes the 'hold' button which OPENS the A/A1 circuit. In other words, 'hold' intention is signaled by opening the A/A1 circuit while there is tip/ring loop current present. Then as the caller releases the 'hold' button, it pops up the line button. The tip/ring loop is now open, but the call is held by the KSU. When the call is picked up from hold, tip and ring are re-established, and the A/A1 circuit is closed, which actually releases the hold. As Nelson points out, timing is critical. If the A/A1 hookswitch contacts open BEFORE the tip/ring contacts, the call will go on hold when the receiver is hung up. This is why you will find that the A/A1 contacts always establish before the tip/ring on both the hookswitch and on the line keys. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: RJ12 Jacks, A & A1 Signals, Modems and Bell Phones Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 7:18:28 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers {Nelson talked about hookswitches on 500 sets} A standard {2}500 set had three sets of contacts on its hookswitch. Two were open when on_hook, one was closed. Here's how they were wired: contact: NO1 NO2 NC residential use: tip ring rcvr 1A2 use: tip (or ring) A control rcvr Neither setup disconnected the ringer when off-hook, although this is typically done in the UK. The NC contact shorted out the handset receiver so the phone would not "talk" with line noise when on_hook. I have seen a special hookswitch made by DOD to improve on_hook isolation. It had, as I recall: NO: tip NO: ring NO: A control NO: in series with the transmitter NC: rcvr NC: shorted T+R in set just past the two NO contacts above. And maybe a few more. It WAS rather big. ------------------------------ From: Andy Sherman Subject: Re: Why Carry New AT&T Card When Old on Still Works? Date: 23 Jul 91 13:27:43 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA In article Bill Huttig writes: > In article andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy > Sherman) writes: >> IXCs will not have to accept LEC issued calling cards (at least not >> after 1/1/92), although my best knowledge is that AT&T will continue >> to do so. However, I'm not sure that the Reach Out card option will > This was where things were a few years back ... when you dialed a > 10xxx + 0 + call you had to use a card from the xxx IXC. Seems like a > step backwards. Does this mean a LEC does not have to take AT&T's new > card? As of 1/1/92, AT&T and the RBOCs will have to stop sharing the current shared facility for calling card numbers and verification. Says the MFJ and the FCC and maybe the sacred texts of several religions :^). At that time, AT&T will sell verification services to LECs for Intra-Lata calls billed to AT&T Cards (as it already does for Intra-Lata calls billed to Universal Cards) and will buy verification services from the LECs for AT&T calls billed to a LEC card. Needless to say, AT&T will not offer verification or billing services to OCCs or AOSs, so only AT&T handled Inter-Lata calls can be billed to the AT&T > I have noticed that MCI and US Sprint are trying to push LEC billing, > which I think is bad since it takes a lot longer to get credits and a > statement than the IXC and the LEC cycle dates are different). I also > heard that AT&T has been testing their own billing for a couple years > now and I assume they will go to direct billing soon. It seems like > AT&T is going the opposite of the other IXC's. I would like to see it > that every carrier offers the option of LEC or IXC billing. I doubt that any carrier will be able to afford to offer dual billing systems. The cost would be prohibitive, and you would pay for it in the form of higher tariffs. 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! ------------------------------ From: frankston!Bob_Frankston@world.std.com Subject: Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals Date: 23 July 1991 09:53 -0400 Then there are the proposals to ban the use of beepers by minors since they might used by drug dealers. The fact that they are great for parents to give to their own kids is not as important as the hwad (Holy War Against Drugs). ------------------------------ From: wegeng@arisia.xerox.com Subject: Re: MCI's Friends and Family Won't Leave Me Alone! Organization: Xerox Digital Systems Department, Henrietta, NY Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 06:09:03 PDT While I do get annoyed by telemarketing, (someday I'll tell you all about my battle with Gannett newspapers) I'm not ready to place complete blame on MCI for the Friends and Family telemarketing calls. I'm an MCI customer, and received a call from them on Sunday afternoon (really) telling me that I had been signed up for Friends and Family, and that they would be happy to contact my friends and family to invite them to join the service. I politely said "no, I don't give out names and phone numbers to telemarketing companies". Easy. I agree with you that MCI should try to confirm the information that they are given before placing such telemarketing calls. However, in the case where MCI got your name from one of your friends/family, who is to blame? It seems to me that your friends/family share the blame, since it's *them* who gave out your name. As the old saying goes, with friends like these who needs enemies? Don wegeng@arisia.xerox.com ------------------------------ From: roeber@cithe1.cithep.caltech.edu Subject: Re: Getting Off a Party Line Date: 23 Jul 91 06:34:59 PST DOUG@ysub.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell) writes: > D & ML were told that they couldn't switch from a two-party line to a > private line unless the other party on the line agrees. The other > party doesn't want to, so they feel 'stuck'. > Any advice (short of offering to pay the other party's connection > charge or praying that party lines be eliminated?) Get Usenet via UUCP. With a script to automatically redial if the data connection gets interrupted. A one-month subscription should do it. [Moderator's Muse: Have you fogotten the FCC prohibition against the use of modems or other privately owned (non-telco provided) instruments on party lines? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Paul Wexelblat Subject: Re: How Many With Touchtone? Reply-To: samsung!ulowell!wex@uunet.uu.net Organization: Univ. of Lowell CS Dept. Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 16:14:53 GMT > I'm working on a proposal that requires some statistics on what > percentage of the population of the United States is Touchtone > equipped, on both a total and city-by-city (especially northeast) > basis. > Does anyone have this information available, or know where I can find > it? You most likely want three (count-em three) categories for your survey. From your source I educe that you may have an interest in applications of touchtone menu systems... NOTE!!! there are some of us stuck with yecho digital systems that dial with tones, but do NOT produce tones on the line when the buttons are pushed. Ain't technology wonderful! Wex ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 03:40:00 -0400 From: Mark Brader Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada > ... And by definition, 800 service is a *domestic* offering within > the USA for USA callers. There is no tariff which provides for calling > an 800 number from outside the USA. Ahem. I can assure you that I have called several different 800-numbers in the USA from Canada; and my employer has an 800-number dialable from the USA. This simple correction leads to a question, though. As most readers will know, the North American Numbering Plan (country code 1) includes not only Canada and the USA but a number of Caribbean countries grouped under area code 809. Are there 800-numbers that work between those countries, and between those countries and the USA and/or Canada? > But the 800 subscriber does not authorize international toll charges, > which is why you are blocked from calling him by that method. The original poster expressed willingness to pay the toll. Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com ------------------------------ From: "Armando P. Stettner" Subject: Re: International 800 Calling Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 15:18:01 GMT It was a little late when I described 800 service. One thing I forgot to mention is that the database mapping of the called number by the NCP sometimes results in a network routing number (NRN) which is almost like a POTS number but is otherwise non-dialable. aps ------------------------------ From: Andrew Payne Subject: Re: Serious RFI Problem Date: 20 Jul 91 13:16:33 GMT Organization: Cornell Theory Center In article jonm@microsoft.UUCP (Jonathan MARK) writes: >> I've just moved to a hill upon which a radio transmitter is located... >> I can often hear a particular radio station very strongly over the >> phone ... > Certainly call the FCC -- they will send you a complaint form to fill > out. The radio station may be required to take measures to clean up > their signal. I get the impression that the FCC is pretty tough about > this sort of thing. No, no, no! As a first step, do NOT contact the FCC! This is akin to slapping your neighbor with a lawsuit because she's playing her radio too loud. Instead, try to resolve it yourself first (as has been discussed). If that fails, try contacting the radio station: their engineer has probably heard many complaints similar to yours and should have some suggestions. Finally (and ONLY finally), contact the FCC. But you will probably be disappointed: it may take the better part of a year to get a response to your inquiry. And when you do get a response, you may be evn more suprised. For many people in your situation (e.g. "I live next door to a broadcast transmitter"), the FCC often considers the problem yours. Why? Transmitters are rarely at fault (as has been pointed out), especially broadcast transmitters that have been on for years. ------------------------------ From: "90958, HERRICK, DANIEL" Subject: Re: Serious RFI Problem Date: 23 Jul 91 16:00:42 EST In article , jonm@microsoft.UUCP (Jonathan MARK) writes: > In article jonathan@cs.pitt.edu > (Jonathan Eunice) writes: >> I've just moved to a hill upon which a radio transmitter is located... >> I can often hear a particular radio station very strongly over the >> phone ... > Certainly call the FCC -- they will send you a complaint form to fill > out. The radio station may be required to take measures to clean up > their signal. I get the impression that the FCC is pretty tough about > this sort of thing. It is very unlikely to be the radio station's problem. They are emitting the field their license authorizes them to emit. However, citizen complaints to the FCC are a genuine inconvenience, both to the FCC and the station. The result is that the station is likely to be reasonably friendly helping you to correct the problems in *your* equipment that makes your equipment susceptible to RFI. Call the station. dan herrick dlh@NCoast.org ------------------------------ From: "90958, HERRICK, DANIEL" Subject: Re: New 1991-92 Phone Books Arrived Today Date: 23 Jul 91 12:37:19 EST In article , samsung!ulowell!.ULowell. EDU!wex@uunet.uu.net (Paul Wexelblat) writes: > This raises an issue; I have an unlisted phone. (No need to go into > why.) I asked my business office (NYNEX) to list my number under a > random name (Then I could tell my friends that they could look up e.g. > Harry Fuzzdingle, or some such, if they forgot/lost my number.) The > business office said that I couldn't do that!!! > Is this generally true?? > NOTE: They had no problem with listing random names for a listed > phone, a common occurence with shared housing, they just would not do > it for and unlisted/unpublished number. They did not think I was just > trying to avoid the unlisted/unpublished number charges, I offered to > pay them. Recent experience here with Ohio Bell. I added a second line (residential) for the computer. She asked if I wanted the number listed. I asked if it cost extra. She said, "No." I said, "Then don't list it." All the data for the new account was, I thought, copied from the old. A friend then told me he tried to call from an airport and information told him my number was unlisted. I tried information and was told there was an unlisted number. Then she found a listing under a similar name (initials and names nonsense). Called the business office. No, they can't just unlist the unlisted number so it doesn't confuse people looking at the listings. Well, make the listings identical. I ended up with the unlisted number unlisted under the name Ichabod Crane. Havn't called information yet and asked for that one. dan herrick ------------------------------ From: Gordon Burditt Subject: Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z Date: 23 Jul 91 19:10:35 GMT Organization: Gordon Burditt The first two entries in the Fort Worth residential listings are: A, M. and AAARGH, A. A. 309 College St. Does anyone think that Aaargh is a real last name? Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #561 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29043; 24 Jul 91 0:54 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08737; 23 Jul 91 23:07 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06291; 23 Jul 91 21:55 CDT Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 21:50:31 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #562 BCC: Message-ID: <9107232150.ab14578@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 23 Jul 91 21:50:26 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 562 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Credit Card Surcharges - Any Reason For These? [Bryan Richardson] Re: Operation Telephone 1965 [Tony Harminc] Re: International 800 Calling [Frederick G. M. Roeber] Re: Sprint Plus Change Letter [John Parsons] Re: Sprint Rate Change [Daniel Herrick] Re: Information Wanted on Portable Faxes and Fax Boards [Allen Gwinn] Re: How Can I Obtain Cell Site Maps? [Wilson Mohr] Re: Telesat's Anik E-2 Satellite Salvag [Rick Calicura] Re: Lightning Protection For Modems [Bud Couch] Re: Statistics on Bell's Breakup [Daniel R. Guilderson] ATC Ad Campaign [David Leibold] Comsec Data Security on Good Morning America (ABC) [Craig Neidorf] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bryan Richardson Subject: Re: Credit Card Surcharges - Any Reason For These? Date: 23 Jul 91 17:07:58 GMT Reply-To: Bryan Richardson Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University In article djcl@bnw.delray.fl.us (David Leibold) writes: > I wonder why carriers are surcharging for calls made with credit > cards? This seems to be a holdover from the days when operator > assistance was required to take down a card number (and thus a rate > higher than DDD was applied). It seems that card numbers can be > handled directly by the carrier, while direct dial requires some > interaction with a local telco, so it might seem that card calls are > actually cheaper to process than direct dial; but that could be a > tariff or carrier-telco matter. I do not think that credit card calls are cheaper to handle. The call is the same as any collect or bill-to-third party call. Operators must still exist to handle these calls, including credit card calls from locations without a touch tone phone. Credit card validation databases must be developed and put into service. Fraudulent calling must be handled, and the costs of uncollected (fraudulent) calls must be absorbed by the carrier. All of this costs additional money over "DDD" POTS calls. Bryan Richardson richard@cs.purdue.edu AT&T Bell Laboratories and, for 1991, Purdue University Disclaimer: Neither AT&T nor Purdue are responsible for my opinions. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 12:39:41 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Operation Telephone 1965 Doctor Math writes in issue 558: > Found this gem in {Popular Electronics} V15 #3 (Sept. 1961), > pp41-44,98-100. By Ken Gilmore. Words his, typos mine: > These are just a few of the scores of special services you'll enjoy > when electronics takes over completely. With the new system, switching > and routing of call -- now done by relatively slow-moving relays -- > will be accomplished with no moving parts at all. Hordes of electrons > rushing through transistors, diodes, and glass tubes will do the job, ^^^^^^^^^^^ > and they'll do it within *millionths* of a second. Thus, the > all-electronic system will be able to perform thousands of different > operations, carrying out extremely complex switching operations > impossible with present equipment. Ahh -- sounds like the ESS flying spot store. This was the early 1960's version of ROM. Imagine a CRT with a photographic film pasted to the front. The light passes through the film and to a (single) photocell in front. The film has dots on it to represent the bits. The addressing signals control the beam sweep, and the data is read serially from the photocell. Recording (once only of course) is done using the same setup but with unexposed film and no photocell. Somehow I can much more easily believe in the existence of electro- mechanical SxS switches than I can in the FSS, but it really did exist. No -- really -- I'm not making this up :-) Tony H. ------------------------------ From: roeber@cithe1.cithep.caltech.edu Subject: Re: International 800 Calling Date: 23 Jul 91 06:27:55 PST In article , ED.HOPPER@ehbbs.hou.tx.us (ED HOPPER) writes: > 2. AT&T and the other relevant telcos and PTT's don't want to > engineer the network to complete 800 calls to the US for a fee in > order to comply with item number two above (800=Toll Free) [....] The Swiss and French PTTs catagorically state "You can't call that number." Period. Click. I once had one of the CERN operators try every trick they knew to get through the Swiss PTT to an 800 number, to no avail. > I would suggest that those people who find themselves in this > situation go and pound on the 800 customer to comply with common-sense > and provide a dialable number in his advertising. That's the answer, > not re-engineering the network to accomodate stupidity on the part of > advertisers. And when said customer has problems with the idea that the US is not the world? The IRS never would give me a non-800 number at which I could reach them, and I can't really go to a competitor. 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: Tue, 23 Jul 91 11:46:34 mdt From: John Parsons Subject: Re: Sprint Plus Change Letter > [Moderator's Note: It sounds like there were slightly different > versions of the letter (depending on certain special affiliations, > etc) all of which said about the same thing. PAT] Indeed. I have two lines, both on Sprint accounts. I received two letters from them. The last paragraph of one letter mentioned the $5 gift certificate, which was enclosed. The second letter did not come with a certificate, and the last paragraph was merely generic marketing drivel. Any lucky winners out there get more than one certificate? John Parsons johnp@hpgrla.gr.hp.com ------------------------------ From: "90958, HERRICK, DANIEL" Subject: Re: Sprint Rate Change Date: 23 Jul 91 16:31:54 EST In article , john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > The other is that on the infrequent occasions when AT&T does change > its rates, it is usually in a downward direction. And then this > usually sets off some scurrying on the part of MCI and Sprint to > perform some cosmetic surgery on their respective rate cards -- to > convince the public that they are STILL at least a fraction of a > percent below AT&T. It was just about a year ago that AT&T changed its rates upward for the first time in thirty or fifty (maybe the number was 36) overall toll tariff changes. The change was about 2% and was matched by the others. dan ------------------------------ From: Allen Gwinn Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Portable Faxes and Fax Boards Organization: sulaco Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 11:32:07 GMT In article zukicn@wnre.aecl.ca (Nermin Zukic) writes: > In any case, I am searching for information on personal/home > officce/portable faxes and fax boards, pros and cons for each - > preferrably from experience. Absolutely the best little PC Fax board is from a company called Dallas FAX (in Dallas, TX). I think that they have a 1-800 number. They make a Group 3 fax board, and modem in one with V.42bis (as well as a version with MNP5). Their boards start out around $150-160 and go up to about $200. Of course, the obvious advantage of a FAX board solution is that you don't waste your paper with incoming traffic. You can select what you want to print. However, by the time you get a page-scanner (assuming that you want to send something that you can't generate from your word- processor), you can get much more expensive than a standalone fax. Allen Gwinn (allen@sulaco.lonestar.org) ------------------------------ From: Wilson Mohr Subject: Re: How Can I Obtain Cell Site Maps? Date: 23 Jul 91 17:44:17 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article , Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com writes: > You may not be able to get maps, but these things are kind of hard to > miss. Look for a low tower or pole, maybe 40-50 feet, with a > triangular array of antennas on top. That's your cellsite! I don't think so. Depending on the density of the region, cellsites can be anything from a blockhouse with a 200+ foot tower with stick antennas to an (yes this is real) 18' straight body truck with antennas mounted to the side. (This is used for determining worthiness of an intended permanent location). The most popular arrangement is a hotel or office building near center of the grid. A suite in the building is rented for a (cough) modest sum, and the antennas are mounted to the side of the building. In Hawaii, we had to bury a couple of blockhouses to preserve the athestic appearance of the area due to State Law (or was it local code?) Each cellsite is a Licensed Commercial Transmitter. As such, the locations are a matter of public record at the FCC. Most operating companies are hesitant about disclosing the precise locations since they might be a target for vandalism from a disgruntled customer or other social deviate. The best way to find a cellsite (without going to the FCC) is with a field strength meter in the range from 879.39Mhz to 880.62Mhz and go for a drive! However, this will find sites from both cellular operators. Wilson Mohr - Motorola CIG 1501 W. Shure Drive, IL27-2315 ..!uunet!motcid!mohr Arlington Heights, IL 60004-1497 ------------------------------ From: Rick Calicura Subject: Re: Telesat's Anik E-2 Satellite Date: 18 Jul 91 05:26:14 GMT Organization: FidoNet node 1:161/444 - BMUG, Berkeley CA Hi, when is the new bird going to be given the "smoke test"? I am looking forward to viewing it on my three-meter dish here in CAlifornia. Rick Calicura - via FidoNet node 1:125/777 UUCP: ...!uunet!hoptoad!fidogate!161!444!Rick.Calicura INTERNET: Rick.Calicura@f444.n161.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ From: Bud Couch Subject: Re: Lightning Protection For Modems Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1991 01:05:40 GMT In article zjdg11@chi.amoco.com (Jim Graham) writes: > In article samsung!athenanet.com! > kabra437@uunet.uu.net (Ken Abrams) writes: >> [....] when those wires take a direct hit within a > I've been following this thread with great interest (the modem I'm > using even as I type is a Telebit T-2500, connected to a 16 MHz 286 > that I just bought, which is then connected to lots of Ham gear --- > the thought of a lightning hit scares me ...), but so far, the > conversation (at least, what I've seen of it) has dealt with the (more > severe) problem of a direct hit. I'd like to throw in another problem > ...static discharge resulting from near misses. > Now, my question is this --- with static charges dancing around in the > case of a near miss, if you unplug your computer and modem completely, > you've just lost your ground ... which might have saved it from that > static discharge (and it might not have). Will a surge suppressor > still help in this case, assuming that it isn't connected to a ground > (i.e., the wall outlet)? > Perhaps with a good surge suppressor, the static discharge of a near > miss isn't even a concern --- but the possibility that it is concerns > me. Anybody have any thoughts on this one? I've been following this thread for awhile, wondering whether I should open my mouth (keyboard?) and remove all doubt ... but what the heck. Your experience here was not a "static" discharge of the line. The lightning itself is a static discharge, but once that current is flowing, there is no way for it to convert to a "static" charge on your line. No, lightning caused surges on a telephone line are "electromagnetic" phenomena. That lightning bolt creates an rf field of enormous potential. Even allowing for the cubed law losses, if it is within a few thousand feet of the cable that your line is on, think of how well an antenna of a couple of miles (your line) is going to convert that electromagnetic field to current and voltage. The surges on a power line are created by the same mechanism, but their effects are different because of the vastly different impedences there. On a telephone line, one pair connects to co equipment and, at the other end, to your phone (or whatever). A power line is continuously connected to equipment, along its entire length, which is probably a lot longer, with transformers, breakers, etc scattered about. The effects of a surge will be different depending on how it entered the equipment. IF your computer and modem are _completely_ disconnected, from _both_ the telephone line _and_ the power line, the only way that lightning can damage them is a direct hit to your house, in which case I think that they will be some of your more minor worries. The problem lies when there are multiple paths that the surge can take to the earth. A potential can be developed between the different points of (earth) connection, which may produce current flows in directions and amounts that the equipment in question wasn't designed for. Without re-laying out your house wiring, it may be difficult to assure that everything is grounded to the same point. Telephone CO's _are_ grounded (to earth) at a single point. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew... standard BS applies ------------------------------ From: "Daniel R. Guilderson" Subject: Re: Statistics on Bell's Breakup Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 20:41:35 GMT In article tarl@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes: > There is something wrong here. My data line (including touch-tone (tm) > for additional charge) is $16.93/month, and we are both covered by the > same Mass. Public Utilities Commission. Here's a comparison of my actual phone bills from October, 1988 and June, 1991. Oct 1988 June 1991 %Increase Residence Unltd Metro Serv 19.30 22.87 18 Touch-Tone 0.58 0.98 69 Access Serv-End User Charge 2.60 3.50 35 Federal Tax 0.70 0.82 17 ------------------------- Total 23.18 28.17 22 OK, so I don't know what I was talkin' about with that 25% figure ... what I really meant to say was that it went up by 22%. Two questions: 1) Why did touch-tone go up 69% ? 2) Why am I being taxed by the Federal gov't for local in-state service? ------------------------------ Subject: ATC Ad Campaign From: David Leibold Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 00:20:12 EDT Organization: Brave New World BBS, Delray Beach, FL ATC has been placing some full-page ads in some of the daily newspapers around Florida. They refer to themselves as the fourth largest publicly held carrier (whatever that means in the whole scheme of things) and now make reference to a new billing system that is supposed to measure the time when the conversation starts and ends (more like call supervision). There are also bonus offers such as a month's free calling (with some strings attached, though) and how the ATC rates compare (favorable) with the AT&T Pro Wats, MCI Prism Plus and Sprint Dial 1 WATS offerings. In all, it looks like an effort to counteract some bad publicity surrounding reported billing problems and corporate upheavals. And that's the latest news about ATC these days. dleibold@attmail.com djcl.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu bnw!djcl@shark.cs.fau.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jul 91 20:40:35 CDT From: Craig Neidorf Subject: Comsec Data Security on Good Morning America (ABC) Set your VCRs ... Comsec Data Security (Erik Bloodaxe/Chris Goggans, Doc Holiday/ Scott Chasin, Malefactor/Ken Shulman, and Robert Cupps) is the topic on Good Morning America -- July 25, 1991. Two members of Comsec will appear on the show, but which two is currently unknown. Tune in and see what they have to say. Craig Neidorf (knight@eff.org) The above message is a personal interest message. I have no affiliation with Comsec Data Security. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #562 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01629; 24 Jul 91 1:49 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02839; 24 Jul 91 0:14 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac08737; 23 Jul 91 23:08 CDT Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 22:53:11 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #563 BCC: Message-ID: <9107232253.ab03365@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 23 Jul 91 22:53:09 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 563 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Marketing, Telco-Style [John Higdon] Almost Slammed ... by AT&T [Steve Shimatzki] An Interesting Conversation With SWB Mobile Systems [Mark Earle] When Local Telco Bills For LD Carrier [Joshua E. Muskovitz] NY Tel Experiments With Telephone Cash Cards [Dave Niebuhr] Bellcore's Telepresence Project [Robert Jacobson] Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [Charlie Mingo] Phones in Hotels, Once More [Steve Kass] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 01:52 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Marketing, Telco-Style In a recent post, I indicated that Pac*Bell had been involved in documented cases of slightly underhanded Centrex sales tactics. A number of readers have expressed a desire to hear some of the dirt and have requested a case history. OK. Through a series of maneuvers, a local, government-funded social agency acquired an ITT System 3100 PBX. Through various associations, I was involved in its care and feeding. The problems began when the operation moved. In the new location, people began complaining that they could not get an outside line when dialing '9'. This seemed straightforward enough. Simply check all the outgoing trunks for defective ones. All checked out OK. But then there were more complaints. Trunks checked again. All tested fine. We started swapping trunk cards in the 3100. No luck. Then we started exercising the system. Oddly enough, the problem seemed to rotate around throughout the trunks, with no one trunk causing the problem. To condense things a bit, we determined that sometimes a ground start trunk would come up with insufficient loop current and would not properly signal the 3100 that it had been 'started'. Consequently, the audio path was not established and the caller heard no dial tone. The CO was a #5 crossbar, which means that for every dial tone request, an originating register would be selected on a random basis. We concluded that some of the ORs were somehow defective. Pac*Bell repair was incredulous. The lineman (and CO people) assumed that if a repair person could take a butt set and bring up dial tone 100% of the time on a trunk, there could be nothing wrong. The concept of loop current and "specifications" did not impress the plant people. In the meantime, the agency directors were getting a little steamed. The problem had been going on for some time and no progress toward a solution seemed to be in the works. Pac*Bell insisted that if you could seize dial tone with a butt set, that was that. After a great deal of name calling and threats, a crossbar "expert" was brought in by Pac*Bell. His first act was to order a "routine" of all of the office originating registers. No less than fourteen were found to be out of specification, out of a total of 140. The problem showed up about one out of ten attempts. Pretty close. When these ORs were blocked from service, the problem which had been going on for months went away. The customer was delighted. But then, enter the Centrex goons. The Centrex people made an appointment with the agency directors. In hand they carried the entire history of the trouble reports on the questionable central office equipment. But history had been re-written. The reports clearly showed that the trouble on each call was in the CPE. The sales turkeys claimed that this amount of trouble was to be expected in a privately owned PBX, but that Centrex was totally reliable, blah, blah, blah. Fortunately, the directors of this agency, unlike most government stooges, had some grasp of the situation. An associate was called in to join the converstation and history, in effect, was re-revised to reflect reality. The goons went on their merry way and the 3100 is still in service. What a great day it will be when Pac*Bell starts marketing its own equipment using these slimy tactics. I have written to my congressman; have you written to yours? Do you know who s/he is? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Tuesday, 23 Jul 1991 18:04:13 EDT From: Wish-Bringer (Steve Shimatzki) Subject: Almost Slammed ... by AT&T I remember a while back that everyone was afraid of being 'slammed' into another long distance carrier. Recently, I had an experience that might be of intrest because of that, and because it involved AT&T. Now I'll admit that I'm a college student, and unlike all the telecom execs who contribute daily, I only contribute to the list once in a blue moon ... but, I read it faithfully. So I'm curious if this is any real problem or if I'm just being paranoid. Here's what happened: I was home working on my computer Friday afternoon, when my computer room phone rings. Not many people call me there, because it is a seperate phone number, just for our DATA calls. When I answered it, it was a telemarketer, presenting herself for AT&T. She then stated that we did not have AT&T, and said we had another long distance carrier, and jumped into her spiel about how much I can save with AT&T. That threw me for a loop, because we have AT&T, and as long as I could remember, we had it. So I told her kindly, that to the best of my knowledge, I did have AT&T, and if that status had changed, I would call my local telco rep, and change it myself. End of story. Here's the strange part: Long distance calling was discontinued on that line (well, locked out or whatever) because I got carried away in my early years, and had a VERY large bill to the 201 area code. (Yeah, a few cents a minute adds up :'( ) Anyway, not only was long distance calling blocked from the phone, but like a day or two before all this, an AT&T rep called about how much money I could save on the 201 area code (now you know why it was mentioned) with their new plan ... so, if they know I'm AT&T, why didn't they know that I'm AT&T? (understand?) I've thought about it, and all I can think is: A: I used to call 201 alot as a kid; B: We blocked long distance calling; C: YEARS (NOT current at all!) later they ask about this plan; D: We tell them NO; E: They try and RECONNECT our long distance calling by tricking us. With the 'not using AT&T as your carrier...' I know it sounds like I am paranoid about the phone company and all, but its the only way I can make sense of it; that after telling them no, we CAN live without the long distance calls, they try and trick us into getting it. Just VERY curious, Steven Shimatzki-| InterNet : SJS132@psuvm.psu.edu | BBS : (412)-277-0548 | Snail Mail: Rd# 1 Box 20-A Dunbar, Pa 15431 These ARE my thoughts, and nobody else's. [Moderator's Note: Not to worry ... it is just that AT&T is hopelessly confused and mixed up where their marketing efforts versus real customer activity is concerned. For example, almost a year ago, I had to have a minor change made in my service from Illinois Bell, to automatically exclude third number billings from getting through on my lines. It took IBT fifteen seconds to enter it in a terminal. None the less, that caused my Reach Out America/World plans to get dropped from my account and reinstated the next day, with pro-rata charges and credits in and out on the account both ways, etc ... the whole works. That triggered something at AT&T which has since -- to this day months later -- caused me to get several form letters bemoaning the fact that I am no longer a Reach Out customer and asking me to reconsider. The fact is I was and am still on those plans. They keep writing and telling me how much I could save on calls to Independence, Kansas. When I called to speak with the person whose name appears on the letters I got every excuse why I cannot (speak with her). Now I find it is only a 'phone name'; there is no such person. No one knows who is sending the letters to me. All you get on the phone from their customer service is the telephonic equivilent of a blank stare. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 09:17:25 GMT From: Mark Earle Subject: An Interesting Conversation With SWB Mobile Systems In a recent conversation with Customer Service for Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, I found out several interesting things. One of my complaints from February of this year is being addressed. They are implementing *111 which is supposed to get you direct to the technicians at the switch center. However, it may not be manned weekends/nights yet, nor have they devised a "direct" number to reach them from a regular phone. Catch 22: if the switch is down, how do I reach them using *111. Gee, they hadn't thought of this, and will get back to me. No airtime charge for *71 *72 *73 call forwarding set up, unless you are roaming. Forwarding, call waiting, etc. do work if roaming in the SWB area (most of Texas). If you forward in conjunction with Follow Me Roaming, you'd pay the LD rate from "home" to where you are, but no airtime (other than 1 unit to set the forwarding up). So now when I stay at a friends in San Antonio, I can spend one airtime unit, set up FMR, another unit, set up forwarding to his number, and not worry about the batteries running down on my phone and missing a call. Plus I save since answering calls so set up doesn't eat air units, as it would if using the CMT. Of course, the downside is FMR clears each night at midnight, so I might miss a call due to that. And I must expend air time units each day to reset the FMR and local forwarding. When roaming on SWB's system (most of Texas) no daily charge, but air time is up from (a year ago) .38 to .48, and will go to .51 shortly. By comparison, on my plan ($40/month base rate) peak is .38/min and off peak is .00/min (yup, not a typo). They are adding more sites/areas, which will be local to Corpus Christi. Good for me, as I currently call LD to those places. Aparently, with their microwave'd points of presense in those distant areas, they let me make local calls, even though SWBell would charge me in state LD from a regular phone. Interesting. No plans for a Roam-America like service any time soon. The off peak hours may SHRINK by two hours. Now it's 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. It may become 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. Why? Because Cell One is doing it. My response was they should maintain, or go the other way, and give callers, say, until 8 a.m. as off peak. This would certainly give the sales folks something real to offer prospective customers, who may be considering Cell One. This point was lost on them however. While on a trip to NY, several times I mashed *611 to see what system I was on (always locked on 'B'). In some cases I got billed the roam daily charge. In others, got a unit of air time as well. In all cases, made no actual calls in or out. I am contesting those charges. In the cases where the phone was merely on, and in service, but I pressed no buttons, I never got any kind of billing charge, which is as it should be. Anyhow, that's my recent adventures with my CMT. Mark Earle -- Reply to: adblu001@ccsuvm1.BITNET mearle@pro-party.com CI$ 73117,351 FidoNet 1:160/50.0 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 11:23:49 EDT From: "Joshua E. Muskovitz" Subject: When Local Telco Bills For LD Carrier Does the local carrier have the right to kill your local service if you don't pay the long-distance portion of your all-in-one billing? This doesn't seem right. If your dispute is with the distance carrier, and you are paying the local portion, doesn't the local carrier HAVE to give you service? Or am I missing the point here? ;-) Josh Muskovitz joshm@kgnvmy.vnet.ibm.com [Moderator's Note: No they do not have the right to kill local service based on non-payment of anything but their own charges. But you must specifically tell them *what* you are not paying and *why* (where the LD carrier is concerned) or your remittance will be taken as a short- payment on the entire bill. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 8:50:43 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" Subject: NY Tel Experiments With Telephone Cash Cards On the 7/22/91 "NBC National News" there was a blurb about Cash Cards being used in England. The way this works is that a person buys a card at a local vendor (say Lottery Agent) for $5.00 and receives $5.20 worth of calls. It's used like an ATM card and there is a readout that shows how much is left. The purpose is to cut down on pay phone vandalism and theft since with these cards there is no cash in the machine. NY Tel (not known for innovation, or much else for that matter) is trying them out at ferry terminals in NYC and may expand in the city and elsewhere in the state if they are successful. Also, other phone companies are watching to see how well this goes. Dave Niebuhr Brookhaven National Laboratory Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov ------------------------------ From: Robert Jacobson Subject: Bellcore's Telepresence Project Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 15:07:42 GMT I saw reference to a Telepresence Project in a flyer for a telecommunications conference. What might this entail? Bob Jacobson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 12:08:14 -0400 From: Charlie Mingo Subject: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? There's been some debate on a BBS I frequent as to the minimum interval one should leave between automated attempts to redial a busy number. A suggestion has been made that the phone system will suffer if one attempts to dial a number more frequently than, say, once every ten seconds, and that the telco will do something unfortunate if it ever finds anyone doing this. (Note that the number in question is rarely idle for more than 10-15 seconds at peak periods.) Is this nothing more than a telecom old wives tale, or is there (i) any official policy on redial frequency, and (ii) any way for the telco to determine the frequency with which subscriber redials? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1991 23:40 EDT From: SKASS@drew.bitnet Subject: Phones in Hotels, Once More I recently spent four nights at the Hilton at Dedham (MA) Place. Here's their phone service story. Perhaps others can confirm if it's typical of the Hilton chain. No charge for calls within the 617 area code (!). A Metromedia brochure on the nightstand, with a number to call for rate information. A typical five minute daytime call is about $2 for the first minute and 22c for each additional minute "not including the hotel surcharge," which is not disclosed. The brochure curiously enough noted that I could place calls through the carrier of my choice, but gave no details. 10288 and 950-1022 were blocked, and the hotel operator couldn't get an AT&T operator or bong for me. Experimentation led me to the AT&T : 8-0-NPA-NXX-XXXX--0-"please wait for an operator"--<10 seconds>- and I put all my calls on my calling card. When I checked out, the bill contained 36 calls to the phone number 0, at $0.75 each, most of which were calls that hadn't gone through, and some of which were multiple calls using # between them to restart the process. Of course I complained, and almost without a blink I was credited the full $27. I mentioned that there was no disclosure of the surcharge, that many of the calls had not gone through, and that I would have used a pay phone had I known there was a charge. No surcharge and no argument would have been preferable, but at least the desk clerk was accomodating. Steve Kass/ Drew U/ Madison, NJ/ skass@drew.bitnet ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #563 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04432; 24 Jul 91 2:53 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24635; 24 Jul 91 1:18 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02839; 24 Jul 91 0:14 CDT Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 0:00:12 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #564 BCC: Message-ID: <9107240000.ab04071@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 Jul 91 00:00:05 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 564 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson GTE Switches [Joe Kelsey] Party Line Usage [John Macdonald] Eight-Party Lines [Frederick G. M. Roeber] Not Telecom-Related, But I Need Your Help! [Joshua E. Muskovitz] Wanted - Telephone Call Forwarders [Richard Shima] Loop Loss vs Frequency? [Brian Kantor] List of Toll-Free (and Now Also Tolled) Dialing Codes [David Leibold] Question on Audiovox CTX4500 Programming [Tom Hutton] ATC's Relationship to MCI? [Bill Huttig] Re: Sprint Plus Change Letter [Doug Sewell] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 10:38 PDT From: Joe Kelsey Subject: GTE Switches David Barts (davidb@polari.uucp) and Joe Stein (jose@techbook.com) have recently talked about GTE switches, especially in GTENW. Since I work for GTE I guess I'll see if I can actually shed some light on the actual situation here vis-a-vis switches types, etc. I do not work directly for GTE Telops -- GTE Telecom is an unregulated subsidiary of GTE and so we have to pay for our phone service just the same as everyone else. However, many employees here used to work for Telops, specifically in GTENW, so I can get some inside information. I myself have never worked for *any* regulated phone company, so I can only pass along information from others here. The information I have is just GTE *before* the Contel merger. I don't have information about Contel switches, etc. Overall, 50.9% of GTE switches are SPC (stored program control) and 49.1% are still mechanical. In GTENW for area code 206, there are only three mechanical offices left: Stevens Pass, Mount Vernon and Stanwood. I don't have the breakdown for any of the other area codes (503, 509, etc.) Here is a percentage breakdown of all of the SPC switches in GTE. The areas are the pre-Contel areas. With the Contel merger, the area names and boundaries change, but since I don't have information about Contel switches, this is the best I can do. South West is the Texas/Oklahoma/NewMexico area, North is the midwest states, South is the Florida area and West is the west coast states. The column percentages may not total 100% due to rounding error. Also the notation .% means less than .5% (I round .5% up to 1%.) The last line is the percentage of SPC switches in each area, the remainder being various mechanical switches (cross-bar, step-by-step). South Overall Switch West North South West Total GTD-5 62% 71% 58% 62% 64% #2 EAX 5% 11% 11% 8% 9% DMS-10 6% 8% 14% 5% 8% DCO 24% 2% 6% 0% 6% DMS-100/200 2% 3% 9% 6% 5% Vidar 0% 3% 0% 6% 2% #5ESS 1% 0% 2% 4% 2% GTD-3 0% 2% 0% 2% 1% #1AESS 0% 0% 0% 3% 1% #4ESS 0% 0% 1% 2% 1% GTD-4600 1% 0% 0% 1% .% EWSD 0% 0% 1% 0% .% ITT-1210 0% 0% 0% .% .% Total SPC 44% 39% 66% 76% 51% You can see that GTE West has the largest percentage of SPC switches. At one point (maybe ten years ago, or so the story goes), someone at GTE estimated that it would take 50-100 *years* to convert all of the cross-bar and steppers to electronic switches. Five years later, the estimate was down to ten years (mainly due to the economics of lower head counts)! In GTENW for area code 206, there are six #5ESS COs, in addition to the tandem #5ESS in Everett (Everett (Casino), Bothell and Redmond COs are #5ESS in the Puget Sound area). Almost all of the rest of the switches (especially in the 206 area) are GTD-5's (sixteen total). There is one Vidar, four EAX2's (early SPC switch), three CXP5's (#5 cross-bar) and four SXS (step-by-step!). According to my list, GTENW (Washington, Oregon, Idaho) has 73% of the #5ESS in all of GTE! Steve Forrette asked about 206-338 in Mill Creek, which is served by the GTD-5 at the Everett (Alpine) CO. I just moved from Seattle/US West service area (#5ESS) into northern King County/GTENW service (Richmond Beach CO, GTD-5), and the difference is quite noticable. One thing I fail to understand is why GTE has to play around with the various Call Waiting, Three-way calling, etc. features. Here I am, used to using *70 to disable call waiting on the old #5ESS, and now I have to retrain myself to use 70# instead! They also use timeouts to detect feature dialing on rotary phones instead of ``11'' (on 5ESS you can dial 1170 instead of *70.) Here is one vote for standardizing feature access codes! Sigh... Joe ------------------------------ From: John Macdonald Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 12:56:40 EDT Subject: Party Line Usage The discussions of party lines (and people showing surprise or doubt that there might still be any around) prompts me to tell of an incident that happened to me recently. Three weeks ago, I was at the family cottage with my family, my brother's family and my mother. The phone started ringing - a normal length evenly-spaced ring. My wife and I ignored it. After a couple of rings, my sister-in-law and my mother ran up from two different directions to answer the phone. My wife and I looked on - "But, that's not our ring!". It turns out that in the last year sometime, the line had been converted from multi-line distinctive ring party line service to two-line separate ring. With the previous service, there had been a number that had a ring that was similar to, if not identical with, the "normal" ring for non-party lines. Since nobody had told us, my wife and I had been ignoring calls for the last few months (maybe two or three calls in all). When we first got the phone at the cottage, about 25 years ago, the only choice was to get a multi-drop party line. In the meantime, there have been more and more of the cottages in the area converted to full-time residences, and more of them wanting to have phone service. As a result, they have had private lines available for quite a while now. and have gradually converted the multi-drop lines to the two party form. Since there is a lower cost for the party line, and since we have almost never had conflicts with other parties wanting to use the line at the same time, and since we don't use the line much ourselves, the party line form is just fine. (I can see the possibility of converting to a private line in the future - I would like to be able to spend the entire summer at the cottage, using a modem to "commute" to work - this will probably be workable in the next year or two.) John Macdonald jmm@eci386 ------------------------------ From: roeber@cithe1.cithep.caltech.edu Subject: Eight-Party Lines Date: 23 Jul 91 06:59:52 PST Speaking of party lines, I remember in about 1976 reading in the Riverside, California phone book about the available party-line services, and their costs. Residential service was available in single (non-party), two-party, four-party, (six? maybe..), and eight-party. Two-party was cheaper than single, and four was cheaper than two. But at some point it turned around, and eight-party was actually more expensive than the previous option. Being a capitalist at even such a tender age, I immediately wanted to know what was so valuable about eight-party lines that they could be priced so highly. I never found out. The only thing I could come up with was that it appealed to people who liked to listen in on party lines. But self-selection would kind of discourage this. Does anyone know the explanation? 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: Tue, 23 Jul 91 15:23:20 EDT From: "Joshua E. Muskovitz" Subject: Not Telecom Related, But I Need Your Help! Esteemed Moderator: I realize that this message isn't about telecom, but I have exhausted all my other avenues of getting ahold of someone to help. Since the readers of the Digest have a vast array of arcane knowledge, I wonder if you could post this plea for help ... Hello ... I've recently inherited some vintage (PET era) CBM computer equipment, including an 8050 dual floppy drive. In my efforts to restore this stuff to its original condition, I've discovered the drive is somewhat dead. When I apply power, the LEDs flash in a repeating pattern, and the drive does not boot. What I am looking for is some kind of pointer to repair it myself, or find someone who can/will for a reasonable amount of $$$. I am (although rusty) very familiar with the old PETs, so it is safe to assume that obvious solutions (cabling, etc.) have not been overlooked. Do tech notes still exist for this thing? Can I get them? Please send advice, etc. to: joshm@kgnvmy.vnet.ibm.com or, via USPS, Joshua Muskovitz API Test Development Dept. 32EA, Mail Stop 628 IBM Neighborhood Road Kingston, NY 12401 [Moderator's Note: Thanks for your confidence in TELECOM Digest readers. Let's see if anyone can help you. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 15:55:37 -0400 From: Richard Shima Subject: Wanted - Telephone Call Forwarders Reply-To: al085@cleveland.freenet.edu We're looking for manufacturer/distributor sources for CPE telephone call forwarders. We don't need network translators but need sources able to supply comprehensive technical descriptions and specifications for remotely operable stand-alone user forwarding devices. Can anyone supply the source for the LOGOS forwarder? Buscom used to make one; are they still in business, and, if so, where? Thank you! Richard Shima INTERNET: al085@cleveland.freenet.edu 6809 Mayfield Rd. BITNET: al085%cleveland.freenet.edu@cunyvm Cleveland, OH 44124 FIDONET: 1:157/3.10 (216) 461-4357 ------------------------------ From: Brian Kantor Subject: Loop Loss vs Frequency? Date: 23 Jul 91 20:02:21 GMT Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. Whilst trying to help a friend with a modem/fax problem he was having, I made some measurements on his phone lines. The milliwatt tone from an office across town was about -7 dbm, as I recall. That seems reasonable to me. (I had the lines terminated in 900 ohms for these measurements.) Dialing one line from the other, and injecting a 0 dbm 1004 Hz tone into one of his lines, I measured a received level of -12 dbm on the called pair. Again, not unreasonable. 404 Hz was about the same. However, when I used a 2804 Hz tone into the line again at 0 dbm, the received level was -31 dbm. That seems 'way too much attenuation for a normal subscriber loop in a suburban area - probably just a couple of miles to the CO. 2713 Hz was down to -28 dbm. Are these reasonable numbers? Or is there too much high-frequency loss in this line, which might well explain the problems he's seeing with his equipment. Brian ------------------------------ Subject: List of Toll-Free (and Now Also Tolled) Dialing Codes From: djcl.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 17:27:38 EDT Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton The list of international toll-free services is still being compiled; there has been a good response so far, and the list will soon be coming out. However, it would be interesting to get some information on toll-free in Japan (and Pacific countries other than Australia, as the Australia info is in). Also, I recall seeing Spain use a "900" area code for its toll free service; some confirmation or denial of this would be appreciated. However, some information on "900" type services (tolled special services like announcements or conference lines) has come in, so I will officially expand the list to include these as well. In particular, I am missing UK tolled services information (ie. codes of the form 089X or something), and information on countries other than North America (info for a couple European countries came in, though). Thanks for your help, and a few more days will be allowed before the list (of toll and non-toll) numbers gets posted. dleibold@attmail.com djcl.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 13:29:19 PDT From: Tom Hutton Subject: Question on Audiovox CTX4500 Programming After searching through back issues of TELECOM Digest and finding the access codes for the Audiovox CTX4500 cellular phone, it became apparent why an associate of mine was not able to roam to any of the "A" carriers in California. It seems that the PacTel service center when programming the phone for San Diego service, entered the system ID's of all the California competitors in the EEPROM as systems to ignore!! Does anyone have the full programming instructions for the Audiovox CTX4500? There are a number of fields that the previous messages had no information on. Tom Hutton San Diego Supercomputer Center ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: ATC's Relationship to MCI? Date: 23 Jul 91 16:42:02 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL I will start this out by giving some facts about ATC and MCI before all the mergers. MicoTel was MCI's fiber carrier before ATC merger. Telus issued Telecom*USA 800 service for personal use (The 780 prefix) before both mergers. Now ATC carries MCI fiber trafic I am not sure if they still get new 800 numbers from MCI or not. ATC received the 800-749 exchange from TELECOM*USA. MCI 800 calls from Melbourne are routed over ATC's Melbourne POP. All other calls except those preceeded with one of ATC's PIC is routed to Orlando via SouthernBell first. ATC will introduce new calling cards with lots of 'neat features' usaable from anyplace in the world (I assume 891 style cards like the new AT&T). MCI/TELECOM*USA Voice news newtork can be accessed from home by dialing 10852-1-700-950-5000 from SothernNet*USA area or 10835-1-700-950-5000 from Teleconnect areas. Now when I dialed 10(some ATC PIC)-1-700-950-0000 I receive MCI's Voice News Network. This leads me to belive that ATC will offer VNN with the new card and that MCI will be handling it for them or they bought the tecnology from MCI. I also assume that MCI carries ATC's traffic in areas that ATC does not have its own network. (esspecially the 800 services.) It also leads me to beleive that in the future that MCI will try to merge with ATC. Bill ------------------------------ Organization: Youngstown State University VM system (YSUB) Date: Tuesday, 23 Jul 1991 23:01:38 EDT From: Doug Sewell Subject: Re: Sprint Plus Change Letter In article , John Parsons says: > Indeed. I have two lines, both on Sprint accounts. I received > two letters from them. The last paragraph of one letter mentioned > the $5 gift certificate, which was enclosed. The second letter did > not come with a certificate, and the last paragraph was merely generic > marketing drivel. Any lucky winners out there get more than one > certificate? I did! I did! The letters were identical. I'm waiting to see how Sprint (or perhaps Ohio Bell) botches this: I have two separate home phone numbers, installed at different times The second line is a data line, which incidentally IS listed; why should I pay $1.80/month? I don't accept calls on that line except by machine. The local phone company bills both local phone lines on one bill. Sprint is the carrier for both long-distance lines. I received two different FON cards (I destroyed one) and the bills arrive about two weeks apart. In the near future, Sprint will be billed on the local telephone bill, so I'm waiting to see how this gets hosed. All in all, I've been happy with Sprint. I use the FON card from my office, since I can't dial long-distance from my phone except by giving my credit card number to the university operator (yeah, right) or going to a much-less-private pay phone. I almost considered MCI when they had around-town billing, but since that's going away, that isn't a plus any more. (PS: thanks for the advice on getting off a party line. It's been forwarded to D & ML). Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, doug@ysub.bitnet Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH 44555 doug@ysub.ysu.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #564 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09792; 24 Jul 91 5:08 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08648; 24 Jul 91 3:25 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14632; 24 Jul 91 2:20 CDT Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 1:23:22 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #565 BCC: Message-ID: <9107240123.ab14070@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 Jul 91 01:23:06 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 565 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Bellcore Announces The Network Management Handbook [Jody Kravitz] Standards For Digitized Voice Under MS-DOS? [Will Estes] No Calling Card For a Cell Phone [Ole J. Jacobsen] Re: Long Distance Calling, Then and Now [Andrew Friedman] Re: Infamous Telephone Quotes [Donald E. Kimberlin] Re: Comsec Data Security on Good Morning America [David Querin] Re: Comsec Data Security on Good Morning America [Craig Neidorf] When Your Chance to be on Television is Lost [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 18:35:18 PDT From: Jody Kravitz Subject: Bellcore Announces The Network Management Handbook I just received a mailed solicitation from Bellcore announcing "The Network Management Handbook". I don't know how I happened to get on their mailing list. The solicitation is on thick glossy paper, 8.5" x 14", folded very cleverly into a piece the size of a business-size envelope. The piece unfolds twice, first to reveal slick marketing "bullets", quotes from users, and a catchy abstract map of the eastern US. The map is split in the middle and the brochure unfolds again to reveal the description of the Handbook and the order form. Very Madison Avenue ... What follows is a direct transcription, with deletions noted, of the text and order form. Some readers of the Digest may find this interesting. I wish I had the money to order it ... NETWORKING MANAGEMENT IS A COMPLEX PRECESS Your goal is to make maximum use of your network when it is under stress due to traffic overload or network failure conditions ... with the "Network Management Handbook" you can meet this goal! The "Network Management Handbook" is built on years of experience ... the experience the Bell Operating Companies acquired in managing their network. The "Network Management Handbook" undersands the problems you're up against in managing your network and addresses them! THE SOLUTIONS TO YOUR NETWORK PROBLEMS! Don't let your network become bogged down by congestion, inefficiency, and equipment malfunctions. Learn how to effectively handle these and many other unexpected problems you encounter daily. The "Network Management Handbook" outlines practical approaches to reach solutions to your network problems. INVALUABLE SOURCE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS! The "Network Management Handbook" is more than a reference manual -- it is invaluable to your job! The "Network Management Handbook" presents in-depth and concise examples of how telephone company networks function. Now you can relate many Bell Operating Company practices to your individual situation and handle, or avoid altogether, Network Management problems. KEEP YOUR NETWORK WORKING AT ITS OPTIMUM LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE! The "Network Management Handbook" provides you with the knowledge and the techniquest to monitor individual network components and the performance of you network as a whole. This monitoring process can help increase the efficiency of your existing network. It can also help to increase revenues and reduce expenditures by taking better advantage of your already-existing network capabilities. ------------------------- The Network Management Handbook will give you a thorough understanding of the many complex occurrances in your network system. This comprehensive guide is divided into 16 sections: 1. General Network management The Network Management Organization -- Purpose, Objectives, Principles, Roles and Responsibilities 2. Intra-Lata Network Fundamentals Switching System Characteristics, Network Configurations, Routing, Blocking, and Transmission Planning 3. Access Service Tariff Overview Protective Controls, Expansive Controls, 900 Service, Government 4. Surveillance Data Description Data Gathering Method, Data Intervals, Machine Discrete Data, Machine 5-Minute Data, Trunk Group Data 5. Control Descriptions Traffic Classifications, Routing Classifications, Protective Control Descriptions, Expansive Control Descriptions 6. Technical Overview Surveillance Data, Controls, Technical Interface Description 7. Ordering And Implementing Management Features EADAS/NM System Capacity, Introduction to 1/1A ESS(tm) Switch Interfaces, Introduction to 5ESS(tm) Switch Interfaces, Introduction to DMS(tm) -100F Switch Interfaces, Introduction to 4ESS Switch Interfaces, Network Management Worksheets, Multiline Hunt Group Data Retrieval Procedures -- 1/1A ESS Switch 8. Reroute Translations 1/1A ESS Reroutes, 5ESS Reroutes, DMS-100F Reroutes, 4ESS Reroutes, Terminating Reroutes from an Access Tandem (All Switch Types), Terminating Reroutes from an Interexchange to an End Office via another End Office (All Switch Types) 9. Quick Response QR-1 Service Description, QR-1 Numbering Plan and Architecture, Network Management Hierarchy, Network Manager Role in QR-1, Network Management Interfaces, network Management Sensitivity Areas 10. Intercompany Network management Model Effective Network management, LEC/IC Network management Interfaces, LEC Responsibilities, LEC/AT&T-C Agreement -- Joint Switching Systems, LEC Network Engineering -- Administrative and Maintenance Practices, IC Responsibilities, AT&T-C/LEC Agreement - Joint Switching Systems, IC Network Engineering, Administrative, and Maintenance Practices 11. National Security Emergency Preparedness NSEP Architecture, Network Management, Implementation of Actions, Notification to NSEP Personnel of Abnormal Conditions, Evaluation and Critique of NM Actions, Failure Preplans, Scenarios 12. Tones And Announcements Special Information Tone (SIT), Emergency Announcements, Equipment Operation, Prerecorded Cassettes, Local Customized Announcements 13. Acronyms And Abbreviations Definitions of Common Network Management Acronyms and Abbreviations 14. Network management For 800 Service Description of 800 Service, Centers Supporting 800 Services, SMS-to-SCP Interface, EADAS/NM-to-SSP Interface, Seas-to-SCP Interface, 800 Service Trouble Scenarios 15. Common Channel Signaling Network Management Common Channel Signaling Network Architecture, Common Channel Signaling -- Network Management (CCS-NM), Effects of Common Channel Signaling on NM, Automatic Controls, Manual Controls, CCS NM Data 16. Network Restoration Framework Intent of the Network Restoration Framework, Network Restoration Plan Content, Resource Documents * ESS & 5ESS are trademarks of AT&T * DMS is a trademark of Northern Telecom, Inc. --- additional marketing "bullets" deleted --- The Network Management Handbook Bellcore is available by individual chapters or as a complete book Call 1(800)527-1080, FAX to (201)992-5438, or complete this form and send to: Bellcore Room 4D-114, 290 W. Mt. Peasant Ave. Livingston, NJ 07039 Save $500 by ordering the complete handbook Complete Handbook $495.00 1. General Network management $19.00 2. Intra-Lata Network Fundamentals $29.00 3. Access Service Tariff Overview $80.00 4. Surveillance Data Description $29.00 5. Control Descriptions $140.00 6. Technical Overview $41.00 7. Ordering And Implementing Management Features $145.00 8. Reroute Translations $140.00 9. Quick Response $25.00 10. Intercompany Network management Model $38.00 11. National Security Emergency Preparedness $48.00 12. Tones And Announcements $57.00 13. Acronyms And Abbreviations $38.00 14. Network management For 800 Service $98.00 15. Common Channel Signaling Network Management $28.00 16. Network Restoration Framework $35.00 (Check, Visa, Mastercard, American Express accepted) ------------------------------ From: portal!cup.portal.com!Will@uunet.uu.net Subject: Standards For Digitized Voice Under MS-DOS? Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 19:27:15 PDT Can someone tell me about any standards that might exist for digitized voice on the PC? Software standards: What are the standard formats for representation of voice data? How is compression handled? Hardware standards: Unlike the Mac, the PC seems to be a pretty sorry platform on which to record and playback the human voice. What products are available to record and playback voice? Specifically, I'm looking for those products that do an acceptable job of playing and recording human voices, at the lowest possible cost. Thanks, Will Estes Internet: Will@cup.portal.com UUCP: apple!cup.portal.com!Will ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 22:00:17 PDT From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" Subject: No Calling Card For a Cell Phone Every month (if I've made any long distance calls on my cellular phone) I get a bill from AT&T. The bill is completely separate from the Cellular One bill and is for long distance *only*. So, there exists, in my name an account with AT&T. Now, when you roam, it is often necessary to use 0+ dialing to place long distance calls. You would think that it should be possible to bill those calls to "the cellular phone" i.e., to the AT&T account described above. Not so. AT&T will not issue a calling card for a cellular number, but *will* quite happily establish a new "non-subscriber" card and send a *separate* bill for calls placed on this card. Just what I need; another bill in the mail. Can anyone please explain this stupidity? Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report Interop, Inc., 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View, CA 94040, Phone: (415) 962-2515 FAX: (415) 949-1779 Email: ole@csli.stanford.edu [Moderator's Note: Please see my comments earlier today regarding AT&T and their left hand eventually, hopefully, figuring out what their right hand is doing. I get six bills monthly from AT&T: Cell Phone 1, Cell Phone 2, AT&T Mail, Equipment Lease (once every three months), Equipment purchased on time payment from phone center; wireline long distance calls (via my IBT bill). Ridiculous, isn't it! PAT] ------------------------------ From: andrewf@syacus.acus.oz.au (Andrew Friedman) Subject: Re: Long Distance Calling, Then and Now Organization: ACUS Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Sydney Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1991 04:35:36 GMT Pat, I enjoyed your description of long distance calling in Ye Olden Dayes. However, an interesting question posed previously by another poster remains unanswered. Why did the long distance operator use source routing? In your description the source LD operator specifies the next hop to each intermediate operator. It seems to me, that a better method would be for each intermediate operator to determine the next hop for themselves. Cheers, | Tel: +61 2 390 1338 | Internet: andrewf@syacus.acus.oz.au Andrew Friedman | Fax: +61 2 390 1391 | ACSnet: andrewf@syacus.acus.oz [Moderator's Note: Well to be honest, I don't remember if they did or not. I was only a very little tyke who had just been taught by his older cousin how to play with the telephone, circa 1949-50 when that sort of thing was being phased out. It may be each operator along the way chose the routing to be taken next. Maybe I just thought it was the first operator in the chain who routed everything. I came in on the final year or so of that methodology; and some of it was already gone by then I suspect. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 03:25 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Infamous Telephone Quotes In article (Digest v11.iss560), Brett Person mentions Mark Twain's dislike for the notion of investing in the telephone. In fact, that dislike must have stayed with Twain his whole life, for in his final years, when it was customary for the press to ask him for just one more witticism for the year's end, he granted a Christmas wish for the world, saying, "Merry Christmas to everyone except the inventor of the telephone!" ------------------------------ From: David Querin Subject: Re: Comsec Data Security on Good Morning America Date: 24 Jul 91 03:41:24 GMT Organization: tamu I have heard that their appearance has been put off due to the economic summit or some such. Of course this has not been fully confirmed, but 'tis the news that has been floating by. David /* of course it's only my opinion. i would not talk for anyone else! */ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 23:35:23 CDT From: Craig Neidorf Subject: Re: Comsec Data Security on Good Morning America I just heard that because of the economic summit, GMA will have to delay Comsec's appearance for at least a week and a half. Sorry to have brought it up and now learn that it isn't happening right away. The same thing happened to me shortly after my trial ended last year. GMA was all excited and talked about putting me on, but a week later the Iraq/Kuwait problems began and I was no longer important. The press is rather fickle, but GMA has proven to be one of the most unreliable among them. Craig Neidorf (c483307@umcvmb.missouri.edu) ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: When Your Chance to be on Television is Lost Date: Wed, Jul 24, 1991 01:00:00 CDT For those who missed the first article by Craig, the Comsec segment was originally scheduled for July 25. Craig will no doubt let us know when it comes up again. And yes, Craig, I know how frustrating it can be to prepare something for television and then get pre-empted for one reason or another, because it has happened to me. In November, 1963 I was asked by the Chicago Public Library to do a little show for them (actually, a thirty minute documentary) entitled "Getting to Know the Chicago Public Libary". It was a 'walking tour' through the main library and a couple of the branches. I explained each area as I visited it. I spent three months putting this together to be aired on WGN Channel 9 on Sunday morning. The week it was to air, WGN had some sort of technical difficulty and had to go off the air for about 45 minutes, during *my* time slot. I was very depressed, but the station people said not to worry, they were going to run the show the following Sunday morning instead. Sounded great to me, and I *lived* for the next weekend. But on Friday of that week, our nation and the world was devastated by the assasination of President John F. Kennedy. Those of you old enough to remember will recall that from Friday at about noon until early Sunday morning, all the radio and television stations did *nothing* but assasination coverage; in most cases for 40 hours or more straight through. By Sunday morning, most of the stations had gone back to their regular programming, and Channel 9 called me to say my little documentary would be on at 11:00 AM as planned. Uh, huh ... they started me on time alright, and I was on for 45 *seconds* when there was a break for a special bulletin: "We will go back to the program in a minute, but first we will go to the Dallas Jail, where Lee Harvey Oswald is being removed to the county jail to await trial in the murder of the president ..." The picture changed to the basement of the Dallas Jail ... here comes Oswald, handcuffed and led along by guards. Swarms of reporters with microphones in his face to get his story ... and up steps Mr. Jack Ruby, as bold as can be, puts a gun in Oswald's face and says for the world to hear, "You son of a bitch! You killed the president and now I am going to kill you!" Bang! Well ... need I tell you my production did *not* come back on the air 'after a brief news bulletin'. In fact, it never was aired. For the rest of the day, the television stations had a marvelous time with that thirty seconds of footage showing Oswald getting zapped and Ruby being placed under arrest. But except for the original live showing, subsequent, repeated (a hundred times that afternoon, does anyone recall for sure?) showings of the film had Ruby's voice blocked out during the first part of his comments, in deference to the FCC prohibition against vulgar language on television in those days ... 'son of a bitch' qualifying in that category. We saw his lips move, his nostrils flaring and the gun firing; that was all. I never saw my production again; I have no idea what WGN ever did with it ... they certainly never got around to airing it. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #565 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04419; 25 Jul 91 3:08 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07593; 25 Jul 91 1:40 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00892; 25 Jul 91 0:34 CDT Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 0:33:17 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #566 BCC: Message-ID: <9107250033.ab26928@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 Jul 91 00:33:09 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 566 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [Floyd Davidson] Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [Bob Izenberg] Re: Lightning Protection For Modems [Peter Thurston] Re: Lightning Protection For Modems [Jim Graham] Re: International 800 Calling [Ralph W. Hyre] Re: International 800 Calling [John E. Girard] Re: Church 900 Hotline Program [David Leibold] Re: Alcor Email Case [James Zuchelli] Mismatched 1+ Carrier [mission!randy@uunet.uu.net] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1991 06:53:15 GMT In article Charlie.Mingo@f421.n109.z1. fidonet.org (Charlie Mingo) writes: > There's been some debate on a BBS I frequent as to the minimum > interval one should leave between automated attempts to redial a busy > number. > A suggestion has been made that the phone system will suffer if > one attempts to dial a number more frequently than, say, once every > ten seconds, and that the telco will do something unfortunate if it > ever finds anyone doing this. (Note that the number in question is > rarely idle for more than 10-15 seconds at peak periods.) > Is this nothing more than a telecom old wives tale, or is there > (i) any official policy on redial frequency, and (ii) any way for the > telco to determine the frequency with which subscriber redials? I've never heard of anyone doing that, though it could be done. What may have generated the idea however, is that modern switches do peg things like going off hook and not dialing at all, hanging up before a valid number is completely dialed, and so on. I'm not real sure how a line switcher handles that kind of thing. On trunks the switch does a diagnostic test on a trunk when a short dial or pre-route abandon happens (too few digits, and either stays off hook or goes on hook respectively). Too many of them in too short a time and it may take the trunk out of service and flag it for maintenance. Of course trunks should only be accessed by automatic equipment and not getting enough digits should NEVER happen. With customers dialing manually it would be expected to on a regular basis. Line switchers do the same thing if you go off hook and don't dial at all, and may well do diagnostics on the same indications that trunk switchers do them on, but with higher counts etc. But, if you dial a valid number and wait long enough for either a ring or any kind of intercept or busy signal it should be seen as a normal call process and would not be pegged on anything that results in any maintenance action. It will get pegged as a call attempt and not as a call completion. The attemp/completion ratio is interesting on a grand scale, but not on a line by line basis. In short, you should be safe if you hang up long enough to get a dial tone when you go back off hook. It should be easy to find out too, just set the wait time to two seconds and see what happens if you dial it 30 times when its busy. I do it all the time and pcomm just times out and won't dial anymore. Floyd L. Davidson | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine floyd@ims.alaska.edu| but not for opinions. |Science suffers me as a guest. ------------------------------ From: Bob Izenberg Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 02:20:20 CDT Organization: Teenage Binge and Purgin' Turtles Subject: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? Charlie Mingo writes: > A suggestion has been made that the phone system will suffer if > one attempts to dial a number more frequently than, say, once every > ten seconds, and that the telco will do something unfortunate if it > ever finds anyone doing this. (Note that the number in question is > rarely idle for more than 10-15 seconds at peak periods.) A radio station that I once worked at (closed carrier, on a cable TV station's barker channel) got a call about their single phone line. As I heard it from the station's GM, they were told that the request line being busy all the time was causing problems, and that the station would have to add a second phone line. I assumed that Essex County, NJ had enough telco resources to make this claim doubtful. Was someone in NJB marketing looking at a list of perpetually busy numbers and doing a hard sell on each? Could be. The GM was warm butter before this approach, and ordered the second line. Bob ------------------------------ From: Peter Thurston Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 14:01:51 +0100 Subject: Re: Lightning Protection for Modems When I worked for Philips Research in the UK, I was given the task to solve a lightning problem we had with the Gandalf network of terminals around the building. We would have at least two major hits each summer, often knocking out 20 or so terminals and the RS232 ports in the central 'gandalf' box. A problem was that we had two buildings separated by a road; all telephone and data lines passed (pass) over a bridge across the road, giving rise to the opportunity for potentials to develop: in the bridge itself and between the earth points in the two buildings. Proprietry lighting protectors would have been too expensive for the 250 odd terminals, given that one would be needed at each end of the line. Most are overpriced too, the type you buy for your PC etc. We developed a small circuit which would hang on the wires at the Gandalf box, and sit inside the terminal socket on the wall. As with most proprietry units, it contained a Zener-resister-Arrester combination for each line, with a diode connection to Ground/Earth. Some were installed, but I left so I have no idea how well the system worked. If the Gandalf system still exists, and there is a PRL reader, perhaps he/she will contact me? Bud Couch (TELECOM Digest V11 #562) mentioned the problem with multiple earths. Not entirly related to telecoms but my brother had two sections of his Hi Fi connected to power outlets on two sides of the 4th story flat/apartment. After a storm one day he discovered his woofer one inch in advance from it's normal resting position. Peter Thurston ------------------------------ From: Jim Graham Subject: Re: Lightning Protection For Modems Organization: Amoco Corporation, Telecommunications Network Design Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1991 20:03:17 GMT In article kentrox!bud@uunet.uu.net (Bud Couch) writes: > In article I wrote: >> Now, my question is this --- with static charges dancing around in the >> case of a near miss, [and so on ...] > Your experience here was not a "static" discharge of the line. The > lightning itself is a static discharge, but once that current is > flowing, there is no way for it to convert to a "static" charge on > your line. What I was talking about was the static charge (in the air ... not on the phone line) one might see in the case of a near miss -- a related problem on the same lines as the discussion on what happens if you actually take a direct hit. When in the area of a serious thunderstorm, it isn't too difficult to detect the fact that static electricity levels go very high. Now, when (as I described in my post) you are right near where lightning actually does hit, the potential is increased substantially. Now, we all know that many types of ICs (like the CMOS ICs, for example) are rather sensitive to static, and in some cases, simply touching them in a non-static-free environment can destroy them (I've seen this happen, too -- I blew some chips before I had a static strap, and I've seen others who swear that with internal zener diodes protecting the ICs these days you don't need to worry about it blowing chips as well [expensive ones, at that]). So, when the levels of static electricity in the atmosphere around you go sky high as a result of a near miss from lightning, what additional threats are there for your modem, computer, etc. from the static electricity itself? I realize that asking this question is now no longer directly related to telecom (i.e., we are no longer talking about the damage potential from the phone line connection -- we're talking about static electricity from slightly different circumstances ... a near hit instead of a direct hit), but then again, this could impact the type of protection I want to get ... there may be some device out there that attempts to address this as well. Or, it may really not be a problem, or, there may be nothing I can do about it at all. This, however, is the info I'm looking for. > IF your computer and modem are _completely_ disconnected, from _both_ > the telephone line _and_ the power line, the only way that lightning > can damage them is a direct hit to your house, in which case I think > that they will be some of your more minor worries. Based on the revised version of this posting, do you still want to stick to that point? That the static charge in the area NEAR a lightning hit (and, btw, I'm not talking miles ... I'm talking just down the street, or closer) is not a threat to static-sensitive equipment like modems/computers/etc? I'm thinking you might have misunderstood what I was asking about. jim Standard disclaimer....These thoughts are mine, not my employer's. Share and Enjoy! (Sirius Cybernetics Corporation, complaints division) 73, de n5ial Internet: zjdg11@hou.amoco.com or grahj@gagme.chi.il.us Amateur Radio: TCP/IP: jim@n5ial.ampr.org (44.72.47.193) Packet: BBS went QRT for good...still searching for new one. ------------------------------ From: "Ralph W. Hyre" Subject: Re: International 800 Calling Date: 24 Jul 91 13:15:34 GMT Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati In article ED.HOPPER@ehbbs.hou.tx.us (ED HOPPER) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 558, Message 9 of 9 > I would suggest that those people who find themselves in this > situation go and pound on the 800 customer to comply with > common-sense and provide a dialable number in his advertising. > That's the answer, not re-engineering the network to accomodate > stupidity on the part of advertisers. I would be reluctant to point the finger at my customers because of their lack of understanding of the international network. The supervison idea (supervise only the international portion of the call), if it would work, sounds like an elegant solution to the problem. The principle of international calls (011 + ) costing money would seem to take precendence over the idea that 800 numbers are always free. I understand that some of these arrangements are restriced by tariff and other agreements with the PTT's. One can't assume that a periodical 'targeted' at the US Market will not make its way overseas. Globalization is an inherently 'jerky' process that is just starting. Technology is going to make things possible that people can take advantage of, if properly educated. Few of the posts I have seen on this topic express the desire for the company to pay for the international portion of the call; the callers are just potential customers trying to contact the company. On AT&T's part, couldn't low-volume international customers be advised to advertising the USA Direct number for international calls? (Those operators can dial 800 numbers, can't they?) ------------------------------ From: "John E. Girard" Subject: Re: International 800 Calling Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1991 15:14:46 GMT In roeber@cithe1.cithep.caltech.edu writes: > I would suggest that those people who find themselves in this > situation go and pound on the 800 customer to comply with common-sense > and provide a dialable number in his advertising. That's the answer, > not re-engineering the network to accomodate stupidity on the part of > advertisers. Believe it or not, I have had secretaries and receptionist-types at companies refuse to give me the direct number, like it was supposed to be secret. The best thing you can do is call anyone you might need to contact while overseas *before* you go and compile a direct-dial list. If you need a number whilst overseas, the AT&T 800 operators will host a call to directory assistance in order to get a local number for you. However, this does require that you know the city where the company resides. AT&T will not provide a cross-reference from the 800 to the local number. The operators believe it can't be done and the supes say the system doesn't provide the feature. Now THERE is something to complain about next time you call! John Girard New Science Associates, Inc. jeg@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG VOICE: 415-968-3324 ************************** FAX: 415-968-0862 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Church 900 Hotline Program From: David Leibold Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 20:51:21 EDT Organization: Brave New World BBS, Delray Beach, FL Jeff Carroll wrote: > I noticed recently that during the recent general convention > of the Episcopal Church in Phoenix, the church operated a 900 number > for curious Episcopalians who wanted the latest lowdown on what was > going on on the convention floor. The Presbyterian Church (USA) has an after-hours news line on an 800 number: 1 800 UP2DATE. The news line is only operational outside office hours. This line contained information out of the recent PCUSA General Assembly, along with other news. > The charge was $0.50/minute; I have no information as to the > identity of the carrier or the quality of the information. The prefix of the 900 number (the NXX of the 1 900 NXX XXXX) should be able to indicate which carrier is involved; at least until a full- blown CCS7 implementation renders the prefix-carrier correlation meaningless. replies to: dleibold@attmail.com djcl.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (bnw.delray.fl.us should be fully Internet-mapped soon; use shark.cs.fau.edu!bnw if gooing this route) ------------------------------ From: James.Zuchelli@f555.n161.z1.FIDONET.ORG (James Zuchelli) Subject: Re: Alcor Email Case Date: 12 Jul 91 09:22:56 GMT Organization: FidoNet node 1:161/555 - MacCircles, Pleasanton CA Very interesting. If email is protected, for how long is it protected? If I mail a letter and the person I send it to reads it and puts it out on his table and someone comes into their home or office, and reads it, its not considered an intrusion into the mail system. If the same person opened a piece of mail that was in the persons mail box, there would be a violation of federal law. So how long can email sit in a computer before it is not longer considered protected? is there a limit, can a message that is ten years old be considered no longer protected? James Zuchelli - via FidoNet node 1:125/777 UUCP: ...!uunet!hoptoad!fidogate!161!555!James.Zuchelli INTERNET: James.Zuchelli@f555.n161.z1.FIDONET.ORG [Moderator's Note: These are good questions with answers that are not available yet. It is likely a lot of them will be resolved in court on a case by case basis over the next few years. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mission!randy@uunet.uu.net Subject: Mismatched 1+ Carrier Date: Tue Jul 23 16:10:50 1991 When I recently moved from one apartment to another about a mile away, GTE set up the service just fine (was I surprised!) except that I found out later my 1+ carrier was AT&T even though GTE service, GTE repair, and Sprint all said their records showed I was served by Sprint. How is the 1+ carrier actually determined? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #566 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09439; 25 Jul 91 5:21 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20903; 25 Jul 91 3:49 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10281; 25 Jul 91 2:41 CDT Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 1:40:29 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #567 BCC: Message-ID: <9107250140.ab09627@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 Jul 91 01:40:20 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 567 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Sprint Rate Change [Linc Madison] Re: Sprint (Finally) Informs its Customers [Rob Knauerhase] Re: Calling Myself / Call Return [Jeff Carroll] Re: Statistics on Bell's Breakup [John Higdon] Re: Wanted - Telephone Call Forwarders [Roy Stehle] Re: Question on Audiovox CTX4500 Programming [Roy Stehle] Re: Phones in Hotels, Once More [Wally Kramer] Re: MCI's Friends and Family Won't Leave Me Alone! [Mary McComb] Re: Simple Computer / Phone Link Wanted [William Clare Stewart] Re: No Calling Card For a Cell Phone [Bill Nickless] Re: Infamous Telephone Quotes [Scott Dorsey] Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z [Douglas Martin] Re: Anyone Know Mr. ZZYZZYXY? [Argun Tekant] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 01:48:24 PDT From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Sprint Rate Change Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article John Higdon writes: > The other is that on the infrequent occasions when AT&T does change > its rates, it is usually in a downward direction. And then this > usually sets off some scurrying on the part of MCI and Sprint to > perform some cosmetic surgery on their respective rate cards -- to > convince the public that they are STILL at least a fraction of a > percent below AT&T. "Cosmetic surgery" is exactly right. I recently dissected my Sprint bill and found that they actually charge LESS for the first minute than for additional minutes on the same call. The only reason I can conceive is that they want to make all those three-minute "typical" call comparisons look bright and shiny. What ever happened to the logic that the first minute costs *more* because of the cost of set-up? Then again, AT&T called me to invite me to switch back, and I said, "Sure -- put it in writing." The droid said he couldn't -- it was "against policy." Another droid called a couple weeks later, and I simply told her, "Your commercials say to ask for it in writing, but your people refused. I won't consider switching to AT&T until I get a complete rate chart." This time it was promised to be out in the mail right away, but that was in November and I'm *still* waiting. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu = ucbvax!tongue1!linc P.S. I've never called any phone sex line *in the Netherlands Antilles*. I *did* discover, though, that Pac*Bell payphones in 408 would dial 415 "976" lines for just the regular toll charge to San Francisco, but that was some years back. [Moderator's Note: For many years, 415-976 was open to the world via AT&T for the cost of the tolls only, although MCI always did intercept with a message 'at this time, MCI does not connect with 976 numbers'. When I say the world, I mean just that. One evening after I had gone to bed (two-ish or so), I decided to do some research for the Digest and dialed into one of the 415-976 open chat lines. I got to talking with a chap from London who had just woke up and was ready for breakfast who asked me how big my mailing list was. At thirteen cents a minute via Reach Out, those services were a bargain for me. Then one day, poof! intercepted by AT&T right downtown at the Canal Street switcher; 312-5T telling me my call could not be completed as dialed, or rather, they had no intention of completing it as dialed. Apparently the information providers and/or PacTel got tired of people in London chatting with folks in Chicago for the price of the toll while San Fransisco people willing to pay 'just two dollars for three minutes of hot chat' got busy signals as a result. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rob Knauerhase Subject: Re: Sprint (Finally) Informs its Customers Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1991 00:57:10 GMT In miller@dg-rtp.dg.com (Mark Miller) writes: > In article is written: >> Also, they included a "no-strings-attached" $5.00 gift certificate! > All three of you [E-mail repliers]said you you did not get the gift > certificate. I > don't know why I got it (no complaints though :-)), I did make a > fairly angry call one night, after reading about this in [snip] > Carol said she sent a polite letter, and didn't get the gift > certificate. Perhaps there is still some use for unbridled anger :-) Interesting; I asked them about credit for the calls between 6/3 and when I called them (not having made any between reading about the increase here and calling to complain). The Sprint lady credited me for the difference, then gave me a $5 "inconvenience credit" (after talking to her supervisor), instructing me to simply pay $5 less than the adjusted amount. Then I got the letter with a $5 gift certificate in it. I plan to use it, but still switch to MCI when I return to my apartment in Illinois; MCI now beats Sprint for the two numbers I usually call, and "Friends & Family" promises to take a discount over that. Rob Knauerhase knauer@robk.intel.com Intel Developer Tools Organization (for the summer) knauer@cs.uiuc.edu Univ. of Illinois, Dept. of CS, Gigabit Study Group ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Calling Myself / Call Return Date: 23 Jul 91 17:23:11 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics In article forrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) writes: > About two years ago, I received "service" (if you oculd call it that) > from GTE while living in Mill Creek, WA, on the 206-338 exchange. The > switch was unlike anything else I had ever used (I had always lived in > an RBOC area before). I assumed that it was some funky GTE creation, > probably a GTD-5, and it was definately a peice of junk. It exhibited > the strange behavior, recently described in the Digest, when calling > your own number if you have call waiting. Back in '85-'86 I was in the Redmond 881 exchange, and it seemed like every time I called into Seattle I wound up having a conversation that sounded like an excerpt from a Jacques Cousteau soundtrack, between bad echo cancellation and weird little "pings" that came along every few seconds. I've heard rumors that GTE had a high-usage trunk running along the bottom of Lake Washington that was responsible for the problem. I can't think of any evidence to support this. Does anyone know the lowdown? Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 02:33 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Statistics on Bell's Breakup "Daniel R. Guilderson" writes: > Two questions: > 1) Why did touch-tone go up 69% ? I don't know. It went to zero here. > 2) Why am I being taxed by the Federal gov't for local > in-state service? For the same reason you are taxed on income you make in locally in your state. Our bloated Federal government needs the money. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 09:25:47 -0700 From: Roy Stehle Subject: Re: Wanted - Telephone Call Forwarders Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA In article : > Can anyone supply the source for the LOGOS forwarder? The LOGOS Automatic Call Forwarding Machine is available for $225 from: Communications Publishing P.O. Box 500 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0500 (800) 366-6731 or (206) 232-3464 9 AM to 5 PM Pacific Time Answering machine other hours The have a "Cellular Telephone Products and Publications" catalog that has a number of interesting products. One item of interest to another thread is "The Cellular Telephone Directory" that gives coverage maps. While I doubt that it shows cell sites, it might use simple circles centered at or near those sites. I have no affiliation with Communications Publishing and I have not, yet, ordered anything from them. Roy Stehle SRI International ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 09:30:06 -0700 From: Roy Stehle Subject: Re: Question on Audiovox CTX4500 Programming Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA In article : > Does anyone have the full programming instructions for the Audiovox > CTX4500? There are a number of fields that the previous messages had > no information on. Depending on how badly you want the information, the "Cellular Telephone Program Handbook" offers this type of information on "more than 250 models" of cellular telephones. I do not know if your Audiovox is included. $149 from Communications Publishing at (800) 366-6731 or (206) 232-3464. Roy Stehle SRI International ------------------------------ From: Wally Kramer Subject: Re: Phones in Hotels, Once More Date: 24 Jul 91 19:57:29 GMT Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon In article SKASS@drew.bitnet writes: > I recently spent four nights at the Hilton at Dedham (MA) Place. > When I checked out, the bill contained 36 calls to the phone number 0, > at $0.75 each, most of which ... hadn't gone through ... > I complained, and ... was credited the full $27. ... More fortunate than me. At the Kona Hawaii Hilton I was charged $1.00 each for call attempts to 800 numbers! I complained that I hadn't gotten through. I kept complaining until the manager listened to me and told me, "Each call attempt costs one dollar." End of discussion. My advice: Don't use a Hilton phone. Wally Kramer contracted from Step Technology, Portland, Oregon 503 244 1239 wallyk@orca.wv.tek.com +1 503 685 2658 ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Wednesday, 24 Jul 1991 16:46:28 EDT From: Mary McComb 225 Sparks Subject: Re: MCI's Friends and Family Won't Leave Me Alone! In article , wegeng@arisia.xerox.com says: > I agree with you that MCI should try to confirm the information that > they are given before placing such telemarketing calls. However, in > the case where MCI got your name from one of your friends/family, who > is to blame? It seems to me that your friends/family share the blame, > since it's *them* who gave out your name. As the old saying goes, > with friends like these who needs enemies? I am one of those who fell for MCI's Friends and Family deal. I figured that at worst, MCI would send out a mail notice to the folks I put down on the list. I may be naive, but it never occurred to me that MCI would harrass my friends and family with obnoxious telemarketing calls. My dad tells me that they did exactly that. I had been pleased with MCI for the last several years, partly because they seemed low key compared to AT&T, but I have had it with them for harrassing my contacts. I am moving soon to an area without MCI; if I weren't, I would cancel MCI. The ads make it sound like they will just doublecheck to see if your people are already on MCI; there is NO indication that they will subject them to phone calls. Mary McComb (soon to be leaving) Penn State University ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 17:27:55 EDT From: William Clare Stewart Subject: Re: Simple Computer / Phone Link Wanted Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Special Services Division. In article leichter@lrw.com (Jerry Leichter) writes: > I'd like to be able to have my system send me Email (at a known, > remote location) informing me when someone called and left a message. > I could then call in and check the message. A fancy hack, if you have Caller-ID service, is to get a Caller-ID box with RS-232, and have your email message include the phone number. A crude hack, if you can get a five-volt signal out of your answering machine or otherwise wire something to detect ringing voltage, is to feed it to the DSR or DCD pin on your RS-232 port and have your PC wake up and send mail. Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M-312 Holmdel NJ ------------------------------ From: Bill Nickless Subject: Re: No Calling Card For a Cell Phone Organization: Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago, Illinois Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 22:31:00 GMT > [Moderator's Note: Please see my comments earlier today regarding AT&T > and their left hand eventually, hopefully, figuring out what their > right hand is doing. I get six bills monthly from AT&T: Cell Phone 1, > Cell Phone 2, AT&T Mail, Equipment Lease (once every three months), > Equipment purchased on time payment from phone center; wireline long > distance calls (via my IBT bill). Ridiculous, isn't it! PAT] I have MCI dial-1 service. They bill their LD charges to my Visa card. (At one time they were billing their LD charges to my AT&T Universal card.) Whenever AT&T calls, asking me to switch back, I just tell them that I'm quite happy with MCI, because they bill my Visa card. When I had a cellphone in a different state, the bill from MCI went to the same Visa card, even though they had a different billing center for that state or something. Maybe someday AT&T will offer dial-1 billing to their Universal card. Then again, it is AT&T we're talking about. Bill Nickless +1 708 972 7390 or +1 616 927 0982 ------------------------------ From: Scott Dorsey Subject: Re: Infamous Telephone Quotes Organization: NASA Langley Research Center Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1991 13:23:36 GMT In article 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) writes: > In article (Digest v11.iss560), Brett Person uunet.uu.net> mentions Mark Twain's dislike for the notion of > investing in the telephone. > In fact, that dislike must have stayed with Twain his whole > life, for in his final years, when it was customary for the press to > ask him for just one more witticism for the year's end, he granted a > Christmas wish for the world, saying, "Merry Christmas to everyone > except the inventor of the telephone!" This is a man who lost most of his life savings investing in the development of a mechanical typesetter that never did work. Merganthaler got his finished long before. scott ------------------------------ From: Douglas Martin Subject: Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1991 07:44:52 -0600 In article gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) writes: > The first two entries in the Fort Worth residential listings are: > A, M. > and > AAARGH, A. A. 309 College St. > Does anyone think that Aaargh is a real last name? OK - I guess you've got Edmonton beat for "people" at the start of the phone book (we don't have distinct residential White Pages; our White Pages are both residential and business). The first entries that appear to be people rather than businesses, are Aab F W, Aab H, Aab J, Aabak Brian, Aaberg Olav. By the way, are spaces significant in the sorting in your phone book? i.e. do "A B C" and "ABC" sort close to each other? Seems a little silly to me to have spaces significant, but that's the case in ours -- "A B C Trophy" comes three pages BEFORE "ABC Crating and Pallets". douglas@cs.ualberta.ca 73547.3210@compuserve.com [Moderator's Note: Spaces *have* to be considered. In your example above, "A B C" are three distinct 'words' or 'names', while "ABC" is a single three-letter 'word' or 'name'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Argun Tekant Subject: Re: Anyone Know Mr. ZZYZZYXY? Organization: Wimsey Associates Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1991 16:41:58 GMT It looks like Vancouver BC is the winner for the nd-of-phone book race. This year's last entry goes: Zzzyzyton P 4499 W 2nd .......... 251-4973 What goes? Argun Tekant [Moderator's Muse: I wonder if P. Zizzy-ton (I assume you pronounce it that way, or do you say Zie-zeeton) is a real person or a ringer? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #567 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09474; 25 Jul 91 5:21 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20903; 25 Jul 91 3:55 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac10281; 25 Jul 91 2:41 CDT Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 2:18:51 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #568 BCC: Message-ID: <9107250218.ab10376@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 Jul 91 02:18:36 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 568 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Cantel - North America's Only Nationwide Cellular Network [John R. Covert] A/A1 Control and Modems [Todd Inch] Email From Space [AppleLink, Michael Elliot via Lloyd W. Taylor] C&P: Some CLASS Services Enabled by Default (With a Catch!) [Phil Wherry] ABCD: What are These Buttons on My Phone? [Peter Wolf] Comment on German Phone System(s) [Wolf Paul] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 22:05:05 PDT From: John R. Covert Subject: Cantel - North America's Only Nationwide Cellular Network Because I was going to be in Canada several times this summer and travelling from place to place each time, I decided to subscribe to Cantel in addition to by Nynex service, at least temporarily. My experiences so far follow: Service activation was not inexpensive; the first month's bill showed: C$50.00 Cantel activation fee C$49.50 Canada DOC license C$14.14 Cantel Plan fee May 23 to Jun 08 C$24.95 Cantel Plan fee Jun 09 to Jul 08 ------- C$138.59 Subtotal C$ 9.70 7% Federal Goods and Services Tax C$ 11.86 8.56% Quebec Sales Tax ------- C$160.15 Total The Cantal plan includes the first 30 minutes of usage, after which peak and offpeak rates go into effect. It also includes all custom calling features. The airtime bill is confusing, in my case showing only what is to the left of the vertical bar: Peak 26 minutes $6.50 | $6.50/.50 = 13 minutes charged Offpeak 31 minutes 4.33 | $4.33/.33 = 13 minutes charged Total 57 minutes $10.83 | 31 free minutes = allowance + 411 A nice feature: local directory assistance is always free. LD may cost. Itemization would cost $3.50, but is free for the first two bills, so it was possible to make sense out of that extra free minute. There are no daily charges or high airtime charges when roaming anywhere in Canada. There is no need for follow-me-roaming; calls reach you and all features work anywhere in Canada or in many Ericsson systems in the U.S.A. Systems in at least Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, upstate New York, and West Virginia work now; Seattle should get connected soon, which might instantly open up much of McCaw (more than half the Cellular Ones), and I suppose some day, New York. Features in Ericsson switches work slightly differently than in AT&T, NT, and Motorola switches: Call Forwarding all calls: *21*(receiving number)# send, #21# turns it off. No Answer Transfer: *63*(receiving number)# send, #63# turns it off. Busy Transfer: *67*(receiving number)# send, #67# turns it off. Call Waiting: You can toggle whether you want it or not -- it arrives off. *43* turns it on, supposedly until you dial #43# to turn it off. To answer, you must enter "2" before pressing send. Just pressing send converts the caller's ring to a busy signal, and seems to leave call waiting disabled for the rest of the call. I didn't discover a way to turn it back on; 1 send might. Only documented for three way calling, but works for call waiting: 3 send joins the two incoming calls. 1 send is documented as terminating the call in progress and returning to the other party. I don't know if "end" will do that (like on AT&T switches), and I don't know what 1 send does when you have joined the parties. Not documented at all: 4 send takes you out of the call and leaves the two parties connected. Don't know what it does if you have not first joined them. Three way calling: 1, 2, and 3 are documented as above. I haven't used the feature yet, but will have to on my next Canadian visit. In particular, I wonder what happens when you just press send at various stages in call setup, and how you drop the second party to the call if they can't go on hook. I fear the old Rolm problem (recenty fixed with a special drop code) that once you bridge, you're stuck if it keeps ringing, goes busy, or puts you on perpetual hold/limbo. Only an on-hook from one party would clear it, so you'd have to clear the whole call and start over. Local and Long Distance calling: There's a huge complicated book (20 pages for the Quebec and Eastern Ontario exchanges) explaining what's local and what's long-distance, depending on where you are (by city -- of course, actually, group of cells) when you place a call. Listed are all the NXXs that are local for outgoing calls and arrows indicating the subset of those that are local for forwarded calls. Also, for each Cantel NXX, there is a list of areas to which you can roam and not be charged long distance for incoming calls to your home number. The instructions explain that you can force callers to use the roamer port, possibly saving them long distance, and definitely saving you incoming long distance, by forwarding your calls to a local number in your home area. There is no charge (not even airtime) for immediate call forwarding (a.k.a. call forward all calls) to your home area, and only LD charges otherwise, but see the LD note below. When you have forwarded your calls and have your phone off, calls to roamer ports in your home machine go to reorder, and calls to other machines attempt to page you. I need to see what happens if you do this while your phone is on, but in an area in your machine but where toll applies to incoming. For example, right now, my phone (with a Montreal number) is off, and I get reorder on both Montreal and Granby. If I still had calls forwarded, but were in Granby, would calls be able to be placed on the Granby roamer port, or would I have to cancel call forwarding, enabling both the Granby roamer port and calls to my actual number, to which LD would apply? An interesting quirk: While in Montreal, calls could be placed to me on the Granby roamer port, and there was no LD charge (and good that there wasn't; Montreal is a place I expect no incoming charge). The question is, what happens in Granby with a call placed to the Montreal or Sherbrooke roamer port? Calls to roamer ports in other systems do not reach you, but in the Prairie Provinces, a single system can cover the entire province, and calls do work over long distances. Are you ever charged a toll charge for a call on a roamer port that reaches you, however distant? Could that ever be more expensive than a call on your home number? My next bill will answer some, but not all of these questions. As if Long Distance in Canada weren't already expensive enough, Cantel charges a 15%-25% premium over regular long distance rates. Yecch. Not satisfied with making money off airtime, they make money off reselling LD. But hey, it's a system that really works across an entire continent. Quite impressive. Call Following and Feature Following should be universal. john [Moderator's Note: Could you possibly send along the address and phone for people to contact if they want more information or to sign-up? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Todd Inch Subject: A/A1 Control and Modems Organization: Maverick International Inc. Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 21:19:36 GMT In article tell@cs.unc.edu (Stephen Tell) writes: > You can't just use a double-pole relay to take the > modem off hook and close A/A1 because you don't want the A/A1 signal > to chatter while pulse dialing. Well, some have tried. Radio Shack did sell a A/A1 converter box to plug a single-line device into which consisted of only a full-wave bridge rectifier (four diodes) and a relay. [Disclaimer - I only bought one, a close out. Maybe they forgot the cap on this one unit.] I think the bridge is only necessary if the CO reverses line polarity during the call. The AC leads of the bridge go in series with either wire going to your device and the DC out goes to the relay coil. This was a problem on pulse phones, especially since most A/A1 systems use the condition where a phone is off hook but A/A1 is momemtarily open to turn on the "hold" circuit. I fixed that with a capacitor across the relay coil, and have since built several of these from scratch with a little experimenting for proper values. If components are selected properly, this WON'T be triggered by ring current. The bridge IS needed with a DC cap to give it the proper polarity if installed backward, etc. > Just last night I modified my Supra modem to support an RJ12 jack so > it will light the indicators on the little key system I've put > together out of surplus ITT parts. Many modems have a Single Line Phone (RJ11) / Multi-Line Phone (RJ12 or RJ13) [no, I don't know what a RJ13 is off hand] DIP switch. This determines if the Black/Yellow (or Orange striped) pair is connected for A/A1 or not. It is VITALLY IMPORTANT that this is set to Single/RJ11 if you have two-line phones in your house/business. Otherwise, it will always pickup (short out) the second line when using the first line and may damage the modem from the line current (but I doubt it.) This feature could easily be used to operate a relay to disconnect the other phones which share that phone line. If it's an answer-only modem (not placing outgoing calls) you could probably hook up an amp and/or relay to the Carrier Detect RS-232 lead to act as A/A1 control. It wouldn't trigger until the remote modem answered if you were placing an outgoing call. Technostalgia for newcomers: The term A/A1 is the name of the circuit used with those old-fashioned five-line phones that look like a normal (model 500 dial or 2500 tone) phone except for the five added lit buttons and red hold button across the bottom. The hookswitch included a switch just for the A/A1, which is electrically separate from the phone line itself. These were called 1A2 systems. So what's the hack/phrack/freak-type term for someone who builds their own phone hardware for use on their own line, which is probably in violation of FCC (and Canadian equivalent) rules? ------------------------------ From: "Lloyd W. Taylor" Subject: Email From Space Reply-To: "Lloyd W. Taylor" Organization: Johns Hopkins University Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 11:11:54 GMT NASA is taking a Macintosh Portable up in the space shuttle on the Mission this week (it's OK -- they added a supplementary engine) and they are going to be *connecting*to*AppleLink*from*space*. This is very exciting, because it is the *first time ever* that e-mail will have been sent or received from space (if it works). It's exciting for the astronauts because not only can they send data files back and forth and send their mission reports in while still on the mission, but they will also be able to communicate with their families while they are on the trip. And that is GREAT! The connection is a little bit more complex than normal ... here is the journey an AppleLink packet has to take from the GE IS host: The packet goes (digital, X.25) through the GE IS ww network to a modem pool (converts to analog) which is connected to a ROLM telephone switch (converts back to digital), then to a data phone at Johnson Space Center. The data phone is connected to a Mac Portable through its Printer port. The packet then goes through a "Data Forwarder" application written by our own Byron Han (the genius behind this project) which sends the packet out the Modem port using "NASALink," a CTB tool specially written for this event (also by Byron). The packet then goes through a PSI Fax Modem (back to analog) operating in v.27 terr (half duplex, ungodly, and evil) and is then routed through an ATU (Audio Terminal Unit) which digitizes the signal (converts to digital). The packet is then sent up to an orbiting CommSat (Commercial Satellite) then back down to White Sands, New Mexico TDRSS (Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System). It is then sent up again to another TDRSS Satellite which is orbiting geosynchronously with the space shuttle, and that satellite sends the packet to the space shuttle (still digital) which sends it through its voice subsystem and converts it back to analog. It is sent through another ATU to another PSI Fax modem (back to digital) through the modem port, through the NASALink CTB tool and FINALLY into AppleLink 6.0.2s1 (a special version of AppleLink 6.0.2). Whew! In addition to modifying AppleLink (slightly -- we would have used 6.1 which has the necessary modifications built in to handle this amazing connection, but 6.1 wasn't in beta early enough to train the astronauts how to use it), the portable had to be modified with a special fuse to prevent accidental turn-on during ascent, modifications to the trackball so it wouldn't float out of its socket in 0grav, and the motherboard was sprayed to prevent outgassing. We also thank Maria in ADG for making modifications to the host software to support this connection. The original throughput we were getting was about 110bps, but we've gotten it up to an effective throughput of 400-800bps! Alright with the wise cracks. We're using an off-the shelf modem ... the IBM system they set up for simple data file transfer (XModem) requires a $500,000 modem. (That's another reason we have to make this work. We, of course, can do the same thing in spades.) So, wish us all luck. We'll need it. This connection has, of course, never been tested end to end. We've only been able to test pieces of it at a time. If it does work, there will be great reason for celebration. "Hello, HelpLine? Uh, I'm having trouble getting on AppleLink." "Did you check all of your connections?" Michael Elliot P.S. Feel free to forward this to anyone you'd like. (Forwarded, with minor cleanup editing, from AppleLink by Lloyd Taylor) [Moderator's Note: I think it would absolutely great if there were an email address for net people to use to send greetings to the space people. Wouldn't *you* be thrilled to send email to outer space wishing the astronauts well? How about it, Apple-Link? Can such be arranged? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Phil Wherry Subject: C&P: Some CLASS Services Enabled by Default (With a Catch!) Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1991 12:29:07 GMT It would probably interest readers of the TELECOM Digest to know that C&P Telephone (DC-MD-VA) has now enabled the use of the Call Return (*69) and Call Repeat (*66) services on all subscriber lines. If you subscribe to these custom calling features, nothing has changed. If not, you can still use the features -- but you will be billed $0.75 each time you invoke a feature. Interesting marketing technique. Phil Wherry Member of the Technical Staff MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA psw@mitre.org ------------------------------ Subject: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone? From: afp!gna!comsat!coop@tfd.com Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 05:49:13 MET Organization: Satellite Telecom, Geldrop Holland Recently I bought a new touch-tone dialer for my answering-machine. It wasn't the same as the one I got when I bought the machine and had a few extra keys, namely next to 1-0, #,* there were ABCD keys which also produced tones. I played around with them and found out that the telephone-system sometimes reacted to them. What is the use of these keys? If there is any use for them, why aren't they on normal telephones? Peter Wolf, "agent cooper" [Moderator's Note: Sounds like it is time for a few messages on the Autovon phone network once again ... :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Wolf PAUL Subject: Comment on German Phone System(s) Date: 24 Jul 91 08:47:46 GMT Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg/Vienna, Austria, Europe A rather amusing observation on the German telephone system(s): A recent article in my daily paper pointed out that the German telephone company, TELEKOM, uses an advertising slogan in West Germany (the former FRG): Ruf doch mal an! ("Just call!", or "Why don't you call!") Even though TELEKOM has taken over the East German (former GDR) phone system, they carefully refrain from using that advertising slogan in East Germany. Every extra call is one too many, as things are now! W.N.Paul IIASA, wnp@iiasa.iiasa.ac.at, +43-2236-71521-465 (till Jul 26, 1991) ALCATEL/ELIN, cc_wnp@rcvie.co.at, +43-1-391-621-122 (as of Jul 29, 1991) Home: Kirschenallee 113, A-1220 Wien-Austria, Europe; Tel. +43-1-224-6913 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #568 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04404; 26 Jul 91 3:49 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02900; 26 Jul 91 2:10 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07521; 26 Jul 91 1:04 CDT Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 0:43:15 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #569 BCC: Message-ID: <9107260043.ab27302@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 26 Jul 91 00:43:07 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 569 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Email From Space [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: Email From Space [Gary W. Sanders] Re: Email From Space [Ed Greenberg] Re: Email From Space [Douglas Mason] Re: Email From Space [Mark A. Haun] Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [Wayne Folta] Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [Robin Kenny] Re: Cantel - North America's Only Nationwide Cellular Network [T. Harminc] Re: Cantel - North America's Only Nationwide Cellular Network [J. Covert] Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone? [Barton F. Bruce] Re: MCI's Friends and Family Won't Leave Me Alone! [Ethan Miller] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert J Woodhead Subject: Re: Email From Space Date: 25 Jul 91 10:07:16 GMT Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Tokyo Japan lloyd@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Lloyd W. Taylor) writes: [about the insanely complicated route between applelink and the Mac on the shuttle] Why on earth (heh heh!) didn't they just link a bidirectional audio channel between the shuttle and mission control with modems on both ends? Sheesh! > [Moderator's Note: I think it would absolutely great if there were an > email address for net people to use to send greetings to the space > people. Wouldn't *you* be thrilled to send email to outer space > wishing the astronauts well? How about it, Apple-Link? Can such be > arranged? PAT] Oh gee, nice idea Pat! I can just see them logging on to Applelink and finding out they have 350,000 new bits of email. Even assuming the Applelink software doesn't barf on that, they won't be able to see the wheat (the stuff from NASA) from the chaff. Better to set up a newsgroup (or whatever they call it on Applelink) and a special "no email to this account" account that the astronauts can use to log in and post with. Keeps things more organized. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 08:59:16 EDT From: Gary W Sanders Subject: Re: Email From Space Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article "Lloyd W. Taylor" writes: > NASA is taking a Macintosh Portable up in the space shuttle on the > Mission this week (it's OK -- they added a supplementary engine) and > This is very exciting, because it is the *first time ever* that e-mail > will have been sent or received from space (if it works). First time ... NO ... I suspect that nasa has done this before on a nasa project level. If not then others have been doing it. I have been sending and reading email to the MIR space station for a number of months. Also the shuttle has had a amateur packet radio station on a couple of missions. The packet station has a mailbox and messages can be left. Also let us not forget the oscar's, Fuji, pacsat lo-19.. All are flying BBS's that you can send and receive messages on ... email from space has been around for sometime. Gary Sanders (N8EMR) AT&T Bell Labs, Columbus Ohio gws@cblph.att.com 614-860-5965 ------------------------------ From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 09:30 PDT Subject: Re: Email From Space Michael Elliot writes on Applelink: > NASA is taking a Macintosh Portable up in the space shuttle on the > Mission this week (it's OK -- they added a supplementary engine) and > they are going to be *connecting*to*AppleLink*from*space*. > This is very exciting, because it is the *first time ever* that e-mail > will have been sent or received from space (if it works). Sorry ... not the first time. Hams have been exchanging data with both the NASA Orbiter and the Soviet MIR space station for several years now. Perhaps you saw news during recently of kids talking to the orbiter via ham radio? When they weren't using the radios for voice, they were using them for packet (digital) radio. SAREX (Shuttle Amateur Radio Experiment) had a packet station that would allow many hams to connect and exchange data so that they could later receive a "QSL" confirmation. The last (or next to last) Shuttle mission was a milestone for the ham community, since it was composed of an all-ham crew. > [Moderator's Note: I think it would absolutely great if there were an > email address for net people to use to send greetings to the space > people. Wouldn't *you* be thrilled to send email to outer space > wishing the astronauts well? How about it, Apple-Link? Can such be > arranged? PAT] It's not uncommon for a ham (including US Hams) to connect to the MIR Space Station operating under callsign (U2MIR) and leave messages in a packet maildrop for the cosmonauts. In fact, a recent plea from the cosmonauts was for more substance in messages. They want news and information. This sort of ground-to-space operation is legal for US hams with the new no-code technician license. Finally, I need to compliment the participants in this project, and wish them well. This is a marvelous achievement. Ed Greenberg, KM6CG PS: Lloyd, Please forward this back to Michael Elliot, whose Email address was not shown on Telecom. ------------------------------ From: Douglas Mason Subject: Re: Email From Space Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 18:15:17 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services UNIX System In article "Lloyd W. Taylor" writes: > NASA is taking a Macintosh Portable up in the space shuttle on the > Mission this week (it's OK -- they added a supplementary engine) and > they are going to be *connecting*to*AppleLink*from*space*. Our fearless leader mentions: > [Moderator's Note: I think it would absolutely great if there were an > email address for net people to use to send greetings to the space > people. Wouldn't *you* be thrilled to send email to outer space > wishing the astronauts well? How about it, Apple-Link? Can such be > arranged? PAT] Patrick! Could you imagine the saturation of the networks if everyone found an email address that went to space? Although I would be absolutely thrilled to bounce some mail to someone in space, I invision it turning into a situation like the Craig "Send Me A Postcard" kid. :-) This *is* fantastic technology. Can they read netnews in space? :-) I'm going to modify pnews so it says: "This program posts news to zillions of machines throughout the entire universe ... and beyond! ..." Was there any politics involved in going with an Apple machine? Douglas Mason douglas@netcom.COM Software Development and Support douglas@netcom.UUCP Freestone, Inc. - Redwood City, CA 94063 +01 415.368.0191 ------------------------------ From: "Mark A. Haun" Subject: Re: Email From Space Organization: Sacramento Public Access Unix Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 15:43:05 GMT In article , lloyd@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Lloyd W. Taylor) writes: > NASA is taking a Macintosh Portable up in the space shuttle on the > Mission this week (it's OK -- they added a supplementary engine) and > they are going to be *connecting*to*AppleLink*from*space*. > This is very exciting, because it is the *first time ever* that e-mail > will have been sent or received from space (if it works). Sorry, but it isn't *quite* the first time that email will be exchanged with a manned space platform. Hams have been exchanging packet email with the Cosmonauts on the Mir space station for some time now. Of course, that doesn't make this opportunity any less exciting :-) Mark A. Haun / 3445 Del Mesa Ct. / Sacramento, CA 95821 / Phone: (916) 488-2965 UUCP: {ames | apple | sun}!pacbell!sactoh0!mahaun | Amateur Radio KJ6PC INTERNET: mahaun@sactoh0.SAC.CA.US / pacbell!sactoh0!mahaun@ames.arc.nasa.gov Amateur Pkt Radio: kj6pc@wa6nwe.#nocal.ca.usa -or- [44.2.0.56] on 144.93 MHz ------------------------------ From: Wayne Folta Subject: Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? Date: 25 Jul 91 22:41:24 GMT Reply-To: Wayne Folta Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 > Is this nothing more than a telecom old wives tale, or is there > (i) any official policy on redial frequency, and (ii) any way for the > telco to determine the frequency with which subscriber redials? In the White Knight (a Mac comms program) there is a note that it is illegal in the US to have an automatic dialer redial a single number more than 15 times. This might be to avoid problems where someone sets up their modem to dial into a BBS repeatedly until it gets a carrier, but the phone number is wrong and some poor soul gets repeated calls every six seconds throughout the night! It would also protect people from purposeful auto-dialing harrassment and from errant FAX maxchines. Wayne Folta (folta@cs.umd.edu 128.8.128.8) ------------------------------ From: Robin Kenny Subject: Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? Date: 25 Jul 91 00:58:23 GMT Organization: HP Australasian Response Centre (Melbourne) Charlie.Mingo@f421.n109.z1.fidonet.org wrote: > There's been some debate on a BBS I frequent as to the minimum > interval one should leave between automated attempts to redial a busy > number. > A suggestion has been made that the phone system will suffer if > one attempts to dial a number more frequently than, say, once every > ten seconds, and that the telco will do something unfortunate if it > ever finds anyone doing this. (Note that the number in question is > rarely idle for more than 10-15 seconds at peak periods.) > Is this nothing more than a telecom old wives tale, or is there > (i) any official policy on redial frequency, and (ii) any way for the > telco to determine the frequency with which subscriber redials? **** Not an Old Wives Tale **** Here in Australia the rate and volume of automated contact attempts is limited IN LAW to (top of head, references at home) six attempts in total no more frequently than each minute. Yes, repeat dialling can severely impact an exchange as the total capacity of the telephone system is sized for a median traffic load, not for the total number of subscribers. Modern ISDN equipment will probably change the rules (because of their speed) however you could just phone up the technical section of the relevant telephone company for The Word. It's also good manners. Speaking as an ex-telephone company employee. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 12:15:41 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Cantel - North America's Only Nationwide Cellular Network > Service activation was not inexpensive; the first month's bill showed: > C$50.00 Cantel activation fee > C$49.50 Canada DOC license > C$14.14 Cantel Plan fee May 23 to Jun 08 > C$24.95 Cantel Plan fee Jun 09 to Jul 08 > ------- > C$138.59 Subtotal > C$ 9.70 7% Federal Goods and Services Tax > C$ 11.86 8.56% Quebec Sales Tax > ------- > C$160.15 Total You could have avoided the provincial sales tax by subscribing in a province (Alberta) that has no sales tax. The sales tax would in any case not be chargeable if you had made the arrangements from outside the province. (Well - it's arguable, but certainly if you buy goods or services which are shipped out of province you don't pay the PST.) The GST is also not charged on exports. I suppose you could argue that at least part of the bill was for services to be exported. > There is no need for follow-me-roaming; calls reach you and all > features work anywhere in Canada or in many Ericsson systems in > the U.S.A. I understand they even have cross-border hand-off, so you can drive across the bridge from Canada to the USA and keep talking all the while. Of course if you keep up the conversation while going through customs and immigration, you may attract the wrong sort of attention :-) > As if Long Distance in Canada weren't already expensive enough, Cantel > charges a 15%-25% premium over regular long distance rates. Yecch. > Not satisfied with making money off airtime, they make money off > reselling LD. It's not clear if they are reselling LD or charging you a premium for their own LD service. I have tried to find out what the rules are, without success. Since they have their own landlines (and microwave) in place, I don't see why they wouldn't route as much LD as possible over their own facilities. In this sense I think Cantel may be the back door to LD competition in Canada. Of course you can always dial your LD calls as 0+, and pay the $.75 surcharge + Telecom Canada rates. Tony H. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 10:31:48 PDT From: "John R. Covert 25-Jul-1991 1320" Subject: Cantel - North America's Only Nationwide Cellular Network > You could have avoided the provincial sales tax by subscribing in a > province (Alberta) that has no sales tax. However, then I would have had an Alberta number, and would have had to pay incoming long distance on all calls to my number when in the Montreal area -- and I'm in Montreal a lot more often than in Alberta. > The sales tax would in any case not be chargeable if you had made > the arrangements from outside the province. (Well - it's arguable, > but certainly if you buy goods or services which are shipped out of > province you don't pay the PST.) I don't have the Quebec forms, but the Ontario form specifically states that sales tax is not refundable on telephone and telegraph services. Do you know anyone who has a cellular phone in Canada? Certainly some of these people must have made calls totally outside their province, and can report as to how tax is charged. In the U.S., it depends on the state. Some states charge tax if the call is billed in the state; Massachusetts charges tax only if the call is both billed in Massachusetts and at least one end of the call is in Massachusetts. > The GST is also not charged on exports. I suppose you could argue that > at least part of the bill was for services to be exported. If someone can get a ruling on this, I'd be interested. However, all my previous dealings attempting to get a Cantel number were met with "Sorry, we can't provide service to Americans except as roamers," so I'm not going to push this too hard. Especially since NYNEX just started pulling roaming agreements in U.S. West territory because of fraud -- apparently most of U.S. West's switches cannot block an invalid ESN after a single call, and several thousand dollars worth of fraud came in from a bunch of U.S. West cities. As of 3 July 1991, there is no NYNEX Boston roaming in most major U.S. West cities. NYNEX New York is not blocked in as many cities. I had to use Cantel to roam -- BTW, Cantel usually has agreements with both the A and B carriers in most cities in the U.S. john ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone? Date: 25 Jul 91 13:57:27 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , afp!gna!comsat!coop@tfd.com writes: > few extra keys, namely next to 1-0, #,* there were ABCD keys which Touch Tone really has four row and four column frequencies defined. Your ABCD buttons use the regular four row frequencies with the 1633hz column frequency. Most TT chips 'know' about 1633, and lots of applications make use of it. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 10:29:55 PDT From: ethan miller Subject: Re: MCI's Friends and Family Won't Leave Me Alone! The solution to this problem with MCI's Friends and Family is as follows: If the people on your list are already MCI customers, MCI just writes their names/numbers down. If you ask the people on your list beforehand, you can find out who's currently on MCI, who's willing to switch, and who doesn't want in. Put only those in the first two groups on your list -- they either won't get called, or will get called once and switch. ethan miller--cs grad student elm@cs.berkeley.edu #include ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #569 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17526; 26 Jul 91 9:57 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15398; 26 Jul 91 8:19 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07359; 26 Jul 91 7:12 CDT Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 7:07:04 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #570 BCC: Message-ID: <9107260707.ab04319@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 26 Jul 91 07:06:52 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 570 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: NY Tel Experiments With Telephone Cash Cards [Andrew D. Nielsen] Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [J. Macdonald] Re: US Sprint Providing One-Way Service [Tad Cook] Re: Auto-Answer Phone Query [Tad Cook] Re: Mismatched 1+ Carrier [Terry Kennedy] Re: Why Carry New AT&T Card When Old on Still Works? [Bill Huttig] Re: Email From Space [Andrew Payne] Re: Getting Off a Party Line [Randal L. Schwartz] Re: US Sprint Providing One-Way Service [Bruce E. Howells] Re: International 800 Calling [Claus Tondering] Re: Sprint Rate Change [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Andrew D. Nielsen" Subject: Re: NY Tel Experiments With Telephone Cash Cards Organization: University of Western Australia Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1991 02:56:17 GMT In article , NIEBUHR@bnlcl6.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) writes: > On the 7/22/91 "NBC National News" there was a blurb about Cash Cards > being used in England. The way this works is that a person buys a > card at a local vendor (say Lottery Agent) for $5.00 and receives > $5.20 worth of calls. It's used like an ATM card and there is a > readout that shows how much is left. Telecom Australia has been (rather rapidly) converting most of the call box phones across Australia to accept small plastic cards which one can buy (at a range of values) from news agents, post offices, delicatessens etc. They're easy to use, and much better than using coins. A small hole is punched in the card after each use to show the value remaining. You can also program the card to automatically call a given number about 15 seconds after inserting the card into the phone, though I still haven't worked out who other than parents with small children might use this feature. The phones all have liquid crystal displays and (at last!) numeric keypads for dialling. These phones are not the same as the credit card and EFTPOS card phones which can be found in obvious locations such as airports, and obscure locations such as the Cataby roadhouse north of Perth in the middle of nowhere. Looks like they're taking deregulation seriously and improving their service. Andrew D. Nielsen | Internet: andrew@cs.uwa.oz.au Macintosh Programmer | Department of Computer Science | The University of Western Australia | Tel: +61-9-3802279 NEDLANDS WA 6009 AUSTRALIA | FAX: +61-9-3801089 ------------------------------ From: John Macdonald Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? Organization: Elegant Communications Inc. Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 13:24:09 GMT > Hey! Don't forget Canada. We can call most US 800 numbers from here! > (And we really hate those companies which advertise their 800 number > and no other, and then don't enable calls to them from Canada ...) What really is annoying is such behaviour from places that should know better -- those in the telecom business. For example, Fidelity Telecom regularily advertizes in {Communications Week} specifying just a US-only 800 number. They don't mention what city they are located in, so there's no hope of using directory assistance to find a *real* number for them. (If anyone has a real number for them, I might need to call them again some time -- they missed out the last time I wanted to talk to them though ...) John Macdonald jmm@eci386 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: US Sprint Providing One-Way Service From: Tad Cook Date: 25 Jul 91 20:00:09 GMT Eric T. Kiser writes: > For about the last six months, a fair amount of calls placed from > Dayton, OH to Huntington, WV result in the Huntington to Dayton link > becoming severely attenuated (about 60 db down) a few minutes into > the call, while the other direction is unaffected. (some details deleted) > I've not wasted any of my time contacting Sprint about this. Instead > I thought I would pose the problem to the Digest to obtain a more > intelligent response. Any comments/theories? You really should contact Sprint about this! We could waste a lot of time with wild speculation on what can happen in a trunk to cause this, but only Sprint can fix it for you. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP or, kt7h@polari.uucp or, 3288544@mcimail.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Auto-Answer Phone Query From: Tad Cook Date: 25 Jul 91 20:02:20 GMT SKASS@drew.bitnet writes: > A friend of mine is looking for an auto-answer speaker phone for a > bedridden relative. He's seen one at Sears for $300, but that sounds > a bit steep to him and to me. Any recommendations would be > appreciated, for products or for ways to adapt a non-auto-answer > speakerphone to make it answer automatically. I am having trouble imagining how this works. In a normal telephone, the line is answered when you take the phone off hook. For the phone to auto-answer, it would have to put an off hook condition on the line as soon as it detects ringing. So if the phone is connected to the line, it answers the phone, whether or not there is anyone in the room to talk to the caller. Let us assume that there is someone there to talk to the caller. How does the speaker phone know when to go back on hook at the end of the call? Does it automatically go back on hook after a period of silence? Will room noise keep it perpetually off hook? Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP or, kt7h@polari.uucp or, 3288544@mcimail.com [Moderator's Note: In the limited experience I have had with auto- answer speaker phones, they do not simply go off hook when a call comes in. In addition to the requirement there be an incoming call, there must be a voice or some other loud noise directed at the speaker from within the room before they will answer; i.e. the phone rings, you look at the speaker and say 'hello'. If no person is in the room to respond, then there is no answer to the caller. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" Subject: Re: Mismatched 1+ Carrier Date: 25 Jul 91 19:33:59 GMT Organization: St. Peter's College, US In article , mission!randy@uunet.uu.net writes: > When I recently moved from one apartment to another about a mile away, > GTE set up the service just fine (was I surprised!) except that I > found out later my 1+ carrier was AT&T even though GTE service, GTE > repair, and Sprint all said their records showed I was served by > Sprint. Your telephone number's feature set (whether you have touch-tone, call waiting, etc., as well as your 1+ carrier) are all stored in the switching machine. The telephone company's records are stored in seperate record-keeping systems. There is a link between the two, which can either be a dedicated data link, a magtape, or somebody typing in the changes, depending on the size of the installation and the age of the equipment. Thus, it is possible for the feature set to be utterly different in both places if a change was not sent. However, the usual cause of this problem is the change is sent, but then for some reason the switch is reloaded from an old backup, wiping out your changes. [By the way, this is the usual reason for call forwarding "cancelling itself"]. Once you manage to convince them that there really is a problem, they will either just update your line in the switch, or they will re-sync the switch by loading _all_ the records for a group of lines (or possibly the whole exchange). Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing trry@spcvxa.bitnet St. Peter's College, US erry@spcvxa.spc.edu (201) 915-9381 ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: Why Carry New AT&T Card When Old on Still Works? Date: 26 Jul 91 00:03:46 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) writes: > In article Bill Huttig edu> writes: >> In article andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy >> Sherman) writes: >>> IXCs will not have to accept LEC issued calling cards (at least not >>> after 1/1/92), although my best knowledge is that AT&T will continue >>> to do so. However, I'm not sure that the Reach Out card option will [stuff deleted] >> step backwards. Does this mean a LEC does not have to take AT&T's new >> card? [stuff about shared database deleted] [stuff about verification deleted] My point is that a LEC does not have to accept any IXC card, and a IXC does not have to accept a LEC card. But does a LEC have to accept a LEC card for Intra LATA calls? Or will Intra-LATA calls be deregulated so all IXC can carry them? Will LEC's accept other IXC cards besides AT&T? They should be required to. >> AT&T is going the opposite of the other IXC's. I would like to see it >> that every carrier offers the option of LEC or IXC billing. > I doubt that any carrier will be able to afford to offer dual billing > systems. The cost would be prohibitive, and you would pay for it in > the form of higher tariffs. Why should this be so hard or cost more to support? MCI does it? A lot of carriers that direct bill do it for casual callers 10xxx without an account. I would think that it would be cheaper to direct bill instead of LEC bill. ------------------------------ From: payne@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Andrew Payne) Subject: Re: Email From Space Organization: Cornell Theory Center Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1991 11:42:31 GMT In article "Lloyd W. Taylor" writes: > NASA is taking a Macintosh Portable up in the space shuttle on the > Mission this week (it's OK -- they added a supplementary engine) and > they are going to be *connecting*to*AppleLink*from*space*. > This is very exciting, because it is the *first time ever* that e-mail > will have been sent or received from space (if it works). Wrong. Hams have been using packet radio to send "e-mail" to and from space for years. On the last shuttle mission, all five astronauts were licensed hams and operated, among other things, packet radio. The Soviet space station MIR often has a BBS running where you can send mail to/from the cosmonauts. There are also several store-and-forward amateur satellites. Granted, the ham's efforts often aren't as sophisticated as the AppleLink-to-space described here. However, if you look closely, you will find that amatuers have achieved several other space "firsts", including the first fast-scan video uplink to the shuttle and (I think) the first Soviet/US space communication since Soyez between the shuttle and MIR. Andrew C. Payne, N8KEI UUCP: ...!cornell!batcomputer!payne INTERNET: payne@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu ------------------------------ From: merlyn@iWarp.intel.com (Randal L. Schwartz) Subject: Re: Getting Off a Party Line Reply-To: merlyn@iWarp.intel.com (Randal L. Schwartz) Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1991 15:39:31 GMT In article , TELECOM Moderator responds to roeber@cithe1 writes: > [Moderator's Muse: Have you fogotten the FCC prohibition against the > use of modems or other privately owned (non-telco provided) instruments > on party lines? PAT] Many many moons ago, a friend of mine lived at a house with a two-party line, and spent hours on the phone with his acoustic-couple 300-baud modem connected to his ADM-3A (both of which show how old this is). One day, we were getting ready to place a call, so he picked up the phone, and instead of a dial tone, heard voices. Being the young'uns that we were, we kept listening. After a few moments of conversation, one voice says to the other, "Hey, I heard a click ... do you have a party line?" "Yeah, why?" "Because, I just heard a click. Maybe they're listening to us now." To which the other replied, "Naaah, they can't be listening to what we're saying, because all *we* hear when they're on the line is a whole bunch of BEEEEEPs." We hoped that we hung up the phone fast enough to avoid having them hear us burst out laughing for quite a while. "I'm not making this up." -- Dave Barry Just another early modem user, Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 ========== on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn ------------------------------ From: beh@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Bruce E. Howells) Subject: Re: US Sprint Providing One-Way Service Organization: Internet access via FSF Date: 25 Jul 91 18:07:31 On 22 Jul 91 07:00:00 GMT, kiser@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil (Eric T. Kiser) said: > For about the last six months, a fair amount of calls placed from > Dayton, OH to Huntington, WV result in the Huntington to Dayton link > becoming severely attenuated (about 60 db down) a few minutes into the > call, while the other direction is unaffected. > There is never any warning, never any noise or other signal anomalies > prior to the failure. Of course the call remains in progress, and the > other link is still active, but it is **very** weak. Yes, this used to happen to me VERY often on calls between 908/381 Rahway NJ and 617/944 Reading MA. Gave up after the fifth time calling them - "I'm sorry sir, but the trouble ticket has been cleared", and a three minute credit, which oddly never did quite appear. Call them, see if maybe you can get something to happen; but like so many of these annoying Sprint bugs, I've given up long ago. Bruce Howells, beh@gnu.ai.mit.edu ------------------------------ From: Claus Tondering Subject: Re: International 800 Calling Organization: Dansk Data Elektronik A/S Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1991 05:41:49 GMT rhyre@cinoss1.att.com (Ralph W. Hyre) writes: > On AT&T's part, couldn't low-volume international customers be advised > to advertising the USA Direct number for international calls? (Those > operators can dial 800 numbers, can't they?) I don't know if they can, but they won't! Well, perhaps I should modify that statement: I tried once, and the AT&T USA Direct operator wouldn't connect me. Perhaps if I had offered to pay for the call on an AT&T credit card, he might have made an exception? Claus Tondering Elektronik A/S, Herlev, Denmark E-mail: ct@dde.dk ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 13:23 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Sprint Rate Change Linc Madison writes: > "Cosmetic surgery" is exactly right. I recently dissected my Sprint > bill and found that they actually charge LESS for the first minute > than for additional minutes on the same call. The only reason I can > conceive is that they want to make all those three-minute "typical" > call comparisons look bright and shiny. Some of AT&T's past ads addressed this very issue. "Our competitors compare the cost of one and two minute calls, but really, who talks on the phone for one or two minutes." > Then again, AT&T called me to invite me to switch back, and I said, > "Sure -- put it in writing." When was the last time you saw an AT&T commercial that talked about putting it in writing? I suspect that tactic has cause the company significant grief. But it have not seen one of those "tell them to put it in writing" spots for a long time. To think about it, what is there additional to put in writing? The FCC filings would say it all. It already is in writing. Even Thrifty Tel's bogus rate structure is "in writing" at the CPUC. 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 #570 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22108; 26 Jul 91 11:20 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03480; 26 Jul 91 9:27 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15398; 26 Jul 91 8:19 CDT Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 7:31:35 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #571 BCC: Message-ID: <9107260731.ab25333@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 26 Jul 91 07:31:22 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 571 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Lightning Protection for Modems [Dave Platt] Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [Mike Riddle] Re: Calling Myself / Call Return [Tad Cook] Re: What's the Best E-mail? [Tad Cook] Re: C&P: Some CLASS Services Enabled by Default (With a Catch) [S. Gaarder] Re: Getting Off a Party Line [Brett G. Person] Re: Email From Space [David Lesher] Re: Standards For Digitized Voice Under MS-DOS? [Dave Levenson] Correction: Bellcore Announces Network Management Handbook [Jody Kravitz] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 10:56:34 PDT From: Dave Platt Subject: Re: Lightning Protection for Modems Organization: New Technologies Group, Inc. Palo Alto CA > I mention this mainly because of an experience while I was in school > at Texas A&M. A thunderstorm was approaching, but didn't seem to > close at the time --- so nothing was really unplugged yet. Then, w/o > any warning, we took a very near miss. The TV (which was off) lit up > and glowed for a second. All of the lights that were turned on (and > thus, connected to the main power feed) went off. All of the lights > that were turned off lit up very brightly for a second. Everything > then reversed itself to normal. Oh, my hair was more or less standing > on end ... :-) I'd guess that the major effect here was not static electricity (which is a high-voltage DC potential, and is unlikely to penetrate conductors). It was, instead, induced voltage. The lighting strike nearby set up a strong, rapidly-varying magnetic field ... although the initial lightning potential is DC, the bolt itself is an AC process ... a damped radio-frequency oscillator, in effect. The rapidly-varying magnetic field of the bolt induced a voltage potential into almost every nearby conductor. These induced voltages can be quite fierce ... hundreds or thousands of volts are not uncommon. People have received severe shocks by being in contact with a grounded object and a pipe or piece of wire, even if the pipe or wire was not struck by the lightning itself. The fact that your hair stood on end might have been an electrical phenomenon, or it may have been purely physiological. If I were that close to a lightning-strike, _my_ hair would certainly stand on end! > Over the next week, every single light that had been turned off > (almost every light in the house) blew. The lights that had been > turned on (and apparently didn't take the static charge's full effect) > were safe. The final amplifier stage of my stereo amplifier had to be > replaced (the power transistors tested as a solid short in all > directions on a Fluke 77), and the power xformer shorted out (not > completely --- just enough to cause problems) and had to be replaced > as well. The computer wasn't damaged (as far as we know), but the > surge suppressor was still plugged in (it wasn't hurt either). I'd guess that there was enough voltage induced in your speaker wires to cause the output transistors to arc over inside their cases. Fzzt. Similarly, the light bulbs which were turned off, and the power transformer, were (in effect) connected to long ungrounded antennas -- the house wires -- and took the brunt of the induced voltage across themselves. > Now, my question is this -- with static charges dancing around in the > case of a near miss, if you unplug your computer and modem completely, > you've just lost your ground ... which might have saved it from that > static discharge (and it might not have). Will a surge suppressor > still help in this case, assuming that it isn't connected to a ground > (i.e., the wall outlet)? In the case of a voltage induced by the EM field of a nearby lightning strike, the real danger is having your equipment connected to a length of wire ... the wire acts as an antenna. Grounding isn't so much of an issue ... and, in fact, the wire which runs to a grounding point can quite easily act as an antenna, and do you more harm than good! Your best bet is probably to disconnect the computer, modem, stereo, or what-have-you from its power cord or from the phone line ... disconnect the cord at the EQUIPMENT, _not_ just at the wall. This will leave your computer as a box of electronics inside an RF/EMI-shielded cabinet (assuming that it's FCC Class B certified), and the induced voltage from a near-strike is not likely to get inside. Lightning must strike fairly close to you to generate a harmful voltage by induction ... the field strength of the bolt drops off rapidly with distance. I'd guess that any strike more than a few hundred feet from you is unlikely to induce enough voltage to notice. On the other hand, a strike on a power line in your area (or a strike close enough to a power line to induce a voltage) can send a spike for _miles_ over the line, and can damage sensitive equipment that's plugged in at the time (even if it's not turned on). All in all, I believe that your equipment's chances for survival are greatly improved by unplugging it when thunderstorm activity is expected. Dave Platt VOICE: (415) 813-8917 Domain: dplatt@ntg.com UUCP: ...apple!ntg!dplatt USNAIL: New Technologies Group Inc. 2468 Embarcardero Way, Palo Alto CA 94303 ------------------------------ From: Mike Riddle Subject: Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? Organization: Nebraska Inns of Court Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1991 12:34:22 GMT In Charlie.Mingo@f421.n109.z1. fidonet.org (Charlie Mingo) writes: > There's been some debate on a BBS I frequent as to the minimum > interval one should leave between automated attempts to redial a busy > number. > Is this nothing more than a telecom old wives tale, or is there > (i) any official policy on redial frequency, and (ii) any way for the > telco to determine the frequency with which subscriber redials? There are, I think, two considerations here. (1) law, and (2) technology. In an eariler response, Floyd Davidson, who has a lot more telco experience that I, doesn't think there's a technical problem. In yet another reponse, Bob Izenberg talks about a radio station that was asked to get a second number for it's request line. I think both were correct. Floyd was addressing the initiation of calls, and Bob the reception. I've seen news articles before about how the reception of multiple calls to the same number, as Bob describes, can cause difficulties, and my understanding is that TPC has special equipment and perhaps even exchanges set up to handle this -- if they know about it. Floyd describes why it doesn't matter as much for an originator. As far as the legal side, numerous jurisdictions have enacted laws governing the automated repeat dialing of numbers. The ones I'm aware of, particularly the FCC rules, exempt modems hooked to computers because there is "manual intervention" available. I think Toby Nixon posted about this a while back, and he an (if he has the time and inclination) give it a better treatment. As in all things, common sense should probably be your guide. <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> riddle@hoss.unl.edu | Nebraska Inns of Court ivgate!inns!postmaster@uunet.uu.net | +1 402 593 1192 Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet | 3/12/24/9600/8N1/V.32/V.42bis ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Calling Myself / Call Return From: Tad Cook Date: 25 Jul 91 20:06:15 GMT Steve Forrette describes a GTD5 CO in Mill Creek, WA: > The most annoying things were that the flash interval was > non-standard, so hitting the FLASH button on my AT&T cordless phone > would not activate call waiting. And, hitting OFF then TALK would > always result in terminating the first call. Also, the ringing sound > that the caller hears wasn't in synch with the ringing voltage, which > made using TollSaver on the answering machine more difficult. The > FLASH button has worked just fine on every 1AESS I have been on, and > now on a "D5RS", whatever that is. (This new beast, which I think is > a "rural" digital switch from NT, has its own set of quirks, which I > shall describe in another message). This switch, which is located in Everett, WA, responds to standard hookswitch flashes of 500 ms. Perhaps the parameters are a bit tighter than what he was used to. It would be interesting to measure the flash interval on the cordless phone. Ringback tone is not synched with ringing voltage in modern digital offices. The 5ESS that serves my home is the same way. The ringback tone is completely separate from the ringing voltage. When the called number is determined to be non-busy, the caller is connected to ringback tone, and that tone source may be at the silent interval. Ringing voltage is put on the line immediately, which is why on digital offices like the GTD5 and 5ESS you can startle callers about half the time by answering the phone during the first ring. They will swear that the phone never rang. Of course the other half of the time the two will happen to be in synch. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP or, kt7h@polari.uucp or, 3288544@mcimail.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: What's the Best E-mail? From: Tad Cook Date: 25 Jul 91 20:04:17 GMT Donald R Newcomb writes comparing email features: > Features-Read Down Costs ($US) > |---------------------------------------|------------------ > |I|T|M|C|G|T|P|T|P|D|X|F|P|T|U|B|F|8|R|A| S | A | H | > |n|e|C|o|E|e|e|e|a|i|.|A|a|e|s|i|i|0|e|u| e | n | o | > |t|l|I|m|n|l|r|l|p|a|4|X|c|l|e|n|l|0|c|t| t | n | u | > |e|e| |p|i|e|s|e|e|l|0| |k|n|n|a|e|#|e|o| u | u | r | > |r|m|M|s|e|x|o|g|r|c|0| |e|e|e|r| | |i| | p | a | | > |n|a|a|e| | |n|a| |o| | |t|t|t|y|S| |p|F| | l | | > |e|i|i|r| | |a|m|M|m| | | | | | |t| |t|o| | | | > |t|l|l|v| | |l| |a| | | |N| | |X|o| | |r| | | | > | | | |e| | | | |i| | | |e| | |f|r| | |w| | | | > | | | | | | |#| |l| | | |t| | |e|e| | |d| | | | >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >MCI Mail |$ $ $ $ $ $ Y N $ $ Y $ S N $ $ ? N 35 I think it is more like: MCI Mail |$ $ $ $ $ $ Y N $ $ Y $ S N Y Y $ N 35 MCI Mail+ |Y Y Y Y Y $ Y N $ Y Y Y S N Y Y $ N 120 What I am showing here are features for the standard MCI Mail service, and the high usage option. With standard MCI Mail, you pay $35 per year, and then you pay for every message sent. With the high usage option, you pay no annual fee, but $10 per month gives you up to 40 free messages (including domestic fax, internet, and any other mail except paper mail or Telex). There is no charge for 800 access. That is the standard method of access. There are separate 800 numbers for each baud rate, and even a special one for 2400 bps MNP5 access. Return receipts can be generated for a nominal charge. You can store files by creating a message and not sending it. There is no charge for this, and it stays in your pending box for five days. I'm not sure what the size limit is though. Somehow it wouldn't surprise me if it were less than 360K! Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP or, kt7h@polari.uucp or, 3288544@mcimail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 02:11:17 EDT From: gaarder@anarres.ithaca.ny.us Subject: Re: C&P: Some CLASS Services Enabled by Default (With a Catch!) psw@maestro.mitre.org (Phil Wherry) writes: > It would probably interest readers of the TELECOM Digest to know that > C&P Telephone (DC-MD-VA) has now enabled the use of the Call Return > (*69) and Call Repeat (*66) services on all subscriber lines. If you > subscribe to these custom calling features, nothing has changed. If > not, you can still use the features -- but you will be billed $0.75 > each time you invoke a feature. I'd like to see them do that with all of the special features where it's practical -- call forwarding, three way calling, etc. I have nowhere near enough use for such features to fork over bucks every month, but it sure would be handy once in a while. Steve Gaarder gaarder@anarres.ithaca.ny.us gaarder@tc.cornell.edu ------------------------------ From: Brett G Person Subject: Re: Getting Off a Party Line Date: 26 Jul 91 06:37:15 GMT Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND It seems to me that my grandmother was a single member of a party line. She lived in a small town in South Dakota. The two neighbors that shared her partyline with her died, and the phone company never changed the line over to a private line. Brett G. Person North Dakota State University uunet!plains!person person@plains.bitnet person@plains.nodak.edu ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Email From Space Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 7:27:06 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers > [Moderator's Note: I think it would absolutely great if there were an > email address for net people to use to send greetings to the space > people. Nah, I can see them now: 32,768 messages in your mailbox: READ Hi - my name is Dave Rhodes, and my chain letter will make you rich... DELETE There's this kid named Craig that wants...... DELETE My name is JJ, and I want you to send me a ruple so I can stay in school.... DELETE PAC-BELL offers OPX service to MIR, but charges extra for touchtone service....... "Hey comrades, this one is interesting.." ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Standards For Digitized Voice Under MS-DOS? Date: 26 Jul 91 11:38:28 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , portal!cup.portal.com! Will@uunet.uu.net writes: > Can someone tell me about any standards that might exist for digitized > voice on the PC? > Hardware standards: Unlike the Mac, the PC seems to be a pretty sorry > platform on which to record and playback the human voice. What > products are available to record and playback voice? Specifically, > I'm looking for those products that do an acceptable job of playing > and recording human voices, at the lowest possible cost. Check out the Sound Blaster, available at PC vendors and mail-order. Unlike the MAC, the PC is supported by a huge number of after-market suppliers. These products, while not following a single standard for voice file storage, offer a wide variety of capabilities. For your 'lowest possible cost' question, it's probably the Sound Blaster. It supports a speaker and a microphone, and software for emulating a tape recorder, a speech synthesizer, and lots of sound effects. For a higher price, you can buy voice I/O equipment with telephone interface capabilities -- checkout the Watson system from Natural Microsystems, a family of telephone-line products from Dialogic Corporation, or, if you're running UNIX on the PC, AT&T Voice Power (tm). Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 12:41:54 PDT From: Jody Kravitz Subject: Correction: Bellcore Announces Network Management Handbook It appears that the Unix spell program did not notice my typo in Bellcore's address. The street name is not "Peasant Avenue". The correct address is: Bellcore Room 4D-114 290 W. Mount Pleasant Ave. Livingston, NJ 07039 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #571 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22577; 26 Jul 91 11:28 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03480; 26 Jul 91 9:36 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac15398; 26 Jul 91 8:20 CDT Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 7:57:51 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #572 BCC: Message-ID: <9107260757.ab07529@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 26 Jul 91 07:57:42 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 572 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson 800 ANI for NON-answered Calls? [Will Martin] Sprint Puts it in Writing [Paulo Santos] New York Telephone and Subsidiary Companies [AP, via Bill Berbenich] Metro Highbill and NY DMX [Douglas Scott Reuben] Blocking Outgoing Phone Calls [David Barkelew] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 15:24:24 CDT From: Will Martin Subject: 800 ANI for NON-answered Calls? There's been a thread of discussion on the USENET newsgroup "misc.consumers" under the Subject: line of "Fascinating phone scam" regarding a strange "you have won" situation. To summarize: Rob Steele received a postcard telling him that he had won a vacation and giving him an *800* number to call for info. He called it, several times and at various times of the day, and it rang and was never answered. He then, some time later, received another postcard telling him he had won a vacation, but this time giving him a *900* number to call, at a $20 charge. He didn't call it, of course. He theorized that his phone number was captured by ANI equipment when he called the 800 number, even though that number was never answered. Thus the scamming operators would never have to pay for the 800 calls to them, but they would collect data on the phone numbers used by people who would respond to their initial mailing. This selected group would then get the 900-call mailing, the theory being that these people had already responded and thus would be more likely to respond to a 900-call solicitation. Why else would the operators waste the expense of the initial mailing if they wouldn't respond when the number was called? (But this does seem an expensive way to reduce the relatively low cost of bulk-mailing postcards with the 900 number on them, doesn't it?) There was doubt expressed that the non-answered 800 calls would actually provide the operators with ANI data. The most technically- knowledgeable response (so far) on the machine where I see USENET was this (an edited extract): > From: richard@cs.purdue.EDU (Bryan Richardson) > Newsgroups: misc.consumers > Subject: Re: Fascinating phone scam > Date: 24 Jul 91 20:29:12 GMT > Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University > There is a mechanism where the ANI (Automatic Number Identification), or > phone number, is delivered when the call is initially established (and > before answer supervision). > This service is provided by the long-distance carrier and requires > sophisticated, expensive equipment at the receiver's end to support it. > There is also a charge on a per-call basis for receipt of this information > over and above the regular cost of the call. I don't know if this charge > applies if the call goes unanswered. > However, I doubt that any fly-by-night scam has invested in such > equipment. Then again, I may be wrong. More technical information > about these things can be found in comp.dcom.telecom. > Bryan Richardson richard@cs.purdue.edu > AT&T Bell Laboratories and, for 1991, Purdue University > Disclaimer: Neither AT&T nor Purdue are responsible for my opinions. I have not seen any elaboration on this topic in Telecom. I think it deserves some discussion here. What do the technical experts on this group say about this situation? Is it likely that the non-answered 800 calls were used by the scam operators as a free source of data on responders' phone numbers? Or would those operators have had to pay something to get that ANI data on non-answered calls? [I'm guessing that ANI *is* provided prior to an 800 call being answered because some of the ANI applications I've seen described say the data is used before the call is answered, such as to do a database lookup and provide the answering operator or salesdroid a screen of info on the caller.] Is the ANI equipment so expensive and elaborate that this application seems doubtful? Or is it simple enough that this scheme is likely? All in all, it seems like a good reason to make as many calls as possible from a work phone sitting behind a PBX that confuses or mangles ANI data! Regards, Will ------------------------------ From: Paulo Santos Subject: Sprint Puts it in Writing Date: 25 Jul 91 20:29:00 GMT Reply-To: Paulo Santos They did it! Sprint sent me in the mail a copy of their new (as of June 3rd, 1991) Sprint Plus rates. For all of you who believed that *no* LDC would ever tell customers their rates *in writing*, here are the current Sprint Plus state-to- state rates. (Pat, you may want to put these rates in the archives.) STATE-TO-STATE SPRINT PLUS RATES BAND MILEAGE DAY EVENING NIGHT BASE RANGE 1st Add'l 1st Add'l 1st Add'l 1 up to 10 0.1800 0.1700 0.1200 0.1100 0.1051 0.1051 2 11-22 0.1800 0.1800 0.1300 0.1300 0.1139 0.1139 3 23-55 0.1900 0.1900 0.1300 0.1300 0.1208 0.1208 4 56-70 0.2100 0.2100 0.1450 0.1450 0.1208 0.1208 5 71-124 0.2100 0.2100 0.1450 0.1450 0.1208 0.1208 6 125-292 0.2100 0.2100 0.1450 0.1450 0.1223 0.1223 7 293-430 0.2300 0.2300 0.1457 0.1457 0.1256 0.1256 8 431-925 0.2300 0.2300 0.1495 0.1495 0.1306 0.1306 9 926-1910 0.2480 0.2480 0.1496 0.1496 0.1331 0.1331 10 1911-3000 0.2490 0.2490 0.1496 0.1496 0.1357 0.1357 11 3001-4250 0.3000 0.2900 0.2077 0.2010 0.1650 0.1650 12 4251 or more 0.3300 0.3200 0.2211 0.2144 0.1750 0.1750 DAY rates: Monday through Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm EVENING rates: Sunday through Friday from 5:00pm to 11:00pm NIGHT/WEEKEND rates: 11:00pm through 8:00am every night and all weekend until 5:00pm Sunday SPRINT PLUS VOLUME DISCOUNTS BASE CATEGORIES DAY EVE/NIGHT DISCOUNT WEEKEND First $20-$99.99 10% 20% Second $100-$199.99 10% 25% Third $200+ 10% 30% No minimum usage. All calls contribute to discount except DA. State-to-state Direct Dial calls are discounted according to the table above. State-to-state FONCARD(sm) calls are discounted 5%. International Direct Dial calls are discounted 5%. No Operator Services or Directory Assistance calls are discounted. International FONCARD calls are not discounted. In-state calls are not discounted. NOTE: The mileage corresponding to the bands was NOT on the sheet that I received. A call to Sprint gave that information. Standard disclaimers: All typos are mine, but I assume no liability. I am not associated with Sprint other than as a satisfied customer. Georgia Tech is in no way responsible for the contents of this message. FONCARD, Sprint & Sprint Plus are trademarks of Sprint Communications. Paulo Santos Internet: pas@cc.gatech.edu Georgia Tech, College of Computing uucp: ...!gatech!kong!pas Atlanta GA 30332-0280, U.S.A. Voice: (404) 853-9393 ------------------------------ From: bill@gauss.eedsp.gatech.edu Subject: New York Telephone and Subsidiary Companies Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 16:38:54 EDT Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu I saw the following on the Associated Press financial wire. The story is presented verbatim, so please send your flames and suggestions to the Associated Press. APf 07/22 2014 New York Telephone By ROBERT BELLAFIORE Associated Press Writer ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- New York Telephone Co. on Monday proposed a restructuring plan designed to avoid the types of situations that led to wild sex parties involving NYNEX employees and potential vendors. Under the proposal, New York Telephone would be barred from doing business with virtually every other subsidiary of NYNEX, its parent company. There would be "common sense" exceptions for such items as telephone service. New York Telephone spokesman Peter Muller said that provision would prevent the utility from dealing with such companies as Materiel Enterprises Co., a purchasing subsidiary. It was Materiel Enterprises, also known as MECO, that threw parties in Florida for potential vendors. New York Telephone officials said there had been no correlation between business awarded and attendance at the parties, dubbed the "Florida follies" by New York state's chief utility regulator, Peter Bradford. MECO has since been merged with another unit, NYNEX Services Co., to form a new subsidiary called Telesector Resources Group Inc. That company now does purchasing for New York Telephone. In light of the Florida parties, the utility-regulating state Public Service Commission last fall ordered a study into how NYNEX and its subsidiaries could be restructured. The PSC wanted New York Telephone to become more independent from NYNEX. The New York Telephone plan would expand the 11-member board of directors by adding two non-company people. That would create a 13-member board with 10 members from outside the utility. The plan also would create a statewide consumer council to advise the board, and it would link the salaries of top company officers to New York Telephone's performance. Those salaries are now based on the performance of NYNEX as well as New York Telephone. The PSC had sought the changes in an attempt to ensure greater protection for customers. PSC officials said the proposed changes would make it easier for the panel to oversee the telephone company's operations. Monday's proposal, if endorsed by the PSC, would likely avoid a full-scale investigation by the PSC into New York Telephone's corporate operations. The plan was formulated by New York Telephone and staff from the PSC. The PSC's staff endorsed the utility's plan, which is still subject to approval by the full seven-member panel. PSC General Counsel William last October wrote a stinging report on the "pervert conventions." At the time, Cowan suggested that the PSC examine the possibility of breaking up NYNEX to ensure New York Telephone's independence. NYNEX was one of the "Baby Bell" companies formed after the breakup of AT&T in 1984. New York Telephone and New England Telephone are subsidiaries of NYNEX. The annual booze and sex blasts were arranged by Lawrence Friedman of Long Island, who was fired as a MECO executive in 1988 by NYNEX. Say, I wonder if they are hiring? :-) Bill [Moderator's Note: So they would quit having sex parties in-house as it were, and begin sharing the fun with unaffiliated vendors, is that the idea? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 26-JUL-1991 03:45:56.78 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Metro Highbill and NY DMX Despite my somewhat harsh criticism of Metro Mobile/New England in previous posts, I have always maintained that they have a *technically* superior system. Well, due to the recent switch change in New York (a SEPARATE system, by the way), the following changes have taken place: - *71/No-Answer-Transfer will not work in the NY system. If you have it set and leave the CT system to go to the NY system, you will NOT get calls in NY before it "transfers" to wherever you have it set. - You can not activate/deactivate any call forwarding features while in the New York system. - Three-way calling won't work. (I don't have this, but I am told this by Metro Mobile. I am not sure about call-waiting.) - In order to get calls in NY, callers can NOT use the roam port. So, if you drive from CT to NY, and forget to un-forward your calls (either *71 or *72), you can not get calls in NY or New Jersey, period! No roam port, no nothing! - If you want to get calls in NY, callers will hear it ring 3 or 4 times in CT first, then a few clicks, and then it will page you in NY, assuming all the channels from CT to NY aren't used. Also, if you are using your phone in NY (ie, the "IN USE" light is on), anyone who calls you will just get dead air. No busy signal, no message to try again, just dead air! (Eventually, after 2.5 minutes, your caller will get a re-order.) This system is quite irregular - about 30% of the call attempts fail, even though I am calling valid Metro Mobile customers who I KNOW are in the NY system. Previously, the coverage between the CT/RI/MA Metro Mobile system was seamless - you could use all your features and the phone would operate indentically in both systems. Presently, the only thing you get is paging in NY, and the system is pathetic at that. So THIS is progress?! :( I just read that interesting post about Cantel (or is that Contel?) in Canada, which made me so sick because that IS how a system should be run, compared to this garbage down here! And even if you always use your phone in CT, and never go to NY, this is still a problem since the NY system bleeds across Long Island Sound into CT, so that many areas, such as Old Saybrook, Norwalk, etc., will be virtually cut-off from incoming service should a customer be on the phone or have No-Answer-Transfer active. And Metro One customers in Westchester and the North Shore of Long Islsnd will also experience coverage "gaps" which were no-existant prior to the new switch in NY. And what is Metro Mobile or Metro One/NY doing about this? (Yes, this will affect Metro One customers who roam into CT and Western Mass too!) Rather than trying to correct the problem and make the system fully functional again, they say "Oh, well, call-forwaridng should NEVER have worked outside our service area anyhow ... it was just an accident that it did ... it was never a feature..." BALONEY! They pushed this feature ALL the time when promoting themselves over SNET/CT or NYNEX/NY, for over two YEARS! At a time when most systems are heading towards greater integration with their nearby sister systems, such as in California (both A and B systems, by the way), this move by Metro Mobile/Metro One strikes me as uniquely backwards! The DMX they used to have was a terribly good selling point on their system. Now, they have very little to sell over SNET and NYNEX. Don't they realize this?! I don't think there is much anyone can do about this, but if you are a Metro One or Metro Mobile customer who feels you may be affected by this, PLEASE call or write either or both of them and let them know how you feel. Or, send me a note, and I'll compile all the notes that I get and send them along. Of course, should NYNEX suddenly get connected with SNET, all bets are off! I'll toss out my Metro Mobile handbook, make nine phone calls, and in a few seconds, Metro Mobile will lose myself and nine other customers ... I can't wait till the day I can call them up and drop them! Just can't wait ... Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: David Barkelew Subject: Blocking Outgoing Phone Calls Date: 24 Jul 91 18:26:27 GMT Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas A friend of mine is looking for a gadget that can be placed on his phone (or maybe somewhere on the line) that can filter out certain outgoing calls. In particular, to stop long distance calls from originating from his phone number (including blocking access to 0 for operator assisted) without some form of authentication or key. He says that he saw a reference to such a device in a recent (past several months?) {Wall Street Journal} artical. If you know of any such gadget, please mail me directly as I don't read this group regularly. Thanks in advance, David Barkelew Internet: barkelew@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu University of Texas IP: barkelew@[128.83.148.31] Computation Center THEnet: UTXVMS::BARKELEW (512)471-3241 BITNET: barkelew@utxvms ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #572 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id ab21179; 27 Jul 91 21:37 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07420; 27 Jul 91 19:58 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10048; 27 Jul 91 18:49 CDT Date: Sat, 27 Jul 91 18:00:30 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #573 BCC: Message-ID: <9107271800.ab07591@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 27 Jul 91 18:00:25 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 573 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext [TELECOM Moderator] Judge Greene Relents on Information Services [Robert Jacobson] Phone Cards [Robert M. Hamer] 900 MHz Cordless Phones? [James J Dempsey] Question on Telephone Services / Switches [Mobeen Khan] Toll Saver Feature [Robert M. Hamer] Does 510 Work Yet? [Bruce Perens] Fancy Name [Julian Macassey] Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z [Dave Niebuhr] Re: ATC Billing [Dave Niebuhr] Phone Service in the USSR [The Economist, via Charles Hoequist] Getting a Five Dollar Credit From Sprint Seems to be Easy [Ron Newman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 23:24:11 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext The big (and good!) telecom news this past week was that the Baby Bells are now free to begin offering audiotext services; i.e. 900 and 976 style programs. A spokesperson for Illinois Bell said the company will begin offerings of this sort as soon as technical changes have been made which will permit them to do so and when some last minute marketing studies have been completed which they hope will indicate the best direction to take in this new endeavor. Although Judge Greene had originally ruled against the BOC's, he was directed by the Appeals Court to reverse himself and permit the telephone companies to enter this new area. Needless to say, His Honor was furious at being reversed on appeal. Until this point, I guess it never really occurred to him that his word on telephone related matters would not be final. He must have assumed after all this time that his superiors would continue to let him run amok and keep bashing the telcos to his heart's content. Well, finally his superiors have seen fit to slow him down. The word I got today from a contact in Washington who has been following this for some time now is that having seen they *can* win on appeal, AT&T and the Baby Bells will begin routinely appealing other of Greene's orders they find appalling. Here's hoping that between their efforts in Appeals Court and the federal legislature they succeed in repairing much of what at one time was the world's greatest phone network. We'll never see the Bell System again ... but maybe some of the damage of the past few years can be undone if the good news this week is any indicator of things to come. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Robert Jacobson Subject: Judge Greene Relents on Information Services Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1991 16:42:31 GMT NPR reported this morning that Judge Harold E. Greene, under the direction of the D.C. Circuit U.S. Appeals Court, has removed the ban on the provision of information services by the Baby Bells. However, the article was unclear as to when the ban is lifted and the appeals process sure to be utilized by the American Newspaper Publishers Association, Consumer Federation of America, and others who oppose lifting the ban. The judge himself apparently feels his arm is being twisted; he reportedly signed the order reluctantly. Query: who are the judges on the Appeals Court panel? When were they appointed, by whom, and from whence did these anonymae spring? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 09:34 EDT From: "Robert M. Hamer" Subject: Phone Cards A thread alive several months ago was, "Why don't the phone companies supply a pay phone which will take pre-paid cards with a magnetic stripe which encodes the amount pre-paid and deduct the cost of the call?" Such a system is available in Britain, among other places. (For that matter, the same sort of technology is used commonly for subway systems. You buy a "farecard" of some amount, and your trips are deducted from the card until the card is used up.) WCBS-New York Channel 2 Monday night announced that New York Telephone was installing 50 pay phones near the Staten Island ferry terminal which would work on such a basis. (Don't know who or where the cards will be sold by.) If the experiment is a "success" it will be expanded. They also said that other phone companies were "watching with interest." ------------------------------ From: James J Dempsey Subject: 900 MHz Cordless Phones? Date: 24 Jul 91 15:54:00 GMT Reply-To: Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA I remember reading about some new cordless phone in Popular Science a few months ago which claimed to have better audio quality, better security and better range as a result of using a newly-FCC approved frequency of around 900MHz instead of the 49MHz cordless phones currently use. However, I haven't seen anything like this in the stores. Does anyone know what the story is on this new frequency and when (if?) we will see phones that use it on store shelves? Thanks, Jim Dempsey jjd@bbn.com ------------------------------ From: Mobeen KHAN Subject: Question on Telephone Services / Switches Date: 24 Jul 91 17:08:50 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. I am a novice at switches and telecom services. I want to know the following things: How do call identifiers work? I am talking about the machines that let you know the telephone number of the calling party. Does it have to be incorporated into the switch software? Do you need to subscribe to something in order to use it? Does it work only with the new switches or can it be introduced into old switches? If anyone out there knows about these things, could you reply me at mobeen@winlab.rutgers.edu or at mobeen@elbereth.rutgers.edu. I would really appreciate it. Thanks lots. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 16:22 EDT From: "Robert M. Hamer" Subject: Toll Saver Feature I remember that the Moderator said on several occasions in the past that in his opinion toll saver features of answering machines were bad (I don't remember if his opinion was "illegal," "unethical,", or what) since they allowed the caller (the person calling the machine from a remote site) to obtain information (that no one had left a message) without paying to receive such information. Yesterday while shopping for a new answering machine, I noticed several AT&T machines, all of which had the toll saver feature. Since AT&T makes the answering machines, and AT&T sells long distance service, would the Moderator have any objection to using such a feature while using AT&T as the long distance carrier? [Moderator's Note: I think AT&T finally took the attitude 'if you can't beat them, join them.' The feature is very common and all the other answering machines had it, etc. I still personally feel that using a system of coded rings to obtain information without having to have both ends off-hook (thus having to pay for the call) is fraud. I think eventually in the next few years it (and Larry King's gimmick of letting it ring until he is ready to talk) will cause the telcos to tariff a 'call attempt' surcharge pf a penny or two for each minute or fraction thereof of unanswered ringing which will be waived on calls answered within, say, one minute. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bruce@pixar.com (Bruce Perens) Subject: Does 510 Work Yet? Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1991 21:03:14 GMT We are in the part of the 415 area code that will change to 510 in September. Is this prefix working yet from other areas? If you'd like to try, dial 510-215-3596. If you get through, select 3 in the first menu, and 3 in the second menu, and you will be rewarded by a rendition of Dr. Strangelove singing the Beatles' classic "She Loves You". Please email back to me the area code and prefix you are dialing from, your long-distance carrier (if you know it) and whether it gets through or not. I'll summarize if the results are interesting. Thanks, Bruce Perens ------------------------------ From: julian@bongo.UUCP (Julian Macassey) Subject: Fancy Name Date: 24 Jul 91 13:27:41 GMT Reply-To: julian@bongo.info.com (Julian Macassey) Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. When I was in Islamabad (Their Nation's Capital), Pakistan, I was happy to see they had cellular phones. The cellular system is called "Paktel". It is a Cable and Wirelss company. Do they know that by calling themselves "Paktel", they are making themselves a target of John Higdon? If the Moderator wishes, I will submit a report on Pakistan's phone system. It will not be a happy portrait. Julian Macassey, julian@bongo.info.com N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA 742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice (213) 653-4495 [Moderator's Note: Yes indeed, please do submit an article. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1991 9:14:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Dave Niebuhr Subject: Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z (Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon writes): > The first two entries in the Fort Worth residential listings are: > A, M. > and > AAARGH, A. A. 309 College St. > Does anyone think that Aaargh is a real last name? Not really. What I suspect is that the A. A. is the real name and the person wanted an unusual listing. Although, with the multitude of last names in the world it could easily be a real name. Dave Niebuhr Brookhaven National Laboratory Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1991 9:30:18 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" Subject: Re: ATC Billing (dleibold@attmail.com djcl.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu bnw!djcl@shark.cs. fau.edu writes:) > ATC has been placing some full-page ads in some of the daily > newspapers around Florida. They refer to themselves as the fourth > largest publicly held carrier (whatever that means in the whole scheme > of things) and now make reference to a new billing system that is > supposed to measure the time when the conversation starts and ends > (more like call supervision). Having had a very recent experience with ATC while in the hospital I wonder what their bill will be for a 22 mile 'as-the-crow-flies' call. What happened was that I was about two hours out of the anethesia (the doc said I'd feel like I had six or seven maritinis, or was that 8) and I placed a call to my boss to tell him when I'd be returning to work (dumb but that's how I felt). I didn't realize (and I should have known better) that places like hospitals, hotels, motels, etc. often have some other carrier than the LEC as their default. Now I'm waiting for the bill since it will show up to see if it shows up since it was an extended-area call and no internal operator was involved. After fully waking up and the brain functioning again, I dialed the in-house operator and specifically asked for an outside operator who happened to be my basic carrier (NYTel in this case). A question arises: Should I have a charge for the first call which I'm willing to eat appear on any after-the-fact charge from the hospital? By the way, I'm in the process of sending a letter to the hospital administrator giving my opinion of my stay and the section on telecommunications is somewhat strong but doggone it: a person in the hospital is confused and stressed enough so that they don't need a big bill for what would be a cheap call. Most people don't realize what is happening with telephones since they have too much hitting them elsewhere. Luckily, I am a participant of this forum and knew what to do when the time came. Thanks, Dave Niebuhr Brookhaven National Laboratory Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov Moderator's Note: Many hospitals today are just like a lot of hotel and motel chains: *everything* has to be a profit center for them. It is a very shortsighted way of doing business. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jul 91 09:52:00 EDT From: Charles (C.A.) Hoequist Subject: Phone Service in the USSR The following appears in the current issue of {The Economist} under the title "Hung Up": " The Soviet telephone system is, notoriously, a shambles. Exactly how much of a shambles? For lack of other statistical evidence _The Economist_'s office in Moscow conducted its own research. Between June 21st and July 17th it kept track of every international call made, and logged how many were successful. Of 786 attempts -- mostly to our headquarters in London -- 754 resulted in no connection at all. Of the 32 completed calls, two were wrong numbers and six were cut off halfway through. One in 33 was a success. " Even with a telephone with a repeat-dial button (essential equipment in Moscow), failing to get through wastes time. Allowing 50 seconds for each call, your frustrated correspondent spent 40 minutes each day doing nothing but waiting for calls not to get through. " On the intermittent occasions of success, it costs six roubles a minute to talk from Moscow to London. This is payable at the commercial exchange rate of one rouble to 55 cents. That makes $3.30 a minute. (A call the other way costs $1.80 a minute at peak times.) On top of that, a telephone costs $2,865 to install plus $485 annual rent. If you want to run a fax off it, that costs an extra $130 a year -- a tax on efficiency. " This is not merely inconvenient for hapless foreigners in Moscow. It is bad for the Soviet Union too. International communications are the basis of modern economic activity. Moscow does not even have a telephone book. And it is relatively well off. From other big cities it is often impossible to call even Moscow direct, let alone to call abroad." ------ Comments: {The Economist} doesn't know how good their correspondents have it: they don't have to book calls in advance, as I did on visits to the USSR. Stand in line, book, be at your phone in eight hours. Not to mention the stretch of several months in 1982-83 where all international connections were blocked for ordinary people. I do wonder if foreigners have to pay their phone bills in foreign currency. If not, telephoning could be amazingly cheap: even in Moscow, you can get four rubles to the dollar as a first offer from somebody on a street corner. And a correction: Moscow _does_ have a phone book. It is a restricted document, and from what I've read, updated only rarely. Charles Hoequist | Nay ... I've tried these get-rich-quick- hoequist@bnr.ca | inventions, and I am done ..." Joe BNR Inc. | Cannon, Speaker of the House, refusing PO Box 13478 | to invest in Bell's invention. Research Triangle Park North Carolina 27709-3478, USA 919-991-8642 ------------------------------ From: Ron Newman Subject: Getting a $5 Credit From Sprint Seems to be Easy Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 16:29:22 GMT I'm one of the people who received the Sprint mailing without the $5 coupon. So today, I called Sprint up (1-800-877-4646). Waited about seven minutes on hold, then when an operator answered, I said, "A few days ago I received a mailing from Sprint telling me that the Sprint Plus rates had changed. I'm a member of a computer bulletin board system called Usenet, and some of the people on that system say that they received a $5 credit certificate in their mailings. My mailing didn't have one, and I wanted to find out why." The Sprint operator asked me for my name and telephone number, then went into an apparently well-rehearsed spiel about the changes (no $8 minimum, splitting of evening and night calling periods, discounts start at $20 instead of $25), and said "I'm sorry about the mistake. I'll be glad to apply a $5 credit to your next bill." So if you didn't get your $5 certificate and don't mind waiting on hold for a few minutes, call Sprint and tell them so. Ron Newman rnewman@bbn.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #573 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24323; 27 Jul 91 22:43 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12349; 27 Jul 91 21:05 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07420; 27 Jul 91 19:58 CDT Date: Sat, 27 Jul 91 19:14:05 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #574 BCC: Message-ID: <9107271914.ab09971@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 27 Jul 91 19:14:00 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 574 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Pacific Bell Message Center [Rick L. Spickelmier] Programming Changes in NY Tel Land [amb@gnu.ai.mit.edu] NY COCOT Tariffs [amb@gnu.ai.mit.edu] Out of Band Signalling? [Jon Sreekanth] Beware of the FON Card Charges [Dennis G. Rears] Phone Rates Reported Up [New York Times, via Peter G. Capek] Own Your Own Pay Phone [J. Philip Miller] Southern Bell Announces 404/706 Split to Customers [Paulo Santos] COCOT Too Costly To Remove [News-Journal, via Ken Weaverling] AT&T 800 Directory Removed From Compuserve [Bill Berbenich] "All the Telecom Execs Who Contribute [to TELECOM] Daily" [Dan Jacobson] Need Book Discussing SONET, ATM, Frame Relay, etc. [Mark Boolootian] No Handshake Modem [Roy Stuart Levin] CLID Hits Melbourne [Bill Huttig] Re: Email From Space [John E. Girard] Re: Email From Space [Dan Jacobson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Pacific Bell Message Center Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 14:55:36 PDT From: "Rick L. Spickelmier" I have just signed up for the Pacific Bell Message Center (voice mail for the home user). One problem I have is that instead of being able to look at my answering machine to see if I have any messages, I have to take the phone off of the hook and check for the funny dial tone. I would like to build a circuit that takes the phone off of the hook every N minutes, detects the presence/absense of the funny dial tone and sets/resets a latch that causes an LED to be turned on/off. Has anybody done such a thing? What should I watch out for? Are there any specs on the dial tone and funny dial tone? Thanks, Rick L. Spickelmier Objectivity, Inc. ricks@berkeley.edu, ricks@objy.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 13:42:57 EST From: amb@gnu.ai.mit.edu Subject: Programming Changes in NY Tel Land Upon call termination, rather than dial tone, the caller gets the "hang up or hear a really loud reorder" threat. The only reason I can see for doing this is elimination of a certain type of rather prevalent phraud, yet if this is the case, why not do it a long time ago? I certainly don't see how this would affect the average subscriber at all. Have other Bells picked up the same changes? Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 13:49:40 EST From: amb@gnu.ai.mit.edu Subject: NY COCOT Tariffs Unlikely as it may seem, an address was listed a while ago from which one could obtain a copy of the regulations for New York COCOTs. I don't have it handy, but it was a division of McGraw Hill, in (!) New Jersey. In any case, this has met with complete failure to respond, and I was hoping anyone who's met with success could clue me in. Andrew ------------------------------ From: Jon Sreekanth Subject: Out of Band Signalling? Organization: The World Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1991 03:05:12 GMT Is there any operational or regulatory problem with putting a signal in the 25 KHz range on the phone line in a home? My application is to have a main unit communicate with other units connected to extensions around the house. They would do so during a call (come to think of it, even when there is no ongoing call), without being in the audible band. Any pointers (books, magazine articles, actual devices using this method) will be most welcome. Also, any hints that this is un-doable, or will fail FCC, or whatever. Thanks, Jon Sreekanth Assabet Valley Microsystems, Inc. | Fax and PC products 346 Lincoln St #722, Marlboro, MA 01752 | (617) 876-8019 jon_sree@world.std.com | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 22:25:15 EDT From: "Dennis G. Rears " Subject: Beware of the FON Card Charges If you are using a SPRINT FON card from a rotary phone or any phone that does not have touch tone make sure you tell the operator you are dialing from a non-touch tone capable phone. I just received my bill and a three minute call from Austin, TX to Pocono Lake, PA cost $2.18. It was billed to me as a station to station call. When I spoke to the ajustment operator at SPRINT, I was told if you speak to any operator using the FON card, you will be charged operator handled rates unless you metioned to the operator that you are calling from a rotary phone. Beware. Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 00:44:19 EDT From: "Peter G. Capek" Subject: Phone Rates Reported Up, New York Times, 7/25/91 A brief article in the {NY Times} today (7/25) reports on a study by the Telecommunications Research and Action Center of long distance telephone rates. The highlights: -- Long distance rates have been going down for years, but no longer. -- Since November (1990, I presume), the cost of the "average" long distance call has risen: 5% on US Sprint and Allnet, about 1% on AT&T and MCI. -- Study was based on three sets of sample calling patterns using various distances and times of day. -- Representatives of the carriers said the study exaggerated rate increases and didn't consider available discounts (I presume this means "calling plans"). Sprint acknowledged their rates had increased 2.7% overall; AT&T said its rates had gone down .8%, but the methodology used in the study had resulted in showing an increase. -- The study said the choice of calling plan was more important than the choice of carrier. The organization is an 18-year-old (old enough to vote..), Washington- based, research group. Does anyone reading this know more about it? Peter Capek ------------------------------ From: "J. Philip Miller" Subject: Own Your Own Pay Phone Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 22:06:29 CDT While I was at my local locksmith, I noticed that he had a private coin operatered phone available for customer use. I asked, and indeed they also sold them. I asked about it and received a photocopy of the sales hype. Here is what it said: Eliminate costly telephone abuse with an inexpensive employee payphone and you won't mind letting your customers use it too! Our convenience payphones keep a watchful eye on your phone bills so you don't have to. Now you can prevent unauthorized phone abuse, restrict long distance calling and generate 300% profit on calls. It pays for itself and then it pays you. Our Tongya (pronounced ton-ya) payphones work just like the phone company's payphones except you keep all the money. Your employees and/or customers deposit a quarter to make a local three minute call, and insert additional quaters to talk longer. On average that local call costs about six cents, so each quarter generates 19 cents ... a 300% profit. If your phone bill contains only $20.00 of abuse calls per month, our pay phone will bring in $60.00 worth of income on the same amount of usage. Imagine, you would go from $240.00 a year negative cash flow to $720.00 per year income right into your pocket. Of course if your bills are higher than that, you'll make even more. Payphone Techology offers a choice of five different models. Payphone Techology is an authorized distribtor of semi-private payphones for AMCM telecommunications and teleconcepts corporation and carries a full line of accories to suit your business needs. All of our coin phones are legal to own in all fifty states, are F.C.C. approved and require no special installation or phone company fees. [only 2 models are then described] Tongya 006 - permits local and long distance (outside your area code) calls. Programmable time limit. One quarter/local. Four quaters/long distance; works in all area codes, includes owner's bypass keys. ($599) Payphone Jr Coin Opp - An excellent value for lower volume usage. Permits local calls only, allows long distance with owner's security code. Tone or pulse switchable. Auto redial button. Wall or desk mountable, one quarter/call. No time limit. "Non working coin return". ($250) All models receive incoming calls, require no external power, and simply plug into any standard modular jack. All Tongya models will work with call waiting and call forwarding and include two owners' bypass keys to permit coin-free and long distance calling. The model they had was the TY-006 and it looked like a large, old fashioned standard desk phone. The coin slot was between the cradle and the touchtone keypad. It appeared clear that you probably would not want to put it in a non-secure, non-attended location. So see -- you too can become a COCOT at a very low cost! [I have no financial connection with any party concerned, the information here is based solely on the material I obtained from the dealer, and does not contain an addresss for AMCM telecommunications so don't write to ask :-] 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: Paulo Santos Subject: Southern Bell Announces 404/706 Split to Customers Date: 25 Jul 91 21:21:41 GMT Reply-To: Paulo Santos An insert in my July phone bill announces Georgia's new 706 area code, and how the 404/706 split will occur. This adds some information to what was published before in the Digest. The new area code will be created as a split of area code 404 (Atlanta and North Georgia). The Atlanta Metropolitan local (toll-free) calling area will remain in 404, but numbers outside that area will be moved to 706. The other Georgia area code, 912, will not be affected. The new 706 area code will be established on MAY 3, 1992. Permissive dialing of numbers in the new area will be provided from MAY 3 to AUGUST 2, 1992. After AUGUST 2, 1992, the use of the 706 area code is required. After the split, 404 will be totally surrounded by 706. Paulo Santos Internet: pas@cc.gatech.edu Georgia Tech, College of Computing uucp: ...!gatech!cc!pas Atlanta GA 30332-0280, U.S.A. Voice: (404) 853-9393 ------------------------------ From: Ken Weaverling Subject: COCOT Too Costly to Remove Date: 26 Jul 91 13:24:12 GMT Organization: University of Delaware In the July 26, 1991 issue of {The News-Journal} (Wilmington, DE), there is an article describing a pay phone with drug dealer connection. "Residents, police, and community groups want owners to remove a public telephone at 10th and Pine streets that they say is used primarily for drug deals." The shop owner also wants the phone removed, but claims he can't afford to have it removed since "removing the phone would cost more than $900." The COCOT is owned by United Teleconnect, based in Brookhaven, PA. The contract with the store owner apparently prevents him from breaking the contract without penalty (though the article did not mention how long the contract would run). Diamond State (Bell Atlantic) was quoted as saying "We have worked with the city and its residents to prevent situations like [this]." and "Diamond State's payphones can be used only for outgoing calls." Residents have taken their case directly to United Teleconnect. Their complaints "have fallen on deaf ears." Another resident was quoted as saying "United Teleconnect has an I-don't-care attitude toward the community." >>>---> Ken Weaverling >>>----> weave@brahms.udel.edu ------------------------------ From: bill@gauss.eedsp.gatech.edu Subject: AT&T 800 Directory Removed From Compuserve Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 10:29:59 EDT Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu I tried to access the AT&T 800 Directory on Compuserve earlier this week and found that the service appears to have been pulled off of CIS. This week's attempt was the first time in a few months that I have tried to access the AT&T 800 directory, so I don't know how long that it's been gone. Does anyone know why the service was pulled and will it ever come back? I'd like to write a letter to AT&T to encourage the appropriate people to reintroduce the service. It's services like that which set AT&T above the other carriers. Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: Dan_Jacobson@att.com Subject: "All The Telecom Execs Who Contribute [to TELECOM] Daily" Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 10:24:00 GMT On 23 Jul 91 22:04:13 GMT, SJS132@psuvm.psu.edu (Steve Shimatzki) said: > Now I'll admit that I'm a college student, and unlike all the telecom > execs who contribute daily, I only contribute to the list once in a > blue moon ... but, I read it faithfully. I bet a few smaller telecom executives read TELECOM Digest, and maybe a few bigger telecom executives from smaller telecom companies too, but the bigger they are, the less they read, and especially the less they post. ------------------------------ From: Mark Boolootian Subject: Need book Discussing SONET, ATM, Frame Relay, etc. Date: 25 Jul 91 15:32:56 GMT Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory The subject pretty much says it all. Can any of you recommend a book that explains with some degree of detail things like SONET and ATM? Any references are appreciated. I'd prefer email responses (and can summarize if needed). Advance thanks, Mark Boolootian booloo@lll-crg.llnl.gov +1 415-423-1948 ------------------------------ From: Roy Stuart Levin Subject: No Handshake Modem Date: 25 Jul 91 14:46:05 GMT Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA I have a friend with a modem (cheapo from Whole Earth) that dials out on com2, makes a ring, but can't make the final handshake and connection. CIS, The Well, and my own phone at home hear the ring but can't make the handshake. Any ideas? Could it be the modem itself? She disconnected call forwarding and waiting. It is a $79 internal from Whole Earth. Anyone else out there have the same problem? We tried Procomm and Cmode (from CIS) software. I'd like to hear from all modem mavens; reply here or to rsl@well.uucp Thanks. [Moderator's Note: Whole Earth is the WELL, is it not? Have you discussed this with folks there? Is it possible this one unit is defective? They are generally good about making things right for customers with problems, or so I have been told. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: CLID Hits Melbourne Date: 26 Jul 91 18:03:36 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL CLID hits Melbourne: I had some phone order changes coming up on Monday and CLID became available so I ordered it also. It is $7.50/month but they are giving it away for two months free. Is Southern Bell limiting Caller ID to the same central office like they do with call return, or the local calling area or the entire lata? Will it work with Inter-LATA calls (i.e. does AT&T, MCI, ATC, etc have the proper connections)? With 800 services that ring on a regular line (MCI Personal 800, SPrints and AT&T Readyline type services) will the 800 ANI get changed into CLID? I'll give a report in a few weeks on how it works. Bill ------------------------------ From: "John E. Girard" Subject: Re: Email From Space Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1991 17:56:41 GMT The oldest method for sending mail into space predates all this discussion. Just send it to /dev/null :-) John Girard New Science Associates, Inc. jeg@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG VOICE: 415-968-3324 ************************** FAX: 415-968-0862 ------------------------------ From: Dan_Jacobson@att.com Subject: Re: Email From Space Reply-to: Dan_Jacobson@ihlpz.att.com Date: Sat, 27 Jul 91 16:15:00 GMT So how 'bout one of you HAMsters post some of those genuine MIR space station e-mail headers and body to TELECOM. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #574 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28486; 28 Jul 91 0:11 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10419; 27 Jul 91 22:13 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12349; 27 Jul 91 21:06 CDT Date: Sat, 27 Jul 91 20:49:23 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #575 BCC: Message-ID: <9107272049.ab13172@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 27 Jul 91 20:49:17 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 575 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia: 301/410 Reference Table in Archives [TELECOM Moderator] Freedom! AT&T Reports the Good News [TELECOM Moderator] Information "Big Brother" On His Way [John Higdon] A Plea to AT&T (was Re: Blocking Outgoing Phone Calls) [Jim Gottlieb] Information Wanted on High Speed Networks [Dhruv Bajpai] Telephone Censorship [Carl Kadie] Some Old Information About ATC and Family [Bill Huttig] Well-Documented FAX Board Recommendations Wanted [Dan Veeneman] Ohio Bell Overcharges Credit Card Calls With # Key [Bill Mayhew] Rural Switching Equipment [Charles Hoequist] Telco Sends OCC Calls to AT&T [Jack Decker] Re: MCI's Friends and Family Won't Leave Me Alone! [Dan Jacobson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 27 Jul 91 19:36:36 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: 301/410 Reference Table in Archives David Leibold has supplied the Telecom Archives with a new file which details the 301/410 split. The existing prefixes are broken down to show which will stay in 301 and which will go to 410. Look for this in the archives with the other NPA files. The Telecom Archives can be accessed using anonymous ftp via lcs.mit.edu. When on line, you must 'cd telecom-archives'. And of course an ftp <==> mail arrangement is available for those of you without anonymous ftp capability. Write doug@letni.lonestar.org (Doug Davis) for full details. Thanks to Mr. Leibold for this latest contribution to the archives, and the several others he has given us in the past. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jul 91 19:22:39 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Freedom! AT&T Reports the Good News AT&T's announcement from the company's internal News Briefs describing their victory in Harold Greene's courtroom: AT&T NEWS BRIEFS [All items are today's date unless otherwise noted] Friday, July 26, 1991 FREEDOM -- Phone lines were cleared Thursday for the seven regional phone companies to provide electronic information such as stock quotes and sports scores. ... USA Today, 1A. [Judge Harold] Greene simultaneously stayed his order, however, to permit all appeals to be heard, which raised the possibility its effect could be delayed for months. His decision is expected to draw fierce opposition. ... Washington Post, A1. ... Today's ruling did not change the restrictions that bar the Bell companies from entering the long-distance telephone industry or manufacturing telephone equipment, but the appeals court ruling that prompted today's decision also recommended that Judge Greene apply more flexible legal standards in considering these restrictions. ... Herb Linnen, AT&T spokesman, said the company had never objected to the Bell companies' entry into the information services market, provided that they remained excluded from the equipment manufacturing and long-distance industries. ... New York Times, B1. ... [The] ruling also moves the regional phone companies a step closer to being able to compete for cable television customers. ... New York Newsday, p. 5. ... The 71-page opinion noted that an appeals court decision last spring left no other choice. ... Wall Street Journal, B1. Also all major newspapers. Regardless of the legal maneuvering involving the regional telephone companies, AT&T plans to offer what it calls a Smart Phone, a telephone-and-video-screen device, as soon as next summer, Ray Zardetto, a company spokesman, said yesterday. ... "You can call up stock reports, for instance," Zardetto said about one use for the Smart Phone. "Whatever part of the stock report you want will run across the screen. Or you can preprogram your pizza order from your favorite pizza parlor, push a button and it goes across the network to his Smart Phone and it'll be delivered." New York Newsday, p. 35. --------- Congratulations! Now we should really see some progress and interesting developments in audio/videotext. Its about time something went right for AT&T in Greene's courtroom ... ... but not everyone agrees. John Higdon presents an alternative point of view in the next article of this issue. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 13:47 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Information "Big Brother" On His Way Stories on the front pages of both the {San Jose Mercury} and the {San Francisco Chronicle} this morning announced the reluctant decision by Judge Greene to allow the RBOCs to enter the information business. This is just the next step toward the eventual total control of telecommunications and electronic information by the seven "Baby Bells". The actual implementation will be stayed until appeals can be filed, however a spokesperson for Pacific Telesis (as you might expect) said that the company would push for the ruling to take effect immediately. The RBOCs are slowly inching their way to an even tighter grip on the telecommunications industry than the old and presumably evil Bell System enjoyed. RBOC spokespersons hearlded the ruling as the opening of the door to "wonderful new services", but we have heard all of that crap before. David Easterly, president of Cox Newspapers, rightly commented, "If we are going to enter a world in which a great deal of information passes through telephone lines, then those providing the phone lines should be neutral; they shouldn't be one of the information providers." Amen to that. And of course the Hollings bill, which sailed through the Senate will now be considered by the House. If the RBOCs are allowed to furnish network service, the information that travels on that network, and the equipment that is served by the network, they will control a very sigificant aspect of the vitality of this nation. Safeguards? FCC Chairman, Alfred Sikes said the FCC, "will continue to provide full and effective public interest safeguards" if the regional Bells enter the information services business. Well, that certainly makes me feel at ease. Just like the FCC has protected us from COCOTs and IEC abuses. No, I am afraid that the FCC is too busy trying to tell broadcasters what is profane and obscene to worry about telecommunications practices. Again, write your Congressperson about the Hollings bill. Just say 'no'. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: A Plea to AT&T (was Re: Blocking Outgoing Phone Calls) Date: 27 Jul 91 09:01:58 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan barkelew@emx.utexas.edu (David Barkelew) writes: > A friend of mine is looking for a gadget that can be placed on his > phone ... to stop long distance calls from originating from his phone > number (including blocking access to 0 for operator assisted)... And don't forget: since AT&T refuses to offer a 950 or 800 number, this device needs to be able to allow 10XXX 0+ dialing AND monitor the call to be sure that the caller actually bills the call elsewhere. Yeah, right. Come on AT&T. Stop shooting yourself (and your customers) in the foot. With your present arrangement, there is no way for someone to block long distance calls and allow calls to be billed to AT&T without the use of special toll terminal trunks (something most of us don't have in our homes and offices). ------------------------------ From: Dhruv Bajpai Subject: Information Wanted on High Speed Networks Date: 27 Jul 91 20:19:22 GMT Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station Hello everybody, I am looking for information on High Speed Networks, like PARIS project (IBM) or the CNRI (gigabit testbed inititalive). Any information on any article or references concerned with hw/sw design considerations would be most welcome. Thanks, Dhruv ------------------------------ From: "Carl M. Kadie" Subject: Telephone Censorship Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1991 15:01:36 GMT [This is a copy of a letter I send to my U.S. senators and my U.S. representative. - Carl] July 17, 1991 I am distressed to learn that the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld Senator Helms' restriction on my access to telephone services (the so-called Helms/dial-a-porn Amendment to the 1934 Communications Act). The Helms Amendment violates my First Amendment rights to listen to what I choose. Like most censorship, the Helms Amendment is justified by saying that it is needed to protect children. I think it is obvious, however, that its real purpose is to restrict adults. The courts are no longer defenders of individual rights. It is now up to you in Congress to stand up for traditional American values like freedom of speech/freedom to listen. I urge you defend the First Amendment and to repeal the Helms Amendment. Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Some Old Information About ATC and Family Date: 26 Jul 91 18:13:36 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL I was going through some old stuff and found a couple of old (approx. 1986) info about ATC and North American Telephone. North American Telephone is now part of ATC. During the last six months of 1985, North American Telephone acquired five carriers Americall, Datel, Entel, Florida Long Distance, and Eastern Telephone. In another flyer It shows Transcall America and directline as being owened by ATC. It says they don't give green stamps ... which at the time Teltec was giving. It seems that Teltec merged with NAT and became TELUS, Then ATC merged with MicroTel and then with TELUS and now southTel. Currently on the ATC A/400 billing systems is the old MicroTel, Transcall America, all of the NAT companies are still on the TELUS system. but they are all on the same switch. SouthTel is still totally separate. Does anyone have the dates and all the companies that are now part of ATC? ------------------------------ From: Dan Veeneman Subject: Well-Documented FAX Board Recommendations Wanted Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 15:49:15 CDT Yes, this is YAPRR (Yet Another Product Recommendation Request): Can anyone recommend a FAX card for IBM-PC compatibles that has a *well-documented* programming interface? I'm looking for something that can be controlled via C or assembly to both send and receive Group III. A modem on the same card is NOT necessary. I'm not interested in FAX cards that come with a .EXE that you MUST run in order to make it work -- I need to be able to roll my own control programs. Dan dveenema@nis.naitc.com uunet!devcom!marcal!dan ------------------------------ From: Bill Mayhew Subject: Ohio Bell Overcharges Credit Card Calls With # Key Organization: Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine Date: Sat, 27 Jul 91 20:21:40 GMT This hasn't been meintioned yet, so here goes. I received the following mailer with my OBT bill last week: A Special Notice to Our Customers If you've made two or more direct dialed credit card calls in swquence between January 17 and May 23, 1991, and if you used the pound (#) sign on a touch tone telephone after the first call to avoid redialing your credit card number, you may have been incorrectly billed by up to 90 cents per call due to an error in our computer software. If you haven't used the pound (#) sign to make credit card calls, there's no error and no problem. We've corrected the software error and have located and _credited_on_ this_month's_bill any misbilling for calls made between March 23 and May 23. But, we want to make sure we give the proper credit for all billing errors that may have occurred. Therefore, if you used the pound sign method to make credit card calls between January 17 and March 22, 1991, please call us. We will then verify any errors and give you the appropriate credit. Please accept our apology for any inconvenience this may have caused you. The numbers to call to have any errors verified are: Residence customers: 1 800 660-9136 Business customers: 1 800 660-7000 * Ohio Bell An Ameritech Company (c)1991 Ohio Bell. All Rights Reserved. Bill Mayhew NEOUCOM Computer Services Department Rootstown, OH 44272-9995 USA phone: 216-325-2511 wtm@uhura.neoucom.edu ....!uunet!aablue!neoucom!wtm via internet: (140.220.001.001) ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jul 91 09:52:00 EDT From: Charles (C.A.)Hoequist Subject: Rural Switching Equipment Steve Forrette writes: > a "D5RS", whatever that is. (This new beast, which I think is a > "rural" digital switch from NT... Doesn't seem to be. The closest thing in an NT Product Handbook is DRS-8, which is a Digital Radio System. NT's rural switches are DMS-1 and DMS-10. Indeed, all the CO switches NT makes now are DMS-something- or-other. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 22:52:00 EDT From: Jack Decker Subject: Telco Sends OCC Calls to AT&T I've seen the comments about COCOT's that accept 10XXX codes and then route the call to the COCOT operator's preferred carrier, but I found a better one than that the other day. A telephone company owned coin phone outside the former office of the Chippewa County Telephone Company (and just across the street from the NEW office building housing their new digital switch) accepts 10XXX codes for certain other carriers but routes all such calls to AT&T. I tried dialing 10222-0+ and 10333-0+ (to an out-of-state number) and in both cases I got the dial tone spurt followed by the musical "AT&T" signature. Dialing a totally invaild 10XXX code at random, however, resulted in reaching a recording immediately after the 10XXX code was dialed, so I'm led to believe that the switch was programmed to accept calls for MCI and Sprint but for some reason winds up sending them to AT&T. The number of the coin phone in question is +1-906-248-3239 and the Chippewa County Telephone Company's business office number is +1-906-248-3211, just in case any MCI or Sprint reps are reading this and would like to follow up on it. I just wonder what the legality is of an independent telco picking off calls intended for other carriers and routing them to AT&T. In fact, if I were AT&T I'd be upset about this since they probably have to field the occasional complaint from a customer that thought they were routing their call via a preferred OCC, only to discover that AT&T was billing them for the call. If it were me, I'd refuse to pay the charge and tell AT&T to go collect from the phone company that screwed up the codes in their switch! Via D'Bridge 1:1/211 07/25 21:03 Jack Decker, via 1:120/183@fidonet (royaljok.fidonet.org) Internet: Jack.Decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org UUCPnet: {...}!uunet!mailrus!umich!wsu-cs!royaljok!154!8!Jack.Decker [Moderator's Note: I do not believe small independent telcos are required to observe equal access to long distance carriers. I believe that rule applies to the Bell companies only (and maybe GTE). PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dan_Jacobson@att.com Subject: Re: MCI's Friends and Family Won't Leave Me Alone! Reply-to: Dan_Jacobson@ihlpz.att.com Date: Sat, 27 Jul 91 16:59:00 GMT On 24 Jul 91 20:46 GMT, N7I@psuvm.psu.edu (Mary McComb 225 Sparks) said: > I may be naive, but it never occurred to me that MCI would harrass > my friends and family with obnoxious telemarketing calls. I'd hate to see what their Enemies and Ex-Family service would be like :-). ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #575 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00592; 28 Jul 91 0:53 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15362; 27 Jul 91 23:20 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac10419; 27 Jul 91 22:13 CDT Date: Sat, 27 Jul 91 21:37:12 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #576 BCC: Message-ID: <9107272137.ab14673@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 27 Jul 91 21:37:08 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 576 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Sprint Rate Change [Skip Collins] Re: Sprint (Finally) Informs its Customers [Carol Springs] Re: Sprint Puts it in Writing [Jiro Nakamura] Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [David E. A. Wilson] Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [Charlie Lear] Re: International 800 Calling [Jim Smithson] Re: International 800 Calling [George Battrick] Re: Calling USA Toll Free From Abroad [Wolf Paul] Re: MCI's Friends and Family Won't Leave Me Alone! [Denis Guyon] Re: MCI's Friends and Family Won't Leave Me Alone! [David Lemson] Re: C&P: Some CLASS Services Enabled by Default (With a Catch!) [S. Kass] Re: Email From Space [Scott Dorsey] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Collins Subject: Re: Sprint Rate Change Date: 26 Jul 91 17:05:55 GMT Organization: JHU/APL, Laurel, MD john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >> Then again, AT&T called me to invite me to switch back, and I said, >> "Sure -- put it in writing." > When was the last time you saw an AT&T commercial that talked about > putting it in writing? I suspect that tactic has cause the company > significant grief. But it have not seen one of those "tell them to put > it in writing" spots for a long time. > To think about it, what is there additional to put in writing? The FCC > filings would say it all. It already is in writing. Even Thrifty Tel's > bogus rate structure is "in writing" at the CPUC. Come on Mr. Higdon. How many of us have day to day access to PUC filings? Going miles away to sift through mountains of paper and deal with unsympathetic bureaucrats just to save a few dollars a month is something I shall leave to those so inclined. AT&T's "Put it in writing" campaign seemed to say to consumers that they would make it easier for us to make meaningful rate comparisons for our specific circumstances. Instead they give us the same run around about only being able to give rate information over the phone that MCI and Sprint give. Alas. Skip Collins ------------------------------ From: Carol Springs Subject: Re: Sprint (Finally) Informs its Customers Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 20:02:11 EDT In article Mark Miller writes: > In article is written: >> Also, they included a "no-strings-attached" $5.00 gift certificate! > Carol said she sent a polite letter, and didn't get the gift > certificate. Perhaps there is still some use for unbridled anger :-) Perhaps ... however, I just received today a second "valued Sprint customer" letter, this one with a $10 gift certificate. I suppose it's for twice the usual amount either because I have two phone numbers assigned to the same account or because I had sent Sprint the aforementioned polite/nasty letter in June. Sprint had already credited me $2.40 or so in response to my request for reimbursement of the difference between evening and night rates for calls placed between June 3 and the day I heard about the changeover. I got a long, apologetic message on my answering machine detailing the credits for each call. This whole mess must have been a real headache for Sprint's customer service people. Incidentally, the fine print on the back of the certificate says that it's valid for current Sprint customers from October 1, 1991, to March 31, 1992. Just to make sure we'll stick around. Carol Springs carols@world.std.com ------------------------------ From: Jiro Nakamura Subject: Re: Sprint Puts it in Writing Organization: Shaman Consulting Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1991 01:20:10 GMT In article pas@cc.gatech.edu (Paulo Santos) writes: > They did it! Sprint sent me in the mail a copy of their new (as of > June 3rd, 1991) Sprint Plus rates. > For all of you who believed that *no* LDC would ever tell customers > their rates *in writing*, here are the current Sprint Plus state-to- > state rates. (Pat, you may want to put these rates in the archives.) Maybe Sprint sent them to you because they knew that they would be "updated" tomorrow anyway. :-) Ever wondered why they call it "Sprint" -- it's because they are always playing catchup to AT&T. :-) I recently decided to cancel my AT&T card after having had the Universal card for half a year now, so I phone AT&T and told them I wanted to cancel my card. They took my number, then the operator says in amazement "your card's already been cancelled", I said "Huh? I never cancelled it" and she said "Yup, it was cancelled November 1990, we last sent you a bill in Sept 1990 which came back address incomplete." I said that I never got the bill, she said she'd go look for it on microfiche. About ten minutes of tapping my fingers and she comes back and has found it! She agrees to send it to me. Today, I received the bill, the problem was that AT&T had not typed in my city or zip code on my last address change (Sept, 1990 no less). A duplicate, microfiche copy of the bill today. $17.08. The cover letter with it doesn't mention anything about late fees or penalties. I'm surprised since that AT&T hadn't contacted my credit bureau delinquent office (my last credit report, 3/91 or so didn't mention it). This is why I'm pretty pleased with AT&T. They actually found a bill from half a year ago in less then ten minutes on the phone, sent a copy to me in less than a week, and didn't even bother to damage my credit rating, assess late charges, or even sound angry. :-) Jiro Nakamura jiro@shaman.com Shaman Consulting +1 607 277-1440 Voice/Fax/Data ------------------------------ From: david@cs.uow.edu.au (David E A Wilson) Subject: Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 06:34:54 GMT robink@hparc0.aus.hp.com (Robin Kenny) writes: > Here in Australia the rate and volume of automated contact attempts is > limited IN LAW to (top of head, references at home) six attempts in > total no more frequently than each minute. In the User's Manual of a BIT Blitzer 12E is included an excerpt from Telecom Australia's Specification 1056 Clause 5.4. What it all boils down to is: Maximum number of automatic retries in any sequence = two (+ original call) if device cannot detect service tones or four (+ orig) if it can. After an unsuccessful call the line must be on-hook for 60 + 10s [why not write this as 70s I do not know] before the line is looped to initiate another call to the SAME number. There shall be an 'OFF line' period of at least two seconds between calls addressed to DIFFERENT numbers. So Robin is correct for calls to the same number. It can be quicker for different numbers. David Wilson Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong david@cs.uow.edu.au ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? Organization: The Cave MegaBBS, Public Access Usenet, Wellington, NZ Date: 27 Jul 91 16:58:35 NZT (Sat) From: clear@cavebbs.gen.nz In article it was written: > Is this nothing more than a telecom old wives tale, or is there In France (apparently) it is illegal to autodial a number more than once per minute, and illegal to redial more than three times in an hour. Having rules is one thing. Enforcing them in hardware is another. I reviewed a Philips badge-engineered V32 internal modem last year, that had been made by a French subsidiary. It was, through and through, a pain in the rear. It stored the "last number dialled" in non-volatile RAM. When I was testing it by calling a bank of V32 modems (manually swapping the line cable between each, to evaluate how well it talked to other brands of V32) I kept getting errors. Here are examples: ATDT643000 CONNECT 9600 +++ATH OK ATDT643000 ERROR ATDT643000 ERROR ATDT643000 CONNECT 9600 Do you think I could figure it out?!?!?!?!? The manual was worse than useless. One minute it gave an error, the next minute it connected OK. Then I couldn't get it to dial at all, even when I did a power-off reset of the computer. Turned out it wouldn't allow more than three successful connects to the same number in an hour, either. The only way to override this system was to flick a momentary-off reset switch on the back of the modem. I reviewed eight other V32 modems and quietly gave these internal abortions back to Philips with the suggestion that if they kept advertising their PCs, we wouldn't include their modem in the comparison. Charlie "The Bear" Lear | clear@cavebbs.gen.nz | Kawasaki Z750GT DoD#0221 The Cave MegaBBS +64 4 643429 V22b | PO Box 2009, Wellington, New Zealand ------------------------------ From: Jim Smithson Subject: Re: International 800 Calling Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 15:33:22 MET DST rhyre@cinoss1.att.com (Ralph W. Hyre) Writes: > On AT&T's part, couldn't low-volume international customers be advised > to advertising the USA Direct number for international calls? (Those > operators can dial 800 numbers, can't they?) Only if the 800 number is serviced by AT&T can it be dialed with USA Direct. But you still have to pay for the overseas portion of the call. The equivalent MCI service cannot dial any 800 numbers in the states, but they will make an attempt to find a POTS number you can dial. ------------------------------ From: george battrick Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 19:18:10 BST Subject: Re: International 800 Calling The main difficulty here is how to contact a US company which only gives an 800 number in its advertisement. You would expect to dial 010-1-800-xxx-yyyy, but as has been pointed out, it doesn't work. (There would be no objection to paying the "international" portion of the charge, or even a full fee: the requirement is to contact the advertiser.) However, it used to be the case that if you dialed 010-1-83-800- xxx-yyyy, there would be a very long wait, with lots of clicks and pops, but eventually it would connect. There was always a very loud hiss on the line, and the voices were very faint, but you could at least get a "real" number and call back. This doesn't work any more now: perhaps there's an area code 838? I remember reading of a service whereby you dialed a British number, and they would connect you to a US 800 number in return for a charge against your credit card, but I don't have any details and have never seen them advertise. ------------------------------ From: Wolf PAUL Subject: Re: Calling USA Toll Free From Abroad Date: 24 Jul 91 08:41:45 GMT Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg/Vienna, Austria, Europe ole@csli.stanford.edu (Ole J. Jacobsen) writes: > Since toll-free numbers aren't that common in Europe (even the old > "Freephone" system in the UK did not seem to be very popular) we > concluded that people just weren't "into" this 800 business. That is changing, though, even though one major obstacle remains: In most European countries, these are not toll-free numbers, but local-call-charges-apply numbers. And I don't know of any European country which has free local calling. Even for local calls, the phone is much more used in North America than anywhere in Europe; I know a lot of people over here (specifically in Austria, Germany, France, Holland and UK, the countries where I have spent time and have friends) who consider the telephone something of an "emergency communications" facility -- you don't use the phone for things you can do by letter, or in person. This too is changing, albeit slowly. W.N.Paul IIASA, wnp@iiasa.iiasa.ac.at, +43-2236-71521-465 (till Jul 26, 1991) ALCATEL/ELIN, cc_wnp@rcvie.co.at, +43-1-391-621-122 (as of Jul 29, 1991) Home: Kirschenallee 113, A-1220 Wien-Austria, Europe; Tel. +43-1-224-6913 ------------------------------ From: Denis Guyon Subject: Re: MCI's Friends and Family Won't Leave Me Alone! Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1991 21:41:59 GMT wegeng@arisia.xerox.com writes: > I agree with you that MCI should try to confirm the information that > they are given before placing such telemarketing calls. However, in > the case where MCI got your name from one of your friends/family, who > is to blame? It seems to me that your friends/family share the blame, > since it's *them* who gave out your name. As the old saying goes, > with friends like these who needs enemies? I've always told my family and friends not to give out my phone number. Several years ago my parents gave out my phone number to someone that I preferred not have it. Somewhat prior to that they gave it out to someone to which it did not matter and on that occaision I spelled out to them that I did not like this practice. It just so happened I was moving to a new apartment about that time, and it was free or very cheap (I forget which) to just get a new phone number, so I did. I told all my friends but I refused to tell my parents. So I called them, but not as often as they would like (about once a month or less) and each time they wanted to know my new number, and I told them why I was not giving it. After about six months I finally gave them the new number and the problem has not happened again. Now I have two phone lines, one listed, and only the answering machine uses the listed one. Far more telemarketing calls come into the listed one than on the other. I also use the listed line to call out to any place I am not absolutely positive will not get or use my number. Phil Howard -- KA9WGN -- phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ From: David Lemson Subject: Re: MCI's Friends and Family Won't Leave Me Alone! Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1991 22:23:12 GMT chris@nike.calpoly.edu (The Squire, Phish) writes: > You've heard MCI's Friends and Family promotion: If you're an MCI > customer, and you list your friends and family, you get n% off when > you call them at certain times. And if they're not an MCI customer, > you can give them their name and phone number, and they'll call and > sign them up! Great? Nope! I have MCI, and called MCI Customer Service to sign up for Friends and Family. I wanted to use it to talk to my parents, who also have MCI. The lady took my name and number, as well as my parents' name and numbers, and signed us up. They never called my parents, just sent them the same little note (Welcome to F&F, want to sign up some more friends and family?) that I got. I'd say it's worth it - no hassles yet, (I did get called by AT&T last month to switch to them) and the discount is nice (although small). David Lemson University of Illinois Computing Services Consultant Internet : lemson@uiuc.edu UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson NeXTMail : lemson@tequila.cso.uiuc.edu BITNET : LEMSON@UIUCVMD ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1991 14:35 EDT From: SKASS@drew.bitnet Subject: Re: C&P: Some CLASS Services Enabled by Default (With a Catch!) psw@maestro.mitre.org (Phil Wherry) writes: > It would probably interest readers of the TELECOM Digest to know that > C&P Telephone (DC-MD-VA) has now enabled the use of the Call Return > (*69) and Call Repeat (*66) services on all subscriber lines. If you > subscribe to these custom calling features, nothing has changed. If > not, you can still use the features -- but you will be billed $0.75 > each time you invoke a feature. The same is true in my part of NJBell country. I discovered this a while before they notified me officially, and I used the service many times (mostly getting "... service cannot be used ... out of the service area ..."). Pleasantly enough, I wasn't billed for any of the calls. I don't plan to use it again, though. At 75c a shot, regardless of whether the call connects, it's not worth it to me. Steve Kass/ Math&CS/ Drew U/ Madison NJ/ skass@drew.bitnet ------------------------------ From: Scott Dorsey Subject: Re: Email From Space Organization: NASA Langley Research Center Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1991 12:42:22 GMT (Lloyd W. Taylor) writes: > NASA is taking a Macintosh Portable up in the space shuttle on the > Mission this week (it's OK -- they added a supplementary engine) and > they are going to be *connecting*to*AppleLink*from*space*. I think that NASA should take all the McIntoshes up into space. And leave them there. scott ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #576 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03938; 28 Jul 91 2:09 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18171; 28 Jul 91 0:27 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15362; 27 Jul 91 23:20 CDT Date: Sat, 27 Jul 91 22:47:07 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #577 BCC: Message-ID: <9107272247.ab16250@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 27 Jul 91 22:45:50 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 577 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: When Local Telco Bills For LD Carrier [Denis Guyon] Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone? [Gabe M. Wiener] Re: 800 ANI for NON-answered Calls? [John Higdon] Re: Mismatched 1+ Carrier [Linc Madison] Re: C&P: Some CLASS Services Enabled by Default [Ken Weaverling] Re: Lightning Protection for Modems [Dan Jacobson] Re: Bellcore Acronyms - Help Needed [Marian J. Murphy] Re: Statistics on Bell's Breakup [Gerry Lachac] Re: Toll Saver Feature [Marc T. Kaufman] Re: Auto-Answer Phone Query [Steve Kass] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Denis Guyon Subject: Re: When Local Telco Bills For LD Carrier Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1991 21:59:08 GMT joshm@kgnvmy.vnet.ibm.com (Joshua E. Muskovitz) writes: > Does the local carrier have the right to kill your local service if > you don't pay the long-distance portion of your all-in-one billing? > This doesn't seem right. If your dispute is with the distance > carrier, and you are paying the local portion, doesn't the local > carrier HAVE to give you service? > [Moderator's Note: No they do not have the right to kill local service > based on non-payment of anything but their own charges. But you must > specifically tell them *what* you are not paying and *why* (where the > LD carrier is concerned) or your remittance will be taken as a short- > payment on the entire bill. PAT] A few years ago I had over $1000 in fraud billings show up on my bill from several different LD carriers. I contacted the local phone company (Ilinois Bell) about it and they instructed me to contact the LD carriers to run the credits through. I did. AT&T and Sprint promptly applied credits, though more came in on the next bill and I had to call again. All this was apparently because someone figured out my calling card code (which was with the local carrier then). The big problem was there were some odd-ball companies applying charges as well. Some of these were places that only dealt with hotel rooms, for instance. One company was exclusively operating in Mexico. When I called these companies, they refused to apply any credits because I would not give them any more information than they already had (though they could not find even that). One company said it was against their policy to give credits. Three companies offered to give credits but I never could figure out if they showed up because. The Illinois Bell bills did NOT detail incoming credits. This mixed in with the taxes also not being detailed by carrier meant that I could not figure out which carriers had applied credits and which had not. I talked to the manager of customer service who claimed she could not do anything about it. Next I called the Illinois Bell office in Chicago and ask for the law office and got one of the lawyers at the low end of the totem pole. I explained to him exactly what had happened and how it was there was no action I could do to correct this (and also mentioned that Customer Service was not even trying to make any criminal investigations). I also mentioned I'd be contacting the FCC if this matter did not get straightened out. He said he'd check into it. About 25 minutes later the Customer Service manager called ME and told me she would apply a credit to my entire current balance (which I had refused to pay in whole because there was not enough detail to calculate EXACTLY what was really due), and that I should call her back if any more such billings showed up. The only other time I had to call the lawyer types was to get "NONE" to be my long distance carrier and they worked quick miracles for that, too. Phil Howard -- KA9WGN -- phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu [Moderator's Note: You did well by contacting the corporate attorney when you were unable to get the service reps off their duffs. That is a technique I have long used ... that, and appealing direct to the Chairman's Office. About three years ago, Sprint was going to sue me (well actually, the firm I where I am employed, since I maintain the phones there among other duties) for $18,000 for non-payment of the bill for our T-1, WATS, tie-lines, etc. They got the check, cashed it and misapplied it -- then couldn't find where they misapplied it because the check endorsement was illegible ... so they wanted *me* to pay it again! I told them to write it off and learn a lesson from their experience. When I got a final notice before disconnection I called their attorney and told him 'just try me out ... pick a date next week when you want to litigate this ...' I got the credit on my next bill, *seven months* after I started asking nicely for it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gabe M Wiener Subject: Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone? Reply-To: Gabe M Wiener Organization: Columbia University Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1991 04:50:57 GMT In article Barton.Bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes: > Most TT chips 'know' about 1633, and lots of applications make use of > it. What applications make use of the ABCD keys? As I recall, the Autovon keys aren't actually labeled ABCD, or at least that's what I remember when I saw an Autovon phone on my last trip through the Smithsonian. Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ. gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu gabe@ctr.columbia.edu 72355.1226@compuserve.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 23:00 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: 800 ANI for NON-answered Calls? Will Martin writes: > Is the ANI equipment so expensive and elaborate that this application > seems doubtful? Or is it simple enough that this scheme is likely? ANI equipment is neither expensive nor elaborate. It is transmitted right up front and is available to the recipient before the call is answered. ANI delivery is now very common to sizeable customers and the equipment for its processing is hardly a major expense. It is actually very possible that your described scam is taking place. > All in all, it seems like a good reason to make as many calls as > possible from a work phone sitting behind a PBX that confuses or > mangles ANI data! Do not put much hope in that. PBXes neither confuse nor mangle ANI data. With a very small amount of effort, the recipient can identify the source of the call. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: At our office, all outgoing trunks are identified only as the main listed number. I guess that is because of the way IBT bills us. I know this is true because I have experimented from home with call screening the office, blocking only the main listed number. No matter what line the office used to call me back, they were blocked from getting through. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jul 91 01:38:54 PDT From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Mismatched 1+ Carrier Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article mission!randy@uunet.uu.net writes: > When I recently moved from one apartment to another about a mile away, > GTE set up the service just fine (was I surprised!) except that I > found out later my 1+ carrier was AT&T even though GTE service, GTE > repair, and Sprint all said their records showed I was served by > Sprint. > How is the 1+ carrier actually determined? This is old hat for most Digest readers, but in case anyone doesn't know, you can determine who your 1+ carrier is by dialing 1-700-555-4141. There's no charge, and you'll hear a recording saying something analogous to "Thank you for using ." Similarly, you can find out what 10XXX carriers you can use by dialing 10XXX-1-700-555-4141. Of course, it would take you rather a long time to try all 1000 possible codes. Note that "700" is a special "area code" (Special Access Code) which maps differently on each carrier. Other "700" numbers may incur heavy charges comparable to "900" numbers. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu = ucbvax!tongue1!linc [Moderator's Note: Except if you are lucky, some local telcos intercept invalid codes right after the 10xxx part without waiting for more data. Even then, a thousand is a bit much to roam through. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ken Weaverling Subject: Re: C&P: Some CLASS Services Enabled by Default (With a Catch!) Date: 27 Jul 91 14:03:59 GMT Organization: University of Delaware > C&P Telephone (DC-MD-VA) has now enabled the use of the Call Return > (*69) and Call Repeat (*66) services on all subscriber lines. If you > subscribe to these custom calling features, nothing has changed. If > not, you can still use the features -- but you will be billed $0.75 > each time you invoke a feature. Diamond State Tel (Bell Atlantic) has been doing this for a few years now, but it is much cheaper. From the Wilmington, DE phone book, pg 7: Call Forwarding $2.50/mo or $.25 per activation Repeat Call 1.75/mo or .25 per activation Return Call 2.00/mo or .25 per activation Priority Call 1.75/mo or .25 per day list is active Select Forward 2.00/mo or .50 per day list is active Call Block 5.00/mo or .50 per day list is active You must be careful with charges tied to a list. If you turn off the service (for instance, with *80 for Call Block), but do not first delete the numbers from your list, you will continue to be charged each day, since the list of numbers are still stored. Also, with Call Block, if you have Caller ID in your area, you can use Call Block to find out number of last person who called you. I once used it to find out who was calling me and hanging up after one ring (before my Caller ID box got the number). I Call Blocked the last call, and it told me what the number was! >>>---> Ken Weaverling >>>----> weave@brahms.udel.edu [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell does not offer 'per instance of use' billing on features. It is strictly month-to-month here. And if you block 'last call received' without reference to the number itself, then Illinois Bell refers to it as a 'private entry' in the directory you can review, without reading off the actual number. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dan_Jacobson@att.com Subject: Re: Lightning Protection for Modems Date: Sat, 27 Jul 91 16:45:00 GMT On 24 Jul 91 17:56:34 GMT, dplatt@ntg.com (Dave Platt) said: > People have received severe shocks by being in contact with a > grounded object and a pipe or piece of wire, even if the pipe or > wire was not struck by the lightning itself. I think I'll save my trip to the restroom until this thunderstorm is over ... I'm not into pee-on-the-electric-fence laughs today. [Moderator's Note: About two years ago, a passenger on the Chicago Transit Authority (our subway system) was electrocuted when he, in his drunken stupor, chose to urinate while waiting for the train to arrive. He urinated out onto the tracks, and it splashed onto the third rail, which conducts only a few hundred volts of direct current. The electricity traveled back up the urine stream and struck him dead. Maybe this submission should have been sent to PGN entitled "The Risks of Having to Go to the Bathroom While Riding the Subway." :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Marian J Murphy Subject: Re: Bellcore Acronyms - Help Needed Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 13:27:27 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article is written: > I have been looking at a diagram called "Bellcore's Standard > Interfaces" (Figure 8-3) in a Bellcore book called "The Impact of > Evolving Communications Technologies". The diagram essentially shows > the Bellcore standards adopted between various telecoms network > elements and the use of CCS7. > The problem is, not all of the acronyms used in the figure are > explained in the book. Would some Bellcore guru know what the > following acronyms are? > BCR RUSI SSP > FCIF SCCS TOP > LUSI SEAS UPL > NMA SOP USL I tried to email this but it kept bouncing back. Here's a posted version. I can help with most of these: BCR - Bell Communications Research (Bellcore) FCIF - FACS Component Interface Format LUSI - ? NMA - Network Monitoring and Analysis RUSI - ? SCCS - Switching Control Center System SEAS - Signal Engineering and Administration System SOP - Service Order Processor SSP - Service Switching Point TOP - Task oriented practices UPL - ? USL - ? Hope this helps a little. Jay Murphy Bellcore ------------------------------ From: Gerry Lachac Subject: Re: Statistics on Bell's Breakup Organization: Dialogic Corporation Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 13:11:30 GMT In article John Higdon writes: > "Daniel R. Guilderson" writes: >> Two questions: >> 1) Why did touch-tone go up 69% ? > I don't know. It went to zero here. I only wish New Jersey Bell would do this. Back when I lived with my parents a couple of years ago, they had rotary and I used to use a touch-tone phone and my modem. One day NJB decided to send some letters "politely" inquiring if we were using touch-tone, and if we wished to, to pay them for it. I wouldn't have paid, but my parents had the fear of the monolithic "phone company". And while I'm ripping NJB to shreds, I've recently moved into a new place where I had call waiting put in. I was using *70 to shut it off for modem calls when all of a sudden it stopped working. Seems that NJB wants to charge me extra $$ for having the ability to turn it off. gerry EMAIL: gerry@dialogic.com USMAIL: Dialogic Corp. 300 Littleton Rd Parsippany, NJ PHONE: (201)334-1268 ext 193 ------------------------------ From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Subject: Re: Toll Saver Feature Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1991 01:25:56 GMT > [Moderator's Note: I think AT&T finally took the attitude 'if you > can't beat them, join them.' The feature is very common and all the > other answering machines had it, etc. I still personally feel that > using a system of coded rings to obtain information without having to > have both ends off-hook (thus having to pay for the call) is fraud. Well, considering that the entropy of the information thus obtained is EXTREMELY low (i.e. "1" bit), my guess is that the phone companies will learn to live with it. Actually, by the very same reasoning, not getting charged for no-answer must be fraud, too. After all, you have received exactly the same amount of information (1 bit): e.g. Is there a party to answer the phone, or not. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) [Moderator's Note: The one situation cannot be helped; that is the way the system operates. The other, where you deliberatly structure the ringing, is a different case entirely. But watch for the telcos to one of these days impose a 'call attempt' charge just for these reasons. Larry King was/is a prime example of an abuser. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1991 14:27 EDT From: SKASS@drew.bitnet Subject: Re: Auto-Answer Phone Query Tad Cook writes: > SKASS@drew.bitnet writes: [request for info on auto-answer phone] > Let us assume that there is someone there to talk to the caller. How > does the speaker phone know when to go back on hook at the end of the > call? Does it automatically go back on hook after a period of > silence? Will room noise keep it perpetually off hook? In this case there will always be someone there. Bed-ridden means room-bound, as well. As for going back on hook, it should work just like an answering machine. The auto-answer phone listens to the caller, not the callee, to decide when to disconnect. Steve Kass/ Drew U/ Math&CS/ Madison, NJ/ skass@drew.bitnet ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #577 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06224; 28 Jul 91 3:05 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21262; 28 Jul 91 1:33 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18171; 28 Jul 91 0:27 CDT Date: Sat, 27 Jul 91 23:43:02 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs Subject: SPECIAL REPORT: Tolled and Toll Free Services BCC: Message-ID: <9107272343.ab16233@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> I hope you will enjoy this special report prepared by our regular correspondent David Leibold dealing with toll free and tolled services around the world. This is the article he metnioned the other day when he asked for input from interested parties. Thanks, David! PAT Subject: List of Toll-Free and Tolled Services in various countries From: David Leibold Message-Id: Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 23:39:26 EDT Organization: Brave New World, Delray Beach, FL, USA [Here is the first edition of the toll-free/tolled codes list; thanks to all who participated ... any followups, clarifications, etc would be appreciated.] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Toll-free, local rated and specialty toll services 26 July 1991 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= The following indicates access codes and numbers used within various countries for toll-free and special paid services. The dialing codes shown represent how they would be dialed within the country involved. Generally, it is not possible to access another country's domestic toll-free or specialty network directly. Where an international access is available, it is normally done by using the domestic services which then forward the call to the destination country. Where possible, the number of digits has been indicated with 'n' (a number from 2 to 8) or 'x' (any number). An ellipsis (...) indicates that there are a variable number of extra digits, or possibly a conflict in the reports of numbers of digits used. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Toll-free or equivalent local charge services =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ================= A u s t r a l i a ================= 008 xxx xxx (that is how Telecom recomends it be written to differentiate it from STD area codes which are written with area codes (0x) thru (0xxx) and numbers n xxxx through nxx xxxx. 0014 ttt xxx xxx International Toll free access from Australia (ttt is reported as "800" or other toll-free access code; or, ttt may not be present at all) Brendan Jones: "... I have dialled international toll free to the USA (Fred Pryor Seminars) and I dialled verbatim: 0014 800 125 385." (Canada Direct uses 0014 881 150 - djcl) ============= B e l g i u m ============= 11 xxxx ============= D e n m a r k ============= 800 xxxxx 8001 xxxx (charged as local call) ============= F i n l a n d ============= 9800 xxxxx (...) PTT as local service provider 0800 xxxxx (...) Private phone company as local service provider Kauto Huopio: "(I _think_ that 0800 numbers are only for the local calling area." haa: "...but many service givers have more [digits than 5] in theis mnemonics)." (haa also mentions 9800 costs the same as a local call (dialable from all areas in Finland) while 0800 are truly toll-free and dialable from all private telco areas) =========== F r a n c e =========== 05 xxxxxx (Numero Vert) [note: this is outside area code 1, so from Paris 16 05...] 05 19 xx xx these numbers terminate outside France 36 63 xx xx Local call rate (Numero Azur) Allan G. Schrum: "`11' is computer directory information (Minitel) `12' is voice directory information (equivalent to 411)" =========================== G e r m a n y ( w e s t ) =========================== 0130 xxxx (...xx) Mickey Ferguson: "I was over in Germany for three months, and the number is 0130-... To use ATT, it is 0130-0010, and U.S. Sprint is 0130-0013 (easy to remember :) For general toll-free number listings, pick up a copy of the International Herald newspaper (I think it is available in the US as well as most places internationally) and in the sports section is usually an ATT add for dialing the US from various countries. Of course, chop off the exchange and only use the "area code" number." ============= I r e l a n d ============= 1800 xxxxxx 1850 xxxxxx (local rate) ========= I t a l y ========= 167 xxxxx (digits length?) Colum Mylod: "I'm not 100% sure about the length of digits for Italy. One way to check these is to get a copy of an *international* edition of the weekly magazines like TIME, all ads and little contents. But they do goof up regularly, like printing Paris numbers as (01) xxxxxxxx when they mean (1) xxxxxxxx." =========== M e x i c o =========== 91 800 xxxxx.... ===================== N e t h e r l a n d s ===================== 06-0xxx 06-0xxxxxx 06-4xx(x) Ralph Moonen: "06-0229111 = AT&T USA direct And also Sprint & MCI have operator services on 06-022xxxx Side note: It used to be possible to call 06-022xxxx to Denmark, and then use the CCITT no. 4 signalling system to phreak calls to anywhere in the world." Peter Knoppers: "06-11 This is the Dutch equivalent of 911, it is free when dialled from a phone company operated payphone, otherwise the charge is one unit, DFL 0.15, about US $ 0.08. There were discussions about making such calls free from any phone, but I haven't followed them recently. Calling a toll-free number from a payphone requires a deposit of one coin, which is returned after the call. The total length of the numbers varies from 4 to 10 digits. The dash indicates the secondary dial tone. It is not possible to reach 06 prefixed numbers from abroad." ===================== N e w Z e a l a n d ===================== 0800 xxx xxx clear@cavebbs.gen.nz: "That is through the state telco, Telecom New Zealand. Clear Communications, the recently started alternative LD carrier, does not offer a toll-free service as yet." When Clear offer one, it will more than likely be to the subscribers existing number (eg Dial toll free 050-04-654-3210) as they are not in control of number issue. 0800 is strictly Telecom at this stage." ========================= N o r t h A m e r i c a ========================= 1 800 nxx xxxx Access to toll free numbers can vary according to region, state or country ie. not all 800 numbers are accessible to all regions The nxx prefix portion of the 800 number presently determines which long distance carrier or 800 service company will handle the call (and in some cases determine the geographical region) ========= S p a i n ========= 900 xxxxxx Michael Klein, BellSouth Telephone Operations: "(N.B. The number for ATT direct in Spain is 900-99-00-11. The payphones are all push-button but generate pulses. It takes forever to get connected.)" =========== S w e d e n =========== 020 xxxxxx (without dialtone after '020'). ===================== S w i t z e r l a n d ===================== 04605 xxxx (not toll-free but metered at lowest rate) 155 xx xx ("green number") [also a new one something like 122...] Jim Smithson: "Here in Switzerland there is nothing exactly equivalent to US 800 service. I see the PTT is now encouraging the use of "green numbers" beginning with 155. The direct marketing ads on TV often give the order number for Switzerland as a number such as 155 XX XX. The access number for MCI Call USA is for example 155 02 22. But there are two problems with this that I don't think MCI was aware of when they asked the PTT for "a toll free" number. 1. When calling from a model AZ44(older model) payphone All numbers which begin with a "1" are treated as "service" numbers and the payphone begins to sound a "cuckoo clock noise" once the 155 is entered. The "cuckoo clock noise" is to alert operators on the "service numbers" that the caller is using a payphone(fraud protection). This noise is quite a distraction when calling someone in the USA using MCI Call USA. This is one reason(not the biggest one) I cancelled my MCI Card. 2. The newer style TelcaStar phones are programmed to block the keypad after 3 digits are dialed of a "service number". It used to be that the only numbers beginning with "1" were "service numbers" and all "service numbers" were 3 digits. The PTT is aware of this problem and are said to be considering what instructions to give the manufacturer of the payphones. AT&T USA Direct has an access number of 046 05 00 11 This is not a free call, but the time is metered at the lowest rate. This number does not suffer the "cuckoo clock noise" problem." (Canada Direct uses 046 05 83 30 - djcl) =========================== U n i t e d K i n g d o m =========================== 0800 xxx xxx Toll-free 0345 xxx xxx Local rate =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Tolled/Specialty Pay services =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ================= A u s t r a l i a ================= 0055 x yxxx where y=0-4,8 means the number is Australia wide (and costs more), y=5 means the number is only state wide, y=6,7,9 means the number is for the capital city only. ============= F i n l a n d ============= 9700 xxxxx PTT-operated 0700 xxxxx Private telco-operated haa: "cost ranging from about 0.5 USD to 5 USD per minute." =========== F r a n c e =========== 36 65 xx xx (5 message units each call for up to 140 seconds) Olivier Giffard: "These are for various information services as well as chat lines and so on." ===================== N e t h e r l a n d s ===================== 06-9 xx... 06-321 xx... 06-8 xx... (3 to 40ct/min) Peter Knoppers: "Other codes (such as 06-9) precede special tariff calls (similar to 900 in the US). The highest special rate is (currently) DFL 0.50 / minute." ========================= N o r t h A m e r i c a ========================= 1 900 nxx xxxx (various rates, depending on provider) 1 (npa) 976 xxxx (in many area codes, connected through regional telco; in some areas, the call requires the area code where depending on the intra-area dialing used) (other exchange prefixes within area codes such as 540, 720 or 915 are used for other pay services such as group chat, other types of recorded messages, etc. These vary depending on the area code within North America, and not all regions in North America have these.) =========== S w e d e n =========== 071 x xxxxx Dan Sahlin: "The "900"-numbers in Sweden all start with 071. The charges are related to the next digit, as follows. code SEK/minute 0712xxxxx 3,65 0713xxxxx 4,90 0714xxxxx 6,90 0715xxxxx 9,90 0716xxxxx 12,50 0717xxxxx 15,30 0719xx varying fees, cannot be dialled directly but needs operator Numbers starting with 0713-0717 can only be dialled from phones connected to AXE exchanges. At present about half of all phones in Sweden are connected to such exchanges. Another special toll number is domestic number information: 07975 (6,90 SEK/minute)." =========================== U n i t e d K i n g d o m =========================== 0836 xxx xxx 0898 xxx xxx J. Philip Miller: "Rate seems to be uniform as 34p per minute cheap rate, 45p at all other times." =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contributors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Thanks go to the following who read TELECOM Digest and have contributed to the preceding information: * Charlie (cavebbs.gen.nz!clear) * Mickey Ferguson (SCRVM2.vnet.ibm.com!FERGUSOM) * Olivier Giffard (og@chorus.com, og@chorus.fr, giffard@colorado.edu) * haa (zen.cs.hut.fi!haa) * Kauto Huopio OH5LFM (huopio@lut.fi) * Brendan Jones (brendan@otc.otca.oz.au) * Michael Klein (gatech.edu!blsouth!klein) * Peter Knoppers (duteca.et.tudelft.nl!knop) * Robert Lindh (ericom.ericsson.se!uucp!eos.ericsson.se!Robert.Lindh) * J. Philip Miller (phil@wubios.WUstl.edu) * Ralph 'Hairy' Moonen (attbl!hvlpa!rmoonen) * Colum Mylod at ORACLE Europe (nl.oracle.com!cmylod) * Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell (lars@CMC.COM) * Dan Sahlin (dan@sics.se) * Allan G. Schrum (gatech.edu!rdream!ags) * Jim Smithson (jsmithso@autelca.ascom.ch) * David Wilson, Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong (david@cs.uow.edu.au) Any further correspondence, updates, etc. regarding this list should be sent to dleibold@attmail.com or djcl.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= End of Listing =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02960; 28 Jul 91 15:22 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02915; 28 Jul 91 13:46 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id af06980; 28 Jul 91 12:38 CDT Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 12:20:07 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #578 BCC: Message-ID: <9107281220.ab06102@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 28 Jul 91 12:20:02 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 578 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone? [David Lesher] Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone? [Mike Riddle] Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext [Mike Riddle] Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext [John Higdon] Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals [Denis Guyon] Re: Larry King Gets What He Deserves [Denis Guyon] Re: Toll Saver Feature [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lesher Subject: Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone? Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 8:32:11 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers {what uses the ABCD? Autovon..} > As I recall, the Autovon keys aren't actually labeled ABCD, or at > least that's what I remember when I saw an Autovon phone on my last > trip through the Smithsonian. For Autovon, the telco equivalent of /dev/null, a black hole, or money paid into a Teamster's pension fund, the buttons were: P _riority I _mmediate F _lash FO _lash-_verride with the last one being used only in the event of war, the rule book said. Each one knocked off lower priority calls to complete yours. Now, HEARING, once you got the circuit -- that's a different problem ... wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM ------------------------------ From: Mike Riddle Subject: Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone? Organization: Nebraska Inns of Court Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1991 14:25:16 GMT In gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes: > In article Barton.Bruce@camb.com > (Barton F. Bruce) writes: >> Most TT chips 'know' about 1633, and lots of applications make use of >> it. > What applications make use of the ABCD keys? The last time this thread made its way through the net, someone talked about ham radio repeaters using them for control purposes. Someone else alluded to their use by Mother for system control, although absolutely no detail was given. The Autovon (now called something else and restructured) had different labels on the keys: FO, F, I, and P. Autovon was a multiple-level precedence system. Part of the class marks at the switch were which levels a particular line was authorized to use. Most people, and all indial from base PBXs, generally, were restricted to "R"outine precedence, which was the default and therefore had no associated key. The others, in ascending importance, were Priority, Immediate, Flash, and Flash Override. There was a structured decision matrix, routinely ignored by those who had the ability, to decide which level was appropriate. From Priority through Flash, the system would look for an open path to the other end, and if one didn't exist it would preempt someone else, starting with the lowest precedence in use. Flash Override was ruthless. The switch took the most direct route, preempting any lower precedence in its path. Open lines via alternate routing weren't considered. War Story: the general was on the phone and got cut off. He handed the receiver to his communication contoller (me) and said "find out who cut me off." So I did what he could have, i.e., hung up and waited. Ring. Ring. Answer. "This is the Command Center with a Missile Display Conference." Told general, who very sheepishly left me alone the rest of the night. Mike Riddle, Capt (USAF, Ret), and ex-CCO on the Looking Glass <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> riddle@hoss.unl.edu | Nebraska Inns of Court ivgate!inns!postmaster@uunet.uu.net | +1 402 593 1192 Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet | 3/12/24/9600/8N1/V.32/V.42bis ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jul 91 21:41:48 -0500 Subject: Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext From: Mike Riddle In comp.dcom.telecom TELECOM Moderator writes: [ much deleted ] > Although Judge Greene had originally ruled against the BOC's, he was > directed by the Appeals Court to reverse himself and permit the > telephone companies to enter this new area. [ more deleted ] > We'll never see the Bell System again ... but maybe some of the damage > of the past few years can be undone if the good news this week is any > indicator of things to come. A couple of years (or more) ago, AT&T had a "write us what you think" about similar questions. Well, I did. I essentially said what you did: Judge Greene made bad law and worse telephone policy and that the ideal solution was to put Humpty-Dumpty together again. Within limits, and with proper supervision, the concept of "natural monopoly" still rings true. Unfortunately, too many regulators forget what their job is supposed to be. You'll get many flames, I imagine, so I wanted to let you know someone agrees with you. (And by the way, I'm a local regulator for cable-TV, not that we have much to do these days. It comes from being on the city council. :-) Mike <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> riddle@hoss.unl.edu | Nebraska Inns of Court ivgate!inns!postmaster@uunet.uu.net | +1 402 593 1192 Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet | 3/12/24/9600/8N1/V.32/V.42bis ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 01:07 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext TELECOM Moderator writes: > The big (and good!) telecom news this past week was that the Baby > Bells are now free to begin offering audiotext services; i.e. 900 and > 976 style programs. A spokesperson for Illinois Bell said the company > will begin offerings of this sort as soon as technical changes have > been made which will permit them to do so and when some last minute > marketing studies have been completed which they hope will indicate > the best direction to take in this new endeavor. That this is good news is in the ear of the hearer. As it now stands, independent providers have offered audiotext services, subject to restriction upon restriction, mainly imposed by the very telcos that are now rejoicing in the decision that allows them to compete in this arena. Pac*Bell for one capriciously disconnects or reclassifies 976 and 900 providers who "violate" various non-specific company standards. Frequently PB will back down when pressed for details and specifications (because there are usually none), but now with competition at stake, the company will be much more aggressive at disconnecting its competitiors. And given Pac*Bell's track record in such matters, I wonder how many of the current audiotext providers are now going to suffer financially detrimental outages of "unknown" origin that will drive them out of business. I ask you, would you really want your competitor to also be your supplier? > Here's hoping that between their efforts in Appeals > Court and the federal legislature they succeed in repairing much of > what at one time was the world's greatest phone network. It still is. Why is it inferior? COCOTs do not count, as they have nothing to do with the network. Since divestiture I have noticed improvements in telephone service that have come to pass at a rate that far surpasses progress realized in "The Bell System". Long distance is faster, better, and cheaper than at any time that Ma Bell was in charge. Yes, you can get screwed at hotels and other places, but again this has nothing to do with divestiture -- it has to do with poor regulatory control, and even more importantly, consumer ignorance. In fact, virtually every item you can name as a liability of divestiture is probably related more to public attitude and disinterest than to anything else. At least now if you are getting screwed you can go somewhere else. Before divestiture you took what you got. Now the only place you CANNOT go somewhere else is with the product provided by the RBOCs: local exchange service. But even local service has improved. Pac*Bell, for one, is MUCH more responsive in its repair department, is MUCH more responsive it its marketing department, and provides overall MUCH more satisfactory service than it did as Pacific Telephone. > We'll never see the Bell System again ... but maybe some of the damage > of the past few years can be undone if the good news this week is any > indicator of things to come. Thank heaven we will never see the Bell System again. I remember that even admitting in public that you knew what 'originating register', MF, 'frames', or even 'cable pairs' meant was risking trouble. While today, I routinely discuss CO equipment with Pac*Bell personel, in the Bell System days, NO one was to know anything about that sort of thing. And why should they? Mother just took care of us, providing all that was needed for telephone service. Is this what you want to see us return to? Pac*Bell and the RBOCs are just drueling at the possibility of being able to control it all once again. And how many times must it be said: when you control the network, you have a completely unfair advantage over all the other players? And when they are gone, what is to stop you from playing the game anyway you like (such as in the old days)? And PLEASE (said in a Roger Rabbit style) do not fall for that tired old line of how great and wonderful these services will be if the RBOC wizards are allowed to shower their super-advanced technology on the people. Where was all this power and technology when it was the Bell System? While independent companies were trying (under the Carterphone decision) to sell the public electronic PBXes, Pacific Telephone was still offering cord boards (and very mechanical PBXes). If it were not for divesture, this message upon completion, could very likely be sent out at the breathtaking speed of 300 bps. Remember, the only technical advantages that the RBOCs enjoy over ordinary mortals arise out of the fact that they own the network. They buy their technology from the same suppliers as the rest of us (Western Electric is no longer a factor), and I think that the Moderator or anyone else would be hard pressed to cite a single significant technical advancement in the last ten years to come from an RBOC, rather then from the industry at large. If RBOCs want to run local monopolies, they should not be allowed to branch out in all of these other directions. They should not provide long distance, terminal equipment, information services (as originators), voice mail and answering services, or any other content or content processing aspects of communications--except on one condition. That condition is that the local monopolies be opened up to all competitiors. If, as a hypothetical information provider, I am forced to compete with my exchange service provider and carrier, I believe I should have the option to go elsewhere for that service if it becomes necessary. As long as the RBOCs can keep everyone off their LEC turf, they should not be allow to run roughshod over everyone else's. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Denis Guyon Subject: Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1991 21:18:56 GMT > [Moderator's Note: IBT has since modified the hours the phones will > operate coinless to be 7:30 PM to 4:00 AM I believe. PAT] Even so, this still constitutes a form of discrimination against the less economically fortunate of our society, who not only are forced to live in the affected areas, but also are forced to take off shift jobs that result in them coming home at all hours of the day or night. Class-action law suit time. ++number_of_ways_stupid_drug_war_has_screwed_law_abiding_citizens; Phil Howard -- KA9WGN -- phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ From: Denis Guyon Subject: Re: Larry King Gets What He Deserves Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1991 20:55:49 GMT djcl@bnw.delray.fl.us (Dave Leibold) writes: > John Higdon writes: >> Is Larry King on so tight a budget that he uses this scam (of letting >> lines ring for 30 minutes until the call is ready to air)? The vast >> majority of national talk shows use an 800 number, put the calls on >> hold, and just chalk up the cost as a necessary business expense. > As for 800, a talk show in Canada some years back said they didn't go > to an 800 number because they claimed that the phone company would get > overloaded with calls, and that more meaningful results happened if > people had a financial stake in what they were about to say over the > air. If it is that important to say or ask, pay for the call. I bet the proportion of crank calls goes way up when 800 is used. Of course the locals get free or very low cost calls. It might be nice if they could make ALL calls get billed the same no matter where they came from (maybe using 900 service?), though I don't know this is a particular problem. > Rogers Cable in Toronto had a practice of taking phone numbers of > callers to their talk shows. Just before a caller was to go on air, > Rogers would phone the caller back, and they would be on air shortly > thereafter. That was nice. Try giving them a number in Hawaii and see if they call back. Being as it was local I bet they figured it was low enough cost to do that. It would certainly serve to cut down on the crank calls, because they know what number you are at. But it won't help for anonimity regarding controversial topics. Phil Howard -- KA9WGN -- phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 01:22 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Toll Saver Feature On Jul 27 at 18:00, TELECOM Moderator writes: > I think eventually in the next few years it (and Larry King's gimmick of > letting it ring until he is ready to talk) will cause the telcos to > tariff a 'call attempt' surcharge pf a penny or two for each minute or > fraction thereof of unanswered ringing which will be waived on calls > answered within, say, one minute. PAT] I, for one, am damned sick and tired of being nickeled and dimed to death for every single move I make. How about a "dial tone charge" for the fact that you utilized some switch service for simply taking your phone off the hook? How about a "busy signal charge"; after all, information was conveyed about the status of the line and certainly facilities were utilized. Or how about a "mis-dialed charge", an "abandoned call charge", a per-use "call waiting charge", a per-phone "ringing current charge" for wear and tear on ring current generators, a "bandwidth utilization charge" based on your voice requirements, or, as some have even suggested before, a "data rate charge" based on the type of modem you use. Call attempt charges have one interesting side effect. They are an incentive for the telco to NOT improve its successful call completion statisitics. The telco would be paid twice: once for the unsuccessful call and again for the completed one. I think you will find in any situation where call attempts are billed, successful call completion is the pits. Example: PacTel Cellular in Los Angeles. Three attempts is typical to complete a call. And you get billed for each and every one. Bad idea, Pat. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: You may recall a number (maybe thirty?) years ago, GTE operating companies had a 'report charge' of 75 cents on international person-to-person calls which did not go through if you wished to find out from the operator WHY it did not go through and WHEN you would be able to reach your party (should the other end have provided that information to your operator). PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #578 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id ab05681; 28 Jul 91 16:27 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11576; 28 Jul 91 14:53 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02915; 28 Jul 91 13:46 CDT Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 13:19:08 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #579 BCC: Message-ID: <9107281319.ab06005@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 28 Jul 91 13:19:01 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 579 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: How Can I Obtain Cell Site Maps? [Denis Guyon] Re: Sprint Puts it in Writing [Patton M. Turner] Re: Calling Myself / Call Return [Roy M. Silvernail] Re: No Handshake Modem [John Higdon] New CRTC Report: Summary of Their "Viewer Mail" [David Leibold] Interesting Bronx Findings [David Leibold] Area Code 510 and Splits in General [Steve Forrette] Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! [Aaron Anderer] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Denis Guyon Subject: Re: How Can I Obtain Cell Site Maps? Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1991 21:24:01 GMT djcl@bnw.delray.fl.us (Not Leon D Zetekoff) writes: > If Cell One doesn't want to talk (it may depend on who you're getting; > is there a way you can talk yourself through to their engineering > department?) Try this tack to get to engineering: claim you are a salesman for a company that sells transmitter spectrum analyzers or interfere rejection systems or something. This should at least get you out of the customer service office. I've applied this technique on cable TV companies and it works. Phil Howard -- KA9WGN -- phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 02:48:04 CDT From: "Patton M. Turner" Subject: Re: Sprint Puts it in Writing Jiro Nakamura writes in issue 576: > I recently decided to cancel my AT&T card after having had the > Universal card for half a year now, so I phone AT&T and told them I > wanted to cancel my card. They took my number, then the operator says > in amazement "your card's already been cancelled", I said "Huh? I never > cancelled it" and she said "Yup, it was cancelled November 1990, we > last sent you a bill in Sept 1990 which came back address incomplete." I've had two FON cards for several years now. (One for business calls and one for personel calls.) I got the FON card because AT&T wouldn't let me get a phone card without a phone number. (I didn't want it associated with my apartment phone number since I move out in the summer.) The FON cards were billed to the same account and the bill was mailed to my "business" PO Box in Alex City. I was very pleased with their service, and so one fall designated them as my 1+ carrier when I moved back into my apartment. I gave my school (Auburn, AL) address, and phone number, so there was no reason to connect me with my FON cards. After this I got no more bills from U S Sprint. A month or two later I called Sprint,and asked them what was going on. The operator informed me my both accounts were still separate but both bills were being sent to Auburn, Hawaii. She could understand my Auburn bill being sent there but couldn't explain how that affected my other account. Anyway she corrected the mistake and the new bill came in, minus any late fee, in a few days. I was very pleased with the customer service personel, and how quickly they fixed the problem. I was never put on hold, as one reader complained. I should note I didn't push the issue with AT&T, they stated they had to bill to a phone number so I thanked them and called Sprint. BTW A few years ago I was running some fiber in MCI duct work. MCI had a splicer on hand in case we cut their fiber that was already in the duct. One afternoon I needed to make a call to arrange for some additional equipment, and so I started looking for a phone. The fiber splicer said I was welcome to use his cell phone. When I pulled out my FON card I got some really funny looks. I ended up having to getting an MCI card also. Pat Turner KB4GRZ pturner@eng.auburn.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Calling Myself / Call Return From: "Roy M. Silvernail" Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 02:20:16 CDT Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN hpubvwa!tad@ssc.wa.com (Tad Cook) writes: > Ringback tone is not synched with ringing voltage in modern digital > offices. The 5ESS that serves my home is the same way. The ringback > tone is completely separate from the ringing voltage. When the called > number is determined to be non-busy, the caller is connected to > ringback tone, and that tone source may be at the silent interval. > Ringing voltage is put on the line immediately, which is why on > digital offices like the GTD5 and 5ESS you can startle callers about > half the time by answering the phone during the first ring. They will > swear that the phone never rang. This feature used to annoy several of my friends in Anchorage. My answering machine would answer on the second ring if there were pending messages. Nine times out of ten though, the CO would hand off ringing voltage before the calling party would hear ringback. Thus my machine would appear to answer on the first ring. One person, who almost always called from a pay phone, was especially distressed at losing quarter after quarter when I wasn't home (or screening my calls). I haven't noticed a similar situation here in Minneapolis, but then, I'm not using my own answering machine anymore, and it's hard to predict just when my roommate's Taiwan WonderPhone will answer. Roy M. Silvernail |+| roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu [Moderator's Note: Generally if you hang up *instantly* when you hear the line being answered -- within a second or so -- you will still get your money back. But wait two or three seconds, then it is lost. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 01:55 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: No Handshake Modem On Jul 27 at 19:14, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: Whole Earth is the WELL, is it not? Have you > discussed this with folks there? Is it possible this one unit is > defective? They are generally good about making things right for > customers with problems, or so I have been told. PAT] I do not believe that the Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link in Sausalito is affiliated in any way with the Whole Earth Access department store chain in the Bay Area. Whole Earth Access sells computers, cameras, tools, and other household goods. You have to understand that 'Whole Earth' is a chic name to use in this neck of the woods -- very politically correct. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Well, a few years ago I received a very nice large book from the Quality Paperback Book Club entitled 'Whole Earth' (something?) and I think it was a catalog from that chain of stores you mentioned ... but there was a discussion in it of the 'Whole Earth Lectronic Link' ... and for whatever reason in my own mind I put the two entities together as one. I do not have the book any longer to go back and review what I read. This is going to drive me crazy all afternoon looking for that book! Who did I give it to? Grrrr... PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: New CRTC Report: Summary of Their "Viewer Mail" From: David Leibold Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 01:43:35 EDT Organization: Brave New World, Delray Beach, FL, USA The CRTC (Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission) has released a new report entitled "Te^te a` Te^te", a report on Comments, Inquiries and Complaints made to the CRTC in the areas of Broadcasting and Telecommunications. This is something of a spinoff from a section of their last year's annual report. Included are appendices giving a summary of how to file a complaint with the CRTC whether in broadcasting or telecommunications. For copies of the report, contact CRTC Information Services, Ottawa, Canada, K1A 0N2 or call a CRTC office such as (819) 997.0313 or (416) 973.CRTC. ------------------------------ Subject: Interesting Bronx Findings From: David Leibold Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 01:49:54 EDT Organization: Brave New World, Delray Beach, FL, USA Some time ago, the situation of Bronx changing from 212 area code to 718 was mentioned (while the 917 area would be used for cellular and pager numbers). Interestingly enough, I took a list of prefixes in 212 and 718, and checked out what would happen if the 212 Bronx numbers were to join 718. It seems that there would only be two conflicts in prefixes, namely 740 and 999 (there are some common prefixes such as 555 and 976 which don't count). As this was data collected from late last year, there may be a few more conflicting prefixes, or New York Telephone decided to keep Bronx prefixes from conflicting with 718 in case they had to move Bronx onto 718. There seem to be only 77 prefixes serving Bronx in any case, again from information compiled late last year; perhaps enough for 718 to easily absorb if the proposed 212/718/917 split is done as was suggested. replies: dleibold@attmail.com also:::: djcl@bnw.debe.fl.us seems to work now (!) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 02:05:10 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Area Code 510 and Splits in General I just did some experiments in trying to call area code 510 (to be split from 415 in a couple of months). I found that Pacific Bell (calling from 916/983) didn't recognize this, and intercepted call attempts before handing off to the IXC. The Sprint FONcard system accepted 510, and put the call through to the (now-in-415) number. MCI VisaPhone rejected it, and the AT&T operator wouldn't even try the number, since she "knew" that a number of the format X10 just couldn't be an area code. (I can't try the AT&T calling card computer, as Pacific Bell rejects it at my local switch). Here's a general question about area code splits in general: What happens to LEC calling cards that are based on your phone number? Will there be a specific time when the calling card number changes from 415 to 510, or will both versions of the card work during the grace period? Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu [Moderator's Note: In the case of the 312/708 split a few years ago, people in 708 got new cards issued to them in phases during the grace period. Generally they got one card each from AT&T and IBT. They were able to start using them when they got them, and following the grace period only the 708 version of the card would work. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Aaron Anderer Subject: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! Organization: Spies in the wire, (408) 867-7400 Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1991 21:22:32 -0700 [Moderator's Admonition: **BEFORE YOU READ ANY FURTHER** : I have not tried this (yet, but I may some day soon when I have some time.) I do not vouch for the instructions given, and although I want to hear of your successes (and particularly your failures before I start the project!), I do not want anyone saying TELECOM Digest or the Moderator said this scheme would work. Like caveat emptor, but this time it is 'let the hardware hobbyist beware'. Now with that in mind, let's get out our old junked up modems we don't mind sacrificing; and get over to the local electronics outlet before they close for the day. Good luck and please *do* report your results! PAT] ----------------- I recently saw this on a BBS and though it was interesting. Do you think it would work? ************************************************************************* How to upgrade your 2400 baud modem to 9600 baud. (US Robotics compatible of course) 06/7/91 Be sure to turn off your modem before you begin. First of all, you need to go to your nearby electronics store, don't try to go to Radio Shack, their parts have their own model numbers and you'll have a hell of a time getting the parts you need. This upgrading of your modem will not work on old Hayes modems, but they will work on any clone maker of modems (Everex, Practical Peripherals, Anchor, ATI, Intel, etc.) It will only work with modems with the Intel chipset. This technique widens the band width by using a different chip that is similiar to the chip already in your modem. Parts Needed: 16550 UART L4313545 IC SC11020CN IC L8730183 IC First of all, check to see if your biggest chips are soldered or socketed. if they are soldered, you'll have to de-solder the chips before you begin. After you get that done, replace the 8250 UART with the 16550 UART. (16550 UARTs are required for 9600+ speeds). The other one or two chip(s) are needed to replaced with INTEL L4313545 instead of the chip that is already there. If your modem has another socket or more, than you are in luck, you can purchase a chip from US Robotics, and make your modem faster than 9600. If you don't have the socket, than you can only go 9600. I'll get the chip number to you in the next edition and explain how and where to install it. I am working on a way for the people (like me) that do not have the extra socket in their modem to speed up the rates. I am working on a way to piggy back the chip. I'll get back to you. There should be a 22 pin chip on your modem also with a model number of SC11005CN or some where close to it. Replace it with the SC11020CN. Also, replace the L8630173 with the L8730183 chip. If you have any suggestions or questions, you can locate me through Compuserve USER ID 74702,97524. *****OPTIONAL, LAP-M Error correction***** Adding error correction is rather simple. For this these parts are necessary: Potentiometer. This is a 5k audio taper variable resistor. Capacitor. Any non-polarized 1.0 to 1.5 uf cap should do. 100 ohm resistor - quarter or half watt. Wire Solder, soldering iron, etc. Solder one end of the capacitor to PIN 1 of the phone line input jack |-------------------| | \ line in :: | \ phone in :: |-----------||||||||| pin 1^ If your modem is external, the diagram looks like this. |------------------| | /| | ||RS-232 port | \| :: | |-|line in :: | |-| pin 1^ | |-|phone in | |-| |------------------| This should be on the back of the modem. Pin one should the farthest on the bottom left. Solder the other end of the capacitor to the center lug of the potentiometer (there are three lugs on this critter). Solder one end of the resistor to the PIN 4 of the line input jack. Solder the other end of the resistor to either one of the remaining outside lugs of the potentiometer. Doesn't matter which one. ------------- ADDITION TO ORIGNAL FILE - 6/15/91 First, a personal recomendation. _THIS WORKS!!!_ I have been plagued with 2400 baud for some time. I hate waiting for the transfer to finish so that i can use the phone. Threw the gismo together in about 10 or 15 minutes, took another five to adjust the pot for best results on my worst conection, and guess what? No more slow connections! ------------- Have Fun! I am working on cheap ways to install V.32/V.42bis on your modified modem *************************Updated, 6/16/91******************************** Installing V.42bis: 1) You will need to purchase a 27C512 ROM chip. 2) You will need to purchase a Sony CXK58257P-12L (or equivalent) Ram chip. 3) Install the Rom in the Supervisor (SUP) socket. 4) Install the Ram in the Ram socket. 5) Make up two 3 pin jumpers for P9 and P10 with pins 1 and 2 jumpered on one and pins 2 and 3 jumpered on the other. Connect the vacant pin 1 on the one to the vacant pin 3 on the other with a jumper wire. 6) Remove the jumpers on P9 and P10. 7) Install the jumper with pins 1 and 2 connected together on P9. 8) Connect the jumper with pins 2 and 3 connected together on P10. Aaron Anderer bbs.aaron_a@Spies.COM (Aaron Anderer) [Moderator's Parting Shot: Well, if this works, I'll accept happy notes from any of you who try it, and I imagine Mr. Anderer will also want to hear from you. If it fails and you ruin a perfectly good modem or otherwise blow out your computer/terminal in the process, remember my original warning. Novices: try it with old junk stuff first that you don't mind losing. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #579 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02110; 29 Jul 91 2:38 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28351; 29 Jul 91 1:04 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14043; 28 Jul 91 23:55 CDT Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 23:47:36 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #580 BCC: Message-ID: <9107282347.ab24226@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 28 Jul 91 23:47:29 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 580 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! [Dave Mc Mahan] Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! [Stuart L. Labovitz] Re: 900 MHz Cordless Phones? [David Lemson] Re: 900 MHz Cordless Phones [Tad Cook] Re: Sprint Price Change [Stan Young] Re: No Handshake Modem [Stan Young] Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext [Gordon Burditt] Re: Freedom! AT&T Reports the Good News [Al Donaldson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Mc Mahan Subject: Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 23:30:03 GMT Organization: Dave McMahan @ NetCom Services In a previous article, bbs.aaron_a@doomsday.spies.com (Aaron Anderer) writes: > > [Moderator's Admonition: **BEFORE YOU READ ANY FURTHER** : I have > not tried this (yet, but I may some day soon when I have some time.) Sounds too good to be true, so it probably is. > I recently saw this on a BBS and though it was interesting. Do you > think it would work? I think if you knew exactly what you were doing and what to look for, it might just work. For the rest of us mere mortals, it looks like a good way to trash a modem. > ADDITION TO ORIGNAL FILE - 6/15/91 > First, a personal recomendation. _THIS WORKS!!!_ I have been plagued > with 2400 baud for some time. Can we get some names and addresses on these personal observations? Not to be totally skeptical, but this looks like those dumb bulk mail chain letters that try to sell me soap. They have all sorts of glowing testimonials from "Ken - River City, IA" or "Mr. & Mrs. D.L. Smith - New York City". Can you imagine trying to ever locate these folks if they ever did exist in the first place? Can we get a name, address, and phone number of the guy that originally wrote this? > Installing V.42bis: > 1) You will need to purchase a 27C512 ROM chip. Great!!! Got any idea what we should burn into the old ROM set, or will just any old random bit combination work? Please don't tell me that this newsgroup is advocating the copying of an existing modem ROM chip, this scabbing software and breaking all kinds of federal, state, local, and moral laws? Can we get an address for where to buy this chip from or a commented source code listing that we can assemble? (We need comments and source because we are trying to ensure we do a legal job here and not just download some pirated modem ROM code.) [ Bunches of jumper modifications deleted here ] This probably does work if you have the exact modem that the original guy used (whoever he is) and the same revision of PC board. Don't you think they might have a few versions of this PC board floating around, and some may not work? > [Moderator's Parting Shot: Well, if this works, I'll accept happy > notes from any of you who try it, and I imagine Mr. Anderer will also > want to hear from you. If it fails and you ruin a perfectly good modem > or otherwise blow out your computer/terminal in the process, remember > my original warning. Novices: try it with old junk stuff first that > you don't mind losing. PAT] This sounds like excellent advice, PAT. Thanks for at least adding your own caveats to the posting. Dave McMahan mcmahan@netcom.com {apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!mcmahan ------------------------------ Subject: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! From: Stuart L Labovitz Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 19:12:05 EDT bbs.aaron_a@doomsday.spies.com (Aaron Anderer) writes: > I recently saw this on a BBS and though it was interesting. Do you > think it would work? > How to upgrade your 2400 baud modem to 9600 baud. > (US Robotics compatible of course) > 06/7/91 > Be sure to turn off your modem before you begin. [...] > [Moderator's Parting Shot: Well, if this works, I'll accept happy > notes from any of you who try it, and I imagine Mr. Anderer will also > want to hear from you. If it fails and you ruin a perfectly good modem > or otherwise blow out your computer/terminal in the process, remember > my original warning. Novices: try it with old junk stuff first that > you don't mind losing. PAT] Well, Pat, since you asked, here is a message from Toby Nixon (of Hayes) concerning this procedure (excerpted from a recent comp.dcom. modems posting) ... ] From: tnixon@hayes.uucp ] Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems ] Subject: Re: yellow/black in phone line needed for LAP-M? ] Message-ID: <4079.288d57dc@hayes.uucp> ] Date: 24 Jul 91 10:35:08 GMT ] References: ] Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA ] In article , clemon@lemsys.UUCP (Craig Lemon) writes: ] > I have a question to present to the experts here from the Amiga ] > world (not the magazine silly :-). There has been a "hack" posted to an ] > FTP site that supposedly describes "How to hack your 2400 to a USR ] > compatible 9600". This file is simply a description of adding LAP-M to ] > your existing V.22bis modem. As I understand it there are some crucial ] > portions missing (like what to program the microcontroller with!). ] That file is bogus. Ignore it. All it describes is a perfect good ] way to destroy your modem and have to buy a new one. Even the ] "authors" "Compuserve" address is bogus -- Compuserve addresses are ] octal, and the "address" given contains digits higher than 7. ] 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 | BBS +1-404-446-6336 AT&T !tnixon ] Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon Fido 1:114/15 ] (Views expressed are personal only)| Internet tnixon%hayes@uunet.uu.net Well, draw your own conclusions, but I tend to trust Toby Nixon.... Stuart L Labovitz home: stu@valinor.mythical.com (insert standard or dayvb!valinor!stu disclaimer here) [ formerly: stu%valinor.uucp@dayton.saic.com ] work: slabovit@blackbird.afit.af.mil [Moderator's Note: Toby's comment about Compuserve addresses was a GOOD observation I missed. I'll take his word on it also. As our other correspondent in this issue mentioned, if everything worked out just right, it *might* be possible to get to 9600 baud. I am not at all sure I would risk it. Does anyone remember the hack many years ago which converted the Hayes Micromodem II so it would run 450 baud or 300 baud? A simple jumper change was all that was needed, although you lost 110 baud in the process, but who cared about that. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Lemson Subject: Re: 900 MHz Cordless Phones? Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1991 19:15:31 GMT jjd@bbn.com (James J Dempsey) writes: > I remember reading about some new cordless phone in Popular Science a > few months ago which claimed to have better audio quality, better > security and better range as a result of using a newly-FCC approved > frequency of around 900MHz instead of the 49MHz cordless phones You probably read about the developments in Spread Spectrum digital transmission and the spread spectrum range that is in the 900 MHz band in between current cellular freqs. This is a digital transmission scheme that has great security (it's not a coincidence that it was developed by the US military years ago), but relatively high cost. Several companies have been producing radio modems utilizing this technology, including the LAWN, which basically is a fairly short range 9600 bps modem. You can attach it to your serial port, attach another to a printer, and have a wireless LAN. The problem with making phones that use this is that it's still fairly costly for the circuitry that digitizes, processes, etc. as well as having range that people are used to with cordless phones. (You need higher power at that high frequency) For more information on spread spectrum, check out books such as Korkosz' Spread Spectrum Communications. Expect to see it in the next few years, though, as batteries get lighter and the technology is improved. David Lemson University of Illinois Computing Services Consultant Internet : lemson@uiuc.edu UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson NeXTMail : lemson@tequila.cso.uiuc.edu BITNET : LEMSON@UIUCVMD ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 900 MHz Cordless Phones From: Tad Cook Date: 28 Jul 91 21:52:28 GMT James J Dempsey writes: > I remember reading about some new cordless phone in Popular Science a > few months ago which claimed to have better audio quality, better > security and better range as a result of using a newly-FCC approved > frequency of around 900MHz instead of the 49MHz cordless phones > currently use. However, I haven't seen anything like this in the > stores. > Does anyone know what the story is on this new frequency and when > (if?) we will see phones that use it on store shelves? I'm pretty sure I saw a new cordless headset type phone in a recent issue of the Hello Direct catalog that was supposed to operate around the 33 cm band. It showed an executive sitting in his fancy office with this large headphone contraption on his head. I think the antenna was supposed to be in the headband. I'm not sure if this was spread spectrum or not. I wonder if it has a problems working around those new wireless LANs that use the same spectrum? You can get a Hello Direct catalog by dialing 800-HI-HELLO (800-444-3556). For those outside of the USA (not sure where they are legal), you can call directory assistance. I think they are in San Jose, CA (area code 408). Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP or, kt7h@polari.uucp or, 3288544@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: syoung%pecanpi.UUCP@mathcs.emory.edu Subject: Re: Sprint Price Change Date: Sun Jul 28 19:10:24 1991 Reply-To: syoung@pecanpi.UUCP (Stan Young) Organization: Pecan Pi, Doraville, Georgia After reading about the Sprint changing the rates, I decided it was time for me to check rates again. So I took a fairly typical bill, and called Sprint, MCI, and AT&T. I gave each carrier the same information (destinations, minutes per destination, number of calls to each destination, and time of day) and asked them for the cost of the calls under their best plan for my calling pattern. In a matter of a minute or so, the Sprint salesperson had analyzed the calls, and proposed a plan, and told me what the calls would cost (with applicable discounts, etc.) The MCI salesperson did the same. Then I called AT&T. Now, I should mention that I used to work for AT&T around the time of divestiture. It was almost like old times :-(. I gave the "salesperson", Ms. X, the same information as the other carriers. She tells me that I need the Reachout America plan. I asked how much calls would cost under the plan. She told me it would be "35% off." (I may have the percentage wrong.) "Off what?" I asked. "35% off." "How much would the calls I made be under this plan?" "35% off." This was the same sort of thing that I got the LAST time I'd called AT&T to check rates. So I did what anyone who's dealt with AT&T for any length of time would do - I asked for a supervisor. SHE REFUSED TO PASS THE CALL ON TO THE SUPERVISOR! So I hung up, called back, got another salesperson, asked for a supervisor, and explained the whole problem - what I wanted, and the behaviour of Ms. X She had to call an operator to get the rates (!), but she was able to get the information to me quickly, with the standard apologies about Ms. X's performance. I've had problems with Sprint over the years, and problems with MCI, but they've always been system problems. Every problem I've run into with AT&T since the breakup seems to be people problems. I've NOT ONCE been able to get anything done without talking to a supervisor. Years after divestiture, AT&T still has a ways to go ... Stan Young {emory, slammer}!pecanpi!syoung ------------------------------ From: syoung%pecanpi.UUCP@mathcs.emory.edu Subject: Re: No Handshake Modem Date: Sun Jul 28 19:12:45 1991 Reply-To: syoung@pecanpi.UUCP (Stan Young) Organization: Pecan Pi, Doraville, Georgia In article decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well! rsl (Roy Stuart Levin) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 574, Message 13 of 16 > I have a friend with a modem (cheapo from Whole Earth) that dials out > on com2, makes a ring, but can't make the final handshake and > connection. CIS, The Well, and my own phone at home hear the ring but > can't make the handshake. Any ideas? Could it be the modem itself? > She disconnected call forwarding and waiting. A suggestion -- if the modem has two RJ-11 jacks, make sure that the phone line is plugged into the one marked WALL or LINE, not the one marked PHONE. Failure to make this connection correctly can lead to exactly the symptoms you describe. (Some modems work with either jack, but I've run into the problem a LOT over the years.) Stan Young {emory, slammer}!pecanpi!syoung ------------------------------ From: Gordon Burditt Subject: Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext Date: 28 Jul 91 23:07:16 GMT Organization: Gordon Burditt > The big (and good!) telecom news this past week was that the Baby > Bells are now free to begin offering audiotext services; i.e. 900 and > 976 style programs. A spokesperson for Illinois Bell said the company > will begin offerings of this sort as soon as technical changes have > been made which will permit them to do so and when some last minute > marketing studies have been completed which they hope will indicate > the best direction to take in this new endeavor. Is this ruling limited to the scummy/scammy audio services, or is it now open season on private BBSs and modem users, who will be shut down with business rates, modem-specific tariffs, and specially-engineered line impairments that don't affect voice, so the RBOCs can get rid of the free competition before they launch their own modem-based online services? Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon [Moderator's Note: In the case of Illinois Bell at least, they have never expressed any real interest one way or the other regarding local BBS programs here. They did get annoyed with Doctor Ripco, but that was about all. Anyway, BBS' are no real competition; the telco services will be so much more involved, with many more offerings than a BBS operator could ever provide without a huge budget. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Al Donaldson Subject: Re: Freedom! AT&T Reports the Good News Reply-To: Al Donaldson Organization: ESCOM Corp., Oakton VA (USA) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1991 15:43:42 GMT In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu writes: > AT&T's announcement from the company's internal News Briefs describing > their victory in Harold Greene's courtroom: Does Judge Greene have an exclusive franchise for making judgments on the telecom industry? Why was he involved, again, and not one of his peers? Even in Class A baseball, you don't get the same umpires for every game. Al [Moderator's Note: Beginning back in the late 1970's when Greene had some personal animosity for one reason or another toward AT&T he made it known to aquaintances in the Justice Department he also knew to be anti-Bell that he would gladly entertain them in his courtroom. Somehow over the years his role as self-proclaimed expert on telephony has come to be accepted and cases involving the telcos 'just manage' to get routed to him. I think AT&T should have handled him the same way IBM dealt with the federal judiciary in the threat against their organization: IBM flooded the court with so much paper to read (it literally arrived by the truckload daily at the clerk's office) that some law clerks may still be sorting through it for all I know. :) According to my former neighbor and former Chairman of AT&T Charles Brown, they only decided to give up the fight when it became obvious Justice and Judge Greene would have kept at it for years if necessary, until AT&T was bankrupted in the process of defending themselves. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #580 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id ab06466; 29 Jul 91 4:49 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31369; 29 Jul 91 3:12 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad26749; 29 Jul 91 2:05 CDT Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 1:09:06 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #581 BCC: Message-ID: <9107290109.ab29760@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 29 Jul 91 01:09:00 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 581 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Toll Saver Feature [John Higdon] Re: C&P: Some CLASS Services Enabled by Default [Bill Berbenich] Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! [Marc Unangst] Re: New GTE Dallas Directory Fun [Steve Forrette] Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas [Peter da Silva] Pac*Bell and ISDN [John Higdon] PacTel Cellular in Atlanta [Bill Berbenich] Need Help With Billing Record Format [Rick Farris] Book Review: SIGNAL - Communications Tools [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 13:38 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Toll Saver Feature Telecom Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: You may recall a number (maybe thirty?) years ago, > GTE operating companies had a 'report charge' of 75 cents on > international person-to-person calls which did not go through if you > wished to find out from the operator WHY it did not go through and > WHEN you would be able to reach your party (should the other end have > provided that information to your operator). PAT] Yes I remember that. In fact I thought something similar went on today, even on domestic calls. Shows how much I make person=to=person calls. But that sort of thing is right and proper. On P-to-P, an operator is in control of the call and can determine how and why the call did not complete. Information about the availability of the called party is useful data and far more that the sort of thing obtained by a simple non-answer of the phone. All a person learns with toll saver is that he has no messages. Telephony tradition in this country holds that if a person has no messages, he does not pay. If your telephone rings and you choose to NOT communicate by NOT answering it, should you be charged as well? Where is the distinction between that and toll saver? Another point to consider: many OCCs still do not have hardware answer supervision. It is possible to have an answering machine without toll saver answer, indicate no messages, and disconnect all without being billed, since the "supervision time out" was not exceeded. What do you think about that? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: bill@gauss.eedsp.gatech.edu Subject: Re: C&P: Some CLASS Services Enabled by Default Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 21:09:41 EDT Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Southern Bell in the Atlanta area has a per-call version of three-way calling available. Just dial *71 or 1171 before you dial the first phone number. Once the first party is on the line, it's just like always, flash the switchhook, dial the second (third) party, flash again and you are all three connected. I believe the charge is 75 cents per use. I have used this occasionally. It has been around for at least five years in my area. CLASS services are not permissive like this where I am (yet?). Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: Marc Unangst Subject: Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! Organization: The Programmer's Pit Stop Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1991 22:13:41 GMT In article bbs.aaron_a@doomsday. spies.com (Aaron Anderer) writes: [how-to file deleted] DON'T DO THIS!!!! I repeat, DON'T DO THIS, except on a modem and computer you don't mind breaking! This article is complete and total bullshit, Pat, and I'm surprised you posted it without even giving it a cursory once-over. That's all you need to spot that it won't work -- for example, what could V.42 possibly have to do with the yellow/black wires on your phone line and a potentiometer? The "V.42 modification" is nothing more than a simple noise filter. I'm not at all sure what the "V.32 modification" is, but I can tell you that it won't give you real V.32. All you'll do is ruin your modem. In addition, the "CompuServe address" that the "author" gives is obviously bogus -- it has the wrong number of digits, and CompuServe addresses are octal; his address has a "9" in it. I wouldn't trust this guy farther than I can throw him. Marc Unangst mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us ...!hela!mudos!mju [Moderator's Note: Well I did give it its fifteen seconds of consideration, like I do all messages here. How do you suppose I came to write the disclaimer message? I know my readers here well enough to know that if the modification would not work, the truth would be out in circulation within an issue or two later ... it always works that way here. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 21:07:06 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: New GTE Dallas Directory Fun In-Reply-To: Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article Linc Madison writes: > I was recently in Dallas, visiting my parents and attending my high > school reunion. While there, I chanced to glance through a bit of the > GTE phone book which had recently been delivered. A few noteworthy > bits of trivia: > ... [it lists] an] explanation of features like cancel call > waiting (70#, or 70 from rotary), with no mention > of the fact that the feature may not be available on your phone. (My > parents have CW but not CCW; 70# gives fast busy. This is from 214-466). Cancel call waiting probably WAS available from your parents' switch. But GTE, in their infinite wisdom, considers it a separate feature from call waiting! That's right, you have to pay several dollars extra a month if you want it. Isn't it interesting that virtually the only people that use it are modem users? It's kind of a disguised modem surcharge, no? Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1991 04:21:12 GMT I still don't know why you can't call 800 numbers from outside the US when you're willing to pay for the call. It seems strange that there is no mechanism for just dialling +1 800 nnx xxxx and paying regular international long distance rates... Peter da Silva Taronga Park BBS +1 713 568 0480 2400/n/8/1 Taronga Park ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 15:28 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Pac*Bell and ISDN An example of an LEC's beneficence in matters of technology can be found in the current and proposed offerings of ISDN in Pac*Bell land. If you had plans for using ISDN at home as an efficient conduit for telecommuting, forget it. There is a two-line minimum. You might as well order a second POTS. The D channel is not available. Usage pricing (for customer data) is such that you really are money and time ahead to simply use a second analog line. So why is Pac*Bell even bothering to offer ISDN? Simply so that it can have another bauble to offer with Centrex. It is targeted to the small and medium sized business (the two line minimum) that wants to have feature phones with Centrex. Five-line electronic phones sporting Centrex extensions are a snap. Since Centrex service is the only area that Pac*Bell sees any use for ISDN (at least as far as its own interests are concerned), its tariffs are set up accordingly. Other vendors, suppliers, service providers, or VARs that could make use of ISDN for customers are just out of luck. Pricing and availability are carefully manipulated by Pac*Bell so that it alone benefits from the technology. And people want to give companies such as Pac*Bell MORE freedom to control services? No thanks. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: bill@gauss.eedsp.gatech.edu Subject: PacTel Cellular in Atlanta Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 20:55:42 EDT Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Well, just when I began to think that all was rosy in my dealings with PacTel here in Atlanta, they go and start to screw up. While I never doubted Mr. Higdon's problems with said organization, I thought their Atlanta cellular operation was somehow a twin son of a different mother. So here's the news. I just got a mass-mailed form letter from PacTel Cellular stating that they will no longer be offering their corporate rates (real good 'n cheap rates, at that) to new customers. Further investigation reveals that even grandfathered customers will only be able to maintain the corporate rate on their existing accounts. The letter said that the change would become effective July 1, 1991. Guess when I got the letter? No fair peeking! I got it on July 26. Bah humbug! This follows rather closely on the heels of PacTel Cellular's announcement that effective August 1, peak hours will become 7 A.M. (maybe 8) to 10 P.M. weekdays. Peak hours were 7 or 8 A.M. to 7 or 8 P.M., I don't recall which. I assume that PacTel is just matching Bell South's peak/off-peak hours which have been in effect for over a year now. Also, PacTel says they have a number of new rate plans in effect. I haven't asked about these new plans, but I would guess that they are more expensive since PacTel is eliminating their LEAST expensive rate plans for new subscribers (i.e. the corporate rates). In all fairness, PacTel Cellular has excellent coverage here in metro Atlanta and I am a very satisfied customer. I don't think there is a rate plan anywhere else in the U.S. where I can get all of the custom calling features and voicemail for $20/month and 0.32/0.22 per minute (peak/off-peak, respectively). Unanswered and busy calls are not billed and neither are forwarded (busy/no-answer/or unconditional) calls. I have never been charged airtime locally for activating or deactivating any feature. I won't be dropping PacTel as a result of this, but then again I am being grandfathered in under the old corporate rate plan described above. Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: Rick Farris Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 17:46:41 PDT Subject: Need Help With Billing Record Format Organization: RF Engineering, Del Mar, California Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 00:46:34 GMT After seeing an article here on comp.dcom.telecom about getting your AT&T bill on computer disk, I called PacBell to see what services they had available. Lo and behold, but PacBell just started their "Custom Billing Disk" program, where for a $100 setup fee and $15 a disk, you can have your phone bill delivered on disk each month, with both PacBell and long-distance carrier information. Unfortunately, the billing disk itself is unreadable by MS-DOS (and tar and cpio), and you have to use a program they supply to generate reports. Their reports are better than a paper bill, but they don't serve all my needs, so I'd like to do my own database scavenging. The access program they provide claims that it is supplied to PacBell by "Pereline Data Systems". Does anyone know what the format of the billing records are? Here's my progress so far: 41 Starts each record 6192596793 My phone number \0x02 ? 01 Record Number 01 910614 Date of call -- 6/14/91 102439 Time of call -- 10:24:39 \0x14 decimal 20 - 10ths of a minute? (2 minute call) DD Dial Day 6192596793 My phone number again BAKERSFLD C Almost every record has this ref to Bakersfld 6192988881 Number called SAN DIEGO CA \0x23 decimal 35, $0.35 for call 0 ZZZZZZZZ I don't know whether this is a marker or rubout 00000 6192596793 And finally my phone number again. Does this ring any bells? Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 rfarris@rfengr.com ...!ucsd!serene!rfarris serenity bbs 259-7757 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 0:53:50 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Book Review: SIGNAL - Communications Tools For Information Age I found the book I thought I had lost! To recap to date: A writer discussed a modem which performed badly. He said it came from the 'Whole Earth' people. He was writing to us from the WELL. I responded saying I thought the WELL (Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link) was affiliated with 'Whole Earth', the maker/distributor/seller of the modem in question ... and had he asked on line for assistance. John Higdon replied saying 'Whole Earth' was a poliically correct term in common use in California, and that likely there was no affiliation. This got me to thinking, and I knew I had seen a reference to the WELL in a catalog of some sort published by some 'Whole Earth' organization on the west coast. But alas, my books are forever disappearing as people borrow them and forget to return them and I forget who borrowed them, etc ... After a search, *it* has been located: Ta - la ! And Higdon was probably correct. I see no mention of modems or computer equipment (for sale) in the catalog, but there is a lot of real interesting stuff which makes the book worth a mention in the Digest. Here is how the cover reads of this large (226 page, 11x14 inch paper back) book: "A Whole Earth Catalog" SIGNAL: Communications Tools For the Information Age Edited by Kevin Kelly, Forward by Stewart Brand Copyright 1988 by the Point Foundation, and published by Harmony Books, a division of Crown Publishers. The paperback edition was distributed by Quality Paperback Books. They give their address for comments and to subscribe to their other publications as: Whole Earth Review 27 Gate Five Road Sausalito, CA 94965 Phone: 415-332-1716 The book is filled with numerous commentaries about communications tools available, and ways/places to order same. Included in the products offered are books, magazines, software and various hardware products including copy machines, fax machines, etc. One section of the book discusses BBS programs, and the use of BBS' as a way to disseminate news and editorial comment quickly. In the section dealing with computer online resources, we find on page 73 a full page discussion of The WELL. I quote from comments written by John Coate, described in the caption to the picture of him included in the article as 'on line party host and Welcome Wagon Chairman': "I work at the WELL, Whole Earth's online computer conferencing network. The WELL itself sits in an air-conditioned closet at the Whole Earth office. A bunch of phone lines come into the building. There's a modem for each phone line ..." And his discussion continues for a few paragraphs then we read: "WELL is the collaborative brainchild of Whole Earth's Stewart Brand and Larry Brilliant, best known for his work with the SEVA Foundation and head of Network Technologies (NETI). Whole Earth and NETI each own half of the WELL." He concludes by noting that 'the telephone company makes more money on the WELL than we do', and he gives advice for signing up with the service by calling 415-332-6106 with your modem and entering 'newuser' at the login prompt. Overall, SIGNAL is a very unusual and very interesting catalog. I think you would enjoy reading it. It covers all sorts of topics relating to communications tools and provides references to numerous other publications of interest to telecom professionals. Your best bet for ordering it would be direct from the Whole Earth people in Sausalito, CA at the address shown above if you cannot find it at your local bookstore. The phone number to call for more information about their products or to order a catalog is 415-332-1716. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #581 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17766; 29 Jul 91 23:14 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23823; 29 Jul 91 21:30 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16944; 29 Jul 91 20:20 CDT Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 19:55:26 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #582 BCC: Message-ID: <9107291955.ab02230@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 29 Jul 91 19:55:20 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 582 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! [Douglas Mason] Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! [Mike Andrews] Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! [Mike Berger] Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! [Colin Plumb] In the Early Days: 450 Baud [Ed Greenberg] Re: No Handshake Modem [Jeff Carroll] Racel-Milgo, INS Modem Equipment Information Needed [Steve Urich] Re: International 800 Calling [Frederick G. M. Roeber] Re: Telco Sends OCC Calls to AT&T [John R. Levine] Re: ATC Billing [Macy Hallock] Re: Why Carry New AT&T Card When Old One Still Works? [Steve Forrette] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Douglas Mason Subject: Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 05:58:20 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services UNIX System In article mcmahan@netcom.com (Dave Mc Mahan) writes: >> Installing V.42bis: >> 1) You will need to purchase a 27C512 ROM chip. > Great!!! Got any idea what we should burn into the old ROM set, or > will just any old random bit combination work? Please don't tell me > that this newsgroup is advocating the copying of an existing modem ROM > chip, this scabbing software and breaking all kinds of federal, state, > local, and moral laws? Can we get an address for where to buy this > chip from or a commented source code listing that we can assemble? > (We need comments and source because we are trying to ensure we do a > legal job here and not just download some pirated modem ROM code.) About six or eight months ago I saw a file on a BBS that supposedly was the code to US Robotics ROM set. It said something like "Burn your own chip and make your own v.42 modem!". I was going to download the file to see if it was for real, but I had told the sysop that the file appeared to be anything but legal, and he deleted it before I could get it. :-) I would venture to guess that the archive file with the ROM code in it probably had the instructions simular to the ones we saw with it, so it was a complete "kit" to pirate your own USRobotics modem. Douglas Mason douglas@netcom.COM Software Development and Support douglas@netcom.UUCP Freestone, Inc. - Redwood City, CA 94063 +1 415.368.0191 ------------------------------ From: Mike Andrews Subject: Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! Organization: Chinet - Chicago public access UNIX Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1991 04:43:50 GMT In article bbs.aaron_a@doomsday. spies.com (Aaron Anderer) writes: > How to upgrade your 2400 baud modem to 9600 baud. > (US Robotics compatible of course) Pat! How could you not recognize this as another BBS legend? Let's just apply a bit of Occam's Razor: if it is so easy to change a U.S. Robotics 2400 modem into a 9600 V.32bis one, howcum it took USR themselves over a year of intensive R&D to bring one out? And there they were making do with the Rockwell chip set when they just could have used an "Intel" chip? (I worked as a tech support rep for USR at the time the V.32 came out. Take my word for it. The 9600 modems are completely different creatures than the 2400s.) The "LAP-M" mod described is nothing more than a common phone line noise filter. This article reminds me of similar nonsense from my youth: Did you know that you could convert a Black and White TV to Color by just replacing the picture tube? That you can make a 250' wireless phone into a handheld cellular by just changing the antenna? ------------------------------ From: Mike Berger Subject: Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1991 17:36:16 GMT mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes: > In addition, the "CompuServe address" that the "author" gives > is obviously bogus -- it has the wrong number of digits, and > CompuServe addresses are octal; his address has a "9" in it. I > wouldn't trust this guy farther than I can throw him. Uhhh. the giveaway to me was that you were supposed to plug in a blank EPROM. Just what was that supposed to do? Mike Berger Department of Statistics, University of Illinois AT&TNET 217-244-6067 Internet berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ From: Colin Plumb Subject: Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1991 12:28:16 -0400 Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA Ask Toby Nixon (tnixon@hayes.com) for his opinion. He recently said in comp.dcom.modems that the posted instructions (I assume these are the same ones that have been floating around BBS's lately) were a good way to render a modem inoperational. Of course, if it worked, I don't suppose Hayes would be terribly pleased, but Toby is an engineering type and is unlikely to be quite that forthright about trashing the competition. Colin [Moderator's Note: As a matter of fact, some comments by Toby appeared in the Digest Sunday night responding to this scheme. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 09:41 PDT From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: In The Early Days: 450 Baud I remember running 450 baud on a Hayes Smartmodem (the original) without any changes. Just send it AT at 450 baud and off you go. The other end has to be set up to receive it though, and it, in my case, it was. It was Jim Ayres BBS in Mill Valley, and the year was 1983. 450 baud seemed fast :-) [Moderator's Note: I had a Hayes Micromodem II attached to an Apple II-Plus on which I ran my BBS "Lakeshore Modem Magazine" (1983-85). I had to cut a trace and add a jumper as I recall to get 450, but I then offered it as an option to 300 for callers who also had made the mod. The Apple II running the BBS at the library (1981-85) was also using a Micromodem II, but I never converted that one, so it stayed at 110/300. Those were the days! And when 1200 baud started becoming common at a cheap price, we were in ecstasy! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: No Handshake Modem Date: 29 Jul 91 21:26:27 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics In article decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well! rsl (Roy Stuart Levin) writes: >> I have a friend with a modem (cheapo from Whole Earth) that dials out >> on com2, makes a ring, but can't make the final handshake and >> connection. CIS, The Well, and my own phone at home hear the ring but >> can't make the handshake. Any ideas? Could it be the modem itself? >> She disconnected call forwarding and waiting. Check to make sure your El Cheapo is supposed to be Bell 212 compatible. Europe is heavily populated with perfectly good modems that can't handshake with ours at the lower baud rates. I have a modem at home that will not handshake with certain machines, but I'm almost positive that that has to do with misalignment in a CO in Seattle, or overloading of the subscriber lines, such that the answering modem can't detect my carrier. Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com [Moderator's Note: The new topic spawned by the original comment quoted above (who is Whole Earth, the WELL, etc) has generated many replies of its own, and an issue of the Digest later tonight will include several of them. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 6:44:34 EDT From: Steve Urich Subject: Racel-Milgo, INS Modem Equipement Information Needed Organization: Beyonet Network Greetings, I posted this twice on comp.decom.modems and only got a reply on some other equip. that I had included. I deleted that from this post and still need info for the rest of the equip. Thanks a bunch for helping. I am interested in information for the following equipment: Racel-Milgo Com-Link III Model# 4404-85A and 4404-85C INS (From Mobile Alabama) SNA/SDLC Loop Adapter Can I get the phone numbers for these companies? Any information is much appreciated. I would like to get in touch with these companies and get more written information on the specified equipment. Please reply via E-mail, and thank you. Steve Urich WB3FTP wells!beyonet!beyo@dsinc.dsi.com ------------------------------ From: roeber@cithe1.cithep.caltech.edu Subject: Re: International 800 Calling Date: 28 Jul 91 08:17:44 PST In article , rhyre@cinoss1.att.com (Ralph W. Hyre) writes: > Few of the posts I have seen on this topic express the desire for the > company to pay for the international portion of the call; the callers > are just potential customers trying to contact the company. My Citibank credit card statements now say "605-335-2222 Call Collect" instead of the 800 number. In fact, their new cards now have both numbers, with the 605 noted "Outside the U.S. only Call Collect." So there are companies willing to extend the free customer service calls to overseas customers. Of course, calling collect from Switzerland requires *booking* the call. 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 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Telco Sends OCC Calls to AT&T Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 28 Jul 91 00:34:24 EDT (Sun) From: "John R. Levine" In article you write: > [Moderator's Note: I do not believe small independent telcos are > required to observe equal access to long distance carriers. I believe > that rule applies to the Bell companies only (and maybe GTE). PAT] Independent telcos will eventually have to offer equal access. Some already do -- I believe that Rochester Tel, for example, does. GTE does also, in their usual half-assed way. My cousin at the small telco in western Vermont (the one with the Party Line Attack Ladies) is not too thrilled about equal access because it will be quite expensive for him. For many years, he handed all toll calls to New England Tel who in turn passed the out-of-state ones to AT&T. A year or two ago AT&T installed dedicated trunks to him from their center in Manchester NH, even though his call volume is small, apparently because NET was charging so much to forward the calls. It's easy to program his switches to separate AT&T calls from NET calls, since that depends on the dialed number, not the number of the caller, but per-subscriber routing would require expensive upgrades. His routing tables are pretty small -- he told me that AT&T insisted that he block obviously invalid numbers where the prefix after the area code starts with 0 or 1, and it made his routing tables almost an order of magnitude bigger. At this point he has no billing agreements with any of the OCCs. I asked what would happen if I called him collect via Sprint, and he said he doesn't think Sprint would know where to send the bill. I keep meaning to try it. One possibility for equal access is the Indiana Switch approach. All of the independent telcos in Indiana have formed their captive LD carrier called Indiana Switch. Switch, in turn, has a single point of presence in the middle of the state to which all of the real LD carriers are attached. This lets the telcos pass all their toll traffic to Switch, which can then either handle it directly for intrastate calls, or else pass it to the subscriber's preferred carrier based on the ANI info passed. This has the major advantage that the telcos' switches need not be upgraded for equal access -- they pass 1+ traffic to Switch the way they used to pass it to AT&T or Indiana Bell, and a single smart CO at Switch handles the equal access. I don't think this allows 10XXX dialing, but it's better than nothing. The last I heard, Vermont Switch looked unlikely due to regulatory and financial problems, but for small and undercapitalized telcos it's an attractive approach. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 22:08 EDT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: ATC Billing Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 722 3053 [Discussion of some OCC billing and charge practices from a hospital underway...] > Having had a very recent experience with ATC while in the hospital I > wonder what their bill will be for a 22 mile 'as-the-crow-flies' call. > Moderator's Note: Many hospitals today are just like a lot of hotel > and motel chains: *everything* has to be a profit center for them. It > is a very shortsighted way of doing business. PAT] Well, I've seen this sentiment expressed here in the past, and I'd like to add my comments: One of the reasons you are subjected to AOS abuse when staying at many hotels/motels/hospitals is very simple: AT&T and the LEC's will not share a piece of the pie with the property unless its a very large customer. At one time, AT&T/BOC's paid a commission on operator assisted calls from a property to the owner. Standard operator assisted rates applied, and were well know. Simple, direct, and satisfactory to all concerned (in most cases). No so today. AT&T and the LEC's will not, under any circumstances, file a tariff giving small/individual properites such an arrangement, despite the fact that they discount their services at the drop of a hat under every other circumstance. If you are Holiday Inns, you can cut a very large deal with AT&T and get this service (which they have in fact done). Not so for the small guy. Answer? Use an AOS. They pay based on a negotiated arrangement. All of this assumes that the property wishes to receive some form of revenue stream from its investment in PBX technology. Most now feel that way ... just to pay a portion of the ongoing costs of maintaining the services. My opinion is that AT&T could deal with this problem in a very straight forward manner if they so choose. Ditto LEC's. Neither seems inclined to do this, though. Sigh. You could always use your AT&T or LEC card. You would pay the same rate for calls placed from your room as you would for a pay phone. Life would be simple again. BTW - Ditto this for COCOT's and AOS's. Regards, Macy M Hallock Jr N8OBG 216.725.4764 macy@fmsystm.uucp macy@fmsystm.ncoast.org [No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you] [Moderator's Note: The original idea behind the commission to the hotel for handling the LD traffic was it was easier to have the hotel handle the billing and collection for 'transients'. After the call was completed, the operator would always call back to quote 'time and charges' so the hotel could write up a billing ticket, etc. And if the hotel guest skipped without paying, the hotel had to cover the charge unless they could show that AT&T failed to quote T&C in a timely manner prior to the guest skipping on them. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 00:05:23 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Why Carry New AT&T Card When Old One Still Works? Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article Andy Sherman writes: > At that time, AT&T will sell verification services to LECs for > Intra-Lata calls billed to AT&T Cards (as it already does for > Intra-Lata calls billed to Universal Cards) and will buy verification > services from the LECs for AT&T calls billed to a LEC card. How much will the verification cost the other carrier? It would seem as if Pacific Bell is banking on making money on this service. They are heavily promoting their card as the only card based on "your own familiar phone number" and that it's the only one you need to call from anywhere, to anywhere. They even depict a person in London making a call from a phone booth, in addition to New York and San Francisco. They also emphasize that it is accepted by virtually every long distance carrier, and imply that you don't need to carry or remember the cards of the long distance carriers, even if you want to use their networks. So, what would the motivation for this be, other than to make a profit on the verification services? Anyone know the exact per-call charges? Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #582 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21012; 30 Jul 91 0:24 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04670; 29 Jul 91 22:36 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23823; 29 Jul 91 21:30 CDT Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 20:48:46 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #583 BCC: Message-ID: <9107292048.ab21092@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 29 Jul 91 20:48:44 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 583 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext [John Higdon] Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext [Macy Hallock] Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext [Bruce Klopfenstein] Re: Freedom! AT&T Reports the Good News [Leland F. Derbenwick] Re: Freedom! AT&T Reports the Good News [Bob Frankston] Information "Big Brother" On His Way [cml@cs.umd.edu] Omniscient AT&T Phone Operators [rec.humor.funny via David Ptasnik] Re: Calling USA Toll Free From Abroad [Rupert Mohr] Address Wanted Please: PC Dialog [Brian Crawford] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 00:41 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext On Jul 28 at 23:47, TELECOM Moderator writes: > Anyway, BBS' are no real competition; the telco > services will be so much more involved, with many more offerings than > a BBS operator could ever provide without a huge budget. PAT] Pat, read what you just wrote. Where is all this money to finance these fabulous services going to come from? The regulated ratepayers, who by and large will have no interest in them? Or will it only come from those who use the services per se? If so, and they cost so much to provide, who could afford to use them? Money does not fall as manna from heaven (at least for businesses that do not have a captive regulated base to dip into.) Of course private BBSes are competition. Why do you think there have been these cases already trying to force them out of existence by SWBT and the like? For the nickels and dimes that would be realized by getting the slightly higher business rates? Private BBSes will be a number one target for destruction when the Bells really gear up for on-line services. And not all 900/976 providers are scam artists. Some happen to provide very satisfied customers with quality service. So when the LECs start gunning for the competition, no one will be safe. But someone please answer the question: where do these bottomless resouces that we keep hearing about in connection with LECs come from? Outer space? God? A printing press in Grandma's basement? You do not get something for nothing. If the telcos are going to provide expensive, elaborate, and "involved" services that ordinary mortals could not dream of offering to the public, where DOES the money come from? Before I hear anymore about how wonderful this all is, I want, nay I demand, an answer to that question. I suggest you check out Material Enterprises (a subsidiary of NYNEX) before you answer. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 23:36 EDT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 722 3053 In article John Higdon writes: > TELECOM Moderator writes: >> The big (and good!) telecom news this past week was that the Baby >> Bells are now free to begin offering audiotext services; i.e. 900 and >> 976 style programs. [deletions...] >> We'll never see the Bell System again ... but maybe some of the damage >> of the past few years can be undone if the good news this week is any >> indicator of things to come. [deletions...] > Pac*Bell and the RBOCs are just drooling at the possibility of being > able to control it all once again. And how many times must it be said: > when you control the network, you have a completely unfair advantage > over all the other players? And when they are gone, what is to stop > you from playing the game anyway you like (such as in the old days)? As a veteran of the early days of interconnect and an ex-telco employee, I have to agree with John's assessment of the situation. The local telco's have proven their willingness to manipulate the system they exert control over for their own gain time and time again. Examples? OK, we'll forget the historical stuff and deal with real situations happening today: Intra-LATA long distance rates: Most always much higher that comparable OCC distance rates. Why? Because they always siphon off the 1+ call when its intra-LATA unless you dial 10XXX first (and then they try of restrict intra-LATA competition thru the state PUC's). No need to discount when most customers dial the way they've been taught over the years with 1+ and you are guaranteed the traffic. Touch tone: The cost of a call is actually reduced when touch tone is used on a modern digital central office ... because facility holding time is reduced. For this you pay a premium? Centrex: Telco services that may allow competition with centrex are intentionally overpriced (DID trunks). AIOD is withdrawn, rather than perfected. Centrex customers are given near residential rates, and in some cases, even lower ... and then the telcos tell us they are cross-subsidizing residential services with business and toll revenue. Also, centrex requires the construction of otherwise unecessary cable and transmission facilities just to get all the additional CO lines out to the customer ... which is then figured into the rate base all of us pay for. Voice Mail: Telcos will not provide call forward no answer service to others, but will provide it for use with their own voice mail systems ... that you pay for month to month to month. Equivalent interconnection and CO access are either unavailable or tarriffed at artificially high rates ... so no one can really compete. SMDI interfaces for centrex voice mail are almost unheard of ... just try and get one. The list goes on ... operator services ... directory services ... billing services ... credit card database access by others ... subsidized rent in telco building for unregulated subsidiaries ... access to business office records by unregulated subsidiaries ... all manipulated to allow the telco to control that market segment by stifling competition. Just try and get access to the telco's billing stuffers they use to tout their "innovation new voice mail services" for your voice mail service. You want to see where this will lead? Just look at some of the tricks pulled by GTE in CA, FLA and OH. I've seen GTE salespeople intentionally arrange tariff violations for centrex customers so they could buy premise telephone equipment from GTE along with their centrex. I've seen GTE give away free directory listings to customers to induce them to buy centrex. All with tacit management approval. GTE is less regulated than the BOC's right now. I have the same probelms with many of the other non-BOC LEC's. Alltel, United and Centel are essentially not bound by most of Judge Greene's rulings, and are working the system to their exclusive advantage. I have also seen deliberate acts of sabatoge of service by telco personnel to demonstrate the inferiority of PBX's installed by other's ...all of which they are very careful to obscure. Sue them? How? They have more lawyers than I do customers. They even designed the legal and regulatory framework they operate under. For every witness I bring in they will bring in ten to say otherwise ... and then stall until I bleed to death ... (pardon the sarcastic note here, but it's true ... I've learned this through bitter experience). I have no problem with the telcos setting up unregulated subsidiaries as long as they are completely at arm's length ... and the telcos allow independant companies the same privileges and access given their subsidiaries. That's what the coming Open Access Architecture was to be about, but the ridiculous tarriffs proposed to the FCC by the BOC's for these services was the end of that dream. That's right. I'm saying competition by the telcos is OK ... but the playing field has to be completely level. No other way will work. Personally, I don't think the telcos will allow true competitive environments to occur. They still think they are entitled to the entire market on their terms. They also appear to be truly frightened of working with others to create enhanced services ... they want to control them. Perhaps they are concerned that their inefficiency and bloated bureaucracies will be revealed to the world if they open the door, even just a crack, to a truly competitive environment. Yes, I am highly opinionated about this matter. That opinion is a result of dealing with the telcos for 20+ years in the business. I also think its a real shame. The telcos are afraid to spend money developing innovative services and advancing the level of services available to their captive customers that only they can provide. Instead they want to go for what they see as a "sure thing" in markets they think they are entitled to control which have little to do with providing switching, access and transmission services. Just when do you think I will be able to do ISDN or frame relay from my home in GTE-land? Not soon! GTE wants to invest more money in competing with the PBX market rather than innovate. They also want to take over the cable TV business while they're at it. I'll now wipe away the little flecks of foam from the corners of my mouth that tend to form when I get started on this topic. Macy M Hallock Jr N8OBG 216.725.4764 macy@fmsystm.uucp macy@fmsystm.ncoast.org [No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you] ------------------------------ From: Bruce Klopfenstein Subject: Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext Date: 29 Jul 91 16:40:46 GMT Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. How can one get a copy of Judge Greene's decision? Bruce C. Klopfenstein | klopfens@andy.bgsu.edu Telecommunications Department | klopfenstein@bgsuopie.bitnet 318 West Hall | klopfens@bgsuvax.UUCP Bowling Green State University | (419) 372-2138; 372-8690 Bowling Green, OH 43403 | fax (419) 372-2300 [Moderator's Note: *Which part* of the MFJ? All of it? You'll have plenty of reading! Or did you want specific references, etc? Would someone please post the address to order copies, along with relevant copying charges. Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 18:58:09 EDT From: Leland F Derbenwick Subject: Re: Freedom! AT&T Reports the Good News Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article , telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > AT&T's announcement from the company's internal News Briefs describing > their victory in Harold Greene's courtroom: I don't think our Moderator read the quoted articles too carefully. > FREEDOM -- Phone lines were cleared Thursday for the seven > regional phone companies to provide electronic information ... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The RBOCs are the winners. AT&T, according to the article, was neutral about this case: > ... Herb Linnen, AT&T spokesman, said the company had never > objected to the Bell companies' entry into the information services > market, provided that they remained excluded from the equipment > manufacturing and long-distance industries. ... The "smart phone" also discussed in the article was going to be offered regardless of whether the RBOCs or other information providers were involved: > Regardless of the legal maneuvering involving the regional > telephone companies, AT&T plans to offer what it calls a Smart > Phone ... > Its about time something went right for AT&T in Greene's courtroom I can second that, but this court decision had essentially nothing to do with AT&T, pro or con. From how it looks to me, and as the quoted articles stated, it really didn't involve us. Speaking strictly for myself, Lee Derbenwick, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Warren, NJ lfd@cbnewsm.ATT.COM or !att!cbnewsm!lfd [Moderator's Note: I do not think AT&T was quite as, uh, neutral as you give them credit for. Although yes, the decision affected the RBOC's, some industry people viewed it as a victory for (what I shall call) the Historic 'Telephone Company'. Yes, the Bell System has been dismembered, but blood still flows thicker than water, and there is much loyalty among executives who worked together for many years and who have a common dislike of 'the outsiders' who have tried to infringe on what they perceive as exclusively telco territory (the business of carrying information over a wire) in recent years. In most cases, a victory for the RBOCs is a victory for AT&T, and vice versa. PAT] ------------------------------ From: frankston!Bob_Frankston@world.std.com Subject: Re: Freedom! AT&T Reports the Good News Date: 29 July 1991 10:19 -0400 My impression is that ATT wasn't necessarily a foe of the breakup having seen more possibilities in escaping from the local regulations that hobble RBOCs than in maintaining the local loop. We'll see what it will be like competing with the companies providing the wires. How does one compete with the RBOC in providing payphone services? (See my previous posting about IMR). Anyone remember the DAA's (Data Access Arrangements?). I've still got a few gathering dust in my basement. These were devices that purported to protect the sacred mysterious network from the evil modems. (Strange, they weren't needed for ATT-provided modems). We'll see what happens when CO-VMS meets PC-based answering machines. Guess who'll win. ------------------------------ Subject: Information "Big Brother" On His Way Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 14:06:49 -0400 From: cml@cs.umd.edu > I always referred to it as the Hollings bill. Apparently, Sen Hollings has introduced several bills that pertain to the phone companies. S-173, as passed by the Senate, is the one about lifting restrictions on manufacturing (modifying the consent decree). US Senate: 202 224 3121 Hollings: 202 224 6121 For text of the bill: Public Info Office of Commerce Committee: 202 224 4115 (They didn't answer when I called.) chris ------------------------------ From: David Ptasnik Subject: Omniscient AT&T Phone Operators Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 10:58:57 PDT Found in rec.humor.funny, for the benefit of those who don't read that group. > Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny > Subject: Omniscient AT&T Phone Operators AT&T phone operators know everything -- they really do. This really happened to me in Salt Lake City, Utah. This being my first trip to the States, I was a bit unfamiliar with the workings of the phone system. So, I see a payphone, put in a quarter and dial the number, let's say 44-41-552-8467 - overseas phone call to the UK. I get the AT&T operator. "You're calling overseas ?" "Yes ... that's right" (OK, so they have digital exchanges here, too) "You know you have to put some money in ?" (How did she know it was a payphone?) So I put in another two quarters - heck, I don't know how much it costs ... "Oh !", she says, "You're from Scotland !" "Erm - yes ... but how did you know ?" "Well, you put in 75c and you need about five dollars for that call." Made my day -- I had a smile on my face all the way to San Francisco. Edited by Brad Templeton. MAIL your jokes (jokes ONLY) to funny@looking.ON.CA Attribute the joke's source if at all possible. A Daemon will auto-reply. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Calling USA Toll Free From Abroad Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 17:59:02 MET DST From: Rupert Mohr Reply-To: Rupert Mohr The service 0130 ( = 800 ) is free for the caller in Germany. There are NO LOCAL CHARGES any more since 1990. addresses: uucp rmohr@infoac.rmi.de IP: 192.33.254.1 cis 72446,415 Fax 49 241 47997-77 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 05:22:27 -0700 From: Brian Crawford Subject: Address Wanted Please: PC Dialog Would someone please forward the address to the company who makes a product called PC Dialog? Thanks. Brian Crawford INTERNET: (current): crawford@enuxha.eas.asu.edu PO Box 804 (permanent): crawford@stjhmc.fidonet.org Tempe, Arizona 85280 FidoNet: 1:114/15.12 USA Amateur: KL7JDQ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #583 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24247; 30 Jul 91 1:29 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14192; 29 Jul 91 23:43 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04670; 29 Jul 91 22:37 CDT Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 21:55:24 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #584 BCC: Message-ID: <9107292155.ab17173@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 29 Jul 91 21:55:18 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 584 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Standards For Digitized Voice Under MS-DOS? [Tom Gray] Re: 900 Mhz Cordless Phone [Tad Cook] Re: Email From Space [Gary Morris] Re: Mismatched 1+ Carrier [Tom Perrine] Re: Plain Old Telephones [Steve Forrette] Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z [Macy Hallock] Re: Comment on German Phone System(s) [Rupert Mohr] Re: 900 MHz Cordless Phones? [Thomas Farmer] Boardwatch Magazine on RBOC Gateways [Peter Marshall] Robot Operators, Voice Response Collect Calls [Eric Weaver] Information Wanted on SITA and ALC Protocol [Jim Williams] Cursor Keys With VT-100 [Frank Stuart] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Gray Subject: Re: Standards For Digitized Voice Under MS-DOS? Date: 29 Jul 91 16:10:42 GMT Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article portal!cup.portal.com!Will@ uunet.uu.net writes: > Can someone tell me about any standards that might exist for digitized > voice on the PC? > Software standards: What are the standard formats for representation > of voice data? How is compression handled? > Hardware standards: Unlike the Mac, the PC seems to be a pretty sorry > platform on which to record and playback the human voice. What > products are available to record and playback voice? Specifically, > I'm looking for those products that do an acceptable job of playing > and recording human voices, at the lowest possible cost. There is a association of manufacturers developing products for voice applications for the PC. They are develping this under the title MVIP bus (Multi-vendor Integration Bus). You can get PC boards today to digitize and compress voice. Natural Microsystems of Natick MA is coordinating the group and mkes a line of boards for voice processing purposes. Tom Gray ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 900 Mhz Cordless Phone From: Tad Cook Date: 29 Jul 91 16:35:37 GMT In a recent issue of Telecom Digest, I wrote: > I'm pretty sure I saw a new cordless headset type phone in a recent > issue of the Hello Direct catalog that was supposed to operate around > the 33 cm band. It showed an executive sitting in his fancy office > with this large headphone contraption on his head. I think the > antenna was supposed to be in the headband. I'm not sure if this was > spread spectrum or not. I talked to the Hello Direct folks today. They said that it in fact does operate at 900 Mhz, but that it is a cordless headset that plugs into an existing phone, not a complete phone. It is called the Cordless Headset, and it sells for $399. They told me that it does not use spread spectrum, although I am not certain if the person I spoke with knew what spread spectrum was. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP or, tad@ssc.UUCP or, kt7h@polari.uucp or, 3288544@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: "Gary Morris @wayward" Subject: Re: Email From Space Reply-To: telesoft!garym@ucsd.edu Organization: TeleSoft, San Diego, CA, USA Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1991 16:23:55 GMT In Dan_Jacobson@att.com writes: > So how 'bout one of you HAMsters post some of those genuine MIR space > station e-mail headers and body to TELECOM. Here's one I received (the date is 0 because they had just gotten the equipment and hadn't set the date/time yet). I had sent a message to Musa the day before asking if they would still be at Mir during STS-37 in April, since we wanted to arrange a Shuttle to Mir amateur radio contact. This is his reply. W5RRR is the Johnson Space Center Amateur Radio Club station. ----------------- *** CONNECTED to U2MIR-1 [Jan-30-91 11:58:30] Logged on to U2MIR's Personal Message System You have mail waiting. Msg # Stat Date Time To From @ BBS Subject 33 P 00/00/00 00:00 W5RRR U2MIR STS-37 20 PR 00/00/00 00:00 U2MIR W5RRR STS-37 Shuttle flight in Apr CMD(B/H/J/K/KM/L/M/R/S/SR/V/?)> r 33 Stat : PR Posted : 00/00/00 00:00 To : W5RRR From : U2MIR @ BBS : BID : Subject: STS-37 WE ARE GOING BE HERE TILL 20 OF MAY, 73 MUSA CMD(B/H/J/K/KM/L/M/R/S/SR/V/?)> -------- Gary Morris Internet: garym@telesoft.com KK6YB UUCP: ucsd!telesoft!garym TeleSoft, San Diego, CA Phone: +1 619-457-2700 ------------------------------ From: Tom Perrine Subject: Re: Mismatched 1+ Carrier Date: 29 Jul 91 19:29:57 GMT Organization: Logicon Inc., San Diego California In article linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) writes: > In article mission!randy@uunet.uu.net > writes: >> When I recently moved from one apartment to another about a mile away, >> GTE set up the service just fine (was I surprised!) except that I >> found out later my 1+ carrier was AT&T even though GTE service, GTE >> repair, and Sprint all said their records showed I was served by >> Sprint. >> How is the 1+ carrier actually determined? > This is old hat for most Digest readers, but in case anyone doesn't > know, you can determine who your 1+ carrier is by dialing 1-700-555-4141. > There's no charge, and you'll hear a recording saying something > analogous to "Thank you for using ." > Similarly, you can find out what 10XXX carriers you can use by dialing > 10XXX-1-700-555-4141. Of course, it would take you rather a long time > to try all 1000 possible codes. Hmmm. I just tried 1-700-555-4141 from our (Rolm) PBX and got a strange (to me) acting intercept. Here is the message: "Your call can not be completed as dialed. please check the number and dial again. 2 A G" Then after a five second pause, I got the same message, without the "2 A G", followed by a *regular* busy signal. Our alleged long distance service is MCI ("Slowest call setup times, Guaranteed!") Using 10XXX-1-700-555-4141 for AT&T got me the correct recording. Is this a PBX configuration problem I should report, or YAMW (Yet Another MCI Weirdness)? Tom Perrine (tep) |Internet: tep@tots.Logicon.COM |Voice: +1 619 597 7221 Logicon - T&TSD | UUCP: sun!suntan!tots!tep | or : +1 619 455 1330 P.O. Box 85158 |GENIE: T.PERRINE | FAX: +1 619 552 0729 San Diego CA 92138 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 23:54:18 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Plain Old Telephones Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article Olin Sibert writes: > I am looking for some Plain Old Telephones. Can anyone here suggest > where I might be able to purchase some? > Specifically, I'm looking for a few Princess model phones, in white > (or, if all else fails, black, but no other colors), with 12-button > touchtone pads, either incandescent or LED dial illumination, and real > bells that go "brrr...ing" instead of "bleat, bleat". Last month, I saw a good selection of the real Western Electric phones at the AT&T Phone Center, of all places. These are the ones that they give you if you want to LEASE a phone from them. They had the standard tone and pulse desk sets, Princess, plus tone and even rotary Trimline units, all in assorted colors. I asked if they were available for purchase, and they are, but this was not encouraged. They were all refurbished models, but looked like new to me. It was really amazing how the AT&T rep tried to steer me away from these. She had a response for each of my questions on this point. Although I did not agree with much of what she had to say, I was impressed at her training and confidence in what she had to say. Her: The new models have a two year warranty, but if you buy one of these older ones, it only has a three month warranty. Me: Yea, but the old ones will never break! Me: The Western Electric model is made in America, where the new AT&T models are made in China or Korea. Her: It doesn't matter where they are made; they all are made to AT&T's stringent Quality Assurance standards. Me: This old model is nice and heavy, feels really sturdy. That one is made of flimsy plastic. Her: Sir, weight does not necessarily mean quality. Me: Yea, but they sure stay on the desk when you stretch the handset cord! Her: Perhaps you would like one of our extended handset cords. We just had to agree to disagree on this point. But, if you're interested in real Western Electric phones from a convenient retail outlet, check out your AT&T Phone Center. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 21:51 EDT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 722 3053 Gordon L. Burditt writes: >> The first two entries in the Fort Worth residential listings are: >> A, M. >> and >> AAARGH, A. A. 309 College St. >> Does anyone think that Aaargh is a real last name? Of course not. I suspect this individual lives in one of the areas around Dallas/Ft Worth served by GTE. The name expresses his experience with GTE quality services, not doubt. This is the natural response to dealing with a GTD-5 CO. Regards and grins from a GTD-5 victim... Macy M Hallock Jr N8OBG 216.725.4764 macy@fmsystm.uucp macy@fmsystm.ncoast.org [No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 17:58:14 MET DST From: Rupert Mohr Reply-To: Rupert Mohr Subject: Re: Comment on German Phone System(s) wnp@iiasa.iiasa.ac.at (Wolf PAUL) writes: > A rather amusing observation on the German telephone system(s): > A recent article in my daily paper pointed out that the German > telephone company, TELEKOM, uses an advertising slogan in West Germany > (the former FRG): > Ruf doch mal an! > ("Just call!", or "Why don't you call!") > Even though TELEKOM has taken over the East German (former GDR) phone > system, they carefully refrain from using that advertising slogan in > East Germany. Every extra call is one too many, as things are now! Of course the Telekom in Germany uses this slogan in East and West. The Telekom Bus (a mobile bureau) has it printed on the side, even when driving in the five news countries. (And by the way: I had no real problems to get through to (for instance) Zwickau. In Zwickau they have ISDN switching now. The lines to Zwickau are still old fashioned.) Rupert addresses: uucp rmohr@infoac.rmi.de IP: 192.33.254.1 cis 72446,415 Fax 49 241 47997-77 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 900 MHz Cordless Phones? From: Thomas Farmer Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 22:10:15 NZD Organization: Orb Systems Unlimited, NZ jjd@bbn.com (James J Dempsey) writes: > I remember reading about some new cordless phone in Popular Science a > few months ago which claimed to have better audio quality, better > security and better range as a result of using a newly-FCC approved > frequency of around 900MHz instead of the 49MHz cordless phones > currently use. However, I haven't seen anything like this in the > stores. I assume this is referring to the CT2 style phone. This is currently being trialled where I live using technology from GPT. Motorola also have products based on CT2. It could also refer to CT3, which is by Ericcson and even better. (IS that spelt correctly?) If you want to read an article I wrote about this, please mail me. sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz aka Thomas Farmer Ph.+64-4-796306 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Jul 91 11:48:03 -0700 From: Peter Marshall Subject: Boardwatch Magazine on RBOC Gateways From {Boardwatch Magazine}, 6/91, p. 8: Ameritech was the ONLY ... (RBOC) to pass entirely on the concept of an ONLINE GATEWAY service. Actually PacBell also bowed out after soem early maneuvring but Ameritech stated flatly that there was no incentive to pay for an online gateway to services that could be dialed directly. Developments since then have proven them quite accurate with all but US West giving up on the faltering gateway concept. Peter Marshall ------------------------------ From: Eric Weaver Subject: Robot Operators, Voice Response Collect Calls Organization: Sony Advanced Video Technology Center Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 18:29:14 GMT Have many people run into this before? It appears that some operator assistance bureaus are using voice-response systems. Is the WHOLE process automated, or do they have a live op at the beginning to keep you from putting a message in the name field? Story: Last night, I was up at KFJC when the programmer on duty was trying to do a telephone interview with a fellow who had to call in collect due to being in jail at Terminal Island (followups to alt.conspiracy on this part ... :-). Somehow he cut the fellow off due to the vagaries of the new phone system wherein the patch's line selector and the desk set and the key system don't like each other. There was much cursing of the phones, the engineers, and things in general. Soon the fellow called back. Out of frustration, Dave (the host) just punched the thing right up on the air and said hello and was greeted with: "This is the CommNet automated operator. You are receiving a collect call from ... <>. To accept, press 2 now," and Dave gave this helpless armwave, having no way to send a DTMF from the phone patch, "or say YES at the tone." He said a short YES and it didn't understand him and repeated the spiel. The second time he said a very carefully enunciated "YESSSS" and it said "Thank you for using CommNet" and put the call thru. By this time, there were four of us standing out in the hallway fretting, and we all exhaled in unison. Eric Weaver Sony Advanced Video Technology Center 677 River Oaks Pkwy, MS 35 Beautiful Industrial San Jose, CA 95134 (408) 944-4904 [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell uses that system also. The caller is told by synthesized voice to dial 11 to place a collect call, or 12 to place a third-party billed call. For collect calls, he is then told to record his name. The called party gets the recording played for him with a request to punch certain buttons, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: JIM WILLIAMS Subject: Information Wanted on SITA and ALC Protocol Organization: University of Nevada, System Computing Services Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1991 23:58:57 GMT Could any of you give me any information on SITA and the ALC protocol. My early info suggests that SITA is a consortium or non-profit organization based in Paris that has provided the equivalent of a VPN for many years for the airline industry. And ALC is sort of a pre-X.25 kind of protocol that is used by SITA. ------------------------------ From: "fstuart@eng.auburn.edu"@ducvax.auburn.edu Subject: Cursor Keys With VT-100 Date: Mon Jul 29 13:39:47 CDT 1991 Organization: Auburn University Engineering I'm writing an aspect script for procomm that uses the cursor down keys. Since I'm emulating a vt100, I looked up the code for cursor down (esc-[-B), and sent it with the TRANSIT command. When I execute the script, all that shows up on the screen is the B and a bad pf key error (esc-# is used for pf keys). Do I have to send the characters at a certain rate or pre- or post- fix some- thing or what? BTW, the machine on the other end is an IBM mainframe. Frank fstuart@eng.auburn.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #584 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26997; 30 Jul 91 2:34 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22402; 30 Jul 91 0:55 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac14192; 29 Jul 91 23:44 CDT Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 23:35:23 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #586 BCC: Message-ID: <9107292335.ab15121@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 29 Jul 91 23:35:10 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 586 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Southern Bell Customer Newsletter [Arnold Robbins] Billing for Transaction Processing (was Toll Saver Feature) [Vance Shipley] Changing Cellular Telcos [Ed Hopper] Bellcore Acronyms - Thanks [Brendan Jones] Re: Book Review: SIGNAL - Communications Tools For Info Age [Jorn Barger] Re: Whole Earth [Ed Greenberg] Re: Whole Earth [Charlie Mingo] Re: Whole Earth [Dave Levenson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: arnold@audiofax.com From: Arnold Robbins Subject: Southern Bell Customer Newsletter Date: 29 Jul 91 14:59:18 GMT Organization: AudioFAX Inc., Atlanta Just got my newest bill from Southern Bell. A number of interesting stories were part of the newsletter this time. There is always a newsletter with several blurbs about different services to buy and things Southern Bell does for the community, and so on. One of the articles is: Georgia's New Area Code Telephone use in Georgia has increased so rapidly -- caused by increased population and the use of services like fax machines and mobile telephones -- that we are running out of telephone numbers. Southern Bell will establish a new area code -- 706 -- in Georgia in May 1992. The territory currently designated by the 404 area code will be split. Customers in the Atlanta Metropolitan local calling area will continue to use the 404 area code. Customers outside the Atlanta Metropolitan toll free calling area will use the 706 area code. The 912 area code [South Georgia -- ADR] will not be affected by this change. We realize the transition to a new area code will take some getting used to. So, between May 3, 1992 and August 2, 1992, you can dial EITHER 706 or 404 to reach numbers in the new area. After August 2, 1992, the use of the 706 area code is required. We are announcing the new area code far in advance to allow customers to plan for the change. And there's a cute little colored map showing the different area codes. ---------- Another article noted: COUNTYWIDE CALLING FOR SOUTHEN BELL CUSTOMERS As required by legislation enacted by the Georgia General Assembly and by order of Georgia Public Service Commission, beginning July 1, 1991, you will be able to make calls within your county free of toll charges. On July 1, calls within your county boundary that were previously long-distance calls are now local calls. Therefore, no itemization or toll charages will appear on your telephone bill for calls within your county. If you currently use the "1" plus 10-digit dialing or "1" plus seven-digit dialing, you should continue that same dialing pattern with the implementation of countywide calling on July 1. In addition, you can obtain a telephone number within your county by dialing 411 for Directory Assistance with applicable charges applying to these calls. ---------- A double sided insert, with two different items on it: SOUTHERN BELL `LINKS UP' GEORGIA WITH TELEPHONE CONNECTION CHARGE DISCOUNT Southern Bell now offers a program to make the connection of telephone service more affordable for low income individuals in Georgia. The program, called Link-Up Georgia, is funded by the Federal Communications Commission and provides eligible individulas with a 50-percent reduction on residential telephone service connection charages. As an added incentive, Southern Bell has offered to waive the remainder of those connctions charges. Hwoever, you may be required to pay a deposit. In order to receive this discount, you must meet the following requirements: -- You must be receiving assistance from Medicaid, or receive food stamps and be listed as head of household, or receive the Senior Citizen's discount from your local gas and/or power company. -- You must not be claimed as a dependant for federal income tax purposes on any other person's federal tax return unless you are over age 60. -- You must be the recipient of the above programs and have the telephone service billed in your name. If you know of someone who might qualify for this discount, please have them contact the Southern Bell business office at 780-2355. ---------- And the other side: SOUTHERN BELL OFFERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Southern Bell now has a program to aid low income individuals who would like to have telephone service but need assistance with the monthly payment. The program, called LifeLine, is funded by the Federal Communications Commission, and Southern Bell. Eligible individuals will receive a $7.00 credit on their monthly local access charges. In order to receive this credit, you must meet the following requirements: -- You must be receiving assistance from Medicaid, or receive food stamps and be listed as head of household, or receive the Senior Citizen's discount from your local gas and/or power company. -- You must have the telephone service billed in your name. If you do not have telephone service and meet the above requirements, you might qualify for Southern Bell's Link-Up Georgia Program. (See reverse side) [Above ---ADR] If you think you or someone you know might qualify for ths program, please contact the Southern Bell business office at 780-2355. Arnold Robbins AudioFAX, Inc. 2000 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: Vance Shipley Subject: Billing for Transaction Processing (was Toll Saver Feature) Organization: Xenitec Consulting Services, Kitchener, ON, CANADA Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1991 15:18:50 GMT In article the Moderator injects: > [Moderator's Note: I think AT&T finally took the attitude 'if you > can't beat them, join them.' The feature is very common and all the > other answering machines had it, etc. I still personally feel that > using a system of coded rings to obtain information without having to > have both ends off-hook (thus having to pay for the call) is fraud. I > think eventually in the next few years it (and Larry King's gimmick of > letting it ring until he is ready to talk) will cause the telcos to > tariff a 'call attempt' surcharge pf a penny or two for each minute or > fraction thereof of unanswered ringing which will be waived on calls > answered within, say, one minute. PAT] This will be a much bigger issue as the ISDN is realized. Transaction processing capabilities will allow information flow without even setting up the call. Already we are seeing more information flowing without charge such as CLID. In the future TCAP messages will be able to pass much information between terminals and switches, this will allow great advances in intelligent networks. Unfortunately we will be bogged down by the traditional impediment to new services in the public network: how do we charge for it? Here's hoping that it doesn't take too long to clear it up and pass it through the regulatory bodies! Vance Shipley vances@xenitec vances@ltg ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances ------------------------------ Subject: Changing Cellular Telcos From: ED HOPPER Date: Mon 29 Jul 91 10:01:26 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, TX - 713-997-7575 In February, 1990, I bought my first cellular phone. As is customary, I ended up with a one year contract with one of the carriers. In this case it was Houston Cellular (the A carrier). I got the "AT&T Corporate" rate of about $0.24 per minute during prime time. The monthly rate, including detail billing and "extended coverage area" (north to Huntsville, East to Beaumont as local calls) was $32.00. All was well and good until I moved to Pearland, a small Houston suburb, 20 miles due south of downtown. It appears that since Pearland was in Brazoria County, it was not included in Houston Cellular's coverage area. They could not legally put towers in this area. In addition, the A carrier that can serve this area hasn't put service up this far north (the Galveston licensee). As I work in the middle of town (Greenway Plaza), this problem was somewhat bearable as I spent a lot of time well within HC's coverage area. I put up with the poor Pearland service for a long time. I could get some service, but it was pretty weak and cut out easily. Finally, about three or four months ago, I called Houston Cellular to (1) Inquire about the expiration of my one year contract and (2) to complain about the poor service in this area. The HC people advised that my one year obligation had been met and that they had "rolled over" my contract to another one year obligation. They also provided the information above. Due to changes in job responsibilities, use of my cellular phone while in the area of my home became more critical. After having three critical calls disrupted due to the coverage problems, I called HC to complain again and to ask about their plans to resolve the problem. They promised me a call back from "engineering" within a couple of days. Several days passed and no callback. I called GTE Mobilenet and spoke to their customer service. They were, of course, happy to talk to me about switching. They DID have the right to cover the Brazoria County area. Additionally, they too had an "AT&T Corporate" rate. Not a big surprise considering that GTE is changing out all cellular switches to AT&T. The AT&T rate with GTE is actually a little better than with HC. Monthly at $25 a month including detail billing, extended coverage area (Lake Charles, La to about 100 miles west of Houston) was also better and they threw in "Mr. Rescue", a roadside auto service outfit. Per minute rate with GTE: $0.23. They told me that HC would break the contract if I complained enough. I spoke to my attorney, a former HC customer, and he advised that such "automatic renewal" contracts are of dubious legal standing and difficult to enforce. HC had given in to him on behalf of several clients who had similar situations (i.e., poor service at their home address). I sent off a certified letter detailing my contacts with HC, their failure to meet their call back committments and my notice of cancellation. I then had GTE reprogram my phone. Service is far better with GTE. A few questions: 1. How do these rates compare with others? 2. Does anyone else have experience with breaking one of these auto-renewal contracts? (for cause) By the way, I was never asked by either cellular carrier to prove my employment by AT&T. No one asked for a business card, ID card, etc. Ed Hopper ------------------------------ Subject: Bellcore Acronyms - Thanks Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 14:13:08 +1000 From: brendan@otc.otca.oz.au Thanks to all those who helped me with the acronym list (I emailed you all - I hope you got my personal thanks). I ended up with three or four variations on some acronyms, but in the context of the diagram in which they were used, I could narrow it down to one definition. Here's the list: BELLCORE ACRONYMS BCR Bell Communications Research FCIF FACS Component Interface Format * (FACS = Facility Assignment and Control System *) LUSI Local User System Interface NMA Network Monitoring and Analysis System RUSI Remote User System Interface SCCS Switching Control Center System * SEAS Signaling Engineering and Administration System * SOP Service Order Processor * SSP Service Switching Point * TOP Transactions-Oriented Protocol * UPL User Program Layer USL User System Language * = belongs to Bellcore Brendan Jones ACSnet: brendan@otc.otca.oz.au R&D Contractor UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!brendan Services R&D Phone: (02)2873128 Fax: (02)2873299 |||| OTC || Snail: GPO Box 7000, Sydney 2001, AUSTRALIA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 09:36:00 CDT From: Jorn Barger Subject: Re: Book Review: SIGNAL - Communications Tools For Information Age Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences I expect you'll get some much better responses than this one, but all those Whole Earth things started out in bed together, I'm sure. The old Whole Earth Catalog of the 1970's had Whole Earth Access as its mail order arm, and they had a storefront, too. Whole Earth Electronics (?) spun off from there at some point, and their "Coevolution Quarterly" became the Whole Earth Review (and they had a WE Software Review in there, too.). The WELL is also their creation, but may be financially independent now. I think they may maintain copyrights on the Whole Earth name: back in their heyday I remember it started turning up all over the place, but I think they put a stop to that. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 09:25 PDT From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Re: Whole Earth The connection between Whole Earth Access, Whole Earth Catalog, Whole Earth Review, and WELL (Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link) and any other Whole Earth things is tenuous at best. Some were built up and spun off, others were licensed names. The WELL doesn't typically provide specialized product support for things bought at Whole Earth Access (a very interesting place to shop for lots of things.) edg ------------------------------ From: Charlie Mingo Date: 29 Jul 91 17:14:21 Subject: Re: Whole Earth In the TELECOM Digest, the Moderator writes: > He concludes by noting that 'the telephone company makes more money on > the WELL than we do', and he gives advice for signing up with the > service by calling 415-332-6106 with your modem and entering 'newuser' > at the login prompt. If you do not live in the Bay Area, a much cheaper way to reach the WELL is to dial your local CompuServe CPN access number. (CPN is CompuServe's own packet switching network.) Enter WELL at the "Host Name:" prompt, and you're off. Cost is $4.50 hour, which is cheaper than most interstate LD. [Moderator's Note: And less expensive still might be using Telenet's PC Pursuit. That comes down to about $1 per hour with a thirty hour and thirty dollar minimum per month. For information on PC Pursuit, call their marketing department at 1-800-TELENET. I don't think PC Pursuit is available from outside the USA, and in any event it would not be very cost effective. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Whole Earth Date: 30 Jul 91 02:48:29 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > You have to understand that 'Whole Earth' is a chic name to use in > this neck of the woods -- very politically correct. In this neck of the woods, there is a health food store in Princeton, NJ, that goes by the name The Whole Earth, but it's been there longer than it was politically correct to say: "politically correct" around here! Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 [Moderator's Note: I did not think it was ever politically correct to refer to the concept of political correctness, or to even acknowledge that such a thing as political correctness existed. I thought that mention of political correctness was only acceptable when the phrase was used by crude and rude individuals such as myself, during our fascist musings in the aliens.from.another.world.talk newsgroup. These days I've been keeping busy offending the sensibilities of artists, and its hard to be as crude all the time as I would like. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #586 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27001; 30 Jul 91 2:34 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22402; 30 Jul 91 0:50 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14192; 29 Jul 91 23:37 CDT Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 22:34:14 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #585 BCC: Message-ID: <9107292234.ab24910@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 29 Jul 91 22:33:55 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 585 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson The Official AT&T Ways to Avoid Phone Fraud [Donald E. Kimberlin] Voicemail Vandalism [Donald E. Kimberlin] "Free" Touchtone and Increased Monopoly (RBOC) Revenue [Mark Seiden] Dual Voice and TDD Answering Machine [Curtis E. Reid] Line Noise Battle [Peter Dachnowicz] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 02:24 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: The Official AT&T Ways to Avoid Phone Fraud For years, telephone security people protested that publishing the methods of phone fraud artists would only make the crooks smarter and harder to catch. However, now it seems that phone number fraud has become so rampant tht AT&T provided a press release with its official pronouncements on how to avoid being personally defrauded. Sad to say, after waiting a week to see if the press would bother, I've not noticed any publication of AT&T's effort. That lack of publication tends to indicate how naieve the press itself is in such matters. Here's the text for readers here who probably care a bit more: "FOR RELEASE MONDAY, JULY 22, 1991 "BASKING RIDGE, N.J. -- Thousands of American consumers are being ripped off every day by telephone con artists who trick them into revealing their calling card numbers or accepting long distance charges. "AT&T is offering tips to consumers on how to avoid becoming a fraud victim. For starters, the company advises customers to be on the lookout for calling card number thieves in public places and to hang up on suspected telephone scam artists. "The annual bill for telephone scams directed at consumers is estimated by industry experts at $1 billion. "Saying the best defense against toll fraud is an educated consumer, AT&T is offering tips on how telephone customers can avoid two principal forms of fraud: Calling card and third-number billing scams. "This telephone toll fraud occurs when someone places an illicit toll call by 1) charging the call to a stolen calling card number, or 2) tricking an innocent victim into accepting the toll charges. Calling Card Fraud "Calling card thieves usually find their victims in busy public places such as bus, train or airline terminals. The victim can be any unsuspecting caller who makes a calling card call from a public phone. "Frequently, card number thieves simply stand close to their victim in order to watch the calling card digits being entered on a touch-tone phone. If a caller verbally provides calling card information to an operator, the thief tries to listen in. "A thief may even use binoculars to scan the nu{bers from the calling card or to watch as the victim punches in the calling card digits on a touch-tone phone. "Some unwary customers receive a call at home from a fraud artist posing as a phone company or law enforcement investigator. The fraud artist requests the customer's calling card number and provides a phony explanation of a supposed toll fraud investigation or problems with the company's database that require investigators to "activate" the customer's calling card number. "Customers should know that no telephone company -- including AT&T, other long distance companies, and local phone companies -- would ever ask a customer for a calling card number or Personal Identification Number (PIN) over the telephone. Phone companies already have that information. "After stealing calling card numbers, the thieves usually find an available public phone from which they sell discounted long-distance calls to locations around the world. Third-Number Billing Fraud "A different toll fraud scam involves what AT&T officials have labeled the "Just Say Yes" scam, in which victims are convinced to accept charges for calls made by someone else. "A thief impersonating an investigator calls the victim at home and asks for the customer's cooperation in a telephone company investigation. The thief always has a plausible explanation, such as a criminal investigation or service disruption problems. "The victim is then asked to "just say yes" when the operator calls them to accept charges for a series of international calls. The impostor reassures the customer that they won't be billed for the calls. In some cases, victims are promised substantial credit or cash payment as an incentive to cooperate. "If the customer is reluctant to cooperate, the imposter may try intimidation by threatening to cut off phone service. Everyone Pays "Every day many innocent consumers become victims of telephone fraud. Customers should always protect the security of their calling card number. Customers should also know they are responsible if they willingly accept third-number charges. "Because many of these charges are costly to collect, long distance companies lose millions of dollars to fraud every year. This drives up the cost of doing business, and as a result, all of the company's customers become victims of this crime. "Telephone toll scam artists do not discriminate. Everyone is a potential victim, from corporate executives at the airport, to salesmen on the road, to teenage shoppers at the mall, to housewives, to home-bound elderly people. Calling Card Fraud Tips "AT&T offers these tips to avoid calling card fraud: o "Make sure no one can see you keying in your calling card number or overhear you reading the nu{ber to the operator. Whenever possible, use a phone that reads your calling card automatically. o "Do not use your telephone calling card as identification for purchases. Use some other identification to avoid sharing your calling card number with a merchant. o "Beware of individuals who call you at home requesting telephone calling card number verification. AT&T and other telephone companies will never ask for your card number over the phone. Your long distance and local phone companies already have that information in their billing records. o "If you suspect that your telephone calling lard has been lost, stolen or otherwise compromised report this immediately to your long distance company. The company will immediately cancel your calling card number and issue you a new card. AT&T customers may dial 1-800-CALL ATT. Third-Number Billing Fraud Tips "Third-number billing fraud often occurs under the guise of an "investigation." AT&T has these tips on third-number billing fraud: o "If you receive a call from anyone claiming to be a phone company or law enforcement investigator asking you to accept charges, simply hang up immediately. o "Telephone companies or law enforcement officials will never call customers and ask them to accept collect or third-party charges as part of an investigation. o "If you suspect you are a victim of third-number billing fraud, you should report this immediately by calling the number for billing inquiries that appears on your phone bill. CONSUMER TIPS "Telephone fraud is growing around the country both in public locations and even in the privacy of your own home. Thieves can steal your calling card number. Con artists may try to trick you into accepting international long distance charges. "AT&T offers the following tips to consumers when calling from public phones: Calling Card Fraud Tips * "Make sure no one can see you keying in your calling card number or overhear you reading the number to the operator. Whenever possible, use a phone that rexds your calling card automatically. * "Do not use your telephone calling card as identification for purchases. * "Beware of individuals who call you at home requesting telephone calling card number verification. AT&T and other telephone companies will never ask for your card number over the phone; they already have that information in their billing records. * "If you suspect that your telephone calling card has been lost, stolen or otherwise compromised report this immediately to your long distance company. The company will immediately cancel your card number and issue you a new card. AT&T customers may dial 1-800-CALL ATT. "AT&T offers these tips for customers who may receive suspicious calls at home from so-called "investigators": Third-Number Billing Fraud Tips * "If you receive a call from anyone claiming to be a phone company or law enforcement investigator asking you to accept charges, simply hang up immeriately. * "Telephone companies or law enforcement officials will never call customers and ask them to accept collect or third-party charges as part of an investigation. * "If you suspect you are a victim of third-number billing fraud, you should report this immediately by calling the number for billing inquiries that appears on your phone bill. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 02:17 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Voicemail Vandalism Petty criminality by wire has now become so rampant in the United States that it's hardly even remarkable any more. Here's a story from for July 22 pointing up how serious the results can be for taxpayer dollars. It's a sad commentary that America by and large has still not found out it must manage its own telecommunications; that the technology spawned from almost eight years of demonopolization isn't stimply consumer appliances one plugs in like a toaster: "UNPLUG -- A prankster who intercepted and rerouted confidential telephone messages from voice mail machines in City Hall [Houston] prompted officials to pull the plug on the phone system. ... The city purchased the high-tech telephone system in 1986 for $28 million. But officials forget to require each worker to use a password that allows only that worker to retrieve or transfer voice messages from their "phone mailboxes," said AT&T spokesman Virgil Wildey. Dallas Times Herald, A20, 7/20. ... As a result, Wildey said, someone who understands the system can transfer messages around, creating chaos. San Francisco Chronicle, A5, 7/20. ------------------------------ From: Mark Seiden Subject: "Free" Touchtone and Increased Monopoly (RBOC) Revenue Date: 29 Jul 91 19:02:44 GMT Organization: Seiden and Associates, Inc, Stamford, CT I've been historically too cheap (as a matter of principle) to pay the extra $2/month/line in perpetuity for a feature that decreases the ne company's costs of switching calls, namely touchtone. (I don't mind the extra time to dial, nor does my modem, and naturally, the physical phones support both interfaces.) (I understand and deplore the concept of a monopoly pricing for value of service rather than cost of service.) I was recently surprised to discover that touch tone had been magically enabled on my previously non-tone lines. Something free from the phone company? naaah... Since I'm not a total dumbass, I called the business office to ask them how much touchtone costs (not to report that they'd given me a free gift) and they told me how it was now FREE, but they had (with PUC approval) just gotten through an increase in the cost of basic service by several dollars per month, and now touchtone was no longer optional (though I could choose not to use it...)! (So much for "Plain Old" Telephone Service). How long before they make pay for call waiting, three way calling, and other services I don't want? How long before the cable company forces me to pay for premium services? (Actually I'm a holdover in other respects ... no cable TV and no microwave ...) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1991 18:03 EST From: "Curtis E. Reid" Subject: Dual Voice and TDD Answering Machine Our college (National Technical Institute for the Deaf) has developed specifications for having a dual voice and TDD answering machine. This answering machine should be able to receive both voice and TDD. As far as I know, no such machine exists. But, NTID went ahead and developed the specifications in the hope a machine exists somewhere. If you know of any brand that will satisfy the following specs, please respond to me at CER2520@RITVAX.isc.rit.edu and we will investigate it. Criteria for answering devices/systems compatibility with the "A T & T System 85" telephone system used at RIT. ALL ANSWERING DEVICES/SYSTEM MUST: 1. Be one line only (two or more lines, machines will not work). 2. Be able to answer System 85 ringing, on campus and off campus (off campus calls ring twice; on campus calls ring once). 3. Be able to answer System 85 intercom rings (three short rings). 4. Be compatible with RJ11C jacks. 5. Be able to release the line (disconnect) upon call completion. In the System 85, either the caller or the callee can disconnect the call, on or off campus. However, sometimes the answering equipment will not "release" a call that has been disconnected by the caller. 6. Each piece of "new" equipment considered must be tested for compatibility before purchase. ALL ANSWERING DEVICES/SYSTEMS MUST MEET THE MINIMUM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: 1. Only dual cassette based answering machine using "C" size audio cassettes shall be used. 2. A standard "G" style handset (round ear and mouth pieces) shall be connected in parallel with the answering machine microphone and speaker to permit easier TDD programming of the outgoing cassette and decoding of a TDD signal from the incoming cassette. 3. The outgoing cassette tape must be able to record and transmit an outgoing message of at least 60 seconds. 4. The incoming cassette tape must be able to record and play back incoming messages for at least 15 minutes. 5. The incoming and outgoing cassette tapes must be able to record and play back TDD tones as specified by the baudot code [the baudot code specifications are in TELECOM archives] and human voice frequencies at least at the minimum performance level required by the RIT telephone system. ------------------------------ From: Peter Dachnowicz Subject: Line Noise Battle Date: 29 Jul 91 23:26:03 GMT Organization: The Graphics BBS (2D,3D,GIF,Animation) +1 908/469-0049 I've been having a quite a war with NJ Bell as of late; hopefully somebody will be able to steer me in the correct direction. First a bit of backround. We have four lines comming into the house. Three of them are used for voice and one for data. When using the data line for v.32 connects there seems to be alot of noise and the modems never connect. When calling at slower speeds (no v.32) the modems are able to connect. Now here's the trick: when plugging the modem into any of the other three voice lines and calling with the modem, using v.32 I can connect fine. The phone company has been here four times now and reports no problem despite the fact I can demonstrate this problem in front of them. They say all the lines are not guaranteed for data quality and its a bonus that the other three can handle the high speeds. They suggest going with a data-quality lines (BTW, what does that entail and at what price? What type of tests can I ask for? I've never seen any printout of their findings despite me asking. Also it seems they only test at the pole and never check at my junction box, at least with any sort of equipment. This is what they say has been done and this is just the repairman's word as I have no way to prove this: Gave me a new pair, respliced my line down to the exchange. Any suggestions? I'm at wit's end. Please address all follow-ups to email as I have a full time job and can't keephead of this group :) Thanks, peterd@graphics.rent.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #585 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29385; 30 Jul 91 3:38 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31595; 30 Jul 91 2:01 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac22402; 30 Jul 91 0:55 CDT Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 0:43:33 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #587 BCC: Message-ID: <9107300043.ab32128@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 30 Jul 91 00:43:20 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 587 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson News From Up North [Jack Decker] Partyline Regrade Persuasion [Jim Redelfs] Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone? [Paul Buder] Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone? [Bud Couch] Re: Pac*Bell and ISDN [Barton F. Bruce] Re: International 800 Calling [Peter da Silva] Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext [Bruce Klopfenstein] Re: 800 ANI for NON-answered Calls? [Bob Yazz] Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! [Chip Rosenthal] Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! [Ken Abrams] Re: Beware of the FON Card Charges [Bob Yazz] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 91 04:11:00 EDT From: Jack Decker Subject: News From Up North The following messages were recently posted in the Fidonet "MDF" (Main Distribution Frame) echomail conference. Since most TELECOM Digest readers probably don't have access to this conference, I thought I'd forward these over and see if they are of interest to anyone. If the Moderator approves and if there is any interest, I may forward some more of these over from time to time (the MDF conference has a pretty low message traffic volume so this probably would not happen very often). [Moderator's Note: Yes, please send them along for review from time to time. Many Digest readers may not realize it, but several copies of each issue do in fact go to Fido sites for reposting on local BBS' connected through Fido ... and of course we do get regular submissions from people who read the Digest on that network also. PAT] All of the following items were originally posted by Bill Boogaart on 23 Jul 91: Subject: Digital Capabilities Canadian business customers now have access to bulk data transfer or desk-top video conferencing as easily as dialling a phone call and without the cost of dedicated facilities, according to Telecom Canada. While the service has been available on a limited basis for the past year, it is now widely available through member companies of Telecom Canada and will be extended cross-border into the U.S. and internationally. Bi-directional public switched dialling to the U.S. is also now available through AT&T. By year end, interconnections with other carriers will follow. Where usage cannot justify dedicated facilities, Telecom Canada's Digital Switched Network (DSN) now provides a cost-effective alternative. DSN can be accessed through Centrex Data, ISDN, and other switched T1-based services. Subject: Bell Canada seeks to extend WATS Bell Canada wants to give its big business customers discounts of more than 50 per cent on U.S. bound phone calls according to the {Toronto Star}. Bell filed with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission on July 10 for permission to extend the coverage area of its Wide Area Telephone Service (WATS) to the U.S. If approved the discounts would come into effect Dec 1, 1991. Under Bell's plan, heavy telephone users, usually large and medium sized companies, would save between 10 and 50 per cent on U.S. directed calls. Subject: New Long Distance Company Several former executives of Rogers Communications Inc. have established a new long distance phone company called VisionTel Communications Inc., according to the Financial Post. As a reseller, VisionTel can begin operations immediately, unlike Unitel Communications Inc., Rogers' subsidiary which is embroiled in hearings before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. VisionTel's founders include chief executive Ted Chislett and president Giorgio Abbondi, both former executives with Rogers Network Services, a subsidiary of Rogers. George Rayner, vice president of network operations, designed Rogers' Cantel Mobile Communications Inc.'s cellular network. Subject: BC Tel After 1-800 Change British Columbia Telephones (BC Tel) has filed with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications to change the way it provides 1-800 service to Canadian customers. The company has applied for rate reductions of 20 per cent to 30 per cent for 1-800 service in Canada and also wants the option to provide this service over regular business lines. In addition, BC Tel wants to change the way service area coverage is defined. Currently zones are based on broad geographical areas. BC Tel would like to see area codes used to designate service areas. The company would also like approval to introduce a new service for smaller customers called 800 ENTRY. Subject: Larry Speakes Joins Nortel Larry Speakes, former official spokesman for U.S. president Ronald Reagan, has joined Northern Telecom Ltd. as vice president, communications, according to the Financial Post. His new responsibilities include advertising, media relations, corporate contributions amd executive speech writing. He served the White House for six years until 1987 when he joined Merrill Lynch & Co. as vice president, communications. He resigned that position in April 1988 after his book, Speaking Out, revealed he had fabricated quotes and attributed them to Reagan. Subject: Rural Modernization Program Ends AGT Limited's Rural Modernization Program (RMP) was completed June 28 within the five year schedule and substantially under budget. The program was initiated in the spring of 1986 with an original budget of $356.7 million. It's estimated final cost is around #320 million. With the completion of this program, AGT is now the first all-private-line network in North America. AGT provides telephone service to the entire Province of Alberta with the exception of the City of Edmonton which is serviced by ED TEL. Via D'Bridge 1:1/211 07/26 22:07 Jack Decker, via 1:120/183@fidonet (royaljok.fidonet.org) Internet: Jack.Decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org UUCPnet: {...}!uunet!mailrus!umich!wsu-cs!royaljok!154!8!Jack.Decker ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 00:11:46 cst From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Partyline Regrade Persuasion Reply-To: ivgate!macnet!jim.redelfs@uunet.uu.net Organization: Macnet Omaha With the availability of sufficient cable facilities, the number of party-line subscribers have dwindled significantly and continues to do so. With the availablility of Local Measured Service, partline service is no longer offered to new subscribers in my area and those current partyline subscribers that MOVE their service are not given partyline service. They are offered measured service (private line) instead. You might find it interesting how the phone company handles "grandfathered" partyline subscribers in the Omaha area. As the number of partylines decrease, there are frequently several "bridged alone" (no partymate) in each Central Office. Perhaps once a year, the business office calls these subscribers and offers them a free regrade to private line service - and offers Local Measured Service which, if the lowest-useage package is chosen, costs LESS than their partyline service. Many choose to regrade but those "bridged alone" subscribers that KEEP their partyline soon find themselves with a NEW partymate! Based on "my" Central Office (outside Omaha - heavily rural), I would estimate that at least HALF of these regrouped subscribers, having been used to virtually private service for quite a while, shortly call the business office and ask to be regraded! I believe there is NO charge for such a regrade. JR Tabby 2.2 MacNetOmaha(402)289-2899 Proud member Omaha SuperNet (1:285/14) ------------------------------ From: Paul Buder Subject: Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone? Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 02:59:15 GMT In article Gabe M Wiener writes: > What applications make use of the ABCD keys? I remember in the mid 70's I found that the electronics to generate the 4th column tones were built into every phone (this was still when all phones were Bell phones). All one had to do was connect a switch over the right two points in the phone. If long distance information was called, free then, and the D key was pressed I would become an information operator! One had to listen for a soft click and say "Can I help you?" or something appropriate to my teen age years. paulb@techbook.COM ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}techbook!paulb Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) Voice: +1 503 646-8257 Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks Paul Buder [Moderator's Note: I really don't think that would work today. Any comments from knowlegeable readers? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bud Couch Subject: Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on my Phone? Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1991 03:55:46 GMT In article Gabe M Wiener writes: > In article Barton.Bruce@camb.com > (Barton F. Bruce) writes: >> Most TT chips 'know' about 1633, and lots of applications make use of >> it. > What applications make use of the ABCD keys? > As I recall, the Autovon keys aren't actually labeled ABCD, or at > least that's what I remember when I saw an Autovon phone on my last > trip through the Smithsonian. It's been over twenty years, but it seems to me that the phones used on the 412L and 417L switches that North Electric (not NorthERN) built for the Air Force in the sixties, _were_ labeled "ABCD". These switches had another "endearing" characteristic; the switches were non-blocking, but the trunk assignments were prioritized. If all trunks were busy, any request from a line with a "higher" line number than active calls resulted in the dropping of the "low" priority trunk call. Guess who had the "higher" line numbers? I often wondered if some grunt someplace lost a fire support request because the general wanted a pizza. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew... standard BS applies ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Pac*Bell and ISDN Date: 29 Jul 91 23:47:35 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. > And people want to give companies such as Pac*Bell MORE freedom to > control services? No thanks. Just hope the alternate dialtone providers have more foresight. Teleport is or is about to be able to offer you alternate phone service in several states, CA included. ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: International 800 Calling Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1991 03:04:26 GMT ED.HOPPER@ehbbs.hou.tx.us (ED HOPPER) writes: > 2. It is an objective (at least, I believe of AT&T) that 800 = Free > Call. [...] They never wanted a customer coming to them and > saying "How come I was charged $8.00 to call 1-800-555-XXXX???". But there's no expectation of "free 800 service" from outside the country. It's not even offered there. So this isn't a problem. > 3. It is AT&T's assumption that the customer (i.e., the recipient of > the 800 number calls) will be smart enough to tailor his advertising > to accomodate the 800 service he is ordering. In other words, don't > advertise a domestic US 800 number in Sweden. Even AT&T hasn't been smart enough to do this! > 1. 800 toll free service, dialable from Sweden is available. The > company our Swedish friend wanted to call didn't choose to buy it. With good reason ... it probably costs a bomb and doesn't buy much in sales per country. For all countries it'd be a different matter, but it'd be outrageously complex compared to just providing +1 800 nnx xxxx. Point two is just parochialism on the part of the long distance companies. Point three is parochialism on the part of the advertisers, including again the long distance companies. Peter da Silva Taronga Park BBS +1 713 568 0480 2400/n/8/1 Taronga Park ------------------------------ From: Bruce Klopfenstein Subject: Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext Date: 30 Jul 91 03:42:20 GMT Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. From article , by bgsuvax!klopfens@ cis.ohio-state.edu (Bruce Klopfenstein): > How can one get a copy of Judge Greene's decision? > [Moderator's Note: *Which part* of the MFJ? All of it? You'll have > plenty of reading! Actually, I meant the 72-page recent decision only (although the rest would make interesting reading). Thanks. Bruce C. Klopfenstein | klopfens@andy.bgsu.edu Telecommunications 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: Bob Yazz Subject: Re: 800 ANI for NON-answered Calls? Date: 30 Jul 1991 04:10:09 GMT When I had an 800 number (1-800-SCUMBAG, and yes, thank-you, I've already changed it) from Telecom USA, I got billed for unanswered and incomplete calls all the time. (They kindly fixed my bill but not, I think, their equipment.) My point is that the company that the original poster called might have been billed for his unanswered calls -- in which case his calling number would have appeared on their bill. Indeed, this opens the possibility of calling the 800 number from a payphone and just leaving it off the hook. (I once heard of someone doing just that to an 800 number whose obnoxious voice mail system promised -- both falsely and endlessly -- that a human would come on the line.) ------------------------------ From: Chip Rosenthal Subject: Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Inc. Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1991 03:45:57 GMT In article dmcmahan@netcom.com (Dave Mc Mahan) writes: >> 1) You will need to purchase a 27C512 ROM chip. > Great!!! Got any idea what we should burn into the old ROM set, or > will just any old random bit combination work? No -- just install it as-is from the factory. I believe it is supposed to be the data source for when the modem is marking. Chip Rosenthal 512-482-8260 Unicom Systems Development ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1991 16:26:59 GMT In article bbs.aaron_a@doomsday. spies.com (Aaron Anderer) writes: > [Moderator's Admonition: **BEFORE YOU READ ANY FURTHER** : I have not > tried this (yet, but I may some day soon when I have some time.) I do > not vouch for the instructions given, and although I want to hear of > your successes (and particularly your failures before I start the > project!), I do not want anyone saying TELECOM Digest or the Moderator Good disclaimer! And very appropriate too. This "article" is probably destined to become another electronic urban legend, right up there with Craig Shergold and the modem tax. This thing has been kicking around on on several major networks for the last two months or so. The consensus seems to be that it is a total hoax. I have heard that it was originally published in the April 1 edition of some magazine. I have yet to hear from anyone who has had the guts to try it. I think that anyone who REALLY knows about the internal workings of a modem would probably get a good laugh out of it which, apparently, was the original purpose. Ken Abrams nstar!pallas!kabra437 Springfield, IL kabra437@athenanet.com (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ From: Bob Yazz Subject: Re: Beware of the FON Card Charges Date: 30 Jul 1991 04:34:04 GMT Sprint operators will also charge you the full operator assisted rate even if you are having trouble completing the call. I was told that consistently by several Sprint operators, including a supervisor. So I don't bother with them anymore. I also find I have a lot less trouble completing calls in the first place with AT&T. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #587 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19961; 30 Jul 91 23:49 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31630; 30 Jul 91 22:15 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16135; 30 Jul 91 21:08 CDT Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 20:11:51 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #588 BCC: Message-ID: <9107302011.ab10046@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 30 Jul 91 20:11:42 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 588 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Pakistan Telephones [Julian Macassey] Afghan Phones [Julian Macassey] Re: Phone Service in the USSR [Tim Irvin] What RBOC Information Services? [Jim McCauley] Re: Whole Earth [Linc Madison] Re: Book Review: SIGNAL - Communications Tools For Info Age [Seth Cohn] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julian Macassey Subject: Pakistan Telephones Date: 30 Jul 91 13:55:03 GMT Reply-To: Julian Macassey Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. Pakistan has a telephone network that seems to be there as proof that you can create a system that doesn't work and then charge people for the priviledge of making call attempts, receiving wrong numbers and shouting to try and be heard. The Pakistan system is a government monopoly, but there is talk of privatising it. The COs vary from cord boards with booked calls between towns in the tribal areas to digital switches with custom calling features in some parts of some cities. The great majority of the phones are rotary. The instruments are either old 500 style sets, locally made, or the more modern instruments are clones of the German desk sets currently made by Siemens and Haganuk in Germany. The phones in Pakistan said "Made in Pakistan" on them, so I assume they are made under license. They come either with a rotary dial or push to pulse pad with the # (Octothorpe) being used for "Last Number Dialed" (LND). According to the phone book, some areas have custom calling features available, but they explain that you need a special instrument -- they must mean Touch Tone as the instructions mention using the * and # keys. Direct long distance dialling is a recent innovation in Pakistan. Also some COs (no doubt the digital ones with custom calling) have direct dial overseas calling. There is no itemised billing. There are no phone booths, public calls are taken care of by people setting up a phone in a store front called a "PCO" (Public Call Office). I never used one of these, as the system worked so poorly, it wasn't worth bothering. Some rural phones use radio links. The COs have forests of horizontal Yagi antennas on them. They connect to rural phones that operate in a similar manner to the old IMTS mobile phone system. The frequencies in use vary between 148.00 and 162.00 Mhz. Obtaining a phone requires "connections". The phone book drones on about how hard it is to install a phone and how it isn't always possible, etc. The usual telco monopoly drivel. But no worry, politicians are given a phone line quota. So they can hand out phone assignments as political favours. The Pakistan Phone company recently increased the quota -- yes, this is all above board and official. The quality of connections is abyssmal. If your call does complete -- maybe 50% just do nothing -- and if the connection is not a wrong number, it may be so noisy and weak that you have to hang up and try again. Do you get credit for poor and wrong connections? Hell no, if you did, they would have to fix the problem or go broke. Calls are always at low levels, even across town. In the same CO, the calls often seem to be poorly terminated. It would appear that they use too few repeaters and then screw the gain too high. The level is always low and often when you pick up a ringing phone it just sings (feed back whistle). The level of crosstalk is fierce. It is not unusual to have three or four conversations on your line. It is also not unusual to have the crosstalk louder than the party you are paying to shout at. The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad (Their nation's capital) has rotary (ITT WECO) 1A2 all over. Works fine around the embassy. But outside calls are like everywhere else, so weak that if someone is talking in the same room, you have to ask them to be quiet so you can hear your call. I offered to ship them all my old rotary 1A2, but they declined. Offices in Pakistan use a locally built PBX. It has three trunks and 20 extenstions. It is rotary only. Simple 0/1 toll restriction is possible. I saw newspaper ads for Siemens PBXs, but I never saw one installed. Most people who need access to more than one line use the Russian solution, rows of single line instruments on one desk. A travel agent in Islamabad had five single line instruments on his desk. Drops to houses and offices are strung across roofs and through trees in a haphazard manner. The U.S. Consulate in Peshawar has its phone lines dangling six feet above the sidewalk -- really secure. The drop wires all seem to be spliced at 20 feet intervals -- maybe the wire is supplied in short lengths. The splices are simple twists and uninsulated. The telco craft types use a locally built butt set. It does not have aligator clips on the wire leads, just bare wire. Connections are either wire wrap or screw terminals. I saw no punch down stuff. In short, this is a system that is unusable. A textbook example of how not to put together a phone network. Seeing as a reliable phone system is essential to commerce, you wonder why they don't fix the phone system. But several U.S. phone companies are interested in buying the Paki phone system. AT&T and some RBOCS have expressed interest according to the Pakistani newspapers. Looking at their outside plant, I would say that any company that buys it would have to rip it all out and start again. Julian Macassey, julian@bongo.info.com N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA 742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice (213) 653-4495 [Moderator's Note: I believe in a message yesterday it was noted the name of the telco there is 'PakTel'. And as Higdon would say, when the Pakistani telco started a subsidiary here in the USA they wanted it to have the same name as the parent company. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Afghan Phones Date: 30 Jul 91 18:49:27 GMT Reply-To: Julian Macassey Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. If you think the phone system is bad in Pakistan, try the Afghan system. They don't have one. I believe the phones in Kabul still work, but as the commies hold Kabul, I didn't go there. Before the Ruskie invasion and uncivil war, there were some stats available on the phone system. Louis Dupree in his book on Afghanistan said the switching equipment was Czech. An Afghan who attended the telecom school there told me the switching equipment was German (Siemens). At best, there were never more than 75,000 lines in Afghanistan. Most of those lines were in Kabul (Their nation's capital). According to a refugee who used to be a ministerial heavy in Kabul, about the only lines going out to the provinces, were the ones going to government offices in provincial towns. What is left today? Outside the recently liberated town of Khost I saw one telephone pole. It did not have any wires attached to it. If you want to communicate in Afghanistan, you get on a donkey. But in the old days, they only people that used telephones were government dweebs. Therefore there is little incentive to want phones again. The regular folks never used 'em and the government just collected taxes and conscripted young men. The only working phone line I saw in Afghanistan was across a hill used to connect a mujahedin field telephone. There are no roads left and no electricity in the provinces. So if you want to know what it was like in the 11th century, go to Afghanistan. Julian Macassey, julian@bongo.info.com N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA 742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ Reply-To: irvin@northstar.dartmouth.edu Subject: Re: Phone Service in the USSR Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 18:33:31 +22322638 From: irvin@betelgeuse.dartmouth.edu In TELECOM Digest V11 #573, Charles (C.A.) Hoequist writes: > Comments: {The Economist} doesn't know how good their correspondents > have it: they don't have to book calls in advance, as I did on visits > to the USSR. Stand in line, book, be at your phone in eight hours. > Not to mention the stretch of several months in 1982-83 where all > international connections were blocked for ordinary people. > I do wonder if foreigners have to pay their phone bills in foreign > currency. If not, telephoning could be amazingly cheap: even in > Moscow, you can get four rubles to the dollar as a first offer from > somebody on a street corner. > And a correction: Moscow _does_ have a phone book. It is a restricted > document, and from what I've read, updated only rarely. Actually what I read is that the Moscow phone book hasn't been updated in *many* (ten maybe??) years, because they are afraid it would reveal the low longevity level of their men, (due to alcoholism). When I was in Moscow in 1988, I ended up with a bunch of extra rubles (about $100 worth) on the day I was leaving the country. It was money I could not exchange back to hard currency (basically due to a screw up in my train reservation, and this was the refund from Soft-Class to Hard-Class, but no exchange receipt, so no conversion allowed.) So, the buddy I was traveling with any myself (who was in the same predicament) decided it would be *cool* to make calls from the USSR to the USA ... so off to the phone exchange. We waited in line for about ten minutes to book the calls. Got to the attendent, and she didn't speak English -- but in my first pleasant surprise -- she picked up a phone, said a few words in Russian and handed the receiver to me. I said hello and a voice on the other end asked what I wanted in English. I told her I wanted to place a call to the United States and gave her the number. She said it was xxx rubles per minute, I just remember it was $10 / minute, so I tell her 10 minutes. She told me to give the phone back to the attendent, who then got the word translated to her. She gave me a chit with a number on it and collected my $100 (in rubles) signalled me to have a seat. The same thing happened for my buddy. As we sat there (not knowing how long it was going to take) we started to get concerned that we would never know when our number was called, since we couldn't understand the attendent. But unbelievably after about 20 minutes she starts waving at me. My call is ready. She writes down a booth number, which I enter and pick up the phone. Waiting on the other end is an English speaking operator, she tells me to hold on she is connecting my call. I now see my friend enter the booth next to mine so he is getting through also. Well, about a minute later she comes back and tells me it is connected and the ringing starts. Well, she waits for the answer (the ultimate in Answer Supervision), and wouldn't you know it the people I am calling aren't in and their answering machine picks up. Well, the operator hangs up immediately, and I know that I am sunk. I figured that was my only chance, but I say "Can you try another number." The reply was a resonding "OF COURSE." So, I give her my parent's number and one minute later I am chatting with my parents -- who are convinced something is wrong (like the KGB had me) since I wasn't scheduled to call them till the next day when I got to Finland. After ten minutes the operator comes back on and tells me my time is up, she lets me say my goodbyes and plan the next time I am calling (another 30-45 seconds worth) and I hang up. All in all, not as bad of an experience as I thought it would be, particularly judging how difficult the rest of the trip had been bureaucracy-wise. For example to get the $100 refund from the train it took nearly an hour of literally *screaming* at people. Then when I get it in rubles (I paid for it in dollars) -- non-convertable rubles at that -- I gave up. Everything had to be paid in advance in dollars and I was given a voucher for xxx rubles for each of the hotels, trains, plane tickets, taxis, etc. that I would be using on my "Approved Itenerary" (this is the only way they issue VISAs for tourists traveling alone (not on a tour)). At each location I hand the clerk (taxi driver), etc. the voucher, they subtract out the cost of the service they are providing and write up a new voucher for the remaining balance. Theoretically this show end up being zero at the end. Well, along the way someone did their math wrong, and my voucher was terribly short. It took nearly two days of constant badgering to get the hotel manager to telex each place along the trip to see who short changed me (otherwise I was going to be out a couple hundred dollars). She finally agreed, turned out the mistake had been discovered in Leningrad, but the clerks weren't going to say anything unless asked first. So I got that back. Anyway (now that I have drifted completely of telecom) the moral is the telephone service was the definitely the lesser of the evils of Soviet bureacracy -- in my *very* limited experience. Tim Irvin ------------------------------ From: Jim McCauley Subject: What RBOC Information Services? Date: 29 Jul 91 23:59:31 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino So the RBOCs are going into the information services business, for good or ill. What information services do you think would attract residential customers? Personally, I don't want something that is like CompuServe or Prodigy, no matter how fast it is. How about: * universal e-mail? * vanilla Unix (or whatever) system accounts? * Internet feeds (news, e-mail etc.) at ISDN B-channel speeds? * Network File System (NFS) service at 64 kbit/sec? 128 kbit/sec? * X Window Protocol service at 64 kbit/sec? 128 kbit/sec? Whaddya think? Telecommuting might actually be a reasonable proposition with some of these services. Jim McCauley jem@hpulpcu3.cup.hp.com I don't speak for Hewlett-Packard. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 00:38:26 PDT From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Whole Earth Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article you write: >> [Moderator's Note: Whole Earth is the WELL, is it not? Have you >> discussed this with folks there? Is it possible this one unit is >> defective? They are generally good about making things right for >> customers with problems, or so I have been told. PAT] > I do not believe that the Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link in Sausalito is > affiliated in any way with the Whole Earth Access department store > chain in the Bay Area. Whole Earth Access sells computers, cameras, > tools, and other household goods. > You have to understand that 'Whole Earth' is a chic name to use in > this neck of the woods -- very politically correct. > [Moderator's Note: Well, a few years ago I received a very nice large > book from the Quality Paperback Book Club entitled 'Whole Earth' > (something?) and I think it was a catalog from that chain of stores > you mentioned ... but there was a discussion in it of the 'Whole Earth > Lectronic Link' ... and for whatever reason in my own mind I put the > two entities together as one. I do not have the book any longer to go > back and review what I read. This is going to drive me crazy all > afternoon looking for that book! Who did I give it to? Grrrr... PAT] Well, oddly enough, I think you're both right. The book you had was the Whole Earth Catalog, I believe, but it was not a catalog from Whole Earth Access. The people who made WEC sold the name to WEA with a non-exclusive license, or somesuch legal mumbojumbo. However, there may be a connection between WEC and WELL. I'm not sure about all the ins and outs, but I'm pretty sure that John is right that WELL and WEA are not related. The other thing that WEA is notable for is that they post the exact latitude and longitude of the store on the side of the building, at least in the Berkeley store (37 52 N, 122 20 W; I think the store gives degrees/minutes/seconds, but I only have the minutes.). Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu = ucbvax!tongue1!linc ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Book Review: SIGNAL - Communications Tools For Info Age From: seth cohn Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 21:26:07 EDT Organization: Alchemy International, Ithaca, N.Y. Hey Pat, WELL *is* affliated with Whole Earth, but at this point is more like a SISTER organization to W.E. Both being run by the Point Foundation. If you like Signal, get a subscription to Whole Earth Review (at the same address) It's FULL of stuff like the catalog. Seth Cohn, 607-273-2815 voice, 607-272-7002 BBS (2 lines) PO 671, Ithaca NY 14851 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #588 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20043; 30 Jul 91 23:51 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31630; 30 Jul 91 22:19 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16135; 30 Jul 91 21:08 CDT Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 20:42:30 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #589 BCC: Message-ID: <9107302042.ab26367@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 30 Jul 91 20:41:59 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 589 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Line Noise Battle [Andrew Payne] Re: Line Noise Battle [Daniel M. Rosenberg] Re: Does 510 Work Yet? [Galen Wolf] Re: "Free" Touchtone and Increased Monopoly (RBOC) Revenue [John Higdon] Re: Why Carry New AT&T Card When Old One Still Works? [Jim Allard] Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [Toby Nixon] Re: Information Wanted on SITA and ALC Protocol [Lou Fernandez] Digital Sound Recording Chips [Christopher Whaley] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: payne@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Andrew Payne) Subject: Re: Line Noise Battle Organization: Cornell Theory Center Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1991 11:43:55 GMT In article peterd@graphics.rent.com (Peter Dachnowicz) writes: > First a bit of backround. We have four lines comming into the > house. Three of them are used for voice and one for data. When using > the data line for v.32 connects there seems to be alot of noise and > the modems never connect. When calling at slower speeds (no v.32) the > modems are able to connect. Now here's the trick: when plugging the > modem into any of the other three voice lines and calling with the > modem, using v.32 I can connect fine. I've been having a similar problem with my v.32 modem: I can connect, but I can't negotiate MNP5, and I get a *lot* of line noise. I can connect at 2400 baud just fine. Even though my phone service is provided by NY TEL, I called a tech on campus on a personal recommendation. He said that the phone company guarantees voice grade lines to 2400 baud, and that I should try and build a case at 2400 baud. Then, hope that solving my 2400 baud "problem" solves my 9600 baud problem. In my case, the connection is rock solid at 2400 baud :-( > The phone company has been here four times now and reports no > problem despite the fact I can demonstrate this problem in front of > them. They say all the lines are not guaranteed for data quality and > its a bonus that the other three can handle the high speeds. They > suggest going with a data-quality lines (BTW, what does that entail > and at what price?) As I understand it, a data-quality line is a voice-type line with some special treatment. They use high-quality pairs (supposed to check frequency response, etc) and they remove the echo canceling equipment. I was told (not by the telco) that these lines typically run twice what a regular line costs. I'm curious to hear other's experiences with v.32. It seems that you play the lottery with your local loop: you might get a pair that works just fine. If you don't, however, it takes extra bucks to fix the problem. Minor flash of inspiration: what if I ordered a data-quality line for a month, cancelled sevice, then ordered a plain voice-grade line at the same location? I wonder if I'd get the high-quality pair (with the Andrew C. Payne, N8KEI UUCP: ...!cornell!batcomputer!payne INTERNET: payne@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu [Moderator's Note: I was also concerned about this when I converted from 2400 baud for publishing the Digest to 9600 baud. I dial into a terminal server at Northwestern University, which is a local phone connection for me. I have never had a single bit of trouble just using the lines I've had here in my home all along. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Daniel M. Rosenberg" Subject: Re: Line Noise Battle Organization: The Very Large Software Company of America Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1991 16:13:05 GMT Peter Dachnowicz writes: > I've been having a quite a war with NJ Bell as of late; hopefully > somebody will be able to steer me in the correct direction. Well, when I lived in what is now 908-464 land, we had a data line (which we used only 2400 baud on) that was quite noisy. My dad worked for AT&T Bell Labs at the time, which didn't impress the NJB folks even before the breakup. The problem was worse after it rained, so we called them up, said we had intermittent problems, and could they please give us another pair. So, what I'd suggest is for you to tell some repair droid you use the phone for VOICE, and it's giving you intermittent problems, and could you please be swapped out onto another pair. Good luck! # (NeXT)Mail: dmr@roadkill.Stanford.EDU dmr%roadkill@stanford.BITNET # Stanford Metapage Project {apple, ucbvax}!labrea!roadkill!dmr ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 22:53:13 PDT From: Galen Wolf Subject: Re: Does 510 Work Yet? From (415) 873 - US Sprint - Connected Metromedia ITT - Unable to complete call ATT - Unable to complete call I knew there were several reasons that I liked Sprint. I use ITT for all my local calls, and Sprint for LD. galen@toad.com {amdahl,pacbell,pyramid,sun,ucsfcgl,uunet}!hoptoad!galen (Galen Wolf, Anu, POB 280310, San Francisco, CA 94128-0310) (800)SKY-TALK; PIN: 2340000 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 01:56 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: "Free" Touchtone and Increased Monopoly (RBOC) Revenue Mark Seiden writes: > (So much for "Plain Old" Telephone Service). How long before they > make pay for call waiting, three way calling, and other services I > don't want? They are just following Pac*Bell's lead. In technology for the regulated customer Pac*Bell may wipe up the rear, but in finding new ways to charge people -- now that is another matter. Pac*Bell dropped its touch tone charges, but then raised the rates accordingly so that in effect EVERYONE pays for touch tone now, whether they have it or not. But then, it is so silly to have the now de facto standard for customer signaling even be considered a "premium service". Did we ever charge extra for rotary dialing when it replaced operators? The whole idea of charging extra (for a service that saved the telcos a tremendous amount of money) is right out of the pages of "Value Added Marketing". Pac*Bell also graciously made the first band of near toll local for customers (and once again raised the rates accordingly). Now everyone pays all the time for calling out an extra four miles. Some areas experienced absolutely no change in calling area, but are paying the higher rate just the same. This is standard monopoly tactic: introduce a "value added feature", promote its use to be come standard, and then just charge everyone for it, all the time. > How long before the cable company forces me to pay for > premium services? (Actually I'm a holdover in other respects ... no > cable TV and no microwave ...) I do not know how long it will be for YOUR cable company to do this, but mine has already given it a shot. The outfit just added a premium channel, made it available to everyone and then started charging for it on the bill. When I complained, I was told that since it was in the clear and therefore could not be "turned off", that I would have to pay for it. Since the company was not keeping records on its use, it could be offered "at this low price". Did I say "offered"? How about foisted? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Jim Allard Subject: Re: Why Carry New AT&T Card When Old One Still Works? Organization: Equicom Communications, Inc. Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1991 14:45:21 GMT Virtually every AOS and LD carrier accept LEC cards because they're very easy to bill. The real money is in the billing charges imposed by the LECs. Validation charges are insignificant compared to what they (the LEC) makes on billing. You may remember in a prior post I suggested that you not throw away that LEC card? With what AT&T is currently doing with their CIID card will make this even more attractive. The LECs are making a killing. No doubt there will be much more advertising in the future. AT&T has either made the major blunder of the year (CIID) or has something equally sleezy up their sleeves. Only time will tell. Jim Allard THE BOTTOM FEEDER ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? Date: 30 Jul 91 11:36:24 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA First, let me apologize for not answering in a more timely manner. I've been on vacation the past couple of weeks, and was having so much fun I didn't check netnews even once the whole time -- the first time in years I've gone cold-turkey (email-wise) for two weeks. Anyway, I participated in the work earlier this year in TIA TR-41.9 in harmonizing US (FCC Part 68) and Canadian (DOC-3) requirements for automatic dialing equipment. The important thing for us all to note is this: software is NOT regulated by the FCC; only the equipment that is presented for Part 68 registration is regulated. While there was considerable discussion on the matter, those of us on the committee representing the software industry were able to persuade them that the FCC did NOT want to enter into regulating communications software. The rule therefore specifically exempts equipment that is "under external computer control" from the redialing rules. If you tell Smartcom III to redial 99 times with two seconds between attempts (and it issues a new "ATD..." command for each attempt, there's nothing the FCC can do about it. But if you design a modem or telephone with a built-in automatic redialing function to do the same thing, it will not receive Part 68 approval. The rule for automatic dialing features is basically this, for equipment registered under Part 68: the automatic dialing equipment can dial the same number only TWICE in any one-hour period. However, if the equipment includes the ability to detect BUSY signal, then the equipment may attempt up to an additional 13 times (15 total) within each one-hour period, so long as BUSY signal is indeed detected on each failed attempt. The count is restarted whenever there is manual (human) intervention; the rule does NOT attempt to control HUMAN behavior, just the automatic redialing performed by registered equipment. Equipment that does sequential dialing (the dreaded telemarketing machines) may attempt each number only ONCE before going on to the next number. Automatic redialing equipment may remain off-hook no more than sixty seconds for each call attempt. Note that in addition to modems and other equipment under external computer control, automatic dialing equipment associated with security systems and other emergency notification systems are also exempt from these rules. Virtually all modems are always under external computer control, and are therefore exempt, with the possible exception of leased-line modems that have an automatic dial-backup feature. 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 | BBS +1-404-446-6336 AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon Fido 1:114/15 (Views expressed are personal only) | Internet tnixon%hayes@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ From: Lou Fernandez Subject: Re: Information Wanted on SITA and ALC Protocol Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc. Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 15:50:06 GMT greyfox@nevada.edu (JIM WILLIAMS) writes: > Could any of you give me any information on SITA and the ALC protocol. > My early info suggests that SITA is a consortium or non-profit > organization based in Paris that has provided the equivalent of a VPN > for many years for the airline industry. And ALC is sort of a > pre-X.25 kind of protocol that is used by SITA. ALC is a protocol used to exchange information with airline reservations terminals. It dates back to SABRE, the first computerized on-line reservations system, built by IBM for American in 1959? 1963? It's a block-mode polled full-duplex multipoint protocol using a six bit character set. Error detection is done with a 6-bit CRC. Note that the protocol does not do error correction or retransmission. The fact that a block was received in error is reported to the operator who can request a retransmission if s/he wants it. Although ALC uses RS-232/V.24 voltages and thus can be transmitted over normal modems, both the mapping from voltages to bit values and the bit ordering within characters is reversed from normal V.24 conventions. Programming a modern serial interface which uses an off-the-shelf USART to support ALC can be a little tricky. Each airline has its own ALC specification. Although the low-level electrical and framing conventions are fairly uniform, the details of addressing, block sizes, error recovery conventions, interpretation of special characters, etc., differ between airlines. If you are planning to build a device which must interpret (as opposed to merely transmitting) ALC, you will need to get the specs from the airline you are dealing with. SITA is the Societe Internationale de Telecommunications Aeronautiques. It operates a world-wide telecommunications network for the airlines. One of the services it provides is the transport of ALC terminal traffic to an airline's reservations host. To make up an example, say United Airlines, whose reservations host is outside of Denver, wants to have a few terminals in Karachi, Pakistan to support its twice-a-week cargo flight. United could lease a circuit to some place where it operates a concentrator and deal with modems, telcos, and circuit outages in two different countries or it could pay SITA to collect the ALC traffic in Karachi and deliver it to Denver. For small low-traffic sites, SITA can be cost-effective. SITA also provides the airlines with the ability to send messages to each other. These are typically flight availability notices, reservation requests and confirmations, etc. This information is sent using SLC instead of ALC. SLC (for Synchronous Link Control procedure, also called P.1024) uses an 8-bit character set and is a point-to-point full-duplex message exchange protocol. Message transmission using SLC is expected to be reliable. (In some applications, SLC messages accepted for transmission to another site must be held for a week before being discarded.) There are various proposals for using X.25 to transmit ALC and SLC traffic but I'm not sure how much production traffic is being carried on X.25. To find out more about inter-airline communication, you need the latest version of the ATA/IATA Interline Communications Manual (ICM). Contact the (International) Air Transport Association or the airline you are working with to get a copy. Good luck. BTW, what are you trying to do? Louis F. Fernandez Sequent Computer Systems lfernandez@sequent.com Mail Stop SPL1-722 503-578-5113 (voice) 15450 SW Koll Parkway 503-578-5271 (fax) Beaverton, OR 97006-6063 ------------------------------ From: "WHALEY, CHRISTOPHER" Subject: Digital Sound Recording Chips Date: 30 Jul 91 16:45:05 GMT Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology I am looking for any information, phone numbers, company names ... for the chips that are used in digital answering machines (no tapes necessary), and in digital pagers. One of the digital pagers is made by Motorola (so it is likely they are using their own chips, isn't it?), and it is able to record voice messages and then play them back for you when you want to hear them. Any pointers to specific chip numbers, or people to contact would be greatly appreciated. WHALEY,CHRISTOPHER J. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt3006a Internet: gt3006a@prism.gatech.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #589 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22972; 31 Jul 91 0:55 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23073; 30 Jul 91 23:25 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac31630; 30 Jul 91 22:20 CDT Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 21:40:46 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #590 BCC: Message-ID: <9107302140.ab27801@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 30 Jul 91 21:40:38 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 590 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone [Andrew Payne] Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext [Peter Marshall] Re: Freedom! AT&T Reports the Good News [Jeff Sicherman] Re: Loop Loss vs Frequency? [Rob Warnock] Re: Calling Myself / Call Return [Tim Irvin] Re: Auto-Answer Phone Query [Todd Inch] Re: Mismatched 1+ Carrier [Bud Couch] Re: Plain Old Telephones [John Pettitt] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: payne@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Andrew Payne) Subject: Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone? Organization: Cornell Theory Center Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1991 12:12:53 GMT In article sequent!techbook.com!paulb@ uunet.uu.net (Paul Buder) writes: > In article Gabe M Wiener cc.columbia.edu> writes: > I remember in the mid 70's I found that the electronics to generate > the 4th column tones were built into every phone (this was still when > all phones were Bell phones). All one had to do was connect a switch > over the right two points in the phone. If long distance information > was called, free then, and the D key was pressed I would become an > information operator! One had to listen for a soft click and say "Can > I help you?" or something appropriate to my teen age years. I seem to remember it working a little differently. I tried this just about the time when they started charging for DA (mid 80's?). You could call DA, punch the D key, and you would get a stuttering dialtone. One touchtone digit would get you silence, re-order, busy, or an unanswered ring. As an aside, there is a potential for fraud that exists with the extra column (ABCD) tone. I believe that the scheme is obscure enough and less relevant today (compared to five years ago) that it seems appropriate to describe it here. Many PBX systems use some sort of toll protector on outgoing phone lines. One way these devices work is by listening for touch tones on the phone line and breaking the connection if they determine that a long distance call is being attempted (more than seven digits dialed, leading 1 or 0, etc). One way to bypass this equipment is to generate touch tones recognized by the central office, but not recognized by the toll protector. Remember that a touch tone is specified as one (and exactly one) row tone and one (and exactly one) column tone. Three tones (say, row + 2 column) is not a valid touch tone digit. I discovered that older Bell switches (crossbars, for example) do not recognize the fourth column (1633 hz) at all, where the toll protector would. So a 1633 hz "guard tone" would prevent the toll protector from recognizing the digits (because it saw three tones), but the CO was quite happy with them (being 1633 hz deaf). If you are wondering who I ripped off, don't worry. The toll protector timed out after not hearing any dialing sequence. Sure, I could have come up with a sequence of protected and unprotected digits that would make it work, but I was more interested in proof-of-concept than ripping someone off. As I stated earlier, this scheme is less relevant today for two reasons. First, a lot of central office equipment recognizes the fourth column tone. Second, PBX <-> CO connetions are a lot more sophisticated these days. At the very minimum, they "swallow and regurgitate" digits dialed for outside calls (e.g. the PBX records the digits you dial, figures out if you are allowed to make this call, and then picks up the outside line and dials it for you). Andrew C. Payne, N8KEI UUCP: ...!cornell!batcomputer!payne INTERNET: payne@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jul 91 13:28:08 -0700 From: Peter Marshall Subject: Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext Although John Higdon's post on this topic seems much more to the point than PT's, the latter deserves some comments: It is not at all clear that Greene was directed to "reverse himself," as Pat asserts, although a between-the-lines reading of the earlier appeals court decision in this remand case might create such an impression. It is similarly unclear, n/w/s PT's assertion here, that Greene was "furious," etc., particularly as we are provided with no attribution of source(s) for this notion. Further, there is, as John Higdon pointed out, the remaining little matter of still-pending Congressional legislation; and the very relevant comment by Bob Jacobson concering the appeals court itself. Both of these supply a sense of relevant context. Peter Marshall [Moderator's Note: Was Greene 'furious'? Well, one person in the courtroom who observed him noted that he came out of chambers huffing and puffing, with his face red and the first thing he said was he did not like having his arm twisted by 'some people who are detirmined to to work around me anyway they can ...'. And he virtually apologized to the Justice attornies present that 'while they are twisting my arm, I don't have any choice, and I sincerely regret what I have to do ..." In the past, his demeanor has been different, and he has at least tried to *give the appearance* of being impartial. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 10:28:37 -0700 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: Freedom! AT&T Reports the Good News Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article Telecom moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: Beginning back in the late 1970's when Greene had > some personal animosity for one reason or another toward AT&T he made > it known to aquaintances in the Justice Department he also knew to be > anti-Bell that he would gladly entertain them in his courtroom. Is this on-the-record fact that you can document or just hearsay and innuendo that may have originated with someone or some institution with its own axe to grind ? Everyone has a right to his opinions and prejudices, but let's not pass on libelous accusations as fact unless we can ascertain their source and accuracy. > Somehow over the years his role as self-proclaimed expert on telephony > has come to be accepted and cases involving the telcos 'just manage' > to get routed to him. I don't know what expertise in telephony he has, but I really doubt that he needs much. The issue in this case and the associated ones is, and has always been, not the technical details of the system (that is a patent issue) but the antitrust and regulatory implications of the system's structure and the companys' behavior. That's where his need for expertise exists. This expertise issue is just a smokescreen set up by those companies and other experts who don't agree with the decisions. As for routing other cases being routed to him, if he is already overseeing the consent decree and subsequent other, related judgments, it is natural (monopoly ? :-) for him to handle most if not all such matters since he is intimately familiar with the subject matter and the judicial history. Another judge would have to familiarize himself/ herself with the subject and delay the matters to the detriment of all parties. > I think AT&T should have handled him the same > way IBM dealt with the federal judiciary in the threat against their > organization: IBM flooded the court with so much paper to read (it > literally arrived by the truckload daily at the clerk's office) that > some law clerks may still be sorting through it for all I know. :) This tactic generally serves no one but the lawyers, which is why our courts are so clogged these days and makes for more money for them. Are you generally in favor of this or just when the probable results suit your preferred denoument ? > According to my former neighbor and former Chairman of AT&T Charles > Brown, they only decided to give up the fight when it became obvious > Justice and Judge Greene would have kept at it for years if necessary, > until AT&T was bankrupted in the process of defending themselves. PAT] Hey, you must live in a fancy neighborhood :-) Considering how many bucks AT&T made off us all over the years and the status and security of their stock in those years, I seriously doubt they were in any real danger of being bankrupted by the process. They sure had enough to spend on armies of legal counsel for regulatory matters. Of course maybe they 'gave up' because they rightfully and logically forsaw that they would lose on the merits; they KNEW the shenanigans they had undertaken over the years. Perhaps they didn't want the discovery process to dredge up a lot of confidential company correspondence and maybe even subject the company and/or its executives to criminal and securities law liability ? I know this is an old topic/thread, but you brought the subject up again from your bully pulpit. It's just annoying to see anyone harping on the participants again and again as though that were a substitute for discussing the merits of the case itself. Jeff Sicherman [Moderator's Note: Rogers Park is a far northside neighborhood in Chicago, which like most others fifty years ago -- even twenty years ago -- used to be nice. Mr. Brown lived in Rogers Park about a block east of me (where I was living then) when he was in charge of Illinois Bell. Most of Rogers Park (and Chicago) is now an unmitigated hellhole. I still live in RP, but in an area *slightly* better than the eastern part closer to the lake. I am hoping to move to Independence, Kansas within a year or so, where it is safe to walk to the corner 7/11 at 9 PM if desired. All sorts of stories about Greene's anti-AT&T feelings have popped up over the years, and in fairness to him, I admit I can't readily identify the heresay from the truth, but usually where there is smoke there is some fire. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 18:55:12 GMT From: Rob Warnock Subject: Re: Loop Loss vs Frequency? Reply-To: Rob Warnock Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA In article brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes: > Whilst trying to help a friend with a modem/fax problem he was having, > Dialing one line from the other [1004Hz] ... received level of -12 dbm... > However, when I used a 2804 Hz tone into the line again at 0 dbm, the > received level was -31 dbm. That seems 'way too much attenuation... > Are these reasonable numbers? Or is there too much high-frequency loss > in this line, which might well explain the problems he's seeing with > his equipment. Isn't 2800 Hz one of the magic supervisory frquencies that phreakers used to use? Mightn't there be "anti-phreaker" 2800 Hz notch filters installed in the CO somewhere? Rob Warnock, MS-1L/515 rpw3@sgi.com rpw3@pei.com Silicon Graphics, Inc. (415)335-1673 Protocol Engines, Inc. 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. Mountain View, CA 94039-7311 [Moderator's Note: I know about 2600, but did not know of 2800. PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: irvin@northstar.dartmouth.edu Subject: Re: Calling Myself / Call Return Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 16:51:54 +22322638 From: irvin@betelgeuse.dartmouth.edu In TELECOM Digest V11 #571, Tad Cook writes: > Ringback tone is not synched with ringing voltage in modern digital > offices. The 5ESS that serves my home is the same way. The ringback > tone is completely separate from the ringing voltage. When the called > number is determined to be non-busy, the caller is connected to > ringback tone, and that tone source may be at the silent interval. > Ringing voltage is put on the line immediately, which is why on > digital offices like the GTD5 and 5ESS you can startle callers about > half the time by answering the phone during the first ring. They will > swear that the phone never rang. Of course the other half of the time > the two will happen to be in synch. The reverse is true in my parents exchange (704) 274. There the caller will get from 1/2 to 1-1/2 rings before the phone starts to ring. This was extremely irritating for the first few months after this switch was put in, since people would hear four or five rings and hang up, and you (having only heard three rings) have just gotten to the phone to answer it. Eventually the locals got used to letting the phone ring longer, but for LD calls it is still a real pain. Another side effect of this switch upgrade, was it put less ringing voltage (current?) down the line, so that all the phones in my parents house won't ring. Actually if anyone knows what kind of switch it is I would be really interested. When it went in the speculation around the town was that it was some cheapo "made in Taiwan" POS. Another thing we noticed was that dial tone didn't break until the first button was released (i.e. the tone and dial tone would play together during the first button press). We didn't complain much since we were the last office in the area to get a switch that could handle Custom Calling features, and Equal Access (90+% of the customers on this switch are residential, so I imagine not a huge profit center for Southern Bell). Tim Irvin ------------------------------ From: Todd Inch Subject: Re: Auto-Answer Phone Query Organization: Maverick International Inc. Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 22:10:26 GMT In article hpubvwa!tad@ssc.wa.com (Tad Cook) writes: > SKASS@drew.bitnet writes: >> A friend of mine is looking for an auto-answer speaker phone for a >> bedridden relative. He's seen one at Sears for $300, but that sounds >> a bit steep to him and to me. Any recommendations would be >> appreciated, for products or for ways to adapt a non-auto-answer >> speakerphone to make it answer automatically. I vaguely remember an article here about an answering machine which would go into "speaker-phone" mode when the caller entered the "secret code" after it answered. That might also be an option, especially if the bedrider would need to explicitly turn these things on and off (enable/disable.) Then relatives, friends, etc who had the code could call and check-in, even if the bedrider could barely talk, knock once for yes/twice for no, etc. (But the telemarketers couldn't get through.) Kinda like Captain Pike with his blinking light/buzzer on the old Star Trek episode. I suppose someone this impaired should probably have more personal care, but sometimes that isn't always possible or desired by all parties. ------------------------------ From: Bud Couch Subject: Re: Mismatched 1+ Carrier Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1991 04:02:19 GMT In article linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) writes: > Note that "700" is a special "area code" (Special Access Code) which > maps differently on each carrier. Other "700" numbers may incur heavy > charges comparable to "900" numbers. 700-56x-xxxx numbers are assigned to AT&T Accunet Switched 56 service, and have been unreachable from standard phones in the past. I qualify this because the mechanism is in place to allow interconnect to LEC Switched 56 services, but I haven't yet heard of any agreements in place to allow this. Much maligned Sprint, on the other hand, will allow calls from their Switched 56 service (VPN) to LEC's. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew .. standard BS applies ------------------------------ From: John Pettitt Subject: Re: Plain Old Telephones Organization: Specialix International, London Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 08:18:30 GMT forrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) writes: > Me: This old model is nice and heavy, feels really sturdy. That > one is made of flimsy plastic. > Her: Sir, weight does not necessarily mean quality. She is right on this point - we have a Southwestern Bell `Freedom Phone' (not the cordless, just a simple desk model). One of the main reasons I got it was that it felt `solid' -- I took it apart a few weeks back: It has two big chunks of lead in it to make it feel heavy ! So much for the `solid feel'. John Pettitt Specialix International, London (well close anyway). Email: jpp@specialix.co.uk Tel +44 (0) 932 354254 Fax +44 (0) 932 352781 Disclaimer: Me, say that ? Never, it's a forged posting ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #590 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25713; 31 Jul 91 1:58 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02528; 31 Jul 91 0:31 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23073; 30 Jul 91 23:25 CDT Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 22:34:21 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #591 BCC: Message-ID: <9107302234.ab32089@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 30 Jul 91 22:33:53 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 591 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Calling Card Dispute: AT&T/Cincinnati Bell/IECs/FCC [Ralph W. Hyre] ANSI/EIA/TIA-232-E Published [Toby Nixon] Cannot Get 'Host Mode' to Work With Modem [Peter J. Dotzauer] What About 2400 Baud? (was Let's Build 9600 Baud Modems!) [Sven Heinicke] GTE Pay Phone Hassle [Brad Hicks] Merlin 410 KSU For Sale [Jason Galanter] Novell Netware 2.20 With Micom Interlan NP600 Gateway [Baimba John] Call Out on Incoming Line [Dennis G. Rears] First Philadelphia Switchboard [Carl Moore] Cheap 1200's (was In The Early Days: 450 Baud) [Ben Burch] Re: Line Noise Battle [Floyd Davidson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ralph W. Hyre" Subject: Calling Card Dispute: AT&T/Cincinnati Bell/IECs/FCC Date: 30 Jul 91 20:02:59 GMT Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati Reprinted (and paraphrased) from a Cincinnati Bell newsletter. "Cincinnati Bell Telephone (CBT) is fighting to reverse the FCC's order in April that it violated the Federal Communications Act of 1934." ... "CBT sent the FCC its proposal for assigning primary long-distance carriers for public and semi-public coin telephones. More than 10,000 such telephones are in CBT's service territory."... "Ballots were sent to 3,500 agents who manage the public and semi-public telephones."... [Imagine the poor sods who didn't return the ballot and got assigned to one of the pricier AOSes.] "U.S. Sprint intervened, contending that CBT should make AT&T credit card validation information available to all interexchange carriers prior to the presubscription process, in order for carriers to compete for the business on an even basis." "CBT refused to release the information. CBT says it issues AT&T calling cards as AT&T's agent, and that validation data is proprietary information." The FCC disagreed with CBT, and the order is being reconsidered. "Meanwhile, AT&T has allowed CBT to provide validation information on credit card users living in Cincinnati Bell's service territory to other interexchange carriers." ------ Mr. Hyre comments ----- [The 'residential' business office person I spoke with seemed to think that ANY AT&T card would work, including the Universal cards. Imagine making a call on Sprint's network, being billed Sprint's rates. Would you still get the Universal Card 10% discount because of the billing arrangement? BTW, they customer service rep I spoke with didn't know what the post-1992 plans were for accomodating the 'new' AT&T cards, but I imagine this issue will eventually force CBT to issue its own "proprietary" calling cards. Cincinnati Bell wasn't very affected by divestiture -- they already offer some 'enhanced' services, and are apparently allowed to maintain a closer relationship with AT&T than other RBOCs can. CBT resells AT&T long distance, for example.] ----- continuing the newsletter ----- "The FCC also has issued a proposed rulemaking to decide whether all of the nation's local exchange carriers should make the same kind of information available to all long-distance companies." ---------------- [My feeling is that as long as you can get IEC calling cards that are tied to your carrier of choice, then the LEC cards database probably should be available to all comers. AT&T shouldn't be forced to share, though. If anyone has more information on this, I'd appreciate hearing it.] BTW, I also read that it will be 1992 until CBT even tests Caller ID and other CLASS features. At this rate it will be 2015 before ISDN is an option. ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: ANSI/EIA/TIA-232-E Published Date: 30 Jul 91 17:04:22 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA For your information, ANSI/EIA/TIA-232-E-1991, the latest version of the widely-used interface standard commonly known as "RS-232", was published by EIA this month, and is now available. Equipment built in compliance with previous versions of the standard will continue to interwork with equipment built to the "E" version. The primary changes incorporated into the "E" version include: * Alignment with recent changes in the related international standards CCITT V.24, CCITT V.28, and ISO 2210; * Inclusion of an alternative 26-pin high-density connector system; * Expansion of definition of CTS circuit for flow control purposes, and inclusion of the Ready for Receiving circuit (CCITT 133) as an alternative use of pin 5 (normally Request to Send), thereby standardizing (finally) what is commonly called "RTS/CTS" or "hardware" flow control; * A warning that pin 25 (Local Loopback) is, in some equipment, used for a "busy out" function; * Additional clarification of limitations on cable length and other restrictions. Individual copies of 232-E may be purchased for $41 through: EIA Standards Sales 2001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington DC 20006 (202) 457-4966 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 | BBS +1-404-446-6336 AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon Fido 1:114/15 (Views expressed are personal only) | Internet tnixon%hayes@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ From: Peter J Dotzauer Subject: Cannot Get 'Host Mode' to Work With Modem Organization: The Ohio State University Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1991 14:12:57 GMT After no response to the following posting to a local newsgroup, I decided to go national: I have been fiddling around with this for a week, and I have asked for help with this problem, but host mode is still not working for me. The hardware is an Evercom 24 internal modem (100 percent Hayes compatible) in an XT clone. The software is ProComm Plus V. 2.0. Among the things that were suggested to me and that I tried are: - reboot without any TSR's - reset modem with ATZ - command AT&C1 - command AT&D2 - command AT&W (I'm not sure what this does, it is not documented in my manual) - ATS0 1 (to set the number of rings for auto-answer) - set type of connection to 'MODEM' (not 'DIRECT') - set DIP switch so Data Carrier Detect follow the true carrier signal Nevertheless, what happens is the following: 1) The connection is establised ('CONNECT 2400') 2) The Welcome message appears 3) The 'First Name:' prompt appears 4) about 20 or 30 characters of garbage appear in 1 or 2 lines 5) the 'NO CARRIER' signal appears 3), 4), and 5) occur within about five seconds, and one doesn't really have a chance to respond to the 'First Name:' prompt before garbage appears and the carrier is dropped. Given all this, some people started suggesting to me that something may be wrong with the modem, a hardware problem. Questions: - Is there anything obvious that I overlooked and that I should try? - Can the modem be tested whether it has the hardware functionality required for host mode (with some 'AT' commands, or with a special utility program)? I am hesitant tearing out this modem and buying another without knowing for sure that there is something wrong with it. Peter Dotzauer, Analyt.Cart.& GIS, Dept.of Geogr., OSU, Columbus, OH 43210-1361 TEL +1 614 292 1357 FAX +1 614 292 6213 FIDO 1:226/50 IRC/ICB/Relay Ratzer INTERNET pjd+@osu.edu UUCP ...crash!pro-tcc!pjd DECnet mapvxa::pjd BITNET pjd+@ohstmail WWIVnet pjd@6450 FreeNet ak061 ProLine pjd@pro-tcc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1991 15:47:14 -0400 From: Sven Heinicke Subject: What About 2400 Baud (was Let's Build 9600 Baud Modems!) Reply-To: Sven Heinicke This is all great and wonderful, making your 2400 modems into 9600 modems. Well, I have got three 1200 baud Universal Data Systems modems, not Hayes. Any hint on how to turn them into a 2400 baud modem? sven@cs.widener.edu Widener CS system manager Sven Mike Heinicke and Student (pssmheinicke@cyber.widener.edu (if you must)) [Moderator's Note: Was it Anna Russell who once described how to make dresses out of old patchwork quilts, only to later give a lecture entitled how to make patchwork quilts out of old dresses? :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jul 91 15:34:30 EDT From: "76012,300 Brad Hicks" <76012.300@compuserve.com> Subject: GTE Pay Phone Hassles I had an occasion to be in Holy Toledo, Ohio, the other day and the unpleasant experience of trying to reach a friend in Toledo using a GTE pay phone from one of the service islands on the Ohio Turnpike. The notice on the phone instructs you to lift the handset, dial the number, wait until the party answers, and then deposit $0.25 for local calls. I picked up the handset, dialed the number, and got dead air (with a slight hiss), for over a minute. So I tried again. And again. And again. Actually, I didn't get dead air on ALL four attempts on the first phone. The second attempt aborted three digits into the phone number with the loudest dial tone I have EVER heard. Dialing had no effect on that tone. So I decided I might have a defective phone. I repeated this experiment at all four phones in the building. Same results. In the mood to experiment, I dialed, waited for about ten seconds of dead air, and deposited a quarter. Nothing happened ... and when I hung up, I couldn't get my quarter back, either. I gave up, and decided to try to find a non-GTE pay phone at the next exit. A mile further down the road, I spotted a sign indicating a county or township boundary. (Unfamiliar with Ohio road sign abbreviations, I am still uncertain which.) At the next exit, I bailed off the turnpike and hit a GTE pay phone at a gas station ... and got through on my first attempt. HYPOTHESIS: I now suspect that that county line (or whatever) marked a zone boundary within the Toledo LATA. Had I dialed 1-npa-nnnn instead of npa-nnnn, I might have gotten through. However, the GTE system gave me NO error indication. (It also ate my quarter.) Bad design. "I got my time wasted and a quarter ripped off. Gee." "No, GTE." I used to be one of the hard-core conservatives who cheered loud and long when AT&T was deprived of its monopoly; great was my hatred for The Phone Company. I eat more crow on this every year; we didn't know how good we had it. Or, as the one Russian general said to the other in the famous cartoon, "Yes, but comrade, a country that would dismantle the world's best communications system is not rational!" *sigh* jbhicks@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: Jason Galanter Subject: Merlin 410 KSU For Sale Date: 30 Jul 91 16:05:42 GMT Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh -- Panther Amateur Radio Club I have a Merlin 410 KSU with FP-1 and Music-on-hold+paging for sale. I have no idea what to ask for the thing so I will guess at $500, All documentation is included. Any reasonable offer accepted. Jason Galanter / N3HNR | n3hnr@hpb.cis.pitt.edu 322 Mall Blvd., Suite 306 | galanter@unix.cis.pitt.edu Monroeville, PA 15146 | Jason%cca.uucp@hpb.cis.pitt.edu (412)521-6042 | * How's that for an information-only .sig? ------------------------------ From: Baimba John Subject: Novell Netware 2.20 With Micom Interlan NP600 Gateway Date: 29 Jul 91 20:15:47 GMT Organization: Convergent Technologies, San Jose, CA I am trying to install Novell Netware V2.20 on an AST 386 PC with a Micom Interlan NP600 Gateway board. The problem is that the patch issued with the Micom board to load the Netware in higher memory no longer works since Netware V2.20 was issued on a high density diskette and the programs have been combined. If anyone has any idea on how I can interface these two products, I will appreciate greatly the information. Voice is (408) 435-7666, Fax is (408) 435-5303. Thanks, Baimba John (GBY) baimba@risky.Convergent.COM ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 14:18:01 EDT From: "Dennis G. Rears " Subject: Call Out on Incoming Line Situation: I have three lines coming into my apartment with a circular hunt group. One of the lines is under my name and has touch tone capability; the other two lines are under non-existent names. The other two lines do not have touch tone capability. I have three pair wiring in the apartment and a combination of two (3) and one (4) line phones scattered about. Is this Possible: I would like to be able to call line two or three and be connected to one so that I can dial out on one. Ideally, be able to call out on both if I want a conference call. Is it possible? What equipment do I need? I am not really worried about security right now. Also will the phone company (NJ Bell) allow me to block outgoing calls on a particular line? Dennis G. Rears MILNET: drears@pica.army.mil UUCP: ...!uunet!fsac1.pica.army.mil!drears INTERNET: drears@pilot.njin.net USPS: Box 210, Wharton, NJ 07885 Phone(home): 201.927.8757 Phone(work): 201.724.2683/(DSN) 880.2683 USPS: SMCAR-FSS-E, Bldg 94, Picatinny Ars, NJ 07806 [Moderator's Note: You need a call extender which will pick up one line and connect to one or two other lines on request via touch tone instructions you enter. Call extenders are available many places. The telco will also equip a line for one-way service (incoming or outgoing calls only) on request. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 16:21:09 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: First Philadelphia Switchboard On Saturday 27 July, I found the following tablet just east of 1125 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA: In a building thirty feet east of this tablet the first telephone switchboard in Philadelphia was placed in service in the spring of 1878 by Thomas E. Cornish owner of the Telephone Company of Phila- delphia which later became the Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania. Liberty Bell Chapter, Telephone Pioneers of America. ------------------------------ From: Ben Burch Subject: Cheap 1200's (was In The Early Days: 450 Baud) Organization: Analysts International Corp, Chicago Branch Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1991 18:58:40 GMT > Those were the days! And when 1200 baud started becoming > common at a cheap price, we were in ecstasy! PAT] Speaking of cheap, check out the DAMARK catalog that's just out; Atari 1200 externals for $19.00! Yes, I know that we all have 2400 now, but we all must know some kid without a modem who would love one of these! Ben Burch dbb@aicchi.chi.aic.com ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: Line Noise Battle Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1991 02:20:27 GMT In article payne@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Andrew Payne) writes: > I'm curious to hear other's experiences with v.32. It seems > that you play the lottery with your local loop: you might get a pair > that works just fine. If you don't, however, it takes extra bucks to > fix the problem. > Minor flash of inspiration: what if I ordered a data-quality > line for a month, cancelled sevice, then ordered a plain voice-grade > line at the same location? I wonder if I'd get the high-quality pair My guess is that is a VERY viable approach! Data grade lines are not (usually) *made* data grade by adding anything to them as such. They just measure all the appropriate parameters, and verify that your line does in fact meet specs. If it doesn't the facilities are change until it does! There is some offhand chance that you have a loop that is seven miles long and only loaded cable is available. It might require an equalizer to be put in before it meets specs. In that case when you request your service be changed back to a voice grade line it may actually go bad on you again. Otherwise, when you change back to voice grade, all that will happen is a paper work shuffle and a lower rate. (They may or may not have installed a data jack at your demarc point, and it may or may not go away too.) Floyd L. Davidson | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine floyd@ims.alaska.edu| but not for opinions. |Science suffers me as a guest. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #591 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01478; 31 Jul 91 4:10 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04942; 31 Jul 91 2:38 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac30241; 31 Jul 91 1:32 CDT Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 1:07:28 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #592 BCC: Message-ID: <9107310107.ab03702@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 31 Jul 91 01:07:00 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 592 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Book: "The Financial History of (AT&T)" [Sean Williams] Re: The Official AT&T Ways to Avoid Phone Fraud [Charlie Mingo] Re: Phone Service in the USSR [Floyd Davidson] Re: Information Wanted on SITA and ALC Protocol [Rob Warnock] Re: Loop Loss vs Frequency? [Nick Sayer] Re: Loop Loss vs Frequency? [Floyd Davidson] Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone? [Floyd Davidson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 04:26 GMT From: Sean Williams <0004715238@mcimail.com> Subject: Book: "The Financial History of (AT&T)" I was in the Pennsylvania State Library this afternoon, wasting the day away rummaging through old telecom-related books. I found a sort of offbeat book entitled "The Financial History of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company" by J. Warren Stehman, copyright 1925. It starts out by describing the invention of the telephone, discussing the Bell Telephone Association, and then the Bell Telephone Companies. It then goes on to outline the formulation of the American Bell Telephone Company. There is also mention of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company being a Long-Distance Company -- this was in 1885. Chapter seven is entitled "The Bell System To-Day". This should be interesting reading, since the book was written in 1925... One of the last chapters is called "Government Regulation of the Telephone Industry." It is set in the early 1900's. After I get through reading this book, assuming I *ever* find time to read the whole thing, I'll post a summary/review. Oh, by the way, the full text of the Modified Final Judgment was also available in the "Law" section of the library on six sheets of microfiche. That's about 300 pages, if I'm not mistaken. I browsed through the first sheet before the library closed. I guess you could copy the whole thing if you had a pocket full of quarters! I asked one of the librarians if a book was available, but she said that everything in the Law section is transferred to microfiche after about a year. Sean E. Williams | seanwilliams@mcimail.com Spectrum Telecommunications | Have a nice day! PO Box 227 | voicemail: +1 717 957 8127 Duncannon, PA 17020-0227 | <> [Moderator's Note: *Please do* give us a full review of the book. This is one title I've never heard of before. Sounds like good reading! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Charlie Mingo Date: 30 Jul 91 18:18:45 Subject: Re: The Official AT&T Ways to Avoid Phone Fraud > Customers should know that no telephone company -- including > AT&T, other long distance companies, and local phone companies -- > would ever ask a customer for a calling card number or Personal > Identification Number (PIN) over the telephone. Phone companies > already have that information. Ah, but they do ask! When I first got my AT&T Universal Card, I called them with questions about my bill. The billing inquiries person just wanted to make sure that I was who I claimed to be. After I pointed out that "AT&T told me no genuine employee of theirs would ever ask for my PIN," she relented. (I assume most callers would have told her.) Perhaps they should distribute that flyer to their employees, instead of their customers. [Moderator's Note: There is one legitimate discussion of your PIN over the phone, and that is when you call to discuss the PIN itself; to get it changed or cancelled due to fraud, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: Phone Service in the USSR Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1991 03:50:55 GMT In article irvin@northstar.dartmouth. edu writes: > When I was in Moscow in 1988, I ended up with a bunch of extra rubles ... > ten minutes to book the calls. Got to the attendent, and she didn't > speak English -- but in my first pleasant surprise -- she picked up a > phone, said a few words in Russian and handed the receiver to me. I > said hello and a voice on the other end asked what I wanted in > English. Interesting stories about calling out of the USSR! Alascom, Inc. provides operator assisted calls into eastern Siberia through trunks that go from the Anchorage toll switch to Provideniya and Magadan. The routing is via satellite to Gamble on St. Lawrence Island, then via microwave to Provideniya. From Provideniya the circuits to Magadan go via a Soviet satellite system. We installed the microwave system to Provideniya and trained Soviet techs to do most of the maintenance. We make occasional trips there for more the serious problems. (Alascom techs do, but not me personally ...) These circuits have been in place since August 1989, and have provided a raft of interesting adventures for us. Interfacing with Soviet technicians on a face to face basis in Provideniya by all accounts was easy and fun. The good part starts when we are not physically there! A normal trouble shooting session usually involves one or more technicians at Gamble (we fly in just for the occassion, and since we own the microwave and United Utilities, Inc. owns the earth station, there may be two or three techs), one or more Soviet technicians at one of two locations in Provodeniya, and possibly another at Magadan. Of course we also conference a translator, and usually the Vice President of Operations is on line too (he is a former tech and we do NOT have a problem with his presence). Sometimes the Fairbanks switch gets involved because the trunks from Gamble itself come here, and that may mean our gateway earth station at Gilmore Creek also gets on line, as well as maybe the gateway station at Eagle River out of Anchorage. And one or more supervisors. You get the idea! Wow, what a conference call! (It isn't as bad as one might expect because we are all quite used to conferencing four or five people at a time on a day to day basis, but more than five or six is hard to handle.) The problems with interconnecting the Soviet phone system to ours were not surprising though. Old equipment and different standards. They originally had a troposcatter radio system to Magadan, which is now replaced by the satellite system. The operator positions at both Provideniya and Magadan are cord boards, and have reverse supervision compared to ours. Initially they would pull down calls that were in progress, and leave up cords that locked out trunks, because our circuits show exactly the opposite lamp on/off conditions from everything else they have. We have also traded operators for three month training periods. Our operator had a wonderful time! And it seems the most memorable quote from the Soviet operator had to do with a gentleman who complimented her on speaking such good Russian, to which she replied "Thankyou, I *am* Russian!", to which he replied something to the effect that if that is the case, then her English was even more astounding! On one occassion I spent several hours trying to patch a local Russian speaking person into various places in Russia, both the eastern end served by our trunks, and through the AT&T international operator into Moscow. We donated the calls to facilitate travel arrangements being made for some kind of semi-offical visit. I couldn't understand most of what was going on with the Moscow operator, but it was obvious that getting calls placed to anywhere outside of Moscow was a difficult process. As often as not we just got dropped and had to start over again. Because the calls were being placed from a testboard it was fairly easy to get right back to the same international operator from AT&T through the Alascom internatinal operator. We ended up spending the evening swapping jokes while waiting. Future plans are for a joint venture between Alascom and the Soviets for a satellite station in Anadyr and a 900 mile long high capacity microwave system connecting various parts of Siberia (I'm not sure where the locations are). Floyd L. Davidson | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine floyd@ims.alaska.edu| but not for opinions. |Science suffers me as a guest. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 04:32:03 GMT From: Rob Warnock Subject: Re: Information Wanted on SITA and ALC Protocol Reply-To: Rob Warnock Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA greyfox@nevada.edu (JIM WILLIAMS) writes: > Could any of you give me any information on SITA and the ALC protocol. > SITA is... based in Paris... VPN for the airline industry. And ALC is > sort of a pre-X.25 kind of protocol that is used by SITA. ALC is used by a lot more people than SITA. ALC stands for AirLines Control (or maybe Airlines Line Control, I forget), and is *the* common line protocol between almost all the airline reservation, information, and display terminals and their mainframes. (I think it's an ARINC standard, but I'm not sure.) This includes the ones at the airport concourse "gate" positions, as well as the ticket counter, and at your favorite travel agent. Systems like IBM's TPF (Transaction processing Facility, formerly ACP, for Airline Control Program) can also use it for talking to automated teller machines. (Actually, in the latter case, there's often an ALC-to-BSC converter box between the mainframe and the terminal.) ALC is a polled multi-drop synchronous protocol, like "BiSync" (BSC), but uses 6-bit data codes, instead of 8, for line efficiency. This is not so silly when you consider that a single 2400-baud (sometimes now 4800 or 9600) multi-drop line could have dozens of terminals hanging off it. They went *way* out of their way to compress the amount of information sent up and down those lines. This is also why, if you've ever looked over the shoulder of a travel agent as he/she makes a reservation for you, the "user interface" (such as it is!) is so incredibly cryptic! The fewer characters in the request/response messages, the less line time is consumed. The original ALC-comaptible terminals were simple "block mode" terminals, sort of similar to IBM 3270's. The "user" (gate/ticket/ travel agent) types a (small) number of characters and then hits "SEND". The terminal waits for the next "poll" from the mainframe -- yes, all the way from Kansas or Iowa or wherever *the* system is (there are only a handful of different ones) -- and then transmits what the user typed, all in a burst. The response, when it is finally available, is sent down the shared multi-drop line, but picked off only by the addressed terminal. The terminals were fairly dumb -- just smart enough to do "block mode". Which is why they didn't do something nicer like translate a user-friendly interface into tightly compressed binary codes. They just used raw six-bit text, and made the messages short. And cryptic. This example isn't correct (since I never took the six-week training course!), but a query like "QYATLSFO;8/3;DA3P" might mean "display flights with coach seats available from Atlanta to San Francisco departing August 3 [this year] after 3pm". [Someone feel to correct me.] You can probably get a copy of the ALC protcol spec by calling ARINC (sorry, I'm vague about the acronym, Airline Radio INterchange Committee?). It is ARINC that runs the common (slow) hub that exchanges messages across reservation system boundaries. That's why, if your travel agent is "affiliated" with, say, American Airlines "Sabre" system, it takes such a long time to get the response from, say, United Airlines' database. The query/response has to go through the ARINC hub. [They (the airlines) like it that way.] Rob Warnock, MS-1L/515 rpw3@sgi.com rpw3@pei.com Silicon Graphics, Inc. (415)335-1673 Protocol Engines, Inc. 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. Mountain View, CA 94039-7311 ------------------------------ From: Nick Sayer Subject: Re: Loop Loss vs Frequency? Organization: The Duck Pond public unix, Stockton, CA Date: 31 Jul 1991 04:35:29 UTC rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock) writes: > In article brian@ucsd.edu (Brian > Kantor) writes: >> Whilst trying to help a friend with a modem/fax problem he was having, >> Dialing one line from the other [1004Hz] ... received level of -12 dbm... >> However, when I used a 2804 Hz tone into the line again at 0 dbm, the >> received level was -31 dbm. That seems 'way too much attenuation... >> Are these reasonable numbers? Or is there too much high-frequency loss >> in this line, which might well explain the problems he's seeing with >> his equipment. > Isn't 2800 Hz one of the magic supervisory frquencies that phreakers > used to use? Mightn't there be "anti-phreaker" 2800 Hz notch filters > installed in the CO somewhere? It better not be. There are, as has been mentioned already, certain standards a POTS line must meet. Among them are: low-end cut off high-end cut off frequency equalization signal-to-noise If I am not mistaken (and I probably am), a standard POTS line must be like +/- 3 db continuously from 250 Hz to 2500 Hz. If they're notching at 2 kHz, they're violating the tariff. Paying for line conditioning doesn't get you much beyond a guarantee that they're meeting the spec they're supposed to be meeting in the first place. Your repairman should have a box that will measure each spec, and you should have a copy of the tariff. You should be able to watch as he plugs the various devices into the protector and reports the results. If any one of them doesn't meet tariff, you will get satisfaction or you can call the PUC and have the BOC roasted over an open fire. Nick Sayer mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us N6QQQ 209-952-5347 (Telebit) ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: Loop Loss vs Frequency? Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1991 05:20:23 GMT In article Rob Warnock writes: > Isn't 2800 Hz one of the magic supervisory frquencies that phreakers > used to use? Mightn't there be "anti-phreaker" 2800 Hz notch filters > installed in the CO somewhere? [...] > [Moderator's Note: I know about 2600, but did not know of 2800. PAT] It is only special in that 404, 1004, and 2804 Hz are the standard frequencies used to measure frequency response. The levels at 404 and 2800 Hz are compared to that at 1004 Hz. The difference is "slope", and is specified for various kinds of circuits or equipment at different values. Most modern test equipment is now set up so that those three frequencies, and 2713 Hz (which loops back most Data Station Terminating units) can be switch on at the push of a single button, as opposed to any other frequency having to be dialed up, punched in, or some such. 2804 Hz doesn't do anything to circuit equipment though. Floyd L. Davidson | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine floyd@ims.alaska.edu| but not for opinions. |Science suffers me as a guest. ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone? Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1991 04:58:57 GMT Just today a whole new use for the ABCD touchtones that are not on most phones was demonstrated to me! Seems around this neck of the woods there is a long piece of pipe, and a large comm system to handle all the calls this pipe causes. I'm not going to name names, but at the southern end of this pipe, in a town known for floating oil, this particular company has a PBX, and in that PBX all of the test numbers start with one or two of those oddball touchtones! Not exactly standard proceedure. Now it happens that we want to auto-dial all those test numbers, and one guy spent all afternoon figuring out that they may be A, B, C, and D on a phone, but they are C, D, E, and F in a dial string given to a DMS 100/200 in the table for test trunk numbers. So the test tone in Val--- at that location is 'CC02' or something like that. (We thought it was just a little on the strange side of wierd :-) Floyd L. Davidson | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine floyd@ims.alaska.edu| but not for opinions. |Science suffers me as a guest. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #592 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id ab27786; 1 Aug 91 2:35 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14940; 1 Aug 91 0:55 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13446; 31 Jul 91 23:48 CDT Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 23:23:00 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #593 BCC: Message-ID: <9107312323.ab11020@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 31 Jul 91 23:22:42 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 593 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [John Covert] Re: International 800 Calling [Steven A. Minneman] Re: ATC Billing [David Ptasnik] Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! [Stephen Tell] Re: Sprint Price Change [Seth Cohn] Re: Loop Loss vs Frequency? [Floyd Davidson] Re: Line Noise Battle [John Corcoran] Re: Tolled and Toll Free Services Around the World [Ian Phillipps] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 15:50:46 PDT From: "John R. Covert 31-Jul-1991 1853" Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? Peter da Silva writes: > I still don't know why you can't call 800 numbers from outside the US > when you're willing to pay for the call. It seems strange that there > is no mechanism for just dialling +1 800 nnx xxxx and paying regular > international long distance rates... That's not strange at all. As has been explained before, the 800 Service address space for world numbering zone 1 does not just cover the United States, it also covers Canada and some of the Caribbean countries. Since it cannot be determined from the number (a database inquiry is required) whether the 800 number is in the United States or Canada (or for that matter in any other country in the world where the company has decided to have a U.S. dialable 800 number), it is not possible for the originating country to route the call to the U.S., to Canada, or right back to Sweden to a Swedish company with a U.S. 800 number! Transiting another country for international traffic is not permitted by CCITT recommendations, except where explicit transit agreements exist. The Swedish (or other) PTT would not be happy learning that one of its customers had been able to call Canada or some other country at the rates charged for calls to the U.S. The fact that a circuit to the U.S. was all that was used has nothing to do with it -- the PTT is entitled to collect the appropriate charge for an international call to the country of final destination regardless of how the call is routed. Furthermore, there would be recurring problems if the call could be dialed at international rates without explicit billing information coming from the caller. Many callers would not understand, and would complain that they had been charged for calling a "toll-free" number. The primary victims would be Americans in hotels in Europe, getting socked by hotel charges of $10 or so per minute when they thought the call was free. When you call USA Direct and ask to be connected to an 800 number, you must give an AT&T calling card -- so there is no question that you know you're going to pay for the call. AT&T will now give AT&T calling cards to almost anyone in any country where USA Direct service is available, and will bill calls to a credit card (usually VISA) in that country. Several of my German friends proudly showed me their AT&T calling cards the last time I was in Germany. For calls over about three minutes, using the AT&T card via USA direct is much cheaper than the German PTT's rates for direct dialed calls. Ole J. Jacobsen writes: > The way I understand 800 service to work is that domestically the > *called* office does not return answer supervision, hence the call is > free. This is not true at all. Called 800 numbers return proper answer supervision and always have done so. Billing software looks at the dialed number and determines that no charge applies for the call. This is why 800 numbers (as well as 555 DA numbers) were used as the first step in blue-box schemes, before that became impossible. Talking about overseas 800 Service numbers (or the local equivalent) terminating in the U.S., Ole wrote: > The service was hideously expensive and did not get used much, so we > had it disconnected at the end of eight months. If your carrier is AT&T, the monthly fee of $20/month for Readyline 800 service (terminating on a normal POTS number) will allow your 800 number to work anywhere in the NANP (as long as you tell them you want Canada or Caribbean locations at the time you order the service). Countries outside the NANP are $20/month each. However, if you have Megacom 800 Service, there is no charge for having a number in each country providing the service. Of course, you have to pay for the incoming calls ... Frederick G. M. Roeber writes: > My Citibank credit card statements now say "605-335-2222 Call Collect" > instead of the 800 number. In fact, their new cards now have both > numbers, with the 605 noted "Outside the U.S. only Call Collect." > Of course, calling collect from Switzerland requires *booking* the > call. When calling the U.S.: simply dial 155-0011 (AT&T USA Direct's number in Switzerland), and when the operator answers, say "Please get me 605-335-2222, collect, from Fred Roeber." Call will go through in a few seconds. BTW, 155 numbers in Switzerland cannot be called from outside the country. Switzerland has both "155" numbers, which are toll-free, and "046-05" numbers, which are charged at local call rates. The latter can be dialed from abroad. john ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 10:37:55-1795 From: "Steven A. Minneman" Subject: Re: International 800 Calling Reply-To: stevem@fai.fai.com (Steven A. Minneman ) Organization: Fujitsu Network Switching of America, Inc. In article ct@dde.dk (Claus Tondering) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 570, Message 10 of 11 > rhyre@cinoss1.att.com (Ralph W. Hyre) writes: >> On AT&T's part, couldn't low-volume international customers be advised >> to advertising the USA Direct number for international calls? (Those >> operators can dial 800 numbers, can't they?) > I don't know if they can, but they won't! This must have been a while ago. You are right in that USA Direct used to refuse to ring 800 numbers. However, they now will ring 800 numbers. They do say before connecting you that you will be charged for the call from overseas to the US. ------------------------------ From: David Ptasnik Subject: Re: ATC Billing Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 16:54:41 PDT Macy Hallock wrote: > One of the reasons you are subjected to AOS abuse when staying at many > hotels/motels/hospitals is very simple: AT&T and the LEC's will not > share a piece of the pie with the property unless its a very large > customer. > At one time, AT&T/BOC's paid a commission on operator assisted calls > from a property to the owner. Standard operator assisted rates > applied, and were well know. Simple, direct, and satisfactory to all > concerned (in most cases). > If you are Holiday Inns, you can cut a very large deal with AT&T and > get this service (which they have in fact done). Not so for the small > guy. > Answer? Use an AOS. They pay based on a negotiated arrangement. AOS's are NOT the only answer. They are probably the easiest and most resented answer. A much better answer is a call accounting system. Virtually every hotel/motel switch in the world has an SMDR port. The few that don't can use a tip/ring scanner or an AOS. If the hotel insists on maing a profit off of every call, they can route the calls over MCI, Sprint, or WATS and charge Direct Dial rates. They can put a surcharge on every 0+ call, 1-800 call, or 10XXX call. If the extra charges that they put on ONLY equal the kickback they would have gotten from an AOS, the guest would still save a TON. This does require a little more effort on the part of the hotel than just routing everything to TeleSleaze. They do have to update the rate table once in a while, and they might have to spend $3 - 4,000. They do have to bill the guest at checkout instead of letting the AOS hit the guest's phone bill. Good call accounting systems can interface with the hotel's management software and print the calls right on the guest's bill. Mom and Pop hotels can do it for a lot less with some of the really simple call accounting software that costs as little as $99.00 and runs in the background of an existing PC. ------------------------------ From: Stephen Tell Subject: Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! Date: 31 Jul 91 04:50:53 GMT Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill In article bbs.aaron_a@doomsday. spies.com (Aaron Anderer) writes: > How to upgrade your 2400 baud modem to 9600 baud. > (US Robotics compatible of course) > ... This > upgrading of your modem will not work on old Hayes modems, but they > will work on any clone maker of modems (Everex, Practical Peripherals, > Anchor, ATI, Intel, etc.) It will only work with modems with the > Intel chipset. The only Intel 2400-bps modem chipsets listed in the 1989 Intel "Microcommunications Handbook" are: * The 89024 chipset, which handles V.22bis, V.22 A/B, V.21, Bell 212A, and Bell 103 and consists of the 28-pin P89027 chip and the 68-pin N89026 chip * The 89C024XE chipset which does the same functions but can be upgraded to do MNP-5 error-recovery and compression with the addition of an 8Kx8 SRAM and Intel software in a pair of EPROMs. Basic 2400 bps Modems using the first chipset contain only these two chips, two 1488s and one 1489 for RS232 interface, a 74x244 for driving status LEDS, and a 8-pin serial "nonvolatile ram" (it might be an EEPROM). Two I've seen follow the Intel application note schematic very closely. So, there's no Uart to be replaced with a 16550, and only two other chips not three that this says need to be replaced. Unless the authors of this come up with some real technical information, this looks like a very late April Fools to me. Now, modem upgrades by replacing one chipset with another are quite plausible if you know what you're doing. For example, one of the 2400bps modems I've seen has empty holes on the board for adding the RAM and EPROM for a do-it-yourself MNP5 upgrade (assuming you can get the software from Intel and burn your EPROMS). The way to investigate this is to get databooks from manufacturers of the 9600bps modem chipsets. Rest of the original message deleted; the first time around was enough of a waste of bandwidth. 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 ------------------------------ From: sethcohn@alchemy.ithaca.ny.us (seth cohn) Subject: Re: Sprint Price Change Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 21:30:23 EDT Organization: Alchemy International, Ithaca, N.Y. rnewman@athena.mit.edu (Ron Newman) writes: > I'm one of the people who received the Sprint mailing without the $5 > coupon. So today, I called Sprint up (1-800-877-4646). Waited about > seven minutes on hold, then when an operator answered, I said, (things to suggest he wanted the credit also.) > So if you didn't get your $5 certificate and don't mind waiting on > hold for a few minutes, call Sprint and tell them so. Except, I tried this, and was told, SORRY the $5 was only for Sprint PLUS subscribers, and you only have REGULAR service. DARN!!!! I wanted $5 credit too ... Seth Cohn, 607-273-2815 voice, 607-272-7002 BBS (2 lines) PO 671, Ithaca NY 14851 (this is a plain and simple mail sig :) ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: Loop Loss vs Frequency? Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1991 12:24:12 GMT In article mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us (Nick Sayer) writes: > There are, as has been mentioned already, certain standards a POTS > line must meet. Among them are: > low-end cut off > high-end cut off > frequency equalization > signal-to-noise > If I am not mistaken (and I probably am), a standard POTS line must be > like +/- 3 db continuously from 250 Hz to 2500 Hz. If they're > notching at 2 kHz, they're violating the tariff. Maybe somebody who works around a line switcher can give some better figures. I searched around a bit, and coudn't find a definitive spec. However, in the "Notes on the Network - 1980" book (and I could NOT find it in the '90 version) it says something to the effect that an end to end dial up circuit should have (this is NOT *must* have) no more than 14 dB rolloff at 404 or 2804 Hz compared to 1004 Hz, and the distribution would be 3 dB per each subscriber loop and 8 dB for CO, mux, trunks etc. That is not +/- but rolloff as they are not even considering the idea that it might be less loss than at 1004 Hz. > Paying for line conditioning doesn't get you much beyond a guarantee > that they're meeting the spec they're supposed to be meeting in the > first place. It *might* guarantee you will get a circuit that is as good as "normal", which is no where near as bad as it could be and still meet specs. I'm not positive about dial up lines, but I believe that the only spec that actually changes is instead of 26 dB s/n you get at least 28 dB s/n. The things that might actually be causing problems, like impulse noise, are exactly the same. It is mostly a case of they probably will make an effort to find the best facilities (like trying different cable pairs etc.) they can. > Your repairman should have a box that will measure each spec, and you > should have a copy of the tariff. You should be able to watch as he > plugs the various devices into the protector and reports the results. > If any one of them doesn't meet tariff, you will get satisfaction or > you can call the PUC and have the BOC roasted over an open fire. Geeze, *I* don't even have a tariff (not one for my tele line anyway, and it would take me a while to locate one on the trunks I test). It must vary from one place to another, and may be different for local lines, but in my particular case you can ask for and get a signed copy of the data on a leased line that I do the testing on. You can watch if you keep quiet too! And you will pay the initial installation fee every time I do it too, so don't get wound up and ask to get it checked every month. (For C2 and/or C5 data conditioning on leased lines it might be more than a couple hundred bucks.) Floyd L. Davidson | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine floyd@ims.alaska.edu| but not for opinions. |Science suffers me as a guest. ------------------------------ Organization: University of Maine System Date: Wednesday, 31 Jul 1991 14:26:27 EDT From: John Corcoran Subject: Re: Line Noise Battle In article , payne@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Andrew Payne) says: > As I understand it, a data-quality line is a voice-type line > with some special treatment. They use high-quality pairs (supposed to > check frequency response, etc) and they remove the echo canceling > equipment. I was told (not by the telco) that these lines typically > run twice what a regular line costs. ...or more. New England Telephone charges about $75/month for a data line while the normal monthly charge for a voice line is about $22. Last time I talked to them, they told me that they made absolutely no guarantees about the suitability of voice lines to carry data at any speed, and told me that if I wanted to use a 2400 baud modem I should buy a data line. No thank you. I have an occasional minor problem with it, but I can certainly live with it. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 13:18:23 BST From: Ian Phillipps Subject: Re: Special Report: Tolled and Toll Free Services Around the World In comp.dcom.telecom is written: > U n i t e d K i n g d o m > 0800 xxx xxx Toll-free > 0345 xxx xxx Local rate A useful thing to point out is that if you take on one of these numbers, you are obliged to accept calls from anywhere in the UK, but can elect to have them routed to up to 12 different destinations depending on the originating region. Ian ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #593 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00729; 1 Aug 91 3:46 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08703; 1 Aug 91 2:01 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14940; 1 Aug 91 0:56 CDT Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 0:05:26 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #594 BCC: Message-ID: <9108010005.ab27124@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 1 Aug 91 00:05:07 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 594 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Official AT&T Ways to Avoid Phone Fraud [Andy Sherman] Re: NY Tel Experiments With Telephone Cash Cards [Jim Gottlieb] Re: Call Out on Incoming Line [Dennis G. Rears] Re: Information Wanted on SITA and ALC Protocol [Marc T. Kaufman] Re: Calling Card Dispute: AT&T/Cincinnati Bell/IECs/FCC [Bill Huttig] Re: Whole Earth [Charlie Mingo] Re: Does 510 Work Yet? [John Higdon] Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone? [Paul Slootman] Re: "Free" Touchtone and Increased Monopoly (RBOC) Revnue [Bud Couch] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: andys@ulysses.att.com Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 09:20:32 EDT Subject: Re: The Official AT&T Ways to Avoid Phone Fraud Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA In article is written: > Ah, but they do ask! When I first got my AT&T Universal Card, I > called them with questions about my bill. The billing inquiries person > just wanted to make sure that I was who I claimed to be. After I > pointed out that "AT&T told me no genuine employee of theirs would > ever ask for my PIN," she relented. (I assume most callers would have > told her.) There is a difference. You *knew* you had a genuine employee because you called the number on the billing statement. However, they have other information to identify you with, and probably ought to use that. 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! ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: NY Tel Experiments With Telephone Cash Cards Date: 31 Jul 91 10:41:50 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan NIEBUHR@bnlcl6.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD) writes: > NY Tel (not known for innovation, or much else for that matter) is > trying them out at ferry terminals in NYC and may expand in the city > and elsewhere in the state if they are successful. Oh, they'll be successful all right. I just wonder if NY Tel will be the beneficiary. I predict that there will soon be a huge market in fradulent cards. If there's one thing New York City residents are known for, it's their ingenuity in this kind of thing. This has been a problem even here in Japan. A few months back, it was reported that some pay-per-call information providers were using fradulent cards to make calls to their own services, thus turning the cards into cash. Fortunately for NTT, losses from card phraud have been more than made up for by the propensity of people to buy telephone cards as collectors items. One report I read said that 60% of all phone cards sold have never seen the inside of a telephone. And on the subject of these cards, anyone know what type of cards NY Tel will use? Everywhere in the world that I have seen them (except for Japan), they were cards just slightly thinner than a credit card and used Plessey-built phones. These phones have the nasty habit of turning off the tone pad after a certain number of digits. At least the phone in Singapore I used stopped sending tones halfway through my voice mail log-on sequence. The cards in Japan are much nicer. Very thin. More like plastic- coated paper. P.S. to those in Japan: The July issue of {Action Band} magazine (a Japanese hacker magazine) has a report on how to use NTT's credit card to make free calls from older-style card telephones. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 11:34:06 EDT From: "Dennis G. Rears " Subject: Re: Call Out on Incoming Line I wrote: > I would like to be able to call line two or three and be connected > to one so that I can dial out on one. Ideally, be able to call out on > both if I want a conference call. Is it possible? What equipment do > I need? I am not really worried about security right now. Also will > the phone company (NJ Bell) allow me to block outgoing calls on a > particular line? Pat wrote: > [Moderator's Note: You need a call extender which will pick up one > line and connect to one or two other lines on request. What exaactly is a call extender, how much are they, and where I can buy one? Dennis [Moderator's Note: A call extender (sometimes called a WATS extender since their traditional use in the past was to connect an incoming local line to an outgoing WATS line for the benefit of company employees calling from a local payphone or home, etc) is simply a device which answers one line much like an answering machine, but then patches the answered line across to another line and returns dial tone on the second line to the caller. The caller then proceeds to make a call as though he were physically present wherever the patched-to line is located, such as in the office. Better quality units require the use of a security code to gain access, and even better units from a security point of view do not just patch through and provide dial tone from the outgoing side. So-called 'progressive dialing' has always been fraught with fraud ... so the better units make you enter a security code, state your business completely, then go away, fetch the desired end destination and only then open the patch. You can buy them from any telephone supply company or catalog, such as HELLO DIRECT. Prices vary, but they are not too expensive. They amortize (pay for themselves) quickly if you would otherwise have to make a lot of LD calls from a payphone or via credit card, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Subject: Re: Information Wanted on SITA and ALC Protocol Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1991 16:25:40 GMT rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock) writes: > ALC is a polled multi-drop synchronous protocol, like "BiSync" (BSC), > but uses 6-bit data codes, instead of 8, for line efficiency. This is > not so silly when you consider that a single 2400-baud (sometimes now > 4800 or 9600) multi-drop line could have dozens of terminals hanging > off it. They went *way* out of their way to compress the amount of > information sent up and down those lines. The primary reason six-bit characters are used is that the original computers were IBM 1401s and 7090s, which have six-bits (EBCD) as their native character size. IBM data channels handled 12 bits at a time, and the sync frame in PARS or IPARS is 12 bits long. The international versions of these systems went to eight-bit characters, because the Model 33 teletypes used eight-bit characters. Newer versions of these terminals sometimes use six-bit characters padded to eight-bits for transmission. > This is also why, if you've ever looked over the shoulder of a travel > agent as he/she makes a reservation for you, the "user interface" > (such as it is!) is so incredibly cryptic! The fewer characters in the > request/response messages, the less line time is consumed. > The original ALC-comaptible terminals were simple "block mode" > terminals, sort of similar to IBM 3270's. The "user" (gate/ticket/ > travel agent) types a (small) number of characters and then hits > "SEND". The terminal waits for the next "poll" from the mainframe -- > yes, all the way from Kansas or Iowa or wherever *the* system is > (there are only a handful of different ones) -- and then transmits > what the user typed, all in a burst. The response, when it is finally > available, is sent down the shared multi-drop line, but picked off > only by the addressed terminal. There is no explicit acknowledgement from the computer for a block sent by the agent. If there is no reply in 5-7 seconds, the agent just resends. Design goals were to complete a transaction in 5 seconds or less (Inquiry to response). > You can probably get a copy of the ALC protcol spec by calling ARINC > (sorry, I'm vague about the acronym, Airline Radio INterchange > Committee?). Aeronautical Radio, INC. > It is ARINC that runs the common (slow) hub that > exchanges messages across reservation system boundaries. That's why, > if your travel agent is "affiliated" with, say, American Airlines > "Sabre" system, it takes such a long time to get the response from, > say, United Airlines' database. The query/response has to go through > the ARINC hub. [They (the airlines) like it that way.] Well, they don't, actually. But the justice department requires low capacity links so that the large carrier reservation systems can't merge into a single mega-system, which Justice feels would be anti-competitive for smaller systems [and this was without even the benefit of Judge Greene!] Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) [formerly Kaufman Data Communications] ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: Calling Card Dispute: AT&T/Cincinnati Bell/IECs/FCC Date: 31 Jul 91 19:46:14 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article "Ralph W. Hyre" writes: [stuff from CBT deleted] > [The 'residential' business office person I spoke with seemed to think > that ANY AT&T card would work, including the Universal cards. I doubt they would. If that was the case the replacement cards would be coming with the new 891 type international numbers. > Imagine making a call on Sprint's network, being billed Sprint's > rates. Would you still get the Universal Card 10% discount because of > the billing arrangement? Don't think so. As the caculations are done at Universal Card Services (the company that prints the bills). > BTW, they customer service rep I spoke with didn't know what the > post-1992 plans were for accomodating the 'new' AT&T cards, but I > imagine this issue will eventually force CBT to issue its own > "proprietary" calling cards. Cincinnati Bell wasn't very affected by AT&T never issued calling cards directly until recently; only through LEC's. Therefore, I don't see CBT changing the current cards. [stuff deleted] > [My feeling is that as long as you can get IEC calling cards that are > tied to your carrier of choice, then the LEC cards database probably > should be available to all comers. AT&T shouldn't be forced to share, > though. AT&T only will be sharing with the LEC's. I assume that all LEC's will share with all other LEC's and IEC's. The only question I have is will all IEC's share with the LEC's? I think that they should. Table Summary: card\carrier IEC LEC IEC reject accept LEC accept accept The only time a calling card should be reject is one IEC's card by another IEC. Bill ------------------------------ From: Charlie Mingo Date: 31 Jul 91 16:17:36 Subject: Re: Whole Earth > Moderator's Note: I did not think it was ever politically correct to > refer to the concept of political correctness, or to even acknowledge > that such a thing as political correctness existed. I thought that > mention of political correctness was only acceptable when the phrase > was used by crude and rude individuals such as myself, ... That's a recent development. The term has been used among progressive folk for at least ten years to refer (ironically) to people who try to arrange their lives, so as not to do anything 'incorrect.' Such people would go to great lengths to avoid minor infractions: eating no fruit under boycott, not purchasing products or services from companies with bad labor practices, not purchasing anything from the 'military industrial complex' (I remember that light bulbs were a problem here), etc. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 00:45 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Does 510 Work Yet? Galen Wolf wrote: > From (415) 873 - > US Sprint - Connected > Metromedia ITT - Unable to complete call > ATT - Unable to complete call > I knew there were several reasons that I liked Sprint. > I use ITT for all my local calls, and Sprint for LD. That is all very impressive except for one thing: the official start date for 510 is September 1. It appears that Sprint has screwed up once again. Repeat, 510 should NOT be working at this time. Anywhere that it is indicates a programming error. By the way, how are you using Sprint within the LATA? Looks like ANOTHER programming problem on the part of Sprint. How do you use ITT for your local calls? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: slootman@dri.nl (Paul Slootman) Subject: Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone? Organization: DataCount, Wierden, The Netherlands Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1991 13:17:30 GMT Barton.Bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes: > Touch Tone really has four row and four column frequencies defined. > Your ABCD buttons use the regular four row frequencies with the 1633hz > column frequency. In our office, these keys are interpreted by the PBX as short cuts to special commands. For example, to repeat the last (external) number dialed, you can use *80, or the D key. To answer a call to another phone that's in the same group as yours, you can use B (equivalent to *42). The phones we have are "memofoon" as sold by the Dutch PTT, manufactured by "Standard Electric Kirk A.S.". These have a mercury switch, so that if the receiver is held with the mike and earpiece down, the mike is turned off. Useful for concealing expletives when talking to difficult people :-) The Dutch PTT doesn't sell them anymore; they stopped before I could buy one for home :-( slootman@dri.nl + 31 5496 88831 ------------------------------ From: Bud Couch Subject: "Free Touchtone" and Increased Monopoly (RBOC) Revenue Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1991 21:27:57 GMT In article John Higdon writes: > Pac*Bell dropped its touch tone charges, but then raised the rates > accordingly so that in effect EVERYONE pays for touch tone now, > whether they have it or not. But then, it is so silly to have the > now de facto standard for customer signaling even be considered a > "premium service". Did we ever charge extra for rotary dialing when > it replaced operators? The whole idea of charging extra (for a > service that saved the telcos a tremendous amount of money) is right > out of the pages of "Value Added Marketing". First off, John, I agree with you. OC's charging for DTMF service _is_ gouging. But let's look at how they got there. When it was first introduced, the 1A ESS was just a gleam in Bell Labs' eye. The country was served by Crossbar, Strowger SXS, some Stromberg X-Y switches and even a few revertive pulse offices. Except for the crossbar, they all required not only initial investment, but significant incremental cost for each DTMF line installed. A Strowger office, for instance, had two choices for DTMF: you either installed a DTMF to pulse converter _per line_, or you put them behind the concentrator, and changed the requesting subscriber's telephone number (in most cases). In either case, there was a new cost for every subscriber who wanted the service. Even for crossbar, the early installations raised the cost of operating a particular switch, for a dtmf receiver had to be added to every register in the office. Either that, or you only added a few, and then added class marking (which also costs). For this reason, the PUCs allowed an extra charge for DTMF to be added to the tariff for local service. In x-bar offices, as the number of DTMF lines reached a certain point, the average holding time shrunk to the point that the _total_ number of registers required for a given grade of service started to decline. The electronic offices were basically the same as x-bar; at a certain level of DTMF subscription, it started getting cheaper. Here's the rub -- how do you construct a statewide tariff which allows you to charge for a service at one location, but not at another? They didn't, and the PUCs let the OCs get away with it. Of course, now we have digital end offices, and it actually costs more to implement dial pulsing, but the tariffs remain. IMHO, the fault may well lie with OC greed, but the PUCs with their almost complete lack of technical expertise, share a large part of the blame. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew... standard BS applies ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #594 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03026; 1 Aug 91 4:48 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23041; 1 Aug 91 3:12 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac08703; 1 Aug 91 2:02 CDT Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 1:13:11 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #595 BCC: Message-ID: <9108010113.ab23596@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 1 Aug 91 01:13:04 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 595 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Contel (GTE) Basic Service in N. VA [Ken J. Clark] Long Distance Before Direct Dialing [Ken J. Clark] Now I've Seen Everything [Phydeaux] Magazine Review: Cabling Business [Carl Wright] A Phone-Booth Tale [Frank R. Pizer] INS Type SNA/SDLC Loop Adapter Information Needed [Steve Urich] Market Share of Long Distance Carriers [Sun-Sentinal via David Leibold] PC Pursuit Phone Number [Jerry Leichter] What Happens When Area Codes Are Used Up? [Dave Mausner] Working Assets Long Distance [Arnie Kahn via J. Philip Miller] Telephone Device Needs Builder [Theodore S. Tang] Upgrading Dial-in Only Modems [John Hawkinson] Here's the Shuttle's E-Mail Address! [Joe Abernathy] Student Dataphone Use on Campus-Wide Network [Carol Noyes] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 13:26:53 PDT From: "Ken J. Clark" Subject: Contel (GTE) Basic Service in N. VA One subject of late on the Digest has been basic service charges, plus whether or not touch-tone service is additional. Here's a breakdown of what Contel (now GTE) charges me monthly. This applies to Contel service in Manassas, VA (703 area code, 369 exchange). Single Party Residence Service in Base Rate Area 12.49 Touch-Call Service 2.00 Special Calling Feature (Call Waiting) 2.75 Miscellaneous Service .00 Federal Subscriber Line Charge 3.50 Your Long Distance Company is AT&T .00 Un-Published Directory Name 2.00 Virginia Relay Center Surcharge .10 Enhanced 9-1-1 Fee .55 Taxes Fed 2.00 Local 3.00 5.00 ====== 28.39 The official start of GTE is Thursday, August 1, 1991. They've been running some spiffy 1/4 page ads in the local paper. The advertisement features nine clocks in a 3x3 pattern. The upper left clock is labeled "Contel." As you progress through the clocks, "Contel" fades out as "GTE" fades in. The add then states, "Times may change. Quality does not." BTW, there's also been alot of talk on the Digest as to what type of switch such and such has installed ... I don't know what type of switch Contel has, but its quality leaves much to be desired. I routinely get cut off on local calls (within the CO) as well as calls in the EAC (to C&P in the Washington Metro area.) So far, no problem connecting to the LD. I guess I've been spoiled. I've always been served by a #5ESS either by C&P or New York Tel, until now. :-( Ken J. Clark KCLARK@cevax.simpact.com Security Engineering Services {uunet..}!simpact!cevax.simpact.com!kclark Simpact Associates Inc. Voice: 703-758-0190 ex. 2134 Reston, VA Fax: 703-758-0941 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 13:44:57 PDT From: "Ken J. Clark" Subject: Long Distance Before Direct Dialing Dear Pat, I must say I've enjoyed the recent discussions about long distance phoning prior to direct dialing. I'd like to pass this one along which always brings a smile to my face. My father worked for 42 years as the produce manager for our local A&P grocery store. Our home-town exchange (Olean, NY area code 716, 372 exchange) had direct dialing available in the late sixties. However, my father had to work for a year (1972-1973) at the Bradford, PA A&P while they were building the new Olean store. Anyway, Bradford (area code 814, 368 exchange) was not direct dial. My father, being produce manager would place his weekly order by phone to the A&P warehouse in Buffalo, NY, every Monday morning at 7:30am. This went on for some time during that year. One particular Monday my father picked up the phone and dialed 0 as usual. To his surprise he was greated by, "Good monrning Mr. Clark. I'll have your call to Buffalo for you right away." Pretty good that Ma Bell could anticipated a call. Some how I don't think that " Thank you for using..." will ever quite compare. :-) Ken J. Clark KCLARK@cevax.simpact.com Security Engineering Services {uunet..}!simpact!cevax.simpact.com!kclark Simpact Associates Inc. Voice: 703-758-0190 ex. 2134 Reston, VA Fax: 703-758-0941 [Moderator's Note: That was a fun thing for an operator to do occassionally. When I worked at UC (circa 1959) operating the switchboard I'd get a call at 2 AM ... I *knew* who they wanted to speak with and sometimes would plug it straight through. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 18:13:19 PDT From: Phydeaux Subject: Now I've Seen Everything Those 900 chat line guys are pretty creative! Last night when tuning around I stumbled across a program-length advertisement for 900 chat lines. It was hosted by Jessica Hahn who, if I remember correctly, was involved in a sex scandal of some kind a few years back. Of course, during the show they had *numerous* 900 numbers flashing on the screen and cut out for commercials advertising -- you guessed it, more (different) 900 numbers. The 'studio audience' was also never on the tube the same time as the host of any of the guests. They could have been chopped out of a "The Price Is Right" episode. Dumbfounded, reb *-=#= 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 ------------------------------ From: wright@ais.org (Carl Wright) Subject: Magazine Review: Cabling Business Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 03:58:56 GMT Organization: UMCC I received the first issue of a new magazine for qualified subscribers titled {Cabling Business}, subtitled . The articles in the first issue were: Design your own cabling standards Cabling opportunities for the contractor The true total cost of cabling The trials of wiring a telecom lab How to install a fiber optics network ... underbudget. Laws, codes, and changes Making friends with your time-domain reflectometer Making your ring a star The information outlet For subscriptions call 214 270 0860, 9:00 AM to 5 PM CST. I subscribed. Carl Wright Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST Ann Arbor, MI 48105 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 11:28:49 PDT From: Frank R Pizer Subject: A Phone-Booth Tale Patrick, I came across a book titled "Requiem for a Redbox"; basically the history of the telephone booth in the United Kingdom. I thought some of the incidents from the early period might amuse TELECOM readers. "It concerns early phone booths in England in 1912. Graffitti on the white-painted surfaces inside the boxes was a problem, and the then Postmaster General approved the optimistic idea of providing scribbling pads for people to make notes on. All that happened was the customers stole the pads and continued to scribble on the walls." There is also the tale of what must be about the earliest "phone vandal" ... "In 1907, Mr Samuel Wartski tried to smash open the coinbox of a kiosk. He claimed he had put in his tuppence but the operator failed to hear and refused to connect him, whereupon Mr Wartski attacked the box with a chisel. Although he failed to penetrate the box, he DID do nineteen shillings' worth of damage. The magistrate apparently sympathised, saying 'These telephones are frequently very troublesome and annoying to those who use them'. Mr Wartski was fined one shilling, the court costs were two guineas, and the phone company emerged with a tarnised image and a nineteen shilling repair bill." I also like this one ... also from 1907. "Blackburn, anxious to preserve any vestiges of a rural atmosphere, aquired a six-sided rustic arbour with ornamental log walls, leaded light windows and a wooden roof surmounted inexplicably by two large balls. Inside there was not only a telephone but an electric light, a clock, a table and seats. It proved to be a little too luxurious. Soon after it was opened, four gentlemen of no fixed abode were found to be seated in it, enjoying a smoke and a game of cards. They were rapidly removed - and so were the table and seats." I guess all this goes to show is that people never really change . For anybody who might like to look the book up for themselves it is: REQUIEM FOR A REDBOX by John Timpson Published 1989 by Pyramid Books, Michelin House, 81 Fulham Rd, London SW3 6RB ISBN 1-855-10008-8 Frank Pizer f713.n7102.z5.fidonet.org ZapWrite v2.5 plus =- * Origin: Chaos Manor. Cape Town RSA. *HST 14.4* (FidoNet 5:7102/713) uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!5!7102!713!Frank.R.Pizer Internet: Frank.R.Pizer@f713.n7102.z5.fidonet.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 6:43:52 EDT From: Steve Urich Subject: INS Type SNA/SDLC Loop Adapter Information Needed Hello again, The help was much appreciated and narrowed down the need to the INS unit which is very much without any sort of OEM identification. So once again I am here to ask for your help on this equipment. Is it some sort of multiplexer? It has five D-Sub connecters, is one a loop? INS (From Mobile Alabama) SNA/SDLC Loop Adapter I suspect I might need another one of these units in order to have it function. So I am asking if anyone has the phone # for this company in Alabama handy. Thanks. Please E-Mail. Steve Urich WB3FTP wells!beyonet!beyo@dsinc.dsi.com ------------------------------ Subject: Market Share of Long Distance Carriers From: djcl.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 08:45:26 EDT Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton The {Sun-Sentinel} [Ft Lauderdale] lists the various market shares of the long distance carriers. The source was stated as "Industry analysts" whoever they might be ... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMSSO A: AT&T 70% M: MCI 15% S: Sprint 10% O: Others 5% Replies to: dleibold@attmail.com or: The Super Continental BBS +1 407 731 0388 [now HST/v.32bis/v.42bis] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 10:15:52 EDT From: Jerry Leichter Subject: PC Pursuit Phone Number Pat: In a recent TELECOM, you mentioned an 800 number, 1 800 TELENET, for information about PC Pursuit. I get "number not in service at this time" when I dial it. Any clue about other numbers? Jerry [Moderator's Note: Try 1-800-336-0437 or 1-708-689-6000. Ask for PC Pursuit Marketing. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1991 13:25:17 CDT From: "Dave Mausner, X4450" Reply-To: dlm@hermes.dlogics.com Subject: What Happens When Area Codes Are Used Up? Specifically, what will LD companies do when the X0X and X1X area codes are all used up? Are they close to running out of area codes now? And who exactly will make this momentous decision? dave (dlm@dlogics.com) [Moderator's Note: When *traditional* area code numbers are exhausted sometime in the next two or three years, then three digit codes will be assigned which at present resemble regular prefix codes. Bellcore handles the assignment and administration of area codes. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "J. Philip Miller" Subject: Working Assets Long Distance Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 16:54:06 CDT I found the following posting on CRTNET (A communications Research Mailing list). Does anyone know of this company? I do not recall it being discussed here before. phil Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1991 23:32 EST [from] Arnie Kahn Subject: working assets long distance I received an ad that sounds almost too good to be true. Working Assets Long Distance advertises themselves as "the first public utility that works for social change." 1% of long distance charges go to groups such as Rainforest Action Network, Habitat for Humanity, Amnesty International, Planned Parenthood, etc. They also claim the "highest quality service at the lowest rates." Rates "as low as Sprint or MCI's basic residential service -- lower rates than AT&T." And they claim the sound quality is equal to the "big three." Does anybody know anything about this company? I post this to CRTNET and Interper because, after all, second to the computer, most of us use the telephone for communications. Arnie Kahn fac_askahn@jmuvax (bitnet) fac_askahn@vax1.acs.jmu.edu (internet) ----------- 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: Theodore S Tang Subject: Telephone Device Needs Builder Date: 31 Jul 91 22:12:53 GMT Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee I have an idea for a telephone device which I would like manufactured. Is there anyone I can describe this device to for construction? Ted Tang Milwaukee, WI 414-964-8756 voice [Moderator's Note: Begin by telling us. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Hawkinson Subject: Upgrading Dial-in Only Modems Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 21:41:08 GMT Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC The recent thread on upgrading 2400 ---> 9600 modems made me think of this little question: I have some (10 or 15) Racal Vadic dialin-only 1200baud modems [don't remember the exact model number, but I could check if it matters ...] and I was wondering: is it possible to upgrade them to dial-out, also? (Hey, and while we're at it, if you know how to upgrade them to V42 and V42bis, and 38.4k I'd like to know too :-)). Thanks. John Hawkinson jhawk@panix.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 18:39:26 CDT From: Joe Abernathy Subject: Here's The Shuttle's E-mail Address! It's atlantis@applelink.apple.com This is an entirely unofficial undertaking being undertaken by entirely nameless persons, so you didn't hear it here. Seriously, NASA didn't want to identify the commercial mail service it was using for this venture, but since it leaked out, some brainy type figured out that one way to prevent the thing they feared worst -- drowning in emails -- was to provide a channel into which our idle mail can be directed. So at some point, the astronauts or somebody else will check this account for interesting material, but no guarantees that sending mail here will actually get it read by somebody who's in space at the time they're doing their reading. Better than nothing, though. Cheers! Joe Abernathy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 16:16:53 EDT From: NOYES%uhavax.dnet@uhasun.hartford.edu Subject: Student Dataphone Use on Campus-Wide Network I'm looking for information from any university/college which has a situation similar to one we are about to enter. We have a campus-wide network, but up to now, there has been no connections of any kind in place for student use in the dormitories. This September, students will be able to request a Dataphone, allowing the to plug a terminal into the phone's serial port, push a button on the phone, and have communication to the network. If anyone has such a system in place, my questions are: 1) Do you charge the student for the Dataphone, and if so, how much? 2) How do you let students know about this option? 3) Do you have a sample form that students use to request a Dataphone? Any information you could send our way would be appreciated. I'm not a subscriber to this list, and hope that the request is not inappropriate. Please respond directly to me. Thank you. Carol Noyes NOYES@HARTFORD University of Hartford ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #595 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03168; 1 Aug 91 4:52 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23041; 1 Aug 91 3:18 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ax08703; 1 Aug 91 2:05 CDT Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 1:48:04 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #596 BCC: Message-ID: <9108010148.ab24660@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 1 Aug 91 01:47:56 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 596 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Dial Tone Lasting Into Key Tone [Ken J. Clark] Re: Line Noise Battle [Patton M. Turner] Intra-LATA Calls Using Long Distance Carriers [Bill Huttig] Cellular Injustice [Daniel Wynalda] Re: GTE Payphone Hassle [Bud Couch] Re: Boardwatch Magazine on RBOC Gateways [Roy M. Silvernail] Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! [Roy M. Silvernail] Re: NY Tel Experiments With Telephone Cash Cards [David Singer] Free Toll Calls! (was Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems) [Vance Shipley] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 11:23:41 PDT From: "Ken J. Clark" Subject: Dial Tone Lasting Into Key Tone In , irvin@betelgeuse.dartmouth.edu "Tim Irvin" writes: [ discussion on ringback tone deleted ] > Another side effect of this switch upgrade, was it put less ringing > voltage (current?) down the line, so that all the phones in my parents > house won't ring. > Actually if anyone knows what kind of switch it is I would be really > interested. When it went in the speculation around the town was that > it was some chapo "made in Taiwan" POS. Another thing we noticed was > that dial tone didn't break until the first button was released (i.e. > the tone and dial tone would play together during the first button > press). [discussion on custom calling feature deleted ] Actually, Tim, your description is identical to what I had to get used to when I moved out of C&P (5ESS) and into Contel/GTE (GTD-5), earlier this year. In fact, my dial tone lasts a split second past the initial tone key being released. It sounds like you have a GTD-5. One way to verify this is to check your "Service Features" section of your phone book (white pages). If your call waiting cancel is 70#, it's a good be you've got a GTD-5. This compares to a 5ESS which is *70. Ken J. Clark KCLARK@cevax.simpact.com Security Engineering Services {uunet..}!simpact!cevax.simpact.com!kclark Simpact Associates Inc. Voice: 703-758-0190 ex. 2134 Reston, VA Fax: 703-758-0941 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 18:27:12 CDT From: "Patton M. Turner" Subject: Re: Line Noise Battle > Minor flash of inspiration: what if I ordered a data-quality > line for a month, cancelled sevice, then ordered a plain voice-grade > line at the same location? I wonder if I'd get the high-quality pair I am aware of this happening on a Contel CO. A friend of mine ordered a data line to be connected to his neighbors house. A month latter it was disconnected. Several months latter he ordered a second line for his house and the drop was moved from his neighbors house to his. Because of the number of pairs feeding he and his neighbors he knew he would get the the same pair. This turned out to be meaningless within a year as a remote end office fed by fiber was installed less than 2000 yards from his house. (It may not be a true "remote end office", but that is what Contel called it.) Of course Contel still uses open wire in a few locations. Pat Turner KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA pturner@eng.auburn.edu ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Intra-LATA Calls Using Long Distance Carriers Date: 1 Aug 91 01:32:45 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In the past Southern Bell allowed intra-LATA calls with all carriers but AT&T. For a short period of time it was possible to use all the IEC's and to call local numbers via them. A few days ago things changed (I think the same time we got Caller ID) and it is no longer possible to call intra-LATA via MCI (the old part - it is still possible via TELECOM*USA's network). All other carriers seem to go through; i.e. 10xxxNXX number local 10xxx 1 NXX number for long distance 407 area code including the ORLANDO LARA where my phone is. The question is why does Southern Bell now block MCI but not the others? Is it legal (by FCC rules) for IEC to carry intra-LATA calls? Southern Bell (Maintainance Center) claims that it is illegal and that all intra-LATA calls via IEC's should be blocked. Is this true? Bill ------------------------------ Subject: Cellular Injustice Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 15:39:00 EDT From: Daniel Wynalda I recently noticed a strange unfairness about the cellular system we currently use. Although the cellular system is as full of rip-off artist tactics as the COCOT industry, this seems to be an imbalance on their own part. One of our local cellular companies (the wireline carrier), has complete border to border roaming in the State of Michigan. There aren't any daily surcharges except in two small corners of the state. If one of our people calls in on their cellular phone to our phone number, we receive a cellular bill for $.75/min + long distance landline charges. If we call the cellular phone (in the same location), the phone only pays the local access rates (no long distance). Why do the BOC's allow the cellular companies to avoid paying long distance charges when roaming to areas that would normally be long distance? Is this just a deficiency in the roaming protocol? It seems that the cellular company would want to bill the cellular phone either way or neither way. Your input is appreciated. On a related note: I've noticed that no matter WHERE you are in this area code, I can call all of the local access numbers without dialing 1+ and without paying long distance. This means I can call 200 miles away to a cellular phone for the cost of a local call (and the cellular person's airtime only). How would they get the BOC to SKIP charging long distance rates on just these selected numbers? Daniel Wynalda | (616) 866-1561 X22 Ham:N8KUD Net:danielw@wyn386.mi.org Wynalda Litho Inc. | 8221 Graphic Industrial Pk. | Rockford, MI 49341 ------------------------------ From: Bud Couch Subject: Re: GTE Payphone Hassle Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1991 03:51:44 GMT In article 76012.300@compuserve.com (76012,300 Brad Hicks) writes: > I had an occasion to be in Holy Toledo, Ohio, the other day and the > unpleasant experience of trying to reach a friend in Toledo using a > GTE pay phone from one of the service islands on the Ohio Turnpike. > The notice on the phone instructs you to lift the handset, dial the > number, wait until the party answers, and then deposit $0.25 for > local calls. I picked up the handset, dialed the number, and got > dead air (with a slight hiss), for over a minute. So I tried again. > And again. And again. > In the mood to experiment, I dialed, waited for about ten > seconds of dead air, and deposited a quarter. Nothing happened ... > and when I hung up, I couldn't get my quarter back, either. > ... gave me NO error indication. (It also ate my quarter.) Bad > design. "I got my time wasted and a quarter ripped off. Gee." > "No, GTE." Well, I can't argue with you about not getting the call through (the dead air part), but I will say that you didn't get your quarter "ripped off". The instructions specifically said "wait until your party answers". The first time I ever ran into a post-pay paystation, it cost me 30 cents. (A dime a call then.) In what I have since come to realize is an identifying characteristic of engineers, I didn't read the directions first. I dumped in my dime, dialed the number, and found that the party on the other end couldn't hear me. Three times before I *read* the directions. What you ran into is the oldest form of dial paystation, a post-pay circuit. It is primitive, but it does have the virtue of simplicity. In a "standard" (in these days of COCOTS, what a concept) paystation, what is known as pre-pay service involves a fair amount of circuitry, mechanical assemblies and extra power supplies. When you deposit your coin, a sophisticated mechanism which weighs, sizes, and checks the magnetic properties of that coin totals your deposited amount. It then forwards a ground to the CO. The money you deposited comes to rest on a platform. The CO forwards dial tone and monitors the call. When you hang up, a voltage is sent over the pair to the paystation, with its polarity a function of whether or not the call was answered. One polarity causes a solenoid to tip the platform in one direction (into the collection box) and the other polarity tips it to the return chute. A post-pay station, on the other hand is a model of simplicity. It has *no* provision to return your money; that's why the instructions say to wait until the called party answers. The money hits a platform, somewhat similar to the prepay, but which can only tilt to collect. It is tilted to collect any time that the talk battery voltage is normal. In SXS and some crossbar, and even in some electronic COs, the talk battery voltage is normal (-48V on the ring) _until the call is answered_. So when your party answers, the platform goes flat. Under that platform is a microswitch. When coins are resting on it, it closes, shorting out the diode placed in series with the handset transmitter. Now let's go through a call. One, you dial. If no one answers, or the line is busy, you don't deposit any money. You can try again. If you do deposit money it goes directly into the collection box (remember, the platform is tilted then). You try again. This time someone answers. You can hear them, but they can't hear you until you deposit your coin (battery has reversed, with -48V now on the tip, and the diode is preventing any current from flowing through the carbon mike). You deposit the coin and the microswitch shorts out the diode, allowing current into the transmitter. You conduct your conversation. When the called subscriber hangs up, or when the switched path breaks down after you hang up, the talk battery goes back to normal, the platform tilts, and the money is collected. I've left out a lot of detail, like how toll calls are handled, etc., but what I wanted to point out was that your statement about "bad design" was not true. It was simple and accomplished the task. When it was first used it could even be described as elegant. For those situations in the middle of nowhere, served by a SXS CDO, it is probably the most efficient solution, even today. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew... standard BS applies ------------------------------ Subject: Boardwatch Magazine on RBOC Gateways From: "Roy M. Silvernail" Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 22:24:01 CDT Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN peterm@rwing.uucp (Peter Marshall) writes: > From {Boardwatch Magazine}, 6/91, p. 8: > Ameritech was the ONLY ... (RBOC) to pass entirely on the concept of > an ONLINE GATEWAY service. Actually PacBell also bowed out after soem > early maneuvring but Ameritech stated flatly that there was no > incentive to pay for an online gateway to services that could be > dialed directly. Developments since then have proven them quite > accurate with all but US West giving up on the faltering gateway > concept. I have an aquaintance that plans to place a service on USWest's gateway when it comes operational. From our discussions, he plans a modem conferencing service, possibly using Minitel protocol. (For the graphics and overall look.) More or less your standard 'chat' system, I would think, and he plans to price it as low as possible. The system would not be available except through the gateway. Unless his plans have changed, I may be writing some (if not most) of the conferencing software. In any case, I'll keep tabs on the progress and fate of his proposed system and keep the Digest up to date. After NYNEX's experience, I can hardly see why USWest would want to persue gateways. Perhaps they know something us mortals dare not suspect? (as long as they keep their hands off my net connection! ;-) Roy M. Silvernail roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! From: "Roy M. Silvernail" Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 22:39:49 CDT Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal) writes: > In article dmcmahan@netcom.com > (Dave Mc Mahan) writes: > >> 1) You will need to purchase a 27C512 ROM chip. > > Great!!! Got any idea what we should burn into the old ROM set, or > > will just any old random bit combination work? > No -- just install it as-is from the factory. I believe it is supposed > to be the data source for when the modem is marking. 27C512 is the number for a 512k bit CMOS EPROM. When factory-new, it should contain all 0xFF bytes. (if it does not, it's not blank) If this is used as a "data source", is there a good reason why 64 kbytes of 0xFF are needed? The file says that this ROM chip goes into the "Supervisor" socket, so it stands to reason that it must have _something_ on it besides endless 1 bits. That's just more reason to believe that the whole file is bogus. Roy M. Silvernail roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu ------------------------------ From: usenet_interface@almaden.ibm.com Subject: Re: NY Tel Experiments With Telephone Cash Cards Date: 1 Aug 91 05:29:06 GMT Reply-To: David Singer Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center In article Jim Gottlieb writes: > Fortunately for NTT, losses from card phraud have > been more than made up for by the propensity of people to buy > telephone cards as collectors items. One report I read said that 60% > of all phone cards sold have never seen the inside of a telephone. I can believe that -- you can buy NTT phone cards (with California scenes printed on the back) at the San Francisco Hilton's gift shop. I doubt many of the cards sold *there* go into phones in Japan. (Sorry, I don't rememember how much the cards cost, but I'm sure they've been marked up quite a bit.) David Singer -- Internet: singer@almaden.ibm.com BITNET: SINGER at ALMADEN Voice: (408) 927-2509 Fax: (408) 927-4073 (If I needed a disclaimer, I'd put one here.) ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Subject: Free Toll Calls! (was Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems!) Organization: SwitchView Inc. Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1991 16:53:02 GMT *** WARNING I HAVEN'T TRIED THIS, I ONLY HEARD ABOUT IT *** :) :) :) You can get all the free long distance calls you want with this simple wiring change to your telephone! Just clip the yellow wire. That's right that's all it takes, just disconnect the yellow "billing" wire and the telephone company won't know who made the call! Disclaimer: If you believe anything I just said shame on you! Vance Shipley vances@xenitec vances@ltg ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances [Moderator's Note: You sweetheart you! Thanks for caring, and thanks for sharing ... but remember the eleventh commandment: Thou shalt not mock the Moderator or take the Moderator's name in vain ... not if you want to see your stuff printed here on a regular basis! A certain amount of abuse is good for me, I suppose. :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #596 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01904; 3 Aug 91 3:39 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06346; 3 Aug 91 1:48 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23406; 3 Aug 91 0:39 CDT Date: Fri, 2 Aug 91 23:50:27 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #597 BCC: Message-ID: <9108022350.ab12732@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 2 Aug 91 23:50:17 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 597 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson What RBOC Information Services? [Jim McCauley] AT&T Non-Subscriber Calling Cards [John R. Levine] Why Don't Third-Party Payphones Beep? [Elizabeth Schwartz] NTIA Report [Jane Fraser] Hotels and AOS's AGAIN [Jim Allard] Looking For Reference Literature [Karl T. Braun] Interchangeable Area Codes - Coming Sooner Than Planned? [David Leibold] SNET Affinity Mastercard Makes Visible Your Phone Number [Mark Seiden] AT&T, Fraud, and PacBell [David Gast] How to Dial in Switzerland [Carl Moore] CT2 vs CT3 [Brendan Jones] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim McCauley Subject: What RBOC information services? Date: 29 Jul 91 23:59:31 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino So the RBOCs are going into the information services business, for good or ill. What information services do you think would attract residential customers? Personally, I don't want something that is like CompuServe or Prodigy, no matter how fast it is. How about: * universal e-mail? * vanilla Unix (or whatever) system accounts? * Internet feeds (news, e-mail etc.) at ISDN B-channel speeds? * Network File System (NFS) service at 64 kbit/sec? 128 kbit/sec? * X Window Protocol service at 64 kbit/sec? 128 kbit/sec? Whaddya think? Telecommuting might actually be a reasonable proposition with some of these services. Jim McCauley jem@hpulpcu3.cup.hp.com I don't speak for Hewlett-Packard. ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T Non-Subscriber Calling Cards Date: Wed, 31 Jul 91 22:40:42 EDT From: "John R. Levine" A recent message commented that AT&T would not issue a calling card unless you had a telephone number. That turns out not to be true -- I have a copy of an application for an AT&T non-sub calling card. It asks for quite a lot of credit information, about what you'd expect for any other credit card. If you want such a card, you can get the application by calling AT&T's regular service number and explaining what you want, and they'll transfer you to a department in Charleston WV that handles such things. Don't ask my why they're in Charleston, particularly since the actual cards are apparently still issued by Cincinnati Bell. The reason I got this application is that I have a chatty friend who lives in Madrid, Spain. Telefonica, Spain's telephone company, has Europe's worst rip-off long distance phone rates. Telefonica's rate from Spain to the U.S. is about $3/minute, while for me to call her costs me $1.09/minute at AT&T's day rate, and only 58 cents/minute at Sprint's discount rate. When I was in Spain last month, I noticed that AT&T and MCI now have "Dial USA" type access numbers in Spain, which are posted in the instructions on every payphone in Madrid. So I figured that if she could get an MCI or AT&T calling card, she could use the Dial USA number and pay U.S. rates rather than Spanish rates for calling here. MCI, once I told them that calling from Spain now works ("No kidding! What's our number there?" said the MCI rep) was quite helpful and said that my friend could apply herself by calling MCI's number and asking for customer service. Calls would be billed to her Visa card. AT&T gave me an extremely convoluted story in which she could mail in her application, and assuming it was approved they'd mail the bill anywhere but they had to mail the physical card to an address in the U.S. I asked how about if they mailed it to me and I called her up and told her what it said, and that would apparently be OK. Sheesh. Whoever said that AT&T's problems are all with people was entirely correct. I haven't yet heard from my friend to find out whether she has gotten either card yet. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: Elizabeth Schwartz Subject: Why Don't Third-Party Payphones Beep? Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1991 13:32:56 GMT Here in New England, we have a weird sort of pay-phone deregulation: third-party vendors may charge 25 cents for calls but New England Telephone may only charge ten cents! Anyway, I have gotten bit by quite a few of these off-brand telephones. I have an answering machine that responds to touch-tone beeps, and many of these phones will not produce beeps after the connection starts! (A few produce beeps which are not audible at the calling end, but this is okay.) Why does the beep shut off? Is there any way to tell if a phone will not beep before wasting money in it (these phones charge outrageous amounts if you are in the suburbs and they can cal it "long distance")? Are there any standards for what services the customer should receive for the price of a phone call ... that is, *ought* they to beep?? Betsy Schwartz Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu System Administrator BITNET:ESCHWARTZ%UMBSKY.DNET@NS.UMB.EDU U-Mass Boston Computer Science Dept. Harbor Campus Boston, MA 02125-3393 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 12:07 EDT From: FRASER@ccl2.eng.ohio-state.edu Subject: NTIA Report On January 9, 1990, the NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration, part of the Department of Commerce) announced that they would be performing a "Comprehensive Study of Domestic Telecommunications Infrastructure." Does anyone know if this report is out yet? Last rumor I heard was that the report would be published in May or June of this year. My local GPO can't find any NTIA report matching my description. Thanks for any information. (Note that NTIA Telecom 2000 is not the report I am seeking, since it was published in October 1988, albeit reprinted in March 1991. But then, maybe the reprint *is* their new report. :-)) Jane Fraser The Ohio State University Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications ------------------------------ Subject: Hotels and AOS's AGAIN Date: 1 Aug 91 15:00:55 EDT (Thu) From: Jim.Allard@equi.com Macy Hallock suggested: > "...hotels/motels/hospitals is very simple: AT&T and the LEC's will > not share a piece of the pie..." David Ptasnik countered: > "...A much better answer is a call accounting system. > Virtually every hotel/motel switch in the world has an SMDR port. The > few that don't can use a tip/ring scanner or an AOS.." and > "...route the calls over MCI, Sprint, or WATS and charge Direct Dial > rates. They can put a surcharge on every 0+ call, 1-800 call, or > 10XXX call..." Our Moderator frequently bemoans the fact that Hotels/Hospitals seem to want to make a profit center out of every department. Come on gang, business priciples are fairly simple, there must be more money coming in the door than goes out. You can only raise room rates to certain levels before occupancy drops. Occupancy rates, BTW, are lower than they have been in many years (57% nationwide), due to heavy building in the late 70's and 80's. There are probably enough rooms to to handle everyone into the end of the century. Every hotel/motel I've ever been associated with has a call accounting system to handle 1+ traffic. Generally the traffic is routed over MCI or Sprint. Most properties (of course) charge more than they pay (see above business principle). In fact many are charging AT&T "operator assisted" rates. I'm not sure what "standard rates" are, who's the standard? You may choose to use AT&T as the "standard", but many of us do better elsewhere. Then there's the question of that guest who wants to use their calling card, make a collect or third party call, or maybe even person-to- person. Whether our Moderator or anyone else likes it, telecomm- unications IS a profit center in the lodging industry and will probably never change. Further, if the facility can make a little money on operator assisted calls, with few guest complaints, why shouldn't they? Let's not forget, only 5% of my call attempts request other carriers. Readers of my previous posts are aware that we provide access to the callers carrier of choice, rate quotes, branding, etc. I can't be responsible for the others who don't. Therefore, why not make a profit? If you're unhappy about the phone charges on your hotel bill, politely ask the desk clerk to explain and/or provide credit. Practically every hotel writes off LD disputes without hesitation. If you want the property to change their policy, the desk clerk simply can't help you. Call or write the manager/franchise/owner. Finally, it might be well to keep in mind that those of us who participate / read this DIGEST are very well educated in telecommunications (by and large). Most of the public not only doesn't think much about it, they really don't care. (Sorry, Pat, but making one national telephone company a constitutional ammendment is really unlikely.) If we really want to solve the "problem", we'd get involved in some sort of public education process. Let everyone know not only that there are choices now, but that they're less expensive and becoming more advanced every day. An educated consumer is what makes the free enterprise system work. Jim Allard THE BOTTOM FEEDER ------------------------------ From: Karl T. Braun Subject: Looking For Reference Literature Organization: Digital Research, Inc. Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 16:50:16 GMT I'm looking for a good reference book (or two) on telephone technology. Something that can start with how a standard residential phone connection works and can take me to the more advanced multiplexing technologies. I've been messing around with phone stuff for about three years now, but have never had any official information, just stuff I've figured out myself. So I know a bit, but there's lots of holes and lots of shadows-on-the-walls knowledge -- I'd like to fill in the gaps. Any pointers (including periodicals) would be appreciated. kral * 408/647-6112 * ...!uunet!drivax!braun * braun@dri.com ------------------------------ Subject: Interchangeable Area Codes - Coming Sooner Than Planned? From: djcl.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu Date: Thu, 01 Aug 91 17:24:19 EDT Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton There was an inquiry on the Fidonet MDF echo (which was in turn posted on IMEX TELECOM conference) in which someone heard that in spring of 1992, all of North America would be required to dial the area code when completing long distance calls within an area code. This was to accomodate area codes of NXX form as opposed to the present N(0/1)X form. The traditional cutover date had been set at July 1995, a date which I verified with Bellcore in March or so. Could this posting refer to a date when all NPA's must allow for 1+NPA+number within the home NPA (ie. "permissible" dialing)? Some NPA's already require 1 + NPA + number for home NPAs, where the prefixes have been changed from NNX form to NXX form. Some parts of 519 area code have already allowed 1 + 519 + number long distance dialing as a permissible option, although 1 + number still works within 519. Anyone have any news of a change in the interchangable NPA date? replies: dleibold@attmail.com djcl.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu ------------------------------ From: Mark Seiden Subject: SNET Affinity Mastercard Makes Visible Your Phone Number Date: 2 Aug 91 00:31:14 GMT Organization: Seiden and Associates, Inc, Stamford, CT While in my local phone company public office doing a tariff search, I discovered you can now get a SNET/People's Bank "affinity" Mastercard, that also seems to serve as a SNET calling card. (Otherwise it's nothing special.) But two select quotes from the application: "And unlike most credit cards, you never have to write your phone number on credit receipts. It's on the card!" (imprinted right below your name, sigh.) " ... You must select a Calling Card Personal Identification Number (PIN), used for making phone calls. Your PIN must not start with a 0 or 1, and cannot be between 6200 and 6209". (Four digit pin, which doesn't appear (visibly) on the card. but anyone know why the bizarre restrictions on values?) mark seiden, mis@seiden.com, 1-(203) 329 2722 (voice), 1-(203) 322 1566 (fax) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 21:13:21 -0700 From: David Gast Subject: AT&T, Fraud, and PacBell I found the article on AT&T and fraud interesting because the last time I discussed fraud with an AT&T service representative (I wanted a card number different from my home phone number), the representative assured me that there had never been any fraudulent use of calling cards. I am not making the above up either. Never any. I also find this paragraph interesting: > "Because many of these charges are costly to collect, long > distance companies lose millions of dollars to fraud every year. This > drives up the cost of doing business, and as a result, all of the > company's customers become victims of this crime. Given that AT&T and the rest have decided not to compete on price any more and that AT&T, for example, has not been lowering phone rates as quickly as it could (in fact, recently, they have been increasing), does this fraud mean higher prices or just smaller profits? Steve Forrette wrote: > PacBell also emphasize that it is accepted by virtually every > long distance carrier, Perhaps the best reason not to get a PacBell card. Do you want Bob's Bottom Feeding Fone Rip-Off to accept your card? David [Moderator's Note: I do if I'm on a lonely road late at night without a cell phone and Bob's payphone is the only one around. I'd rather pick and choose payphones for myself at my convenience (and generally try to avoid the COCOTS) than to have it all screened out for me ahead of time. I'm all for a single universal telephone card if possible. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Aug 91 10:40:51 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: How to Dial in Switzerland I have condensed the following from a recent post to telecom. (Also, I notice that if you are given a city code by someone in Switzerland, you are to omit the leading 0 when calling there from outside the country.) 155-0011, AT&T USA Direct in Switzerland; 155 (tollfree) cannot be dialed from abroad; 046-45 can be dialed from abroad; charged at local call rates when called in Switzerland (is leading 0 to be left off when calling from outside?) ------------------------------ Subject: CT2 vs CT3 Date: Fri, 02 Aug 91 13:59:45 +1000 From: brendan@otc.otca.oz.au sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz (Thomas Farmer) wrote: [re 900 MHz cordless telephones] > I assume this is referring to the CT2 style phone. This is currently > being trialled where I live using technology from GPT. Motorola also > have products based on CT2. > It could also refer to CT3, which is by Ericcson and even better. CT2 is a TDD (Time Division Duplex) 860 MHz Digital Cordless Telephone developed in the UK, and has been adopted on a large scale for trials in Europe, Asia/Pacific, and even the USA. The CT2 CAI (Common Air Interface) standard (DTI MPT 1375) is an open standard that has been ratified by ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) as a cordless telephone standard, IETS 300-131, and is considered an interim standard until DECT (Digital European Cordless Telephone) hits the market, maybe by 2000. On the other hand, CT3 is a totally proprietary TDD Digital Cordless Phone built around Ericsson's MD-110 PABX. It has no particular advantage over CT2. In fact, some may say none. All the things that CT3 claims as superior (eg two way public calling) have been provided for in CT2's CAI Specification. It is not clear how one would extend CT3 beyond being an office cordless PABX. I've not seen any Management System or network architecture that could extend Ericsson's CT3 into being a public network, which is of course CT2's main aim. CT3 is also about two years behind CT2 in production. We have 12 working CT2 base stations in our labs. When Ericsson came to Sydney last year to "launch" CT3, all they had were four handset shells, which, when I opened them, contained a lump of lead. Also, CT3 has specifically been *rejected* by ETSI as a cordless phone standard (see "Mobile Europe", April 1991, p. 8). Hence Ericsson has no hook to hang CT3 on. The final nail in the coffin is Ericsson themselves. They have bought a share in Oribtel, a company that produces mobile comms systems, including CT2!! Disclaimer: The above is a personal opinion and is not that of my employer. Brendan Jones ACSnet: brendan@otc.otca.oz.au R&D Contractor UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!brendan Services R&D Phone: (02)2873128 Fax: (02)2873299 |||| OTC || Snail: GPO Box 7000, Sydney 2001, AUSTRALIA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #597 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04557; 3 Aug 91 4:34 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26744; 3 Aug 91 2:59 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06346; 3 Aug 91 1:49 CDT Date: Sat, 3 Aug 91 0:56:14 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #598 BCC: Message-ID: <9108030056.ab14328@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 3 Aug 91 00:56:03 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 598 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters [W. Correia] Announcement: CATV (Cable TV) Mailing List Being Started [Wayne D. Correia] Acronym List Wanted [Keith Amidon] Where Can I Get "Telephony"? [Shuenn Hwang] Information Wanted About Lynx Automation Ring Detector [Mark Terribile] Cincinnati Bell Charges for 911 [Len Jaffe] Re: Telephone Device Needs Builder [Jeff Sicherman] Re: Phone Service in the USSR [Steve Dyer] Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! [Terry Kennedy] Re: Larry King Gets What He Deserves [Charlie Mingo] Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext [Henry E. Schaffer] Re: Working Assets Long Distance [jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com] Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [tester@cmcl2.nyu.edu] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Wayne D. Correia" Subject: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters Date: 2 Aug 91 16:51:07 GMT Organization: Wayne's World! (Apple Computer, Inc., Cupertino, CA, USA) Here is a verbatim copy of an insert that was with my recent cable tv bill: THE TV NETWORKS WILL CONTINUE TO TRANSMIT TELEVISION FOR FREE. BUT THEY WANT TO TAX YOU 20% WHEN YOU WATCH IT ON CABLE. Their powerful lobbyists in Washington are asking Congress to pass legislation that could result in a 20% surcharge in your monthly basic cable bill. That estimated $3.3 billion in surcharges will then be handed over to the networks in payment for what they call "retransmission" of broadcast programming by cable. Should the TV broadcasters succeed, cable subscribers will end up paying for free television for the first time in history. What you'll receive in return is the same programming. The same number of commercials. The same number of stations you're getting now for free. You can help stop the broadcasters from charging cable subscribers for free TV. Write your Senators and Represeatative in care of U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C. 20525, and state your opposition to the Free TV Surcharge. Or call them through the U.S. Capitol Operator at 1-202-224-3121. Your voice can make a difference. National Cable Television Association I'm too disgusted to even write about my feelings on this but I'm sure there are others that would care to comment. Wayne Correia wdc@apple.com [Moderator's Note: There has been a rule since the beginning of television that the programs broadcast were for the sole entertainment of the persons watching the program, and that re-transmission or sale of the transmission was not permitted, and was violating the law, etc. I suppose the network people are saying that the cable operators pick up what is intended as a free broadcast signal and 'resell' it, even it the 'resale' consists of nothing more than bundling a dozen or so broadcast stations together with a couple other features which are then called 'basic service' for some paltry sum per month. I know if I were to take a cable television signal and in turn send it out to others for some amount of money and not compensate the supplier (of the cable) to me, the cable company would sue me. Maybe that is the attitude of the network television people: personal viewing only, no right to grab our signal and resell it or hand it out elsewhere. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Wayne D. Correia" Subject: Announcement: CATV (Cable Television) Mailing List Date: 2 Aug 91 04:54:08 GMT Organization: The Duck Pond public unix, Stockton, CA I have looked through Spaf's list of mailing lists and have not found one, so ... I am starting a new mailing list ... The CATV mailing list. For people interested in any topic having to do with cable television programming, technology, regulation, etc. Especially welcome are postings concerning 'cable tax' legislation, attempts to repeal syndex and ways to increase competition in local cable markets. To sign up, send mail to catv-request@quack.sac.ca.us. The submission address is catv@quack.sac.ca.us. Nick Sayer mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us N6QQQ 209-952-5347 (Telebit) ------------------------------ From: Keith Amidon Subject: Acronym List Wanted Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept. Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1991 15:54:25 GMT I am an undergraduate in Electrical Engineering at the University of Michigan. I currently work for the department as a computer network technician, and have become interested in wide area networks and telecommunications issues. I recently discovered this newsgroup, and it seems very informative. I am hoping that someone can solve two problems I have right now. 1- I'm a little shaky on the relationships between different telephone service providers. (i.e. how local/LD interface etc) Are there any good references which I could read to get up to speed on how everything is interconnected? 2- Could someone provide me with an acronym list. In the two weeks I have been following this group, there have been many messages, which would have made perfect since except that I couldn't figure out what was. Thank you very much. Keith Amidon kamidon@zip.eecs.umich.edu [Moderator's Note: Check out the Telecom Archives. We have three acronym files available there. Use anonymous ftp: lcs.mit.edu, and when on line there, 'cd telecom-archives'. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Aug 91 18:20:14 PDT From: Shuenn Hwang Subject: Where Can I Get "Telephony"? Hi, can someone out there tell me where I can get subscription information for {Telephony Magazine}? Thanks. Shuenn Hwang shuenn@swdc.stratus.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Aug 91 22:51:05 -0400 Subject: Information Wanted About Lynx Automation Ring Detector From: mole-end!mat@uunet.uu.net From time to time there are requests on this group for call-switches that can recognized distinctive ring patterns. I have in front of me a product announcement torn from one of the magazines catering to the xxx86 user; it is for the Lynx Automation Ring Director, which is supposed to be capable of recognizing distinctive ringing patterns and switching between two or four lines. Lynx Automation 2100 196th Street, Suite 144, Lynwood, WA 98036 206-744-1582 $79.95 for two ports, $99.95 for four ports. They don't say if it provides exclusive, locked-out access for a device making an outgoing call. If anyone investigates it, I'd be interested (hint to Moderator) to find out what they think of it. (This man's opinions are his own.) From mole-end Mark Terribile [Moderator's Note: If anyone uses one of these devices and forwards a review I will be glad to print it here. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Len Jaffe Subject: Cincinnati Bell Charges For 911 Organization: Cincinnati Network, Cinti. OH Date: Fri, 2 Aug 91 03:50:08 GMT Just going through my phone bill (bill paying time :( ) and I noticed 911 CHARGE. . . . . [ ... ] . . 0.12 That's what I get for reporting a traffic accident with a flipped car. And the 911 operator even asked me if I really thought it needed an ambulance! Hurumph! Leonard A. Jaffe, User hawkwind@cinnet.com Cincinnati Public Access Un*x {uunet!}cinnet.com!hawkwind Just Another Hack Perler Ferrets Ferrets Ferrets ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 00:13:44 -0700 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: Telephone Device Needs Builder Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article tedtang@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Theodore S Tang) writes: > I have an idea for a telephone device which I would like manufactured. > Is there anyone I can describe this device to for construction? > [Moderator's Note: Begin by telling us. PAT] Oh sure, after every subscriber signs a non-disclosure agreement. ------------------------------ From: Steve Dyer Subject: Re: Phone Service in the USSR Date: 1 Aug 91 02:40:19 GMT Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA In article HOEQUIST@bnr.ca (C.A.) writes: > If not, telephoning could be amazingly cheap: even in > Moscow, you can get four rubles to the dollar as a first offer from > somebody on a street corner. This is a bit dated. These days there is an official "tourist" rate of exchange of six rubles to the dollar. So-called "hard currency" transactions such as credit cards charges, purchases at Beriozka or "Duty-Free" shops, and business deals still use the old fixed rate of roughly 0.55 roubles to the dollar. Last summer, one could routinely be offered 12 roubles to the dollar on the street without haggling at all, and I'm sure it's over 20 roubles to the dollar now. The central post/telephone office where you place your call takes payment in rubles. Steve Dyer dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer dyer@arktouros.mit.edu ------------------------------ From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" Subject: Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! Date: 30 Jul 91 18:51:41 GMT Organization: St. Peter's College, US In article , bbs.aaron_a@doomsday. spies.com (Aaron Anderer) writes: [text deleted] > Installing V.42bis: > 1) You will need to purchase a 27C512 ROM chip. > 2) You will need to purchase a Sony CXK58257P-12L (or equivalent) Ram chip. > 3) Install the Rom in the Supervisor (SUP) socket. > 4) Install the Ram in the Ram socket. > 5) Make up two 3 pin jumpers for P9 and P10 with pins 1 and 2 jumpered > on one and pins 2 and 3 jumpered on the other. Connect the vacant pin 1 > on the one to the vacant pin 3 on the other with a jumper wire. > 6) Remove the jumpers on P9 and P10. > 7) Install the jumper with pins 1 and 2 connected together on P9. > 8) Connect the jumper with pins 2 and 3 connected together on P10. I won't even comment on the earlier parts of this posting, but the text quoted above needs some rebuttal: 1) Installing a blank 27512 won't do a lot. You'll have to program it. Un- less you have lots of time and good skills at reverse engineering, you will have to obtain that code elsewhere. You can either buy it as part of US Robotics' V.42 upgrade kit (along with the rest of the parts in the above list, and a remarkably similar set of instructions), or you can commit the crime of stealing the code from another unit that already has the V.42 code. That is probabbly frowned on by USR. 2) Some USR modems will need new DSP chips as well as new Supervisor code. Only USR can tell you for sure if you need a DSP upgrade. The programmer for the DSP is a _lot_ harder to come by, by the way ... I have no affiliation with USR except as a satisfied customer of their Dual Standard Rackmount modems (and I bought and installed 15 of the V.42 upgrade kits). Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing terry@spcvxa.bitnet St. Peter's College, US terry@spcvxa.spc.edu (201) 915-9381 ------------------------------ From: Charlie Mingo Date: 01 Aug 91 17:48:48 Subject: Re: Larry King Gets What He Deserves In article the Moderator writes: > I think eventually in the next few years it (and Larry King's gimmick of > letting it ring until he is ready to talk) will cause the telcos to > tariff a 'call attempt' surcharge of a penny or two for each minute or > fraction thereof of unanswered ringing which will be waived on calls > answered within, say, one minute. PAT] There are times when you might legitimately want to let the phone ring and ring. When I was trying to find out my NY State Bar results, most calls to the Admissions Office resulted in a busy signal. Every now and then it rang, and if you let it ring (and ring and ring...), eventually someone would answer. On our office Rolm system, you could even park the call attempt with someone else if you had to leave your desk. It took another four to six weeks for NY to send you your results in writing; I can think of other government offices which also use "the Larry King system" of call management (eg, the IRS, the INS). I'd be willing to pay a penny per minute for call attempts under those circumstances. ------------------------------ From: "Henry E. Schaffer" Subject: Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext Reply-To: "Henry E. Schaffer" Organization: NCSU Computing Center Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1991 21:11:15 GMT In article John Higdon writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 578, Message 4 of 7 > ... And how many times must it be said: > when you control the network, you have a completely unfair advantage > over all the other players? And when they are gone, what is to stop > you from playing the game anyway you like (such as in the old days)? Since there *are* other players, then this type of service (audiotext in this case) is not a "natural monopoly". Therefore the argument for allowing the regulated monopoly phone company to provide this service fails. The extra edge they will have doesn't come from a natural monopoly's advantage of being the only one which can do it efficiently (or at all) - just from their ability to scr.., uh, act in a discriminatory manner towards their competitors and so make more money than do their competitors. This is also not good for their customers. So I disagree with Pat, and agree with John. I might think otherwise if provided convincing arguments as to why the regulated monopoly phone company can do it better. henry schaffer n c state univ ------------------------------ From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Thu Aug 1 09:48:35 EDT 1991 Subject: Re: Working Assets Long Distance In Digest Volume 11 : Issue 595 "J. Philip Miller" wrote: > [from] Arnie Kahn > Assets Long Distance advertises themselves as "the first public > utility that works for social change." 1% of long distance charges go > to groups such as Rainforest Action Network, Habitat for Humanity, > Amnesty International, Planned Parenthood, etc. They also claim the > "highest quality service at the lowest rates." Rates "as low as > Sprint or MCI's basic residential service -- lower rates than AT&T." When I last read an ad for Working Assets, they were simply reselling Sprint service. In fact, I always assumed it was basically a Sprint marketing ploy. It's possible they've established their own network by now, but somehow I doubt it. If you make any real volume of long distance calls, you can probably save more money by getting a special calling plan than by switching your carrier - and you can contribute the difference (5-10 times the piddling 1% quoted above) to your favorite cause. Jack Dominey, AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA V: (404)496-6925 AT&T Mail: !dominey ------------------------------ From: "Mr. Pez" Subject: Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? Organization: New York University Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1991 23:15:14 GMT clear@cavebbs.gen.nz writes: > In article it was written: > Having rules is one thing. Enforcing them in hardware is another. How about having the telco red flag you when you do rapid repeat dialing? For several years now, NYNEX has had switch software called "SID" (Systematic Intrusion Detection). This software will automagically dump originating numbers of those who dial numbers (any number, could be all the same or all different) more than x times a minute to a directory on the switch (usually ESS, what else?). At NYTel, some switches are checked as often as twice a day for new entries to this file(s). Supposedly used for targeting individuals who decide to phreak from home, this list would make very, very interesting marketing raw materials. Back in 1988, it was already being sold to telcos in Pennsylvania and a few other middle Atlantic states. Be careful out there. Forewarned is fore-armed. Lee disclaimer: don't believe anything that I say, write, or do. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #598 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08290; 3 Aug 91 5:54 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06958; 3 Aug 91 4:18 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac26744; 3 Aug 91 2:59 CDT Date: Sat, 3 Aug 91 2:40:28 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #600 BCC: Message-ID: <9108030240.ab13811@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 3 Aug 91 02:40:09 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 600 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Auto-Answer Phone Query [Bob Yazz] Re: Information Wanted on SITA and ALC Protocol [David Lesher] Re: Intra-LATA Calls Using Long Distance Carriers [John R. Covert] Re: What Happens When Area Codes Are Used Up? [Carl Moore] Re: Sprint Price Change [Ron Newman] Re: ATC Billing [Daniel Herrick] Re: Digital Sound Recording Chips [Michael G. Katzmann] Re: PC Pursuit Phone Number [David W. Tamkin] Re: PC Pursuit Phone Number [Michael Steele] Re: ATC Billing [Macy Hallock] Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z [Andreas Meyer] Re: "Free Touchtone" and Increased Monopoly (RBOC) Revenue [Tom Gray] Re: Dial Tone Lasting Into Key Tone [John Covert] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Yazz Subject: Re: Auto-Answer Phone Query Date: 1 Aug 1991 07:02:50 GMT The current crop (sorry -- I've been reading too much "modern journalism" lately (:-})) of Panasonic answering machines will let you remotely monitor the room where the answering machine is located. The built-in microphone is the same one you use to record a new greeting. Once you enter the security code, enter "5" and you'll hear what's going on in the room for 30 seconds. I believe you can also speak into the room at the same time. I believe the feature is called "room monitor". Bob Yazz ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Information Wanted on SITA and ALC Protocol Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 7:56:46 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers I was told years ago that the reason the airlines used such a unique protocol was that they were the first folks to want to link computers and terminals spread out all over the world. And, not only that, but they were talking with their own competition. Thus, they were forced to almost make it up as they went along. They don't seem to have done so badly, all things considered. wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 07:48:38 PDT From: "John R. Covert 01-Aug-1991 1051" Subject: Re: Intra-LATA Calls Using Long Distance Carriers > The question is why does Southern Bell now block MCI but not the > others? Is it legal (by FCC rules) for IEC to carry intra-LATA > calls? Southern Bell (Maintainance Center) claims that it is illegal > and that all intra-LATA calls via IEC's should be blocked. Is this > true? It isn't the FCC that set the rules on whether IXCs or LECs can carry calls -- it's the Justice Department -- Judge Greene. The rule is that LECs cannot carry inter-LATA calls. That's the only rule. IXCs can carry intra-LATA calls if they want to, and if they have filed a tariff for intra-LATA calls with the local regulatory authority. AT&T generally doesn't compete with LECs for normal toll service, but they do for various corporate services. Other carriers each make their own individual decisions, and can be approved or denied by the state PUC/PSC/DPU/CC. john ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 11:18:28 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: What Happens When Area Codes Are Used Up? I am not in Bellcore, but merely summarizing what I have seen in earlier postings. Apparently there will not be regular geographic area codes of N00 or N11 form, but there definitely will be N10 (310 and 510 coming to California, and 410 to include my office in Maryland). When area codes of N0X/N1X form are used up, area codes will generalize to the NXX form. The first batch of area codes of the NNX form will be limited to NN0, apparently to permit some areas to retain 1+ 7D dialing (intra-NPA long distance) by disallowing PREFIXES of form NN0; in other areas, you will have to have 7D or 1 + NPA + 7D (no 1 + 7D) for intra-NPA long distance, and 1 + NPA + 7D (no more NPA + 7D) for long distance to other NPAs. ------------------------------ Organization: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc. Subject: Re: Sprint Price Change Date: Thu, 01 Aug 91 13:20:24 EDT From: Ron Newman In article , sethcohn@alchemy.ithaca. ny.us (seth cohn) writes: > rnewman@athena.mit.edu (Ron Newman) writes: >> I'm one of the people who received the Sprint mailing without the $5 >> coupon. So today, I called Sprint up (1-800-877-4646). Waited about >> seven minutes on hold, then when an operator answered, I said, > (things to suggest he wanted the credit also.) > Except, I tried this, and was told, SORRY the $5 was only for Sprint > PLUS subscribers, and you only have REGULAR service. DARN!!!! I > wanted $5 credit too ... Sigh. They told me that there isn't any such thing as "REGULAR" service any more; that SPRINT PLUS is now their basic service. As usual, Sprint tries hard but doesn't quite have their act together. Ron Newman rnewman@bbn.com ------------------------------ From: "90958, HERRICK, DANIEL" Subject: Re: ATC Billing Date: 1 Aug 91 13:05:11 EST David Ptasnik) writes: > Macy Hallock wrote: >> One of the reasons you are subjected to AOS abuse when staying at many >> hotels/motels/hospitals is very simple: AT&T and the LEC's will not >> share a piece of the pie with the property unless its a very large >> customer. >> Answer? Use an AOS. They pay based on a negotiated arrangement. > AOS's are NOT the only answer. They are probably the easiest and most > resented answer. A much better answer is a call accounting system. > Virtually every hotel/motel switch in the world has an SMDR port. The [...] > guest's bill. Mom and Pop hotels can do it for a lot less with some > of the really simple call accounting software that costs as little as > $99.00 and runs in the background of an existing PC. There is at least one alternative to this. There is a box that will intercept 0+ calls, check the billing, convert the call to 1+, and use the same clearinghouse as the AOS uses to bill the call to the caller's Calling Card. The hotel can buy 1+ at whatever advantageous rate it can and resell it at the markup it chooses with the bill appearing on the customer's usual phone bill. I learned about this during the heyday of SDN reselling. Assuming SDN rates for 1+ it became economical at about 100 rooms. Same technology would work in hotels and colleges. dan herrick dlh@NCoast.org ------------------------------ From: "Michael G. Katzmann" Subject: Re: Digital Sound Recording Chips Date: 1 Aug 91 17:21:23 GMT Reply-To: "Michael G. Katzmann" Organization: Broadcast Sports Technology, Crofton. Maryland. In article gt3006a@prism.gatech.edu (WHALEY, CHRISTOPHER) writes: > I am looking for any information, phone numbers, company names ... for > the chips that are used in digital answering machines (no tapes > necessary), and in digital pagers. Dallas Semiconductor make a series of chips to do this. They also have a small 'speech stick', which is about 10cm x 2cm and records about a minute (with its on-board memory) and can trade off quality for time. The speech can be arranged in 'files' and even includes DTMF encoding and decoding. Its designed for 'teleservicing' i.e. when your pinball machine breaks down, it can ring the manufacturer and tell you what's wrong in English! Michael Katzmann Broadcast Sports Technology Inc. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crofton, Maryland. U.S.A Amateur Radio Stations: NV3Z / VK2BEA / G4NYV opel!vk2bea!michael@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ From: "David W. Tamkin" Subject: Re: PC Pursuit Phone Number Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 16:45:01 CDT When Jerry Leichter asked in volume 11, issue 595, about PC Pursuit's phone number, Pat Townson answered: | [Moderator's Note: Try 1-800-336-0437 or 1-708-689-6000. Ask for PC | Pursuit Marketing. PAT] 708 is out my window, and I can't smell SprintNet from here. They're at 12490 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia 22086. Try area code 703. David W. Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines, Illinois 60018-7002 +1 708 518 6769 dattier@gagme.chi.il.us GEnie:D.W.TAMKIN CIS:73720,1570 MCI Mail:426-1818 ------------------------------ From: steele@mountaindew.rtp.dg.com (Michael Steele) Subject: Re: PC Pursuit Phone Number Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC Date: Fri, 2 Aug 91 00:55:13 GMT > [Moderator's Note: Try 1-800-336-0437 or 1-703-689-6000. Ask for PC > Pursuit Marketing. PAT] I called your number and they told me to call 800-736-1130 between 8am-8pm. I didn't get a chance to try it since it's after 8pm. Michael Steele steele@dg-rtp.dg.com or mikes@catt.ncsu.edu Data General Corporation -- Building the finest Workstations in Industry My thoughts and reflections are my own and no way related to Data General. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 23:13 EDT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: ATC Billing Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 722 3053 In article davep@u.washington.ed wrote: [quotes from my posting lamenting the inability of AT&T and the LEC's to find a way to share revenues with small properties and avoid the use of AOS's ... deleted ...] > AOS's are NOT the only answer. They are probably the easiest and most > resented answer. A much better answer is a call accounting system. Dave is right. Dave is also wrong ... I sell call accounting systems (and phone systems and other things, too). Several hotels are clients ... so I've been through this both as a vendor and as a frustrated hotel guest, too. I think every property should have a good call accounting system. The problems arise in how the property tends to use the systems. Many charge way too much for the call, thus building resentment among guests. Most call accounting systems will false bill on calls where the guest allows the distant phone to ring, unanswered, too long. (Readers of this group know about the LEC aversion to providing answer supervision.) Many properties are too cheap to keep their rate table updated. (We've had over 50 exchange and area codes added in this area in the last year) This also contributes to billing errors. Heck, most properties won't even buy a service contract ... I dislike the use of most properties call accounting 1+ services. I never know what I'm going to get charged for calls ... most of the time. I use my Litel credit card, using 950 FGB access or 800 access. Too many properties use sleazy AOS's for me to safely use 0+ calling, but that's the only way they can make any money on operator assisted calling right now ... and most AOS's put in dialers that block 10XXX's or divert them. Anyhow, the introduction of a standardized set of 1+ rates by a major chain would seem prudent. Many chains are beginning to standardize the cost of a local call. Example: most Holiday Inns now give Priority Club cardmembers free local calls. I think one of the economy chains now says free local calls (quite a feat here in Ohio Bell .08 per call land). I see no reason why AT&T and the LEC's, who will discount 1+ and 0+ calls 15% (on contracts with large customers otherwise) will not share that amount with a property. One could then use "standard" access methods, pay the expected rate (ideally, exactly the same rate as a LEC payphone) and all would benefit. Of course, the property would use a call accounting system for 1+ and make extra margin on the difference between actual direct dial and payphone 1+ rates, too. I've actually advised several of my client hotels to do just this, and advertise the daylights out of it as a major advantage. Most don't understand what this means to the business traveller, its just another profit center to them. Sigh. There would be no collection problems. The property pays for its 1+ traffic the usual way, and the telco rebates the 15% on your bill for the 0+. Most telcos can do AT&T billing in one bill as can MCI and Sprint. The only real problem I see is that AT&T gives special discounted credit card rates to some large customers. They would then be rebating the hotel a percentage on an already heavily discounted rate. Perhaps the discount might change when calls are made from properties with hotel rates. What I want here is a a hotel room phone that gives me the same services, rates and abilities as a LEC pay phone ... and allows the hotel to make a buck, too. (This would also work for COCOT access lines, too, BTW,) I suspect we will not see this happen soon. Pity, it would eliminate a lot of distrust by the public. Or is this too simple and the carriers will not abide by it for marketing/sales reasons? Anyone out there for another set of FCC regulations? [grin] Macy M Hallock Jr N8OBG 216.725.4764 macy@fmsystm.uucp macy@fmsystm.ncoast.org [No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you] ------------------------------ From: gnat!ahm@nsscmail.att.com Subject: Re: Telephone Directories -- A to Z Date: Fri, 02 Aug 91 17:22:51 EDT Organization: gnat - Dunellen, NJ NIEBUHR@bnlcl6.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) writes: > (Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon writes): > > AAARGH, A. A. 309 College St. > > Does anyone think that Aaargh is a real last name? > Not really. What I suspect is that the A. A. is the real name and the > person wanted an unusual listing. Although, with the multitude of > last names in the world it could easily be a real name. True. However, I'm sure there's LOTS of intentional aliases (some of them are even clever) that we don't notice unless we hunt for them. For example, I knew three guys who shared an apartment, but rather than get their only phone listed under any one of their names, they chose to list the number under "Hoser, Hugh". (Take off, eh?) Also, there was a sysop who ran a certain type of BBS software and he somehow managed to convince his local business office that his name was Del Cita, so that his listing would read "Cita, Del". (Citadel) Andy Andreas Meyer, N2FYE jacked into cyberspace from my home in Dunellen, NJ Internet: ahm@gnat.rent.com uucp: {backbone}!att!nsscmail!gnat!ahm ------------------------------ From: Tom Gray Subject: Re: "Free Touchtone" and Increased Monopoly (RBOC) Revenue Date: 1 Aug 91 12:41:19 GMT Organization: Mitel Kanata (Ontario) Canada. In article kentrox!bud@uunet.uu.net (Bud Couch) writes: > In article John Higdon com> writes: > Of course, now we have digital end offices, and it actually costs more > to implement dial pulsing, but the tariffs remain. I would like to see the calculations done to see if DTMF service is cheaper pulse dialing in digital offices. The pulse dialer uses the switch hook detector on the line card. As such this detector must always be provided whether or not DTMF signalling is used. The real question comes with the provision of the processors required to detect the signalling. Dial processing will require faster processing on the processor processing the switch hook detector. DTMF will require a pool of DSP processors somewhere in the office in addition to the the switch hook processor. Now whether it is cheaper to provide a less capable switch hook processor and a pool of DTMF receivers or a more capable switch hook processor and no DTMF receoivers is debatable. However in the real case in which DTMF and pulse dialing must be provided, the DTMF receivers and their associated processor requirements are an additional cost. Whether this cost is worth the premium on DTMF service is a question for the politicians not the technicians. Tom Gray ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 07:51:40 PDT From: "John R. Covert 01-Aug-1991 1054" Subject: Re: Dial Tone Lasting Into Key Tone > One way to verify this is to check your "Service Features" section of > your phone book (white pages). If your call waiting cancel is 70#, > it's a good be you've got a GTD-5. This compares to a 5ESS which is > *70. Nope. 5ESS can be either 70# or *70 or both, at the local telco's option. john ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #600 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20484; 3 Aug 91 11:25 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06958; 3 Aug 91 4:11 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26744; 3 Aug 91 2:59 CDT Date: Sat, 3 Aug 91 1:57:30 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #599 BCC: Message-ID: <9108030157.ab17101@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 3 Aug 91 01:57:28 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 599 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Working Assets Long Distance [Jerry B. Altzman] Re: Working Assets Long Distance [John R. Levine] Re: Working Assets Long Distance [John Higdon] Re: Cellular Injustice [John R. Covert] Re: Cellular Injustice [Jim Langridge] Re: Swedish Televerket Changes Policy on AXE Services [Clive Feather] Re: Line Noise Battle [Bob Yazz] Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! [David Lesher] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry B. Altzman" Subject: Re: Working Assets Long Distance Organization: mailer daemons association Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1991 16:14:58 GMT In article phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) writes: > Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1991 23:32 EST > [from] Arnie Kahn > Subject: working assets long distance > I received an ad that sounds almost too good to be true. Working > Assets Long Distance advertises themselves as "the first public > nutility that works for social change." 1% of long distance charges go I think I've posted about this before. A long, long time ago (last summer) I sublet an apartment from a person who tried her best to be "PC". She *immediately* signed our phone (the phone was in her name of course) up for "Working Assets". The deal is, they rent lines from Sprint, and act as what could most accurately be described as a "VDR" (Value Decreased Reseller) In two months of calling, I completed about 33% of my calls on the first attempt through, and most of my calls required at least two tries to make it through -- that is, a ringing on the far side. This *doesn't* mean I could hear the far party. I can only assume that they took the old rat-eaten copper cables that Sprint replaced with fiber optics. Why didn't I just 10288 + 1 + all my calls? Well, my landlady got very upset when we did that -- AT&T and MCI were "evil" and were "to be avoided or the phone was going -- poof". (Her words, not mine.) She also insisted her name appear at least once on the OGM of our answering machine (to make it appear as if she lived there, so she could avoid paying some kind of out-of-state landlord tax) We'd have fun; we'd remove her name from the message, and she'd dial into the phone and change it. This worked until my roommates moved out and I replaced the nice machine with an old one; then she just berated me to change it every day ... jerry b. altzman +1 212 854 2057 jbaltz@columbia.edu jauus@cuvmb (bitnet) NEVIS:jbaltz (HEPNET) ...!rutgers!columbia!jbaltz (bang!) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Working Assets Long Distance Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 1 Aug 91 10:24:31 EDT (Thu) From: "John R. Levine" The last time I looked, Working Assets was a sales agent for Sprint, and what they were selling was regular Sprint long distance. Sprint gives them a small commission, like they do to any other sales agent. The service is Sprint's regular service. It appears that discount plans like Sprint Plus are not available. This appears to me to be one of those deals, like affinity Visa cards, where both you and the party who gets the kickback would be better off if you gave them them money directly. If you make more than $20/month in phone calls, Sprint Plus (or the equivalent from other carriers) would be cheaper, and you could then make a tax-deductable donation of the amount you saved to the worthy organization of your choice. If you make less than $20/month in phone calls, the 1% commission totals less than $3/year, so it's insignificant. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 13:22 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: working assets long distance "J. Philip Miller" quotes Arnie Kahn : > I received an ad that sounds almost too good to be true. Working > Assets Long Distance advertises themselves as "the first public > utility that works for social change." These people have been around for a while and were discussed here about two years ago. At that time, they were reselling Sprint, but apparently they are keeping the actual provider more hidden now. I know of no complaints against them, but I would personally avoid the situation for two reasons. One is technical. IMHO, one wants to have as little bureaucracy between the customer and the service provider. In my many ponderous dealings with Sprint, the company time after time gave me "extra" credits as compensation for the trouble I had to go through. A reseller does not have that power. The reseller does not have the fiduciary incentives that the direct carrier does to make sure you are satisfied. Working Assets would not lean very heavily on a carrier on your behalf. Their interest is in collecting your money. The second is social/political. I feel that my communications needs, personal and business, are matters to be held distinctly from my charitable and social conscious concerns. If one feels that one cause or another is worth of his attention or resources, then he should act accordingly. Mixing these concerns with utility requirements to make the gesture "painless" is a contamination of my personal compartment- alizations. Others, no doubt, feel differently. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 07:38:50 PDT From: "John R. Covert 01-Aug-1991 1041" Subject: Re: Cellular Injustice > If one of our people calls in on their cellular phone to our phone > number, we receive a cellular bill for $.75/min + long distance > landline charges. If we call the cellular phone (in the same > location), the phone only pays the local access rates (no long > distance). > Why do the BOC's allow the cellular companies to avoid paying long > distance charges when roaming to areas that would normally be long > distance? You call this injustice? That $.75/min rate for airtime is high enough to cover the actual cost of the airtime plus the cost to the cellular company of carrying the call through its own internal connections from switching office to cell site plus a hefty profit. There are as many different ways of charging as there are cellular companies. Here in the Boston area, the wireline carrier increased their airtime rate by 7 cents to $0.52/minute and dropped all outgoing LD charges within 617/508/401 and southern 603 (Eastern Mass, Rhode Island, and southern New Hampshire). Previously outgoing calls had incurred a landline charge the same as any telephone, but based on the closest point of interconnection to where you were calling. Now those charges are bundled with the airtime, which makes it easier for the subscribers to figure out what a call will cost and makes it easier for NYNEX, too -- they don't have to update their billing software for each new point of interconnection. Most cellular companies do not charge an incoming long distance charge if you are anywhere withing the interconnected cellular systems. You get charged long distance for incoming only when you go well outside your home area. With the rates you pay for airtime, this seems quite reasonable! Cantel (with a nationwide system involving no roamer airtime surcharges) used to only charge incoming long distance when you were outside your home region. Now you get charged incoming LD if you are outside your free incoming call zone, which may not be the same as your free outgoing call zone or your free call forwarding zone. A complicated book explains it all. > Is this just a deficiency in the roaming protocol? Nope. The cellular companies will bill what the market will bear. john ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 13:44:00 edt From: jlangri@relay.nswc.navy.mil Subject: Re: Cellular Injustice In Digest V11 #596 Daniel Wynalda writes: > I recently noticed a strange unfairness about the cellular system we > currently use. Although the cellular system is as full of rip-off > artist tactics as the COCOT industry, this seems to be an imbalance on > their own part. > One of our local cellular companies (the wireline carrier), has > complete border to border roaming in the State of Michigan. There > aren't any daily surcharges except in two small corners of the state. If you are saying that your phones indicate you are *roaming* throughout the state, it sounds like a programing mistake in your phones. > If one of our people calls in on their cellular phone to our phone > number, we receive a cellular bill for $.75/min + long distance > landline charges. If we call the cellular phone (in the same > location), the phone only pays the local access rates (no long > distance). This sounds *normal* assuming the cellular phone is ouside of your *local* area for the assigned cellular number. The cellular number is most likely local to your office. Regardless of the location of the cell phone, When you dial the number it signals the same switch each time. On the flip side, if the cell phone places a call thru a tower outside of your *local* area, it's a toll call. If the cell phone indicates *roam*, then you will pay a roaming charge also. > Why do the BOC's allow the cellular companies to avoid paying long > distance charges when roaming to areas that would normally be long > distance? Is this just a deficiency in the roaming protocol? It > seems that the cellular company would want to bill the cellular phone > either way or neither way. Think of the cellular tower as a phone booth for a minute. If you take a drive to Fredericksburg Va. Step into a phone booth and call the pizza shop across from the phone booth, you wouldn't expect that call to be a toll call would ya? Just think of your cell phone as a link to that phone booth. The one thing that doesn't change when you're roaming is your phone number to the cellular phone (which is local to your home). If you were to call home from that same phone booth, you'd expect that to be a toll call, right? > On a related note: I've noticed that no matter WHERE you are in this > area code, I can call all of the local access numbers without dialing > 1+ and without paying long distance. This means I can call 200 miles > away to a cellular phone for the cost of a local call (and the > cellular person's airtime only). How would they get the BOC to SKIP > charging long distance rates on just these selected numbers? I DUNNO! I don't claim to be anything near an expert on cellular. I've been trying to learn and understand it as I go along. I purchased one a while back and like many folks ... I learn something with each trip I take. I also learned to program it after the dealer I purchased it from, botched it up. Any experts out care to critic my understanding of the if/then stuff? Jim Langridge | jlangri@relay.nswc.navy.mil | NICCS OA Synetics Corp. | (703) 663 2137 | j Subject: Re: Swedish Televerket Changes Policy on AXE Services Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 12:59:38 BST In Telecom 11.549 hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu gives a list of some of the codes available from Televerket in Sweden. The AXE 10 exchanges are also used in the UK under the name "System Y". These are the codes listed in the manual. See below for key to abbreviations. Note that all codes end in #, parameters to the codes are mostly separated by *, and that "check" and "cancel" codes have the same code number but a different prefix to the "set up" codes. Set up features: *21*n# Divert all calls (dial tone changes) *261# Bar incoming calls (dial tone changes) *34x# Bar outgoing calls *40*n Charge advice (exchange calls back after the call ends) *411# Charge advice on all future calls (ditto) *43# Set up call waiting *51*c*n# Set up abbreviated calling code *55*t# Set up reminder call *61*n# Divert on no reply (dial tone changes) *67*n# Divert on busy (dial tone changes) Calling code calls: **c Calling code call **0 Redial last number (excluding calling code calls) Status checks on settings: *#21# Check diversion status and number *#261# Check barring of incoming calls (i.e. on or off) *#34# Check barring of outgoing calls (i.e. on or off) *#43# Check call waiting (i.e. on or off) *#51*c# Check calling code *#55# Check reminder calls *#61# Check divert on no reply status and number *#67# Check divert on busy status and number Cancel features: #21# Cancel diversion #261*p# Cancel barring of incoming calls #34x*p# Cancel barring of outgoing calls #411# Cancel charge advice on all calls #43# Cancel call waiting #51*c# Cancel calling code #55# Cancel reminder call #61# Cancel diversion on no reply #67# Cancel diversion on busy Pressing the "R" button on some phones causes a "time break" - on other phones, this can be done by pressing the handset rest switch *briefly*. This will put your current caller on hold (they get an announcement) and give you a dial tone. If you are in "one call" state (the normal situation), then all the above services are available, plus the following: *40# Turn on charge advice for this call n Set up second call If you are in "two call" state (either by setting up a second call, or because an incoming call is waiting), then the following codes can be used: 0 Reject all waiting calls until this call ends 1 End this call and switch to the other call 2 Place this call on hold and switch to the other call 3 Change to a 3-party call 5 Disconnect original call 7 Disconnect second call I am informed that the following also work: 4 Connect the two calls together, and disconnect yourself 6 Place original call back on hold 8 Place second call back on hold If you hang up (clear down) after getting a dialtone through R, and there is still a call holding, the exchange will ring back. Key to abbreviations in the table: c An abbreviated calling code: 10 to 36. n A standard telephone number. p A 4-digit password notified to the subscriber (cannot be changed). t A time - 4 digits using the 24 hour clock. x 1 = all calls except 999 (emergency) and 151 (repairs). 2 = all calls except charge rate L. 3 = international calls. 4 = operator services except 999 and 151. 5 = Star services (except #34 codes). It is permitted to have more than one *34x# in operation. 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: Bob Yazz Subject: Re: Line Noise Battle Date: 1 Aug 1991 06:47:16 GMT If you have four lines in your house and only the one that you want to use for data is bad, swap it with one of the good ones. Worst they can charge you is for "changing numbers", which is a one-time fee rather than a perpetual one. Bob Yazz ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems! Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 7:51:26 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers I'm reminded of a story from a 1960's "73" amateur radio magazine. It was, of course, in the April issue ... How to Convert an ARC-5 into a 500 watt, 5 band Single Sideband Transceiver. (An ARC-5 is a WWII surplus aircraft radio -- maybe worth $25.00 in those days ...] 1) Open cabinet. 2) Remove all components except for the fuseholder in the upper left-hand corner. [Continued on page 176] wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu 5) 255-RTFM ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #599 ******************************