Issues sometimes arrive here out of numerical order. All issues between 601-650 are present in this file, but you may have to scan around for some of them. PAT  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08405; 3 Aug 91 19:05 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18438; 3 Aug 91 17:29 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09894; 3 Aug 91 17:06 CDT Date: Sat, 3 Aug 91 17:05:57 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #602 BCC: Message-ID: <9108031705.aa05017@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 3 Aug 91 17:01:48 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 602 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network B'casters [Mike Riddle] Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network B'casters [R Hamer] Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network B'casters [W Carpenter] Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network B'casters [Fred Roeber] Re: Hotels and AOS's AGAIN [John Higdon] Re: Cellular Injustice [Macy Hallock] Re: Interchangeable Area Codes - Coming Sooner Than Planned? [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Riddle Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters Organization: Nebraska Inns of Court Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1991 12:37:05 GMT In wdc@apple.com (Wayne D. Correia) writes: > 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. And the (inevitable :-): > [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. . . and finally > 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] The problem is that these are, I believe, the same network executives who begged, pleaded, cajoled and threatened the cable systems and the FCC until the latter adopted "must carry" rules for over-the-air channels. These are the same network executives who already count the cable audience in the figures used to bill advertisers. And these are the same network TV guys and local station managers who foisted syndex rules on the cable systems. Remember, the real product in over-the-air television is you, the viewer. The stations rent you to the advertisers and that pays for all the stuff you see (or ignore). This proposal reeks of "have your cake and eat it too." <<<< 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, 3 Aug 91 09:26 EDT From: "Robert M. Hamer" Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters "Wayne D. Correia" wrote: > 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. To which the Moderator replied in part: > 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 ... > 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 I think that there is an FCC reg that basically requires all cable systems to rebroadcast local TV stations in order that cable subscribers aren't faced with a choice between cable and local broadcast stations. I also think that the cable companies (of which there are only a few anyway) have been lobbying to get this requirement changed, as they find it a pain in the neck in some markets (like here, near New York, in which there are a local broadcast stations on channels 2,4,5,7,9,11,and 13, to say nothing of UHF) to tie up channels rebroadcasting. As a consumer I like having the local stations fed through cable; otherwise I'd have to rig up an antenna and then a switch. I don't know how it all fits together but I suspect that the reg requiring rebroadcast of local broadcast stations is at the prompting of the networks and local stations, afraid of being frozen out of the market. It seems ironic to force the cable operators to rebroadcast the local stations, increasing their viewership, and thus, their advertising revenues, and then charge the cable companies for it. Something smells fishy to me ... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Aug 91 11:37:56 EDT From: William J Carpenter Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > THE TV NETWORKS WILL CONTINUE TO TRANSMIT TELEVISION FOR FREE. > BUT THEY WANT TO TAX YOU 20% WHEN YOU WATCH IT ON CABLE. Sheesh. This must be the TV version of Touch-Tone service! The broadcast channels get more commercial revenues if they get a larger audience (by whatever means), so naturally there should be a charge for this. (After all, we should spare no expense to preserve free TV. :-) I thought that the height of mutual self-deprivation[**] was the cat-fighting between RBOCs and cable companies, but I guess the TV networks would like to be competitive in that area, too (cat-fighting, I mean). BTW, I get a notice from my cable company once a year telling me that they are obligated by law to make sure they don't deprive me of any broadcast stuff that I could get if I don't get cable. Naturally, most of it they're already carrying, and then some. They also offer to help me set up an A/B switch for my antennae so I can get the real (sometimes snowy) McCoy straight from the troposphere. No, thanks. Disclaimer: I have nothing good to say about cable operators. My broadcast channel reception is a lot better with cable than off the air. [**] I mean they could all make a ton of money if they'd agree to cooperate somehow instead of fighting with each other trying to get the whole pie for themselves. Bill Carpenter att!hos1cad!wjc or attmail!bill (908) 949-8392 AT&T Bell Labs, HO 1L-410 ------------------------------ From: roeber@cithe1.cithep.caltech.edu Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters Date: 3 Aug 91 09:27:54 PST In article , wdc@apple.com (Wayne D. Correia) writes: > THE TV NETWORKS WILL CONTINUE TO TRANSMIT TELEVISION FOR FREE. > BUT THEY WANT TO TAX YOU 20% WHEN YOU WATCH IT ON CABLE. [...] > [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. Until recently, cable TV operators were *required* to retransmit all local TV channels. "Local" being local to any of the areas served by that cable network. (The recent (couple years ago) change was to allow them to drop all but one of a set of channels that mostly duplicate each other: for instance, if there were two PBS channels in the cable area, before the change the cable operator would have to carry both, even though 99% of the time they'd be showing the same stuff.) Now, does the age-old rule mentioned above cover just the *programs*, or the entire output commercials and all? Broadcast channels often receive a much wider distribution through cable, and therefore the commercials are seen by more people. I'm sure the stations have pointed this out to their customers. In fact, this long-distance coverage, coming up against the exclusive syndication of reruns, resulted in the FCC's "syndex" ruling requiring some cable operators to "black out" some programs. I'd say this shows the stations are well aware of the expanded audiences cable brings them. > 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] But the cable operators *are* providing a service to the people, as well as the stations: clarity. My parents' house in Spokane is in an area surrounded by hills, and the ghosting is horrible. When cable became available, they subscribed to the "basic" service for the express purpose of getting the normal broadcast channels clearly. 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: Sat, 3 Aug 91 02:17 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Hotels and AOS's AGAIN Jim.Allard@equi.com writes: > 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. Then please explain this: the more a hotel charges for a room, the more it tends to have sleazy surcharges and expensive mark ups for room phone service. We all know that Motel 6 (an economy motel chain) offers free local calling (not bad since those calls DO cost the motel money) and no surcharges on alternately billed long distance. And of course the room rates are cheap. On the other hand, go to any "luxury" hotel where you pay four and five times the room rate and you will find $1.50 per call surcharges, charges for non-completed call attempts, and some of the priciest AOS you would ever hope not to find. Why does it cost these establishments so much more to provide room telephone service than Motel 6? Does this mean that the hotel room (priced an order of magnitude higher than the motel) is still not expensive enough? > 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. Do you realize how sleazy this sounds? How glib can you get? Just tack a bunch of ridiculous charges on everyone's bill and if someone complains remove them. Most of the sheep will pay without question, is that it? Tell me, if those charges are right and just, why remove them so quickly? > 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. Absolutely, which is why I make it a point to avoid most of the "luxury" houses whenever possible. If I am going to be expected to pay $150/night for a room, the least I can expect is not to be nickeled and dimed to death by the room's telephone. Such is not the case when I pay $25 to stay at Tom's place. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Aug 91 23:43 EDT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: Cellular Injustice Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 722 3053 In article : > 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. This is not really unfairness. Its a business decsion on the part of the cellular carrier on how to charge for its service. Frankly, I think the two cellular carriers in each market should have different charges, billing plans, services and such. It gives the customer a chance to make a choice that suits his needs. In many markets, the cell carriers match each other, penny for penny, plan for plan. The result is often a less competition, as each decides ultimately not to rock the boat (or kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.) That has been the case in much of Ohio; rates here have actually gone up recently, with one company raising its rates, and the other following suit, to the penny, right away. > 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 is also a business decision, but there is a technical basis for this, too. The carrier has purchases Feature Group D type trunks from the telco. The carrier then pays carrier access and transport charges, just like MCI, ATT, and others pay for network access. GTE Mobilnet does the same here. You don't even have to use a quarter to call a Mobilnet cellphone from a telco payphone here. You also are not charged the $.08 per local call message rate from a business line to call a Mobilnet cellphone, either. IMHO, very desirable. > 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. They aren't. Rest assured, the telco's are getting their piece of the action. Its just being done in an unfamiliar manner. > 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? Again, the cellular company has access lines and the telco hands off the call to them at the closest possible point. The cellular company transports the call on their own network as far as possible. 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: Sat, 3 Aug 91 13:29:24 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Interchangeable Area Codes - Coming Sooner Than Planned? I do NOT have news of a change in such date, but you don't have the source of such remark? Notice that 7D (not just 1 + NPA + 7D) for intra-NPA long distance can accommodate the coming NNX area codes; it's 1 + 7D that has to be discontinued, because the leading 1 is needed to indicate that what follows is an area code. Notice that 215 area in Pennsylvania is in the process of reducing intra-NPA long distance from 1 + 7D to just 7D. For those few areas still allowing NPA + 7D for long distance to other NPAs, the leading 1 would have to be inserted to get ready for the NNX area codes. (NPA + 7D can remain available for local calls across NPA lines, such as in and near Washington, DC.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #602 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id ab11129; 3 Aug 91 20:12 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08431; 3 Aug 91 18:37 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18438; 3 Aug 91 17:20 CDT Date: Sat, 3 Aug 91 16:24:41 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #601 BCC: Message-ID: <9108031624.ab12446@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 3 Aug 91 16:24:32 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 601 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Intra-LATA Calls Using Long Distance Carriers [Sander J. Rabinowitz] Re: Intra-LATA Calls Using Long Distance Carriers [Macy Hallock] Re: Standards For Digitized Voice Under MS-ODS [John Boteler] Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [Peter da Silva] Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas [Peter da Silva] Re: Student Dataphone Use on Campus-Wide Network [Carol Noyes] Re: Free Toll Calls! (was Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems!) [John Covert] Re: Cincinnati Bell Charges for 911 [Sander J. Rabinowitz] Re: Southern Bell Customer Newsletter [Dan Jacobson] 900Mhz Cordless Phones Article [San Jose Mercury-News via Wayne D. Correia] Reputable 900 Service (for a change) [Dennis G. Rears] Sed Script Available to Change Area 415 Prefixes to 510 [Al Stangenberger] 10xxx Blocking Update From California [Marc T. Kaufman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 23:39 GMT From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <0003829147@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Intra-LATA Calls Using Long Distance Carriers John Higdon wrote (in reply to Galen Wolf, Telecom #594): > By the way, how are you using Sprint within the LATA? Looks like > ANOTHER programming problem on the part of Sprint. I can't speak for Galen, but where I use to live (Michigan Bell 313-478), it was possible to use a long-distance carrier to make calls within the LATA. One simply appended the carrier access code before the number that was to be dialed. > How do you use ITT for your local calls? For me, it could have been done by dialing 10488-xxx-xxxx, where the x's represent the local number. I only did that a couple of times experimentally, as I had flat-rate service (unlimited local calling). I just tried it again here in Bell South territory (615-661). Using the above approach, it was possible to dial a local number using AT&T, Sprint and MCI, but an attempt through Allnet produced the following local intercept recording: "It is not neccessary to dial a carrier access code with the number you dialed." Sander J. Rabinowitz | sjr@mcimail.com -or- | +1 615 661 4645 Brentwood, Tenn. | sander@attmail.com | 8-) [Moderator's Note: Telecom*USA allows dialing local calls over their network by substituting '700' for your own area code. For example, if I wish to call Mayor Daley at 312-744-5000, I can from my home phone dial 10835-1-700-744-5000. With Telecom*USA, 700 will always substitute for your own area code. I have to put the 10835 on the call since my phones default to AT&T. The catch is, this won't work for points in 708, which is where many / most of my calls go. I can however enter 10835-1-708-desired number and have it route over their network, although it obviously is a local call. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Aug 91 23:53 EDT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: Intra-LATA Calls Using Long Distance Carriers Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 722 3053 In article > 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? While I am not familiar with this situation in SoBell, I have run into the same thing in other areas. Several reasons might exist, pick one: - Its done at carrier request (often was the case for ATT) Caused by: PUC regulation, or excessive access cost for telco FGD lines for intra-lata use (as set by PUC and telco) - Attitude problem by telco or mistake (both illegal, but it happens) - Although the FCC has no problem with intra-lata calling by carriers, the telco hates it (cuts into their revenue, and they always think in monopolistic terms), so their tarriffs prohibit intra lata and they forcibly block. Note that this is a state level regulatory situation. It is very hard to get anyone to tell you what's actually going on when you run into this. The local people do not program the switching routings and translations any more; it is all done remotely. 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: Thu, 1 Aug 91 0:13:42 EDT From: John Boteler Subject: Re: Standards For Digitized Voice Under MS-DOS? >> Can someone tell me about any standards that might exist for >> digitized voice on the PC? > Natural Microsystems of Natick MA is coordinating the (MVIP) > group and makes a line of boards for voice processing purposes. If you want products which are more functional than flashy, I suggest a good, long look at the ones from Rhetorex. We are looking at what they have and their approach to the whole business, and I am personally impressed. I am still waiting for a decent UNIX driver, but the one they have still beats Dialogic's. Standards are more important at the application level, where your voice mail system needs to talk to my paging interface and his voice router. That is another subject entirely, though. John Boteler bote@csense {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1991 12:08:37 GMT hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes: > 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. Well, back before I got a computer I had a terminal and an old non-Hayes-compatible 1200 baud modem. It had a dialing directory and the same 15-call limit to dialing. A lot of people still use dumb terminals and modems, particularly folks using TDDs, and these people are all inconvenienced by this rule. (I was able to get around it on this occasion because its non-Hayes- compatible command set could be pursuaded to link a number back to itself and they hadn't bothered to restrict the number of links.) Peter da Silva Taronga Park BBS +1 713 568 0480 2400/n/8/1 Taronga Park ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1991 12:14:40 GMT covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert 31-Jul-1991 1853) writes: > 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. > That's not strange at all... [ a bunch of political reasons deleted ] Thanks. That's about what I figured. Politics strikes again... Peter da Silva Taronga Park BBS +1 713 568 0480 2400/n/8/1 Taronga Park ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Aug 91 14:17:52 EDT From: NOYES%uhavax.dnet@uhasun.hartford.edu Subject: Re: Student Dataphone Use on Campus-Wide Network Thanks to each of you who responded to my questions concerning the use of student dataphones on campus. The replies were helpful, and I may be getting back to some of you who are in this general area for further information. Again, thanks for taking the time to reply. Carol Noyes NOYES@HARTFORD University of Hartford ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 07:24:05 PDT From: "John R. Covert 01-Aug-1991 1027" Subject: Re: Free Toll Calls! (was Let's Build Some 9600 Baud Modems!) > 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! Actually, on a significant subset of two-party lines, this _will_ cause long distance calls to be billed to the other party. Don't think you won't get caught, though. The telephone company knows about this. It's a significant part of the reason why you can't connect your own registered equipment to party lines. john ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Aug 91 12:34 GMT From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <0003829147@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Cincinnati Bell Charges for 911 Len Jaffe wrote (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! I think what you're seeing is a regularly scheduled monthly charge for 911 service. In other words, you'd be billed the 0.12 even if you didn't make the 911 call. Of course, I'd still wonder about that 911 operator you talked to. :-( Sander J. Rabinowitz | sjr@mcimail.com -or- | +1 615 661 4645 Brentwood, Tenn. | sander@attmail.com | 8-) ------------------------------ From: Dan_Jacobson@att.com Subject: Re: Southern Bell Customer Newsletter Date: Sat, 3 Aug 91 10:56:00 GMT On 29 Jul 91, arnold%audiofax.com@mathcs.emory.edu (Arnold Robbins) said: > 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. However many community services won't be able to stamp out the lasting impression over the years I have of our Illinois Bell newsletters being the home of stories with headlines like "Just Call", "Phone First", "Your Telephone: Quick, Convenient". To top it all off there's always that boring little cartoon at the bottom. Illinois Bell also has television ads with the aforementioned exciting themes. Then there's Commonwealth Edison electric monopoly on TV reminding us about electricity. ------------------------------ From: "Wayne D. Correia" Subject: 900Mhz Cordless Phones Article Date: 2 Aug 91 17:16:09 GMT Organization: Wayne's World! (Apple Computer, Inc.) This is from the {San Jose Mercury News}, Tuesday, July 30, 1991 "Consumer" section, by The Gadget Guru, Andy Pargh. PROMISED TELEPHONES FINALLY ON THEIR WAY Nobody's perfect. Not even the Gadget Guru. Although the information printed in this column is right on the nose 99% of the time, sometimes I'm left with egg on my face. This usually occurs when I print the expected availability date of a product that does not work out. But in my defense, when I find something that appears exciting, I depend on the manufacturer to tell me when it will be begin shipping from the factory to retailers around the country. One item which fell into this category was PacTel's four-mile cordless telephone. In July, 1990, I wrote, "When something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. This theory may or may not me valid when it comes to the latest new product rumor -- a cordless telephone with a four mile range. Falling into the believe it or not category, these new phones could be on retailer's shelves as soon as spring 1991 and retail for less than $150." Needless to say, the product never surfaced and PacTel recently exited from the consumer telephone business. But judging by the thousands of interested responses from readers, there is definitely a desire for a longer-range cordless telephone. Two other manu- facturers are planning to launch their versions. VTech Communications persents their Tropez 900 DX 2,400-foot range cordless telephone. Boasting a range of nearly 2 1/2 times that of today's cordless telephones, this unit should be the first on the market to use 900-megahertz frequencies. Unlike other cordless units, the Tropez promises no fade or crackle when it strays from the base unit. Since it uses digital technology, a beep will warn you when you are approaching its limits -- and if you don't turn around and head back toward the base, the phone call will be disconnected. Scheduled to show up in October, it should sell for around $300. For more information, call (800) 624-5688. Code-a-Phone is also getting ready to produce its Epic 9000 long-range cordless model. Much like the Tropez, it will use the 900-megahertz frequencies and have the ability to travel about one-half mile from its base. Awaiting Federal Communications Commission approval, as it the Tropez, this unit may show up in stores as early as December and should sell for around $300. Questions may be sent to the Gadget Guru in care of the Living section, the Mercury News, 750 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, 95190. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 91 22:31:41 EDT From: "Dennis G. Rears " Subject: Reputable 900 Service (For a Change) I just called a 900 number and was impressed with their responsibility to the public. It was a number for a letter to the editor for {Newsweek Magazine}. The first 15 seconds consisted of "If you are calling about your subscription, or problems about the magazine you don't have the right number. This is for letters to the editor only. This call costs $1.95 a minute. If this is not your intention please hang up before the tone you will not be charged." This is not an exact quotation but a paraphrasing. We have heard enough complaints about abusive 900 services, I think it is time we give kudos to a service that services the public. Now if you want the reason why I call {Newsweek} buy the next issue :-). Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Aug 91 21:26:28 PDT From: forags@insect.berkeley.edu Subject: Sed Script Available to Change Area 415 Prefixes to 510 I have submitted a Unix sed script to the archives to automate the conversion of prefixes in the 415 area code to 510 effective September 2. The script examines phone numbers of the form (415)nnn-xxxx and, if the prefix is one of those affected, changes the area code to (510). Other area codes can be mixed in the file -- the script only changes 415's. Usage is: %sed -f sed.script < oldlist > newlist (The conversion table was copied from the 1991-1992 Oakland phone book.) Al Stangenberger Dept. of Forestry & Resource Mgt. forags@violet.berkeley.edu 145 Mulford Hall - Univ. of Calif. uucp: ucbvax!ucbviolet!forags Berkeley, CA 94720 BITNET: FORAGS AT UCBVIOLE (415) 642-4424 FAX: (415) 643-5438 [Moderator's Note: Thanks for this addition to the Telecom Archives. Your file is available for public use at this time under the title 'npa.510.sed.script'. Readers can get it with anonymous ftp: lcs.mit.edu, then 'cd telecom-archives'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Subject: 10xxx Blocking Update From California Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1991 05:42:02 GMT I recently found some COCOTs that blocked access to AT&T (and everyone else except Sprint), so I complained to the California PUC. Result: I was told that blocking from privately owned COCOTs (is that a redundancy?) is currently permissible, but as of October 1 access to all carriers must be provided. Furthermore, as of October 1 AT&T must provide an 800 number for access in addition to 10288. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) [Moderator's Note: I understand AT&T is appealing the requirement for 800 number access, but that if the order is upheld on appeal they will provide one which can only be called from within California for intra- state calls terminating within California, which is all the PUC can require. Interstate inbound or outbound is outside their baliwick. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #601 ******************************   Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06261; 4 Aug 91 6:29 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12524; 4 Aug 91 4:47 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31870; 4 Aug 91 3:39 CDT Date: Sun, 4 Aug 91 2:55:22 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #603 BCC: Message-ID: <9108040255.ab29132@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 4 Aug 91 02:54:33 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 603 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Trying to Dial 510-xxx-xxxx [Phydeaux] Local Calls and 10xxx Routing [TELECOM Moderator] City Code 91 in England [Carl Moore] Calling Line ID in Florida [Bill Huttig] Single Line PBX With Auto-Attendant Wanted [celia!techsys!pain!elmo] Re: SNET Affinity Mastercard Makes Visible Your Phone Number [Stan Brown] Re: Where Can I Get "Telephony"? [Patton M. Turner] Prisoner Makes Obscene Calls Collect From Prison PBX [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 2 Aug 91 22:54:59 PDT From: Phydeaux Subject: Trying to Dial 510-xxx-xxxx It seems area code 510 doesn't work here in Sillynoise. "The area code of the number you are dialing has been changed to 708" What's the date for the cutover? reb ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Aug 91 21:09:42 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Local Calls and 10xxx Routing I have to wonder how the local telco interacts with 10xxx routing when a local call is being placed. Consider these experiments from Chicago today: All calls were made from the Chicago-Rogers Park CO. {10222, 10288, 10333, 10777, 10835} will be referred to as the 10xxx codes. There are probably others which work here also. Any 10xxx plus seven digits (to call within Chicago) went through with no hassle, on any of the codes. Any 10xxx plus 1708+seven digits for a northern Illinois suburban number went through with no delay. An exception is discussed below. In the case of 10835 (Telecom USA) I could either dial 10835 + 7D or I could dial 10835 + 1 + 700 + 7D and get the same results. Calls to 10xxx + 976 did not complete on any carrier, and various intercept messages were heard, leading me to believe the actual carriers had been handed the call and were dealing with it, by refusing to process it. Calls to 10xxx + 1 + 312 + 976 always got me back to the IBT recording saying 'when dialing a call outside your area code dial one plus the area; when dialing within your area dial just the seven digit number.' And calls to 10xxx + 1 + 510 were *immediatly* intercepted at that point (no need for seven more digits) with the three tone intercept signal and a message saying "when dialing a call outside your area code you must dial 1, the area code and the number. When dialing a call within your area code, dial only the seven digit number." Always the same intercept, coming from the same place. So this would imply that IBT *is* screening what is handed off to the carriers, and taking back what it considers to be a local call, with the end result being the switch only deals with the !absolute! result desired, regardless of routing instructions otherwise tendered. But yet, if it refuses to pass 1-510-anything because it thinks of it as a local call, then why does it pass 10xxx-976-anything (and it does wait for a full number) to the carrier for rejection? In regular dialing, 1-510 is immediatly intercepted with the same recording as 10xxx-1-510. 10xxx-510-anything (four more digits required) gets an intercept saying 'the area code has been changed to 708'. This is the identical recording I get from merely dialing 510-anything, only in the latter case it does not wait for the last four digits. 1-708-510-anything (full load of digits is required) gets a recording saying 'the prefix of the number you are calling has been changed to 224. Please hang up and redial your call using 224 and the last four digits.' 10xxx-1-708-510-anything produces the identical response with the message about 'prefix has been changed to 224'. It seems like anything I tried using regular seven or eleven digit dialing locally (312 or 708) got the same response from the same switch as when I dialed 10xxx and the same number. The only difference seemed to be the 10xxx method always required a full load of digits after it, where local dialing would frequently intercept after the prefix if there was an area code (312 vs. 708) or other discrepancy. The exception was 976. Oh yes ... calls to *any* 800 number always failed when placed via 10xxx and always went through when dialed as 1+800+7D. So again it looks like the local switch is sorting things out in the process of handing them off ... in the case of 800 numbers, any attempt to go through 10xxx caused an intercept after all ten digits were dialed to say 'the number you are calling cannot be reached with the carrier access code you have dialed ...' I also tried 10xxx# and 10xxx ..... By that I mean, 10222# (nothing more, just sit and wait for it) and 10222 (nothing more). Without the # key, after the 10xxx the switch would wait patiently and eventually tell me 'if you'd like to make a call, please hang up and dial again ...' With just the five digit 10xxx code and the # key to signal the end of dialing, the results were mixed: 10222# wait a few seconds, reorder tone. 10288# wait a few seconds, 'we're sorry your call cannot be completed as dialed...' 10333# wait a few seconds, 'your long distance service has been temporarily discontinued. Please call customer service.' 10777# immediate intercept, 'number cannot be reached with the carrier access code dialed...' and the real odd one: 10835# wait a few seconds ... Telecom USA dial tone!!!!! I tried at that point to enter my Telecom*USA calling card number, and that failed. I just dialed '0' for the operator, and that failed. No matter what I tried agains this dial tone I got only the same recording, 'zero nine, zero four, there is an error in your dialing procedures.' So -- does or does not the local telco switch examine what it hands off to the carriers? If so, why is 10xxx# with nothing else considered an acceptable thing to give the carriers? Why does 10xxx without the # terminator always fail for lack of digits, and timing out with the local switch talking back to me? Why do calls to known flakey numbers in 312 or 708 seem to get suspiciously similar complaint messages from the switch regardless of the carrier they were supposedly handed off to? Does anyone know PRECISELY what happens when the local telco switch is given 10xxx and something (or nothing) following? Is there some table used to decide whether or not to hand off the digits dialed? Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Aug 91 13:17:28 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: City Code 91 in England I recently received an address in Durham (postal code starting with DH1) in England with a phone number 091+7D. How recent is this city code 91? (When called from outside the UK, omit leading zero from city code.) ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Calling Line ID in Florida Date: 3 Aug 91 17:43:07 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL Here it is my report on caller ID in FL. I have not received any long distance calls from other caller ID equiped cities yet. Local calls show up with the correct local number. *67 will cause the device to display PRIVATE. It seems that lines from a switchboard will show up as the line and not as PRIVATE/OUT-OF-AREA.. Payphone numbers also show up. These numbers can not be *69 (call returned). A number that shows up as private can usually be *69ed. Seems to work fine. I only wish it would tell which ringmaster number was dialed. Bill [Moderator's Note: The number displayed when a call comes to you via a switchboard or centrex will depend on how it is billed, I suspect. If all the lines from the board are associated with and billed under the main listed number, it may be that will be the only number which gets transmitted to you. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Superuser Subject: Single-Line PBX With Auto-Attendant Wanted Date: 2 Aug 91 20:02:50 GMT Organization: Public Access Info Network (818/776-1447) I am looking for a cheap (<$200) 1x4 PBX or switching box that will transfer the caller to his choice of extension by pressing 1, 2, 3, or 4. FAX-Switches I have seen are limited to only two selections, otherwise they would be suitable. Thanks, Elmo celia!techsys!pain!elmo Public Access Information Network (818/776-1447) ++ Waffle BBS v1.64 ++ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Aug 91 11:13:31 -0400 From: Stan Brown Subject: Re: SNET Affinity Mastercard Makes Visible Your Phone Number Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast) In article mis@seiden.com (Mark Seiden) writes: > 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.) This is a blatant lie. According to Visa and MasterCard national policies, you don't even have to give your telephone number when making a purchase. This is part of the operating rules that apply to all merchants, and any merchant that requires ANY additional ID as a condition of sale should be reported to the customer's card-issuing bank and the merchant's processing bank. The one exception is when there is reason to suspect fraud in use of the credit card. I have letters from MasterCard and Visa concerning these policies, and will email summaries on request. Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA +1 216 371 0043 email: brown@ncoast.org -or- ap285@cleveland.freenet.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Aug 91 21:59:49 CDT From: "Patton M. Turner" Subject: Re: Where Can I Get "Telephony"? Shuenn Hwang writes: > Hi, can someone out there tell me where I can get subscription > information for {Telephony Magazine}? Thanks. Telephony Magazine PO Box 12091 Overland Park, KS 66212 Write them on a company letterhead and very likely you'll get a free subscription. If you have to pay, expect it to be expensive, as Telephony is published every week. Pat Turner KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL pturner@eng.auburn.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Aug 91 1:39:22 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Prisoner Makes Obscene Calls Collect From Prison PBX A curious article appeared in the {Chicago Sun Times} a couple weeks ago. The {Sun Times} called it "I Have an Obscene Call For Anyone at This Number -- Will You Accept the Charges?" It is excerpted here for your consideration. It seems a convict switchboard operator at the Trenton, NJ State Prison has been charged with making obscene phone calls to women around the nation -- collect. "It's just bizarre. The guy was serving a sentence of 84 years and you can't stop him from reaching out and touching someone," said prosecuutor Paul T. Koenig, Jr. Antoine Graham, 27, who is in the the fifth year of a 84 year sentence for multiple rapes, had a better than average job assignment at the prison where he was phone operator on the night shift. Part of his duties included monitoring and timing the telephone calls of other inmates who had telephone privileges to call their families. He had held the job for four years. In his spare time at the switchboard, Graham was allegedly making obscene calls to women and children all over the United States. According to Koenig, he got the victims to accept his collect phone calls by posing as an official with information about some member of their family. Although Graham isn't talking, prison officials suspect he found the names of his victims by reading the newspapers which arrived at the prison front desk every night. They say he would scan the paper looking for people involved in accidents or other newsworthy incidents. Then posing as a 'government official' -- exact title and duties of said official not explained -- he'd call collect. Koenig pointed out that when a stranger calls on the phone and identifies himself as a government official of some kind, the recipient of the call is more inclined to listen, and if they are not too bright, they'd even accept a collect call, not realizing the government never calls anyone collect on the phone. Graham would give the called party -- always a woman or a child -- some baloney story about their loved one, and then gradually lead up to obscene comments and suggestions before hanging up. One of his favorite lines was to pose as a 'doctor at the public health service' and tell women their husband had some sexually transmitted desease. Of course, he'd ask the women to confide in him with sexual details of their relationships, and if the victims were really dumb he could convince them to touch themselves in certain places and ways as they were talking to him. And this went on for four years! Koenig said, "The prison had left a fox in charge of the henhouse", in reference to Graham's duties monitoring the phone privileges of other inmates. Graham finally got caught during a call to a woman in Oregon who was smart enough to play along and keep him on the phone for quite awhile. The call was traced back to the switchboard at the prison and then to Graham. Prison officials met with police officers and Graham was arrested while at his work assignment. Following his arrest, he was relieved of duty at the switchboard, and has been charged with making terrorist threats and impersonating a public official, based on remarks he made in the phone call to the woman who aided police in the investigation. Graham has also been administratively charged with violating prison regulations. The new charges against Graham carry a sentence of two years on conviction; his trial will be later this year. But for someone already serving an 84 year sentence for rape, I cannot fathom what difference an additional two years will make one way or the other! :) PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #603 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26635; 4 Aug 91 23:37 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08017; 4 Aug 91 21:54 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26773; 4 Aug 91 20:49 CDT Date: Sun, 4 Aug 91 20:27:40 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #604 BCC: Message-ID: <9108042027.ab11314@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 4 Aug 91 20:23:45 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 604 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Local Calls and 10xxx Routing [Bill Huttig] Re: Local Calls and 10xxx Routing [Al L Varney] Non-Local Calls and 10xxx Routing [David Lesher] Re: Looking For Reference Literature [Julian Macassey] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: Local Calls and 10xxx Routing Date: 4 Aug 91 17:44:02 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: [stuff deleted] > Any 10xxx plus seven digits (to call within Chicago) went through with > no hassle, on any of the codes. Any 10xxx plus 1708+seven digits for Any valid code except MCI 10222 works here. It seems this all started to work after the Bell Atlantic/PacTel mess. Also you will be billed my most (if not all carriers) for these calls as a short range long distence call. > In the case of 10835 (Telecom USA) I could either dial 10835 + 7D or > I could dial 10835 + 1 + 700 + 7D and get the same results. Same here execpt the PIC is 10852 (SouthernNet as oposed to Teleconects PIC) If you dial 1-700-555-xxxx where xxxx is anything but 4141 or 4343 you will be connected to directory assistence and billed. Also 1-700-950-5000 will connect you to Voice News Network. > Calls to 10xxx + 976 did not complete on any carrier, and various > intercept messages were heard, leading me to believe the actual > carriers had been handed the call and were dealing with it, by > refusing to process it. Not here, it seems to be intercepted by Southern Bell. [stuff deleted] > And calls to 10xxx + 1 + 510 were *immediatly* intercepted at that > point (no need for seven more digits) with the three tone intercept > signal and a message saying "when dialing a call outside your area > code you must dial 1, the area code and the number. When dialing a > call within your area code, dial only the seven digit number." Always > the same intercept, coming from the same place. Here it is intercepted with your call cannot be competed as dialed. I assume it is because we have never had a exchange of 510. > So this would imply that IBT *is* screening what is handed off to > the carriers, and taking back what it considers to be a local call, > with the end result being the switch only deals with the !absolute! > result desired, regardless of routing instructions otherwise > tendered. Same with Southern Bell. As soon as it finds a 1 + valid area code (none of our exchanges duplicate area codes), Southern Bell passes the call and ignores the rest. But when it finds a 1 + invalid areacode or exchange it says call cannot be completed as dialed. [stuff deleted] > Oh yes ... calls to *any* 800 number always failed when placed via > 10xxx and always went through when dialed as 1+800+7D. > ... in the case of 800 numbers, any attempt to go > through 10xxx caused an intercept after all ten digits were dialed to > say 'the number you are calling cannot be reached with the carrier > access code you have dialed ...' Same here. > I also tried 10xxx# and 10xxx ..... > 10333# wait a few seconds, 'your long distance service has been > temporarily discontinued. Please call customer service.' I think this one is strange. > 10777# immediate intercept, 'number cannot be reached with the carrier > access code dialed...' Same basic recordings ... slightly different words. Without the # on the end, a half ring and a reorder. > 10835# wait a few seconds ... Telecom USA dial tone!!!!! I tried at > that point to enter my Telecom*USA calling card number, and that > failed. I just dialed '0' for the operator, and that failed. No matter > what I tried agains this dial tone I got only the same recording, > 'zero nine, zero four, there is an error in your dialing procedures.' Same here but I get a your call cannot be complete as dialed recording N-6 if I dial without a 1. With the 1 its recording N-11. ATC advertises something similar for LATA calls dial 10789 (or any other ATC PIC) + 1 areacode + number within your LATA. It does not work this way. You can dial 10789-1-Number or 10789# wait for tone 407 number. Long ago (two or three years) you could dial 10xxx# and then dial like you did with the carriers 950 number. Or you could do a 10xxx0 areacode number and dial your IEC's card number and the call would go through and bill as a calling card call. Now the 10xxx-0 + calls require a LEC card. > So -- does or does not the local telco switch examine what it hands > off to the carriers? They must. > If so, why is 10xxx# with nothing else considered an acceptable thing > to give the carriers? There might be some test codes or something that some carriers want available or it could be a carry over from the above info. > Why do calls to known flakey numbers in 312 or 708 seem to get > suspiciously similar complaint messages from the switch regardless of > the carrier they were supposedly handed off to? Because the long distance switch asks the BOC's switch to complete the call when it can't? > Does anyone know PRECISELY what happens when the local telco switch is > given 10xxx and something (or nothing) following? Is there some table > used to decide whether or not to hand off the digits dialed? Good question. It apears so. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Aug 91 14:24:51 CDT From: Al L Varney Subject: Re: Local Calls and 10xxx Routing Organization: AT&T Network System In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > I have to wonder how the local telco interacts with 10xxx routing > when a local call is being placed. Consider these experiments from > Chicago today: Patrick, I envy your free time (or hobby time)! [ Summary of experiments: Various 10xxx with seven-digit inside NPA 312, using NNX/NPA of 510 and NNX 976.] IBT implements the same screening that almost all other LECs are using, specified in the Carrier Interconnect requirements, Bellcore FSD 20-24-0000 (Feature Group D) and 20-24-0300 (Feature Group B). Since I'm at home, this is all from memory, so forgive any slipped digits. :-) I'll include only needed context to answer your questions. First, a summary. Each 7/10 digit number in a CO Switch will yield an indication of "Inter-LATA" or "Intra-LATA". If "Inter-LATA", your line must have a pre-subscribed IXC, or you must have dialed 10XXX. If "Intra-LATA", without 10XXX, LEC carries the call. If "Intra-LATA" with 10XXX, call is carried IF Switch database is set to allow this for particular carriers. (The state PUC usually gets to regulate this, as well as rates.) This simple summary ignores lots of exceptions, such as "0+", International, Feature Group B access via 950-WXXX, etc. > In the case of 10835 (Telecom USA) I could either dial 10835 + 7D or > I could dial 10835 + 1 + 700 + 7D and get the same results. Just as Telecom USA tells their customers. But do 10835 + 555-1212 and 10835 + 1 + 700 + 555-1212 get the same result? With the same DA charge? [Moderator's Reply: NO! The first gets DA, the latter gets the carrier ID message, as does 700-555-4141. That is one exception. PAT] > Calls to 10xxx + 976 did not complete on any carrier, and various > intercept messages were heard, leading me to believe the actual > carriers had been handed the call and were dealing with it, by > refusing to process it. Carriers get these calls because some "Service Providers" that handle 976 calls are really IXCs from the Switch's perspective. At any time, any IXC could handle 976 calls as they wish (it's not a real NXX). IBT gets to negotiate how "non-10XXX" 976 calls are handled by either marking them "Intra-LATA" or selecting a particular carrier for a given 976 number. The second option would over-ride any 10XXX dialed. > Calls to 10xxx + 1 + 312 + 976 always got me back to the IBT recording > saying 'when dialing a call outside your area code dial one plus the > area; when dialing within your area dial just the seven digit number.' Standard multi-purpose intercept for blocking 1+312, forcing 1+FNPA. (FNPA = Foreign NPA) > And calls to 10xxx + 1 + 510 were *immediatly* intercepted at that > point (no need for seven more digits) with the three tone intercept > signal and a message saying "when dialing a call outside your area > code you must dial 1, the area code and the number. When dialing a > call within your area code, dial only the seven digit number." Always > the same intercept, coming from the same place. Same intercept, different reason. 510 is an NXX, which moved from 312 to 708 with the split. You would get the same recording by dialing 10xxx + 1 + 665, I believe. Neither 510 nor 665 are NPAs, and they both moved from 312 to 708. This is the generic intercept one receives for forgetting about the big "312" split. IXCs are only involved in this when IBT adds a "708"-only NXX into 312, and the IXC forgets to make provisions in their tables. Then calls from (say) Newark over carrier XXX might reach an IXC intercept falsely. > So this would imply that IBT *is* screening what is handed off to the > carriers, and taking back what it considers to be a local call, with > the end result being the switch only deals with the !absolute! result > desired, regardless of routing instructions otherwise tendered. I don't understand the statement. Each number (or at least NPA-NXX) is treated as the Switch is provisioned to handle it. Even though 10XXX is at the beginning of the digit string, it is only one component of the routing algorithm. If you think you give a switch "routing instructions" by the way you dial, you are mistaken. > But yet, if it refuses to pass 1-510-anything because it thinks of it > as a local call, then why does it pass 10xxx-976-anything (and it does > wait for a full number) to the carrier for rejection? See above. 976 is a valid (but non-real) NXX in NPA 312. 510 is not a valid NPA (yet) from NPA 312. > In regular dialing, 1-510 is immediatly intercepted with the same > recording as 10xxx-1-510. See, I told you. No 510 from 312.... :-) > 10xxx-510-anything (four more digits required) gets an intercept > saying 'the area code has been changed to 708'. This is the identical > recording I get from merely dialing 510-anything, only in the latter > case it does not wait for the last four digits. These cases are asking the Switch to treat 510 as an NXX in NPA 312. BUT, as I've explained, 510 is one of the NXXs moved to 708 when 312 was split. > 1-708-510-anything (full load of digits is required) gets a recording > saying 'the prefix of the number you are calling has been changed to > 224. Please hang up and redial your call using 224 and the last four > digits.' [Same for 10xxx + 1 + 708 + 510 ....] Just a bad choice of digits, Partrick. My work location, AT&T Network Systems Network Software Center in Lisle, IL, changed from a PBX hanging off the Wheaton 1A ESS(tm) Switch to an ISDN Centrex service from the Naperville North 5ESS(rg) Switch. Since IBT had already assigned many non-AT&T individuals to the 510- prefix, they could not easily move the 510 NXX to Naperville. We had to take a change in NXX; the new NXX is 224. The intercept is the one we asked IBT to give our callers that mistakenly continued to use "708-510-xxxx". I can assure you that there are still valid 510-xxxx numbers in Wheaton, but please don't bug my neighbors by calling them. > It seems like anything I tried using regular seven or eleven digit > dialing locally (312 or 708) got the same response from the same > switch as when I dialed 10xxx and the same number. The only difference > seemed to be the 10xxx method always required a full load of digits > after it, where local dialing would frequently intercept after the > prefix if there was an area code (312 vs. 708) or other discrepancy. > The exception was 976. Hope this answers your questions. > Oh yes ... calls to *any* 800 number always failed when placed via > 10xxx and always went through when dialed as 1+800+7D. So again it > looks like the local switch is sorting things out in the process of > handing them off ... in the case of 800 numbers, any attempt to go > through 10xxx caused an intercept after all ten digits were dialed to > say 'the number you are calling cannot be reached with the carrier > access code you have dialed ...' Another rule required by Bellcore, since the carrier selected by the 800 database cannot be over-ridden by 10XXX. Folks that were allowed to use 10xxx + 1 + 800 might think they were using the 10xxx IXC, so it's blocked. > I also tried 10xxx# and 10xxx ..... [ ... deleted attempts ... ] > If so, why is 10xxx# with nothing else considered an acceptable thing > to give the carriers? This is called "cut-through" to IXC, and is allowed if the IXC wants to handle such access. Most don't -- use 950-WXXX instead. 10xxx + 00 is operator cut-through to IXC (as is plain "00" ). 10xxx + 0# will also cut-through without the timing for a number. > Why does 10xxx without the # terminator always fail for lack of > digits, and timing out with the local switch talking back to me? It's not enough digits for valid 10xxx calling. > Does anyone know PRECISELY what happens when the local telco switch is > given 10xxx and something (or nothing) following? Is there some table > used to decide whether or not to hand off the digits dialed? Lots of tables, lots of software, lots of rules. Take a look at the FSD. After that, I can give you some AT&T Practices that give you more details than you want ... but the LEC is the one that ultimately populates those tables. Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Non-Local Calls and 10xxx Routing Date: Sun, 4 Aug 91 7:25:21 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers The infamous 700-xxx-xxxx number those of us in Dade County must use (to reach an IOC operator) to call Havana will NOT work on other than AT&T. I discovered this one morning when another c.d.t.'er called me to ask about it. With MCI as my default, it bombed. 10288-1-700 etc. worked. ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Looking For Reference Literature Date: 4 Aug 91 14:41:07 GMT Reply-To: Julian Macassey Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article braun@dri.com (Karl T. Braun) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 597, Message 6 of 11 > I'm looking for a good reference book (or two) on telephone > technology. The best primer I know of is "You and Your Telephone" by Tom Rogers. Published by Howard W. Sams & Co Inc. ISBN: 0-672-21744-9 The book was first published in 1980. It is an excellent start on what the wires do, etc. There are also various magazine articles floating around. One notorious one from the June, 1975 "73" magazine called "Inside Ma Bell". Good stuff about 2600 Hz etc. This one really upset the establishment. Funny thing is that it was preceeded that in April of that year with a load of drivel titled "Ma Bell vs. Foreign Attachments". This article had a scenario where connecting your own phone could cause aeroplanes to crash. It was a wonderful piece of scare propaganda designed to dissuade people from messing with their phone lines and attaching stuff they were not renting from AT&T. Then there is "Understanding Telephones" from the September, 1985 Ham Radio Mag. I am the author of this piece. There should be a copy in the telecom archives. Rat Shack used to sell a book by Texas Instuments called "Electronic Telephones" or some such. It was written in the UK, so they talk about "tinkle" rather than "bell tap" etc. But the meat is there. That should get you started. But {Teleconnect Magazine} at 1-800-LIBRARY sells telecom books. Get their catalog. The "ABC" training books are good for basics. 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 do not think we have your article in the archives right now. Want to send another copy? PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #604 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29236; 5 Aug 91 0:35 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07352; 4 Aug 91 23:02 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08017; 4 Aug 91 21:54 CDT Date: Sun, 4 Aug 91 21:17:23 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #605 BCC: Message-ID: <9108042117.ab13706@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 4 Aug 91 21:16:58 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 605 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Prisoner Makes Obscene Calls Collect From Prison PBX [David Lesher] Re: Prisoner Makes Obscene Calls Collect From Prison PBX [Wm. Carpenter] Re: Prisoner Makes Obscene Calls Collect From Prison PBX [Patton Turner] Re: Sprint Price Change [Rob Knauerhase] Re: Why Don't Third-Party Payphones Beep? [Julian Macassey] Re: Cincinnati Bell Charges For 911 [Joe Stein] Re: Calling Line ID in Florida [Bill Huttig] Calling Card Magnetic Strip Format? [David Foster] Millenium Payphones (Northern Telecom) [Dave Leibold] Telecom Book of the Month (or not...) [Dave Leibold] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Prisoner Makes Obscene Calls Collect From Prison PBX Date: Sun, 4 Aug 91 7:37:25 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers > Graham finally got caught during a call to a woman in Oregon who was > smart enough to play along and keep him on the phone for quite awhile. > The call was traced back to the switchboard at the prison and then to > Graham. The most obvious problem with this story: How difficult can it be to trace a call back to the source -- when the number shows up on YOUR bill at the end of the month ;-? Oh sure, it will only show the PBX trunk, but come on folks. If you are Warden Jones, and YOU hear a complaint about calls from your PBX on a Saturday night last month, I'm sure you have SOME ;-] idea where to start investigating. What this really says to me is that Ms. Oregon was the first person smart enough to complain. P. T. (No - not the Moderator, the circus mogol) was right....... [Moderator's Note: I expect many of the callers did not bother to challenge the call on their bill; and others challenged it but were told something like 'you should not have accepted it it you did not want to pay for it ...'. Still others may have been satisfied when they challenged it and either their local telco or the originating telco wrote it off. A few complained, and depending on who they spoke to at the prison, the complaint fell on (at the time) deaf ears. There had to be a combination of circumstances which kept this from getting back to him for a long time. Yes, PTB was right ... PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Aug 91 12:01:38 EDT From: William J Carpenter Subject: Re: Prisoner Makes Obscene Calls Collect From Prison PBX Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > Graham finally got caught during a call to a woman in Oregon who > was smart enough to play along and keep him on the phone for quite > awhile. The call was traced back to the switchboard at the prison > and then to Graham. So, like, how hard is it to trace a *collect* call? Bill Carpenter att!hos1cad!wjc or attmail!bill (908) 949-8392 AT&T Bell Labs, HO 1L-410 [Moderator's Note: Not hard at all, but see my reply to the previous message. It took someone who was willing to go to the trouble and was willing to push on it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Aug 91 14:25:22 CDT From: "Patton M. Turner" Subject: Re: Prisoner Makes Obscene Calls Collect From Prison PBX Pat writes: > Koenig pointed out that when a stranger calls on the phone and > identifies himself as a government official of some kind, the > recipient of the call is more inclined to listen, and if they are not > too bright, they'd even accept a collect call, not realizing the > government never calls anyone collect on the phone. This is not always the case. Twice while working out of town, and one while here in Auburn, I have had equipiment stolen. After filling a report with the local PD, and giving them my phone number to call if anything turns up, they have told me the call will be collect. I'm not really sure why they told me unless people were refusing their phone calls. BTW if anyone is ever in a Memphis pawn shop and sees a set of hooks and a lasher for sale along with a length of fiber optic cable, let me know :-). Pat Turner KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL pturner@eng.auburn.edu [Moderator's Note: I'm sure *local government* sometimes calls collect to out of town / state locations when dealing with private citizens in some other jurisdiction, but the federal government never does. Maybe they would if it was an international call. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rob Knauerhase Subject: Re: Sprint Price Change Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1991 09:49:46 GMT In rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman) writes: > In article , sethcohn@alchemy.ithaca. > ny.us (seth cohn) writes: >> 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. Just another data point in the ongoing Sprint rate melange. After getting $5 credit for the calls I made between the rate increase and reading about it here (credited without certificate) and the $5 certificate with the actual (gasp) notification of the increase, yesterday I got a $10 certificate with notification that I'm now in their "Priority customer" program. All this hasn't added up to enough to pay a month's bill, but I've become quite eager to open any envelopes I get from Sprint! Somewhere, deep in the algorithmic heart of Sprint's billing computer (which used to be employed calling Bingo numbers), there's a method to this madness ... Rob Knauerhase knauer@robk.intel.com Intel Development Tools Operation (for the summer) knauer@cs.uiuc.edu Univ. of Illinois, Dept. of CS, Gigabit Study Group ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Why Don't Third-Party Payphones Beep? Date: 4 Aug 91 14:12:19 GMT Reply-To: Julian Macassey Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 597, Message 3 of 11 > 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?? Ah yes, the kill the DTMF pad rip-off. One of the COCOT faves. They do this to prevent you using your credit card or a remote access port and denying them income. They want you to use their rip-off services. They don't want you to use your own choice of carrier. This is an FCC/PUC no-no, but they still do it. Last Friday night I was in "RJs The Rib Joint" in Beverly Hills. Not a great restaurant, but a nice place to watch women. They had a COCOT that not only returned an error tone when I punched in 10288 (AT&T access code), it killed the DTMF pad after a number was dialed. But the best bit was how they did it to themselves. When you dialed 00 to get their sleezy AOS, the DTMF pad immediatly went dead. Then an automated attendant came on and said "If you want an English speaking operator - dial 1 now". It then offered the same in Spanish if I dialed 2. Despite this being Beverly Hills, operator assistance was not offered in Farsi, French, German or any of the other languages commonly heard there. Anyhow, it was impossible to get the operator of your choice as the DTMF pad was dead. I had to wait for the Automated Attendant to time out. I explained a few things to the AOS operator and was at my request handed to a Los Angeles AT&T operator. AT&T put through my call at regular rates. Need I say, that the level of helpfulness and politeness of the AT&T operator was way above the surly AOS operator. 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: It is my pleasure to announce that the COCOT phone in the coin-op laundry a block from my house screens out all the 10xxx codes and denies connections to AT&T. So what is my pleasure, you ask? Whoever programmed the phone *forgot about 976*, although they did lock out 900. This is an AT&T COCOT, and after dialing 976-anything, the phone cuts through and rings the desired number ... without asking for any money at all! I asked the lady who runs the laundry who should I contact about the phone (of course there was no ID of any sort on the phone itself). But she hates the customers, hates her job, hates the world and hates herself ... "I dunno nuttin about it", was her reply; and that's fine with me. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joe Stein Subject: Re: Cincinnati Bell Charges For 911 Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix Date: Sun, 4 Aug 91 05:36:40 GMT In Oregon, there is a '911 Tax' which everyone pays, which is 3.5%. This is true of US West in the Greater Portland area and also of GTE in the Beaverton/Salem/Eugene area. I have no idea what other carriers do in Oregon. Joseph W. Stein - Joseph.W.Stein@f377.n105.z1.fidonet.org -or- +1 503 643 0545 joes@techbook.com -or- joe@m2xenix.psg.com (voice) ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: Calling Line ID in Florida Date: 4 Aug 91 17:49:44 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article Bill Huttig writes: [stuff deleted] > [Moderator's Note: The number displayed when a call comes to you via a > switchboard or centrex will depend on how it is billed, I suspect. If > all the lines from the board are associated with and billed under the > main listed number, it may be that will be the only number which gets > transmitted to you. PAT] Each number from the switchboard shows up, not the billing number. That is what is so strange. I think that explains the question a few days ago about the PacTel Billing disk where the person's number showed up three times: once for CLID, once for the number and once for the billing number. But if that is the case does caller ID show a number and call return not allow a return to be made? If you know the number you can just dial it. ------------------------------ From: David Foster Subject: Calling Card Magnetic Strip Format Date: 4 Aug 91 18:31:34 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz My question: Where can I get the ANSI specs for the magnetic strip track format for RBOC and long distance calling cards. Background: A friend is trying to integrate the use of calling cards into his telecom business. He contacted several of the phone companies and they all subcontract out to card manufacturers. The card vendors in turn subcontract the magnetic strip and its formatting. However, none of the vendors had their particular subcontractor name available, but they would get back to my friend. Needless to say it's been a while, so my friend asked me to post. Is there an organization that specifies standards for magnetic cards? Is there a publication? Any help is appreciated. David Foster KB6VVV Internet: tigger@cis.ucsc.edu Lab Manager Bitnet: tigger@ucsccrls.BITNET Univ California, Santa Cruz [Moderator's Note: Maybe if he had a card reader he could swipe it through there and make sense of it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Aug 91 14:29:00 PST From: Dave Leibold Subject: Millenium Payphones (Northern Telecom) Reply-to: dleibold@attmail.com One of the nicer models of payphones in service these days is the Millenium, which can be seen in some parts of Toronto and other places. These are Bell Canada payphones (COCOTs as such do not officially exist in Canada yet). These phones allow for use of calling cards, or credit cards such as Visa, MC, Amex, etc. In Toronto's case, a calling card issued from Telecom Canada (eg. Bell Canada, BC Tel, AGT, MTS, etc) could be used, or AT&T cards can be used. No provision for MCI or Sprint offerings, last I checked, other than the ability to dial their 800 number access lines. Major features of the phones include a two line character display (green, fluorescent-like dot matrix display) which can be switched between French and English messages. If the phones have the coin slot installed, the new Canadian $1 coins can be used. There is also a "Next Call" diamond button which will return another dial tone when pressed. A canned voice (also in either French or English) backs up messages that are displayed, such as "Please deposit..." or invalid number announcements. No live operators were encountered during this. At first, these phones were put into service as card-only systems. The coin mechanisms were added later. I found the first of these at Toronto's Union Station. At this point, calls made as 1 + NPA + number would have the cost listed on the display, with a canned voice also announcing the cost. Some fun can be had when calling Inmarsat numbers (country codes 871 through 874); the cost of such calls were displayed as $42 something, while the canned voice claimed an amount much smaller (I forget the exact amount, but I recall it being quoted under the $20 range). The phones seem to be tolerant of whatever syntax is used to dial the call. A call from Toronto to Hamilton (long distance) can be dialed as 1-416-number (the way Bell Canada has now set up intra-NPA calling), or the phones seem to accept just 1-number (with a timeout before processing the call), and I think just dialing the seven digits will also work. In all cases, a deposit request for the long distance cost appeared. Even the 10XXX syntax seems to be parsed by these things, although 10XXX carrier selection is not available in Canada yet. 800 numbers and Directory Assistance calls complete without charge as they should. I didn't have a chance to check out other aspects, such as what happens to the tone pad after the call is dialed, or other things. In any case, this technology is a bit too good to be used as a COCOT :-). replies: dleibold@attmail.com Dave Leibold via oneb.wimsey.bc.ca!onebdos Dave.Leibold@f135.n82.z89.imex.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Aug 91 22:51:00 PST From: Dave Leibold Subject: Telecom Book of the Month (or not...) reply-to: dleibold@attmail.com Is your telecom book collection complete? Is this book in your collection? Authors: Kraus, Constantine Raymond and Duerig, Alfred W Title: The Rape of Ma Bell: The Criminal Wrecking of the Best Telephone System in the World Pub: Secaucus NJ, Lyle Stuart c1988 Lib. of Congress call: HE8846.A55 ... I haven't had a chance to read it since it's supposed to be located in another library than the one this listing was found. replies: dleibold@attmail.com Dave Leibold via oneb.wimsey.bc.ca!onebdos Dave.Leibold@f135.n82.z89.imex.org [Moderator's Note: When you finish reading it, please do post a review. Other readers who have (plan to) read it are also encouraged to comment. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #605 ******************************   Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07705; 6 Aug 91 2:27 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25711; 6 Aug 91 0:40 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05559; 5 Aug 91 23:32 CDT Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 23:15:46 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #606 BCC: Message-ID: <9108052315.ab27016@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 5 Aug 91 23:15:21 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 606 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cincinnati Bell Charges For 911 [Macy Hallock] Re: SNET Affinity Mastercard Makes Visible Your Phone Number [S. Thornton] Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext [Ralph W. Hyre] Re: City Code 91 in England [David Heale] Re: City Code 91 in England [Martin Harriss] Re: Why Don't Third-Party Payphones Beep? [Elizabeth Schwartz] Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network B'casters [D. Levenson] Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network B'casters [Sean Malloy] Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Netowrk B'casters [Bud Couch] Re: Working Assets Long Distance [Andy Sherman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 3 Aug 91 21:07 EDT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: Cincinnati Bell Charges For 911 Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 722 3053 In article : > 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! This Ohio PUC specifically allows for emergency calls to law enforcement authorities to be at no charge. In the past, this meant you could dial 0 and get the Police, Fire and Rescue services by stating it was an emergency ... and not be charged for the call, period. With the advent of 911, specific provisions were put into place that made 911 calls toll free and no local message unit was to be charged. Every subscriber in a 911 calling area pays a small monthly fee to defray the cost of the service (I regard this as dubious, at best, BTW). If your call was from a cellular telephone, the rules are different. I am not aware of a PUC requirement for toll free calling to 911 for cellphones at this time. Most of the local cell carriers say they do not charge (at least in Northern Ohio) for 911 access as a service to their customers. Makes sense to me. The Ohio State Highway Patrol established a special number for charge free reporting of emergencies when cellular service first came to Ohio: 800-525-5555. This number remains in service to this day ... and I have used it several times. (A friend at the Highway Patrol says they have nabbed many a drunk driver thanks to calls on this line ...) This 800 number was established with the cooperation of the cellular companies in Ohio, who all agreed it was not to be charged airtime. It works well, but rings in regional dispatch centers for the Highway Patrol, which takes the information and passes it on to the correct agency using the state's LEADS (the law enforcement database and message system used by all Ohio police/investigative agencies). My friends in the law enforcement community say it works well and is well regarded. Of course, one would expect 911 calls to receive similar treatment by the cellular companies, if for no other reason but their public service responsibilities. As for your 911 charge ... I suggest you make a couple of calls to determine the nature and reason for this charge, and then complain very loudly about it! A letter to the PUCO would be of great interest. (Note ... I wonder if they are charging a monthly access fee like the land line customers pay for 911? I have heard this might happen but I do not see any such charge on my cell bill. For the moment I suspect you got hit with a per call billing.) I will inquire of GTE Mobilnet and Cellular One in Cleveland about 911 charges again sometime this week. In Cincinatti, Aeritech Mobile and/or Cellular One may do things differently, so please act accordingly. Charging for access to call 911, which all subscribers subsidize monthly, is absurd! There's no doubt in my mind that the telco does not charge the cellular company for 911 access, so the only cost to the cellular company is "lost airtime" ... and where's their sense of public service ... or are they waiting for the PUCO to assist them? Please consider following up on this and posting the results. 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, 05 Aug 91 09:54:09 EST From: Steve Thornton Subject: Re: SNET Affinity Mastercard Makes Visible Your Phone Number > This is a blatant lie. According to Visa and MasterCard national > policies, you don't even have to give your telephone number when > making a purchase. This is part of the operating rules that apply to > all merchants, and any merchant that requires ANY additional ID as a > condition of sale should be reported to the customer's card-issuing > bank and the merchant's processing bank. > The one exception is when there is reason to suspect fraud in use of > the credit card. In my retail experience, the phone number was only collected because a huge percentage of card users would leave the thing behind. We would collect five or ten every day when I worked in a large bookstore. If someone wanted to protest, we'd leave it off, no problem. The phone number isn't useful for collecting bad debt -- any crook with a bad card will give a false number (duh) and card charges can't bounce like checks -- it's the card company that has to go get the money. Steve Thornton / Harvard University Library / +1 617 495 3724 netwrk@harvarda.bitnet / netwrk@harvarda.harvard.edu ------------------------------ From: "Ralph W. Hyre" Subject: Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext Date: 5 Aug 91 14:16:30 GMT Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 573, Message 1 of 12 > 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. Great. More of what we really needed from the Baby Bells. Since there is already vital marketplace, what justification is there for allowing protected, regulated entities with monopoly status to enter the market. Certainly not capital expense or interoperability, any of the other reasons for natural monopolies. I want ISDN and its successors in my home, not more of the same old stuff. Cincinnati Bell has been offerring a service called 'the Talking Yellow Pages' for a few years now. You dial the number (513) 333-4444 and enter some four-digit codes to get weather reports, movie listings, and such. A human used to be accessible by dialing 0, but they discontinuted that feature, probably due to the expense. The service is supposedly advertiser supported, but there don't seem to be enough advertisers to make the service very profitable yet. (Many of the bits of information are now sponsored by 'the Talking Yellow Pages') I like to be able to get weather for other cities without having to use the {USA Today} 900 service. I also enjoy getting movie listings without having to get through the busy signals at most theaters. Too bad it's not a 950 number so it's free from payphones. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: City Code 91 in England Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 16:29:27 BST From: D.Heale@ee.surrey.ac.uk cmoore@brl.mil writes: > I recently received an address in Durham (postal code starting with > DH1) in England with a phone number 091+7D. How recent is this city > code 91? (When called from outside the UK, omit leading zero from > city code.) This code has been in use for a few years and covers the Tyneside area. Unlike the other 0n1 codes numbers in 091 are listed with exchange names ( Tyneside, Newcastle and Durham) and 091 is listed for seven digit numbers in those exchanges, while other codes were listed for five and six digit numbers with the same exchange names. It would appear that exchanges were gradually converted to have seven digit numbers and moved into 091 over a few years. David Heale ------------------------------ From: Martin Harriss Subject: Re: City Code 91 in England Reply-To: Martin Harriss Organization: Beechwood Data Systems Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 19:18:25 GMT In article cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: > I recently received an address in Durham (postal code starting with > DH1) in England with a phone number 091+7D. How recent is this city > code 91? (When called from outside the UK, omit leading zero from > city code.) This has been around for about two or three years. The code is for Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the surrounding area, what used to be STD code 0632. What happened is that the demand for telephones grew to such an extent that six-figure numbers were not enough, so they went to seven- figure numbers. Some existing British Telecom STD register-translator equipment limits the total naumber of digits in a number to ten, including the initial '0', so a currently unused three digit STD code was chosen. Note that 091 is not a director area, it just has seven-figure numbers. The official name of the 091 charge group is Tyneside. Martin Harriss martin@bdsi.com ------------------------------ From: Elizabeth Schwartz Subject: Re: Why Don't Third-Party Payphones Beep? Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1991 17:51:17 GMT In article Julian Macassey writes: > Ah yes, the kill the DTMF pad rip-off. One of the COCOT faves. > They do this to prevent you using your credit card or a remote access > port and denying them income. They want you to use their rip-off > services. They don't want you to use your own choice of carrier. This > is an FCC/PUC no-no, but they still do it. So is this actually illegal? Could I complain to someone if a particular payphone in my neighborhood behaves this way? Related gripe: these phones also NEVER make change or remember how much money you put in. I once spent $1 in quarters because the machine made no change, and I was asked "Please deposit 5c for an additional three minutes) three times. After about ten minutes on the phone, I persuaded them to send me a refund. I do not ask why the phones are made *this* way, its obvious. :-P 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 [Moderator's Note: Isn't it neat how genuine Bell payphones allow you to deposit ahead of time what you think you will use then the system responds by saying "you have X cents credit for overtime." PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters Date: 5 Aug 91 18:36:46 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , wdc@apple.com (Wayne D. Correia) writes: [ regarding taxing cable TV subscribers and subsidizing the broadcast industry]: > I'm too disgusted to even write about my feelings on this but I'm sure > there are others that would care to comment. Pat responds, in part: > [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... A few thoughts on this: If the cable company is picking up a broadcast and distributing it in real time to its subscribers, why is the network complaining? I live on the wrong side of Watchung Mountain, and I can't receive a good signal from the New York City TV stations via the air. For a few hundred dollars, I could buy a tall tower and locate my antenna where it can 'see' the transmitters. Instead, I choose to pay a few dollars per month and let the cable company do that for me. How does that hurt the network? Why does the type of antenna or its ownership change the relationship between the viewer and the broadcaster? If they make the cable too much more expensive, it will eventually cost less for me to build my own antenna, but I'll still get the same signals, won't I? 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: Mon, 5 Aug 91 07:16:36 PDT From: Sean Malloy Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters Organization: Navy Personnel R&D Center, San Diego In article TELECOM Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: > 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 I would hazard a guess that, should it come down to a legal battle, the cable companies would use the argument that what they are providing is a 'reception service' -- essentially, a shared community antenna which enables the average viewer to receive stations with a significantly higher signal quality than would be available from a TV-top or rooftop antenna. That argument, if successfully presented, might also torpedo the FCC's 'syndex' regulations for cable companies, where someone with their own antenna can watch syndicated shows broadcast by a channel in a nearby city, but cable providers have to black out syndicated shows on a non-local channel which are broadcast by a local channel (local example: _Star Trek: The Next Generation_ is broadcast on the San Diego channel 6 and by the Los Angeles channel 13, but the San Diego cable companies have to black out channel 13 during its broadcasts of the show). Sean Malloy Navy Personnel Research & Development Center San Diego, CA 92152-6800 malloy@nprdc.navy.mil ------------------------------ From: Bud Couch Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1991 21:55:51 GMT In article wdc@apple.com (Wayne D. Correia) writes: > 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. Boy, once they get hold of what seems to be a sure-fire money making scheme (having the government collect money for you, using the coersive powers of the state) they don't want to give up. Wasn't it NARTB that had the brilliant idea that we should all pay a tax on blank tape (procedes to go them, of course) to compensate for all of the taping going on? Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew... standard BS applies ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 17:38:50 EDT Subject: Re: Working Assets Long Distance Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA In article phil@wubios.wustl.edu writes: > 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." Last I heard, Working Assets was an affinity program using Sprint long distance. 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! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #606 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10207; 6 Aug 91 3:27 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01540; 6 Aug 91 1:47 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25711; 6 Aug 91 0:40 CDT Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 0:19:42 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #607 BCC: Message-ID: <9108060019.ab09361@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 6 Aug 91 00:19:34 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 607 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson What Number CLID Transmits (was Calling Line ID in FL) [Ken Weaverling] Bell Canada Proposes Sale of Northwest Territories Operations [Nigel Allen] Illinois Bell, Chicago Pay Phones, and Drug Dealers [Nigel Allen] Request For Information on 'Mirror' Software [Tim Sullivan] Wanted: Complete Rate Information for Chicagoland [H. Peter Anvin] Connecting a US Phone to a British Outlet [David Yip] Telephones in Illinois [Dave Niebuhr] Another Proposed Tax [David Gast] Interchangeable NPA's [Dave Leibold] MIR Email Address [Michael Gersten] Collect Government Telephone Calls [John Bruner] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ken Weaverling Subject: What Number CLID Transmits (was Calling Line ID in FL) Date: 5 Aug 91 02:15:22 GMT Organization: University of Delaware In article The Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: The number displayed when a call comes to you via a > switchboard or centrex will depend on how it is billed, I suspect. If > all the lines from the board are associated with and billed under the > main listed number, it may be that will be the only number which gets > transmitted to you. PAT] The difference between Caller ID and ANI is that ANI reports the billing number where CLID reports the actual number called from. A call originating from a PBX will show the number of the trunk line that that call goes out on. When I call home from work (which I do at least once a day), my CLID box shows the different trunk numbers I just happen by chance to go out on for each call. A call from a Centrex number *will* display the actual number called from. While I am not a telecom guru, I can see how the above makes logical sense. The CO only sees trunk lines coming from a PBX, and therefore can't tell what actual number the call was dialled from. Since a Centrex service is basically all contained in the CO, the CO then knows the actual number called from. 'Tis a shame that some of the most avid telecom *nuts* out there live in areas that are still in the telecom dark ages. Well, at least Chicago has finally gotten Class service! :-) All I can say is I am glad I don't live in Pac*Bell land! :-) Ken Weaverling weave@brahms.udel.edu [Moderator's Note: So with automtic call back and call screening, which version is used when there is a discrepancy -- ANI or CLID? My experience is here these services use the billing number. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 Aug 91 06:19:17 PDT From: Nigel Allen Subject: Bell Canada Proposes Sale of Northwest Territories Operations Organization: FidoNet node 1:250/438 Bell Canada has apparently agreed to sell its operations in the eastern half of the Northwest Territories (including Baffin Island) to Northwestel Inc. Both companies are subsidiaries of BCE Inc. Northwestel, based in Whitehorse, used to be part of CN Telecommun- ications, and provides telephone, telex and other telecommunications services in the rest of the Northwest Territories, the Yukon, and parts of northern British Columbia. Bell's Northwest Territories operations are based in Iqaluit (formerly Frobisher Bay) on Baffin Island. The company publishes a trilingual phone book: English, French and Inuktikut (the language of the Inuit). Like virtually everything else connected with telecommunications in Canada, the proposed sale is subject to the approval of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. It is scheduled to take effect on Janury 1, 1992. Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 Aug 91 06:14:43 PDT From: Nigel Allen Subject: Illinois Bell, Chicago Pay Phones, and Drug Dealers I wonder if the drug dealers who won't be able to feed quarters into pay phones after 7:30 p.m. are going to intimidate local residents and store owners into letting them (the drug dealers) use the phones belonging to the residents or stores. I also wonder whether the drug dealers are going to start using stolen lineman's test sets to use other people's phone lines without their permission or knowledge. Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ From: Tim Sullivan Subject: Request For Information on 'Mirror' Software Date: 5 Aug 91 14:30:13 GMT Organization: Center for Nonlinear Studies, Los Alamos My wife works for a newspaper that has a computerized publishing system based on Novell linked PC clones. The people are not very computer oriented and have asked me to look at their problem to see if it has a simple fix. Briefly, they have lost their ability to dial in stories and need the ability to locally connect a notebook computer (the Tandy 102) and upload stories from the Tandy to the system. First the dial in problem. I called in to their Courier 1200 modem from my home computer (a PC clone with an Everex 2400 baud modem) which answered the phone and I got a connect 1200 message, but no further response (despite trying a couple of combinations of protocols). I went into their plant and logged on to one of the networked clones. It was running Novell Netware. I grepped around and discovered a MODEM subdirectory which had an executable called MIRROR. Does this program have the ability to answer the phone and upload files? The clone that the modem is attached to appears to be just another one of the network, being used by one of the secretaries to type in copy. Now if this is the dial in machine does it have to be dedicated to running MIRROR or is there something about the network situation or MIRROR that allows it to run in the background and do its phone answering and file capture thing? (That is, I'm wondering if they lost their dial in capability because they are simply not setting the machine up to accept calls after using it to type in copy). Now for the local connection problem. The Tandy has an RS232 port and a terminal emulating program that emulates a vt52. Can I connect (with a null modem cable) the Tandy to an RS232 port on one of the clones and use MIRROR to do file captures? Thanks for any help or helping me to ask the right questions. Tim Sullivan (sullivan@vax001.kenyon.edu) ------------------------------ From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Wanted: Complete Rate Information For Chicagoland Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1991 15:10:30 GMT As some of you people may know, I am the editor of the Stillwaters Chicagoland BBS List. I have for a while had a program package (freeware) called LISTUTIL which permits people to among other things enter their Illinois Bell provided list of calling bands and mark up the Stillwaters List with the different call band fee zones. The problem is just the manual step, especially since IBT no longer provides the band listing without request. Does anyone know where/how it would be possible to get the any exchange-to-any other exchange rate information, preferrably in machine-readable form, that could be packaged with this software? Peter Anvin The Stillwaters Chicagoland BBS List is FTPable from ftp.acns.nwu.edu as /pub/bbs.lists/cbbslist. INTERNET: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (hpa@nwu.edu after this summer) BITNET: HPA@NUACC HAM RADIO: N9ITP, SM4TKN FIDONET: 1:115/989.4 "finger" the Internet address above for more information. ------------------------------ From: David Yip Subject: Connecting a US Phone to a British Outlet Date: 5 Aug 91 14:00:38 GMT Hello out there, I was wondering if anyone could help me. I will/have a US phone with a "standard" white plastic socket on the end to plug into the wall and I would like to replace this with a British style socket arrangement that will plug into a British style wall mounting. I have a couple of questions to ask, as anyone who is reading this can tell I AM NO EXPERT : Q1 : Is the above possible? Q2 : If it is possible how do I go about doing it? BUT i have this piece of information : On the RJ-11 jack (which I presume is the American socket "bit" (won't for another word) that plugs into the wall), the two center pins (3-red and 4-green) carry the phone line. The ringing is also supplied on the "red and green". In the UK, there is a ringing signal on pins 2 and 5 though most UK phones derive ring signals from pin 5 and a signal from pin 2 connected to 3 via a 2uF capacitor. UK extension phones use the capacitor in the jack. US phones have the capacitor in the phone. This seems to me the it is possible to connected the a US phone. But not being an expert I am not quite sure. So Q3 : Could someone explain it a bit more for me PLEASE !!?? Thanks for any help that may be forthcoming in advance. David Yip Manchester Computing Centre,|Janet : yip@uk.ac.mcc.cgu Computer Graphics Unit, |Internet : yip%cgu.mcc.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Oxford Road, |Earn/Bitnet : yip%uk.ac.mcc.cgu@UKACRL Manchester, M13 9PL, U.K. |Voice : +44 61-275-6046 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1991 15:26:02 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" Subject: Telephones in Illinois I will be in Illinois the third week of September and will probably be placing a few 312-516 and 708-516 calls and possible one or two between 708 and 312 (both directions). Is there anything special needed about doing the above seeing as I have AT&T as my long distance carrier as well as their calling card? The reason I ask is that I have read some of the comments about Illinois Bell Telephone and want to make sure that I can use my carrier of choice without worrying about getting ripped off by some third-party outfit. One more question: Who is the Baby-Bell in that area? Just curious. I'm assuming Ameritech but not sure. Dave Niebuhr Brookhaven National Laboratory Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov [Moderator's Note: If AT&T is your carrier of choice then you'll get along fine with Illinois Bell, provided you stick to their payphones and not the COCOTS you may see here and there. IBT and AT&T (like the other Bells and their former parent) are like two peas in a pod ... all very friendly and accomodating, etc ... and yes, Ameritech is now the 'foster parent' of Illinois Bell since Ma was forced to give up her kids a few years ago. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 15:28:46 -0700 From: David Gast Subject: Another Proposed Tax The recent thread here about the networks wanting to tax cable tv 20% for retransmission of broadcast television reminds me of the propsed tax on digital recorders and blank digital tapes. In both cases, the tax will end up subsidizing programs the consumer is not interested in. I think that both should be unconstitutional under the First Amendment because essentially a tax is an abridgement of free speech. My primary concern, however, is that I should not be forced to subsidize some program (digital audio, free tv, etc) that I specifically do not like. Specifically, there are some broadcast tv stations that I never watch. Why should I be forced to subsidize them? If they want my money, they can put on programs I want to watch. Similarly with digital audio. Why should I be forced to subsidize an artist whom I don't like? Just because others like him/her, does not mean that I have to. The result will be that the most commercial and hence most popular get even more millions and those that appeal to smaller groups will get less money. In fact, if you want to record yourself, you will have to pay the tax supporting others. [And don't give the argument about pirates; if they priced the material at a reasonable price, people would buy instead of copying.] More to the point, in either of these cases, the message may be political or religious and it may be for a point of view that you definitely do not agree with. Why should you be forced to subsidize them? I clearly do not believe that you should. David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Aug 91 19:08:00 PDT From: Dave Leibold Subject: Interchangeable NPA's Reply-to: dleibold@attmail.com Given Carl Moore's message, perhaps the source of the story for bringing on the 1+10D dialing everywhere for intra-NPA calls should be revealed; as mentioned before, this appeared on Fido's MDF echo, and in turn on IMEX Telecom. This message was posted by Nigel Allen as a reply to Charles Ring. One possibility is that this is being confused with Atlanta's area code split (404/706) since that is starting up the beginning of May '92. There are regional 1+10D conversions that have happened such as 416 going to NXX prefixes from NNX. -------------- Msg# : 933 Sat 27 Jul 91 6:42a From : Nigel Allen To : Charles Ring Subject: Area code required? In a message of in FidoNet's MDF echo, Charles Ring (1:2601/100) writes: > **What follows is an unconfirmed rumor** > Someone on another echo claims that, effective May 2, 1992, > everyone across the nation will be required to dial ten digits > including area code to make all calls, including local calls. > Is there any truth to this? Probably not for local calls. For some time now, we have been aware that North America is running out of area codes. The current crop of codes all have 1 or 0 as their middle digit. Starting in 1995 or thereabouts, new area codes with digits *other* than 1 or 0 will be introduced. Since these area codes are also plausible exchange codes (NXX, formerly NNX), you will have to dial the full ten digits, even for long distance calls within your area code. This is already the case in areas which use area code-like numbers as local prefixes (Toronto, for example). While the new area codes may not arrive before 1995, the telephone companies obviously want to give people time to get used to the new style of dialling long distance calls. This is the first I have heard of the May 2, 1992 date, but it sounds plausible. I would guess that you would have to dial the area code for a local call only if it differs from your own. In other words, if you live downtown and want to call a suburb in a different area code (but it's still a local call for you), you may have to include the area code sooner or later. --- NDA * Origin: Echo Beach, Toronto (89:480/501) [end of posting] replies: dleibold@attmail.com-- Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:3609/1 UUCP: !djcl INTERNET: djcl@bnw.debe.fl.us ------------------------------ Subject: MIR Address Date: 4 Aug 91 19:23:56 PDT (Sun) From: Michael Gersten Now that we have the shuttle's address, whats the MIR station address? After all, someone said that they wanted some more news about what's going on in the world, right? Michael ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 08:39:17 CDT From: John Bruner Subject: Collect Government Telephone Calls A couple of months ago I received a call that stated "This is a collect call from the county jail. To accept the charges, press [some DTMF digit]." Without any further information I just hung up. I called the Champaign County (IL) sheriff's office and asked them about this. They told me that calls from prisoners were placed this way. A recorded message that clearly identifies the jail as the point of origin seems like a good idea, but it might have been helpful if it had stated from *which* county jail it came. (Long distance from "the" county jail? It must have been some other county, as calls from Urbana to the city of Champaign are local.) John Bruner Center for Supercomputing R&D, University of Illinois bruner@csrd.uiuc.edu (217) 244-4476 [Moderator's Note: But this was not the *government* calling you collect. It was a jail inmate doing the calling. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #607 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17540; 7 Aug 91 2:47 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11453; 7 Aug 91 1:07 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21935; 6 Aug 91 23:57 CDT Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 23:47:24 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #608 BCC: Message-ID: <9108062347.ab29095@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 6 Aug 91 23:46:49 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 608 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice [TELECOM Moderator] Two New Archives Files [TELECOM Moderator] Randy Wants You to Know ... [TELECOM Moderator] Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? [Marcel Mongeon] Re: Freedom! AT&T Reports the Good News [Gregory G. Woodbury] Re: Prisoner Makes Obscene Calls Collect From Prison PBX [Dan Jacobson] Key System Wanted For Residence Use [Michael Bender] Re: Hotels and AOS's Again [Marcel Mongeon] Re: Calling Card Magnetic Strip Format [Laird P. Broadfield] Re: Why Don't Third Party Payphones Beep? [Bud Couch] Long Distance Across a Road [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 2:18:36 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice A recent advertisement in the papers here tells of a new telephone with some sort of chip(s) in it which allow six different voices to be heard in addition to your own. Biosynetic Research has developed this phone and is offering it for sale via mail order for $19.95. The picture of the phone in the ad shows one of those cheapie little one piece plastic units which hangs up when you set it down on the table. It is only one line, naturally. Biosynetic Research describes it thus: "Can be used as an extension phone, or to replace your present phone. Turned off, it is a normal phone, but at the flip of a switch it changes your voice. It has six built in voices, which can be changed from male to female and vice-versa. Easy to use, with just one switch which is moved to various positions." The company claims similar units have been used by private investigators, 'government agents' and others for many years, but that the price was much higher. Modern technology has allowed the price to be greatly reduced, they say. The company discusses applications for the phone: "Control who you talk to. Eliminate unwanted calls and annoying people. You can answer the phone, screen the call and claim you are not there. With six different male/female voices, the caller will never be able to tell who s/he spoke to." "Security for children. Children home alone can answer the phone in an adult voice. A good way to guard against molestors, obscene callers and burglars." "Safety for single women. Don't worry about obscene or crank calls late at night ... have a 'man' answer the phone for you." "Find out information from others without revealing who you are. Even your close friends won't recognize you ... we guarentee it. You can leave joke messages on your friends' answering machines, and let them try to figure out who the prankster was ... " The company continues: "Plug right into modular jack. Registered with FCC. This is a complete phone, not an attachment. It is easy to use since there is nothing to learn except how to position the switch for the desired changes in your voice. A complete instruction booklet explains everything. We offer a one year guarentee against defects, and a thirty-day return policy if you are not satisfied. No batteries or extra wires needed since the unit operates entirely from line voltage. Just plug it in and start using it. Note, the unit may not be compatible with certain kinds of office phone systems." If you want to hear a demonstration of the unit, you may do so by calling 1-900-737-9343. The cost is 75 cents per demonstration. To order, use money order, check or Visa/MC: Biosynetic Research Suite 161 163 Third Avenue New York, NY 10003 For Visa/MC orders only: 1-800-677-3939. Sorry, no 212 number given in the ad. Probably available from 212-555-1212. Allow up to 30 days for delivery. NY/NJ residents must add sales tax. A footnote at the bottom of this *full page ad* makes this cautionary statement: "Legal warning: This phone is not to be used for fraudulent purposes or to make crank or obscene calls so you cannot be recognized." If anyone wishes to purchase a unit -- $19.95 isn't bad for a new toy which seems sort of clever -- I will entertain your reviews here in the Digest at a later time. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 23:29:47 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Two New Archives Files Two new files have been contributed to the Telecom Archives by Julian Macassey, a regular correspondent here. "How Phones Work" "Phone Patches" These are both tutorials with technical information of particular interest to our readers who have a limited knowledge of telephony and who wish to learn more ... but everyone should read them. They'll be available later this week in the main directory under the titles 'how.phones.work' and 'phone.patches'. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 23:37:08 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Randy Wants You to Know ... I had a chance to chat briefly with Randy Borow a few days ago and he shared an update with me: The appeal drags on, and will apparently go to litigation. He and his attorney are not backing down, and apparently neither is AT&T at this point. Randy says his intention is to regain his employment and all the back pay he is missing. As a side issue, he went to apply for unemployment compensation and it had gotten started, however AT&T is also appealing that. A ruling is expected soon. Apparently AT&T is claiming Randy should not recieve unemployment compensation since his discharge from employment was due to actions on his part. Randy and his attorney intend to battle the company on this point as well as the matter of his employment. Further news when I hear it. PAT ------------------------------ From: marcelm@joymrmn.uucp (Marcel Mongeon) Subject: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? Organization: The Joymarmon Group Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 16:59:25 GMT I live in that part of 416 which will soon be 905. I certainly don't need any explanation why a new area code is needed. However, isn't there an easier way to accomplish the splits? I propose the following: On an appropriate cutover date just add the number 0 to the end of every area code in the North American Numbering plan system. 212 would become 2120, 312 to 3120 and so on. Everyone would be equally inconvenienced to begin with! Then when an area code has to be split all that would have to be changed would be the fourth digit. The advantage of such a plan is that on a split, the original identity of the area would be maintained. For example in Chicago, the city could have been 3120 and the suburbs would be 3121 and 3122. Maybe the experts could tell us if a lot of CO reprogramming would be required? Marcel D. Mongeon e-mail: ... (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root or joymrmn!marcelm ------------------------------ From: "Gregory G. Woodbury" Subject: Re: Freedom! AT&T Reports the Good News Organization: Wolves Den UNIX Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1991 01:43:34 GMT In article Telecom Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: 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] This is an awful lot like Attorney General Ed Meese's comment that "...if you aren't guilty, then the law wouldn't be charging you...." (or whatever it was that Meese did say along those lines.) Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...duke!wolves!ggw [use the maps!] Domain: ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw%wolves@duke.cs.duke.edu ------------------------------ From: Dan_Jacobson@att.com Subject: Re: Prisoner Makes Obscene Calls Collect From Prison PBX Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 12:16:00 GMT > [Moderator's Note: I'm sure *local government* sometimes calls collect > to out of town / state locations when dealing with private citizens in > some other jurisdiction, but the federal government never does. Maybe > they would if it was an international call. :) PAT] In a few years for local calls too: "Hi, this is the U.S. Federal Government, uh, due to the fact that nobody wants to lend us any more money for our budget deficits, could you accept this collect call?" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 04:30:25 PDT From: W7EGX Subject: Key System Wanted For Residence Use Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. I will shortly be moving in with five other friends into a cooperative living situation; I would like to set up a key system or a small PBX in our home so that we can provide call accounting as well as have a local intercom system using the various phones that we will have around the house. We have 4 people that use modems fairly regularly, and we all get a fair amount of calls. What type of system can anyone recommend, inexpensive and available surplus preferably? Thanks, Mike ------------------------------ From: marcelm@joymrmn.uucp (Marcel Mongeon) Subject: Re: Hotels and AOS's AGAIN Organization: The Joymarmon Group Date: Mon, 5 Aug 91 16:52:46 GMT Some of you may remember about a year ago I posted on the issue of "How should a hotel charge for telecom?" After enduring many flames on the issue as a whole (I administer a hotel PBX) I instituted the following charging policies: Local calls : free 800 calls : free Cr. Card calls: free 900 & 976 calls: blocked 1+ calls: The regular long distance rate as determined by our Bell provided CDR PLUS 50% with a $1.00 service charge (if you don't like these rates put it on your credit card!) 0+ calls: What Bell charges us PLUS a sliding service fee. 10XXX calls: We are located in Canada so these do not apply. However, we keep a fairly complete list of 800 numbers for MCI, Sprint etc. (funny thing is that our number one question from American visitors is "How do I get an AT&T operator" and we have to tell them it is not possible! -- so much for the best LD service! The result of all of these policies is that our revenues dropped by about 25% on telephone. The fact that we are the only hotel in town with Free local calls has not attracted a single piece of new business. Anyone want to suggest why? Marcel D. Mongeon e-mail: ... (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root or joymrmn!marcelm ------------------------------ From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) Subject: Re: Calling Card Magnetic Strip Format Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1991 17:28:05 GMT In tigger%jupiter.UCSC.EDU@ucscc. ucsc.edu (David Foster) writes: > My question: Where can I get the ANSI specs for the magnetic strip > track format for RBOC and long distance calling cards. > Background: A friend is trying to integrate the use of calling cards > into his telecom business. He contacted several of the phone > companies and they all subcontract out to card manufacturers. The > card vendors in turn subcontract the magnetic strip and its > formatting. However, none of the vendors had their particular > subcontractor name available, but they would get back to my friend. > Needless to say it's been a while, so my friend asked me to post. > Is there an organization that specifies standards for magnetic cards? > Is there a publication? Any help is appreciated. I seem to recall this being discussed a few months ago, wrt the the numbers themselves, and the verification services is an ongoing topic. (Maybe someone who remembers/knows the formats and syntax for calling card numbers can chime in, I wouldn't mind a recap myself.) As far as the cards themselves and the stripe and the encoding, the applicable standards are ISO 7810 through 7813, describing everything from the plastic card itself, through the stripe physical and magnetic parameters, even the shape (in all three dimensions) of the embossed digits. (Anybody wants to camp out on a '7', this is where you get the topo maps. Seriously; contour lines and all.) ISO 7811/3 and /4 (parts 3 and 4) cover the stripe, the bit density, the character set, and so forth. 7813 shows 'standard' formats for tracks 1 and 2, along with 'service code assignments'. Your friend will get much better results by going directly to the vendors of the readers that he proposes to use/integrate. They will be happy to explain how to read the data intelligibly using their devices; the ISO standards are useful and interesting, but not really a good *starting* point. The card vendors themselves are plastic stampers, they have no idea what they're putting on the cards. They just write whatever they are supplied by the purchaser. As for the data he reads from the cards, I suspect Bellcore has the answers (this is where somebody else needs to chime in.) (At a glance, I note that SR-BDS-001511 is described as "Administration Guidelines for Card Issuer Identifier", but that's all that's indexed under 'cards'. Laird P. Broadfield UUCP: {ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com ------------------------------ From: Bud Couch Subject: Re: Why Don't Third Party Payphones Beep? Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1991 21:39:20 GMT In article betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz) writes: > 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")? The reasoning behind this requires a bit of knowledge of paystation techniques. In the old days, when your money rolled down the slot, it would hit either the bell or the gong. You would hear one bell for a nickel, two bells for a dime, and the gong for a quarter. So would the operator; this is how she counted up your total. BTW, this is also the reason that paystation handset cords are short: so that the handset couldn't be placed on an adjacent paystation to fool the operator (this was in the days when a tape recorder did not fit in your pocket). Today, the operator counts the coins deposited using electronic tones generated by the paystation. The tone used is very close to one of the standard DTMF tones used by the keypad. You will notice at home that if you push two keys simultaneously that you get one tone. Push two keys, and, unless the operator has perfect pitch, a potential defraud. There are a number of ways to prevent this. Some paystation manufacturers used the fact that when a TSPS (operator) board is connected to the line the tip side remains at ground, but the battery goes to +48V (from -48V). This reverses the current flow on the line. By placing a diode in series with the keypad, it is shut off. One of the side effects here is that when that paystation is used on a line which reverses battery at answer (ring at ground, -48V on tip) the diode also shuts off the tone pad. At least one paystation manufacturer that I know of (A.E.) did it differently; they put a different keypad (more expensive) in paystations which would not produce *any* tone when two keys were pressed. This was probably due to the fact that their primary market (GTE companies) had lots of SXS which reversed battery on answer. Is there a way to tell beforehand? Unfortunately, no. It requires a knowledge of the CO type as well as the paystation. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew... standard BS applies ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 18:33:09 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Long-Distance Across a Road Passing by the entrance to the Great Adventure amusement park in central New Jersey is county route 537. It turns out this route is an area code boundary in this area, with calls across it also being long distance! To the east of that road is 908-928 (Lakewood, I believe) serving the Jackson area and recently moved from area 201. To the west is 609-259 Allentown. In addition, dialing 259 from a 908-928 pay phone immediately got the intercept "Due to an area code change, your call cannot be completed as dialed." (201-259 in Newark remained in 201 and now requires 1 + 201 + 7D to be reached from 908-928.) [Moderator's Note: We have lots of that on the far northwest side of Chicago where the villages of Harwood Heights and Norridge (708) are completely surrounded by Chicago (312). All along Harlem Avenue around Lawrence Avenue is like a checkerboard of 312/708 phones on opposite sides of the street and sometimes next door to each other. But Illinois Bell stresses it is a local call, regardless of area code. Ask David Tamkin for details on this. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #608 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20766; 7 Aug 91 4:02 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02613; 7 Aug 91 2:16 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11453; 7 Aug 91 1:07 CDT Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 0:27:29 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #609 BCC: Message-ID: <9108070027.ab01277@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 7 Aug 91 00:27:25 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 609 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Historical Note - Operator Intertoll Dialing [haynes@cats.ucsc.edu] Switches That 'Know' Extension Numbers [John Pettitt] Areacodes 200, 300, 400, 500, & 600 [Will Martin] Billing INTRA-Lata Calling to My Carrier [Daniel Wynalda] Comsec Finally Gets Their Day on Television [David Querin] Short Course on Telecom Basics in Columbus, OH, August 29 [Jane Fraser] V&H Report [David Esan] Long Distance Credit [Dennis G. Rears] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Historical Note - Operator Intertoll Dialing Date: Mon, 05 Aug 91 22:57:42 BST From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu, aynes@cats.ucsc.edu Someone gave an interesting description of operating procedures in the days when toll calls were dialed by operators. Then I happened across a blueprint "Block Schematic, Intertoll Dialing Arrangement" for the SxS office in my home town, circa 1953. This gives some of the technical details. At the top of the picture is a three-ported circuit, Intertoll Trunk (a plate full of relays). One port goes to the actual trunk to the city where the toll switch is located. A second port goes to the outgoing jacks on the switchboard, so the operator can seize the trunk from this end to place a dialed call through the toll switch. The third port goes through an Intertoll Auxiliary Trunk into a switch called a Combined Intertoll and Transmission Incoming Selector. The drawing shows connections for each of the ten levels of this switch, corresponding to the first digit received from the toll switch. Level 1 goes to an Auxiliary Intertoll Selector. On this switch: Level 1 is shown as "absorb repeatedly" Level 2 is shown as "inward opr. 121" Level 3 is shown as "inf. opr. 131" (so I guess that's Information) Level 4 is shown as "delayed opr 114" Level 5 is shown as "univ. delayed opr 1150" Level 6 is shown going to reorder Level 7 is shown as "wh-opr 117" Level 8 has a line going to level 2 - dunno what this means Level 9 goes to reorder Level 0 goes through a Ring Control circuit to Another Auxiliary Intertoll Selector. From this switch: Level 1 goes to "Test Trunk 101" Level 2 goes to "Transmission Measuring 102" Level 3 goes to "Test Line 103" Level 4 goes to Intercept Levels 5,6,7, and 9 go to ringdown trunks to nearby small towns. Level 8 is shown as "absorb once only" and goes to intercept Level 0 goes to "Balanced Termination 100" Levels 2,3,4, and 5 go to toll intermediate selectors and thence to connectors for the local numbers 2xxx, 3xxx, etc. Levels 6 and 9 go straight to connectors (???), or maybe it's 6 thru 9. Level 8 goes into the Ring Control along with Level 0 of the auxiliary selector, so it looks like the toll switch can send either an 8 or a 10 and get to the same places. Level 0 goes to reorder. There are some mysteries here, or at least some things I don't understand. The inward and information operators are 121 and 131. Does the auxiliary intertoll selector require that last 1 digit before it will rotary hunt, or does the 1 digit activate something in the circuit going to the switchboard? But 114 and 117 on the same switch don't seem to need a terminal 1 digit. The multiple initial 1s are explained by the fact that level 1 absorbs repeatedly. And why is the "Univ. Delayed Opr" 1150? Does it really require a final 0 digit? Maybe someone can enlighten us about the 101 test trunk and the 103 test line. I'd guess the 102 transmission measuring probably goes to a source of miliwatt 1000Hz and the 100 bal. term. is just a balanced resistive termination. ------------------------------ From: John Pettitt Subject: Switches That `Know' Extension Numbers Organization: Specialix International, London Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 06:28:44 GMT weave@chopin.udel.edu (Ken Weaverling) writes: > While I am not a telecom guru, I can see how the above makes logical > sense. The CO only sees trunk lines coming from a PBX, and therefore > can't tell what actual number the call was dialled from. Since a > Centrex service is basically all contained in the CO, the CO then > knows the actual number called from. In the UK we use Mercury for our long distance and international calls. One of the better features of the this is that we get an fully itemised bill each month because Mercury `knows' the extension number of the calling party. It works like this: When an user dials a number our PBX looks up the area code in the `Mercury' table. If it gets a match the PBX dials 131 (Mercury access), waits for a second tone and dials our access code, a three digit extension number and the number to be called. Some time later (Mercury is slow to complete calls) you get a ring. When the called party answers and the line supervises you hear a beep (nice touch that -- you know when billing starts). Because we send the extension number to the Mercury switch they can (and do) give us a bill broken down by extension. All calls are listed with the area code `decoded' into a town name and the cost. We also assign phantom extension numbers to our modems to allow us to cost each UUCP site we talk to (having a Singapore office makes you want to do that !). Overall it works quite well -- if we could only get them to set up calls a little faster! The original thread was CLID/ANI -- we don't have that in the UK (call waiting is still a major new feature to BT), however the Mercury system could provide the information needed to give per extension CLID/ANI. 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! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 7:53:09 CDT From: Will Martin Subject: Areacodes 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 I took a look at the "areacode.guide" file in Telecom archives to see what was said about the other "double-zero" US areacodes. It appears that "200" is being used in some areas for telco test numbers of some kind, but that 300 thru 600 are listed as "[ Reserved - Service Access Code ]". I was wondering if any of these are planned for use as an expansion of the 800-number calling space? Since the 800 prefices are assigned by LD carrier, this limits the assignment/usage of those numbers, and we've seen MCI (for one) go to multiple-party-per-800-number usage with their "access codes" for personal 800 numbers. I would think that most businesses would not accept such shared 800 numbers; they'd have, in effect, a 14-digit (or longer) phone number, which would put them at a disadvantage to their competitors with regular 10-digit 800 numbers. So is it likely that at some future date, not only "800" calls will be free to the caller, but also "300" (or one of the others) calls? What other uses are planned for the double-zero area codes? What sort of test numbers use "200"? Are they reachable nationwide? If so, are they billable calls, and how do they show up on an itemized bill? Is this a temporary use of the areacode, or a permanent assignment? Regards, Will wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil OR wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil ------------------------------ Subject: Billing INTRA-Lata Calling to My Carrier Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 9:12:06 EDT From: Daniel Wynalda AT&T's universal card offers a 10% discount on AT&T long distance rates, but charges more for establishing the calling card connection. Michigan Bell charges almost TWICE what AT&T does for the same call, plus I don't get the discount -- even if charged to the same card. I made it a regular practice of dialing 102880 before ANY long distance calling (even intra lata) last month. All calls were completed with the AT&T bong and billed WITH the discounts. I take it this means that AT&T CAN carry intra lata calling but MI BELL chooses to route ALL 1+ dialing via themselves. If the FCC doesn't allow this, why do the carriers complete the call? I was told be the local MCI representative that he'd put a dialer on my lines to "dial around" the intra lata calls to save money on the Michigan Bell (Ameritech RBOC) rate. If the reps can be this blatant about it, it MUST be legal. Daniel Wynalda | (616) 866-1561 X22 Ham:N8KUD Net:danielw@wyn386.mi.org Wynalda Litho Inc. | 8221 Graphic Industrial Pk. | Rockford, MI 49341 ------------------------------ From: David Querin Subject: Comsec Gets Their Day on Television Date: 6 Aug 91 13:31:38 GMT Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station Well, they made it. Comsec Data Security co-founder Scott Chasin was on Good Morning America this morning (August 6). They zapped John Markoff in via satellite. Not a great deal was said, but it was kind of interesting to hear the "media perception" of crackers/cracking (a distinction was not made between hacker and cracker though!). Oh well, off to work. David The opinions expressed are mine. No one planted them in me, and they in no way reflect on my employer, university, dentist, hair dresser, or otherwise. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 10:30 EDT From: FRASER@ccl2.eng.ohio-state.edu Subject: Short Course on Telecom Basics in Columbus, OH, August 29 On Thursday, August 29, 1991, from 9AM to 5PM, CAST, The Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications at The Ohio State University will offer a one-day short course, The Basics of Telecommunications for Businesses. The course is aimed at small and medium sized business, not at telecom professionals such as read comp.dcom.telecom. Our intent is to promote economic development through the use of telecommunications. Readers of comp.dcom.telecom might be interested in recommending the course to others in the Columbus area or in seeing the types of topics we plan to cover. The rest of this posting gives a brief outline of the course and details on enrollment. 9-9:30 AM: Introduction to course - Jane M. Fraser, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Ohio State University. 9:30-10:30 AM: An overview of the telecommunications market place - Thomas A. McCain, Department of Communication, Ohio State University. Topics include: the past and the present - break up of the Bell System; LECs and long distance companies; the MFJ; the FCC and the PUCO; what the future may hold. 10:45-11:45 AM: An introduction to customer premises voice equipment - Ray Essex, President, Executone of Columbus. Topics include: features of phones; what to look for in a phone; what questions to ask before buying a phone; special features; voice paging systems; voice mail systems; who are the available vendors; what features are important; what to expect to pay; 1-2 PM: Long Distance Carriers; Sherry Wells, LiTel Telecommunications Corporation. Topics include: how to decide which LD carrier to use for your business; how much to expect to pay; comparison of vendors; how to access your LD carrier from any phone; 800 numbers; how to use 800/900 numbers provided by others; how to obtain 800/900 numbers for your company. 2-3 PM: Using your computer and modem to connect to the world - Jack Anderson, Battelle. Topics include: data communication; how do computers talk to each other over the phone line; what is a modem; what kind of computer and communication software do you need for different purposes; electronic mail; what systems can be purchased and implemented in a small office; what larger networks can be used to keep in touch with other organizations. 3:15-4:15 PM: Information services - Dave Eastburn, CompuServe. Topics include: what are the major services; what type of information can be obtained; what to expect to pay. Enrollment limit is 80 people. Registration is $45 ($50 after August 22) to CAST/OSU at 210 Baker Systems, 1971 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH, 43210. For more information, call CAST at 614-292-8444. As an educational center, CAST deliberately sets the cost of this course low to encourage attendance. ------------------------------ From: David Esan Subject: V&H Report Date: 6 Aug 91 14:10:42 GMT Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY Once a quarter I receive the BellCore V&H tape. Using this information I can total the number of exchanges in each area code. The twenty most populous area codes are listed below. After the written text of this article I have included the count for each of the area codes. I have not included the 52? series of area codes that are in use for Mexico, since they are not yet dialable from the US. (Note: Don't ask me when they will be dialable, I don't know, although I will guess sometime after 1995.) I have not included the 82? series of area codes which include many more Mexico exchanges, as well as the non-diable locations in the NANP. The new tape included information (finally) for three new NPA's, 310, 410, and 510. They are included below. The fields are: ------------ rank last quarter 213: 736 (1, 7) area code --^^^ ^^^ ^------- number of new exchanges |-------------- total number of exchanges 213: 742 (1, 6) 212: 674 (6, 6) 313: 634 (10, 4) 714: 591 (16, 10) 201: 708 (3, 5) 214: 672 (2, -58) 919: 632 (12, 8) 206: 586 (17, 7) 301: 701 (4, 7) 512: 653 (8, 14) 215: 607 (13, 4) 501: 574 (18, 5) 404: 691 (5, 11) 416: 644 (9, 11) 602: 594 (15, 5) 713: 564 (21, 17) 415: 679 (7, 24) 205: 641 (11, 11) 403: 596 (15, 5) 703: 557 (20, 5) Of the top 20 NPA's we can note: (I have no details on calling patterns in those NPA's not noted, and have no information of impending splits in those NPA's). #1. 213 - due to split to 310 beginning February 1, 1992. #2. 214 - has split to 903. Permissive dialing will end 11/91. #3. 201 - has split to 908. Permissive dialing will end this year. #4. 301 - due to split to 410 beginning November 1991. #5. 404 - due to split to 706 beginning in May 1992. #6. 212 - due to split to 917 sometime in 1992. #7. 415 - due to split to 510 beginning October 7, 1991. #8. 512 - no plans to split at this point. Intra-NPA calls require the dialing of the NPA. #9. 416 - due to split to 905 in 1993. Intra-NPA calls require the dialing of the NPA. #10. 313- no plans to split at this point. Intra-NPA calls require the dialing of the NPA. #16. 714- will split to 909 beginning November 1992. 201: 708 304: 325 406: 343 508: 371 612: 526 714: 591 816: 449 202: 267 305: 465 407: 386 509: 240 613: 287 715: 313 817: 486 203: 485 306: 447 408: 307 510: 315 614: 403 716: 377 818: 364 204: 346 307: 153 409: 289 512: 653 615: 534 717: 469 819: 308 205: 641 308: 197 410: 386 513: 454 616: 376 718: 408 901: 223 206: 586 309: 259 412: 421 514: 484 617: 382 719: 160 902: 263 207: 337 310: 380 413: 131 515: 411 618: 326 801: 336 903: 266 208: 282 312: 423 414: 473 516: 377 619: 501 802: 175 904: 494 209: 334 313: 634 415: 679 517: 316 701: 351 803: 512 905: 311 212: 674 314: 523 416: 644 518: 251 702: 296 804: 463 906: 109 213: 742 315: 254 417: 198 519: 346 703: 557 805: 282 907: 408 214: 672 316: 362 418: 361 601: 395 704: 335 806: 262 908: 316 215: 607 317: 418 419: 334 602: 600 705: 269 807: 105 912: 324 216: 548 318: 331 501: 574 603: 232 706: 184 808: 255 913: 435 217: 356 319: 328 502: 338 604: 557 707: 180 809: 497 914: 336 218: 291 401: 134 503: 532 605: 343 708: 539 812: 277 915: 307 219: 350 402: 407 504: 331 606: 266 709: 260 813: 494 916: 427 301: 701 403: 596 505: 313 607: 164 712: 272 814: 259 918: 314 302: 114 404: 691 506: 175 608: 246 713: 564 815: 291 919: 632 303: 518 405: 545 507: 267 609: 269 --- --- --- --- --- --- David Esan de@moscom.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 8:46:27 EDT From: Dennis G. Rears Subject: Long Distance Credit As I just got done dialing my umpteenth wrong number last night, I had the thought "Is it worth it to call the LD operator to request a credit?". The call will typically cost 6-10 cents. I find that I normally don't request the credit because it is not worth my time. BTW, my LD bill is typically $100-> 150. How many of the TELECOM readers think it is worth it to request a refund? Dennis ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #609 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26125; 7 Aug 91 6:14 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07463; 7 Aug 91 4:32 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10374; 7 Aug 91 3:24 CDT Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 2:19:06 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #611 BCC: Message-ID: <9108070219.ab07868@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 7 Aug 91 02:18:57 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 611 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network B'casters[M. Gersten] Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network B'casters [Tim Irvin] Re: Another Proposed Tax [Jordan M. Kossack] Re: Another Proposed Tax [Linc Madison] Re: SNET Affinity Mastercard Makes Visible Your Phone Number [Brad Hicks] Re: SNET Affinity Mastercard Makes Visible Your Phone Number [Linc Madison] Re: SNET Affinity Mastercard Makes Visible Your Phone Number [Tim Irvin] Re: Collect Calls From the Government [Bob Vaughan] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Gersten Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters Organization: The Serial Tree BBS, +1 213 397 3137 Date: 6 Aug 91 03:47:49 PDT (Tue) > THE TV NETWORKS WILL CONTINUE TO TRANSMIT TELEVISION FOR FREE. > BUT THEY WANT TO TAX YOU 20% WHEN YOU WATCH IT ON CABLE. > Moderator's Note: ... then called 'basic service' for some paltry > sum per month. First off, around here it is not paltry. They want $20/month just for basic cable even though their reception is no better than over the air. CNN isn't worth that much. Secondly, there is a much better solution. #1. Allow more than one company to offer cable service in an area. #2. All channels have the right to demand a per user fee to cable operators that provide it. I have no objection to broadcast companies getting compensation from the cable operators. I object to a flat 20% fee. If KTTV wants to charge 2 cents/user, let them. If they want 50 cents/user, let them. If all the cable companies in the area drop them (This is why we need more than one!!!), then maybe they will get the idea that they charge too much. Soap box time (hit 'n' now) ... Why do we have so many essentially unregulated monopolies in this country, such as local telephone and cable? There is a very simple way to actually let the market regulate these monopolies. This also applies to broadcast television, as there the number of stations is fixed by nature, so the monopolistic effect still shows up. Here's how: 1. Recognize that the primary distiction of a free market that we are concerned with is free entry into the market. 2. Allow anyone who wants to enter the market to file an application with the city. 3. If there is more than one such active application, then the current company is not providing enough service for the buck, and would be required to increase service or lose the contract. 4. Similarly, if there are no outstanding applications, the requirements would be lowered. 5. Instead of increasing the service level, the current company would be allowed to leave the market (this is needed as there is no guarantee of profit under this system). In this case the new company would be required to meet the higher service level (so no bluffing -- they would have to actually be willing to provide the service to get into the market or to raise the customer service level). This is designed to reflect that in a free market, more people providing service means better service and lower prices (99 times out of 100). Michael michael@stb.info.com ------------------------------ Reply-To: irvin@northstar.dartmouth.edu Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters Date: Mon, 05 Aug 91 16:15:31 +22322638 From: irvin@betelgeuse.dartmouth.edu In TELECOM Digest V11 #598, "Wayne D. Correia" writes: > THE TV NETWORKS WILL CONTINUE TO TRANSMIT TELEVISION FOR FREE. > BUT THEY WANT TO TAX YOU 20% WHEN YOU WATCH IT ON CABLE. > [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. > ... 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] It is my understanding that the cable companies are *required* by FCC regulation to carry all local over-the-air stations. If this requirement remains, then the local stations shouldn't receive a dime. But if the law makers are determined to go through with this, then the cable company should be able to choose which network affiliate it carries (if any). If the cable companies start choosing large metropolitan stations over the local ones, then you might see a number of network affiliates fighting to get this law overturned. Tim Irvin ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Another Proposed Tax Organization: A corner of their bedroom Date: 6 Aug 91 18:43:31 CDT (Tue) From: Jordan M Kossack In article gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: > I think that both should be unconstitutional under the First > Amendment because essentially a tax is an abridgement of free speech. Books are taxed. Does this also violate free speech? > My primary concern, however, is that I should not be forced to > subsidize some program (digital audio, free tv, etc) that I > specifically do not like. Specifically, there are some broadcast tv > stations that I never watch. Why should I be forced to subsidize > them? If they want my money, they can put on programs I want to By the same token, do you object to paying for X number of cable channels if you only watch one or two? Or is your objection only because the government might impose a tax? If the latter, I agree as long as the broadcast stations can impose whatever charge they wish for redistribution of their signal and prosecute the cable companies for copyright violation if they retransmit the broadcast station's signal w/o permission. Fair is fair. The cable companies get all upset over theft of services if one accesses their signal w/o paying for it, so it is really hypocritical for them to expect to be able to retransmit (for example) NBC's signal w/o paying for it. > More to the point, in either of these cases, the message may be > political or religious and it may be for a point of view that you > definitely do not agree with. Why should you be forced to subsidize > them? I clearly do not believe that you should. In the case of cable, nobody is proposing that you should be forced to subsidize programs that you don't agree with. The cable companies are free to NOT redistribute the signals of ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX and whatever local broadcast stations that are in your area. Too, you are not being forced to subscribe to cable. However, until Da Judge allows the cable companies to provide dial tone, perhaps this topic should move elsewhere. Suggestions? Jordan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 14:22:26 PDT From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Another Proposed Tax Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: > The recent thread here about the networks wanting to tax cable tv 20% > for retransmission of broadcast television reminds me of the propsed > tax on digital recorders and blank digital tapes. In both cases, the > tax will end up subsidizing programs the consumer is not interested > in. I think that both should be unconstitutional under the First > Amendment because essentially a tax is an abridgement of free speech. > My primary concern, however, is that I should not be forced to > subsidize some program (digital audio, free tv, etc) that I > specifically do not like. Your subsidy argument works; the free speech one doesn't. Taxing cable or taxing digital audio tape isn't abridging your right to say or write whatever you please. The only way a free-speech concern would enter in is if the tax differentiated in rate among different uses -- 10% if you're recording red-blooded American programs, 20% if it's some of that commie-pinko claptrap ... Yes, the networks are losing viewers to cable. It's called COMPETITION, which is part of what is called the FREE MARKET. There was a lovely cartoon on the front cover of my most recent _Santa Cruz Comic News_. On the top panel was a crowd of people rushing towards a banner; below an almost identical scene. The top was labeled "USSR" and the people were running to a banner marked "Democracy"; the lower "USA" and "Police State." The same parallel could be drawn with free market vs. government control. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu = ucbvax!tongue1!linc ------------------------------ Date: 06 Aug 91 11:32:37 EDT From: "76012,300 Brad Hicks" <76012.300@compuserve.com> Re: SNET Affinity Mastercard Makes Visible Your Phone Number > This is a blatant lie. According to Visa and MasterCard national > policies, you don't even have to give your telephone number when > making a purchase. This is part of the operating rules that apply to > all merchants, and any merchant that requires ANY additional ID as a > condition of sale should be reported to the customer's card-issuing > bank and the merchant's processing bank. Quite correct. See below. > In my retail experience, the phone number was only collected because > a huge percentage of card users would leave the thing behind. Although I am only a LAN specialist here and am not an official MasterCard spokesperson, I have been at enough security briefings and read enough security bulletins to tell you three things: 1) No matter how you slice it, whenever you (or any other merchant) collect a phone number or any other personal information from a cardholder as a condition of a sale, or imply to the cardholder that you are doing so, then you are in direct violation of your merchant agreement, whether your bank holds you to it or not. 2) Most merchants that do so claim that they are enhancing security. In point of fact, the merchant agreement clearly states that if the merchants make a good-faith effort to verify the SIGNATURE PANEL ON THE BACK OF THE CARD against the signature on the card slip, and comply with the authorization amount limits, then they will get their money, even if the card was fraudulently used. However, out of all of the hundreds of times I have used a credit card, I have only seen the signature panel looked at twice. If merchants are so interested in security, then they need to educate their clerks to UPHOLD the merchant agreement, not to break it. 3) There is a non-trivial reason for the prohibition on personal information on a charge slip. (This same information has appeared in {American Banker} and the {Wall Street Journal}, so I don't think I'm violating any rules by telling you.) By placing any personal information, whether a telephone number or an address, on a charge slip, you are INCREASING the odds of fraud. I assume that by now everybody knows that there are crooks out there collecting card numbers off of charge slips for fraudulent use. What you may not know is that the best defense currently in place against such a thing is a service that the credit card providers offer that (along with the authorization code) provides a card-holder's phone number and address ... which is used for confirmation. If the crook knows your phone number and/or address, it is that much easier for them to get away with credit card fraud. If SNET is putting the phone number on the front of the card in raised letters so that it appears on the charge slip, then they are almost certainly violating both the security and fraud guidelines and the affinity/co-branding card standards, and I personally wish that some SNET customer would refer this question to MasterCard Rules and Procedures. VERY IMPORTANT: I repeat, this is all my understanding. I am not an official spokesperson for MasterCard, nor am I a member of its Rules and Procedures department. For clarification of this or any other MasterCard policy, bylaw, or rule, please call 1-314-275-6100 and ask for Rules and Procedures, or else write to MasterCard International, Rules and Procedures, 12115 Lackland Road, St. Louis, MO 63146. J. Brad Hicks email: jbhicks@mcimail.com Senior PC Specialist phone: 1-314-275-3645 Macintosh PC Support mail: 12115 Lackland Road MasterCard International St. Louis, MO 63146 [Moderator's Question: Mr. Hicks, can you comment on the gasoline service stations which nearly always require your license plate number and/or drivers's license number on the charge ticket? I know they may have that right with their own company's card, i.e. Amoco, Shell, etc. but what about when a Mastercard/Visa is presented? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 14:00:45 PDT From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: SNET Affinity Mastercard Makes Visible Your Phone Number Organization: University of California, Berkeley [regarding credit cards with your telephone number printed on them, and merchants who ask for your telephone number on the charge slip] It seems to me that the credit card companies should streamline and standardize a simple system for returning credit cards that have been left behind at a cash register. First, print the customer service number (toll-free and POTS) on the back of the card. Second, tell the merchant to call customer service if they have a lost card. Third, the card issuer can try to contact the card holder and tell him, "Mr. Smith, you left your Bankfoo MasterCard at World of Merchandise this afternoon. If you'd like to pick it up, speak to Ms. Jones, the manager; otherwise, we can cancel the card and issue a new one." The card issuer should also tell the merchant, "if the card holder hasn't picked it up within X period of time, please mail the card back to
." That way, only the card issuer has your phone number. Some people may argue that even they shouldn't have it, in which case, you just don't get your card back. BTW, in California, there is now a $2500 fine for asking for a telephone number on a credit card transaction. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu = ucbvax!tongu1!linc [Moderator's Note: Anyone who would 'argue that the credit card issuer should not have your telephone number on file' must be a Bozo! OF COURSE they are entitled to this information as part of the credit application, for purposes of needed contact for collection, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: irvin@northstar.dartmouth.edu Subject: Re: SNET Affinity Mastercard Makes Visible Your Phone Number Date: Mon, 05 Aug 91 11:39:59 +22322638 From: irvin@betelgeuse.dartmouth.edu In TELECOM Digest V11 #597, Mark Seiden writes: > 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.) According to the Bankcard Holders of America, it is a violation of Visa and MasterCard Merchant agreements to require any customer to provide a telephone number or address on any charge receipt. Also, according to BHA (and my own common sense) it is a terrible security risk to do so, it provides too much info to the would-be credit card thief. You would think that MasterCard would have put a stop to this practice, and you would hope that SNET and People's Bank would understand the risks of credit card fraud. Tim Irvin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 14:03:11 PDT From: "Bob Vaughan techie@btr.com" Subject: Re: Collect Calls From the Government Organization: BTR Public Access UNIX, MtnView CA. Contact: cs@BTR.COM Here's one case where the government does call collect. In California, operators of towing companies that provide service for the rotation list can expect collect calls from the California Highway Patrol. This is a condition of staying on the rotation list. Other conditions include: being available 24 hours / 7 days, periodic safety inspections, and properly equipped trucks. The companies on the rotation list are called to accidents, impounds, and service calls, etc, 24 hours / 7 days.) Bob Vaughan ## techie@well.sf.ca.us {apple,fernwood,hpabs,ucbvax}!well!techie 415-856-8025 ## techie@netcom.com ## (packet radio) KC6SXC@N0ARY.NOCAL.USA.NA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #611 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20957; 7 Aug 91 19:16 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac03222; 7 Aug 91 18:18 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10374; 7 Aug 91 3:24 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad02613; 7 Aug 91 2:17 CDT Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 1:42:58 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #610 BCC: Message-ID: <9108070142.ab15348@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 7 Aug 91 01:42:51 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 610 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Results of 510 Area Code Experiment [Bruce Perens] C&P Wants to Expand Caller ID [UPI via Bill Berbenich] Standards For Mag-Stripe Cards [Niall Gallagher] Changed Prefixes in Chicago Area [Carl Moore] ISDN B-Channel Terminal Equipment [David E. Martin] Syndex Explained on a 900 Number [Terry Gold] Collect Calls From Jail [J. Philip Miller] Re: Why Don't Third-Party Payphones Beep? [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bruce@pixar.com (Bruce Perens) Subject: Results of 510 Area Code Experiment Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1991 01:23:43 GMT Two weeks ago, I asked people to try to dial a number in the new area code 510, which is splitting from 415 in a month. Only a 10% of tries got through. The failure modes are interesting - there's some mis-configuration out there! You will need a wide window to view this listing without line-wrap. Dialing into 510-215-3596, a voice-mail system at Pixar, Richmond CA. 510 is splitting off of area code 415 on September 2, and these calls were made in the last week of July. LATA means the call should have been handled within the local Pacific Bell offices. Long-distance carriers are listed, but often the problem is with the local CO, not the long-distance carrier. The only calls that went through seem to be from a Pacific Bell office that would not have needed a long-distance carrier, and one call placed through Sprint. NPA LD Result Comment or Intercept Message Correspondent Internet 201-514 Any CO Intercept "...you must dial 1, plus 908, plus the number..."!!!!! skass@drew.bitnet 201-915 Any CO Intercept "...you must dial 1, plus 908, plus the number..."!!!!! Terry Kennedy terry@spcvxa.spc.edu 206-941 ATT CO Intercept "Your call cannot be completed as dialed... 206,,,2T". Roger Clark Swann clark@ssc-vax.boeing.com 206-941 Sprint Works Sprint has the programming in before ATT! Roger Clark Swann clark@ssc-vax.boeing.com 212-85[34] ATT Fails Andrew M. Boardman amb@gnu.ai.mit.edu 301-278 ATT Fails This office will be moving to area code 410. Carl Moore cmoore@BRL.MIL 302-731 ATT Fails Carl Moore cmoore@BRL.MIL 408-428 LATA CO Intercept "...cannot be completed as dialed..." Tom Ace tom@crux.aptix.com 408-733 LATA Works 408, 415, 510 are a Pacific Bell local area. Herb Jellinek herb@frox.com 408-945? LATA Re-order Dave R. Turk Dave_R_Turk@cup.portal.com 408-954 LATA Fails North San Jose, CA. Steven A. Minneman stevem@fai.fai.com 412-? ? Fails Bell of PA Jeff Carpenter jcc+@cis.pitt.edu 708-840 CO Intercept "...cannot be completed as dialed...". David E. Martin dem@fnal.fnal.gov 708-840 CO Intercept "...you do not need a carrier access code for this number..." David E. Martin dem@fnal.fnal.gov 805-543 ? Failed This is a Pacific-Bell served area. Pete J. Bowden pbowden@nike.CalPoly.EDU 817-249 CO Intercept "...not necessary to dial a long-distance access code...". Gordon Burditt gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org 817-249 null CO Intercept "...cannot be completed as dialed...". Gordon Burditt gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org 919-851 ATT CO Intercept "...cannot be completed as dialed...". Henry Schaffer hes@unity.ncsu.edu 919-991 ? Fails Surprised that intercept was _male_ voice. Charles Hoequist hoequist@bnr.ca Cambridge MA ? Fails Interrupted as soon as he dials 1-510. John R. Levine johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us Japan All 3 Fails All three overseas carriers block the attempt. Jim Gottlieb jimmy@denwa.info.com Madison, WI MCI CO Intercept "...cannot be completed as dialed..." Tim Petlock Santa Barbara 222 CO Intercept "The number you have dialed requires a carrier access code"??? Lars Poulsen lars@cmc.com Santa Barbara ATT CO Intercept "...cannot be completed as dialed..." Lars Poulsen lars@cmc.com South Florida ? Fails See comments. Dave Leibold dleibold@attmail.com U.K. ? Unobtainable "Unobtainable" tone. Richard Jennings richi@hpopd.pwd.hp.com U.K. BT Unobtainable "Unobtainable" tone on the third digit of area code. Gordon Grant gg@jet.uk U.K. Mercury Intercept "Code is wrong from the country you have dialed" Gordon Grant gg@jet.uk Comments: Terry Kennedy: 201-915 (1AESS), AT+T. Rings after the "3" is dialed, jumps into a random middle part of the recorded message: "Due to an area code change, your call cannot be completed as dialed. You must dial 1 plus 908 plus the number you wish to reach. Please make a note of the change." [No recording ID] That's when dialing 15102153. This is a switch configuration problem, as 1+ should not route to that A/C intercept recording. I'll have to have it fixed. Carl Moore: By the way, he's speaking, not singing, the words to "She Loves You". David Martin: From the 708-840 exchange it gets blocked by Illinois Bell telling me ``...cannot be completed as dialed...'' If I dial an access code, Illinois Bell tells me ``...you do not need to dial a career access code for this number...'' Looks like they think its a misdialed 708-510 exchange number. <> Dave Leibold (dleibold@attmail.com): It doesn't seem to work from southern Florida as of yet, as it gets the number cannot be completed recording however, 510 area is listed on the map in the Toronto phone book that came out in March, and some phones in Toronto had the bizarre ability to dial out calls to 510, so that 1 510 555.1212 would get TWX warble. This was last year, and perhaps the system is getting ready for 510. <> Gordon Burditt: From: 817-249 Default carrier: null 1-510-215-3596 "We're sorry your call cannot be completed as dialed" 10288-1-510- "I'm sorry, it is not necessary to dial a long-distance access code for this call". 10222-1-510- "I'm sorry, it is not necessary to dial a long-distance access code for this call". As a reference for normal behavior: 1-717-xxx-xxxx "We're sorry, a long-distance company access code is required" 10288-1-717-xxx-xxxx (call goes through) Lars Poulsen: 1+ (ATT): "We are sorry, you call cannot be completed as dialed" No location information on the SIT intercept, which leads me to believe that this was from the local switch (GTE; 5ESS). 10222+: "The number you have dialled, requires a carrier access code." This number is especialy bad. Not only does it have an "invalid" area code; it also has an "area-code" prefix !! <> skass@drew.bitnet: I'm at 201-514-xxxx. Any of the following 1-510+ 10288-1-510+ 10222-1-510+ 10333-1-510+ 0-510+ results in "due to an area code change, your call cannot be completed as dialed. You must dial 1, plus 908, plus the number..." 908 just became official here, so it appears that 510 is a former 201 exchange that's now in 908. The message really does say "you must dial 1..." when the call was attempted as a 0+ call, strangely enough. Bruce Perens (preparer of the summary): Anyone who does this again should compose a form and ask people to fill it out, since lots of people left out information. It's interesting that more COs aren't configured ahead of time in the case of an area-code split, but I guess there's no sense in putting through a call to an area code until it "exists". I'm surprised that so many COs considered a number preceded by 1- to be a local prefix instead of an area code. ------------------------------ From: bill@gauss.gatech.edu Subject: C&P Wants to Expand Caller ID Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 14:17:11 EDT Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu The following was on the UPI wire recently: BALTIMORE (UPI) -- Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. wants to expand its Caller ID system to businesses with centrex systems. C&P has submitted a plan to the Public Service Commission that would allow any business with three or more lines to buy Caller ID. The service, which permits users to obtain the numbers of incoming calls, has been available in Maryland since October, 1989. So far, Caller ID mainly has been marketed and sold as a service for residential and small business customers. It also has been available to large businesses with PBX switchboards on a special-order basis. But the service has not been widely available to C&P's 11,000 business customers with centrex. Centrex are large-scale telecommunications systems that can handle anywhere from three to 10,000 or more telephone lines. --------- If this proposal is granted approval, it should either confirm or lay to rest the alleged horrors of large-scale commercial access to CLID. Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 91 15:53:00 EDT From: Niall Gallagher Subject: Standards For Mag-Stripe Cards In response to David Forster's query about standards for the mag stripe on telephone calling and credit cards, CCITT Recommendation E.118 (Automated International Telephone Credit Card System) recommends that phone companies should comply with ISO standards for Identification cards: ISO/7810 Identification cards - Physical characteristics ISO/7811/1 Identification cards - Recording technique - Part 1: Embossing ISO/7811/2 Identification cards - Recording technique - Part 2: Magnetic Stripe ISO/7811/3 Identification cards - Recording technique - Part 3: Location of embossed characters on ID-1 cards ISO/7811/4 Identification cards - Recording technique - Part 4: Location of read-only magnetic tracks - Tracks 1 and 2 ISO/7811/5 Identification cards - Recording technique - Part 5: Location of read-write magnetic track - Track 3 ISO/7813 Identification cards - Financial transaction cards You may also be interested in in bank cards coding: ISO/4909 Bank Cards - Magnetic stripe data content for track 3 This should help you figure out what's encoded on the cards. Niall Gallagher, Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, CANADA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 17:52:33 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Changed Prefixes in Chicago Area The notes about 510 area code not yet working from Chicago area indicate that 510 prefix in 708 has been changed to 224 prefix. I recall this or some other change as well. Any reason for this change other than to get rid of "strange-looking" prefix? [Moderator's Note: As a correspondent pointed out yesterday, AT&T was using much of 510 on their centrex. They moved things around, and rather than have to move all the private individuals off who also had 510-xxxx numbers, AT&T went to the prefix 708-224. Apparently not all 510 numbers get the special intercept; just those which had been part of the AT&T centrex prior to the move to 224. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "David E. Martin" Subject: ISDN B-Channel Terminal Equipment Date: 6 Aug 91 21:25:37 GMT Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory; Batavia, IL Several people here are interested in getting a 64Kbps ISDN B-channel from our site to their homes. Does anyone have any experience with doing this? And, more specifically, can anyone recommend some manufacturers of the ISDN terminal equipment needed to make the PC's and Mac's of the world setup and talk ISDN. Please e-mail me and I will summarize. David E. Martin National HEPnet Management phone: +1 708 840-8275 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory fax: +1 708 840-2783 P.O. Box 500; MS 234; Batavia, IL 60510 USA e-mail: dem@fnal.fnal.gov ------------------------------ From: tgold@attmail.com Date: Tue Aug 6 09:24:09 MDT 1991 Subject: Syndex Explained on a 900 Number Someone mentioned SYNDEX, the deal that would keep the cable companies from showing a syndicated show if a broadcast station also carried the show at a different time. I was contracted about a year ago to develop a voice response application to explain this proposed rule. Callers could dial a number and hear the whole thing explained. What was interesting about this was that they set it up on a 900 number! It was for a broadcasting association and I guess they thought they could get the information out at minimal cost by making the callers pay a few bucks. Not many people thought it was worth it. Terry Gold 4880 Riverbend Road Gold Systems, Inc. Boulder, Colorado 80301 ISDN & Voice Response (303) 447-2837 tgold@attmail.com ------------------------------ From: "J. Philip Miller" Subject: Collect calls from jail Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 6:57:24 CDT John Bruner writes: > A couple of months ago I received a call that stated "This is a > collect call from the county jail. To accept the charges, press [some > DTMF digit]." Without any further information I just hung up. I received a call the other day from "the MCI operator" who had a collect call "from a correctional institution". I refused the charges. Later I wished I had thought to ask more information, but since I wasn't aware of any of my friends being currently incarcerated, and being in a hurry ... What is up with these calls? Just random dialing looking for a sympathetic ear or is there some other scam going round? 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 [Moderator's Note: More than likely it was just a misdialed zero plus call from some inmate. Cook County Jail (Chicago) is on the centrex for the Criminal Courts complex here, and inmate use rotary dial wall phones with armored cables to the handset mounted in each cell block. Inmate phones are on the same prefix (312-890) as the centrex, but are wired in a funny way: They are rigged for one-way outgoing collect calls only; all calls MUST be 0 + NPA + 7D. No credit card or third party billing accepted. Calls not zero-plussed will fail. No calls to 0, 411, 611, 911 or any other jail extension. The operator knows the call is from a jail inmate and must go collect. If you dial one of those phones from elsewhere and the line is in use (nearly always!) you get a busy signal. If it is not in use, you get an intercept message saying, "the number you dialed, xxx-xxxx is not in service for incoming calls." PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 01:49 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Why Don't Third-Party Payphones Beep? On Aug 5 at 23:15, TELECOM Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: Isn't it neat how genuine Bell payphones allow you > to deposit ahead of time what you think you will use then the system > responds by saying "you have X cents credit for overtime." PAT] Possibly without realizing it, you have summed up the core technical reason why COCOTs are and will always be inferior to utility pay phones. In a COCOT, all of the "smarts" -- the rate tables, the coin procedures, the tone recognition, operator control (if any), and accounting must be handled completely within the case that houses the telephone. On the other hand, a utility pay phone has no "smarts" inside whatsoever. It is controlled by the entire switching facility of the sponsoring utility. Whatever can be programmed into the local switch and even in the host tandem is available to the coin phone. Now with this in mind, is it not amazing that utility phones do as little as they do? 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 #610 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13344; 8 Aug 91 3:17 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25215; 8 Aug 91 1:50 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32252; 8 Aug 91 0:42 CDT Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 23:48:26 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs Subject: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table BCC: Message-ID: <9108072348.ab14740@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> This special report cross references the LATAs in the United States with their official number designation. You may wish to keep it with other reference materials in your collection. Thanks to Mr. Huttig for sending it along. PAT From: Bill Huttig Subject: Lata Number Reference Table Date: 5 Aug 91 20:06:48 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL Page No. 1 United States Telephone LATA Numbers STATE NAME NUMBER AK ALASKA 832 AL BIRMINGHAM 476 AL HUNTSVILLE 477 AL MONTGOMERY 478 AL MOBILE 480 AR FORT SMITH 526 AR LITTLE ROCK 528 AR PINE BLUFF 530 AZ PHOENIX 666 AZ TUCSON 668 AZ NAVAJO RESERVATION 980 CA SAN FRANCISCO 722 CA CHICO 724 CA SACRAMENTO 726 CA FRESNO 728 CA LOS ANGELES 730 CA SAN DIEGO 732 CA BAKERSFIELD 734 CA MONTEREY 736 CA STOCKTON 738 CA SAN LUIS OBISPO 740 CA PALM SPRINGS 973 CO DENVER 656 CO COLORADO SRPINGS 658 CT CONNECTICUT 920 DC WASHINGTON 236 FL PENSACOLA 448 FL PANAMA CITY 450 FL JACKSONVILLE 452 FL GAINESVILLE 454 FL DAYTONA BEACH 456 FL ORLANDO 458 FL SOUTHEAST 460 FL FORT MYERS 939 FL GULF COST 952 FL TALLAHASSEE 953 GA ATLANTA 438 GA SAVANNAH 440 GA AUGUSTA 442 GA ALBANY 444 GA MACON 446 HI HAWAII 834 IA SIOUX CITY 630 IA DES MOINES 632 IA DAVENPORT 634 IA CEDAR RAPIDS 635 ID IDAHO 652 Page No. 2 United States Telephone LATA Numbers STATE NAME NUMBER ID COEUR D'ALENE 960 IL CHICAGO 358 IL ROCKFORD 360 IL CAIRO 362 IL STERLING 364 IL FORREST 366 IL PEORIA 368 IL CHAMPAIGN 370 IL SPRINGFIELD 372 IL QUINCY 374 IL MATTOON 976 IL GALESBURG 977 IL OLNEY 978 IN EVANSVILLE 330 IN SOUTH BEND 332 IN AUBURN/HUNTINGTON 334 IN INDIANAPOLIS 336 IN BLOOMINGTON 338 IN RICHMOND 937 IN TERRE HAUTE 938 KS WICHITA 532 KS TOPEKA 534 KY LOUISVILLE 462 KY OWENSBORO 464 KY WINCHESTER 466 LA SHREVEPORT 486 LA LAFAYETTE 488 LA NEW ORLEANS 490 LA BATON ROUGE 492 MA WESTERN MASSACHUSETT 126 MA EASTERN MASSACHUSETT 128 MD BALTIMORE 238 MD HAGERSTOWN 240 MD SALISBURY 242 ME MAINE 120 MI DETROIT 340 MI UPPER PENINSULA 342 MI SAGINAW 344 MI LANSING 346 MI GRAND RAPIDS 348 MN ROCHESTER 620 MN DULUTH 624 MN ST CLOUD 626 MN MINNEAPOLIS 628 MO ST LOUIS 520 MO WESTPHALIA 521 MO SPRINGFIELD 522 Page No. 3 United States Telephone LATA Numbers STATE NAME NUMBER MO KANSAS CITY 524 MS JACKSON 482 MS BILOXI 484 MT GREAT FALLS 648 MT BILLINGS 650 MT KALISPELL 963 NC ASHEVILLE 420 NC CHARLOTTE 422 NC GREENSBORO 424 NC RALEIGH 426 NC WILMINGTON 428 NC FAYETTEVILLE 949 NC ROCKY MOUNT 951 ND FARGO 636 ND BISMARCK 638 NE OMAHA 644 NE GRAND ISLAND 646 NE LINCOLN 958 NH NEW HAMPSHIRE 122 NJ ATLANTIC COSTAL 220 NJ DELAWARE VALLEY 222 NJ NORTH JERSEY 224 NM NEW MEXICO 664 NV RENO 720 NV PAHRUMP 721 NY NEW YORK METRO 132 NY POUGHKEEPSIE 133 NY ALBANY 134 NY SYRACUSE 136 NY BINGHAMTON 138 NY BUFFALO 140 NY FISHERS ISLAND 921 NY ROCHESTER 974 OH CLEAVELAND 320 OH YOUNGSTOWN 322 OH COLUMBUS 324 OH AKRON 325 OH TOLEDO 326 OH DAYTON 328 OH CINCINNATI BELL 922 OH MANSFIELD 923 OK OKLAHOMA CITY 536 OK TULSA 538 OR EUGENE 670 OR PORTLAND 672 PA CAPITAL 226 PA PHILADELPHIA 228 Page No. 4 United States Telephone LATA Numbers STATE NAME NUMBER PA ALTOONA 230 PA NORTHEAST 232 PA PITTSBURG 234 PA ERIE 924 PR PUERTO RICO 820 RI RHODE ISLAND 130 SC GREENVILLE 430 SC FLORENCE 432 SC COLUMBIA 434 SC CHARLESTON 436 SD SOUTH DAKOTA 640 TN MEMPHIS 468 TN NASHVILLE 470 TN CHATTANOOGA 472 TN KNOXVILLE 474 TN BRISTOL 956 TX EL PASO 540 TX MIDLAND 542 TX LUBBOCK 544 TX AMARILLO 546 TX WICHITA FALLS 548 TX ABILENE 550 TX DALLAS 552 TX LONGVIEW 554 TX WACO 556 TX AUSTIN 558 TX HOUSTON 560 TX BEAUMONT 562 TX CORPUS CHRISTI 564 TX SAN ANTONIO 566 TX BROWNSVILLE 568 TX HEARNE 570 TX SAN ANGELO 961 US MIDWAY/WAKE 836 UT UTAH 660 UT NAVAJO RESERVATION 981 VA ROANOKE 244 VA CULPEPER 246 VA RICHMOND 248 VA LYNCHBURG 250 VA NORFOLK 252 VA HARRISONBURG 927 VA CHARLOTTESVILLE 928 VA EDINBURG 929 VI US VIRGIN ISLANDS 822 VT VERMONT 124 WA SEATTLE 674 Page No. 5 United States Telephone LATA Numbers STATE NAME NUMBER WA SPOKANE 676 WI NORTHEASST 350 WI NORTHWEST 352 WI SOUTHWEST 354 WI SOUTHEAST 356 WV CHARLESTON 254 WV CLARKSBURG 256 WV BLUEFIELD 932 WY WYOMING 654   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16688; 8 Aug 91 4:29 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25692; 8 Aug 91 2:58 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25215; 8 Aug 91 1:50 CDT Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 0:53:00 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #612 BCC: Message-ID: <9108080053.ab22530@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 8 Aug 91 00:52:51 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 612 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Information Services From Local Companies [Michael Gersten] Re: Calling Card Magnetic Strip Format [Michael G. Katzmann] Re: Cincinnati Bell Charges For 911 [Jim Allard] Re: What Number CLID Transmits (was Calling Line ID in FL) [Bill Huttig] Re: Poor Abused Phreakers [David Gast] Re: Why Don't Third-Party Payphones Beep? [Rob Stampfli] Re: Why Don't Third Party Payphones Beep? [Linc Madison] Re: Why Don't Third Party Payphones Beep? [Jim Allard] Re: Sprint Price Change [Linc Madison] Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? [Jack Dominey] Re: Collect Calls From Jail [Peter Marshall] Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? [Carl Moore] Re: Telecom Book of the Month (or not...) [Arnold Robbins] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Information Services From Local Companies Date: 6 Aug 91 03:16:13 PDT (Tue) From: Michael Gersten Hmm ... you seem to be stuck on 64kbit/sec, or 128kbit/sec. What I'd like to see is ATM ISDN at the home, i.e., true packet switched ATM at the home. None of this 2B + D nonsense. Granted it won't be able to go as fast over copper as over fiber, but it would have plenty of benefits: #1. You could charge by the use. The prices I've seen so far for STM ISDN were 120% of normal for 1B + D, and 220% of normal for 2B + D. In other words, you'd get no discount, and you'd have to pay for the D channel even though it is only used for dialing and such. #2. Few computers can work at 64kbit/sec. Why pay for what you can't use? #3. STM seems to stand for straight-jacket. The 64K/sec fixed rate is outdated (voice can be compressed smaller than that), unflexible (you could conceivable use priorities on ATM to get lower quality voice at a lower price), etc. Note that this assumes that the ATM stuff we studied in school is actually what the phone companies are planning on using :-) Michael ------------------------------ From: "Michael G. Katzmann" Subject: Re: Calling Card Magnetic Strip Format Date: 6 Aug 91 13:54:17 GMT Reply-To: "Michael G. Katzmann" Organization: Broadcast Sports Technology, Crofton. Maryland. In article tigger%jupiter.UCSC.EDU@ ucscc.ucsc.edu (David Foster) writes: > My question: Where can I get the ANSI specs for the magnetic strip > track format for RBOC and long distance calling cards. > Background: A friend is trying to integrate the use of calling cards et-cetera....... > Is there an organization that specifies standards for magnetic cards? > Is there a publication? Any help is appreciated. I have a copy of Australian Standard AS-2623 "Credit Cards: Magnetic Stripe Encoding for Tracks 1, 2, & 3". The reference to the international standard is: ISO 1864, Information processing - unrecorded 12.7 mm (0.5 in) wide magnetic tape for information interchange-8 and 32 rpmm (200 and 800 rpi) NRZI, and 63 rpmm (1600 rpi), phase-encoded. ISO 2894, Embossed credit cards - Specifications, numbering system and registration procedure. ISO 3554, Bank cards - Magnetic stripe data content for track 3. I don't know who handles ISO standards in the US, but my guess would be ANSI. Michael Katzmann Broadcast Sports Technology Inc. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crofton, Maryland. U.S.A Amteur Radio Stations: NV3Z / VK2BEA / G4NYV opel!vk2bea!michael@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ From: Jim Allard Subject: Re: Cincinnati Bell Charges For 911 Organization: Equicom Communications, Inc. Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1991 15:58:43 GMT Cellular One in Columbus, OH does not charge for 911 or Highway Patrol connections (*HELP). I had used the 911 system recently when my car was in an accident. No charges appeared. Their promo materials clearly indicate there are no charges for this type of call. Jim Allard THE BOTTOM FEEDER ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: What Number CLID Transmits (was Calling Line ID in FL) Date: 6 Aug 91 18:32:40 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article weave@chopin.udel.edu (Ken Weaverling) writes: > The difference between Caller ID and ANI is that ANI reports the > billing number where CLID reports the actual number called from. Not always true ... calls to the ANI demo line that was posted here a few months ago from FIT gave the trunk number not the billing number. Also calls to my Personal 800 number shows the trunk number. I guess it depends on how the LEC sets up the lines. [Stuff deleted] > [Moderator's Note: So with automtic call back and call screening, > which version is used when there is a discrepancy -- ANI or CLID? My > experience is here these services use the billing number. PAT] So why does Call Return (*69) not return calls that show up on a CLID display when the call comes from a PBX? (It is logical not to return a PBX call since you don't know which extension made the call but why should the CLID use the trunk number and not a billing number of some other type of display. How it should work ... (In my opinion) Calling From CLID/ANI Call Return Centrex calling number calling number PBX billing number N/A with special flag saying this is a PBX call Single line calling number calling number Hunt Group billing number billing number [Moderator's Note: Well, *69 works okay here, PBX or not ... if it can capture some number, it is more than happy to call the number back for you, regardless of where / what it is. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 13:58:08 -0700 From: David Gast Subject: Re: Poor Abused Phreakers jrallen@devildog.att.com wrote: > It's time to fight back and sell their [telemarker's] information. With > Caller-ID spreading across the country it's now possible to compile > telemarketer lists. As surely an employee of AT&T should know, Caller-ID at least as it is now implemented is not going to help much with blocking telemarketers. * many calls are out of state. I hear Nebraska is the telemarketer capital of the U.S. No phone number sent on inter-LATA calls. * many of the remaining calls would probably be from out of LATA. No phone number sent on inter-LATA calls. * many telemarketers use outgoing only trunks that have no associated incoming number. (I don't know if any CID information is sent or not). * most telemarketers have multiple lines so knowing one is not going to help a lot. * with the large number of lines used by telemarketers, even if it were possible to get the number, you probably would not be able to determine quickly enough if the call is from a telemarketer or not. You would probably need a PC with a database to give you any useful information since the little CID Boxes do not store enough numbers. The easiest way to block telemarketers is to screen your phone calls. They usually just hang up although last night I did get a message of two of them talking to each other. They never did mention what they were hyping, however. Very odd conversation, they were talking about something that happened to them. Have any of you with CID found that you can use it to determine reliably when a telemarketer is calling? David ------------------------------ From: Rob Stampfli Subject: Re: Why Don't Third-Party Payphones Beep? Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1991 17:57:08 GMT > [Moderator's Note: Isn't it neat how genuine Bell payphones allow > you to deposit ahead of time what you think you will use then the > system responds by saying "you have X cents credit for overtime." Actually, I was in Ireland several years back, and thought they had the best system I've ever seen: Prior to making a call, you set out coins on edge into a slightly inclined slotted rack which ran across the top of the phone. As the call progressed, the pay-phone ate the left-most coin as it needed more money, causing the other coins to roll down the slot, with only a momentary interruption in the voice path, similar to what you hear on a cellular call. If the stockpile of coins were getting low, you could add additional coins while you talked, and when you hung up, you could simply remove any that were left in the rack and pocket them. Simple and elegant! (I didn't test what would happen if you ran out of coins, but would guess it would just drop the call at that point.) Rob Stampfli, 614-864-9377, res@kd8wk.uucp (osu-cis!kd8wk!res), kd8wk@n8jyv.oh ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 01:48:48 PDT From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Why Don't Third Party Payphones Beep? Organization: University of California, Berkeley [regarding discussion of payphones that cut off the dial pad on answer] It's important to remember that it isn't just COCOTs that do this nasty trick: the AT&T "blue phones" have been known to do it, too. BTW, will the AT&T blue phones also be required to provide 10XXX access to other carriers? They've generally been quite nasty about blocking any attempt to use any other carrier. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu = ucbvax!tongue1!linc [Moderator's Note: The AT&T 'blue phones' (I assume you mean the charge-a-call units) are *NOT* operated by an LEC or an AOS. Phones operated by the local telco or some other service intended for local and long distance calling (by virtue of passing the LD call off to some carrier) are required to provide equal access. A long distance carrier which installs its own instruments for connection to its network is not required to originate calls over its competitors circuits! For example, in a few places I have seen similar units wired direct to MCI long distance. The difference is if it is a phone on the local exchange which hands off long distance traffic or if it is a phone installed by a carrier primarily for its own long distance traffic. The charge-a-calls are in the latter category. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jim Allard Subject: Re: Why Don't Third Party Payphones Beep? Organization: Equicom Communications, Inc. Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1991 14:20:49 GMT Operators don't count beeps or tones anymore. The software has (at least in my case) advanced to the point that the operator sees the dollar amount required descend until it reaches zero, for the initial period. Certainly the switch is "reading" the coin drops, but operators don't have to count or add it up in their heads anymore. Jim Allard THE BOTTOM FEEDER [Moderator's Note: One exception, and that is when the equipment fails to register properly. Sometimes it fails to capture the calling number also. Have you ever had an operator come on the line after you dialed a long distance call direct and say "Due to equipment failure, your number was not recorded. What number are you calling from, please?" Then she enters it manually at the terminal and releases the call to go on its way. Likewise, if the coin count gets screwed up (rare, but it happens) the operator will come on and say something like, "I am returning your coins and must ask you to redeposit them" ... chunk! the coins fall out, and you put them in again. On those, the operator still counts the beeps and manually releases the call on her terminal when satisfied with what she hears. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 13:42:57 PDT From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Sprint Price Change Organization: University of California, Berkeley In rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman) writes: > 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. Well, I have SPRINT SELECT (tm), which means I pay $7.50/month minimum, including my first hour of out-of-state evening/night/weekend calls, and then $6.50/hr pro rata for additional calls in those hours. (Weekday calls are at the regular -- I guess that's SPRINT PLUS -- rates.) I had assumed from all the discussion here and my (admittedly cursory) reading of the mailing from Sprint, that this plan was being replaced -- particularly that the merging of evening and night rates was going away. However, my latest bill, dated 7/29/91, still shows the same old plan. The only problem was that I didn't make enough LD calls last month for it to be worth my while -- I used only 32 minutes of my first hour :-( Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu = ucbvax!tongue1!linc ------------------------------ From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Wed Aug 7 09:05:32 EDT 1991 Subject: Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? Referring to Marcel Mongeon's (marcelm@joymrmn.uucp) suggestion of four-digit area codes as an alternative method of area code splits: > Maybe the experts could tell us if a lot of CO reprogramming would be > required? I can't say what would be required within telco central offices, but consider for a moment the number of computer systems that handle phone numbers. Virtually every one of them would require extensive reprogramming. Heck, it would take me two or three hours to fix my phone lists at home on the PC. I'll bet there are literally millions of systems that take advantage of the xxx-xxx-xxxx arrangement of the North American Numbering plan. The economic cost of changing the number of digits could easily run into the billions of dollars. Jack Dominey, AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA 404-496-6925 or AT&TMail: !dominey ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Collect Calls From Jail From: halcyon!peterm@sumax.seattleu.edu Date: Wed, 07 Aug 91 07:22:13 PDT Mr. Miller's post asked "What is up with these calls?" With collect calls from inmates in some institutions, "what's up" also seems to affect the privacy of those accepting these collect calls. Some vendors supplying inmate phone systems also make available the capacity to generate SMDR reports re: these collect calls that appears to pose a problem for the called parties, many of whom are likely to be attornies. The transaction-generated data produced includes the number called, and in many cases there would appear to be little if any restriction on the subsequent dissemination and use of this information. Of course, the called parties are unlikely to know about this data collection. Although in some jurisdictions there are statutes dealing with "monitoring" of inmate calls, these provisions often are irrelevant to the situation described, which is an affair of information *about* the call. Peter Marshall The 23:00 News and Mail Service - +1 206 292 9048 - Seattle, WA USA PEP, V.32, V.42 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 12:23:07 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? I think the equipment here in country code 1 is much more dependent on fixed-length phone numbers than is the equipment overseas. ------------------------------ Reply-To: arnold@audiofax.com From: Arnold Robbins Subject: Re: Telecom Book of the Month (or not...) Date: 7 Aug 91 23:28:03 GMT Organization: AudioFAX, Inc., Atlanta Georgia > Authors: Kraus, Constantine Raymond and Duerig, Alfred W > Title: The Rape of Ma Bell: The Criminal Wrecking of the Best > Telephone System in the World > Pub: Secaucus NJ, Lyle Stuart c1988 > Lib. of Congress call: HE8846.A55 ... Gee, given the title, are we sure our Esteemed Moderator didn't have a hand in the authorship? :-) :-) 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 [Moderator's Note: Sorry, I cannot and will not accept any credit for this. I must admit though, I wish I'd thought of the title first! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #612 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19679; 8 Aug 91 5:38 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02866; 8 Aug 91 4:05 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25692; 8 Aug 91 2:51 CDT Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 1:50:07 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #613 BCC: Message-ID: <9108080150.ab16101@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 8 Aug 91 01:49:59 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 613 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Switches That `Know' Extension Numbers [Huw Jonathan Rogers] Re: Switches That `Know' Extension Numbers [John Pettitt] Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice [Mark Miller] Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice [Bill Berbenich] Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice [Carl Moore] Re: Phone Numbers on Credit Cards [Steve Thornton] Re: Areacodes 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 [Bill Huttig] Re: Hotels and AOS's Again [Jim Allard] Re: Hotels and AOS's Again [Tony Harminc] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 18:18:12 JST From: Huw Jonathan Rogers Subject: Re: Switches That `Know' Extension Numbers Organization: Murder Inc. In article is written: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 609, Message 2 of 8 > weave@chopin.udel.edu (Ken Weaverling) writes: >> While I am not a telecom guru, I can see how the above makes logical >> sense. The CO only sees trunk lines coming from a PBX, and therefore >> can't tell what actual number the call was dialled from. Since a >> Centrex service is basically all contained in the CO, the CO then >> knows the actual number called from. > In the UK we use Mercury for our long distance and international > calls. One of the better features of the this is that we get an fully > itemised bill each month because Mercury `knows' the extension number > of the calling party. > It works like this: When an user dials a number our PBX looks up the > area code in the `Mercury' table. If it gets a match the PBX dials > 131 (Mercury access), waits for a second tone and dials our access > code, a three digit extension number and the number to be called. > Some time later (Mercury is slow to complete calls) you get a ring. > When the called party answers and the line supervises you hear a beep > (nice touch that -- you know when billing starts). Are you using tone dialing for the twelve digit Mercury authorization code, three digit cost centre number, and dialed number? Even if your local BT exchange isn't tone dialling, as soon as the 131 has connected you to Mercury you can switch to tone dialing for the rest (the three aforementioned items). Using this setup I have never experienced any delay at all after the 131 has connected. (BTW, I am normally in the UK -- ignore the fact that this email address is in Tokyo). The 131 itself, even on pulse dialing, takes around one second and the rest is near instantaneous. Of course this presupposes your PABX/phone isn't so brain- damaged as not to be able to tone dial. On another topic, you can dial *any* number via Mercury that you can via BT -- and it's *always* cheaper (except local calls -- but there is a fix for this - see next paragraph). The probem with certain areas is that they can't get Mercury to call *you* using Mercury, however that doesn't stop you calling them. This need to use a lookup table strikes me as either being a throwback to Mercury's early days. It's certainly totally unnecessary on the Mercury accounts I have used. If you want to make local calls via Mercury you can prefix them with your local area code and they are connected as if a trunk call by Mercury; note this may not work in certain areas. Despite the trunk vs local call, the difference in cost is actually minimal, and you get the call on your itemised bill which BT would never do. Lastly if you want to make calls from payphones free of charge and have them billed to your Mercury account there is a way. Most privately rented payphones and a large number of BT payphones (but strangely enough no Mercury payphones) will accept the 131 code with no money or just 10p (which is never used). You can type in your authorization code manually followed by any cost centre, then the dialed number. The call is connected, and is billed on your monthly account as if you had made it from the home/office. This only works for payphones within your area code, although Mercury is planning a national autorization code system I have heard. Hope this helps some, H.J.Rogers INTERNET: huw@ccs.mt.nec.co.jp JANET: huw%ccs.mt.nec.co.jp@uk.ac.nsfnet-relay THIS EMAIL ADDRESS ONLY VALID UNTIL 12/9/1991 ------------------------------ From: John Pettitt Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 17:41:09 BST Organization: Specialix International Subject: Re: Switches That `Know' Extension Numbers Huw Jonathan Rogers writes: > In article you write: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 609, Message 2 of 8 > Are you using tone dialing for the twelve digit Mercury > authorization code, three digit cost centre number, and dialed number? > Even if your local BT exchange isn't tone dialing, as soon as the > 131 has connected you to Mercury you can switch to tone dialing for > the rest (the three aforementioned items). Using this setup I have > never experienced any delay at all after the 131 has connected. (BTW > I am normally in the UK -- ignore the fact that this Email address is > in Tokyo). The 131 itself, even on pulse dialing, takes around one > second and the rest is near instantaneous... Of course this > presupposes your PABX/phone isn't so braindamaged as not to be able > to tone dial. We are tone dialing both the 131 and the Mercury numbers (I tried pulse ONCE it was so slow as to be a waste of time). The delay I was complaining about was from the last digit being sent to Mercury to getting a ring tone the other end. This is most noticable on calls to the US where BT will get you a ring in about seven seconds from the last digit (this to 408-354 - GTE in Los Gatos CA). Mercury takes twenty seconds to do the same thing. > On another topic you can dial *any* number via Mercury that you > can via BT - and it's *always* cheaper (except local calls - but there > is a fix for this - see next para). The probem with certain areas > is that they can't get Mercury to call *you* using Mercury, however > that doesn't stop you calling them. This need to use a lookup table > strikes me as either being a throwback to Mercury's early days. It's > certainly totally unnecessary on the Mercury accounts I have used. We use the lookup because local calls are cheaper on BT than mercury and because our PBX will not work without it ! John Pettitt Specialix International jpp@specialix.co.uk ------------------------------ From: Mark Miller Subject: Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 17:28:25 EDT After reading Pat's description of the Biosynetic Research voice disguising phone, I was intrigued. Rather than send off $19.95 I decided to call the 900 number demo line for 75 cents. The demo line *does* announce the 75 cents cost, and tells you to hang up if you don't want to pay, that's nice! The demo voice is a woman, who demos four of the voice settings. The first one is a male voice, somewhat synthetic sounding, but mostly understandable. From here on, it got much worse. The second was a lower pitched male voice, very synthetic sounding, and full of high pitched harmonics. The other two voice settings were some form of female/little girl voice, that was very shrill, high pitched, distorted, and almost unintelligible. While it is true that the phone *does* disguise your voice, from the demo, it does not seem to change it so that it sounds like anything other than a electronically processed voice. Due to this fact, I don't think you'd really want to use it for some of the scenarios presented by the company. This is of course my opinions of the demo, your opinion may be different, and maybe the phone is worth $19.95. I think I'll wait till some other telecom-er gets one, and submits his review of the phone though :-) Mark T. Miller miller@dg-rtp.dg.com ...uunet!xyzzy!miller ------------------------------ From: bill@gauss.gatech.edu Subject: Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 14:18:39 EDT Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Pat, I tried to get a 212 POTS number for these people and they don't have a listing in NYC. I called the 800 number and got what appeared to be a small "boiler room" operation - you know, like when you call for one of those TV ads and the 800 number just goes to a giant ordering department somewhere. In any event, being a sucker for many things telephonic, I immediately called the 800 number and placed my order for one of these devices. I used my MasterCard to pay for the merchandise, so at least I have some recourse if all is not as it seems. The price is $19.95 each, plus $3 s&h. No tax for those of us not in NY/NJ. I will let Digest readers know how this thing turns out. I don't think I'll be disappointed, 'cuz I'm not expecting much! Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu [Moderator's Note: I'm a sucker and ordered one also with my Visa card. We shall see how good it is. Maybe you and I can call each other both using it at the same time for laughs! :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 12:02:41 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice At this writing, I have not called 900-737-9343 for the demo. Is this gadget supposed to respond to YOUR voice input and then output the desired voice? [Moderator's Note: No. A woman speaks normally, then we hear her voice go in different directions. The demo lasts about a minute. PAT] A crude form of electronic voice changing appeared several years ago on the old "To Tell The Truth" TV game show, in its "celebrity" version. (For those who don't know, I will describe the game in the next paragraph.) In the "celebrity" version, a well-known person appears at the beginning of the TV program and, after an intervening "non-celebrity" game, becomes one of the three people in a new game. The measures taken to hide identities: 1. faces covered by hoods. 2. the celebrity is wearing different clothes than seen at the start of the TV program. 3. the item of interest in this message: VOICES ARE ELECTRONICALLY DISTORTED. In "To Tell The Truth", the panel has to decide which of three people is the person whose story is read at the beginning of the game; the other two people are impostors, trying to fool the panel. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Aug 91 10:27:00 EST From: Steve Thornton Subject: Re: Phone Numbers on Credit Cards On Wed, 7 Aug 91 2:19:06 CDT Linc Madison said: [regarding credit cards with your telephone number printed on them, and merchants who ask for your telephone number on the charge slip] > It seems to me that the credit card companies should streamline and > standardize a simple system for returning credit cards that have been > left behind at a cash register. First, print the customer service > number (toll-free and POTS) on the back of the card. Second, tell the > merchant to call customer service if they have a lost card. Third, > the card issuer can try to contact the card holder and tell him, "Mr. > Smith, you left your Bankfoo MasterCard at World of Merchandise this > afternoon. If you'd like to pick it up, speak to Ms. Jones, the > manager; otherwise, we can cancel the card and issue a new one." The > card issuer should also tell the merchant, "if the card holder hasn't > picked it up within X period of time, please mail the card back to >
." Well, I guess I'm just out of touch with the super-security-conscious and bureaucratic world of today. The "system" we had was for me to call the person up and say, "Hi, Mary, this is Steve down at the Upstart Crow. You left your Mastercard here. You can come by and pick it up anytime", and she would reply (get this), "thank you". No need to involve a dozen people and phone calls. Worked pretty well, too. The ones we couldn't return we chopped up after a couple of weeks. The $2500 fine would put an end to that, I guess. Now I know that the appropriate thing to do when someone attempts to take my number is to raise hell, demand my rights, shout at the clerk, demand the manager, refuse to pay, and finally storm out after a half hour's commotion. Or am I exaggerating slightly? No, I'm not trying to make light of a real security concern, I'm just sorry to see an atmosphere of mistrust take over yet more of my daily life. Everyone seems to assume that everyone is trying to rip everybody off all the time. I don't want to think that's true. Steve Thornton / Harvard University Library / +1 617 495 3724 netwrk@harvarda.bitnet / netwrk@harvarda.harvard.edu [Moderator's Note: I find it easier, when asked for my phone number to just say I don't have a phone. Gives them something to think about. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: Areacodes 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 Date: 7 Aug 91 17:40:00 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil (Will Martin) writes: [stuff deleted] > So is it likely that at some future date, not only "800" calls will be > free to the caller, but also "300" (or one of the others) calls? I wish they would make 400 a SAC for Personal 800 service. I heard at one time there was talk about the 300/400 used to assign phone lines to faxes/computers and it would be imposible to call from those area/codes to the regular one ... like the TWX codes. > What other uses are planned for the double-zero area codes? See above. > What sort of test numbers use "200"? Are they reachable nationwide? If > so, are they billable calls, and how do they show up on an itemized > bill? Is this a temporary use of the areacode, or a permanent > assignment? Here in Melbourne, FL 200 used to be the ANI readback number. Now the readback number is 2000. Bill [Moderator's Note: I still hear rumblings about this from time to time also. 300 will be used nationally for data, like 800 is used nationally for in-wats. The way I hear it, AT&T has fantasies about giving Telenet/Sprintnet some stiff competition to their own public switched data network, at *dirt cheap* rates, ala PC Pursuit. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jim Allard Subject: Re: Hotels and AOS's Again Organization: Equicom Communications, Inc. Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1991 14:15:10 GMT Re: Marcel changed hotel phone charges, lost revenue and didn't get any additional business. I suggest again that the readers of this Digest are unique in their knowledge and awareness of telecommunications issues. The vast majority of the traveling public (including most business people) don't even think about the telephone other than the fact that one is there. A great number of these people's expenses are paid by their company. We've tried adding modem capable phones, multiple line phones, etc., and as in Marcel's case it just didn't make a bit of difference in occupancy. I'd be willing to bet that if you reinstituted "reasonable" charges for service your occupancy will be unaffected. The reasons people select hotels are very simple, location, cleanliness, and room price, NOT THE PHONE. Go ahead, flame away. Jim Allard THE BOTTOM FEEDER ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Aug 91 15:04:58 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Hotels and AOS's Again marcelm@joymrmn.uucp (Marcel Mongeon) wrote: [description of allegedly non-ripoff hotel telecom policies] > 10XXX calls: We are located in Canada so these do > not apply. However, we keep a fairly complete > list of 800 numbers for MCI, Sprint etc. (funny > thing is that our number one question from > American visitors is "How do I get an AT&T > operator" and we have to tell them it is not > possible! -- so much for the best LD service! Doubtless years of Americans listening to AT&T stories about "hotel ripoffs in foreign countries". Now how far d'you think I'd get if I insisted on getting a Bell Canada operator from a hotel in the US? > The result of all of these policies is that our revenues dropped by > about 25% on telephone. The fact that we are the only hotel in town > with free local calls has not attracted a single piece of new > business. Anyone want to suggest why? No -- but tell me what town and the name of your hotel and I'll mention it to colleagues who travel a lot. "Somewhere in 416 --> 905" is not much of a description :-) Tony H. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #613 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19978; 8 Aug 91 5:45 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02866; 8 Aug 91 4:12 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac25692; 8 Aug 91 2:58 CDT Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 2:12:08 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #614 BCC: Message-ID: <9108080212.ab05227@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 8 Aug 91 02:11:47 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 614 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Historical Note - Operator Intertoll Dialing [Floyd Davidson] Re: Historical Note - Operator Intertoll Dialing [Tony Harminc] Re: Randy Wants You to Know ... [Andy Sherman] Re: Long-Distance Across a Road [Jeff Carroll] Re: Switches That `Know' Extension Numbers [Peter Thurston] Re: Millenium Payphones (Northern Telecom) [Gary L. Dare] Re: Billing INTRA-Lata Calling to My Carrier [Madhumitra Sharma] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: Historical Note - Operator Intertoll Dialing Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1991 12:02:25 GMT In article haynes@cats.ucsc.edu, aynes@cats.ucsc.edu writes: > Someone gave an interesting description of operating procedures in the > days when toll calls were dialed by operators. Then I happened across > a blueprint "Block Schematic, Intertoll Dialing Arrangement" for the > SxS office in my home town, circa 1953. This gives some of the > technical details. > Level 1 goes to an Auxiliary Intertoll Selector. On this switch: > Level 1 is shown as "absorb repeatedly" > Level 2 is shown as "inward opr. 121" > Level 3 is shown as "inf. opr. 131" (so I guess that's Information) > Level 4 is shown as "delayed opr 114" > Level 5 is shown as "univ. delayed opr 1150" > Level 6 is shown going to reorder > Level 7 is shown as "wh-opr 117" > Level 8 has a line going to level 2 - dunno what this means > Level 9 goes to reorder > Level 0 goes through a Ring Control circuit to Another Auxiliary Intertoll > Selector. From this switch: > Level 1 goes to "Test Trunk 101" > Level 2 goes to "Transmission Measuring 102" > Level 3 goes to "Test Line 103" > Level 4 goes to Intercept > Levels 5,6,7, and 9 go to ringdown trunks to nearby small towns. > Level 8 is shown as "absorb once only" and goes to intercept > Level 0 goes to "Balanced Termination 100" > There are some mysteries here, or at least some things I don't > understand. The inward and information operators are 121 and 131. > Does the auxiliary intertoll selector require that last 1 digit before > it will rotary hunt, or does the 1 digit activate something in the > circuit going to the switchboard? But 114 and 117 on the same switch > don't seem to need a terminal 1 digit. The multiple initial 1s are > explained by the fact that level 1 absorbs repeatedly. And why is the > "Univ. Delayed Opr" 1150? Does it really require a final 0 digit? I can't tell for sure. It could be any of those. The lines that require another digit may have equipment or connectors on them that actually look for another digit as needed, or they may not. There used to be lots of things that didn't require all the digits (which were just absorbed in various ways). Maybe someone who did more work with mechanical switches than I can answer better... > Maybe someone can enlighten us about the 101 test trunk and the 103 > test line. I'd guess the 102 transmission measuring probably goes to > a source of miliwatt 1000Hz and the 100 bal. term. is just a balanced > resistive termination. 100 -- Termination for testing balance and noise. In the good 'ol days it provided off hook and a connection to a 2mfd cap is series with a resistor of the proper value (900 or 600 ohms). Today it is more likely to send a 1004 Hz test tone at full level for 5.5 +/- .1 seconds before being connected to a quiet term. There are also several variations on the "T100" test with things like -13 dBm0 tones for measuring noise with tone and so on. 101 -- Testboard tel line for maintenance personel. This line is available on any incoming trunk (the distant end can get on the trunk and dial 101 and ring the testboard). I don't know if 101 lines are used much elsewhere, but in Fairbanks if it rings, it beeps one of those high pitched sounders that is located at the top of a rack 25 feet from a test position. If you call 101 it may take 15 rings for anyone to figure out where the beeping is coming from and what it is! They do appear on all test positions and we do use them for outgoing calls. 102 -- 1004 Hz testtone at 0 dBm0. Today this is usually an off-hook tone on condition for nine seconds, a short on-hook connection to a quiet term of about one second. It may alternate or it may drop after one cycle, with the last being not too common and very annoying. 103 -- Supervision test. There were and are many variations on what happens with a T103 test. Things like each "1" dialed toward it would cause it to alternate between on and off hook conditions. (With pulse dialing it was critical that a single pulse would work.) I think that today it is supposed to go to a 120 IPM busy signal after one or two gyrations. 104 -- Two way automatic transmission and one way noise test. Measures an incoming test tone, sends an outgoing test tone, adjusts that tone by how much the incoming was off, and gives a quiet term. It gives a "wink" of on hook in between each stage to let the distant end know when it changes. 105 -- Connects to a "responder" which in conjunction with a Remote Office Test Line (ROTL) unit can make all kinds of two way tests, including frequency response and "echo return loss". The ROTL is usually connected to a computer (eg. an IBM PC) that keeps a data base on each trunk group. The data base has everything from the number to dial to get the far end responder, to what test to make and what the limits are for each test. It's the kind of thing you set up to run all night and in the morning it tells you what it found on about 1000 trunks (and it costs less than a technician...). There are others too. 107 is a data line test, 108 is an echo suppression test, 109 is an echo canceller test. Another test line is a TLPA/TLPB loopback which is usually two numbers that return a test tone if only one is offhook, and connect to each other if both are off hook. There are also some standard numbering schemes, that are not necessarily followed, for how different types of switching offices make these lines available (what the full seven digit number is supposed to be for instance). This is more than even I ever really wanted to know... 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, 07 Aug 91 22:38:25 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Historical Note - Operator Intertoll Dialing haynes@cats.ucsc.edu, aynes@cats.ucsc.edu wrote: > Someone gave an interesting description of operating procedures in the > days when toll calls were dialed by operators. Then I happened across > a blueprint "Block Schematic, Intertoll Dialing Arrangement" for the > SxS office in my home town, circa 1953. This gives some of the > technical details. > Maybe someone can enlighten us about the 101 test trunk and the 103 > test line. I'd guess the 102 transmission measuring probably goes to > a source of miliwatt 1000Hz and the 100 bal. term. is just a balanced > resistive termination. Test lines (as of 1973 - my latest copy of _Notes on Distance Dialing_ (the pre-breakup version of _Notes on the Network_)) are: 100: Balance. Provides off-hook supervision to calling end as long as trunks are held by calling end. A 5-second milliwatt tone is provided on the newer version of the 100-type test line [probably not in 1953] Provides a termination (600 or 900 ohms plus a capacitance) which simulates the nominal office impedance. 101: Communications. Provides a communication and test line into a test- board or test position which can be used for reporting trouble, making transmission tests, etc. [i.e. you get a person] 102: Milliwatt. Provides connection to a 1000-Hz testing power source for one-way transmission measurements. [Many details of timing and 2dB pads left out.] 103: Signal-Supervisory. Provides a connection to a supervisory and signalling test circuit for testing intertoll trunk features. On seizure the test trunk returns off hook. On receipt of a ring-forward signal the test trunk returns on-hook. On receipt of a second ring- forward signal the trunk returns 120IPM flash. 104: Transmission Measuring and Noise Checking. This is a semi-automatic test circuit that allows two-way loss measurement by one person (or an automated test set). [I'm sure this didn't exist in 1953.] 105: Fully automatic transmission measuring test line. This is intended for use with an automatic test equipment at the near end. > itemised bill each month because Mercury `knows' the extension number > of the calling party. 107: Data Transmission test line. [also clearly not around in 1953.] 108: Echo Suppression Loop-Around test line. All this brings back curious memories. Back in my earliest days of playing with the phone (early 1960's when I was about 10), I can remember discovering that 112 + 10x produced various interesting results. A couple of times I had long interesting chats with the fellows who answered 112 + 101. I think they were as confused as I was about how I had got through to them. It was only years later after these codes were blocked that I discovered what I had been dialing. Actually these codes were not blocked in Toronto until 1 replaced 112 as the long distance prefix (very late 1960s). And to think if I'd known I could've called anywhere this way! Sigh. Tony H. ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 11:49:38 EDT Subject: Re: Randy Wants You to Know ... Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA In article TELECOM Moderator writes: > The appeal drags on, and will apparently go to litigation. He and his > attorney are not backing down, and apparently neither is AT&T at this > point. Randy says his intention is to regain his employment and all > the back pay he is missing. I, as a management employee, had to sign a form acknowledging that I had received a review of the AT&T Code of Conduct. If Randy, as a union employee, received a similar review and signed a similar form then his case won't be in court for very long. His situation is covered in the code of conduct in two places - implicitly in the section on protecting proprietary information and explicitly in a section dealing with customer billing data. I predict a successful motion for dismissal of his suit. Of course I'm not a lawyer ... (And of course I am only speaking for myself). 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: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Long-Distance Across a Road Date: 7 Aug 91 19:18:32 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics A friend of mine is priest in charge of a new parish recently founded east of Lake Sammamish, on what is known as the Pine Lake Plateau. This is a region which has been rapidly developed in the last few years as housing for California emigres. (For those who don't know Seattle; Lake Sammamish is the smaller and more eastern of two large lakes just east of the city. The city of Bellevue is located between Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish.) The region is still unincorporated, and services are provided from the cities of Redmond (north end of Sammamish) and Issaquah (south end). My friend reports that there are several cases of neighbors straddling the Redmond/Issaquah telephone exchange boundary; Redmond is served by GTE, Issaquah by US West, and Redmond-Issaquah (as well as vice-versa) is a long distance call. My friend, who is connected to a Redmond exchange, has found it necessary to get a Bellevue number to which his parishioners connected to the Issaquah exchange (as well as his Redmond-exchange parishioners) can place local calls. When annexation finally adjoins Redmond and Issaquah, or when a new city is formed in this location, city limits will almost surely not coincide with the telephone exchange boundaries, nor with the school district boundaries (which are controlled by the state and completely independent of local municipalities). There are already many phones within the city of Bellevue connected to Redmond exchanges, and some phones within Redmond connected to Bellevue USWest exchanges (the area I'm talking about is just west of Microsoft HQ). Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: Peter Thurston Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 17:19:28 +0100 Subject: Re: Switches That `Know' Extension Numbers John Pettitt writes: > It works like this: When an user dials a number our PBX looks up the > area code in the `Mercury' table. If it gets a match the PBX dials > 131 (Mercury access), waits for a second tone and dials our access > code, a three digit extension number and the number to be called. > Some time later (Mercury is slow to complete calls) you get a ring. > When the called party answers and the line supervises you hear a beep > (nice touch that -- you know when billing starts). The beep has an unfortunate tendency to confuse fax-switches. I find it to their fax. I do it every time. At least they now know if the fax is activated but nothing comes out -- then the phone rings -- it's me! There may also be circumstances under which it will affect baud rate selection with modems -- although I have not encountered this particular problem. Peter Thurston Applied Psychology Unit - CAMBRIDGE - UK. ------------------------------ From: Gary L Dare Subject: Re: Millenium Payphones (Northern Telecom) Reply-To: Gary L Dare Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1991 19:36:12 GMT In article dleibold@attmail.com writes: > These phones allow for use of calling cards, or credit cards such as > Visa, MC, Amex, etc. In Toronto's case, a calling card issued from > Telecom Canada (eg. Bell Canada, BC Tel, AGT, MTS, etc) could be used, > Major features of the phones include a two line character display > (green, fluorescent-like dot matrix display) which can be switched > between French and English messages. Does anyone know if these are the same make of phones found at LAX in the name of PacBell? I used one a couple of weeks back during a long stopover (San Jose - New York via LAX) and the display was orange, in English and Japanese. I had no change, and no change machine in sight so I just made a quick call (same area code) on my VISA. It didn't show up on my bill yet, so it's too soon to scream. However, I don't expect it to cost as much as the same amount of time on a NYTEL line. Way to go, NorTel! Gary L. Dare gld@cunixD.cc.columbia.EDU gld@cunixc.BITNET ------------------------------ From: sharma@whopper.lcs.mit.edu (Madhumitra Sharma) Subject: Re: Billing INTRA-Lata Calling to My Carrier Organization: MIT Lab for Computer Science, Cambridge, Mass. Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1991 16:02:14 GMT I don't think it is illegal for long-distance carriers to carry intra-LATA calls. I use MCI to call intra-LATA all the time with 10222-1- ... (the first minute is much cheaper with MCI, and a lot of these calls end up being very short -- so it saves quite a bit.) When I found out that MCI could carry intra-LATA calls, I called Baby Bell and asked them why all these long-distance calls don't go via MCI, since they are my long-distance company. The Baby Bell rep said that Baby Bell is not required to route those calls via MCI, and if I wanted to use MCI for these calls, I should call MCI and ask them if they handled intra-LATA calls and if so, find out the procedure. madhu sharma sharma@bk.lcs.mit.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #614 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id ab25118; 9 Aug 91 5:12 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27403; 9 Aug 91 3:43 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29314; 9 Aug 91 2:34 CDT Date: Fri, 9 Aug 91 1:25:17 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #616 BCC: Message-ID: <9108090125.ab20341@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 9 Aug 91 01:25:12 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 616 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Looking For Good References on ISDN [Bill Schaefer] Indiana Bell 'Touch Four' Service [Doctor Math] Small Panasonic PBX For Sale [Ed Greenberg] Postal Codes in Old 01 Area [Carl Moore] Message Light on Voice Mail System Phones [Lawrence Hare] UK Phone System: Director Areas [Martin Harriss] Lite Motorola Cellular Phone [David Leibold] AT&T International Rate Changes [David Leibold] Source For British Telecom Phone Boxes [Brian Montgomery] Directory Assistance Charges Increase Within Florida [David Leibold] Re: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table [Henry Mensch] Re: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table [Carl Moore] Re: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table [Jeff Carroll] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Schaefer Subject: Looking For Good References on ISDN Date: 7 Aug 91 06:07:13 GMT Reply-To: Bill Schaefer Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory I'm getting involved in various ISDN projects and need to come up to speed on the state of the standards effort and, more importantly, for now, what's out there, the differences between implementations, etc. I'd like to read some good references on ISDN -- both technical and tutorial. Please send me your suggestions and I'll summarize them back to this group. Thanks for your time! wbs ------------------------------ From: Doctor Math Subject: Indiana Bell 'Touch Four' Information Service Date: Mon, 05 Aug 91 09:12:15 EST Organization: Department of Redundancy Department rhyre@cinoss1.att.com (Ralph W. Hyre) writes: > Cincinnati Bell has been offerring a service called 'the Talking > Yellow Pages' for a few years now. You dial the number (513) 333-4444 > and enter some four-digit codes to get weather reports, movie > listings, and such. Indiana Bell offers something similar, called "Touch Four". It's loaded with advertising, of course. It's also got me quite curious: What is it FOR? It's not like the phone companies to offer a free service such as this just out of the goodness of their hearts. Two of the ideas I've come up with so far are: 1. It's been set up in anticipation of the RBOC's entry into so- called "Information Services". 2. It generates some huge amount of marketing information by cross-referencing the calling party's number and what codes they dial. Anyone out there know for sure? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 09:31 PDT From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Small Panasonic PBX For Sale While we usually don't have for-sale messages here in Telecom, this one is sufficiently telecom related that Patrick said it was OK. My brother in law has a small Panasonic PBX for sale at $250, fob Walnut Creek, CA. It's a KXT-616. Six lines, 16 extensions. Serial printer port for SMDR. All normal PBX features including data privacy, programmable pickup and ring groups, toll restriction, station-message- detail-recording, etc. Call Torre Liano at 415-933-7299 to arrange to buy or see. Email me for technical questions ONLY. He has, and will ship the PBX. I have the manual (in photocopy form) and will mail it promptly to the purchaser (and will show it off locally in Silicon Valley.) History: I obtained this beastie for Torre's store about six months ago. It was used and he paid the same $250 for it that he wants. I installed it in March. He closed shop in July. We had it running with three lines and about nine extentions. It took the staff about a week to get used to it, and then they loved it. Note: removed from service working, but sold as-is. Some emailed technical help for the EXPERIENCED phone hacker will be available, but no hand holding. Also, once I ship you the manual I'm at a disadvantage. I'll throw in my logging printer (an OEM relabelled Okidata) for another $100. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 13:45:04 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Postal Codes in Old 01 Area In the UK, the following postal areas are at least partly in the old 01 area, now split to form 071/081: CR , E , EC , HA , IG , KT , N , NW , SE , SL , SM , SW , TW , UB , W , WC (I assume that a fax I see in TQ on 071-376 is a foreign exchange there.) ------------------------------ From: Lawrence Hare Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 13:01:46 PDT Subject: Message Light on Voice Mail System Phones I am using an AT&T System 75 telephone system front-ended by an Aspen Voice Processing System. It works wonderfully well and my somewhat simple minded phone has a light (led) that blinks when a message has come in. I want to replace the phone with a more feature rich speaker-phone purchased from a local vendor. I have checked these out and some are excellent and well worth getting -- but no message light on any of them. Close inspection of the innards on my simple phone show that the message light is driven off ring and tip with a little circuit interfacing the lines to the LED. Closer examination of the circuit would result in the destruction thereof, an action surely designed to increase my popularity with those that count, hence I have desisted from this path. Does anyone know of a way to add a message ready light to a third party phone? A little box with an RJ11 female and an RJ11 male terminated cable could be easily placed in-line and would serve the function admirably, presuming naturally that the little box had the required led on its top. Any other suggestions would also be welcome. Thanks. Lawrence D. Hare Control Data - Silicon Valley Operations Consultant Voice: (408) 496 4339 - C/N [234] 4339 ldh@eagle.svl.cdc.com Mail: SVLa60 FAX: (408) 496-4106 [Moderator's Note: From time to time in the past this has come up, and perhaps some readers will respond to you with the schematics and notes we have published previously. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Martin Harriss Subject: UK Phone System: Director Areas Organization: Beechwood Data Systems Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 19:47:59 GMT Referencing a message I recently posted to TELECOM Digest, someone asked me, "What's a director area?" I thought I'd share the answer with everybody, and add a story about the development of the director. Well, in case you havn't guessed by now, a director area is named for the piece of equipment used to implement it - the director. Although I don't know how it got its name, the director is just an example of a register-translator. It sucks in seven digits dialled by the subscriber, and generates routing digits based on the first three digits (the exchange code). The final four digits are stored and retransmitted following the routing digits. Why should you want do do this? Because it gives you flexibility in routing and exchange code assignment in a large metropolitain area. Bear in mind that the UK telephone system was based on Strowger step-by-step switches, where the subscriber had a list of codes to dial in order to reach nearby exchanges. The digits that the sub dialled would directly route the call to the desired destination. In a large city, this was deemed unacceptable because the routing digits could vary widely even in a fairly small geographical area. By using something that translates the exchange code, everyone can use the same number to call from any place. If you're really clever about assigning codes, you can print letters on the dial and use the first three letters of the exchange name as the dialing code. The original implementation of the director used step-by-step technology, although nowadays the are mostly electronic/computer controlled. And now the story about the development of the director. By Act of Parliament, all (well, most) telephone systems were taken over by the General Post Office in 1912. Up until then, telephones in the UK were run by private companies. With the takeover, there was obviously a desire to standardize the various diverse systems then in use. Unfortunately, this effort more of less came to an end two years later with the shooting of the Archduke in Sarajevo. The task was taken up again in 1918, and attention was turned to the London area. At the time, London's telephones consisted mostly of manual exchanges, with patches of automatic switches here and there. The GPO wanted a standard system that would offer flexibility in routing and in assignment of exchange codes. The latter would allow them to print letters on the dial and give the exchange a name, the first three letters of which would be used to dial a number on that exchange. The GPO looked around the world to see if anyone was doing this already. Looking west, they found none other than good old Ma Bell, doing the self same thing in New York City. So they went and talked to Ma. "Sure," said Ma; "we'll sell you all the Panel switches you need!" Not surprisingly, the British phone equipment manufacturers were furious. "Buy this American rubbish? Who do they think they are?" At some point in these proceedings, the British phone manufacturers, particularly Automatic Telephone and Electric (AT&E), met with the GPO. "We think we can build something that will beat the excrement out of that American stuff," they said. "Well OK," said the GPO, "but you'll have to hurry -- we're about to settle the deal with Ma Bell." Undaunted by this challenge, the AT&E men took the train back to Liverpool. Sitting in the dining car, they sketched out the design of what was to be the director system on the back of the dining car menus. In a relatively short time, a prototype director system was available, and the GPO was sold. The rest, as they say, is history. The menus are on display somewhere, but I forget where; the London Science Museum, maybe? Martin Harriss uunet!bdsgate!martin ------------------------------ Subject: Lite Motorola Cellular Phone From: djcl.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu Date: Thu, 08 Aug 91 17:15:47 EDT Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton Motorola has unveiled what is now the lightest cellular phone in the market at just under a half-pound. The MicroTAC Lite Digital Personal Communicator Telephone is 7.7 oz, 11.6 cubic inches. There is a continuous talk time of 45 min available, 24 hrs standby time and 2.5 hours with extended life battery. Cost has not been officially set although Motorola officials are talking in the range of USD $1000. Dials great ... less filling... :-) replies: dleibold@attmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Aug 91 22:14:00 PDT From: Dave Leibold Subject: AT&T International Rate Changes The following information was adapted (albeit hastily) from a notice from AT&T. I supplied the difference calculations in the far right column. This should give an idea of what's happening ... AT&T has applied to the FCC to "adjust" (ie. increase) some overseas rates. Here is what is proposed (effective 5 Aug 91 if approved). Prices expressed in first minute/additional minute costs. Some prices and discount times depend on whether the call originates from the mainland or from Hawaii. S: Standard D: Discount E: Economy Macao ===== Current Proposed Difference Mainland 17h-02h S 4.16/1.55 4.16/1.63 0.00/+0.08 02h-11h D 3.13/1.18 3.13/1.29 0.00/+0.11 11h-17h E 2.50/0.93 2.50/1.06 0.00/+0.13 Hawaii 12h-01h S 3.26/1.27 3.56/1.63 +0.30/+0.36 01h-12h E 2.34/0.86 2.50/1.06 +0.16/+0.20 (Hawaii has no in-between Discount rate for Macao) China ===== Current Proposed Difference Mainland 17h-02h S 5.58/1.48 5.58/1.58 0.00/+0.10 02h-11h D 4.18/1.12 4.18/1.36 0.00/+0.24 11h-17h E 3.35/0.89 3.35/1.03 0.00/+0.14 Hawaii 12h-01h S 3.26/1.27 3.56/1.58 +0.30/+0.31 01h-12h E 2.34/0.86 2.50/1.03 +0.16/+0.17 (Hawaii has no in-between Discount rate for China) Ascension Island ========= ====== Current Proposed Difference All U.S. 06h-12h S 2.71/1.39 2.95/1.53 +0.24/+0.14 12h-17h D 2.04/1.04 2.22/1.14 +0.18/+0.10 17h-06h E 1.62/0.84 1.77/0.92 +0.15/+0.08 Nigeria ======= Current Proposed Difference All U.S. 07h-17h S 2.12/1.09 2.31/1.23 +0.19/+0.14 17h-01h D 1.60/0.81 1.74/0.91 +0.14/+0.10 01h-07h E 1.27/0.66 1.38/0.74 +0.11/+0.08 AT&T will field questions about all this at 1 800 874.4000 extension 127. Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:3609/1 UUCP: !djcl INTERNET: djcl@bnw.debe.fl.us ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 12:54:45 BST From: bmontgom@hvtvm4.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Source For British Telecom Phone Boxes Hi, I came across something that may be of interest recently at an airshow. It's the company that removes BT's old red telephone boxes; they then sell them off in various conditions. Apparently, a fully re-conditioned one sells for around 950 pounds, unconditioned ones straight from the ground can cost around 400. The guy that I spoke to said that they had just exported one to Japan for around 2000. If anyone is interested they are :- Hancon Limited (0709) 580633 ex-UK +44 709 580633 - Office Charles Street (0709) 546763 709 546763 - Home Kilnhurst 525932 - home Rotherham 585488 - fax South Yorkshire S62 5TG As an extra, is there an easy way of finding out what phone packages there are? And which one suits you best? Any suggestions for reasonable volume international calls to the UK? BT are set to put up their charges by an average of 5%, although some international calls are supposed to drop by 20%. Bet it's not calls to the US !! Brian ------------------------------ Subject: Directory Assistance Charges Increase Within Florida From: djcl.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu Date: Thu, 08 Aug 91 17:11:31 EDT Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton The Florida Public Service Commission approved an increase for AT&T's charges for in-state directory assistance from 35c to 40c, reportedly the first since Nov. '89. Sprint charges 60c/call, MCI 24c/call intra-state for directory assistance according to the records. Rates for out-of-state directory assistance have not changed and remain at 60c/call for AT&T and Sprint, 58c/call for MCI. The increase should net AT&T an extra $830,000 per year, an increase which was sought "to keep pace with competition in the long-distance trade" according to AT&T officials (by way of the {Sun-Sentinel}). replies: dleibold@attmail.com ------------------------------ From: Henry Mensch Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 10:06:38 -0700 Subject: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table Reply-To: henry@ads.com Just where/how are these LATA numbers used? Henry Mensch / Advanced Decision Systems / ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 15:58:33 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table Yes, but where is the LATA number used? Customers do not use it as far as I know. ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table Date: 8 Aug 91 18:27:18 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics In article <07-08-91.1@eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Moderator writes: > This special report cross references the LATAs in the United States > with their official number designation. You may wish to keep it with > other reference materials in your collection. Thanks to Mr. Huttig for > sending it along. PAT Just a couple of questions, and a comment: What is an official LATA number designation good for? Who made them up? I suspect that the list (as I received it, anyway) is incomplete. I also suspect that it was put together by AT&T or Bellcore or one of the baby Bells. I'll go into the reasons for these suspicions in another post if necessary (long edit sessions on this link are a problem for me). Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com [Moderator's Note: At this point, I'll turn the forum back over to Mr. Huttig for a response, (a) as to the purpose of the numbers, and (b) his source for the list. His replies over the weekend, I assume? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #616 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25358; 9 Aug 91 5:17 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27403; 9 Aug 91 3:49 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac29314; 9 Aug 91 2:34 CDT Date: Fri, 9 Aug 91 2:11:17 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #617 BCC: Message-ID: <9108090211.ab27158@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 9 Aug 91 02:10:25 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 617 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network B'casters [A. Payne] Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network B'casters [D. Cornutt] Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network B'casters [Knauerhase] Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network B'casters [L. Madison] Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? [Brian Charles Kohn] Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? [Ken Weaverling] Re: Phone Numbers on Credit Cards [Bennett Todd] Re: Phone Numbers on Credit Cards [Steve Shimatzki] Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice [Marc T. Kaufman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: payne@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Andrew Payne) Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters Organization: Cornell Theory Center Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1991 23:50:49 GMT In article michael@stb.info.com (Michael Gersten) writes: > Why do we have so many essentially unregulated monopolies in this > country, such as local telephone and cable? There is a very simple way > to actually let the market regulate these monopolies. This also > applies to broadcast television, as there the number of stations is > fixed by nature, so the monopolistic effect still shows up. Here's > how: Wait! You cannot put telephone monopolies and cable monopolies in the same cart. Telephone companies are far from "essentially unregulated" -- look at a tariff sometime. In many cases, they have to file with the Public Utilities Commission just to wipe their nose. On the other hand, most cable monopolies are essentially unregulated. The FCC specifies a few basic do's and don'ts and the rest of the "regulation" is contained in the contract negotiated with the local municipality. These contracts are usually one-sided deals in favor of the cable operator. Case in point: our local cable company recently dropped a channel (the weather channel) and the locals raised a fuss. They quickly found out that there is nothing they could force the cable company to do for the next *ten* years until the contract ran out. Would *YOU* negotiate a ten year contract for a high-tech serivce in this day and age?? > 3. If there is more than one such active application, then the current > company is not providing enough service for the buck, and would be required > to increase service or lose the contract. How to you quantify "service for the buck"? Regulators around the country would *love* the answer to that one. Also, how do you switch from one cable company to another? Does A move out and B move in? That takes a while. The reason monoplies usually exist is because of some natural tendency, usually a huge investment. In many areas like telephone, cable, sewage, etc, there's just not enough room for more than one. One problem with unregulated monopolies is service availability. When was the last time you ordered telephone service or electric service and were told: "we don't serve that area"? Now, who has ordered cable and been told they were "outside the service area"? The phone company tariffs say they *must* provide service; cable companies often have no such requirement. They provide service only where it is profitable for them to do so. One solution I've come up with is to split the cable company into two parts: one providing the physical plant (cables, decoder boxes, etc) and the other(s) providing the video. Note the similarity to the phone company. If KABC wants their video on the cable, then they make arrangements to have it fed in and they bill (or credit) customers who subscribe. The monopoly remains where it should be: with the physical plant. The free competition would (hopefully) increase selection, increase quality, and decrease price. Andrew C. Payne, N8KEI UUCP: ...!cornell!batcomputer!payne INTERNET: payne@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu ------------------------------ From: David Cornutt Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters Organization: NASA/MSFC Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1991 22:36:38 GMT One other thing that might torpedo the networks' argument is that, in many areas these days, the network affiliates feed their signal directly to the cable services via land line or other dedicated circuit. Many cable services don't even have VHF/UHF reception antennas anymore. So, the network case would seem to be weakened by the fact that their own affiliates are willing participants in the scheme which is allegedly costing them money. All in all, it comes out looking like yet another demand for a government bailout of a moribund segment of the entertainment industry (the first being the ridiculous tape/DAT tax). Actually, though, they can pass all the cable taxes they want ... as long as they EXEMPT CABLE SERVICES WHICH DO *NOT* CARRY NETWORK PROGRAMMING. Then, all we have to do is start letter-writing campaigns to convince our cable providers that we don't watch broadcast-network programming, and they'll have a powerful incentive to drop them and use the channels for something worthwhile. Let's see the networks sue their way out of that. (Is the law requiring cable services to carry all local affiliates still on the books, or was that repealed?) David Cornutt, New Technology Inc., Huntsville, AL (205) 461-6457 (cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov; some insane route applies) "The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer, not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary." ------------------------------ From: Rob Knauerhase Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1991 20:46:53 GMT In irvin@betelgeuse.dartmouth.edu writes: > In TELECOM Digest V11 #598, "Wayne D. Correia" writes: >> THE TV NETWORKS WILL CONTINUE TO TRANSMIT TELEVISION FOR FREE. >> BUT THEY WANT TO TAX YOU 20% WHEN YOU WATCH IT ON CABLE. > It is my understanding that the cable companies are *required* by FCC > regulation to carry all local over-the-air stations. If this > requirement remains, then the local stations shouldn't receive a dime. > But if the law makers are determined to go through with this, then the > cable company should be able to choose which network affiliate it > carries (if any). If the cable companies start choosing large > metropolitan stations over the local ones, then you might see a number > of network affiliates fighting to get this law overturned. [This is getting further and further from telecom, but ...] When Warner Qube first set up shop in Columbus, many people complained that they carried a small religious-only station from out-of-town [preferring another pay-per-view or national channel. Qube's explanation was that they had to carry all stations within a 50 mile radius, to protect the "how many viewers are able to watch this channel" number that determined advertising rates. I also remember their mentioning that they paid WUAB (Cleveland independent) some fee for use of their signal (maybe just equipment maintenance costs?). Rob Knauerhase knauer@robk.intel.com Intel Development Tools Operation (for the summer) knauer@cs.uiuc.edu Univ. of Illinois, Dept. of CS, Gigabit Study Group ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 02:16:24 PDT From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters I know I just said something on this thread yesterday, but I have some additional comments. Several people have said that it is reasonable for the networks or the broadcast stations to charge for the redistribution of their programs. It might be, but THAT ISN'T WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR! They WANT the cable companies to redistribute THEIR programs -- they want the tax to reimburse them for the fact that the cable is carrying OTHER programs to compete with theirs. THAT is an idea that is utterly and completely without merit. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu = ucbvax!tongue1!linc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 08:58:31 EDT From: Brian Charles Kohn Subject: Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? Reply-To: "The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality" Organization: The Internet In article marcelm@joymrmn.uucp (Marcel Mongeon) writes: > I propose the following: > On an appropriate cutover date just add the number 0 to the end of > every area code in the North American Numbering plan system. > Maybe the experts could tell us if a lot of CO reprogramming would be > required? Someone else has already pointed out how embedded the n{1|0}x-xnx-xxxx (North American Numbering Plan) is in our computer systems, etc ... What I'd like to point out is that there's no need to do what you're suggesting, for right now we really have a two-digit area code system with a third digit restricted to 0 and 1. So to simplify your suggestion: 212 is NYC, when it needs to split just create 222 and then 232, etc... instead of 2120 2121, 2122. (Of course realizing that Washington DC will have to have some of these numbers ... perhaps make NYC use 212 232 252 ... and DC us 202 222 242 262.) The problem is that there are two or three areas in the country that still don't have 1+ dialing (Long Island, NY is one.) Once the whole continent is up to speed with 1+ dialing then 800 more area codes will be available. Does that mean the powers-that-be will have the foresight to assign these numbers in an organized way? bahahaha Brian Charles Kohn AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center Quality Management System E-MAIL: att!hoqax!bicker (bicker@hoqax.ATT.COM) Consultant PHONE: (908) 949-5850 FAX: (908) 949-7724 ------------------------------ From: Ken Weaverling Subject: Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? Date: 8 Aug 91 23:27:15 GMT Organization: University of Delaware In article jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com writes: > I can't say what would be required within telco central offices, but > consider for a moment the number of computer systems that handle phone > numbers. Virtually every one of them would require extensive > reprogramming. Typical of programmers in the U.S ... It is annoying to try and get U.S. produced software to run in a foreign country for this reason and others, like programs that expect a five or nine digit zip code, with no provisions for a postal code in Canada, U.K., etc. > I'll bet there are literally millions > of systems that take advantage of the xxx-xxx-xxxx arrangement of the > North American Numbering plan. The economic cost of changing the > number of digits could easily run into the billions of dollars. A lot of programs are going to break when 2000 rolls around too, but that is another thread for another newsgroup! :-) I have also seen programs that validate area codes by looking for a 0 or 1 in the second area code position. These will obviously break when we abandon this convention. Ken Weaverling weave@brahms.udel.edu ------------------------------ From: Bennett Todd -- gaj Subject: Re: Phone Numbers on Credit Cards Date: 8 Aug 91 19:06:28 GMT Organization: Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC > [Moderator's Note: I find it easier, when asked for my phone number > to just say I don't have a phone. Gives them something to think > about. PAT] Hi, I'm the person who posted the ``Customer opts for POTS'' note a while back. GTE succeeded in convincing me that I didn't want telephone service at all. When someone asks *me* for *my* number, I answer, truthfully, ``I don't have a telephone -- and I *LOVE* it!''. So what am I doing reading comp.dcom.telecom? Good Question! I guess I am more interested in the historical notes than in most of the current news, though it would certainly pump up my interest if telephone systems were to offer 56KB+ data services via ISDN. However, it looks like (since they've succeeded in browbeating Greene into backing down off an important part of the judgment) they will instead be shutting down modem traffic so they can put in place overpriced, technologically inferior services. Let's hear it for Progress! Bennett bet@orion.mc.duke.edu ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Thursday, 8 Aug 1991 15:22:15 EDT From: Wish-Bringer (Steve Shimatzki) Subject: Phone Numbers on Credit Cards I know everyone has beat this back and forth, but I wanted to ask this: In TELECOM Digest V11, #611 Our great Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Question: Mr. Hicks, can you comment on the gasoline > service stations which nearly always require your license plate number > and/or drivers's license number on the charge ticket? I know they may > have that right with their own company's card, i.e. Amoco, Shell, etc. > but what about when a Mastercard/Visa is presented? PAT] WHEN? I've never been to a gas station around my area that has asked for my licence or plate number. Also, I've never been asked for a phone number when I buy something on my Visa. Then again, I never ONCE saw anyone look at my sig. No ... take that back, at a computer show, they did when I bought a 250$ monitor. (They also called the bank to check. Seems they didn't think some snaught in college could have that covered on his Visa.) As a night deskclerk at a Day's Inn, I know that we were supposed to be on the lookout for 'Suspiousous or nervous' people ... then do an IMMEDIATE check on the point of sale terminal. As long as we did that, and got an approval for the sale, we could collect from the Bank, even if it was fraud. So, really a store has no reason to get a phone number, as stated by others. Well, I can't quit without telling of the one time I saw someone actually try and commit CC fraud, so ... I was at the gas station down the road with my little bro (he works there). A couple came in, and put $20 of gas on the card, and also asked WHAT else they could put on it (groceries and food and such that they sold.) Well, the owner was still on shift, and was taking care of them ... he went and called the CC company and it was over its limit ... ok, he thought they were just trying to get it cause they didnt have the cash. So he told them he couldn't take the card, and the guy said something like 'Ok, I have some cash in my wallet in the car ... let me get it.' He left the girl there, and took off running over the hill. everyone was chasing after him, and his girl ran to the car, and tried to cut us off. Turned out that after the cops eventually caught them and all, they had robbed a house, and stole the cards from there. It was really wild. Live and let live. 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 elses. [Moderator's Note: Sometime please remind me to tell you of the time when Alfred Bloomingdale (former chairman of Diner's Club) had his wallet -- and personal Diner's Club card -- lifted by a prostitute in New York City and how long it took for Diner's sales authorization to pull the card -- despite it being on the 'hot list'. I know, 'cause I pulled it! ... a good story if anyone wants to hear it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Subject: Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1991 18:01:34 GMT bill@gauss.gatech.edu writes: > In any event, being a sucker for many things telephonic, I immediately > called the 800 number and placed my order for one of these devices. I > used my MasterCard to pay for the merchandise, so at least I have some > recourse if all is not as it seems... > [Moderator's Note: I'm a sucker and ordered one also with my Visa > card... I'll be interested in knowing how many trips to Mexico you both just bought with your charge cards. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) [Moderator's Note: Probably none. I don't think they'd pull that. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #617 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26449; 9 Aug 91 5:46 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31635; 9 Aug 91 1:33 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05936; 9 Aug 91 0:23 CDT Date: Fri, 9 Aug 91 0:21:59 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #615 BCC: Message-ID: <9108090022.ab21566@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 9 Aug 91 00:21:52 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 615 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Electronic Mail Networks in Space [Joe Abernathy] MATRIX NEWS on the Telecom Industry and the NREN [Peter Marshall] SPRINT PLUS is Now Their Basic Service [Nelson Bolyard] ATT Universal Card Warning (Sometimes Free, Sometimes Not) [Mike Newton] Central Office Security [Dick Jackson] ISO Standards [Timothy Newsham] Cincinnati Bell Connection [Kyle Rudden] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 20:05:42 CDT From: Joe Abernathy Subject: Electronic Mail Networks in Space [Moderator's Note: This article was provided by the {Houston Chronicle} for republication on Usenet exclusively to TELECOM Digest. It cannot be reprinted in any other media or newsgroup without the written consent of the {Houston Chronicle}. In a personal note, Mr. Abernathy said to me his inspiration for this story was the thread on the same topic which appeared recently in the Digest. PAT] Electronic Mail Beams Shuttle's Message Home 8/5/91, Houston Chronicle, Page 1A By JOE ABERNATHY and MARK CARREAU Copyright 1991, Houston Chronicle Electronic mail networks, the message medium of the information age, made their debut in the space age Sunday aboard the shuttle Atlantis as part of an effort to develop a communications system for a future space station. Details of the test were being closely guarded because of concerns over a possible hacker incident or "public free-for-all" on the nation's computer networks, according to one engineer involved with the project. Privacy and medical ethics also loom large as issues. Astronauts Shannon Lucid and James Adamson conducted the first experiment with the e-mail system on Sunday afternoon, exchanging a test message with Marcia Ivins, the shuttle communicator at Johnston Space Center. The connection flickered out of focus after only a few minutes because of alignment problems with one of the satellites in the communications link, according to the flight director at JSC. The messages follow a winding path from the shuttle, to a satellite in NASA's Tracking Data Relay Satellite System, to the main TDRSS ground station in White Sands, New Mexico, back up to a commercial communications satellite, then down to Houston, where they enter one or more computer networks. Further tests of the system will be conducted on each remaining day of the flight, which continues through Sunday. The shuttle tests are part of a larger project to develop computer and communications systems for the space station Freedom, which the agency plans to assemble during the late 1990s. "These are all steps toward that goal, how we work in space," said Byron Han of Apple Computer, whose machines are being used for this stage of the experiment. Electronic mail offers a new way for astronauts to stay in touch with their families, Mission Control, and potentially, the millions of people who use the nation's interlinked computer networks. It could produce far-reaching change in the way scientists and others interact with the space program. Currently, only the shuttle communicator is allowed to talk with the astronauts during a flight, except for a private medical conference each day. E-mail could change that by letting any number of people exchange information, while scientists and engineers on the ground could assume direct control over their experiments in space. One drawback is the potential for NASA to impose a virtual reign of silence regarding sensitive information without anyone realizing that such had been done. E-mail, which is becoming commonplace in offices, is simply the transmission of messages via computers to one or more people, using electronic addresses. Users linked to the right networks can send electronic messages or other data to specific recipients nearly anywhere in the world -- and now to space. Han and fellow Apple employees Michael Silver and James Beninghaus have donated their time to the project. They are using low-cost, commercially available products, rather than the costly custom products often used in science. The e-mail will play a role in controlling experiments, electronic flight information, and transfer of experiment results to the ground, Han said, as well as sending data up to the shuttle. In the future, the system might be used to transmit and manipulate information from the many medical experi ments NASA conducts. But this raises a number of problems regarding privacy and medical ethics. For example, one experiment in this flight seeks to correct a blood-flow problem associated with weightless ness that causes some astronauts to faint upon their return to Earth. But this experiment is being monitored with the same Apple computer that is playing host to the e-mail system. Even though the results aren't being transmitted over computer networks this time, they might be next time -- and computer networks are notoriously insecure. Inquisitive computer enthusiasts -- hackers -- are in fact one of NASA's chief concerns in regard to the use of electronic mail. The space agency initially sought to conduct the tests without publicity, but word quickly percolated around the nation's computer networks -- perhaps indicating that the concerns were justified. A chorus of calls was heard requesting the e-mail address of the astronauts -- but that raised another problem more pressing than any threat from malicious hacking, that of capacity. "We have things we need to accomplish with the limited amount of time we have, and we do have a very limited amount of data we can move between Mission Control and the orbiter," said Deborah Muratore, an engineer in the space station support office at Johnson Space Center and the experiment manager. In addition to voice communication, the shuttles are equipped with Teletype and fax machines for the transmission and reception of printed material and even photo graphs. "Conceivably, everything they move that way could be moved from computer to computer," Muratore said. "From a space station standpoint it would be much preferable to transfer the information electronically without paper in the loop the way we do today on the shuttle." "Paper is going to be a limited resource, something that has to be thrown away or reused on the space station," she said. "It becomes trash. So the more we can eliminate on the space station the better off we are." The current experiment does not represent the first time that civilians have had a direct communications link with those in space. Since January, the Soviet space station Mir has maintained a "mail drop" for ham radio operators to use in leaving messages for the cosmonauts. "It's very similar" in function, said Gary Morris, a former member of the Johnson Space Center Amateur Radio Club who now lives in San Diego. "The packet bulletin board system on Mir allows an amateur (ham radio operator) on the ground to leave mail messages. "What they're doing with the Mac is different in that they're going through the whole (electronic mail) network. It's much more complex." Sidebar: Send mail to Atlantis Computer users who presently have an electronic mail address of their own can send electronic mail to the crew of the shuttle Atlantis. The address to which your comments should be sent is: atlantis@applelink.apple.com If you don't understand how to use this address, ask the administrator of your online system to explain the procedure and etiquette for sending Internet-style mail. Because of concerns over security, privacy and capacity, NASA has not revealed the specifics of the Atlantis e-mail experiment, but the information leaked out on the nation's computer networks. The e-mail address is being provided unofficially to accommodate the resulting flurry of inquiries. Using it sends mail to an earthbound network, not Atlantis itself, so capacity is not a concern. It is not known whether the astronauts will read their electronic mail while they are in space, or wait until they return. Atlantis is commanded by Air Force Col. John Blaha. His crew includes pilot Mike Baker, a Navy commander; flight engineer David Low; biochemist Shannon Lucid; and Army Col. James Adamson. Joe Abernathy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 11:52:11 -0700 From: Peter Marshall Subject: MATRIX NEWS on the Telecom Industry & the NREN From Jeff Habegger, "Exactly What is the NREN?", MATRIX NEWS, 7/91: How the scope of the network was expanding was revealed at hearings held in the Seante on the Gore bill and in the House on the House version of the "High Performance Computing Act"(H.R.3131). Witnesses from the telecommunications industry held the opinion that the government construction of the NREN would be useful in creating new markets for the telecommunications industry. These witnesses strongly believed that the NREN would create new markets and that language in Title II of the Act would ensure the government's departure from the field, allowing the communications industry to reap large profits. Robert W. Lucky, an executive with Bell Laboratories, discussed AT&T's position on the NREN and the HIgh Performance Computing Act when he declared to Senator Gore that "AT&T supports your bill [S.1067]" and continued: "...the business people do not think there is money in it right now. But there will be, and there can be a tremendous market if you get out there and stimulate it for us. And then you get out of it. Okay?" O. Gene Gabbard, then chairman and CEO of Telecom*USA, proposed that a nonprofit corporation ... be established to build and operate the NREN and that this corporation include a plan for its owm demise in its charter. Dr. Craig Fields presented the opinion that the HIgh Performance Computing Act was essentially an industrial policy for the computer and telecommunications industries. Field's opinions regarding industrial policy were later rumored to be the cause of his removal as Director of DARPA. The signficance of the legislation lies not in the amount of funding, but in the path it is charting for the future ... the constituencies that have arisen in response to the legislation believe the network is to become a new communications medium on a par with the present telephone system. ------------------------------ From: Nelson Bolyard Subject: SPRINT PLUS is Now Their Basic Service Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc. Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1991 03:18:12 GMT About a month ago, SPRINT sent me a letter and a little flyer that said that SPRINT PLUS is their "new basic service". Since I had never converted over to SPRINT PLUS from the "regular service", this flyer seemed to imply that I was being switched over to SPRINT PLUS without my consent. I wasn't thrilled about it, especially since it mentioned an average 3% increase for some customers. I figured that meant some customers got no increase, the rest got more than 3% increase. But I figured that I didn't have any choice (except to switch to another IXC). Then Saturday I got anther letter from Sprint encouraging me to call some toll-free number and switch over to SPRINT PLUS. So, now I figure it this way: New customers get no choice but SPRINT PLUS, but old customers are "grandfathered" and can keep their old service. SPRINT can't unilaterally switch the old customers to the new plan without their consent (at least not for a while) but they want to stop having to use two sets of rates and two billing programs, so they're going to pester me about it until I do something. A similar thing happened in the banking industry years ago. The banks wanted to reduce the cost of sending canceled checks back to the checking account holders with their statements, so they told all new customers that they did not return checks, but made copies available for a fee. Then they told all the old customers that "to reduce the inconvenience and storage space required for cancelled checks" they were going to stop sending you cancelled checks unless you wrote them a letter immediately. Years later, I'm still getting my cancelled checks, but I'm locked into my current bank. If I ever switch to another bank, I'll never see another cancelled check. I wonder how long it'll be before I get a letter saying "Thank you for choosing SPRINT PLUS" despite any positive acceptance action on my part. Nelson Bolyard nelson@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!whizzer!nelson Disclaimer: Views expressed herein do not represent the views of my employer. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 00:07:38 -0700 From: Mike Newton Subject: ATT Universal Card Warning (Sometimes Free, Sometimes Not) Be careful if you want to sign up for the ATT Universal Card ... what you do/don't tell the telesleaze at the other end could cost you a lot over the years. I'd been meaning to sign up for while -- due to its advertized (for a while) free cost -- but finally got around to trying it a few days ago. I was told about that it was $20/year (wonder how fast that goes up!) to which I said that I had heard it was free from annual charges for a lifetime. Telesleaze goes: "Oh, what's the number on your mailing?" ... me: "what mailing?" her: "the one advertizing the free lifetime renewal" ... After some questioning, it seems that ATT is 'randomly' sending out offers for the same deal that had expired earlier, namely free lifetime renewals. When I said that I did not have the magic number to give, she started in on an _obviously_ "prerecorded" spiel on how great a bargain it was at $20 a year ... she just didn't seem to understand that I knew it was possible to get it for free and that I didnt want to spend $20 (and going up) a year. Maybe you know the magic number? Zzyzx? I'd like to know it! mike ------------------------------ From: Dick Jackson Subject: Central Office Security Date: 8 Aug 91 15:12:14 GMT Organization: Citicorp/TTI, Santa Monica Yesterday I enjoyed the interesting experience of a tour of the GTE central office nearby. Main impressions were all the empty space resulting from the transfer of lines from old equipment to the 5E, the wonderful clicking from the 1A which still, for a few months, remains, and the neat compactness of the 5ESS. The 5E is physically quite robust, if someone could get in there and go at it with a 16 lb hammer, it would be quite hard to do any serious harm to service (we were told), i.e. because of the distributed redundancy. But the control console was just sitting there unattended. Of course, access to the building is controlled, but they are not paranoid about it. So if either someone sneaked in, or an employee became loony, they could wreak havoc by a few shrewd commands at the terminal. Has anyone heard of cases of central office vandalism? About the empty space. I joked that pretty soon they would have Teleport and Metro Fiber Systems sharing the building with them. The GTE guy said grimly, "They won't be welcome!". So much for competition in the local loop. Dick Jackson [Moderator's Note: It is not clear to me why they would share their space with a competitor. Interconnection I can see, but sharing the same office? Why don't they just toss some wire out the door and say "here are some pairs. Build your office where you like, equip it and hook yourselves up to us when you are ready to go." Or is this another of the judge's bright ideas, that the local telcos have to accomodate and bend over backwards for Teleport, et al? PAT ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Aug 91 23:06:57 hst From: Timothy Newsham Subject: ISO Standards I have seen a number of references to ISO Standards in TELECOM Digest in the years that I have been reading it. I would like to know the story behind ISO and more importantly, how I can go about getting ISO Standards. Is there a place online that I can pull certain ISO Standards by number? Or would my library have the ISO Specs? Aloha, newsham @ wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 22:22:26 edt From: Kyle Rudden Subject: Cincinnati Bell Connection With all the talk about sending e-mail to the folks up in the shuttle, I thought I'd request something more down-to-earth. :-) Is it possible to send e-mail to someone at Cincinnati Bell via Internet, and if so, what is the address for it? A kind soul on the Info-nets mailing list offered some suggestions for other RBOCs, but CinBel was not one of them. Mercy buckets, Kyle Rudden <--> KRUDDEN@LIBSERV1.IC.SUNYSB.EDU ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #615 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26634; 10 Aug 91 3:28 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30581; 10 Aug 91 2:03 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14608; 10 Aug 91 0:52 CDT Date: Sat, 10 Aug 91 0:45:41 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #618 BCC: Message-ID: <9108100045.ab03104@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 10 Aug 91 00:45:23 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 618 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Two New Archives Files [Robert D. Thompson] Re: Two New Archives Files [Paul Wexelblat] An Email FTP Server is Needed for Telecom [Bob Yazz] Re: The Official AT&T Ways to Avoid Phone Fraud [Joe McGuckin] Re: Long Distance Credit [Ravinder Bhumbla] Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? [Jerry Gitomer] Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? [Carl Moore] Re: City Code 91 in England [Clive Feather] Re: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table [Dave Leibold] Re: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table [Bill Huttig] Re: SPRINT PLUS is Now Their Basic Service [Jeff Carroll] Re: Indiana Bell 'Touch Four' Information Service [Steve Kass] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 13:40:43 -0400 From: "Robert D. Thompson" Subject: Re: Two New Archives Files Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI. Pat, Where is the telecom archives (ftp address)? Robert D. Thompson rdthomps@vela.acs.oakland.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1991 12:14:47 -0400 From: Paul Wexelblat Subject: Re: Two New Archives Files Humble suggestion, reply not required: Since we seem to get new newsgroupers regularly, I suggest that in general all references to archives contain a boilerplate description of where/how to access the archives. [Moderator's Note: When references are made to the Telecom Archives I almost invariably mention -- as I am doing now, once again -- that they are accessible using anonymous ftp from lcs.mit.edu. Once on line at lcs.mit.edu, you must 'cd telecom-archives'. You may wish to pull the index files on your first visit there. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 00:38:29 -0700 From: Bob Yazz Subject: An Email FTP Server is Needed For Telecom Hello Pat -- The ftp server "bitftp@pucc.princeton.edu" no longer serves non-BITNET/non-EARN sites. Are you aware of another server that will allow access to the telecom archives for non-internet sites like mine? If so, the answer may merit posting or it may not, if the Princeton site was a victim of its own success. Regards, Bob Yazz, San Diego == [Moderator's Note: And just as I frequently mention anonymous ftp from lcs.mit.edu, I quite frequently mention an archives/ftp mail server which was established especially for readers of TELECOM Digest. Once again, I am printing the introductory help file here, in the event you have not see it before. Please note this service is *only* (I think) for the Telecom Archives at lcs.mit.edu. Here is the information you will need, as it originally appeared here on May 29: From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: New Telecom Archives Server on Line Date: Wed, 29 May 1991 00:00:00 GMT I am pleased to announce a new mail service is available for use with the Telecom Archives. It is just in the beginning stages, and will have more and more of our files on line as time goes on. My understanding is this service is *only* for the Telecom Archives at this time. Furthermore, this service is intended for NON-INTERNET sites who would otherwise not have access via ftp. If you can use ftp lcs.mit.edu, then you are strongly encouraged to continue doing so. The program described below was written by Doug Davis so that our many readers on the commercial mail services, Fido, and similar sites (Portal and Chinet for example) can also participate. FIRST, here is a help file, prepared by Doug Davis: 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) ----------------- Bitnet people may continue to use 'bitftp@pucc.bitnet' if they wish, or they may use this new service. Internet people can use it if they want to see how it works, but please don't abuse it: keep the load down for the benefit of the folks who *must* use this system. Update, 8/10/91: I imagine by now the index is much more complete than it was in May when this new service first came on line. Get current details from the address shown. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joe McGuckin Subject: Re: The Official AT&T Ways to Avoid Phone Fraud Organization: Island Software Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 08:53:47 GMT Someone writes: > There is a difference. You *knew* you had a genuine employee because > you called the number on the billing statement. However, they have But do you really know who you're talking to? In 'Cyberpunks' by Katie Hafner/John Markoff, it's mentioned that one of Kevin Mitnick's favorite diversions was to intercept the 800 ATT number for lost lost/stolen phone cards. Acting as a telco representative, Kevin would take down their card number and passwords for future use. Joe McGuckin oilean!joe@sgi.com Island Software (415) 969-5453 ------------------------------ From: Ravinder Bhumbla Subject: Re: Long Distance Credit Date: 8 Aug 91 17:41:37 GMT Reply-To: rbhumbla@ucsd.edu Organization: University of California, San Diego drears@pica.army.mil (Dennis G. Rears) writes: > As I just got done dialing my umpteenth wrong number last night, I had > the thought "Is it worth it to call the LD operator to request a > credit?". The call will typically cost 6-10 cents. I find that I > normally don't request the credit because it is not worth my time. > BTW, my LD bill is typically $100-> 150. How many of the TELECOM > readers think it is worth it to request a refund? If you had ever tried calling India, you wouldn't ask this question. The first minute of such a call during the economy rate period costs $2.92 and there is an even chance that you'll get a wrong number every time you try. Some times calls show up on your bill even though you didn't notice that the call had completed at the other end. On my average monthly international long distance bill of about $200, I usually have five or six misdialled calls (adding up to about $20). So, I don't have much of a choice about asking for credit, do I? I have noticed one thing though. Whenever I call the AT&T long-distance operator (00) to request credit, though they say I have been credited, the call always shows up on the bill. I find it easier to just call them after I get the bill. By the way, in the four years I have been in this country, I have NEVER had a wrong number within the United States. My long distance carrier has always been AT&T. What carrier do you use? Ravinder Bhumbla rbhumbla@ucsd.edu U. of California, San Diego [Moderator's Note: Since coming to the USA you have *never* misdialed a call? AT&T gives credit for misdialed calls as well as incorrect connections due to equipment problems. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 13:51:11 -0400 From: Jerry Gitomer Subject: Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? In comp.dcom.telecom Marcel Mongeon writes: > I live in that part of 416 which will soon be 905. I certainly don't > need any explanation why a new area code is needed. However, isn't > there an easier way to accomplish the splits? I propose the > following: > On an appropriate cutover date just add the number 0 to the end of > every area code in the North American Numbering plan system. 212 > would become 2120, 312 to 3120 and so on. Everyone would be equally > inconvenienced to begin with! > Maybe the experts could tell us if a lot of CO reprogramming would be > required? Unfortunately this would mean more than a little inconvenience to just about every Fortune 500 financial and industrial corporation as well as most federal and state government agencies. The problem is that they use mainframe databases which must be redefined and rebuilt in their entirety if any fields are changed. This is why the postal service had to back down on Zip + 4. 'Jerry Gitomer at National Political Resources Inc, Alexandria, VA USA I am apolitical, have no resources, and speak only for myself. 1-703/683-9090 jerry@npri.com ...uunet!uupsi!npri6!jerry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Aug 91 9:50:00 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? The North American Numbering Plan is n{1|0}x-nxx-xxxx with most areas still restricting the prefix to "nnx" where "nxx" is displayed above. When area codes of n{1|0}x form are used up, the North American Numbering Plan will have to generalize to nxx-nxx-xxxx with most areas still restricting the prefix to "nnx" where "nxx" is displayed above. Areas not having 1+ dialing are: Area 516 on Long Island, NY; Part of area 914 in New York (at least the part next door to NYC); At least the northern part of 408 in California. Despite my recent trip to California, I am not sure what the dialing requirements are in 714 and 619; 714 was split back in 1982, WITHOUT using N0X/N1X prefixes, to form area 619, and 714 STILL does not have N0X/N1X that I know of, although it has that new split (to form area 909) coming up. Let me know of any clarifications/changes/additions. Disregarding unavailable codes like 911 (emergency service) etc.: There are 160 codes of N0X/N1X form. There are 800 codes of NXX form. ------------------------------ From: Clive Feather Subject: Re: City Code 91 in England Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 16:42:00 BST In Telecom 11.603 Martin Harriss writes: >> I recently received an address in Durham (postal code starting with >> DH1) in England with a phone number 091+7D. How recent is this city >> code 91? (When called from outside the UK, omit leading zero from >> city code.) > This has been around for about two or three years. The code is for > Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the surrounding area, what used to be STD code > 0632. It's not just Newcastle. It consists of three old area codes: Durham, Washington, and Newcastle-on-Tyne (I don't have the old STD codes for the first two). Although all are now 091, they are different charging areas (with different rates to the some places). They can be distinguished by the first digit of the actual number: 2 - Tyneside charging area (north of Tyne) 3 - Durham charging area 4 - Tyneside charging area (south of Tyne) 5 - Washington charging area As a rule, numbers were converted by adding the appropriate digit to the previous six digit number. For the first few years, it was necessary to dial "90" in front of a number when dialing between charging areas -- this has now been fixed. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Aug 91 21:14:00 PDT From: Dave Leibold Subject: Re: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table One note about the numbers assigned to LATA's is that the first digit indicates the region (RBOC) or type of region: 1xx - NYNEX (northeast US) 2xx - Bell Atlantic 3xx - Ameritech (Illinois, Michigan, etc) 4xx - BellSouth (Georgia, Florida, etc) 5xx - Southwestern Bell 6xx - US WEST 7xx - Pacific Telesis (California, Nevada) 8xx - Offshore/International (such as Alaska, Puerto Rico) 9xx - Independent companies (GTE, etc.) replies: dleibold@attmail.com-- Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:3609/1 UUCP: !djcl INTERNET: djcl@bnw.debe.fl.us ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table Date: 9 Aug 91 17:12:50 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL I just thought that some out there might like the list. I asked PAT to put it in the archives and announce it. Instead he posted it ... Anyway as far as use goes ... the is a case where I was trying to determine if a exchange was in my LATA (Orlando). Southern Bell said it wasn't, it was in the Daytona LATA, but AT&T said it was. Anyway there are list of exchanges in the LATA now published in the local phone book. I didn't think there would be so many complaints about it otherwise I wouldn't have sent it. If you can't use it or don't want to read it ignore it. Bill ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: SPRINT PLUS is Now Their Basic Service Date: 9 Aug 91 19:02:51 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics Now that I've been assured by other readers that AT&T has gone 100% digital, I think I'll take them up on it next time they offer to switch me for free. (All you folks at att.com are hereby invited to take this as a broad hint. In fact, I'm not sure I'd mind being slammed, as long as it doesn't cost me anything.) Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1991 08:18 EDT From: SKASS@drew.bitnet Subject: Re: Indiana Bell 'Touch Four' Information Service In TELECOM Digest #616, Doctor Math writes: > rhyre@cinoss1.att.com (Ralph W. Hyre) writes: >> Cincinnati Bell has been offerring a service called 'the Talking >> Yellow Pages' for a few years now. You dial the number (513) 333-4444 >> and enter some four-digit codes to get weather reports, movie >> listings, and such. > Indiana Bell offers something similar, called "Touch Four". [...] Speculation aside on the motive behind the services, few people seem to realize that they can save roughly 75% from the cost of similar 1-900 services (from the NY Times, the Weather Channel, etc.) by making the call to one of these talking yellow pages for 11c per minute. I wonder what the legality would be of setting up a cut-rate 1-900 line that simply forwards calls to one of these numbers. Steve Kass/ Drew U/ Math+CS Dept/ Madison, NJ 07940/ skass@drew.edu [Moderator's Note: It would be illegal simply because the compilation of information you'd be dispensing is not yours to dispense. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #618 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29155; 10 Aug 91 4:34 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14927; 10 Aug 91 3:12 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae30581; 10 Aug 91 2:04 CDT Date: Sat, 10 Aug 91 1:22:11 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #619 BCC: Message-ID: <9108100122.ab07306@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 10 Aug 91 01:21:53 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 619 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: ATT Universal Card Warning [Jack Dominey] Re: Another Proposed Tax [Richard D. McCombs] Re: Message Light on Voice Mail System Phones [Roy Stehle] Re: What RBOC Information Services? [Lars Poulsen] Re: Indiana Bell 'Touch Four' Information Service [Jeff Carroll] Re: Indiana Bell 'Touch Four' Information Service [Ken Jongsma] Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone? [Brett G. Person] Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice [Jeff Sicherman] Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice [Carl Moore] HELP!!! Wanted: Just an Address! [Brian Crawford] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Fri Aug 9 10:30:40 EDT 1991 Subject: Re: ATT Universal Card Warning In V11 #615, Mike Newton complains about the annual fee policy for the AT&T Universal Card: > Be careful if you want to sign up for the ATT [sic] Universal Card > ... what you do/don't tell the telesleaze at the other end could > cost you a lot over the years. Why this characterization of the sales rep as "telesleaze"? In the normally polite company of this forum, we reserve that title for purveyors of 900 "services", ripoff COCOT and operator service organizations, and people who interrupt your dinner to offer "investments" in condos or precious metals, i.e. people who use the phone to try to rip us off. > I'd been meaning to sign up for while -- due to its advertised > (for a while) free cost -- but finally got around to trying it a few > days ago. Mr. Newton virtually admits to knowing that the initial free-for-life offer was limited to those who applied during the first year. Whose fault is it that he waited until after time ran out? > I was told about that it was $20/year (wonder how fast that goes > up!) to which I said that I had heard it was free from annual charges > for a lifetime. Telesleaze goes: "Oh, what's the number on your > mailing?" ... me: "what mailing?" her: "the one advertizing [sic] the free > lifetime renewal" ... There's that word again. I haven't noticed anything in this exchange that implies the rep did or said anything illegal, immoral, unethical or sleazy. > After some questioning, it seems that ATT [sic] is 'randomly' sending out > offers for the same deal that had expired earlier, namely free > lifetime renewals. Here I doubt Mr. Newton's interpretation. No business sends out offers at random. Far more likely the Universal Card people have selected specific target markets that they decided would be worth making the no-annual-fee offer to. The nub of Mr. Newton's problem seems to be that he is not part of any of those target markets -- so he didn't get the offer. > When I said that I did not have the magic number > to give, she started in on an _obviously_ "prerecorded" spiel on how > great a bargain it was at $20 a year ... she just didn't seem to > understand that I knew it was possible to get it for free and that I > didn't want to spend $20 (and going up) a year. Sales reps work from scripts. It's terrible that so few of them can keep their spiel from sounding canned, but please cut this person some slack for doing her job! And yes, it is (apparently) possible to get the Universal Card for free. I would suggest asking the rep's supervisor what the qualifications are (beyond having the correct mailing in hand). If you find out that the offer went to say, existing Citibank VISA holders with $5000 credit limits, and you can show that you fit that category, you may be in luck. There's no point in whining about the limited offer. I don't hear people complaining that their bank offers lower interest rates to bigger customers, which strikes me as an equivalent case. > Maybe you know the magic number? Zzyzx? I'd like to know it! Now would lying about receiving a particular mail offer be sleazy? Naahhh, couldn't be. Jack Dominey, AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA 404-496-6925 or AT&TMail: !dominey NOT affiliated with AT&T Universal Card service - I sell WATS and 800. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Another Proposed Tax From: "Richard D. McCombs" Reply-To: rick%ricksys.uucp@lawton.lonestar.org Date: Thu, 08 Aug 91 22:45:54 CDT Organization: The Red Headed League 76012.300@compuserve.com (76012,300 Brad Hicks) writes: > 1) No matter how you slice it, whenever you (or any other merchant) > collect a phone number or any other personal information from a > cardholder as a condition of a sale, or imply to the cardholder that > you are doing so, then you are in direct violation of your merchant > agreement, whether your bank holds you to it or not. Well I work at a motel and the sale slips we get from the bank for Visa and Master Card have a blank that's labeled "FOLIO/CHECK NO.-LIC. NO. STATE" which is where I usually write their Social Security number or Driver's License number. If I'm not supposed to get it, what is that blank for? By the way, as a rule we require identification even if they pay cash. Rick Internet rick%ricksys.uucp@lawton.lonestar.org (Richard McCombs) UUCP uunet!cs.utexas.edu!utacfd!letni!rwsys!lawton!ricksys!rick [Moderator's Note: The catch is though, you do not single out Visa/MC customers with requirements for ID. It is a standard practice in your industry to get ID from *all* customers. Big difference. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Roy Stehle Subject: Re: Message Light on Voice Mail System Phones Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA Date: Fri, 9 Aug 91 16:55:50 GMT In article ldh@duck.svl.cdc.com (Lawrence Hare) writes: > Does anyone know of a way to add a message ready light to a third > party phone? I, too, was looking for such a box and was unable to find one. I gave the task to a fellow engineer, who developed a circuit that is basically a ring-detector with storage. When the phone rings, an LED goes into a flashing mode. When the phone goes off hook, the LED flasher circuit is reset. Power is provided by two AA batteries; an AC-DC battery eliminator transformer can be substituted if there is a concern for users having to replace the batteries. Battery lifetime has been estimated to be about one year. We could not devise an inexpensive way to draw power from the line (to possibly recharge a Ni-Cad battery) without violating the loading restrictions. The circuit works well. We've had a few hand-built units in our department. The only problem, with voicemail usage, is that messages can be left through electronic transfers not requiring the ringing of the recipient's phone. The recipient only knows of these voicemail message when he/she picks up the phone to get the interrupted dial tone. We could have gotten voicemail indication with our system, but it required an additional wire (more than two) and the cost for wiring was not justified. The circuit has been designed to meet the applicable interface regulations, but it has not been certified. We use it on our internal Northern Telecom system, not the PSN. We've built versions that reside alongside of the telephone and use an RJ-11 jack and other versions that are built inside of the standard telephone housing. We have not, yet, built a PC board. Since the design was partially built on overhead funds, I cannot, at this point, offer it freely. I am concerned about the use of the circuit on public networks without certification. If there is interest, we can consider an approach. Roy Stehle - stehle@erg.sri.com ------------------------------ From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Re: What RBOC Information Services? Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA Date: Fri, 9 Aug 91 19:55:42 GMT In article on 29 July 1991 jem@hpcupna. cup.hp.com (Jim McCauley of Hewlett-Packard) writes: > So the RBOCs are going into the information services business ... What > information services ... would attract residential customers? How about: > * vanilla Unix (or whatever) system accounts? Ideally, the RBOCs should be providing circuits, leaving their customers to provide services. There ARE some services that the RBOCs could legitimately provide, because they depend on records that the phone company needs to keep anyway: - Online Directory Information - CNA (Customer Name and Address) database lookups (i.e. reverse directory information) Regular old time-sharing computer access is exactly the kind of service the RBOCs should never be doing, because they would be competing with their customers. With high-volume circuits being available on IDSN, and with multi-user systems finding their way into homes, I bet you will find many hobbyists offering friends the use of spare cycles on their unix boxes, either for free or for very modest fees. If the RBOCs start selling computer service, they will look at this as competition and will find ways to strangle it. > * universal e-mail? CCITT sort of believes that email should be provided as a PTT service; the Internet world thinks that if we have ubiquitous connectivity between consenting adults, we don't need a central interchange point. In either case, the RBOCs is probably the wrong point. The IECs have already set themselves up, although they are a little slow to interconnect with each other. Sometimes I think that email-to-FAX gateway is a reasonable thing for the RBOC to get into, but mostly I think that the email carrier should be doing this. > * 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? The RBOC should provide the circuit; with the circuits in place, it will be easy to provide the services, and I think we will see a whole spectrum of providers making all of these accessible. The real issue is pricing. Will the Basic Rate Interface (BRI = 2B+D) be priced like a phone line or like a "switched-56" service ? If it is priced like 1.5 times a regular voice line, we will see an explosive growth of services. In on 6 Aug 91 michael@stb.info.com (Michael Gersten) responds: > Hmm ... you seem to be stuck on 64kbit/sec, or 128kbit/sec. Few > computers can work at 64kbit/sec. Why pay for what you can't use? We will soon start thinking that it was ridiculous to standardize an interface that was ONLY 64kbps. Our computers happily work with disk drives that pump much faster than 64kbps; every MAC runs appletalk at around 256kbps. > What I'd like to see is ATM ISDN at the home, i.e., true packet > switched ATM at the home. None of this 2B + D nonsense. The BRI is a reasonable definition for what can be costeffectively delivered today. > [ATM in the local loop] would have plenty of benefits: > #1. You could charge by the use. The prices I've seen so far for STM > ISDN were 120% of normal for 1B + D, and 220% of normal for 2B + D. In > other words, you'd get no discount, and you'd have to pay for the D > channel even though it is only used for dialing and such. The pricing is almost entirely separate from the technology and even from the cost of services. The price will be set at what the market will bear. My only concern is that the RBOCs will be too greedy and will use the new technology to establish an overpriced "premium" service rather than use it to expand the capabilities of the mass market. Indeed, competition in the local market may be needed to make this happen. > #3. STM seems to stand for straight-jacket. The 64K/sec fixed rate is > outdated (voice can be compressed smaller than that), unflexible (you > could conceivable use priorities on ATM to get lower quality voice at MG> a lower price), etc. The amount of processing INSIDE THE NETWORK that would be required to allow flexible negotiation of acceptable compression losses without giving up total conenctivity makes it impractical. Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Indiana Bell 'Touch Four' Information Service Date: 9 Aug 91 19:33:05 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics In article drmath@viking.rn.com (Doctor Math) writes: > rhyre@cinoss1.att.com (Ralph W. Hyre) writes: >> Cincinnati Bell has been offerring a service called 'the Talking >> Yellow Pages' for a few years now. You dial the number (513) 333-4444 >> and enter some four-digit codes to get weather reports, movie >> listings, and such. > Indiana Bell offers something similar, called "Touch Four". It's > loaded with advertising, of course. It's also got me quite curious: > What is it FOR? It's not like the phone companies to offer a free > service such as this just out of the goodness of their hearts. Two of > the ideas I've come up with so far are: I'm sure Judge Greene would have long ago been in high dudgeon if these were actually Baby-Bell-provided services. Here the {Seattle Times} provides such a free service, which is heavily advertised both in the phone book and in (their) newspaper. It is made abundantly clear, however, that this is *not* a service of USWest, but rather a service provided by the Times (though I'm not sure they don't use telco equipment to do it). It may be that Ameritech asserts that the service is actually provided by the advertisers, not their telcos. Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: Ken Jongsma Subject: Re: Indiana Bell 'Touch Four' Information Service Organization: Consultants Connection Date: Fri, 9 Aug 91 11:31:25 GMT drmath@viking.rn.com (Doctor Math) writes: > Indiana Bell offers something similar, called "Touch Four". It's I believe all Touch Four was was a response to the Talking Directories people. They were selling lots of advertising space in their alternative directory by showing how many people use their information service. Since those numbers are only advertised in their directory, people must be using it. The RBOCs quickly followed up with an equivilent program. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ From: Brett G Person Subject: Re: ABCD: What Are These Buttons on My Phone? Date: 9 Aug 91 21:46:09 GMT Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND My IBM Screen Reader control keypad has these extra keys on it. When I described it to a professor here at school, he said.: 'Oh yeah, like the phones they use at AT&T.' He mentioned that the keys perform some extra internal functions. I assume maybe for connecting to an office intercom system, or something. Brett G. Person North Dakota State University uunet!plains!person | person@plains.bitnet | person@plains.nodak.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 23:02:39 -0700 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice They also seem to have the phone speakers (43-278? ) on special. Are these any good for limited use and not too noisy environment (i.e. mainly hands-off use rather than group discussions)? Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 15:17:40 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: A Telephone Which Disguises Your Voice I have now called the demo line. The "other" voices have a little background noise -- enough to make someone knowledgeable get suspicious? If you already have a little girl's voice or the voice of a deep bass of an adult man, how good does this voice disguising work? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 20:15:59 -0700 From: Brian Crawford Subject: HELP!!! Wanted: Just an Address! This is not the first time I've posted this question, and please excuse my redundancy. However, there have been no replies, and the address is quite needed. Would someone please send me the address of PC Dialog, the makers of PC based VOX mail cards? Thank you. 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 #619 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00823; 10 Aug 91 17:26 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13856; 10 Aug 91 16:01 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31369; 10 Aug 91 14:48 CDT Date: Sat, 10 Aug 91 14:02:17 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #620 BCC: Message-ID: <9108101402.ab02347@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 10 Aug 91 14:02:00 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 620 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? [John Higdon] Re: What RBOC Information Services? [John Higdon] Re: Why Don't Third-Party Payphones Beep? [Mike Morris] Re: Illinois Bell, Chicago Pay Phones, and Drug Dealers [Mike Morris] Re: Poor Abused Phreakers [Dave Levenson] Re: Long-Distance Across a Road [John Higdon] Re: Source For British Telecom Phone Boxes [Peter Thurston] Re: Telephony Subscription [Wayne D. Correia] Re: Indiana Bell 'Touch Four' Information Service [Kenn Booth II] Talking Yellow Pages and General RBOC Ineptness [John R. Levine] Ringing Current For Old WE 300 Desk Set [Dave Dintenfass] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 10 Aug 91 01:53 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) writes: > Despite my recent trip to California, I am not sure what the dialing > requirements are in 714 and 619; 714 was split back in 1982, WITHOUT > using N0X/N1X prefixes, to form area 619, and 714 STILL does not have > N0X/N1X that I know of, although it has that new split (to form area > 909) coming up. Let me know of any clarifications/changes/additions. The access code '1' is required everywhere in California with the sole exception of the greater San Jose area within 408. 415 is the latest area to adopt the "informal" prefixes and the necessity of dialing a '1'. Since 408 is anything but overrun with telephone prefixes, it will probably be some time before the '1' is required here. That is, of course, unless the whole North American numbering plan changes. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Aug 91 02:42 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: What RBOC Information Services? Lars Poulsen writes: > With high-volume circuits being > available on IDSN, and with multi-user systems finding their way into > homes, I bet you will find many hobbyists offering friends the use of > spare cycles on their unix boxes, either for free or for very modest > fees. If the RBOCs start selling computer service, they will look at > this as competition and will find ways to strangle it. This is a concern of mine on two fronts. (OK, you people who were wondering just exactly what I do with sixteen lines -- here it is!) I use my home computer in a sideline development of computer-based devices (not related to my primary occupation). Since the system is well-connected to the outside world, a number of my friends use it as a source of news and mail. There is, of course, no charge to anyone with an account on the machine. The other machine (the test jig for the development) is a "party-line" style system that is similar to various 900 services. Again, people may call this system at no charge. Now how do you suppose people at Pac*Bell would feel about all of this if and when the company starts offering these very services? The first attack would probably be on the pricing structure of the phone lines feeding both computers. Others, who would try similar activities, might find that there are new policies about the installation of multiple lines in residences. Or that facilities in the neighborhood are "inadequate" for the purpose of installing additional lines. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Mike Morris Subject: Re: Why Don't Third-Party Payphones Beep? Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1991 06:55:33 GMT TELECOM Moderater noted: > Whoever programmed the phone *forgot about 976*, although they did > lock out 900. This is an AT&T COCOT, and after dialing 976-anything, > the phone cuts through and rings the desired number ... without asking > for any money at all! I asked the lady who runs the laundry who > should I contact about the phone (of course there was no ID of any > sort on the phone itself). But she hates the customers, hates her job, > hates the world and hates herself ... "I dunno nuttin about it", was > her reply; and that's fine with me. :) PAT] I would have dialed the most expensive 976 there is about 20 times.... then left a note under the phone making comments about 10288, et al... Mike Morris WA6ILQ | This space intentionally left blank. PO Box 1130 | Arcadia, CA. 91077 | All opinions must be my own since nobody pays 818-447-7052 evenings | me enough to be their mouthpiece... ------------------------------ From: Mike Morris Subject: Re: Illinois Bell, Chicago Pay Phones, and Drug Dealers Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1991 06:46:41 GMT Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) writes: > I also wonder whether the drug dealers are going to start using stolen > lineman's test sets to use other people's phone lines without their > permission or knowledge. Why bother stealing them? New ones cost under $300, or you can build them out of a trimline handset. I did. Mike Morris WA6ILQ | This space intentionally left blank. PO Box 1130 | Arcadia, CA. 91077 | All opinions must be my own since nobody pays 818-447-7052 evenings | me enough to be their mouthpiece... ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Poor Abused Phreakers Date: 10 Aug 91 15:15:39 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: > jrallen@devildog.att.com wrote: >> Have any of you with CID found that you can use it to determine >> reliably when a telemarketer is calling? At home, I have both Call*ID and Call*Block service. It's certainly true that a large number of telemarketers call from OUT OF AREA as displayed. But a surprising number of local businesses all contract with the same outfit in Bound Brook, NJ to place those outbound calls which feature a recording that tries to sell you something. That place seems to have two lines from which they place these calls. I have now added both of these numbers to the Call*Block list -- and I get almost none of the local recorded pitch calls now. I don't know when the inter-LATA calls will arrive with IDs but it's probably not too many years away! Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 11:12 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Long-Distance Across a Road Jeff Carroll writes: > When annexation finally adjoins Redmond and Issaquah, or when > a new city is formed in this location, city limits will almost surely > not coincide with the telephone exchange boundaries, nor with the > school district boundaries (which are controlled by the state and > completely independent of local municipalities). There are already > many phones within the city of Bellevue connected to Redmond > exchanges, and some phones within Redmond connected to Bellevue USWest > exchanges (the area I'm talking about is just west of Microsoft HQ). The issue of city vs telephone exchange bondaries and the attendant discrepancies has been a fact of life in many areas for some time. I am sure that there are many in southern California that can top any situation, but even here in relatively quiet Bay Area you can find cases where it is a toll call within city limits (or at least was in the recent past). San Jose is divided into three separate local areas. Calls across area boundaries are considered "local", but due to the complex boundary shapes there are some interesting local/toll anomalies. Campbell, an incorporated city almost completely surrounded by San Jose has its own telephone exchange district. Before the "zone 2 reclassification", it was a toll call from Campbell to the San Jose east side (San Jose 1). However, it was local from San Jose 2 (central/west) to San Jose 1. This meant that people ten miles farther west than Campbell people could place a local call rather than a toll call. Also, since there are many Campbell prefixes in San Jose (and visaversa), it was actually a toll call for some in San Jose to call the edge of town. Because of the weird shapes of the districts, there are plenty of inequities. A caller in the Cupertino hills on the west side of the valley can make a local call to the Lick Observatory on Mt. Hamilton (on the east side of the valley), but a caller in Willow Glen (just south of central San Jose) pays a hefty toll to call Sunnyvale, which touches San Jose to the north; or Morgan Hill which touches San Jose to the south. In other words, a twenty-mile call can be local, while an eight-mile call can carry a significant per/minute charge. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: That's what makes the Illinois Bell scheme for northern Illinois so great. All city boundary lines and area code boundaries are ignored. Everyone gets about eight miles in every direction as their 'local' area. We get everything in our own CO, and the COs which directly connect with our own. Those calls are untimed. The next level out is the 'B' zone, then 'C' and 'D' zones follow. Everyone's level of zones begins with themselves at the center or starting point. Couldn't be fairer! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter Thurston Date: Fri, 9 Aug 91 11:36:29 +0100 Subject: Re: Source For British Telecom Phone Boxes Brian (bmontgom@hvtvm4.vnet.ibm.com) writes: > BT are set to put up their charges by an average of 5%, although some > international calls are supposed to drop by 20%. Bet it's not calls > to the US !! I understand that calls to the USA (and Australia/Japan/New Zealand I think) will be lowered by about 17%. There will be discounts on bills over 100 pounds (not sure if this is before or after rental), and a new discount plan will be announced later -- basically giving a lower call charge in return for a higher rental. Peter Thurston ------------------------------ From: "Wayne D. Correia" Subject: Re: Telephony Subscription Date: 10 Aug 91 07:54:15 GMT Organization: Wayne's World! Telephony is not worth bothering with. It is a content-free management journal that provides me of little or no value. I subscribed, but not again. ------------------------------ From: Kenn Booth II Subject: Re: Indiana Bell 'Touch Four' Information Service Organization: Micro-Data Consultants Date: Sat, 10 Aug 91 16:59:39 GMT In article , ken@wybbs.mi.org (Ken Jongsma) writes: > The RBOCs quickly followed up with an equivilent program. As far as I know, Ameritech had a Touch Four(tm?) service in the Grand Rapids books here about a year before I ever even heard of the Talking Directory. I may be wrong, but I work part time in an Answering Service, in the Ameritech Paging Services building, and we usually get about 30-40 copies of each book, as we tend to go through them rather quickly. Can't speak for other areas though ... >shrug< Kenn "Jazz" Booth II --- Micro-Data Consultants [kennii@wybbs.mi.org] [jazz@entropy.UUCP] [...!uunet!mailrus!sharkey!{wybbs|entropy}!...] ------------------------------ Subject: Talking Yellow Pages and General RBOC Ineptness Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 9 Aug 91 14:59:12 EDT (Fri) From: "John R. Levine" In article is written: > Indiana Bell offers something similar, called "Touch Four". It's > loaded with advertising, of course. It's also got me quite curious: > What is it FOR? There was such a setup in Boston a few years ago, but not from the phone company. An independent outfit sent out a competing "talking yellow pages" book in which most ads had a four digit code you could dial to their computer. It sank without a trace. Clearly the plan was that the announcement you got would tell you about special offers and such, but for nearly all of them the announcement never changed and told you nothing of interest beyond what was already in the phone book. At least it wasn't done by New England Tel, so they're not going to try to raise phone rates to cover its losses. As to what the phone company has in mind, I offer the following items mentioned in a recent {Wall Street Journal} article: -- NYNEX bought a chain of computer stores, managed them poorly, and ended up selling them to a competitor at a large loss. -- Southwestern Bell tried publishing yellow pages around the country, never made any headway against the local phone companies, lost a lot of money and gave up. -- US West got into the real estate development business, lost a lot of money, and is in the process of trying to leave it. There are lots more such stories, e.g. New England Tel tried a gateway in Massachusetts for various computer services which failed miserably. They claim that it's because they weren't allowed to provide content. Some of us observe that over half of the population of the state live in places where it can be a free call to Boston, and that any service such as NYNEX's which has a per-minute charge is never going to fly when all of the providers have POTS numbers in Boston. It appears that voice response yellow pages is another such boondoggle, offering a service which nobody really wants, wasn't well researched, and will eventually die after losing a lot of money. This to me says why it is a particularly bad idea to allow the RBOCs to offer enhanced services related to the phone network. They will force all of the competitors out of business, either by underpricing them or more likely by making the hooks to the phone network work in ways that nobody but the telco themselves can use. (We are already seeing the latter as third-party voice mail services try and get the hooks they need for forward on no answer and stutter dial tone.) Then the RBOCs will botch it, leave the business, and we subscribers will be left with nothing. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: Dave Dintenfass Subject: Ringing Current For Old WE 300 Desk Set Date: 7 Aug 91 23:41:25 GMT Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA Among other assorted hobbies, one of my interests is restoring old telephones -- specifically, Western Electric 500 and 300 desk sets. Several years ago, I cleaned up a plastic 300 desk set and gave it to a friend of my wife's. Although the phone worked just fine at my house (where I tested it beforehand), it would never ring when I installed it at the friend's house. As it was her only phone, she missed a number of phone calls (!). I went over to investigate but could find nothing wrong. I could call out on the phone just fine. Finally, we hooked up an extension phone (a 500 set, I think it was) so she would have at least one phone that rang. I have installed 300 desk sets in a number of other places and have never had this problem elsewhere. I suspect the model 300 ringer requires more current than the model 500, and that her central office could not supply the required amount of ringer current. Anyone had this problem? Dave (and what a fine telephone the Western Electric 300 is!) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #620 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03991; 10 Aug 91 18:37 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04575; 10 Aug 91 17:11 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab13856; 10 Aug 91 16:01 CDT Date: Sat, 10 Aug 91 14:50:19 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #621 BCC: Message-ID: <9108101450.ab24942@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 10 Aug 91 14:50:13 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 621 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Columnist Berates Telecom Miniaturization [Wash. Post via Bill Berbenich] Tracing the Old Fashioned Way [John Boteler] USOC Standards [was Re: ISO Standards] [Joe Stein] Third Party Providers Thrown Out [Dave Niebuhr] Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Dave Niebuhr] 1-800 Call First Line of Defense [Globe and Mail via Nigel Allen] Cellular Phone System Manufacturing [Thang Do] Survey Wanted on Local Exchange Systems [Thang Do] Mitel Posts Loss [David Leibold] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bill@gauss.gatech.edu Subject: Columnist Berates Telecom Miniaturization Date: Fri, 9 Aug 91 17:40:47 EDT Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Get a load of this recent {Washington Post} story. I'll save my comments for the end of the posting. ---------------------- Motorola Proves That Smaller Isn't Necessarily Better By MICHAEL SCHRAGE As a feat of American engineering prowess, Motorola Inc.'s new 7.7-ounce MicroTAC telephone - the smallest cellular phone ever - is worth calling home about. Alas, as a symbol of hand-held haute media couture, it's a disconnect. Although engineers may take great pride in their abilities to miniaturize, portabilize and personalize electronic media, simply shrinking circuitry is a lazy, style-empty approach to creating innovation. Motorola's engineers may be brilliant, but its designers aren't. Beyond a certain point, personal media such as telephones, computers and planners aren't just functional objects anymore -- they're fashionable accessories. You don't just use them -- you wear them as part of your daily media wardrobe. Our media should fit us as comfortably and stylishly as a custom-made suit or a favorite tie. Have you ever tried to talk into one of these hand-helds? Folks who use these palm-sized cellular phones generally look like twits talking up their sleeves. The traditional notion of a "phone" as something you hold in your hand and speak into becomes silly. How much more elegant for the executive woman on the move to have a tiara-style headset that frees the hands for note taking or a cup of coffee? Men wear "power" ties; which style and color are tomorrow's "power headsets"? If Sony Corp. were designing cellular phone fashions, you could be sure the phones could be worn ala the Walkman, not just something you carried around in your pocket. The challenge here isn't just clever engineering; it's captivating design. It's figuring out what the best design metaphor should be. Computers by Cardin? Interfaces by Armani? Ralph Lauren's Casual Multimedia Look for Men? Why not? Clothes blend functionality with fashion. So do those state-of-the-art digital watches. We should be able to wear our computers and television sets as comfortably and casually as we wear our watches. Maybe high-bandwidth antennae will be woven into our jackets and touch-sensitive panels could be stitched into our sleeves as we choose to make our media fit us instead of the other way around. The goal is not to recreate Maxwell Smart's shoe phone -- it's to offer a media wardrobe that's tailored to our media style. People already pay a premium for Waterman and Mark Cross pens -- ink-based media that offer far more fashion than function. So why wouldn't they pay a premium for a wardrobe that delivered far more bang for the buck? Look at the athletic shoe business. Nike Inc. and Reebok International Ltd. have succeeded precisely because they've figured out how to meld the lust of fashion with the need for performance. Their shoes are loaded with "innovative technologies" like pumps and gels. These companies don't make shoes; they create lifestyle technologies. Why shouldn't a telephone or a computer be designed with that idea in mind? Maybe Motorola and Sony have a lot more in common with Nike and the high-tech shoe companies than they now realize. Today, nobody thinks twice when they see an executive in a $3,000 suit wearing a Sony Walkman or screaming into his BMW's car phone. Perhaps it will seem just as natural for someone to sketch a digital diagram on his or her IBM/Apple software sleeve to have it uploaded into an office file by cellular modem. Perhaps power Ray Bans will be equipped with the projection device made by Reflection Technologies that gives the eye the illusion that a computer screen is hovering but a foot away. Maybe Nintendo will offer a jacket-with-a-joystick that lets you play games if you slip a cartridge in your sleeve. My gosh, if we can have Coca-Cola Co. clothes, why not have a line of digitized Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. mensware that lets you resonate with the frequency spectrum or catch "Casablanca" as you're standing in line? The reality is that people already have personal media woven into the fabric of their lives. How much of a leap is it to weave that technology into the fabric of their clothes? Indeed, why shouldn't the well-tailored media wardrobe -- permitting easy computational management of integrated sound, text and imagery -- become just as common as today's double-breasted suit? The folks of the future who don't wear a phone or a computer in public may seem as vulgar or poorly dressed as people who don't wear ties or whose favorite textile is polyester. Instead of "All dressed up and no place to go," tomorrow's lament will be "All dressed up and no data to process." It's far too early to anticipate the differences between haute media couture and the off-the-rack ready-to-wear media wardrobes that will be selling at Kmart. On the other hand, it's not at all early for the Motorolas and Sonys to start chatting with the Givenchys and Ralph Laurens. Sure, people are interested in tools and functionality. But our media are as much a reflection of our desired lifestyles as anything else. Relentlessly smaller phones miss the point. So do smaller computers and electronic planners. Is Motorola in the "portable telephone" business? Or is it really in the business of creating new fashions for personal communications? Will the Motorolas, Sonys and Matsushitas make devices we use to communicate and calculate? Or will they also design the media wardrobes we wear? My bet is that the media wardrobe companies will be those that make a real killing in the business of pop culture. * Michael Schrage is a columnist for the {Los Angeles Times}. * ---------------- Obviously, Mr. Schrage has never seen the need to carry a portable phone on a regular basis. These smaller, lighter phones are just perfect for stuffing into a jacket pocket on a business suit. If they are too big or weigh a lot then it makes a real noticeable sag. I think Schrage is barking up the wrong tree on this. If it sells, sell it! Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab | Telephone: +1-404-894-3134 Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 | uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill | Group 3 fax: +1-404-894-8363 Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu | or: +1-404-853-9171 ------------------------------ Subject: Tracing the Old Fashioned Way Date: Wed, 7 Aug 91 19:25:38 EDT From: John Boteler I heard a good one on the police monitor the other night. A woman whose wallet was stolen received a telephone call supposedly from the thief himself! In fact, she received repeated calls, enough to motivate her to call the police. The police units who arrived on the scene maintained an ongoing dialog with the dispatcher, who had "telephone security" on the phone. Security's instructions to the wallet-less woman were to "hang up the phone and immediately pick it up and dial Star, then five-seven". I thought to myself that this was a pretty forward-thinking telephone security person on the phone (most places have no idea of how to handle Call*Trace). After several attempts at it, the police unit called the dispatcher to report that the expected message was not heard, and instead they heard a busy tone. CLASS had not been installed on her switch yet. After even more delays and questions and answers, another inventive police unit piped up on the air and told the woman to listen for the sound of his siren on the phone when the next call came in -- he was parked very near a coin station from which the suspect was placing the calls. He would wait until he saw him place the next call, then hit the button. The phone rang, the siren was heard, and the rest is now recorded in the annals of justice. John Boteler bote@csense {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling ------------------------------ From: Joe Stein Subject: USOC Standards [was ISO Standards] Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix Date: Sat, 10 Aug 91 00:21:51 GMT In a recent article (noted above), there was a question about ISO standards. One of the questions I have had for a long time is what is 'USOC' and are any references available? Joseph W. Stein - Joseph.W.Stein@f377.n105.z1.fidonet.org -or- +1 503 643 0545 joes@techbook.com -or- joe@m2xenix.psg.com (voice) [Moderator's Note: USOC = 'Universal Service Order Codes'. These were the official names or titles for every possible type of service and/or configuration you could get from the telco. When you asked for a certain obscure feature or type of service, the Bell rep would sometimes have to look in the USOC book to find the correct way to write up the order. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1991 7:48:40 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" Subject: Third Party Providers Thrown Out Right after the breakup of Ma Bell and the arrival of the COCOTs my local school district thought it would be a good idea to switch to one of the 'others' and use the 'kick-back' to help lower the tab collected via taxes. That idea backfired royally when kids would call home either collect or via credit card (no quarter) and mom and pop would get a nice big service charge on their next bill. I know since this hapenned to me more than once. Well, to make a long story short, the residents of said district hit the ceiling at a school board meeting and forced them to switch back to good-ole basic service with NYTel and AT&T. So as I've found out, if enough people complain long and loudly enough the powers that be will listen and do what the residents (taxpayers) want. By the way: each kid now has a minimum of one quarter on him/her at all times to be used for the sole purpose of calling home. As a side note as to how much this amounted to: about 10,000 kids in the district with 5500 of them in 7th - 12 grades. Dave Niebuhr Brookhaven National Laboratory Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1991 8:08:44 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" Subject: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers I was in my local Radio Shack the other day and when I went to pay for the small item that I'd selected, the salesperson asked for the last four digits of my phone number. I refused and this person just keyed in four digits. Low and behold (and as if I didn't know what was coming next) a screenful of names and address appeared based on these numbers. The salesperson then picked a number and a receipt was issued to a person I don't even know. At this point I complained that, if not illegal, it was unethical to give out the name and address of anyone who appears in their ragsheet flyer. He said that maybe the person wanted the flyer but I told him that maybe the person didn't know what R.S. was doing. My feeling is that names and phone numbers SHOULD NOT EVER be given out by merchants for any reason at all. Dave Niebuhr Brookhaven National Laboratory Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov [Moderator's Note: Really I think your complaint is petty. The clerk did not *give out phone numbers* as you contend. You really had no business looking over at the terminal display since none of what was on the screen concerned you anyway. Some RS dealers get around the problem of recalcitrant customers who refuse to give their name by keeping an account on the machine under 9999 for a 'customer' named Cash Sale, whose address is that of the store. Obviously the clerk who waited on you did not record the transaction correctly, but its hardly the big deal you make it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Nigel Allen Date: 8 Aug 91 (17:00) Subject: 1-800 Call First Line of Defense From a story in {The Globe and Mail}, Toronto (August 7, 1991, p. 1, "1-800 Call First Line of Defense") about the Canadian Rangers, the Inuit and Inuvialuit hunters who patrol the North on snowmolbiles for the Canadian military: by Miro Cernetig, The Globe and Mail Sachs Harbour, N.W.T. -- If the tower of a foreign nuclear-powered submarine breaks through the ice covering the Beaufort Sea, Earl Esau knows what to do to protect Canada's sovereignity over the Arctic archipelago. Without firing a shot, he will sling his vintage Lee Enfield rifle over his shoulder, head to the nearest telephone -- not always an easy task on the tundra -- and dial a 1-800 number to his military commanders to the south. "They told us not to shoot," says Mr. Esau, a 31-year-old hunter from Sachs Harbour, the most northern hamlet in the Western Arctic. "They've got bigger guns than we do, eh," Paul Reddi says, sipping a coffee in the local co-operative, the general store that feeds the approximately 200 people who eke out a living on this rocky shore of Banks Island, where musk ox and polar bear far outnumber the human inhabitants. [Discussion of Canadian sovereignity allegedly being violated by the U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker Polar Sea six years ago, and cancellation of plans to build a large Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker.] Despite the incongruous image of Inuit stomping the ice pack for submarines and armed with a rifle, 200 cartridges, and a 1-800 number, the Canadian military makes no apology for the program, established in 1947 as a means of defending Canada's vast coastline. "The program works like a bomb, says Brigadier-General Joseph Gollner, commander of [Canadian Armed Forces] Northern Region Headquarters. "Anywhere you want to go in the Arctic, put in your quarter, dial the 1-800 number and you'll get your quarter back." Canada Remote Systems. Toronto, Ontario NorthAmeriNet Host ------------------------------ From: do@ENG.Vitalink.COM (Thang Do) Subject: Cellular Phone System Manufacturing Organization: Vitalink Communications, Fremont, California Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1991 14:59:29 GMT I was asked how many companies manufacture cellular phone systems. I guess only about four companies in the world. But I'm not sure, can anyone help me on this question? Thanks. ------------------------------ From: do@ENG.Vitalink.COM (Thang Do) Subject: Survey Wanted on Local Exchange Systems Organization: Vitalink Communications, Fremont, California Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1991 16:25:46 GMT I am looking for a study of all the local exchanges (central offices). I hope there exists such a document in a magazine, Bell Tech journal, etc. I'd be very appreciative if anyone can point me to the source. Thanks in advance. My E-mail: do@vitalink.com ------------------------------ Subject: Mitel Posts Loss From: djcl.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu Date: Fri, 09 Aug 91 17:12:00 EDT Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton Mitel reportedly lost $5.4 million (1st quarter ending 28th June) compared to a loss of $3.1 million same quarter last year, on a decline in revenues from $100.2 million to $87.9 million. Mitel earlier announced the closure of its Boca Raton, FL office and moving it to Reston, VA cutting 195 jobs in the process. (Courtesy of {Sun-Sentinel}) replies: dleibold@attmail.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #621 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17247; 11 Aug 91 0:06 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29746; 10 Aug 91 22:32 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13698; 10 Aug 91 21:19 CDT Date: Sat, 10 Aug 91 20:37:14 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #622 BCC: Message-ID: <9108102037.ab07128@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 10 Aug 91 20:37:06 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 622 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Wildcat! BBS Software Does *NOT* Have Back Doors [Ken Sprouse] Prodigy Offers New Software [Steve M. Kile] Cancelled Checks (was: SPRINT PLUS is Basic Service) [Lars Poulsen] Caller*ID Draws Opposition in NY [UPI, via Bill Berbenich] When is 310 Area Code Going Online? [Paul McGinnis] Converting Old Phone With Four Wires to Three Wires [Roger Haaheim] Re: Columnist Berates Telecom Miniaturization [Nick Sayer] Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Mike Beede] Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Greg Kemnitz] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Wildcat! BBS Software Does *NOT* Have Back Doors Date: 9 Aug 91 08:27:25 EDT (Fri) From: Ken Sprouse Pat, I read an article in the telecom group on Usenet and it caused me some concern. It claimed that the Wildcat! bulletin board software had a "back door" built into it that would allow the author to gain SYSOP level access at his discretion. I use the Wildcat! software at work for one of our customer user groups and have to deal with some management types that are paranoid about security. Needless to say I was not happy at the prospect of being asked about this (first I've heard of it) and not having an answer. So I dialed up the Wildcat Sysop BBS and left a message including a copy of the article. A few hours latter I got a phone call from Jim Harrer the author of Wildcat! telling me that he had gotten my message and had left a reply for me on his system. As you can see from his reply below he says there is no truth in the story that there is a "back door" into his software. I asked him why he thought such a story would be floating around and he told me that several months ago the FBI had run a sting operation to catch pirate BBSs that were used for exchanging commercial software products whose copyright prohibited their distribution. He said that Mustang Software (the makers of Wildcat!) had donated several registered copies of the Wildcat! BBS program for use in the operation. I'm not quite sure if they were to be used as bulletin boards or as uploads of a registered product. Jim said that Novel had also contributed several copies of NetWare 386 free of charge for the same purpose. He told me that the there had been a story in PC Week about the operation but I had not seen it. Has anyone else? He feels that some people were upset with Mustang Software's cooperation with the FBI in this matter and that is why the rumors have been spread about Wildcat! having a "back door". Jim is making a monetary offer to anyone who can break his software (again, see below) so he must feel confident about it. I told Jim on the phone that I would mail you a copy of his reply to me and ask that it be published in the Digest, so here it is. From : JIM HARRER (President) Number : 2937 of 2939 To : KEN SPROUSE Date : 07/24/91 9:23a Subject : Comment 07/24/91 Reference : 2936 Read : 07/24/91 10:04a X-Telecom-Digest: Vol 11, Issue 535, Message 5 of 11 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) writes: ->> "Wildcat is one of the few bulletin board systems commercially ->> available. There's a lot of bulletin board software in the public ->> domain, Hutchins says, but most isn't `trustworthy.' `When I made ->> proposal, the first thing that everybody asked was what about ->> hackers?" he recalls. But Hutchins and users such as the Internal ->> Revenue Service appear to trust the extensive safeguards in Wildcat .. Michael P. Deignan replied: -> Apparently, Mr. Hutchins isn't aware -> of the "back door" the authors'of Wildcat! BBS put into their -> software, which allows the authors to obtain complete Sysop privledge -> on any Wildcat! system at their mere whim. This "back door" has -> purported to have been used to turn in several pirate BBS systems -> operating the Wildcat! software, where the author slogged in and -> discovered copyrighted software on the BBS. Several BBS's in the Rhode -> Island area which also run the Wildcat! software have been "examined" -> in this manner, although none of them were closed down since they were -> all above-board operations. -> Michael P. Deignan -> Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd -> Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 Mr. Deignan doesn't know what he is talking about. WILDCAT! has NEVER had a Back Door and NEVER will. I don't believe in Back Doors for any purpose. We have worked hard to build a premium BBS and would not jeopardize this five year effort by placing a BACK DOOR in our product. Our product has been approved for use by the IRS and other Fortune 100 companies and government organizations, what would we gain by adding a BACK DOOR? As for calling other BBS to examine if they're "above board", do you honestly think we have time to call any of the 8000+ WILDCAT! BBS's throughout the World? Give me a break! I barely have enought time to read the several hundred messages daily on our system and WILDCAT! Echo's each day and still find time to code and run a growing company. Mr. Deignan owes us an apology. I don't know where he came up with this idea, but it's clearly irresponsible to make these kinds of acquisitions without proof. If anyone would like to talk about this subject, I can always be reached at 805/395-0223. MUSTANG SOFTWARE, INC. Jim Harrer President/CEO P.S. Please post this reply freely. --------- Well, there you have it. I would be interested in any comments the readers have on this matter. Thanks for your time. Ken Sprouse sprouse@n3igw.pgh.pa.us Ham radio N3IGW GEnie mail ksprouse [Moderator's Note: And *thank you* for taking the time to hunt down the facts in the case and forward them to us. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steve_M_Kile@cup.portal.com Subject: Prodigy Offers New Software Date: Sat, 10 Aug 91 12:08:37 PDT LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, U.S.A., 1991 AUG 9 (NB) -- The Prodigy Interactive Personal Service, an electronic, interactive computer service, is offering a free software disk to fix member concerns more than anything else. Prodigy is offering the disk to "...alay concerns that it was invading the privacy of people who use its electronic information and shopping service," reported the {Wall Street Journal}. Prodigy users had discovered files created and accessed by Prodigy, specifically STAGE.DAT and CACHE.DAT on their hard disks contained information they had never offered Prodigy. Though the information was in pieces, users became alarmed. The {Wall Street Journal} reported these "snippets" of information could theoretically be peered at by Prodigy. Prodigy says the problem is an unintentional one, and occurred because of a fluke in the operating system IBM and compatible computers use, and was not anything Prodigy had caused. The company vehemently denies it did or ever had any intention of invading the privacy of users. The free software disk is a program to erase any old personal information that might be in Prodigy files and to prevent new information from accumulating there, the company said. The {Wall Street Journal} reported Prodigy as saying the accounting firm of Coopers and Lybrand had audited the service, confirmed its privacy safeguards and has provided a letter to that effect. Prodigy said members can get information by calling Prodigy Membership Services at (800) 284-5933, or while on Prodigy, jump to TECHTALK. Prodigy is a joint partnership between Sears and International Business Machines (IBM), and reportedly has over one million members. (Linda Rohrbough / 19910809 / Press Contact: Prodigy Customer Service, Tel: 800/776-3449) ------------------------------ From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Cancelled Checks (was: SPRINT PLUS is Now Their Basic Service) Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA Date: Fri, 9 Aug 91 20:09:49 GMT In article nelson@sgi.com (Nelson Bolyard) writes: > [My bank years ago] told all the old customers that "to reduce the > inconvenience and storage space required for cancelled checks" they > were going to stop sending you cancelled checks unless you wrote them > a letter immediately. Years later, I'm still getting my cancelled > checks, but I'm locked into my current bank. If I ever switch to > another bank, I'll never see another cancelled check. In the interest of dispelling rumors, even unrelated to TELECOM: Actually, this is not true. The only "bank" that I do business with, that does not return cancelled checks is the AEA credit union. Home Savings of America merrily sends me a couple hundred cancelled checks every month. In my native Denmark, on the other hand, I have never seen a cancelled check returned. If they ever did return them, it was over 30 years ago. Followups to misc.consumers only, please. Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM ------------------------------ From: bill@gauss.gatech.edu Subject: Caller*ID Draws Opposition in NY Date: Fri, 9 Aug 91 17:34:57 EDT Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu The following article appeared on the UPI wire recently. By CINDY CHIN ALBANY, N.Y. (UPI) -- A state consumer agency Tuesday said Caller Identification, which allows telephone customers to see the number of the person calling them before they answer, may be violating the state's electronic eavesdropping law. Caller I-D customers can use special devices to see where the calls originate without the caller's prior consent. Consumer Protection Board Executive Director Richard Kessel said the Public Service Commission should bar New York Telephone from offering Caller ID without adequate safeguards. "The Caller ID proposal would violate the state privacy law which guarantees callers the right to control who receives their number," Kessel said. New York Telephone has proposed a plan whereby callers can dial a prefix number to block the Caller ID. But Kessel said callers should be allowed to have all their calls blocked from the service, without having to dial a special number. However, New York Telephone officials said Caller ID would not be violating state law. "The blocking prefix meets everybody's privacy concerns and with the free per-call blocking service the caller can control the situation," said Peter Muller, a spokesman for New York Telephone. "Caller ID can enhance privacy because customers can protect themselves from obscene or prank phone calls," Muller said. According to Muller, if Caller ID is approved by the PSC, it would immediately be available in the Hudson Valley area including Newburgh, Kingston, and Poughkeepsie. ------------------ Same play, different players. Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab | Telephone: +1-404-894-3134 Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 | uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill | Group 3 fax: +1-404-894-8363 Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu | or: +1-404-853-9171 ------------------------------ From: portal!cup.portal.com!TRADER@uunet.uu.net Subject: When is 310 Area Code Going Online? Date: Sat, 10 Aug 91 13:26:48 PDT Sometime ago, a friend at PacTel told me that the Westside area of Los Angeles (west of La Cienega apparently) and Santa Monica were going to be given a new area code -- 310. Anyone know when this is supposed to happen? I was told last year it would take effect February '91, but it's August '91 now and it still hasn't happened. This source also told me that there were two main causes for the new area code: too many people with cellular phones and too many companies having direct dial to PBX extensions (i.e. instead of calling something like xxx-7000 and asking to speak to x1321 you can now direct dial the extension at xxx-1321). Paul McGinnis / TRADER@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 12:55:25 pdt From: Roger Haaheim Subject: Converting Old Phone With Four Wires to Three Wires I have an old pulse dial phone I'd like to convert to the modular type connector but I haven't the foggiest idea what to do with the extra wire. Seems I've seen a submission or two some time ago that described how to do it. Is there a FAQ list available? [Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly there is no FAQ file for telecom. Maybe sometime someone will volunteer to write one up. Old issues of the Digest are ftp'able from lcs.mit.edu. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Nick Sayer Subject: Re: Columnist Berates Telecom Miniaturization Organization: The Duck Pond public unix, Stockton, CA Date: 10 Aug 1991 22:26:30 UTC bill@gauss.gatech.edu sent along an article from the papers. At this point, I reminised on a common joke from "Night Court." Dan Fielding has just made a sleazy come on to Christine, and she replies, "You slimey so-and-so, you have no morals and no pride, do you?" Dan replies, "So what's your point?" And my reply to Mr. Schrage is the same - "What's your point?" Is he saying that those remarkable ideas he has had are bad or something? Why? These questions are rhetorical, of course. The answer is that they aren't bad. Sony ought to hire Mr. Schrage and try to implement some of those ideas. My mother hides the TV whenever company comes over, and has the stereo in a closet. I have a Sun 3/160 on proud display in my living room. During Christmas parties, I run a little graphics program that makes a blinking Christmas tree on the console. It almost seems like the gender gap has come down to embracing new technology or putting up with it. Nick Sayer mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us N6QQQ 209-952-5347 (Telebit) ------------------------------ From: Mike Beede Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers Organization: SCTC Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1991 00:01:52 GMT NIEBUHR@bnlcl6.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) writes: [Article about Radio Shack revealing a screenful of customer information deleted]. > [Moderator's Note: Really I think your complaint is petty. The clerk > did not *give out phone numbers* as you contend. You really had no > business looking over at the terminal display since none of what was > on the screen concerned you anyway....] Ignoring all other issues raised here, I think depending on the politeness of all Radio Shack customers provides fairly weak security for the aforementioned customer information. The issue is not whether Dave Niebuhr sees it, the issue is whether someone else, let's call him Jim Rockford (;-)) sees it. And yes, they didn't give out a phone number -- in fact, that was what was provided ... Mike Beede SCTC beede@sctc.com 1210 W. County Rd E, Suite 100 Arden Hills, MN 55112 (612) 482-7420 ------------------------------ From: Greg Kemnitz Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1991 17:25:27 -0500 Organization: K and K Systems, Minneapolis MN > [Moderator's Note: Really I think your complaint is petty. The clerk > did not *give out phone numbers* as you contend. You really had no > business looking over at the terminal display since none of what was > on the screen concerned you anyway. > Obviously the clerk who waited on you did not record the transaction > correctly, but its hardly the big deal you make it. PAT] Actually, the poster did not complain about giving out phone numbers, as YOU contend. He was clearly stating in more than one instance that it was the giving out of the name and address that he objected to. As to the terminal screen, he would not have needed to look at the screen at all for his complaint to be accurate and valid -- they print the name and address on the receipt that they give to the customer! This is hardly a petty complaint, and your remarks to the poster were inappropriate -- especially in that they were broadcast to thousands, rather than being submitted privately. Perhaps an apology from you, in the same forum, would be appropriate? Greg Kemnitz / K and K Systems / PO Box 47804 / Plymouth, MN 55447-0804 INET: gk@kksys.mn.org / Voice: +1 612 475 1527 / Fax: +1 612 449 0488 [Moderator's Note: Perhaps an explanation from you as to why -- despite the circumstances being as you claim -- this is still not a petty matter would be of more interest than an apology from me. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #622 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21731; 12 Aug 91 3:39 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28591; 12 Aug 91 2:12 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30680; 12 Aug 91 0:59 CDT Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 0:58:16 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #623 BCC: Message-ID: <9108120058.ab06415@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 12 Aug 91 00:58:07 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 623 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online? [Michael VanNorman] Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online? [John Higdon] Re: Talking Yellow Pages and General RBOC Ineptness [Sean Williams] Re: Tolled and Toll Free Services Around the World [Warren Burstein] Re: Email From Space [Robert Savery] Re: Another Proposed Tax [Michael Gersten] Information Wanted on Dutch Phone [Guy Hillyer] How Time Flies (was Radio Shack Phone Number Policy) [Bob Izenberg] What Number CLID Transmits [John Boteler] Phone Line Surge [Robert M. Hamer] Surveyors With Long Memories [Bob Izenberg] Where Can I Find Technical Information on Caller ID? [John Loram] International 800 Access [Bob Frankston] Help Requested - Panasonic KSU System [Rick Jaffe] U.S.-Canada Calling Cards [David Ash] Monitoring Soviet Transmissions [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Phone Numbers on Credit Cards [Doctor Math] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael VanNorman Subject: Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online? Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1991 06:42:09 GMT portal!cup.portal.com!TRADER@uunet.uu.net writes: > Sometime ago, a friend at PacTel told me that the Westside area of Los > Angeles (west of La Cienega apparently) and Santa Monica were going to > be given a new area code -- 310. Anyone know when this is supposed to > happen? I was told last year it would take effect February '91, but > it's August '91 now and it still hasn't happened. It goes in to effect November 2, 1991. I believe that there will be a six month period during which both 213 and 310 will work. Mike ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Aug 91 01:15 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online? portal!cup.portal.com!TRADER@uunet.uu.net writes: > This [Pac*Bell] source also told me that there > were two main causes for the new > area code: too many people with cellular phones and too many companies > having direct dial to PBX extensions (i.e. instead of calling > something like xxx-7000 and asking to speak to x1321 you can now > direct dial the extension at xxx-1321). Your source at Pac*Bell conveniently omitted another large consumer of telephone numbers: Centrex. It is really amusing to listen to Pac*Bell people going on and on about pagers, cellular phones, and as you mentioned above, DID while remaining silent about Centrex. Also, while DID and Centrex both allow direct calling to individual telephones at business locations, DID is much more efficient. Centrex requires one pair (or its equivalent) for each and every telephone station at the customer's premesis. DID, on the other hand, only requires a limited number of trunks over which the calls are concentrated. So Pac*Bell's pride and joy, Centrex, not only uses up precious phone numbers just like DID, it also uses up cable pairs. Funny your contact did not mention this. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Aug 91 17:12 GMT From: Sean Williams <0004715238@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Talking Yellow Pages and General RBOC Ineptness John R. Levine writes: >> It appears that voice response yellow pages is another such boondoggle, >> offering a service which nobody really wants, wasn't well researched, and >> will eventually die after losing a lot of money. In my area, voice response yellow pages is anything but a "boondoggle". We have two such services in competition here, and they are prospering. The first system was started in Harrisburg by WHP Radio/TV in collaboration with the Donnelley Directory people. The second system, Talking Fingers, is run by United Telephone. Both are toll cals from my exchange, but I still call them frequently. WHP's system is laced with commercials for local businesses and a bunch of "900" numbers. United's system has little (and sometimes no) advertising. Both companies do, however, let yellow pages advertisers rent out numbers to be used in conjunction with yellow pages ads and local TV and radio advertising. 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: Re: Tolled and Toll Free Services Around the World Date: Fri, 9 Aug 91 13:32:36 IDT From: Warren Burstein I tried sending to the guy who put out the request for info, it bounced. In Israel, toll-free numbers are: 177-xxx-xxxx warren@worlds.COM ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Aug 91 16:27:26 cst From: Robert Savery Subject: Re: Email From Space Reply-To: ivgate!drbbs!robert.savery@uunet.uu.net Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha In a message of <26 Jul 91 12:42:22>, Scott Dorsey writes: > (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. ROTFL!! Perhaps they could use them as raw material for the space station! Seriously, is there anyone here connected with the project? If so, I'm curious as to why such a convoluted routing was used. It would seem that there are dozens of easier, cheaper methods available. See Ya! Bob msged 1.99S ZTC [200:5010/666.5@Metronet] Trebor's Castle, Lavista Ne. ------------------------------ From: Michael Gersten Subject: Re: Another Proposed Tax Organization: The Serial Tree BBS, +1 213 397 3137 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 01:48:23 GMT In article kossack@taronga.hackercorp. com (Jordan M Kossack) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 611, Message 3 of 8 > In article gast@cs.ucla.edu (David > Gast) writes: >> I think that both should be unconstitutional under the First >> Amendment because essentially a tax is an abridgement of free speech. > Books are taxed. Does this also violate free speech? Books taxed? Where. Show me. Oh, are you refering to the sales tax on books? That's different. Thats not a tax on books, but a tax on purchasing things. Nothing discriminitory about that. Now, if they were to say "books have a sales tax of 20%, others are 7%" then that would be discriminitory, and unconstitutional. The big problem is that we actually have this now. In LA, we now have a sales tax on newspapers. But free newspapers are taxed based on the costs of producing them. So, if you want to run off 100 copies of something on your laser printer and distribute it, boy, pay the government its fee even if you wanted to give it away free. Now the government can lock up anyone who makes a "newspaper" and distributes it for free. Michael michael@stb.info.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Aug 91 22:16:44 EDT From: Guy Hillyer Subject: Information Wanted on Dutch Phone I have an old black bakelite dial phone with the legend "Made in Holland" on the bottom. It also has metal badges on either side of the case. One of them has the letters "PTT" in a circle, while the other is a bell with the word "STANDARD" underneath. Inside, a schematic diagram appears on a paper label along with the words: TAFELTOESTEL STANDARD MET AARDTOETS TYPE 1954 Htf 2211 BPZ There is a small white button directly below the dial on the front of the case. Does anyone recognize this phone? I'd be interested to know its vintage (1954?) and of course I'm curious about the intended function of the little white button, which does nothing anymore as far as I can tell. Thanks. Guy Hillyer guy@odi.com ------------------------------ From: Bob Izenberg Subject: How Time Flies (Radio Shack phone number policy) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 91 22:02:16 CDT In TELECOM Digest V11 #621, Dave Niebuhr wrote: > I was in my local Radio Shack the other day and when I went to pay for > the small item that I'd selected, the salesperson asked for the last > four digits of my phone number. I refused and this person just keyed > in four digits. Times (seem to have) changed since I worked at Radio Shack way back when. We were paid $3 each time we got somebody's address on a receipt. I don't know if it was official Tandy policy back then, but all the stores in our district did it. Bob ------------------------------ Subject: What Number CLID Transmits Date: Fri, 9 Aug 91 19:45:19 EDT From: John Boteler The number transmitted via CLASS to your Calling Line ID display is programmable. A client of mine using CENTREX used to display station numbers; since he changed some features and added some lines only the pilot number of the CENTREX group is displayed. Good and bad, depending. John Boteler bote@csense {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Aug 91 13:03 EDT From: "Robert M. Hamer" Subject: Phone Line Surge Recently in the Digest, there was some discussion about power surges that enter via phone lines rather than via power lines. I had such a surge recently which fried my modem, and looks like it also fried my serial port. (I got a new modem, which works on a different computer, but not on my usual computer. Same cord, too.) I suppose this is only loosely telecom related, but considering that the parallel port on the same card still works, does it sound like the serial part of the card also got fried? Mail-order houses sell I/O cards at prices ranging from $65 or $15 for two serial / one parallel port cards. Does anyone have any idea if I need to buy the $65 card or will the $15 card do. (Of course the mail order houses claim that their own cards will work great.) Also, someone mentioned possible surge protectors for phone lines. Any suggestions for sources? ------------------------------ From: Bob Izenberg Subject: Surveyors With Long Memories Organization: Teenage Binge and Purgin' Turtles Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1991 18:36:24 GMT I just got a call from a professional survey taker wanting to ask me about how much sports I watch on TV. He should have just asked for my couch potato union card. Having done this job in school and college, I may answer their questions more readily than more worldly Digest readers would think wise. After telling him my discouraging truth, that I watch college baskbetball live and treat golf telecasts like relaxation tapes while I'm reading, he then saw something on his screen. "Oh, you're the Heineken drinker." Sometime at least one year ago (he thought that it might have been two) the same company (and perhaps the same guy?) did a beer survey, which I also apparently bellied up to. He had the information right in front of him! Never mind that I've given up the slavish brand loyalty that ruled my East Coast existence: I'll have a Shiner Bock these days, thank you very much. The next time they call, I'll be the Heineken drinker who doesn't watch sports. Bob Izenberg [ ] bei@dogface.austin.tx.us ------------------------------ From: John Loram Subject: Where Can I Find Technical Information About Caller ID? Date: 11 Aug 91 22:48:10 GMT Can anyone point me in the right direction? I would like to get hold of the technical specification on Caller-ID, also know as Calling number identification or CNI. Thanks. john ------------------------------ From: frankston!Bob_Frankston@world.std.com Subject: International 800 Access Date: 10 Aug 1991 20:36 -0400 I have not tried this, but in "The Airline Passenger's Handbook" it says that Credit Card Calling Systems, Inc provides credit-card access to US 800 numbers. Their US number is 1-213-323-8030 and can provide local access numbers internationally. ------------------------------ From: Rick Jaffe Subject: Help Requested - Panasonic KSU System Organization: OTA Limited Partnership Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1991 15:55:15 GMT We have a discontinued Panasonic VA-614 Key Telephone System and a few extra phones from the smaller VA-412. Can anyone tell me where to find extra telephones for either of these systems? Our vendor is no longer a dealer for Panasonic. Those Panasonic offices we've been able to reach have either refused to talk to us because we aren't a dealer, or have told us we're out of luck. Rick Jaffe USMail: OTA Limited Partnership, 101 N. Main, Suite 410, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Phone: +1 313 930-1888 FAX: +1 313 930-6636 UUCP: !mailrus!leebai!rsj Internet: rsj@ox.com ------------------------------ From: David Ash Subject: U.S.-Canada Calling Cards Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1991 02:40:33 GMT A couple of related questions: 1. Does anyone know of a long-distance U.S. calling card available to people without a home phone which can be used for *domestic* calls within Canada (where I travel frequently)? My PacBell card used to allow this, but since Stanford took over my on-campus phone service, I've lost my PacBell card. Neither my MCI nor Sprint cards work for domestic calls within Canada, although they will allow U.S. - Canada calls in either direction. 2. Is there a U.S. regular (non-800, non-950) number which will connect a caller to the MCI network like 800-950-1022 or 950-1022? My theory is that I could then connect to this number from Canada, and then through recursive use of the MCI calling card, call back to Canada. Of course, I'd be paying double, and have to dial a *lot* of digits, but it might be worth it for short calls where calling collect isn't appropriate. David W. Ash ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu HOME: (415) 497-1629 WORK: (415) 725-3859 [Moderator's Note: Prior to the use of 950 and 800 numbers as gateways, there were lots of regular numbers throughout the USA used for access. Here in Chicago, Sprint had 312-876-0001 and MCI had 440-xxxx. Even after 950 started, the old numbers hung around and were not turned off for a long time; but I tried the ones I remembered from those days and they are all disconnected now. Any still running? PAT] ----------------------------- Date: Sun, 11 Aug 91 20:52:59 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Monitoring Soviet Transmissions Another new file in the Telecom Archives for your consideration is devoted to the topic of monitoring Soviet radio transmissions. This file tells where to listen, and how to do it from here in the USA. See what you think, and send a note to the author with your comments and questions, if any. And as before, all files in the Telecom Archives are anonymously ftp'able from lcs.mit.edu, or you may use the mail/ftp server described here a few days ago. The file name is 'monitoring.soviet.xmissions'. PAT ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Phone Numbers on Credit Cards From: Doctor Math Date: Sun, 11 Aug 91 03:26:08 EST Organization: Department of Redundancy Department > [Moderator's Note: Sometime please remind me to tell you of the time > when Alfred Bloomingdale (former chairman of Diner's Club) had his > wallet -- and personal Diner's Club card -- lifted by a prostitute ... > I pulled it! ... a good story if anyone wants to hear it. PAT] Cast my vote for "hearing" it. [Moderator's Note: Well okay, but not here and now. I just finished writing up my reminisences of twenty-plus years ago at Diners Club and Amoco's credit card office. It turned out to be 19 K bytes! A bit long even for an inveterate note-appender like myself ... and with very little telecom relevance. I think I will post it in misc.misc under the title "Alfred Bloomingdale's Diners Club" for anyone interested in going over there to read it. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #623 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15346; 13 Aug 91 5:06 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30132; 13 Aug 91 3:32 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26559; 13 Aug 91 2:17 CDT Date: Tue, 13 Aug 91 1:25:01 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #624 BCC: Message-ID: <9108130125.ab10580@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 13 Aug 91 01:24:52 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 624 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Midtown Atlanta Hit by Mysterious Phone Outage [Bill Berbenich] Hackers Mail-Bomb Shuttle! [David Lemson] New Numbering Plan for France, 1995 [Nigel Allen] Telecom Experts Sought in Ohio Area [Bruce Klopfenstein] v25bis Specifications, Anyone? [Dave Williams] CLID/ANI to RS232 Interface [David L. Wilson] GTE Airphone and Data Calls [Tom Lowe] Pac*Bell is Eager to Begin [John Higdon] Tax on Books Unconstitutional? [Charlie Mingo] 10BaseT Specs Wanted [David Weissman] Digitized Sound File Formats [Stephen Knight] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bill@gauss.gatech.edu Subject: Midtown Atlanta Hit by Mysterious Phone Outage Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 17:14:33 EDT Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Starting at about 2:00 P.M. local time, from what I hear, much of Midtown Atlanta (North of downtown / five-points area) phone service was isolated from everywhere else. I tried to call a few places off-campus and always ended up with a reorder (fast busy). My trusty cellular could call everywhere I tried except Midtown, which would give a "all circuits are busy" recording. It did take my cellular a few tries before it could get an open channel, though, so others were doing the same as me. No word yet on what caused the isolation. The phones are working better now, but I don't know if that's because they are running off a backup or if the root problem was resolved. I get occasional reorders now. I wish I didn't have to make so many calls today. Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab | Telephone: +1-404-894-3134 Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 | uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill | Group 3 fax: +1-404-894-8363 Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu | or: +1-404-853-9171 ------------------------------ From: David Lemson Subject: Hackers Mail-Bomb Shuttle! Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1991 21:40:22 GMT I read this on sci.space.shuttle: pjs@EUCLID.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: From {Information Week}, August 12 (who got it from {Newsday}, August 6, p.5): SPACE HACKERS A test of electronic-mail between earth and laptops aboard the space shuttle Atlantis was intended to lay the groundwork for use of E-mail on space station Freedom. But the test is in jeopardy after 80 E-mail messages were received by the Atlantis crew from unauthorized users. The leak behind the E-mail address remains a mystery. *Junk Mail In Outer Space*, Joshua Quittner. >> Peter J. Scott, Member of Technical Staff | pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov >> Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech | SPAN: GROUCH::PJS Now, who was it that leaked that??? Could it be??? USENET??? :-) The power of Usenet, for you. (Now I *have* to try to find that original article where someone posted "Hey, everyone, try this e-mail address!") 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 [Moderator's Note: I humbly suggest it was an article which originated here in TELECOM Digest which led to a longer article written by Joe Abernathy in the {Houston Chronicle} (which was then re-printed here in the Digest) which started the activity. Of course, I could be wrong; my Socially Responsible readers over in eff.talk say I usually am. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Aug 91 18:04:47 PDT From: Nigel Allen Subject: New Numbering Plan For France, 1995 Organization: FidoNet node 1:250/438, Echo Beach, Toronto France Telecom's employee magazine says that France's telephone numbering system will be changed in 1995. No change for Paris, but other parts of France will be divided into three or four zones. New services, such as digital cellular, are using up the prefixes available under the current numbering plan. In other news, the Paris yellow pages will be split into a consumer edition, {Vie pratique}, and a business/industrial edition. France Telecom says the change was requested by 80% of the subscribers it polled. (By the way, Bell Canada's Toronto Yellow Pages has been split between consumer and business/industrial editions for several years, but most other Bell Canada Yellow Pages come in a single edition for a particular geographic area. Actually, they aren't exactly Bell Canada Yellow Pages; they're published by Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc., an unregulated, wholly-owned subsidiary of Bell Canada.) If you would like to receive a free subcription to {Messages}, the employee house organ from which the French information came, write to: Messages Service abonnements 20 avenue de Segur 75700 Paris France The magazine is published in French only, of course. It also serves France's postal employes, and has run some interesting articles on postal service in other countries. Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ From: Bruce Klopfenstein Subject: Telecom Experts Sought in Ohio Area Date: 12 Aug 91 14:30:42 GMT Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. I teach a senior/graduate student course at Bowling Green State University called "Introduction to New Electronic Media." The course meets Monday nights from 6-9 PM starting September 9. The purpose of the course is to introduce the student to the telecommunications technologies and services beyond traditional broadcasting and newspaper technologies. This includes fiber optics, satellite transmission, digital audio broadcasting, high definition television, personal communications networks, etc. I would like to invite telecommunications professionals to present technological topics of interest to the class. There will be 15-20 students, generally without technical backgrounds. I would be pleased to discuss the class further with anyone who is interested in either coming to campus or even setting up a teleconference. Please feel free to email me or call. I need to start planning the topic dates this week. I'd be interested in any referrals as well. Thanks very much. Bruce C. Klopfenstein | klopfens@andy.bgsu.edu Telecommunications Department | klopfenstein@bgsuopie.bitnet 322 West Hall | klopfens@bgsuvax.UUCP Bowling Green State University | (419) 372-2138; 372-2224 Bowling Green, OH 43403 | fax (419) 372-2300 ------------------------------ From: Dave Williams Subject: v25bis Specifications, Anyone? Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Richardson, Tx Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1991 19:23:30 GMT Thanks. exudnw@exurchn1.ericsson.se || dnw@cs.unt.edu (214)907-7928 David Williams Ericsson Network Systems Richardson, TX 75081 These opinions are my own. ------------------------------ From: "David L. Wilson" Subject: CLID/ANI to RS232 Interface Date: 12 Aug 91 20:37:58 GMT Reply-To: "David L. Wilson" Organization: Encore Computer Corp, Marlboro, MA I have seen a number of posts describing companies that make a CLID/ANI interface to PC's, but I foolishly deleted them. Could some enlightened person e-mail me with information on one or more of these companies? Thanks, Dave Wilson dlwilson@encore.com ------------------------------ From: tlowe@attmail.com Date: Mon Aug 12 08:06:27 EDT 1991 Subject: GTE Airphone and Data Calls I recently acquired my AT&T Safari Notebook Computer, complete with built-in error correcting 2400 baud modem (MNP5). In addition I bought an acoustic coupler designed to work with regular modems. It plugs in where you would plug in a phone line. Made by a company called CP+, Inc (Computer Products Plus, Inc.) at 800-274-4277. They claim you can use it from Pay Phones, Cellular Phones, Hotels, etc. Ideal for places that have phones you can't plug your modem into directly. Anyway, on a recent flight I was on, there happened to be a GTE Airphone. I couldn't resist the urge to see if this device would work at 30,000 feet. I made a regular voice call to see what the connection was like and it was pretty bad. The other party and I could hardly hear each other. Then I connected my coupler and dialed an error correcting modem. I dialed manually ... didn't try to see if I could use the modem to send the touch tones. The first call I was too slow to type in the command line (it was long because I had to turn on the MNP mode) so it didn't connect. The second call connected, but not in MNP mode ... lots of garbage on the line. The third try, I connected successfully and logged in. I was on for about two minutes when I lost carrier. I could probably play with some parameters on the modem to prevent that, but I was happy just logging in. I can't wait till I get the bill! (Four dollars first minute, two dollars each additional). I only tried 1200 baud. I didn't bother with 2400 baud. I couldn't get 2400 to work with my AT&T cordless phone at home, so I didn't think I would have much luck with the Airphone. I haven't tried it from a Cellular phone yet, but I would guess it will work just fine, at least at 1200 baud. Tom Lowe AT&T Bell Labs Holmdel, NJ 908-949-0428 attmail!tlowe ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 20:40 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Pac*Bell is Eager to Begin "Pacific Bell wants to be more than a telephone company," proclaims an article in today's {San Jose Mercury}. (It is debatable whether it is even a phone company, but that is a horse to be whipped elsewhere.) Pac*Bell would like to be in the information business by the end of next year. The services? Here are the five main categories: * Enhanced Voice Mail * Enhanced Fax * Transaction Processing * Radio Location * Electronic Yellow Pages First, it should be pointed out that Pac*Bell is currently doing an intensive marketing study to find out what would sell and how much can be gouged for it. "... the company is surveying Message Center customers to see what type of information they'd like to receive and how much they'd be willing to pay." Somehow it seems a little disconcerting when a monopoly prices services according to what the market will bear. Some of this article should make anyone's hair stand on end. For instance, Pac*Bell would like to get into the automated ordering business and sell the service to smaller businesses that cannot afford systems themselves. "The Pac Bell computer would keep a record of each customer's buying preferences. A customer who notifies the system of an impending wedding, for example, might get mail or phone messages offering special deals from caterers, photographers and tuxedo rental shops." Just what we all need, no? Pac*Bell built the "International Teletrac" system, which is similar to the "lojack" stolen car retrieval system. "Pac Bell built Teletrac's radio network but can't directly operate the Teletrac service. If the restrictions on information services are lifted, Pac Bell intends to exercise an option to buy International Teletrac." Gee, that is all really wonderful, but the crossbar serving my regulated monopoly-provided telephone still cannot even do Call Waiting. How about thinking about us regulated ratepayers before leaping off into that Brave New World, Pac*Bell? "Numerous attempts in the last decade to sell information services to a mass audience have failed. Knight-Ridder Inc., publisher of the {San Jose Mercury News}, lost $50 million in the early '80s with a home information service called Viewtron; Times-Mirror Co., publisher of the {Los Angeles Times}, also mounted an expensive, unsuccessful effort." It is comforting to know that if Pac*Bell loses millions in its information services, the stockholders will be protected. The money will just come from all of us ratepayers. If anyone enjoys the prospect of having one huge company having direct control over many aspects of people's daily lives, he should be feeling really good right about now. It looks like Pac*Bell will be taking good care of us in very short order. And with money we thought was supposed to be used to provide us with basic phone service, at that. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Charlie Mingo Date: 12 Aug 91 13:51:21 Subject: Tax on Books Unconstitutional? In the TELECOM Digest, michael@stb.info.com writes: > Books taxed? Where. Show me. > Oh, are you refering to the sales tax on books? That's different. > Thats not a tax on books, but a tax on purchasing things. Nothing > discriminitory about that. Now, if they were to say "books have a > sales tax of 20%, others are 7%" then that would be discriminitory, > and unconstitutional. Oh really? How about the 3% federal tax on phone service (local and long distance)? There's no equivalent federal sales tax on any books, newspapers, mail or most other goods. Looks "discriminitory" to me. I can find no case where a tax has been found unconstitutional simply because it was levied discriminatorily against books or other media. Generally, government regulation of the means of expression will not violate the First Amendment if it is content-neutral and is reasonably related to some substantial government interest. (Metromedia v. San Diego, US S.Ct. 1981) Since raising revenue is recognized to be a substantial government interest, and since the tax would not "eliminate [the medium] as an effective form of communications," there is little doubt that moderate taxes on books, cable TV or even free newspapers would pass constitutional muster. ------------------------------ From: dweissman@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (WiseGuy) Subject: 10BaseT Specs Wanted Date: 12 Aug 91 16:58:28 GMT Reply-To: dweissman@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center - Greenbelt, MD, USA Where can I find the specs for 10BaseT? Do they exist in electronic format anywhere? Any help is appreciated. Dave Weissman - Broadband and FDDI LAN Operations Group Snail mail: NSI DECNET (SPAN) - 6153::DWEISSMAN Code 543.8 NSI TCP/IP - dweissman@<128.183.112.2> Goddard Space Flight Center SPRINTnet's X.400 - Greenbelt, Maryland 20771 (C:USA,A:TELEMAIL,P:GSFC,FN:DAVID,SN:WEISSMAN) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 11:50:14 edt From: Stephen Knight Subject: Digitized Sound File Formats Greetings, I would greatly appreciate it if anybody can provide information on digitized sound file format standards. My employer is considering standardizing the sound file formats across several platforms (the formats currently in use are proprietary and change from platform to platform) and I'm trying to locate "industry standard" formats. Ideally, the format would (or be capable of modification to) support: - multiple sample formats: Mu-Law, A-Law and AD PCM samples are required but it should not be limited to those (we might want to put Linear in, for example). - text and non-text application specific information. - extendable non-sample information structure (ie; version 1 contains creator and date info, version 2 contains creator, date, destination and comment. A version 1 application encountering a version 2 file should not break, obviously it would not be expected to understand the extra info but should ignore it (skip, whatever). - platform independent, so that a byte level comparison would find no differences regardless of the system storing it (ie; Mac vs. Unix vs. IBM-PC). Email'ing replies would obviously be best. Anybody who would like to see the results of this query can send a request also, I'll be happy to forward any information I receive. steve knight Computer Consoles Inc. sdk@ccird2.cci.com 716-482-5000 x2885 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #624 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15641; 13 Aug 91 5:16 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab30132; 13 Aug 91 3:41 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26559; 13 Aug 91 2:17 CDT Date: Tue, 13 Aug 91 2:00:28 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #625 BCC: Message-ID: <9108130200.ab11670@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 13 Aug 91 02:00:23 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 625 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Email From Space [Byron Han] Re: Email From Space [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table [Carl Moore] Re: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table [Thomas Lapp] Re: Indiana Bell 'Touch Four' Information Service [Douglas Martin] Re: Talking Yellow Pages and General RBOC Ineptness [David Hayes] Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network B'Casters [M. Gersten] Re: Another Proposed Tax [Norman Yarvin] Re: USOC Standards [was ISO Standards] [Joe Stein] Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Christopher Owens] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Byron Han Subject: Re: Email From Space Date: 12 Aug 91 06:27:32 GMT Organization: Apple Computer, Inc. In article ivgate!drbbs!robert.savery@ uunet.uu.net writes: > In a message of <26 Jul 91 12:42:22>, Scott Dorsey writes: >> (Lloyd W. Taylor) writes: >> I think that NASA should take all the McIntoshes up into space. >> And leave them there. > ROTFL!! What does ROTFL mean? > Seriously, is there anyone here connected with the project? Yes. I wrote and designed most of the software on the Macintosh Portable in orbit and on the ground involved with the establishment of the data connection link > If so, I'm curious as to why such a convoluted routing was used. It > would seem that there are dozens of easier, cheaper methods > available. The nature of the A/G-2 link which was used required a half-duplex connection. Routing of A/G-2 via TDRSS to White Sands to Houston is pretty much fixed. Simple file transfer could simple be achieved by having a Mac on the Orbiter talk to a Mac on the ground in Houston Mission Control. Extending the datapath out to AppleLink was done simply to have a store and forward mail capability. We just as easily could have tied them into a UN*X mail system, but in the interests of minimizing crew training time, a graphical front end to electronic mail a la AppleLink was used. Essentially, we went for minimum crew training time and shortest development time. Byron Han, Software Artisan The Apple Culture (1977-1991) R.I.P. Apple Computer, Inc. --------------------------------------------- 20525 Mariani Ave, MS: 81NC Internet: han@apple.COM Cupertino, CA 95014 AppleLink: HAN1 HAN1@applelink.apple.COM Phone: 1.408.974.6450 CompuServe: 72167,1664 ------------------------------ From: Robert J Woodhead Subject: Re: Email From Space Date: 12 Aug 91 06:35:16 GMT Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Tokyo Japan Robert.Savery@ivgate.omahug.org (Robert Savery) writes: > Seriously, is there anyone here connected with the project? If so, I'm > curious as to why such a convoluted routing was used. It would seem > that there are dozens of easier, cheaper methods available. Anyone at least peripherally familiar with the history and culture of NASA will be quick to tell you that NASA is never interested in easier, cheaper methods. Complicated, expensive methods that justify the existance (and budgets) of hordes of administrative personnel are much preferred. After all, if the US Government and people realized that space travel could be much simpler and relatively cheap, then most of them would be redundant. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 9:31:50 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table No, I wasn't COMPLAINING about it, but I did note that I don't see them as a customer. I had never heard of them before. Yes, I have seen LATA lists in some Southern Bell call guides. It's not clear how the LATA codes became involved in this. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 23:33:39 EST From: Thomas Lapp Subject: Re: SPECIAL REPORT: LATA Number Reference Table The table of LATA numbers made me think of a map that I have hanging in my office which has the United States broken up by LATAs. If anyone else is interested in a copy of a map, I called the company who made the one I have, and here's the scoop: The map is available from CCMI (used to be part of McGraw-Hill, but are no longer). The map was updated in 1990. They have two sizes of the map available: small: 8 1/2 x 11 -- $15.00 + 4.95 Shipping and Handling large: 24 x 36 ----- $20.00 + 4.95 S&H Address: Suite 1100 11300 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-3030 Toll free telephone number is 800-487-4824, extension 250. I spoke with Karen VenDouern who said to request her if you are interested in ordering. (For those in Maryland, or outside the U.S., the other line in is 301-816-8950. Ob Disclaimer: I have no relationship to this company or its products or services, and cannot speak to the service or satisfaction you may or may not get from this company. tom internet : mvac23!thomas@udel.edu or thomas%mvac23@udel.edu (home) uucp : {ucbvax,mcvax,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas Location : Newark, DE, USA ------------------------------ From: Douglas Martin Subject: Re: Indiana Bell 'Touch Four' Information Service Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1991 08:12:14 -0600 In article SKASS@drew.bitnet writes: > In TELECOM Digest #616, Doctor Math writes: > ...making the call to one of these talking yellow pages for 11c per > minute. I wonder what the legality would be of setting up a cut-rate Interesting. Our (i.e. Edmonton's) "Talking Yellow Pages" are FREE, since they're a local call (you dial 493-9000 and then enter a 4 digit code when prompted). They have all sorts of touristy stuff, weather, sports, horoscopes, etc., as well as codes to get info from any Y.P. advertisers that choose to provide it. No idea what the advertisers are charged, but the customers certainly aren't, and in comparing last year's with this year's Y.P., it would appear to be popular -- lots more codes this year. douglas@cs.ualberta.ca 73547.3210@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: David Hayes Subject: Re: Talking Yellow Pages and General RBOC Ineptness Organization: sulaco Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1991 08:14:40 GMT In article johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: [ bunches deleted ] > This to me says why it is a particularly bad idea to allow the RBOCs > to offer enhanced services related to the phone network. They will > force all of the competitors out of business, either by underpricing > them or more likely by making the hooks to the phone network work in > ways that nobody but the telco themselves can use. (We are already > seeing the latter as third-party voice mail services try and get the > hooks they need for forward on no answer and stutter dial tone.) Then > the RBOCs will botch it, leave the business, and we subscribers will > be left with nothing. Subscribers won't be left totally without. We'll be stuck with the bill, in the form of increased local service rates. :-( Sure, the regulations are supposed to keep regulated, monopoly business profits from subsidizing unregulated lines of business, but the RBOCs are very good at getting around such regulations. After all, they have a financial incentive to do so, while the regulators have none. David Hayes Professional Skeptic ------------------------------ From: Michael Gersten Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters Organization: The Serial Tree BBS, +1 213 397 3137 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 02:01:13 GMT In article payne@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Andrew Payne) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 617, Message 1 of 9 > In article michael@stb.info.com > (Michael Gersten) writes: >> Why do we have so many essentially unregulated monopolies in this >> country, such as local telephone and cable? There is a very simple way >> to actually let the market regulate these monopolies. This also >> applies to broadcast television, as there the number of stations is >> fixed by nature, so the monopolistic effect still shows up. Here's >> how: > Wait! You cannot put telephone monopolies and cable > monopolies in the same cart. Telephone companies are far from > "essentially unregulated" -- look at a tariff sometime. In many cases, > they have to file with the Public Utilities Commission just to wipe > their nose. Really? I disagree. Over here there are a lot of extra features that Pacific Bell offers that GTE either does not offer or charges a higher price for. Pac Bell lists its bill with a section "PUC regulated charges" and "Unregulated charges". THe presesnce of one unregulated charge in a monopoly is enough to make it unregulated (my claim). >> 3. If there is more than one such active application, then the current >> company is not providing enough service for the buck, and would be required >> to increase service or lose the contract. > How to you quantify "service for the buck"? Regulators around > the country would *love* the answer to that one. Also, how do you > switch from one cable company to another? Does A move out and B move > in? That takes a while. I wouldn't define "service for the buck". I'd let the market decide. Start with no restrictions. Get about 20 people clammering to offer service. Require them to provide all local channels. Watch three drop out (17 left). Require them to install or upgrade to a 65 channel system. Watch ten drop out (seven left). Require a maximum price of $9.95 per month for basic. Watch five drop out. (two left). Require a public access channel. Watch the current provider say "no" while the other one says "yes". Kick out the current, and let the new one take over. Now, how does the current company change? Well, one way is to say that whebn you put wires in, the government owns them, but the company must maintain them. (i.e., the wires are a gift to the government for the ability to broadcast). So when company A goes out, and B takes over, B brings in the broadcast equipment (and A sells their old stuff, hmm, they even have a ready market :-), and takes over. The wires don't change. Another way: Require the new company to pay an "assesed marked value" for the old company -- the value of the wires, the equipment in the office, etc, and then take over. Money would go to the shareholders of the old company -- they are being bought out. > The reason monoplies usually exist is because of some natural > tendency, usually a huge investment. In many areas like telephone, > cable, sewage, etc, there's just not enough room for more than one. Except that I don't belive this. Cable makes money. So much that there are LOTS of people who try to get the cable contract. Are you telling me that none of them would want to work in a two company town? Are you telling me that none would be willing to buy out the existing one in a one company town? > One problem with unregulated monopolies is service > availability. When was the last time you ordered telephone service or > electric service and were told: "we don't serve that area"? Now, who > has ordered cable and been told they were "outside the service area"? > The phone company tariffs say they *must* provide service; cable > companies often have no such requirement. They provide service only > where it is profitable for them to do so. So make one requirement "You must offer service to everyone in this area who asks for it." Allow charging extra for installation (the phone companies can charge extra for installation; they hit me for about $300 or so on my phones (four lines). Note that they also charge for service startup. Relevence to Telecom? Well, if you have GTE and Pac Bell trying to offer service to the same people, we might just see better rates. Michael michael@stb.info.com ------------------------------ From: Norman Yarvin Subject: Re: Another Proposed Tax Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1991 19:40:53 GMT [This is getting a bit far from telecom...] michael@stb.info.com (Michael Gersten) writes: > The big problem is that we actually have this now. In LA, we now have > a sales tax on newspapers. But free newspapers are taxed based on the > costs of producing them. > So, if you want to run off 100 copies of something on your laser > printer and distribute it, boy, pay the government its fee even if you > wanted to give it away free. This situation points out a basic conflict between the constitutional amendment (I forget which one) which allows the government to tax any form of commerce, and the rest of the Bill of Rights. For years the government has been using tax policy (in the form of tax breaks for some things, and heavy taxes for others) to 'implement social change' -- a most Breshnevian phrase. If people would spend one quarter the effort on eliminating this as we do on trying to profit from it, it could go away mighty quick. [Moderator's Note: Thanks to others who contributed to this thread, but it is too far afield to continue here. This final message has to close the thread where telecom is concerned. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joe Stein Subject: Re: USOC Standards (was ISO Standards) Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix Date: Sun, 11 Aug 91 19:31:28 GMT Where can one get a copy of the USOC book? I am curious as to what all it covers, and even more so, now. Thanks, Joseph W. Stein - Joseph.W.Stein@f377.n105.z1.fidonet.org -or- +1 503 643 0545 joes@techbook.com -or- joe@m2xenix.psg.com (voice) ------------------------------ From: Christopher Owens Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers Organization: University of Chicago Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1991 15:40:02 GMT In NIEBUHR@bnlcl6.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) writes: > [... Refused to give phone number to Radio Shack, and the clerk > brought up some screen of customer names and randomly issued the > receipt to one of those customers... ] > My feeling is that names and phone numbers SHOULD NOT EVER be given > out by merchants for any reason at all. > [Moderator's Note: Really I think your complaint is petty. The clerk > did not *give out phone numbers* as you contend. You really had no > business looking over at the terminal display since none of what was > on the screen concerned you anyway. [...] Pat, I think you may have missed Dave's point. The problem isn't that the names and numbers appeared on some screen, it's that the employee randomly picked an existing customer, recorded the sale in that customer's name, and then handed Dave a receipt with that customer's name, address, and phone number on it. So we've got two problems here. The first is that if someone buys a couple of gro-lite timers at Radio Shack with cash, there's a chance that the sale will get booked in my name, and the DEA will smash down my door looking for the indoor marijuana farm the gro-lites must have been for. And the second problem is that the gro-lite customer may really be a marijuana farmer, and when the DEA arrests him and finds the receipt in his wallet, they'll smash down my door again. Although my example may be a bit silly, I do agree with Dave that it's inappropriate for Radio Shack to randomly give out the names, addresses, and phone numbers of some of its customers to other of its customers. Christopher Owens Department of Computer Science 1100 East 58th Street The University of Chicago Chicago, IL 60637 owens@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (312) 702-2505 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #625 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06739; 14 Aug 91 4:36 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23015; 14 Aug 91 2:57 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05092; 14 Aug 91 1:51 CDT Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 1:21:51 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #626 BCC: Message-ID: <9108140121.ab02005@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 14 Aug 91 01:21:47 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 626 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Some Notes on CA "B" Roaming [Douglas Scott Reuben] Phast Phood [Jeff Sicherman] We Need Your Voices! [Yeshwant K. Muthusamy via Tad Cook] Bell Technical Journals [Jonathan Anderson] Keeping Pace With the Competition (was: Directory Assistance) [David Gast] Getting Refunds On 900 Numbers [mmm@cup.portal.com] Pac$Bel "Bonus Zone" [Nick Sayer] Australian Telephone Deregulation [David E. A. Wilson] Appropriate or Ironic? [mission!randy@uunet.uu.net] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12-AUG-1991 03:42:13.84 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Some Notes on CA "B" Roaming A while back I posted on how the California "B" systems seemed to be interconnected via their "Auto Access" *28/*29 system, and how this was similar to certain interconnections in the Northeast which were "DMXed" to each other. It was suggested (I forgot who it mentioned it) that the reason for the similarity was that many switches use Motorola EMX switches, which pass a good deal of information on to other EMX switches, as to the busy-status of caller, where they have their calls forwarded to, etc. After a bit of experimenting, I came up with this chart. All of the following is based on having "home" service with GTE/San Francisco, but I see no reason why this shouldn't work with other carriers as your "home" system, as long as they are in the CA/NV "Auto-Access" system. The "Busy" column indicates that if your phone is busy -- ie, you are talking on it and don't have Call-Waiting, or if someone is ringing you (directly or via most CA/NV roam ports) and you have not yet answered -- then calls to the specified port will also return a busy. The "Follow Me/CF" column indicates that if someone calls you via the specified system's roam port, and you have activated Follow Me Roaming or Call Forwarding (*72, not sure about *71), the port will forward calls as well, even if the port is not your home system's port. Thus: System Port# Switch-type Busy FMR/CF ------ ----- ----------- ---- ------ Santa Barbara (805-680) Motorola Yes Yes San Louis OBP (805-441) Motorola Yes Yes (both ports page either system as well) San Diego (619-540) Motorola Yes Yes Stockton/Modst(209-439) Motorola Yes No Bakersfield (805-838) AT&T No No (not to my knowledge an "Auto Access" system) Fresno/Visalia(209-246) AT&T No No (Ditto Bakersfield, but both ports will page either system) LA (213-718) Motorola Yes No Placerville (916-957) ??? Yes Yes Chico/Redding (916-520) Motorola Yes No Sac (916-539) Motorola Yes No Salinas/Mntry (408-671) Motorola Yes Yes San Francisco (415-722) Motorola Yes Yes (for non SF too???) Reno, NV (702-741) Motorola Yes No Las Vegas, NV (702-379) Motorola No No A few more notes: - Why is Las Vegas the only one that doesn't return a busy signal or follow FMR/CF? Did they get a switch upgrade recently to a non-Motorola? - Note that the only two systems (one really) that aren't on "Auto Access" are Fresno and Bakersfield, which use AT&T switches. This seems to confirm to an extent the notion that certain intricacies of the Motorola switch are responsible for these "features". -Many of the larger cities have multiple roam ports. For example, LA has: 213-718, 714-742, 619-567 (P. Springs), 818-400 (San Fernando Vly), and up north 805-657 for Ventura. SF has: 415-722, 707-483 (Napa, Vallejo, etc.), and 408-234 (San Jose). In my experience, you CAN'T use one system's roam port to call a customer in another CA or NV system (as you can in some cases in the "Motorola-ized" systems back East), but you CAN use a local roam port to you to call WITHIN the same system. Thus, if you have a friend in LA, but you work in San Francisco, calling the (local) SF port will NOT page anyone (home or roamer) in LA. However, if you have a friend with a GTE/SF, who has a 415 number, and you are down in San Jose, you can call the roam port in San Jose, and the person with the 415 number will be paged anyhow, as if you called him directly. Note that Voicemail, FMR, or any call-forwarding type service should also work this way, if it is WITHIN the same system. CF/FMR/etc. will also work outside the same system in the instances noted in the chart, but I haven't come across any situation where you can actually page/ring a person in another system. The only way you MAY be able to to this is as follows: Let's say you are in San Diego, whose port DOES follow all Call-Forwarding/FMR instructions. You want to call a GTE/SF customer who is driving in the GTE/SF system. IF the GTE/SF customer sets Call-Fowarding or No-Answer- Transfer to *his own number*, then a call to the San Diego port will have the port look to where calls are forwarded, see it is to a GTE/SF number, and thus the port will then proceed to ring that number. The GTE/Sf cusotmer may be billed DOUBLE airtime for this: once for the Call-Forwarding to himself, and the other for the actual airtime talking. (To forward to yourself, you may have to leave the SF system, and forward it from another system, using Auto-Access, since the SF system seems to refuse to allow you to forward calls to yourself.) Please note that my experimental evidence suggests that if you use this method -- ie, using a port that "pays attention" to call- forwarding/FMR to save toll charges so you don't have to call the mobile number directly (at toll rates) - then you MAY be forcing the system whose port you are using to pay for the call. That is, if you use the San Diego port to call a GTE/SF customer who has forwarded his calls to New York, what SEEMS to happen is the SD port checks out with SF where your calls are forwarded to, and then, rather than send the call to SF, dials the call DIRECTLY to the forwarded number, thus, the SD system PAYS for the call to NY, rather than the SF system, which would have been the case had you dialed the SF number directly. Many systems may block this process for these reasons, eg, LA. Most of this IS just experimental evidence - No one has ever confirmed this. It is incredible how little the cell companies seem to know about this. I talked to a switch-tech at the Chico system (figured they wouldn't be too busy there! :) ), and he had NO idea what I was talking about ... he thought it absurd that the switch would behave that way! Anyhow, the Auto-Access system adds yet another layer on to this (it MAY let you get calls all over CA and NV via any port - haven't tried this yet), so don't use Auto-Access if you try any of this out. (Or if you do, let me know how it works out for you ...) Happy roaming! Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Aug 91 01:17:42 -0700 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Phast Phood Organization: Cal State Long Beach According to this week's {Network World}, Domino's is teaming with AT&T and Bell Laboratories (getting a Pizza the action?) to develop a service that will route a phone call to a single nationwide number to the store closest to the caller. It's called the Store Locator Service by AT&T (StoreFinder by Domino's) and will replace Domino's current system which uses regional telemarketing centers for order taking and distribution. It will use a 950 number: 950-1430 (gee, that doesn't spell anything on the keypad) to pass the call and ANI data from the local switch to AT&T nearest POP (point of Presence). Instead of reaching the switch they will be routed to a Transaction Services' Store Locator Service Node (couldn't they come up with something that has a decent acronym ?) The node is comprised of a networked microcomputers containing a copy of Domino's database (another invasion of our privacy ... now I know what they meant in those old movies by 'cheese it - it's the cops') and a unit called a Digital Link Slicer, err Splicer, built by Bell Labs. The splicer holds the call while the ANI information is matched against the database to locate the caller (a previous customer) and determine the nearest store. If a match is found, the phone number of the store is retrieved and dialed and passed to the splicer witch 'splices' the incoming call with the outgoing one to the store. (Their description, not mine). If a match is not made, the area code and three-digit exchange are used to select a 'default' store for routing. Using special point-of-sale terminals connected to the system, Domino's stores can update the database if the wrong store was selected by this scheme or update the database when the order is taken. Performance is targeted for 99.92% of calls to be connected to a store in 11 seconds or less. (That seems like a lot of rings, or do we get opera-on-hold ?) If the trials are sucessful and Domino's accepts the system, the company will have 190 service nodes nationwide operational in 49 states (who's the lucky one?) within two years. By using the automatic routing directly to stores the company will be able to eliminate the regional telemarketing currently in use and by having a single phone number it can reduce advertising costs both by common ads and by reduced yellow pages space since separate listings for each store will not be necessary. (Do we really have enough 950-series numbers for all the franchises in this country and what about when the national and regional religious organizations find out about this? In some ways, isn't this sort of a private 911-like service ?) [Moderator's Note: Only 49 states? I think there's no Domino Pizza in Alaska because that state has a law against driving an old junked-up machine faster than 85 miles an hour on municipal streets. :) Is it true Domino's is trying to cut the delivery time down to fifteen minutes in midtown Manhattan during the evening rush hour? :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: yeshwant@ogicse.cse.ogi.edu (Yeshwant K Muthusamy) Subject: We Need Your Voices! Date: 5 Aug 91 23:16:58 GMT Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR [Moderator's Note: Tad Cook passed this along. PAT] I had posted this request about a month ago on this group. I am posting again since I haven't reached my goal of at least 100 calls per language yet. The current tally stands at 50 calls per language on the average. Still a long ways to go. So, if you haven't called yet, PLEASE DO! (see notice below) For those of you who did call and record their voices, a big THANK YOU! I appreciate your help! If anyone has (had) any problems with the call or recording, please send e-mail to yeshwant@cse.ogi.edu, or call (503) 690-1431. Yeshwant WE NEED YOUR VOICE!! at The Center for Spoken Language Oregon Graduate Institute If you are a NATIVE speaker of one of the following languages: English Korean Farsi Mandarin Chinese French Spanish German Tamil Japanese Vietnamese We need your help in building a multi-language database of speech recorded over the TELEPHONE. This database is to be used for my PhD thesis research on automatic language identification. There is a local area number for the Portland (Oregon) metropolitan area: PLEASE CALL (503) 690-1012 For non-Portlanders, we have set up a TOLL-FREE line (for the US and Canada) that is open round-the-clock: PLEASE CALL 1-800-441-1077 You will need a touch-tone phone for this call. A pre-recorded message in your native language will guide you through a recording session. Please respond to the prompts in your native language only. The entire call will take about five minutes. The speech that you provide will be used for research purposes only. **ALL CALLERS REMAIN ANONYMOUS**. This research is not being funded by any agency or company. This database is public-domain and will be made available to any one interested in speech research. If you have any questions or comments, or would like more information about this project, call Yeshwant Muthusamy at (503) 690-1431. Please pass on this message to others at your site who do not have net access. THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP! Yeshwant Muthusamy Internet: yeshwant@cse.ogi.edu Center for Spoken Language UUCP: ...!ogicse!yeshwant Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology 19600 NW Von Neumann Drive Beaverton, OR 97006-1999 USA Vmail: (503) 690-1431 ------------------------------ Subject: Bell Technical Journals From: selene@osystem.pdx.com, 7@uunet.uu.net Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 08:53:31 PDT Organization: League For The Open Information Forum I remember reading somewhere that Bell offered thier "Technical Information" in the form of journals. Whatever I read never bothered to quote any sources. If you have any ideas, please send them to me. Thanks, selene@osystem.pdx.com (Jonathan Anderson) Voice: +1 503 682 3731 Jonathan Anderson @ 1:105/291.2.fidonet.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 23:35:33 -0700 From: David Gast Subject: Keeping Pace with the Competition (was Directory Assistance) > The increase should net AT&T an extra $830,000 per year, an increase > which was sought "to keep pace with competition in the long-distance > trade" according to AT&T officials (by way of the {Sun-Sentinel}). An interesting comment. Higher revenues are needed "to keep pace with [the] competition." I thought lower prices were usually the result when one tries to keep up with the competition. David ------------------------------ From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.uu.net Subject: Getting Refunds On 900 Numbers Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 21:43:32 PDT It was my impression that Pac*Bell had a policy to refund the first months 900 numbers when call blocking was installed. A friend of mine's kids recently discovered these numbers, and ran up a bill. I told her to see if the phone company would take it off, but they refused. Can anyone tell me what the policy is? ------------------------------ From: Nick Sayer Subject: Pac$Bel "Bonus Zone"? Organization: The Duck Pond public unix, Stockton, CA Date: 13 Aug 1991 17:06:35 UTC Could someone help me out here? Pac$Bel has been pushing their "Bonus Zone" thing for a while now, and I've not heard anything here about it. I am 99% sure without even asking about it that it is a scam. Think about it. You have no choice but to use Pac$Bel for the calls to this so-called bonus zone. What incentive does Pac$Bel have for saving you money? Answer: none. If it's not going to save you money, what's the point? If it _IS_ saving you money, then where is the revinue being made up? Money doesn't grow on trees -- it has to come from somewhere. If Pac$Bel can afford to let people save money on some calls, it means it's getting enough money that it could lower EVERYONE'S rates instead. Nick Sayer mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us N6QQQ 209-952-5347 (Telebit) ------------------------------ From: david@cs.uow.edu.au (David E A Wilson) Subject: Australian Telephone Deregulation Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia Date: Tue, 13 Aug 91 23:43:22 GMT A small article in yesterday's newspaper announced how Australians will access the second carrier for STD calls -- the number will be prefixed by the digit 1. So to ring a Sydney number (02) 234 5678 via the second carrier (which has not yet been chosen) I would dial 1 02 234 5678. This choice will become available after the 1st of January. Aussat is already advertising international calls to New Zealand at a cheaper rate than OTC. They have been given the prefix 0099 (calls via OTC use 0011 or 0015 for voice & fax calls respectively) followed by 64 (the NZ country code) or 00 (the test if you can use this service code). David Wilson Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong david@cs.uow.edu.au ------------------------------ From: mission!randy@uunet.uu.net Subject: Appropriate or Ironic? Date: Tue Aug 13 14:16:31 1991 On a desolate stretch of Pacific Coast Highway between Corona Del Mar and Laguna Beach, there are no cell sites (cell phones go dead). A highway sign indicates that litter removal in the area is being done (on a volunteer basis) by the Telephone Pioneers of [went by too fast to read it]. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #626 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09891; 14 Aug 91 5:42 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05491; 14 Aug 91 4:03 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23015; 14 Aug 91 2:57 CDT Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 1:56:51 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #627 BCC: Message-ID: <9108140156.ab30636@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 14 Aug 91 01:56:26 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 627 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Ringing Current For Old WE 300 Desk Set [Herman R. Silbiger] Re: Ringing Current For Old WE 300 Desk Set [Terry Kennedy] Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Ed Hopper] Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? [Daniel Herrick] Re: Message Waiting Indicator [Mickey Ferguson] Re: US-Canada Calling Cards [Charlie Mingo] Re: What Number CLID Transmits [Tom Lowe] Re: Converting Old Phone With Four Wires to Three Wires [Barton F. Bruce] Re: Information Wanted on Dutch Phone [Herman R. Silbiger] Re: International 800 Calling [Steve Forrette] Cheap 1200 Baud Modems [mission!randy@uunet.uu.net] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 21:23:56 EDT From: Herman R Silbiger Subject: Re: Ringing Current For Old WE 300 Desk Set Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article , daved@hplsla.lsid.hp.com (Dave Dintenfass) writes: > Among other assorted hobbies, one of my interests is restoring old > telephones -- specifically, Western Electric 500 and 300 desk sets. > Several years ago, I cleaned up a plastic 300 desk set and gave it to > a friend of my wife's. Although the phone worked just fine at my > house (where I tested it beforehand), it would never ring when I > installed it at the friend's house. As it was her only phone, she > missed a number of phone calls (!). I don't have the answer to your question, but if you are going to use old 302 sets, or any set older than the 500 set in actual service, you should soldera varistor (104A or 100A) across the receiver. The purpose of the varistor is to reduce the annoyance from clicks and loud tones that occasionally occur in the telephone. These are usually due nowadays to external disturbances such a lightning etc. Without varistor protection these clicks can be very loud, although not damaging. Herman Silbiger ------------------------------ From: Terry Kennedy Subject: Re: Ringing Current For Old WE 300 Desk Set Date: 12 Aug 91 17:23:27 GMT Organization: St. Peter's College, US In article , daved@hplsla.lsid.hp.com (Dave Dintenfass) writes: > I have installed 300 desk sets in a number of other places and have > never had this problem elsewhere. I suspect the model 300 ringer > requires more current than the model 500, and that her central office > could not supply the required amount of ringer current. Yes. In "Installation and Operations in the Bell System", a passing men- tion is made that the 300 (and earlier sets in general) cannot be used on some subscriber lines, due to loss in the cable. This is in the section on outside plant planning. If anybody is really interested, I can go dig up the page reference. Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing terry@spcvxa.bitnet St. Peter's College, US terry@spcvxa.spc.edu (201) 915-9381 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road From: ED HOPPER Date: Mon 12 Aug 91 10:01:25 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, TX - 713-997-7575 > [Moderator's Note: That's what makes the Illinois Bell scheme for > northern Illinois so great. All city boundary lines and area code > boundaries are ignored. Everyone gets about eight miles in every > direction as their 'local' area. We get everything in our own CO, and > the COs which directly connect with our own. Those calls are untimed. > The next level out is the 'B' zone, then 'C' and 'D' zones follow. > Everyone's level of zones begins with themselves at the center or > starting point. Couldn't be fairer! PAT] Nonsense! It amazes me that people in the northeast (and to us, Chicago is "northeast") and on the left coast sit still for this royal screwing they get from the telcos called measured service. Wow! Eight whole miles. The Houston free calling area is at least fifty (50) miles in each direction. It includes 3.5 million people. Basic local service is about $12 for unlimited calling throughout that area from SW Bell. Virtually all offices are electronic. Facilities are readily available (I have five lines at home and all it took to install them was a new buried drop of fifty feet from terminal box to the house). And on top of all that, the Texas PUC says that SWBT is OVER-charging us and owes us a refund! It's the same story throughout Texas. And not just in Texas. Only the most extreme calls (i.e., far west to far east, etc) in Denver and Phoenix carry toll charges. Atlanta is also a large free call area. Costs are NOT radically different. SWBT, US West and Southern Bell are all paying basically the same CWA Union wages as Illinois Bell and Pac Tel. They all buy at about the same prices from AT&T Network Systems, Northern Telecom, etc. So what's the deal? Why aren't those of you in the oppressed areas out raising hell against your telco with the PUC while pointing at southern and western states that do not have these oppressive charges?? It would seem to me to be a far more productive expenditure of energy than carping about Touch-Tone(tm) charges and Caller ID. Ed Hopper [Moderator's Note: But where you pay $12 for unlimited local service, we only pay about $4.50 for line access, and about 3.9 cents for each untimed call in our local zone. For the $6-7 difference, we can get a lot of untimed local calls. Calls to the B, C, or D zones run about four cents a minute. So the application has to be considered, but I wind up paying proportionatly less now than I did under the old unlimited plan here several years ago which covered all of northeastern Illinois. PAT] ------------------------------ From: herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com Subject: Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? Date: 12 Aug 91 12:40:33 EST In article , localhost!jerry@uu.psi.com (Jerry Gitomer) writes: > their entirety if any fields are changed. This is why the postal > service had to back down on Zip + 4. But the Postal Service did not back down on Zip + 4. Don't you notice the mail that comes to you with 9 digit Zips? I think those silly Radio Shack catalogs come to my residence with nine-digit Zip codes. I've never taken the trouble to learn the nine digits for that address -- I try to get mail to come to a POBox. At least one piece of mail has reached the POBox with the only useful address info being 44061-1419. dan herrick dlh@NCoast.org [Moderator's Note: I frequently get envelopes in the mail with the only thing on the front of the envelope being '60690-1570'. That is my unique nine-digit zip. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 10:55:21 PDT From: Mickey Ferguson Subject: Re: Message Waiting Indicator The general solution proposed by Roy Stehle sounds pretty good. One thing he said he couldn't handle was where a message is sent through the voice mail system network instead of by the ring-no-answer condition. (Summary of his problem statement, anyway.) There is also another condition which isn't handled - that of busy forwarding. Say I'm on the phone talking to someone, and you try to call me. Instead of getting a busy signal, you will get my voice mail and leave me a message. Well, one idea comes to mind, but it may or may not be acceptable and/or allowable due to telecom regulations. One could build a device which would go off-hook every minutes (where is whatever you think is appropriate - say 15 minutes) and listen to the dial tone. If it hears broken dial tone, it can set the message waiting indication. Of course it only does this if message waiting isn't already set. And this is more fool-proof than just detecting that someone called and setting the LED, because people often call but never leave a message. Mickey Ferguson Rolm Systems fergusom@scrvm2.vnet.ibm.com ------------------------------ From: Charlie Mingo Date: 12 Aug 91 14:17:28 Subject: Re: US-Canada Calling Cards In the TELECOM Digest, ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (David Ash) writes: > Does anyone know of a long-distance U.S. calling card available to > people without a home phone which can be used for *domestic* calls > within Canada (where I travel frequently)? My PacBell card used to > allow this, but since Stanford took over my on-campus phone service, > I've lost my PacBell card. Neither my MCI nor Sprint cards work for > domestic calls within Canada, although they will allow U.S. - Canada > calls in either direction. I've used my AT&T Universal Card to make long distance calls within Canada (Bell Canada territory mostly). In the US, there is supposed to be equal access to all IXC's; but in Canada, AT&T is still treated as THE American phone company. Maritime Tel & Tel calling cards work for US domestic calls on AT&T and MCI, but not on Sprint. (When I tried to place a credit card call on Sprint, the operator came on and told me to dial "10288" first! Doesn't Sprint provide dial-0 credit card service? The operator claimed that the "1-800" service worked only for Sprint cards.) ------------------------------ From: tlowe@attmail.com Date: Mon Aug 12 08:07:52 EDT 1991 Subject: Re: What Number CLID Transmits It was said that ANI uses the billing and CLID uses the actual calling number. My experience has shown no consistancy regarding ANI and CLID. In our lab, we have some outgoing only trunks. Each are assigned a local phone number for administrative reasons, but they all report one number. The number that they report is simply a field in the translation tables at the 5ESS office. I know this because when they were first installed, I couldn't place inter-lata calls on a couple of the lines (including 800 calls or 10xxx calls). I called an operator and it turned out that she was seeing my number as being "946-wxy-z000". It sould have read 908-946-wxyz. I reported the trouble and got a call back from a tech. It turns out someone had entered the number incorrectly into the database. I asked him if he could make them all display the same number and he could. I had him use one of the numbers in my DID group which is supposedly billed seperately from the outbound trunks. Now, when I call my office line from one of these trunks (my office line is an ISDN phone that shows caller ID) it doesn't see the number, even though the 946 exchange is Caller ID capable. I do get ID from regular 946 numbers. However, if I call my 800 number that gives ANI, I get the number I asked them to put into the database. At home, I have two lines that are billed on the same bill, but ANI gives the actual number I'm calling from. I don't know about Caller ID yet ... the exchange isn't Caller ID capable yet. Some hotels give the main hotel number, and some give a random trunk number. I forgot to try it from a GTE Airphone to see what I get, but I will next time I have the opportunity. I am hesitant to publish my ANI demo number to the world, however, in the interest of learning more about the behavior of ANI, I will be willing to give it to individuals who send me a request. If you do request it, PLEASE don't publish it anywhere. I will have to disconnect it if it gets abused. Please send me any interesting findings and I will post a summary to the Digest. Tom Lowe AT&T Bell Labs Holmdel, NJ 908-949-0428 attmail!tlowe (or tel@hound.ATT.COM) ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Converting Old Phone With Four Wires to Three Wires Date: 12 Aug 91 21:20:43 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , rog@dtc.hp.com (Roger Haaheim) writes: > I have an old pulse dial phone I'd like to convert to the modular type > connector but I haven't the foggiest idea what to do with the extra Get a modular to spade lug cord at (sorry, but they are sometimes handy) R/S, and connect the red and green to where the previous red and green went in the phone. If it won't ring, connect the whatever internal wire went to the old cord's yellow to the new green line wire's connection. Just tape up the black and yellow line wires from the new cord. If you really want to CONVERT the phone to have a modular jack on the rear, you could buy the punch and template kit GMP sells, but only do it if you have MANY MANY to do. Get a nibbler with a sample phone to compare and measure from works. Then just buy the phone end jack and wire as above and use with mod-plug to mod-plug cords. You can also BUY complete color change kits that also upgrade to modular, but the distributors that specialise in such things (try North Supply) probably WON'T sell to you and anyone that can buy there won't bother unless you want LOTS of them. You can also buy a fat clunky modular plug that takes the spade lugs on the end of your existing cord. I DON'T like this clunky approach, but it may be what you want. You can BUY bulk modular cordage cheap, and an SE-xxx tool resold by R/S to install mod plugs is about $7. The spade lugs for the far end deserve mention. They must be insulation piercing ones and bless their greedy high-markup selves, R/S sells these special lugs! and the NECESSARY (to do a reliable job) tool for $8 that also is a good precision uninsulated lug crimping tool with a multi-cavity die that does a nicer job on random lugs than many more expensive tools. All this is only necessary if you need lots of random size mod cords at odd hours. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 21:14:31 EDT From: Herman R Silbiger Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Dutch Phone Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article , guy@odi.com (Guy Hillyer) writes: > I have an old black bakelite dial phone with the legend "Made in > Holland" on the bottom. It also has metal badges on either side of > the case. One of them has the letters "PTT" in a circle, while the > other is a bell with the word "STANDARD" underneath. > Inside, a schematic diagram appears on a paper label along with the > words: > TAFELTOESTEL STANDARD MET AARDTOETS TYPE 1954 Htf 2211 BPZ Translation: table(top) apparatus STANDARD with grounding key etc. The STANDARD refers to the manufacturer, Standard Electric, an ITT subsidiary at that time. I thinks that's all part of Alcatel now. > There is a small white button directly below the dial on the front of > the case. Does anyone recognize this phone? I'd be interested to > know its vintage (1954?) and of course I'm curious about the intended > function of the little white button, which does nothing anymore as far > as I can tell. The white button can function as a switchhook flash. They are very common on European subscriber sets. There is also a way to hook two sets up to the same line with a buzzer and use the white button for signaling. I have a 1963 vintage Netherlands PTT set made by HEEMAF, a Dutch manufacturer better known for electric motors and switchgear. Herman Silbiger hsilbiger@attmail.com ------------------------------ From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: International 800 Calling Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF) Date: Tue 13 Aug 1991 00:00:00 GMT >> 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. This reminds me of yet another way that AT&T sets itself above all the others in service -- call completion assistance to 800 numbers. Any AT&T operator will give you call completion assistance to an AT&T 800 number if you are having technical problems. The other carriers' operators can't do anything for any 800 number, not even their own. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: mission!randy@uunet.uu.net Subject: Cheap 1200 Baud Modems Date: Tue Aug 13 14:21:28 1991 A recent post mentioned 1200 baud modems from Damark. Does anyone have a number for them? Will these work with any RS232 port? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #627 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10035; 14 Aug 91 5:45 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05491; 14 Aug 91 4:08 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac23015; 14 Aug 91 2:57 CDT Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 2:36:21 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #628 BCC: Message-ID: <9108140236.ab25588@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 14 Aug 91 02:35:51 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 628 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Pac*Bell is Eager to Begin [Nick Sayer] Re: Pac*Bell is Eager to Begin [Wayne D. Correia] Re: U.S.- Canada Calling Cards [David Leibold] Re: Email From Space [Byron Han] Re: Why Don't Third Party Payphones Beep? [Jim Gottlieb] Re: Information Wanted on Dutch Phone [Peter Knoppers] Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online? [Terry Hardy] Re: USOC Standards (was ISO Standards) [Laird Broadfield] Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext [Steve Forrette] Re: Hackers Mail-Bomb Shuttle! [John Henders] Standards Activity on Radio WANS in US, Japan [Lindsay Wakeman] What Are 700 Numbers Used For? [Dave Marthouse] OKI 900 Cellular Phone Acts as a Pager? How? [Eric Thompson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Nick Sayer Subject: Re: Pac*Bell is Eager to Begin Organization: The Duck Pond public unix, Stockton, CA Date: 13 Aug 1991 16:36:24 UTC I just have to write in support of Mr. Higdon's observations. PG&E (the Northern California power utility) doesn't make stoves and light bulbs. Cable companies don't sell TVs or take orders for the Cable Shopping Channel. Water companies don't sell toilets or fix plumbing. What makes the telephone company so special? I'm sorry. They can either be a regulated monopoly or they can compete. If they want to compete, then that means there should be at least one other company that I can call up to hook up my two demarcs and send me dialtone. And those two companies will have to talk to each other so that the number I dial is handled transparently whether it is company A or B. If this took place, then perhaps leased-line prices would drop by 50% or so. That would truly bring the Internet to the people. But that's another topic. Nick Sayer mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us N6QQQ 209-952-5347 (Telebit) ------------------------------ From: "Wayne D. Correia (408/974-6500" Subject: Re: Pac*Bell is Eager to Begin Date: 13 Aug 91 23:15:10 GMT Organization: Apple Computer, Inc., System Software Eng., Cupertino, CA, USA In article , john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > If anyone enjoys the prospect of having one huge company having direct > control over many aspects of people's daily lives, he should be > feeling really good right about now. It looks like Pac*Bell will be > taking good care of us in very short order. And with money we thought > was supposed to be used to provide us with basic phone service, at > that. This makes me really sad. All I really want right now is Caller*ID, basic rate ISDN, and good LEC service. This is all stuff that I can't get anywhere else, and all they want to sell me is something I really don't need. Maybe they should get out of the LEC business and go forth into their brave new world as a regular competitor instead of my Phone Company. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Aug 91 21:23:49 EDT From: David Leibold Subject: Re: U.S.- Canada Calling Cards David Ash (ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu) wrote about the difficulties of getting an intra-Canada call billed on a long distance carrier's card. The CRTC (Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission) recently reaffirmed restrictions on routing calls within Canada via the U.S.; this is generally aimed at Canadian companies trying to link with U.S. carriers in order to make calls back into Canada, but it would seem that MCI is restricted from carrying Canada-Canada traffic as well. I have seen payphones that accept AT&T's calling cards in Toronto; I can't say whether or not this would be valid for all card dialing in Canada. I successfully used a Southern Bell (telco) calling card in Toronto a few days ago, although a manual operator verification is needed after the card number is dialed. As for the situation where the university takes over local billing and that, all I can think of is to try to get a calling card from PacBell which is not tied to a subscriber line. This is sometimes possible depending on the jurisdiction. The state public services commission or whatever is the regulating body should also be made aware of this shortfall in dialing/billing capability, as well as the university administration involved. 1 800 950 1022 (MCI) and 1 800 877 8000 (Sprint) access numbers should work from Canada for Canada-U.S. calls, however. I'll likely find out for certain over the next few weeks. dleibold@attmail.com Temporary: dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ From: Byron Han Subject: Re: Email From Space Date: 13 Aug 91 10:26:23 GMT Organization: Apple Computer, Inc. In article kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co. jp!trebor@uunet.uu.net (Robert J Woodhead) writes: > Anyone at least peripherally familiar with the history and culture of > NASA will be quick to tell you that NASA is never interested in > easier, cheaper methods. Complicated, expensive methods that justify > the existance (and budgets) of hordes of administrative personnel are > much preferred. Before flaming, please make sure you have all of the facts straight. The data path described is indeed the simplest possible with respect to the twin constraints of minimizing crew training time and minimizing software development time. Byron Han, Software Artisan Apple Computer, Inc. 20525 Mariani Ave, MS: 81NC Internet: han@apple.COM Cupertino, CA 95014 AppleLink: HAN1 HAN1@applelink.apple.COM Phone: 1.408.974.6450 CompuServe: 72167,1664 ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: Why Don't Third Party Payphones Beep? Date: 13 Aug 91 04:59:14 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan In article linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) writes: > BTW, will the AT&T blue phones also be required to provide 10XXX > access to other carriers? They've generally been quite nasty about > blocking any attempt to use any other carrier. > [Moderator's Note: The AT&T 'blue phones' (I assume you mean the > charge-a-call units) are *NOT* operated by an LEC or an AOS. Nevertheless, I have noticed that the AT&T Card Caller Plus telephones (the ones with a CRT in them) now allow access to 950 numbers and 10XXX dialing. They did not in the past. But I'm also not sure whether they are considered to be LEC-operated or not. They don't fall under the COCOT tariff. Maybe AT&T added 950 and 10XXX because they felt it would be hypocritical to complain of phones that block such access while their own phones did. ------------------------------ From: Peter Knoppers Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Dutch Phone Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dep. of Electrical engineering Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1991 16:02:43 GMT In comp.dcom.telecom Guy Hillyer (guy@odi.com) writes: > I have an old black bakelite dial phone with the legend "Made in > Holland" on the bottom. It also has metal badges on either side of ... > There is a small white button directly below the dial on the front of > the case. Does anyone recognize this phone? I'd be interested to > know its vintage (1954?) and of course I'm curious about the intended > function of the little white button, which does nothing anymore as far > as I can tell. I don't know the year that this particular phone was made (the year that is was designed is probably printed on that schematic), but I do know the function of the white button. This button is used with PBXs to put a connection on/off hold. It shorts the /a/ wire (or /b/, I'm not sure which one) to earth. Earth is the green wire, /a/ is red, /b/ is blue, /eb/ is yellow. For normal operation (on an ordinary phone line) you must to connect /b/ to /eb/ (to enable the ringer). You can also connect an external ringer between /b/ and /eb/. The thing should work when connected to an American phone line. To do this you should connect a to tip and b to ring (or vice versa, this doesn't matter). The e wire can be left unconnected. Peter Knoppers - knop@duteca.et.tudelft.nl ------------------------------ From: Terry Hardy Subject: Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online? Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 00:03:59 PDT NPA 213 NXX's that will change to NPA 310 on 11/02/91: 201-210, 212, 214-220, 246, 247, 270, 271, 273-282, 284-289, 297, 301, 302, 305, 306, 312-320, 322-338, 348, 352, 354, 363, 364, 370-379, 390-399, 401-404, 406-410, 412, 414, 416, 417, 419-459, 470-479, 490-499, 510, 512, 519, 521-524, 527, 529, 553, 556, 559, 568, 570-578, 590-599, 601-609, 615, 616, 618, 630-635, 637-649, 652, 657, 659, 670-677, 679, 690-699, 715, 719, 761-764, 767-769, 781-785, 787, 788, 791-799, 801-804, 806, 807, 809, 812-814, 816, 820-842, 854, 855, 858-869, 886, 898, 902-908, 914, 920-929, 940-949, 967, 970, 973, 978, 980-989 NXX's duplicated in 213 and 310 include 520 (choke), 554 (weather), 555, 853 (time), 950, and 976. Permissive dialing ends 05/02/92. ------------------------------ From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) Subject: Re: USOC Standards (was ISO Standards) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1991 19:48:46 GMT In sequent!techbook.com!joes@uunet. uu.net (Joe Stein) writes: > One of the questions I have had for a long time is what is 'USOC' and > are any references available? > [Moderator's Note: USOC = 'Universal Service Order Codes'. These were > the official names or titles for every possible type of service and/or > configuration you could get from the telco. When you asked for a > certain obscure feature or type of service, the Bell rep would > sometimes have to look in the USOC book to find the correct way to > write up the order. PAT] Okay, so where do we lay hands on a USOC book? We've all picked up the standard ones from dealing with them for so long (11, 14, 21X, 45, 13C ...) but where is the master reference? Inquiring minds want to know! I've looked in Bellcore and AT&T catalogs; is USOC qua USOC an obsolete referent? (BTW, why is it *so* difficult to beat the available features out of the local reps? "Can I get BCF/RNA forwarding on a residential line?" "Ummmm, what?" (five minutes of hold later) "Okay, can it go off centrex?" "Ummmm.... I dunno." Pathetic*Bell strikes again (or do the rest of you get this too?)) Laird P. Broadfield UUCP: {ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 23:51:58 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF) In article Macy Hallock writes: > 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. Come now, Macy! I don't think you've given the telcos a fair chance at explaining themselves. Take Pacific Bell for instance. You've got your facts all wrong! First of all, they don't let you dial 10XXX for intra-LATA calls; there's NO way to route these calls to an IXC, unless you're really sneaky. Second of all, there's a good reason why the intra-LATA long distance rates are so high. I was recently looking into a calling plan for such calls from Pacific Bell, and asked why a call from 916/983 to 916/753 cost as much as a call to New York City (completely accros the continent), when this call was only 35 miles? The rep gave me a very straightforward answer -- "it actually costs more to complete a call of a shorter distance!" I knew there had to be a good reason! Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu [Moderator's Note: What she *really* meant to say was that telco has long enjoyed a very cozy relationship with regulators in your state, and this cozy relationship allows the telco to set quite high rates. Very seldom do state PUC's not just rubber-stamp what telco tells them. The relationship with the FCC is more even-handed however. PAT ------------------------------ From: John Henders Subject: Re: Hackers Mail-Bomb Shuttle! Organization: Wimsey Associates Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1991 10:01:08 GMT If I read the Abernathy article, and the prior article it was based on properly, I beleive they both stated that the address given was for a ground based mail box, and that there was no guarantee that the astronauts would read the e-mail while aboard the shuttle. It would seem that either someone hacked a real forwarded address to the shuttle, or there's a bit of exageration going on. John Henders Vancouver,B.C. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Aug 91 14:40:21-0000 From: Lindsay Wakeman Subject: Standards Activity on Radio WANS in US, Japan I AM POSTING THIS ON BEHALF OF A FRIEND WITH NO CURRENT NETWORK ACCESS What is happening - if anything - in the standardisation of protocols for Wide Area Radio-based packet networks for data transmission (i.e. Aloha and its descendants)? I need references to papers, reports of progress, and contacts with which to discuss any US or Japanese activity and to exchange information on what is happening in Europe. Any related activity - - Circuit-swicthed radio data nets if data provision is more than just an add-on to digitised voice. - Packet-switched radio LANs, but only if the technology is thought to be adaptable to wide area use. - is also of interest. Any archives which contain information about current standardisation might also be useful. All contributions gratefully received! Will summarise to net if sufficient interest. Thanks. ------------------------------ From: Dave Marthouse Subject: What Are 700 Numbers Used For? Date: 10 Aug 91 12:58:26 GMT Organization: Overleaf Systems, Inc. Fords, NJ I know that 800 numbers are free and 900 numbers are pay services. What about 700 numbers? I know that 1-700-555-4141 will let you know what long distance company is being used as the dial 1 company. Does the 700 areacode have any other uses? Dave Marthouse Internet: n2aam@kb2ear.ampr.org or, n2aam@overlf.uucp Fidonet: dave marthouse 1:107/323 Amateur Packet Radio ax.25 n2aam @ w2emu-4.nj.usa.na [Moderator's Note: Most long distance carriers have stuff going on in the 700 area. AT&T has their Alliance Teleconferencing there; Telecom USA has the Voice News Network there; there are others. 700 numbers can be free or cost a fortune: each carrier can do what they want with their portion of 700. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Aug 91 18:17:05 -0700 From: Eric Thompson Subject: OKI 900 Cellular Phone Acts as a Pager? How? I've heard and read that the OKI 900 acts as a pager by allowing a caller to leave a phone number instead. Am I correct in assuming that the phone picks up after a certain number of rings and prompts the caller for a number? Thus incurring .. a minute of airtime? If anyone has one or knows how they work and could explain how this works to me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Eric Thompson et@ocf.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #628 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10417; 15 Aug 91 1:22 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23535; 14 Aug 91 23:40 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12413; 14 Aug 91 22:32 CDT Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 21:52:21 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #629 BCC: Message-ID: <9108142152.ab31556@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 14 Aug 91 21:52:08 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 629 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Phast Phood [Jeff Carroll] Re: Phast Phood [Guy Helmer] Re: Phast Phood [Peter Thurston] Re: Phast Phood [Mickey Ferguson] Re: Email From Space [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: Email From Space [Christopher Gillett] ATT Univeral Card; ATT Marketing; Magic Codewords [Mike Newton] Re: What Are 700 Numbers Used For? [Bill Huttig] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Phast Phood Date: 14 Aug 91 19:15:25 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics In article sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: > (Do we really have enough 950-series numbers for all the franchises > in this country and what about when the national and regional > religious organizations find out about this? In some ways, isn't > this sort of a private 911-like service ?) Domino's is fairly unique in its position as a coast-to-coast vendor of fast-food-delivered-to-the-door. My guess is that there's a limited market for this service, and that Domino's is the most appropriate lead customer. Until McDonalds starts home delivery, this wouldn't make sense for them. Pizza Hut already has tried something like this in the Seattle area; my wife and I were on a Pizza Hut kick at the time, and were frequent customers until I called and discovered that although I live within two miles of two different Pizza Huts, they weren't equipped to deliver to my house. This could turn out to be a significant factor in the success of the Domino's project; although they are now located coast-to-coast, a large percentage - maybe even a majority - of Americans don't live within delivery range of a Domino's franchise, and this will (or should) limit Domino's willingness to advertise this new capability on network TV. What will the system do with pizza orders from Humptulips, Washington, or Green River, Wyoming? > [Moderator's Note: Only 49 states? I think there's no Domino Pizza in > Alaska because that state has a law against driving an old junked-up > machine faster than 85 miles an hour on municipal streets. :) Is it > true Domino's is trying to cut the delivery time down to fifteen > minutes in midtown Manhattan during the evening rush hour? :) PAT] During traffic jams in my neighborhood, I've seen Domino's people doing a brisk business in curbside pizza. That seems to be an effective way to minimize delivery time. Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: Guy Helmer Subject: Re: Phast Phood Organization: Dakota State University Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1991 13:52:42 GMT In sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: > The node is comprised of a networked microcomputers containing a copy > of Domino's database (another invasion of our privacy ... now I know > what they meant in those old movies by 'cheese it - it's the cops') > and a unit called a Digital Link Slicer, err Splicer, built by Bell > Labs. The splicer holds the call while the ANI information is matched > against the database to locate the caller (a previous customer) and > determine the nearest store. If a match is found, the phone number of > the store is retrieved and dialed and passed to the splicer which > 'splices' the incoming call with the outgoing one to the store. (Their > description, not mine). Is Sun's PizzaTool protocol going to be modified to be compatible? Sun could set up a heck of a deal with Domino's -- buy a SparcStation, get a pizza (or is it the other way around?). > If a match is not made, the area code and three-digit exchange are > used to select a 'default' store for routing. Using special > point-of-sale terminals connected to the system, Domino's stores can > update the database if the wrong store was selected by this scheme or > update the database when the order is taken. Is no mention made of cities not served by Domino's? Will they just block calls, or will we get to dial the number and hassle the nearest store (50 miles away from me!)? > If the trials are sucessful and Domino's accepts the system, the > company will have 190 service nodes nationwide operational in 49 > states (who's the lucky one?) within two years. South Dakota isn't the lucky one :-) Anyone for a Domino's Death Disk (TM)? Guy Helmer, Dakota State University Computing Services dsuvax!ghelmer@wunoc.wustl.edu, ghelmer@dsuvax.dsu.edu, helmer@sdnet.bitnet Minix archive keeper at wuarchive.wustl.edu [Moderator's Note: I have to call a Domino's about eight blocks east of me for service. And everytime they do not arrive in 30 minutes I always request and receive a discount as promised. Because the street I live on is sort of odd and not that well known, I would say at least every other delivery runs about 35-37 minutes. About one out of four or five takes 45 minutes, thus it is free. Its a great, and legitimate racket for folks living on obscure little side streets the drivers never heard of. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter Thurston Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 11:05:25 +0100 Subject: Re: Phast Phood Jeff Sicherman writes about Domino Pizza's new national "StoreFinder" number. To recap - this is a US national 950- number which you call to get connected automatically to the nearest Domino pizza outlet. It reminds me of a similar system announced in the UK for calling taxi's. An enterprising company has set up a free 0800 number which you call anywhere in the country to get a local taxi company. The call is free to the caller but the taxi company pays a per-car monthly fee (and probably per call charge too). Details were sketchy -- I don't know whether the call is routed automatically to the local cab firm or is there is a human you speak to. The former is technically possible -- the Automobile Association has a system which can identify your location when you call from a public phone. The number itself makes use of the keypad to form the letter T (hence the service is called Dial T for Taxi). UK Dials have no letters therefore you must remember the number by the sequence (0800 -- 123580). He also plans "Dial E for Electrician" - "Dial P for Plumber" -- "Dial M for .. !" Peter Thurston Applied Psychology Unit. CAMBRIDGE ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 09:49:35 PDT From: Mickey Ferguson Subject: Re: Phast Phood OK, this isn't really telecom related, but all pizza chains are not created equal. We all know that one store may have better quality than another, and what if I know I don't want to do business with an individual store, but my call automatically gets routed there? Or what if I know that the manager of the store is my girlfriend's former boyfriend and want to avoid it? :) Mickey Ferguson Rolm Systems fergusom@scrvm2.vnet.ibm.com [Moderator's Note: With Domino's, no-can-do. Walk-ins can go where they like for the purchase, but to enable them to meet the 30 minute delivery guarentee, they will *not* go outside their franchise territory. In fact, franchise rules forbid it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Robert J Woodhead Subject: Re: Email From Space Date: 14 Aug 91 09:02:28 GMT Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Tokyo Japan han@apple.com (Byron Han) writes: > In article kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co. > jp!trebor@uunet.uu.net (Robert J Woodhead) [dat's me.] wrote: >> Anyone at least peripherally familiar with the history and culture of >> NASA will be quick to tell you that NASA is never interested in >> easier, cheaper methods. Complicated, expensive methods that justify >> the existance (and budgets) of hordes of administrative personnel are >> much preferred. > Before flaming, please make sure you have all of the facts straight. > The data path described is indeed the simplest possible with respect > to the twin constraints of minimizing crew training time and > minimizing software development time. Sigh. I keep forgetting how the net is a magnet for the sense-of-humor-impaired. To correct Mr. Han, whom I believe was involved in this particular project (and so probably feels that it is _his_ ox being gored), this particular snide remark of mine was not aimed at him, per se, but at NASA and their mindset. The fact that so simple a thing as a modem link has to bounce around the world umpteen times and go through eleventy-three protocol conversions (as described in excrutiating detail here in c.d.t) is a damning indictment of the way NASA so often works. The "Not Invented Here" syndrome was in all likelyhood invented _there_! That the data path described "is indeed the simplest possible..." is just icing on the cake. How many billions for each shuttle, and how many billions for the TDRS sat system, and they still forgot to include an RS232 data port? Sheesh! BTW, more than one net-person has mailed me telling me, from their own personal experience, that I "hit the nail on the head." If the blade of my rapier (ahem) wit has sliced open the thin skin of Mr. Han, then I truly, abjectly, and abasedly apologize, and I hope that the scabs that will inevitably form on his epidermis will protect him from the next assault from an uncouth netter. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 13:09:55 -0400 From: Christopher Gillett Subject: Re: Email From Space Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Semiconductor Engineering Group In article is written: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 625, Message 2 of 10 > Robert.Savery@ivgate.omahug.org (Robert Savery) writes: >> Seriously, is there anyone here connected with the project? If so, I'm >> curious as to why such a convoluted routing was used. It would seem >> that there are dozens of easier, cheaper methods available. > Anyone at least peripherally familiar with the history and culture of > NASA will be quick to tell you that NASA is never interested in > easier, cheaper methods. Complicated, expensive methods that justify > the existance (and budgets) of hordes of administrative personnel are > much preferred. After all, if the US Government and people realized > that space travel could be much simpler and relatively cheap, then > most of them would be redundant. Oh, I see. And you're an expert in communications between the ground and the space shuttle? This posting made me laugh because immediately before it was a completely rational explanation by the author of the portable Mac software used on the shuttle. Made good sense to me, and didn't necessarily seem like a complicated method put in place by hordes of administrative personnel. So, just what does this drivel have to do with telecom, PAT? Mr. Woodhead seems more eager to beat his political drums than to contribute something of technical value. (I can hear those flame- throwers lighting up all over the country.) So, Bob, what's your point? Christopher Gillett | gillett@ceomax.enet.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation | +1 508 568 7172 Semiconductor Engineering Group | Hudson, Mass | cout << StandardDisclaimers; [Moderator's Note: In reading the message to which Mr. Gillett responds, I couldn't help but feel the same thing is true at times of telcos. *Must* there be so many complications in so many things they do? Yes, some aspects of voice telephony are very complex. But the telcos build layer upon layer of bureaucracy also. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 02:16:07 -0700 From: Mike Newton Subject: ATT Universal Card; ATT Marketing; Magic Codewords In the 91.8.9 issue of Telecom jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com complained about my use of 'telesleaze' regarding ATT's marketing department. An explanation: + I have two unlisted lines, one w/ ATT, one w/ MCI through Amex (Amex provides alternative operators ==> no long waits). + I am registered (at my home address) with the Direct Marketing Association as not wanting junk mail. This is quite effective (I was amazed). + I am _very_ strict about who I give my number out. So, guess what the one company is that I still get - regular junk mail, and - irregular phone pitches from? ATT -- the one company I can't hide my phone numbers from. (Actually, MCI knows it too, but the Amex deal seems to prevent them from being obnoxious about it). That the sales deptartment won't let me alone is the reason I call them telesleaze. As an often-during-the-day sleeper, I feel justified in this opinion. Please note that I think very highly of ATT with respect to [] service, [] research, [] quality of service. It's just the telemarketing people that get on my nerves. Some other notes: >> Mr. Newton virtually admits to knowing that the initial free-for-life >> offer was limited to those who applied during the first year. Whose >> fault is it that he waited until after time ran out? Obviously mine. But remember I had also heard from others that the offer was still open. Otherwise I would not have called. >> or said anything illegal, immoral, unethical or sleazy. In my (biased) world view, calling me at home to sell stuff is sleazy, bordering on unethical when it is a company with which I have not choice but to give my phone number. >> > After some questioning, it seems that ATT [sic] is 'randomly' >> > sending out offers for the same deal that had expired earlier, >> > namely free lifetime renewals. >> Here I doubt Mr. Newton's interpretation. No business sends out >> offers at random. Far more likely the Universal Card people have >> selected specific target markets that they decided would be worth >> making the no-annual-fee offer to. The nub of Mr. Newton's problem >> seems to be that he is not part of any of those target markets -- >> so he didn't get the offer. You may question my interpretation, but I am the one that quizzed the "sales rep" at the other end of the line. I too suspected the same thing, but was repeatedly told that it was 'random'. The one exception that she offered was that she thought people who recently changed service were sent flyers. The "sales rep" even offered suggestions on how to get the "magic code", but none is easily appicable to my situation -- with one exception (see below). >> but please cut this person some slack for doing her job! >> I would suggest asking the rep's supervisor what the qualifi- >> cations are [...] Talking with her supervisor seems to me not a very good way of cutting her some slack. The conversation I had w/ her was quite pleasant up to the point that she started trying to push the $20/year version, at which point I (politely) declined and said goodbye. >> There's no point in whining about the limited offer. I'm not whining -- one of the agents suggestions was to ask a friend that had gotten the offer. Though I would hesitate to call most of the net 'friend' I felt it would do both [] me a favor (to find the "magic password" and [] others that read telecom a favor -- to know that they can do so too. >> Now would lying about receiving a particular mail offer be sleazy? >> Naahhh, couldn't be. Well, ignoring the holier-than-thou attitude in this 'question', remember: the rep suggested I ask people. I'll the answer up to you. I didn't get any 'answers' to my question, so I guess the set of Telecom readers does not intersect the set of people the offer is extended to! Mike ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: What Are 700 Numbers Used For? Date: 14 Aug 91 16:50:42 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article overlf!n2aam@kb2ear. ampr.org (Dave Marthouse) writes: > what long distance company is being used as the dial 1 company. Does > the 700 areacode have any other uses? Different companies can use the same number for different things. MCI/Telecom*USA uses it to by-pass the LEC within the areacode. 1-700-number instead of 1-home area code-number. MCI and Sprint use it for VNET/VPN services. Bill ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #629 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14089; 15 Aug 91 2:30 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04396; 15 Aug 91 0:47 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac23535; 14 Aug 91 23:40 CDT Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 22:58:14 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #630 BCC: Message-ID: <9108142258.ab15238@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 14 Aug 91 22:58:09 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 630 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Martin Luddite] Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [John Eaton] Re: Cheap 1200 Baud Modems [Peter Thurston] Re: Cheap 1200 Baud Modems [Gabe M. Wiener] Re: Cheap 1200 Baud Modems [Mike DeMetz] Re: Long Distance Across a Road [John Higdon] Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Rob Knauerhase] Re: Pac$Bel "Bonus Zone"? [John Higdon] Re: Pac$Bel "Bonus Zone"? [Linc Madison] Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online? [Rick Tyler] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers From: Martin Luddite Date: Tue, 13 Aug 91 14:25:32 EDT Organization: The Dorsai Diplomatic Mission (Mail address: user@dorsai.com) Having read the ongoing discussion about Radio Shack clerks and access to information, I cannot help but comment on it. I disagree with Pat, who seems to think that this is not a security concern and/or privacy violation. Having once worked for a private investigator, I have used Radio Shack in order track down people. Simply put, almost everybody has bought something from a Radio Shack in the past two years. Having a person's phone number, I would go to a Radio Shack, buy a 25 cent diode, give the clerk the last four digits, and on many occassions come up with address information on a certain person. It seems that the address (mailing list) database is centralized. This means that if you buy something at one Radio Shack, they can pull your information at another store. This makes it easier for Tandy to prevent duplicate storage of records while maintaining a rather accurate mailing list. Periodically, they clear their list of bogus records. I don't know how they do this, but I assume they try to match up zip codes with phone exchanges to see if that record is valid. After a while they also purge old customers to make room for new ones. If you bought something in 1988, and haven't purchased anything since, it is unlikely that your name and address information is in Tandy's computer. Summarizing: This is a security violation, and a privacy concern, since many people in their mailing list have unlisted phone numbers, and there would be no other way to track them down except through Radio Shack. As you know, unlisted phone numbers cannot be used for CN/A or criss-cross (ie. Cole's) directories. There is no need to look on the screen except when they ask you to pick out your name from the list of people with the same last four digits, since all the information you need on that person is printed on the receipt. Martin C. Luddite luddite@dorsai.com [Moderator's Note: Then the Radio Shack franchises in your area operate different than the ones here in Chicago. The clerk does not have you 'look at the screen and pick out your name'. He takes the last four digits of your number and then asks, "What is YOUR name and address?", and if you say something that matches his records he will confirm by reading back the first name, or part of the address, etc. If there is no match, then he adds you. Each store periodically transmits names and addresses only -- no sales data per individual customer -- to some central location; however it is not obtainable from another store here in the Chicago area. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Eaton Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers Date: 13 Aug 91 19:09:03 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Vancouver, WA > Lo and behold (and as if I didn't know what was coming next) a > screenful of names and address appeared based on these numbers. The > salesperson then picked a number and a receipt was issued to a person > I don't even know. > [Moderator's Note: Really I think your complaint is petty. The clerk > did not *give out phone numbers* as you contend. You really had no > business looking over at the terminal display since none of what was > on the screen concerned you anyway. PAT] If the store handed out a receipt with Joe Random Customer's name and address on it then he has a valid complaint. Suppose he was walking out to the parking lot and he scrapped a shopping cart across someone's paint job? Just write "send me the bill" on the receipt and stick it on the dash. Let Joe pay it. Suppose Joe's neighbor finds that someone has plugged into his telco interface box and made $2,000 worth of 900 calls. Joe claims not to have any phone capable of plugging in but a check of Radio Shack shows the receipt claiming he bought a lineman's handset. He will not be amused. Suppose a sheriff finds the receipt with Joe's name on it at the bottom of a pile of garbage at the bottom of a cliff. If they aren't going to protect their data then they shouldn't gather it. John Eaton !hp-vcd!johne [Mderator's Note: All those things are very interesting scenarios; but do they *really* happen? And again, recall our original correspondent claimed 'Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers' which in fact the corporation does NOT do. A *single* clerk, in a *single* RS franchise somewhere mishandled the records on a *single* sale. And you feel any investigator looking for someone who bought a lineman's handset will 'obviously' know to go to that store, and what? Bribe the clerk to show *him* all the phone numbers beginning xxxx, manage to match up sales data with name -- I have yet to see my last ten thousand dollars in purchases at the local RS on the screen -- and somehow figure out that Joe Random must be the guy! Yes sirree! You are grasping for straws, intent on showing this massive conspiracy by RS to deprive everyone of their privacy by no doubt peddling it to, let's see ... ah yes! ... to that great bogeyman, the 'telesleaze'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter Thurston Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 11:14:05 +0100 Subject: Re: Cheap 1200 Baud Modems A question: In the UK, usually the cheapest modems are unapproved imported units from the USA. These are often very good modems -- just the manufacturers have not bothered to go to the trouble to get UK Approval. What is the situation in the states -- are the cheap modems cheap imported European modems (or for that matter -- Japanese, etc)? Given that most good modems will operate in both Bell and CCITT modes. Peter Thurston ------------------------------ From: Gabe M Wiener Subject: Re: Cheap 1200 Baud Modems Reply-To: Gabe M Wiener Organization: Columbia University Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1991 14:27:41 GMT In article mission!randy@uunet.uu.net writes: > A recent post mentioned 1200 baud modems from Damark. Does anyone have > a number for them? Will these work with any RS232 port? They should. The Damark catalog lists it as a "Famous Maker" brand. From the picture, I can make out an Atari label with a magnifying glass. Ad says it's 1200 baud, hayes compatible. Damark's # is 1-800-729-9000. The item number is B-375-181504. $19.99 plus $5.50 S/H. Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ. gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu N2GPZ in ham radio circles 72355,1226 on CI$ ------------------------------ From: Mike DeMetz Subject: Re: Cheap 1200 Baud Modems Organization: Syscon International Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 19:34:34 GMT mission!randy@uunet.uu.net writes: > A recent post mentioned 1200 baud modems from Damark. Does anyone have > a number for them? Will these work with any RS232 port? They are ATARI modems with a standard RS232 and Hayes commands. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 11:14 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road ED HOPPER writes: > Wow! Eight whole miles. The Houston free calling area is at least > fifty (50) miles in each direction. It includes 3.5 million people. > Basic local service is about $12 for unlimited calling throughout that > area from SW Bell. Virtually all offices are electronic. Facilities > are readily available (I have five lines at home and all it took to > install them was a new buried drop of fifty feet from terminal box to > the house). Well, let's see. I just installed six lines at home for a "voice BBS". Since these are incoming only, the calling area does not matter much to me. The lines are crossbar, but for simple incoming calls -- again, who cares? The lines were readily available (even though Pac*Bell groaned a bit) and required NO effort on my part. No trenches -- nothing; and I have sixteen lines in my home. Pac*Bell even cleaned up the drops. Now let us look at pricing. Each line costs $4.45/month, or about one third the price of SWBT. The total monthly for six lines (with the network access screwjob, taxes, license, dealer prep, 911, local taxes, regulatory fee, extra dealer markup, etc., etc.,) is $55.70. This is approximately $17 LESS than you would pay for the RAW monthly charges for the same amount of lines. Who is getting screwed? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Rob Knauerhase Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1991 17:06:30 GMT In ED.HOPPER@ehbbs.hou.tx.us (ED HOPPER) writes: >> [Moderator's Note: That's what makes the Illinois Bell scheme for >> northern Illinois so great. All city boundary lines and area code > Wow! Eight whole miles. The Houston free calling area is at least > fifty (50) miles in each direction. It includes 3.5 million people. > Basic local service is about $12 for unlimited calling throughout that > area from SW Bell. Virtually all offices are electronic. Facilities > [Moderator's Note: But where you pay $12 for unlimited local service, > we only pay about $4.50 for line access, and about 3.9 cents for each > untimed call in our local zone. For the $6-7 difference, we can get a > lot of untimed local calls. Calls to the B, C, or D zones run about When I moved from Ohio to Illinois, I asked for unlimited local service and was told it wasn't available. So I asked "Why" and was connected to someone higher up in IBT who called it "part of the grand plan to assign costs more to people who use the services" [and THIS from the company that wanted everyone to pay $.15/month to subsidize poor-people's phones?!? Pick a position, guys]. She asked where I was from, and said that Ohio Bell (as another Ameritech company) will soon be moving to metered service as well. I suppose for someone who NEVER uses the phone, it's cheaper. But simply dialing in once or twice a day (which might go down once I begin running SLIP :) pushes my local bill higher than my mother's under Ohio Bell. Since there's no way to break down her bill, there may be hidden differences in price, but we make about the same number of local calls per month (and her local area is much bigger than mine, and much bigger than eight miles). I have to wonder if the costs involved in counting each local call (which are charged differently by time-of-day) don't make service more expensive than the old-fashioned way. I've also heard people complain about overcharging (who counts local calls? not me!) and suchlike. Lastly, in Champaign, IL, not much is outside the A band. But here in Portland (with banded local calls), I can't call across town for a flat fee; from Hillsboro, one can't even call to central Portland without incurring a per-minute charge. Bands should be a lot bigger in cities. Rob Knauerhase knauer@robk.intel.com Intel Development Tools Operation (for the summer) knauer@cs.uiuc.edu Univ. of Illinois, Dept. of CS, Gigabit Study Group ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 10:29 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Pac$Bel "Bonus Zone"? Nick Sayer writes: > Pac$Bel has been pushing their "Bonus Zone" thing for a while now, and > I've not heard anything here about it. As with everything Pac*Bell does, the Call Bonus (tm) offerings are designed as revenue generators. The particular one you refer to is the plan that offers (residence only) a 25% discount on calls made within the LATA between the hours of 9PM and 8AM, 12N to 2PM and all weekend. The plan costs $6.75 which buys your first $8.50 worth of calls. > incentive does Pac$Bel have for saving you money? Answer: none. If > it's not going to save you money, what's the point? If it _IS_ saving > you money, then where is the revinue being made up? Some (I, for one) actually save money. If you make certain calls at certain times regardless of cost, then you will benefit. But statistically, people who sign up for the plan simply have friends and relatives out of town and you will notice that this is what the advertising is aimed at. The psychology is simple: if you think you are getting a "deal", you will call more often. Pac*Bell's marketing studies show that people who subscribe to the Call Bonus (known by many of us as "Call Bogus") spend more on intraLATA toll than they would without the plan. Since the plan only works off-peak, there is no danger of blockage so any use during that time is "bonus" revenue in Pac*Bell's pocket. Idle facilities cost just as much to maintain as busy ones, so any trick the company can use to pack them is money in the bank. No, Pac*Bell is not giving away anything here; it is simply using very sophisticated marketing tactics to enhance its revenue base. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 03:44:52 PDT From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Pac$Bel "Bonus Zone"? Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article Nick Sayer (mrapple@quack. sac.ca.us) writes: > Pac$Bel ... "Bonus Zone" ... I am 99% sure without even > asking about it that it is a scam. Think about it. You have no choice > but to use Pac$Bel for the calls to this so-called bonus zone. What > incentive does Pac$Bel have for saving you money? Answer: none. If > it's not going to save you money, what's the point? If it _IS_ saving > you money, then where is the revinue being made up? Money doesn't grow > on trees -- it has to come from somewhere. If Pac$Bel can afford to let > people save money on some calls, it means it's getting enough money > that it could lower EVERYONE'S rates instead. Your "bonus zone" is your LATA minus your ZUM area, generally. You save money if you have a high volume of calls in this area by paying a flat monthly fee for a percentage discount on these calls. The way they make money with it is that the plan is structured to encourage calls at times when the network is under-utilized: noon to 2 p.m., 9 p.m. to 8 a.m., and weekends. With this plan, in fact, it is less expensive to call at 1:00 than at 5:30 because the former is in "bonus" time (35% off) and the latter is just regular evening rate (30% off). Also, they figure that instead of paying $10 for ten calls, you'll pay $15 for twenty calls. [I've oversimplified this example, of course; there are several different plans available with all sorts of different terms.] Still, I certainly agree that there is AMPLE room for Pac*Bell to lower the general rates, and I've told the PUC. They told me in April, 1989 that they have the issue under review. I feel *so* reassured. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu = ucbvax!tongue1!linc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1991 11:22:33 -0700 From: Rick Tyler Reply-To: mtxinu!Ingres.COM!tyler@uunet.uu.net Organization: Ingres Division, ASK Computer Systems. Subject: Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online? According to the mailing I received from Pacific Bell last week, area codes 310 (Southern CA) and 510 (Northern CA) come into being on September 2, 1991, NOT November 2, 1991, as someone has suggested. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #630 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17657; 15 Aug 91 3:36 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25462; 15 Aug 91 1:54 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04396; 15 Aug 91 0:48 CDT Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 0:41:35 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #631 BCC: Message-ID: <9108150041.ab29417@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 15 Aug 91 00:41:35 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 631 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext [Jeff Sicherman] Re: Bell Technical Journals [Leland F. Derbenwick] Re: Pac*Bell is Eager to Begin [Syd Weinstein] Re: What Are 700 Numbers Used For? [Bill Huttig] Re: Hotels and AOS's AGAIN [Mike Berger] Re: Hackers Mail-Bomb Shuttle! [Seth Cohn] Re: Robot Operators; Voice Response Collect Calls [Steve Forrette] Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Mark Day] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 13:37:41 -0700 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article forrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) writes: > Second of all, there's a good reason why > the intra-LATA long distance rates are so high. I was recently > looking into a calling plan for such calls from Pacific Bell, and > asked why a call from 916/983 to 916/753 cost as much as a call to New > York City (completely accros the continent), when this call was only > 35 miles? The rep gave me a very straightforward answer -- "it > actually costs more to complete a call of a shorter distance!" I knew > there had to be a good reason! > [Moderator's Note: What she *really* meant to say was that telco has > long enjoyed a very cozy relationship with regulators in your state, > and this cozy relationship allows the telco to set quite high rates. > Very seldom do state PUC's not just rubber-stamp what telco tells > them. The relationship with the FCC is more even-handed however. PAT Sorry to interrupt this sarcasm-fest with some serious arguments ... I'm not sure *ALL* PUC's are rubber stamps. There are a few that have seemed somewhat customer pro-active, at least at times. New York, and occassionally California (go ahead, Higdon, make your day) but they don't have the resources to fight these issues indefinitely and can't pay as many or as much to lawyers as the telecos do with our rate money. Does any state have a customer ombudsman or lobby supported by a tax or surcharge on the bills ? I also have significant doubt that the FCC has been so even-handed in the era of Reagan and his clones and cronies. I think hands off would be a more apt description. What has improved the long distance situation has not been the regulators but by AT&T being forced to compete because of alternate LD services and the required divestiture eliminating the cross-subsidizations. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 17:38:16 EDT From: Leland F Derbenwick Subject: Re: Bell Technical Journals Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article , selene@osystem.pdx.com writes: > I remember reading somewhere that Bell offered thier "Technical > Information" in the form of journals. Whatever I read never bothered > to quote any sources. If you have any ideas, please send them to me. Once upon a time there was _The Bell System Technical Journal_. Then there was divestiture, and there was no more Bell System, so the journal was retitled the _AT&T Bell Laboratories Technical Journal_. Later that was decided to be too restrictive a title, and it is now the _AT&T Technical Journal_. I know that in the _BSTJ_ days, many libraries carried it; I can't speak for the present. (I know _our_ library system has it. :-) To quote from inside the front cover of the March/April, 1991 issue: AT&T TECHNICAL JOURNAL (ISSN 8576-2324) is published six times a year by AT&T. Individual subscriptions: U.S. -- 1 year $50; 2 years $90; 3 years $120 Foreign -- 1 year $64; 2 years $118; 3 years $162. Payment for foreign subscriptions must be made in U.S. funds, or by check drawn on a U.S. bank, and made payable to the _AT&T Technical Journal_, and sent to AT&T Bell Laboratories, Circulation Group, Room 1B-413, 101 J. F. Kennedy Parkway, Short Hills, NJ 07078-0905. ... Current or recent issues may be obtained by writing to the Circulation Group or calling (201) 564-2582. You may obtain back issues from the AT&T Customer Information Center, P.O. Box 19901, Indianapolis, IN 46219, or by calling (800) 432-6600. From outside the U.S. call (317) 352-8557. Photocopy or microform reprints from the _AT&T Technical Journal_ are available by writing to University Microfilms International, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106, or calling (800) 521-0600. From outside the U.S. call (313) 761-4700. Hope this helps, Lee Derbenwick, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Warren, NJ lfd@cbnewsm.ATT.COM or !att!cbnewsm!lfd ------------------------------ From: Syd Weinstein Subject: Re: Pac*Bell is Eager to Begin Reply-To: syd@dsi.com Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc. Huntingdon Valley, PA Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1991 13:09:48 GMT Nick Sayer writes: > I just have to write in support of Mr. Higdon's observations. > PG&E (the Northern California power utility) doesn't make stoves and > light bulbs. No, but for years PECO, the regulated power utility for Philadelphia sold stoves and light bulbs, and TVs and ... they only recently gave it up because they weren't making any money from it anymore. > Cable companies don't sell TVs or take orders for the Cable Shopping > Channel. No, but they all get a cut of the revenue from the orders from their zip codes. That's their fee to carry the channel. > Water companies don't sell toilets or fix plumbing. Many do fix plumbing ... Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator: Current 2.3PL11 Datacomp Systems, Inc. Projected 2.4 Release: Late 1991 syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd Voice: (215) 947-9900, FAX: (215) 938-0235 [Moderator's Note: For many years, Commonwealth Edison in Chicago has given away free light bulbs based on the size of your electric bill each month. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: What Are 700 Numbers Used For? Date: 15 Aug 91 03:47:12 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article Bill Huttig writes: > MCI and Sprint use it for VNET/VPN services. I forgot to add that is most likely the reason that in PAT's post of a few days with the 10333 # returned a service was disconnected recording. As in the last {Network World} it said VPN calls are dialed as 10333 + # + seven digits for on net calls. Bill ------------------------------ From: Mike Berger Subject: Re: Hotels and AOS's AGAIN Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1991 18:55:49 GMT marcelm@joymrmn.uucp (Marcel Mongeon) writes: > The result of all of these policies is that our revenues dropped by > about 25% on telephone. The fact that we are the only hotel in town > with free local calls has not attracted a single piece of new > business. Anyone want to suggest why? Ask again next year. I suspect that most people don't check the phone policies in advance, but they'll consider it on a return visit. Mike Berger Department of Statistics, University of Illinois AT&TNET 217-244-6067 Internet berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ From: seth cohn Subject: Re: Hackers Mail-Bomb Shuttle! Date: Tue, 13 Aug 91 11:20:18 EDT Organization: Alchemy International, Ithaca, N.Y. lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Lemson) writes: > A test of electronic-mail between earth and laptops aboard the space shuttle > Atlantis was intended to lay the groundwork for use of E-mail on space > station Freedom. But the test is in jeopardy after 80 E-mail messages > were received by the Atlantis crew from unauthorized users. The leak > behind the E-mail address remains a mystery. > Now, who was it that leaked that??? Could it be??? USENET??? :-) The > power of Usenet, for you. (Now I *have* to try to find that original > article where someone posted "Hey, everyone, try this e-mail > address!") > [Moderator's Note: I humbly suggest it was an article which originated > here in TELECOM Digest which led to a longer article written by Joe > Abernathy in the {Houston Chronicle} (which was then re-printed here > in the Digest) which started the activity. NO, Pat, the address YOU gave was for a ground based email address and that was the one spread around (atlantis@applelink.apple.com) UNLESS someone else screwed up and gave it to YOU, you're clear. :) 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 :) seth@alchemy.tn.cornell.edu OR sethcohn@alchemy.ithaca.ny.us (slow) [Moderator's Note: What I meant was, I wonder if it occurred to anyone at all to try and make an email connection until the stories started appearing saying it was possible but that email would be held here on earth. Or by chance is the 'atlantis' address automatically forwarding things along inadvertently? The actual address *in space* was different, right? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 13:00:40 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Robot Operators; Voice Response Collect Calls Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF) In article The Moderator notes: > [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] Pacific Bell has a similar (maybe the same) system as Illinios Bell. But, it works much better than those used by the "third banana" carriers. The recipient is instructed to indicate acceptance by pressing a key, or to hang up to refuse. If the recipient doesn't have touch-tone, they are instructed to hold on, in which case a live operator comes on after a timeout. This is the best of both worlds -- complete automation when both parties have touch-tone, and human intervention in other cases. Since they do not rely on voice recognition, there's no reliablility degregation as there is with the alternative systems. This parallels the differences between the "good" and "bad" implementations of auto-attendants and VRUs. The good ones let you use tone to direct your call and/or get account information, while letting you easily talk to a real person when you need to or want to. The bad ones are installed to shield the customer from the company, and reduce human costs rather than improve customer service. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: mday@pion.lcs.mit.edu (Mark Day) Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1991 19:07:56 GMT NIEBUHR@bnlcl6.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) writes: > I was in my local Radio Shack the other day and when I went to pay for > the small item that I'd selected, the salesperson asked for the last > four digits of my phone number. I refused and this person just keyed > in four digits. Interesting. I had complained to Radio Shack (up to the regional V.P.) about employees badgering me for my name, address, and phone number. The veep apologized and said that part of an employee's evaluation was their "hit rate" (sorry, can't remember the phrase he actually used), meaning what percentage of sales had an associated mailing address. He then went on to say that the sales people should stop asking when the customer refused to answer. I thought about this a while and realized that my dispute wasn't with the poor fellow ringing up the sale, but with the stupid bureaucracy of the company. So I resolved to make their database as useless as possible. Whenever I go into a Radio Shack, I'm perfectly happy to give them a name and address. It's just that the name and address aren't mine, and in fact aren't anyone's. In fact, it's become sort of fun to see what I can get away with. Can I be George Bush? Nahh. How about Charlie Parker? Yeah, that'll work ... I give reasonable but nonexistent addresses from cities that I've lived in. The one significant drawback to this scheme, as far as I can see, is the waste produced by extra fliers that Radio Shack sends out bulk rate and the Post Office winds up pulping. > At this point I complained that, if not illegal, it was unethical to > give out the name and address of anyone who appears in their ragsheet > flyer. He said that maybe the person wanted the flyer but I told him > that maybe the person didn't know what R.S. was doing. > My feeling is that names and phone numbers SHOULD NOT EVER be given > out by merchants for any reason at all. I'm glad that the employees also subvert this particularly obnoxious system, although I agree that the mechanism used isn't appropriate. All I can hope is that the information disclosed in this incident was bogus... :-) > [Moderator's Note: Really I think your complaint is petty. The clerk > did not *give out phone numbers* as you contend. You really had no > business looking over at the terminal display since none of what was > on the screen concerned you anyway. Some RS dealers get around the > problem of recalcitrant customers who refuse to give their name by > keeping an account on the machine under 9999 for a 'customer' named > Cash Sale, whose address is that of the store. Obviously the clerk who > waited on you did not record the transaction correctly, but its hardly > the big deal you make it. PAT] Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is a big deal, and Radio Shack is just the leading edge of what we'll see everywhere if we don't resist it. Radio Shack "really has no business" knowing my name and address; they should be satisfied with my money. The screen is also where the total is displayed, so it's perfectly reasonable for a customer to be looking there. And just what allows you to characterize a customer as "recalcitrant" if s/he refuses to give a name for a cash sale? Radio Shack used to be much more reasonable about cash sales, but at least for the last year in the Boston area, they've become real pains in the a**. Perhaps there are still dealers who have a "customer" for cash sales, but my guess based on talking to the Radio Shack veep is that someone decided there was Big Money being lost by not building up their mailing list, so it was time to eliminate anonymous cash sales. For what it's worth, I also think the Moderator owes the original poster an apology. Mark Day mday@lcs.mit.edu [Moderator's Note: Oh you do, do you? I wish I could get apologies from people every time I read messages which sorely tax my imagination with bizzare examples of all the things that will *in theory -- but never or rarely ever* happen if the horrible bogeyman known as 'telesleaze' should happen to get your name and number. I mean really, one RS salesman in West Podunk diddles up a receipt for a cash sale and suddenly we have 'Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers', and let's stop the world while someone gets off and shudders at the prospect that the sheriff might come along and find a bag of trash that has the receipt in it for a 29-cent diode and the innocent victim lives at a place where some third party unknown ripped off phone service from someone else and now they will take the name and put it in a data base of people who are known to go around putting RS diodes on other people's phone lines and to make matters worse the poor devil will get a telephone call in the middle of the day from someone selling diodes for a competitor to whom the sheriff sold the name after investigating the guy and the guy with his name on the reciept will need to install another phone line with an answering machine and a non-pub number so he need not risk the awfulness of answering the phone in person when the telemarketer calls unless of course he demands to speak to the telemarketer's supervisor's supervisor's supervisor to debate some obscure technical question about the 29 cent diode for which none of this would ever have happened had not Radio Shack been such a greedy company looking to make more money by demanding some name and address from every customer. And we are told if we don't stop this henious pratice now, freedom, privacy and no doubt the entire American Way will be facing imminent death. Gaak .... only on Usenet! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #631 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21081; 15 Aug 91 4:46 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00183; 15 Aug 91 3:02 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25462; 15 Aug 91 1:55 CDT Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 1:19:10 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #632 BCC: Message-ID: <9108150119.ab24019@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 15 Aug 91 01:19:03 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 632 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Voice Mail Support From Southwestern Bell [Dave McCracken] Sure-Fire Privacy Protection in Thailand [Dave Leibold] Tour of a CO [Thomas Lapp] Cable TV Competition [Larry Rachman] Precision of Phone and Postal Codes [Carl Moore] Re: USOC Standards (was ISO Standards) [Toby Nixon] Re: U.S. - Canada Calling Cards [Nigel Allen] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Voice Mail Support From Southwestern Bell Date: Tue, 13 Aug 91 09:16:46 CDT From: Dave McCracken I found a public notice in this morning's {Austin American Statesman} that I thought this group might find interesting. Here are the first two paragraphs: "On July 22, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company file an application with the Public Utility Commission of Texas for approval of two new optional services, Exchange Connection Service and Customer Alerting Enablement. Exchange Connection Service will permit a customer of the Telephone Company to provide voice messaging service, telephone answering service, or other services to itself or to patrons of the customer. Customer Alerting Enablement will permit residenc and business lines to receive an alerting tone (intermittent dial tone) transmitted by an Exchange Connection Service customer. The proposed effective date for this offering is September 23, and will be available statewide where facilities permit. "The calling party's telephone number and other originating network call information will be delivered to the Exchange Connection Service customer when the calling number and the called number are served by the same switch. Additionaly, the caller's telephone number and other originating network call information may be recorded and store by the Exchange Connection Service customer. Customers may be able to identify the caller before the call is answered. All Exchange Connection Service customers will be required to sign a non-disclosure agreement prior to being provided service. In the agreement the customer agrees not to disclose the calling party's telephone number unless the customer has written permission from the calling party." I looks like all you who would like stutter dial tone from your voicemail vendor just have to move to Texas :-). Dave McCracken dcm@dell.dell.com (512) 343-3720 Dell Computer 9505 Arboretum Blvd Austin, TX 78759-7299 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Aug 91 21:33:07 EDT From: woody Subject: Sure-Fire Privacy Protection in Thailand I spotted a 1991 Bangkok (English-language) directory in a library tonight. There was a section on page two assuring customers that the phone company won't invade privacy, while explaining how re-used numbers could be called by acquaintances of the number's previous user (something that happened to me a few times in Toronto). The last paragraph of this section is interesting: "In case any doubts persist, there is an easy and effective method you can use to test the privacy of your line. Simply dial your own number from an outside line and see who answers. This test is best conducted when you are sure no one is home and your house or office is secure. Repeat the procedure periodically, and at different hours, until you are fully confident that the privacy of your line is not being violated." I guess the wiretappers either get caught answering the line, or perhaps there are other situations in Thailand where people splice phone lines. Meanwhile, while on the directory, Thailand cellular numbers are dialed as 01-NP-XXXXX where the NP digits vary according to the region. From north to south, the NP digits are: 51, 41, 52, 42, 31, 32, 21 (Bangkok), 72, 71. Thus, 01-21-1xxxx or 01-21-2xxxx could represent a Bangkok cellular phone number. This separates it out from the regular numbering plan, as is the case in some other countries. dleibold@attmail.com temporary: dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Aug 91 17:40:42 EST From: Thomas Lapp Subject: Tour of a CO Reply-To: thomas%mvac23@udel.edu I had the opportunity to take a tour of my local CO (Wilmington, DE) this afternoon, and was pretty amazed by both the equipment that they have, and what they don't have. What they don't have is a lot of bulky equipment taking up rooms of space. In fact, they are reclaiming switch rooms for office space, since they don't need all the extra space. I even saw a large section of raised floor which was completely empty. However, it is not ALL empty. Back when I was in elementary school, the telco opened a new office in my section of Morgantown, WV (Suncrest) and installed a brand-new 1AESS which had DTMF capabilities! About all I can remember more than 20 years down the road was the clicking noises of the relays. This afternoon was an audio trip down memory lane, since I found that indeed this CO still has several 1AESS switches in use. As my tour guide pointed out, "they're just workhorses that don't justify taking them out." But the 1A's can't handle all of the traffic of the CO, so they do have some newer Northern Telecom equipment for some of the newer exchanges. One of the highlights was watching my host do a line test on my residential line (which is serviced out of that office). Everything (DC, AC, etc) tested well within specs, and I also found out that my "pair" from CO to my end-user equipment is 31,800 (+/- 10) feet! (It measured a 65 dB loss for this distance, by the way). All the testing was done via a single terminal console in an office in the CO. Another thing which impressed me was the number of records they have on connections. I could see all the records of the cross connections from the punchdown location within the CO to the cross cable connects outside my apartment complex, to the connect pair on the 25 pair block in the basement of my building (it was correctly listed as pair five). To have that much data and have it accurate is really what impressed me. Thanks for letting me share with you some of my experiences from today. I'm sure the telecom veterans probably could make some interesting comments about the history of those records, and the current methods of testing lines as well as the historical methods. I was told by my tour guide that the testing system they use allows them to determine if there is discontinuity in a circuit and if so, where the discontinuity is WITHIN 10 FEET. I asked how it was done, (via Time Domain Reflectometry or signal loss, or what) and he wasn't entirely sure of the exact method. Could someone tell me how they might determine circuit lengths and points of failure? tom internet : mvac23!thomas@udel.edu or thomas%mvac23@udel.edu (home) uucp : {ucbvax,mcvax,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas Location : Newark, DE, USA ------------------------------ Date: 14 Aug 91 07:02:48 EDT From: Larry Rachman <74066.2004@compuserve.com> Subject: Cable TV Competition With all this discussion of multiple dialtone and cable television suppliers in the same territory, I thought it might be interesting to describe a specific case history (actual mileage may vary -- I'm working from memory). The town is Huntington, NY (516-427, et. al.), and when I moved to this area about six years ago, you could buy your cable TV from two competing companies. Huntington Cable was the original service provider, they provided basic cable on 2-13, with their own movie channel on (I think) 3, with notch filter scrambling, and some sort of soft-core porn on one of the superband channels (also scrambled). Picture quality was so-so, and I believe basic service was around $12 per month. The upstart competitor was Cablevision, bigger, already in many areas on Long Island, and 'ready to serve you better.' Basic service included a box, a few more channels (nothing special), and access to the 'the traditional' premium channels (HBO, Showtime ...). Their quality was so-so, to. So there we were, two sets of physical plant on all the poles, and everything. A friend of mine played one company's special offers against the other's; he had an A-B switch on the TV so he could select whichever one he wanted to watch at any particular moment. When I moved into my home, the old drop for Huntington cable was still there, so I hooked up the TV. That lasted about a year until a falling tree branch ripped it out; I didn't want cable badly enough to bother getting it fixed. As you might expect, we eventually got a letter from Cablevision, announcing how they were taking over the customers of Huntington Cable, and how the services would be eventually merged. The word above board was that Cablevision premium service was slaughtering Huntington's market. The grapevine said that Huntington eventually succumbed to rampant sabotage of their physical plant (your guess as to which is the true story; perhaps both are). Anyway, it took less than a year for the Huntington Cable service to vanish. A Cablevision brochure announced how "... crews would be removing the excess unsightly wiring from the poles"; sounds to me like they were *making sure* that no one would ever use it again. Nowadays, youze abuys youze cable from Cablevision, and youze likes it! So whats it like? 30-40 some odd channels, a variety of tiers of premium services, 'free' cable boxes. Basic service includes about 20 channels and costs about $20/mo; if you take *all* the premium channels, its about $60/mo. When my antenna fell down a few years ago, I decided to wander into the storefront Cablevision store (!) to see what they had to offer. I spent the first 15 minutes or waiting for someone to help me. Eventually I started fiddling with the box on a Cablevision-equipped TV sitting there. Plenty of channels, miserably noisy picture ... $60 a month for this??? SALESPERSON: (Indignant) MAY I HELP YOU? (get your fingers off that cable box). ME: Why, yes ... I was thinking of subscribing to cable. Is that the quality of reception I can expect to receive? SALESPERSON: (with a straight face) That picture looks perfectly fine to me. (We verbally fence for a while, and eventually get to the decoder boxes.) ME: I'll probably take basic service, but I have a cable-ready TV. How much of a discount do I get because I don't need the converter box. SALESPERSON: You don't understand sir, the box is free, so there's no discount for not having one. I stopped off at Radio Shack on the way home to buy a new TV antenna. It gets 2-13 with a better picture than cable provides, and for the $60 saved, I could rent 30 movies per month, and I could never watch that many. As an added premium, I enjoy the reverse snobbery of *not* having cable. Latest item in the local newspaper is that some people are getting *very upset* about how Cablevision can poll the new addressable decoder boxes and know what you're watching. The editorial theme is that this is an invasion of privacy. Its nice to know that *I'm* safe :-). There's also some discussion about installing *fiber optic* physical plant in the future; if the picture gets better than my antenna, maybe I'll resubscribe. And that's the way it happened here, with the big fish eventually eating the little one. I'd be curious to hear the outcome of similar stories in other areas. Larry Rachman, WA2BUX 74066.2004@compuserve.com FAX: 516-427-8705 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 9:53:10 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Precision of Phone and Postal Codes In the apartment complex where I have lived, I found that there are two zip + 4's available: one for the entire complex, and one for that particular building only. But I do not get heavily involved in zip + 4, because even a five-digit zipcode is almost always defining a smaller area than a telephone exchange (eliminating duplicate areas of service of the latter, in case more than one prefix serves the same geographic area). And yes, where a zipcode is used for PO boxes only, the zip + 4 is usually based on that box number (except for business reply). Long ago, I wrote to this Digest about precision of various postal and phone codes in the U.S. Here they are in ascending order of precision (descending order of size of geographic area): Telephone area code First three digits of zipcode Phone prefix Five digit zipcode Nine digit zipcode ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: USOC Standards (was ISO Standards) Date: 15 Aug 91 00:41:22 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes: > Okay, so where do we lay hands on a USOC book? We've all picked up > the standard ones from dealing with them for so long (11, 14, 21X, 45, > 13C ...) but where is the master reference? USOCs are defined in Part 68 of the FCC Rules and Regulations, related to connection of equipment to the public switched telephone network (sorry I can't give you the exact name and CFR volume number; I'm not in my office). The document is available from the US Government Printing Office. Every telecom afficianado should have a copy; it contains a lot of important and interesting information. 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 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon Fido 1:114/15 USA | Internet tnixon%hayes@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Aug 91 02:52:11 PDT From: Nigel Allen Subject: Re: U.S. - Canada Calling Cards ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (David Ash) writes: > 1. Does anyone know of a long-distance U.S. calling card available to > people without a home phone which can be used for *domestic* calls > within Canada (where I travel frequently)? My PacBell card used to > allow this, but since Stanford took over my on-campus phone service, > I've lost my PacBell card. Neither my MCI nor Sprint cards work for > domestic calls within Canada, although they will allow U.S. - Canada > calls in either direction. Historically, AT&T and local exchange carrier calling cards could be used for domestic calls within Canada, and Canadian telephone company cards could be used for domestic calls within the U.S. I believe this is still the case. AT&T offers a non-subscriber credit card, which you should be able to use for domestic calls within Canada. However, you would be charged the regular Canadian telephone company rates (automatic calling card calls or operator-assisted calling card calls, as applicable). Call the regular AT&T customer service number (800-222-0300, I think) for more information. You might want to ask Pacific Bell if it offers a non-subscriber card. As well, some Canadian telephone companies offer non-subscriber calling cards. Bell Canada service reps are usually unfamiliar with the offering, and need to check with a supervisor or two before they know how to process the request. On the other hand, I was able to get a card from the British Columbia Telephone Company quite easily. The service rep apparently had an electronic script she was working from, and asked me the usual questions you would expect on a bank credit card application. To get a non-subscriber calling card from a Canadian telephone company, you will probably need to give a mailing address within the company's operating territory. (In the case of B.C. Tel, I asked them to send the card to my sister's apartment in Vancouver.) If your permanent address is elsewhere, they will want to know that address as well. Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #632 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03148; 16 Aug 91 3:14 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04769; 16 Aug 91 1:30 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02412; 16 Aug 91 0:20 CDT Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 23:51:19 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #633 BCC: Message-ID: <9108152351.ab24950@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 15 Aug 91 23:51:20 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 633 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia: Lost Buttset Message Makes My Day! [TELECOM Moderator] Intra LATA Calls (Was Audiotext) [Marc T. Kaufman] Kid-Aide [Kyle Rudden] Routing Nationwide Number to Nearest Service Point [Brent Chapman] Setting Up a Fax Gateway [John Higdon] Long Distance Recommendations [Bill Berbenich] Request: Area Code Map for Company Directory [Larry Rosenman] Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online? [Michael Van Norman] More Detail on Bronx-to-718 [Carl G. Moore, Jr.] Citbank Visa/Mastercharge is Too Friendly [k-rock@sherwood.rent.com] Wanted: PBX For Home [Todd Inch] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 23:28:42 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: Lost Buttset Message Makes My Day! The weekend is getting off to a great start. Due to a problem with my clutzy fingers a message go lost, and I'd like to ask the person to resubmit it. The message was a clipping from a local newspaper about a prosecutor who arrested someone and seized several lineman's handsets in the process. Unfortunatly the article got lost in a shuffle between directories here, and I can't even recall who sent it, except it was someone from AT&T. Send it again please ... it was a article! PAT ------------------------------ From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Subject: Intra LATA calls (was: Audiotext) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1991 15:58:07 GMT Steve Forrette writes: > Come now, Macy! I don't think you've given the telcos a fair chance > at explaining themselves. Take Pacific Bell for instance. You've got > your facts all wrong! First of all, they don't let you dial 10XXX for > intra-LATA calls; there's NO way to route these calls to an IXC, > unless you're really sneaky. I reported a phone in Vacaville (60 miles from my home in the 707 area) to the PUC because it wouldn't let me use AT&T to dial my home (415 area code). Turns out 707, 415, and part of 408 are all in the same LATA, and I CAN'T use 10xxx. ( But I tried dialing 00, which got me a Sprint operator, who put me through on Sprint.) Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 14:42:14 edt From: Kyle Rudden Subject: Kid-Aide The following is taken from the August 11, 1991 edition of the {Cincinnati Enquirer}. The article was written by Sue MacDonald. Personal comments are encased in brackets at the end. Keep lines of communication open with Kid-Aide program A Cincinnati businessman and father has launched a 24-hour telephone assistance progam called Kid-Aide to help busy children and busy parents stay in touch with each other for necessary messages and life's emergencies. Whether it's a child who has missed a bus, a parent who has to work late or a family emergency that requires a change of plans, Kid-Aide serves as a central message and notification point for family members who need to keep in touch. Families who sign up for the $30-a-year program have access to an 800- telephone number staffed round-the-clock by operators who can take messages, contact family members, contact friends or neighbors who serve as emergency backups, get in touch with law enforcement agencies, family physicians or others. Kid-Aide clients have the option of being able to leave and/or retrieve phone-mail messages. At all times, they can speak directly to an operator. Kid-Aide President Robert W. Wray, who is also involved in the security business, says he came across the idea for Kid-Aide several years ago after he and his son missed messages about a canceled after-school activity. When Wray arrived at Walnut Hills High School, his usually punctual son was nowhere to be found. The two eventually found each other, but Wray says the event was disturbing enough that he developed a system by which families could stay in contact with each other. "I'm surprised at the number of things available to families after the fact, like child identification programs and the like, but there aren't available as many proactive things to keep situations from happening," says Wray, who launched Kid-Aide at the 1991 All About Kids show. "With Kid-Aide, there should be no need for a child ever to consider hitchhiking, accept a ride with a stranger, walk home at night or through a dangerous area, or just wait outside a building in hopes that someone will eventually come," he says. Among clients who already have signed up, missed rides and family emergencies are the most reasons for using the service, he says. In addition to the $30 annual fee, users pay 45 cents a minute for time used (65 cents a minute for operator time). Wray says the average call is about five minutes long and costs about $5.50. For more information, call 800-543-2433. [IMHO, the service presented here seems redundant given all of the communication options available today. Answering machines with remote message retrieval are commonplace. Couple this with an AT&T Call Me card, or personal 800 number, and Kid-Aide is replicated. Comments welcome.] Kyle Rudden <--> KRUDDEN@LIBSERV1.IC.SUNYSB.EDU ------------------------------ From: Brent Chapman Subject: Routing Nationwide Number to Nearest Service Point Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1991 19:24:16 GMT sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: > According to this week's {Network World}, Domino's is teaming with > AT&T and Bell Laboratories (getting a Pizza the action?) to develop a > service that will route a phone call to a single nationwide number to > the store closest to the caller. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has had an 800 number that works just like this for pilot weather briefings for at least a couple of years now. You dial the number and are automatically connected to the Flight Service Station (FSS) that serves your area. There are something like 150 FSS facilities, nationwide. Before the change to this "one number, nationwide" (the changeover is still not totally complete, by the way, but I think it's been completed at most of the FSS facilities), a pilot had to find the right number for the local FSS (often an 800 number, if the FSS served a large enough area to justify that). Since exactly the same weather information is available at all FSS's, pilots would often call a non-local FSS for information if the local FSS was too busy (for instance, if Oakland FSS, which serves all of the San Francisco Bay Area, was busy, you could call Reno FSS or Salinas FSS, who might be able to talk to you sooner). As the FAA has been switching the FSS's over to the new nationwide auto-routing number, they've been shutting down the old local numbers, so you can't do this any more; this has some pilots rather annoyed. Brent Chapman Telebit Corporation Sun Network Specialist 1315 Chesapeake Terrace brent@telebit.com Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Phone: 408/745-3264 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 14:26 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Setting Up a Fax Gateway A word of warning for those of you setting up a fax gateway in your UNIX-based PC. Some months ago, I checked into doing just that. The consensus was that the DigiFAX software (by DigiBoard) was the way to go. It supports two modems: Hayes and Brooktrout. I bought the Hayes JT Fax 9600. Today I finally received the DigiFAX package. A little piece of paper fell out that mentioned that the Hayes JT Fax and the Adaptec 154x series SCSI controllers were incompatible. (And guess what my system has for a hard drive controller!) A call to DigiFAX confirmed that the game was over: the Hayes and the Adaptec are indeed incompatible and neither company has expressed any desire to fix the problem. There is no workaround. So, for those of you who have PC's with Adaptec SCSI controllers who have decided to "go fax" with DigiFAX -- go straight to Brooktrout; the Hayes won't work. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: Long Distance Recommendations From: Bill Berbenich Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 12:16:42 EDT Organization: Wabworld, Atlanta/Doraville, Georgia, USA I am considering switching LD carriers and am interested in hearing the experiences of others. I already have a lot of perspective on AT&T, so please don't reply about them. They have all of their cards out on the table and they are also able to advertise a lot about their advantages. It is the other LD carriers, besides the "Big Three" that I am interested in. My LD charges are never more than $100 per month on my home phone, so that may have some bearing on your reply. I will be using the carrier for run-of-the-mill stuff, no need for residential 800 service or other telecom exotica. I am particularly interested in Cable & Wireless and Telecom*USA (or did they merge with someone?). Please mail your replies to: srchtec!wabwrld!ld -or- wabwrld!ld@srchtec.searchtec.com (for you domain people). A summary will be posted to the Digest if I get enough input from my fellow readers. Thanks in advance for your input. ---=== wabwrld Waffle BBS ===--- A small, quality e-mail system on the outskirts of Atlanta, Ga. bangpath - {emory,uupsi}!srchtec!wabwrld!bill ------------------------------ Subject: Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online? From: Michael Van Norman Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1991 22:44 mtxinu!Ingres.COM!tyler@uunet.uu.net (Rick Tyler) wrote: > According to the mailing I received from Pacific Bell last week, area > codes 310 (Southern CA) and 510 (Northern CA) come into being on > September 2, 1991, NOT November 2, 1991, as someone has suggested. That "someone" was me :) According to the piece of mail I am holding in my hand at this very moment, the date is November 2, 1991. The mailing came with my last bill from GTE. The telecommunications office here at UCLA also says the switch happens on November 2. Could PacBell and GTE be doing this at different time? I tend to believe the November 2 date because six months from that date is May 2 (at least they agree on that point) and other information I have seen says the grace period is six months, not seven. Michael Van Norman ECL4MVN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU [Moderator's Note: As John Covert once reminded me, cutovers and conversions are most often scheduled for Saturday, dating back to when that was the slowest day of the week, traffic-wise. Do either of those dates fall on Saturday? That would probably be the day. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 20:58:13 -0400 From: Carl G Moore Jr <00860@brahms.udel.edu> Subject: More Detail on Bronx-to-718 Reply-to: cmoore@brl.mil December 11, 1990 {New York Times} article on page B-3 announces that (as you have heard in Telecom already) Bronx will be switching to 718 instead of the 917 area code; currently, it shares 212 with Manhattan. More details: -- Bronx officials insulted at the prospect of being lumped with nonhumans (area 917) and thus feeling cut off from rest of NYC. -- 212 was created in 1947. -- 3 area codes will be sufficient until at least 2000 (source: N.Y.Telephone). -- Rejected alternatives were mind-boggling; they included: 2 area codes in Manhattan; All new NYC numbers go to new area code -- At least at the outset, 917 will be used for cellular and paging in 212, and for pagers only in 718 (I don't see why 718's cellular is not included). A task force will study expansion to faxes, computers, etc., and whether to expand 917 to such services in 516 and 914 areas. -- Bronx to move to 718 not later than July 1992; permissive dialing "for a year or so". ------------------------------ Date: 13 Aug 91 00:29:00 GMT Organization: Sherwood Forest From: Corporate Raider Subject: Citbank Visa/Mastercharge is Too Friendly Ever see those commercials on TV about how Citibank is such a friendly bank? For example one person needed a new engine for his car while he was on vacation, and citibank "authorized" a credit limit increase? Well while I am on this topic, if you call Citbank Customer Service line, and if you need to get a balance or a limit on your credit card, all you have to do is enter in your card number, then it waits and asks you for your zip code. You then can ask it for the balance of your account, the maximum credit limit of your account, etc. etc. Now think all a crook needs is your card number and your zip code and they can access your records nite or day, not even a crook, but say your local merchant wants to make sure you have "enough" he simply calls the 800 number, enters in your card number and zip code, and poof he/she has you complete billing history. I think Citibank should make their system more secure. Have a added feature of your phone number and a four digit "PIN" number that only you know, so that only you and Citibank could access this information. k/orkc -k/rock Internet : k-rock@sherwood.rent.com UUCP : rutgers!bobsbox!sherwood!k-rock Bitnet : k-rock%sherwood.rent.com@pucc [Moderator's Note: Isn't it something how the telephone had made it so much easier to lie, cheat and steal than in the past? I think Western Union had the right idea when they said they wanted no part of such an instrument! :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Todd Inch Subject: Wanted: PBX For Home Organization: Maverick International Inc. Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 16:23:37 GMT Several of you regular readers have mentioned or recommended some small PBX's appropriate for residential use, including a few models made by Panasonic, if I recall. Does anyone know of a vendor for these, or, better yet, have one laying about that they want to sell? I have an immediate need and cash in my pocket. Specifically, it must use analog plain-'ol telephones, such as the 2500, NOT electronic sets (unless it's a real deal and a bunch of phones come with it. I have the 2500's and want to add answering machine, modem, etc. I think this rules out many non-hybrid "key systems".) As small as two lines by six extensions would be acceptable, but I'd rather have something more like three lines by twelve extensions. (Yes, for you non-phanatics, I've had tne phones/devices in a 1200 square foot single-story home.) Would like intercom calling, hold, forward, conference calling, "call-waiting" programmable ringing (e.g. what phone rings on which line) etc. Paging adapter and MOH inputs would be plusses. So far, I haven't found a local vendor who wants to/is able to sell me such a critter. Several said this size unit doesn't exist. At that point, I mention AT&T's Partner, which uses one or two self-contained 2 x 6 modules, each at about $400 (Hello Direct price.) It does need a proprietary electronic set to do programming, but I've got access to one I can borrow. So, I'm thinking I've got to be able to do better than a $400 2 x 6 unit, especially if I don't mind used. One vendor did offer a Mitel SX-20 for $800, configured for 4 x 24, which he claimed would do anything I'd ever want, but was strictly as-is, cash, and he wasn't willing to even do the work of faxing me a spec sheet on it. If the wife would let me spend that much, I might go for it if I added a ten-day no-questions-asked return it if I don't like it clause. (Maybe I'll have to bring up the subject of her in-state long distance bill. :-) I think the vendor thinks he's doing me a favor. Maybe. So, where can I get something this size, and is it reasonable to expect under $400 for it? [Moderator's Note: If Melco is still in business (?) they make/made a unit called the 212 which would go for about the price you want. Melco also had/has a unit called the 424 and the 824. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #633 ******************************   Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07877; 16 Aug 91 4:39 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06097; 16 Aug 91 2:50 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04769; 16 Aug 91 1:30 CDT Date: Fri, 16 Aug 91 0:50:24 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #634 BCC: Message-ID: <9108160050.ab00382@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 16 Aug 91 00:49:36 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 634 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Christopher Owens] Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Leonard P. Levine] Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Mark Fulk] Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Mark R. Jenkins] Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Daniel Herrick] Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Robert Prescott] Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Toby Nixon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 91 0:34:45 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers This issue of the Digest is devoted to replies to ealier messages on Radio Shack policies regarding names and addresses for purchase reciepts, and my responses to some of those messages. There are still more messages, and they will be appearing in the next issue of the Digest, since this issue is as full as I can make it. Suffice to say, we do not see eye to eye on this controversial issue, but these little disputes from time to time are what make TELECOM Digest, IMHO, such an interesting news group. I had to cut the quoted stuff extensively since it made room for more messages, and eliminated reading (for the most part) the same quoted stuff over and over. Enjoy this issue! PAT ------------------------------ From: Robert J Woodhead Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers Date: 15 Aug 91 07:38:06 GMT Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Tokyo Japan TELECOM Moderator Notes, responding to mday@pion.lcs.mit.edu (Mark Day) concerning RS and their mailing list: > [Moderator's Note: Oh you do, do you? I wish I could get apologies > from people every time I read messages which sorely tax my imagination > with bizzare examples of all the things that will *in theory -- but > never or rarely ever* happen ... I beg to differ with you. The aforementioned behavior is epidemic at Radio Shack. I have had similar experiences when I was living in Ithaca NY at all of the RS stores in the area. The badgering for telephone numbers and addresses was intense. My bitching to the store managers eventually resulted in them using 0000 as a catchall number for irascible types like myself. RS' collection of names and telephone numbers is not in itself bad; it's _demanding_ of them is at the very least, extremely rude; but it's lack of guidelines for the control of this information is shocking. It is out and out sloppy and could cause someone some serious pain. Lest you think that *such things don't happen*, I would direct your attention to one of any number of articles that have been appearing recently, both on the net and in newspapers, regarding governmental abuse of seizure laws, in which peoples money and propery have been siezed on the most flimsy of pretexts and without benefit of due process -- often justified by such shaky chains of evidence as have been suggested by c.d.t contributors. Just because it has never happened to you (or, for that matter, anyone!) doesn't mean that it can't happen. >I mean really, >one RS salesman in West Podunk diddles up a receipt for a cash sale >and suddenly we have 'Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers' You are ignoring the evidence of your own contributors, several of whom have written to confirm their experience of similar behavior. Me three (or is it four) ... > And we are told if we don't stop this henious > pratice now, freedom, privacy and no doubt the entire American Way > will be facing imminent death. Gaak .... only on Usenet! PAT] If we don't defend our right to privacy, we will all too soon find out that we don't have any left. The net is a great bastion of independant thought and (occasionally rational) discourse. Yes, it's noisy at times. I would contend that that is a good thing. While the signal to noise ratio may be high, and the feedback occasionally positive, the signal is there - and it is worthwhile and valuable. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ From: Christopher Owens Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers Organization: University of Chicago Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1991 13:50:48 GMT For another random datapoint in an extremely random discussion, I bought a patch cord in a local Radio Shack on Saturday with cash and the clerk did not ask me for my name or phone number or address. Christopher Owens Department of Computer Science 1100 East 58th Street The University of Chicago Chicago, IL 60637 owens@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (312) 702-2505 ------------------------------ From: Leonard P Levine Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers Date: 15 Aug 91 15:55:02 GMT Reply-To: levine@csd4.csd.uwm.edu From article , by gk@kksys.mn.org (Greg Kemnitz): > Perhaps an apology from you, in the same forum, would be appropriate? > [...] > [Moderator's Note: Perhaps an explanation from you as to why -- > despite the circumstances being as you claim -- this is still not a > petty matter would be of more interest than an apology from me. PAT Perhaps we need a new Moderator, one who is moderate. It is not a crime to make a social error, it is very wrong not to understand that we did so. An apology is called for. The poster described a situation in which a company's practices caused a customer name and address to be passed on to someone else. That was and is wrong. You (Pat) were wrong to abuse him. You should apologize and correct your behaviour. You are a MODERATOR, not a king. Be moderate. Leonard P. Levine e-mail levine@cs.uwm.edu Professor, Computer Science Office (414) 229-5170 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Home (414) 962-4719 Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A. FAX (414) 229-6958 [Memo From the King: Now if I were not a benevolent king, your message would never have seen the light of day here, would it? Pardon me as I giggle, but I always get amused when people from Usenet tell me I should apologize for something. As the late Jack Benny phrased it, 'Really, Mary'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mark Fulk Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1991 16:30:41 GMT A long and ridiculous straw man argument from the Moderator .... > from every customer. And we are told if we don't stop this henious > pratice now, freedom, privacy and no doubt the entire American Way > will be facing imminent death. Gaak .... only on Usenet! PAT] If you didn't owe an apology before, you do now, for misrepresenting other people's arguments. If you ask me, you live in a Pollyanna never-never land where no-one (especially the government or the hallowed Ma Bell) would ever misuse information about another human being. Unfortunately, government and corporate misuse of personal data are rife. People have been arrested on the basis of evidence that amounted to the receipt with an address. Unfortunately, when the police believe they're on to the right criminal, they often harass the suspect unmercifully for months trying to get more evidence. If you haven't noticed this yourself, you don't read the newpaper. Perhaps you would be interested in a small experience of mine. I bought some batteries at RS. The salesman asked me for my address and phone number; I gave them but noticed that he misspelled my name "Mark E. Felk". I didn't bother to correct him. Within six months Mark E. Felk got ads for courses in radio-electronics and computer programming, for scanners, radar detectors, and even radar jammers (pardon me, radar _calibrators_, with the warning that it was illegal to perform the simple mod that made them jammers). He also got unasked-for subscriptions to two or three magazines, all but one of which were easily cancelled. Pretty soon Mr. Felk was the recipient of about half the mail in our mailbox. Unfortunately, Radio-Electronics was not easily dissuaded. It took about three months, four or five long-distance phone calls, and two or three threats to call the FTC before I could get Mr. Felk's subscription cancelled and the ``collection agency'' off his (my) back. Mr. Felk also got several calls at our residence. Two or three of those calls wakened the baby. I never bothered to find out who was calling; when they said "Is Mr. Felk there?" I just hung up. Now, I do think that Radio Shack has an obligation to warn me about this kind of harassment. I rarely shop there any more, and NEVER give them my correct name, address, or phone number. Mr. Felk's address cost me about two days worth of time, and three or four dollars worth of phone calls, not counting the irritation of dealing with collecting agents. I do agree that the government is most likely uninterested in RS purchases. This is simply because the inventory of an RS store is really rather boring and useless. I wouldn't be surprised if the government does watch for purchases of some things through the larger electronics mail order houses. My bet would be that they care about any sort of very high speed circuitry, and they may also watch for patterns of purchase that indicate the construction of spread-spectrum radio equipment. [The King Again: Why do you *buy* batteries from RS? I get all mine free from the local store using bunches of those 'battery club' cards they give away. If I forget to take a punch card, the manager just gives me one anyway. Being nineteen and a veteran employee, he loves the stories I tell him about Allied Radio, and Tandy's take over of a wonderful company. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Mark R. Jenkins 619-458-2794" Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers Date: 15 Aug 91 13:16:12 PST Organization: Science Applications Int'l Corp./San Diego I have been following the thread on Radio Shack's sales policies, and since I wanted to buy something at Radio Shack anyway, I took a trip over. I bought a book for about $8. This is apparently too small a sale to bother getting my telephone number for, which I would not have given them anyway. (Personal policy). When I examined my sales receipt, I noticed that the computer-generated slip was not blank up top as I had expected, but had a woman's name, address, and telephone number on it. It wasn't someone else's sales receipt, because the line item covered what I had just bought. I don't know who she is, and I don't care. But what if I was a social deviant who liked bothering people? Sure, I could use the phone book to pick out my victims ... but why not use this great Radio Shack lottery instead? Someone who might otherwise have escaped unbothered by me gets targeted simply because they bought something at Radio Shack. It is an absurdly easy thing to build into your sales system an "anonymous" sales transaction. In fact, I find it amazing that all of these systems apparently have no capacity for this type of action. Instead, the sales personnel have to resort to tricks like "99999" for the zip code, or picking some random customer, in order to get the sales receipt to print out. As unlikely as I think it is that someone would end up getting hassled because of Radio Shack's actions, their actions are careless and negligent at best because they are so easily avoided. Mark Jenkins Science Applications International Corporation San Diego, CA USA (619) 458-2794 ------------------------------ From: Daniel Herrick Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers Date: 15 Aug 91 17:43:24 EST In article , the Moderator Notes: (responding to John Eaton) ... > [Mderator's Note: All those things are very interesting scenarios; but > do they *really* happen? And again, recall our original correspondent > claimed 'Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers' which in fact the > corporation does NOT do. A *single* clerk, in a *single* RS franchise > somewhere mishandled the records on a *single* sale. > ... that Joe Random must be the guy! Yes sirree! You are grasping for > straws, intent on showing this massive conspiracy by RS to deprive > everyone of their privacy by no doubt peddling it to, let's see ... ah > yes! ... to that great bogeyman, the 'telesleaze'. PAT] Is there a reader in Chicago who will go to Radio Shack and spend a dollar and get a receipt with Pat's name address and phone number on it? We know he shops there. If someone would do the leg work, then Pat would understand there is a security issue here. dan herrick dlh@NCoast.org [Dictator's Dictum: And I suppose you know *what four digits* make up the category where my record is filed, and *which* RS store I go to? None of the RS stores here share those files with each other. Good luck ... you'll need it! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 15:56:47 CST From: Robert Prescott Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers First Radio Shack keeps customer name address etc on file. Then next they decide to keep track of what was purchased (for whatever reason). Then you have credit card companies, libraries, and a horde of other places keeping track of you. Now all you need is some over zealous bureaucrat wanting to put all this information together and doing only the gods know what with it. Robert [Another Immoderate Remark: Doesn't that happen already, with or without Radio Shack's help? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers Date: 15 Aug 91 18:57:30 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA Obviously, Pat, you haven't read the books about the investigation into the Mormon bomber case in Utah a couple of years back. A major break in that case came when the investigators determined from bomb remnants that the electronic components were from Radio Shack. They searched through store records, and were able to pin down (from the same components having been purchased at multiple stores) several good leads to the bomber. I would have hated to have been the person selected at random to be the one recorded as having bought those parts. I have no doubt such electronic investigations of third party records will become more common. Look at how Procter and Gamble has the FBI going through 40 million long distance call records in Ohio trying to find out the identities of every person in the Cincinnati area who called the {Wall Street Journal} reporter to whom was alledgedly leaked certain supposedly confidential information. No, they're not just checking the records of P&G employees, but EVERYBODY in the LATA. Still feel comfortable? In article , luddite@dorsai.com (Martin Luddite) writes: > Simply put, almost everybody has bought something from a Radio Shack > in the past two years. Having a person's phone number, I would go to a > Radio Shack, buy a 25 cent diode, give the clerk the last four digits, > and on many occassions come up with address information on a certain > person. That wouldn't work with me. I have never given RS my home phone number or address, but my office number and P.O. Box -- which any investigator could get much easier than scamming an RS salesman. Anybody who is sincerely concerned with privacy could give RS a completely fictional phone number, address, and even name. A different one every time you go, if you wish. They don't check ID. This doesn't mean I agree with RS's system, and especially not with the giving out of OTHER CUSTOMERS addresses and phone numbers at random. They should simply have a "9999" code for "CASH SALE" or something like that. Better than saying "uh, sorry, here's your money back; I can't sell to you without your address and phone", or, worse, handing out printouts of other customer's private information. 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 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon Fido 1:114/15 USA | Internet tnixon%hayes@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #634 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22329; 16 Aug 91 11:09 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16572; 16 Aug 91 9:27 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18400; 16 Aug 91 8:16 CDT Date: Fri, 16 Aug 91 7:53:35 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #635 BCC: Message-ID: <9108160753.ab21132@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 16 Aug 91 07:53:28 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 635 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Marc Siskin] Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Henry E. Schaffer] Re: Email From Space [Byron Han] Re: Email From Space [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: Email From Space [Daniel Herrick] Re: Phast Phood [John J. DiLeo] Re: Phast Phood [William Kucharski] Re: Phast Phood [David Leibold] Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online? [John Higdon] Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online? [Praul Cook] Re: What Are 700 Numbers Used For? [Carl Moore] Re: Long Distance Across A Road [Steve Dillinger] Upcoming Report on Telecommunications: Globe and Mail [David Leibold] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: msiskin@css.itd.umich.edu (Marc Siskin) Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers Organization: Univ. of Michigan Language Resource Center Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 12:24:40 GMT In article johne@hp-vcd.vcd.hp.com (John Eaton) writes: > If the store handed out a receipt with Joe Random Customer's name and > address on it then he has a valid complaint. > Suppose a sheriff finds the receipt with Joe's name on it at the > bottom of a pile of garbage at the bottom of a cliff. And our Moderator Notes: > [Moderator's Note: All those things are very interesting scenarios; but > do they *really* happen? Pat, What about this scenerio: I Tom Terrorist go to that Radio Shack, give the clerk a random four digit number and confirm that one of the names listed is mine. Or as in the case that started this whole thread, the clerk just assigns a client to the purchase. Now what I Tom Terrorist have is a slick piece of mis-direction. I just toss this reciept somewhere the police can find it (maybe in the bag I carry the bomb in) and let the police (assuming it survives) assume that Ronnie Random customer was the one who purchased parts for the bomb from Radio Shack. The risk (in Comp.Risks terms) here is not so much that I would get someone's phone number but that I can put in records that can be searched the fact that someone not myself purchased something that was used for my purposes. Marc Siskin Senior Media Designer Language Resource Center University of Michigan Msiskin@shogun.css.itd.umich.edu Std. Disclaimer claimed ------------------------------ From: "Henry E. Schaffer" Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers Reply-To: "Henry E. Schaffer" Organization: NCSU Computing Center Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1991 00:07:13 GMT In article the Moderator Notes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 631, Message 8 of 8 > ... I mean really, > one RS salesman in West Podunk diddles up a receipt for a cash sale > and suddenly we have 'Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers', and let's > stop the world while someone gets off and shudders at the prospect > that the sheriff might come along and find a bag of trash that has the > receipt in it for a 29-cent diode and the innocent victim lives at a > place where some third party unknown ripped off phone service from > someone else and now they will take the name and put it in a data base > of people who are known to go around putting RS diodes on other > people's phone lines and to make matters worse the poor devil will get > a telephone call in the middle of the day from someone selling diodes > for a competitor to whom the sheriff sold the name after investigating > the guy and the guy with his name on the reciept will need to install > another phone line with an answering machine and a non-pub number so > he need not risk the awfulness of answering the phone in person when > the telemarketer calls unless of course he demands to speak to the > telemarketer's supervisor's supervisor's supervisor to debate some > obscure technical question about the 29 cent diode for which none of > this would ever have happened had not Radio Shack been such a greedy > company looking to make more money by demanding some name and address > from every customer. And we are told if we don't stop this henious > pratice now, freedom, privacy and no doubt the entire American Way > will be facing imminent death. Gaak .... only on Usenet! PAT] Pat, Wonderful! Are you interested in selling the film rights? I can see the Dutchman purchasing the diode, with Paul Newman's name getting on it (a la 7 Days of the Condor) and lots of action, gunfire and sex. Perhaps you can play a bit part in the telemarketing office supervising some personnel - perhaps catching you saying something like "Of course, Mr. Bloomingdale." over the phone? What possibilities - the critics will love it. Got to go now baby, perhaps we can do lunch sometime and discuss residuals? Ciao. henry schaffer n c state univ ------------------------------ From: Byron Han Subject: Re: Email From Space Date: 15 Aug 91 08:31:34 GMT Organization: Apple Computer, Inc. In article kddlab!lkbreth.foretune. co.jp!trebor@uunet.uu.net (Robert J Woodhead) writes: > Sigh. I keep forgetting how the net is a magnet for the > sense-of-humor-impaired. To correct Mr. Han, whom I believe was > involved in this particular project (and so probably feels that it is > _his_ ox being gored), this particular snide remark of mine was not > aimed at him, per se, but at NASA and their mindset. Which was precisely what I was taking umbrage at. My hide is (un)fortunately rather thick as my colleagues will attest to. > ... That the data path described "is indeed > the simplest possible..." is just icing on the cake. How many > billions for each shuttle, and how many billions for the TDRS sat > system, and they still forgot to include an RS232 data port? Sheesh! Here are some of the options available: One option was to tap into the existing Orbiter to Ground telemetry stream which would involve designing some custom hardware and software to interface the standard RS232 serial port from the back of the DOS compatible or Macintosh Portable to the telemetry downlink. Another option was to tap into the Orbiter to Ground voice channel using custom off the shelf modems and software. Another option was to design a custom modem to utility the Orbiter to Ground voice channel. Engineering judgment dictacted that using commercially available hardware (fax modems) and software would minimize development time and reduce exposure for component failure. The "complexity" of the datalink is simply the standard path that voice takes going from Orbiter to Ground. This is the nature of the TDRSS system. I am not in the habit of defending my engineering judgment on the net. I would merely like to set the record straight and point out that in this case (granted perhaps an exception to the rule) NASA did indeed do something rather nifty without having to reinvent everything from scratch. In my opinion, the most significant lesson that NASA can learn from this admitedly relatively minor experiment (after all e-mail is not rocket science) is that taking commercial off-the-shelf hardware and software and integrating the two can result in excellent results at a fraction of the cost of rediscovering the wheel. Byron Han, Software Artisan Apple Computer, Inc. 20525 Mariani Ave, MS: 81NC Internet: han@apple.COM Cupertino, CA 95014 AppleLink: HAN1 HAN1@applelink.apple.COM Phone: 1.408.974.6450 CompuServe: 72167,1664 ------------------------------ From: Robert J Woodhead Subject: Re: Email From Space Date: 15 Aug 91 07:50:54 GMT Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Tokyo Japan gillett@ceomax.hlo.dec.com (Christopher Gillett) writes: [concerning my reply concerning a question on NASA] > So, Bob, what's your point? The original questioner wondered why the data path was so complex and convoluted. I therefore concocted an answer that was 1) reasonably engaging and 2) reasonably correct. NASA is indeed renowned for doing everything from scratch and damn the expense. My purpose was to entertain the readership while at the same time perhaps infecting the Usenet genome with a virulent and dangerous meme. Attracting the attention of antibodies is but an occupational hazard of such an undertaking. I consider the effluent of my occasionally skewed mindset to be of value if it receives more kudos than flames. So far, by that standard, I'm doing ok. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ From: "90958, HERRICK, DANIEL" Subject: Re: Email From Space Date: 15 Aug 91 12:46:19 EST In article , gillett@ceomax.hlo.dec.com (Christopher Gillett) writes: > In article is written: > X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 625, Message 2 of 10 >> Robert.Savery@ivgate.omahug.org (Robert Savery) writes: >>> Seriously, is there anyone here connected with the project? If so, I'm >>> curious as to why such a convoluted routing was used. It would seem >>> that there are dozens of easier, cheaper methods available. > completely rational explanation by the author of the portable Mac > software used on the shuttle. Made good sense to me, and didn't > necessarily seem like a complicated method put in place by hordes of > administrative personnel. Yes, there was an explanation, but it explained something much simpler than the original routing we were told would be used. That routing involved at least two orbiting satellites besides the shuttle. Didn't make any sense to me. Still doesn't. Did they use the routing originally described here? What were the constraints that made that routing appropriate? I think the flames and rhetoric in this thread were wasted bandwidth, but I really am curious about the engineering decisions. dan herrick dlh@NCoast.org ------------------------------ From: "John J. DiLeo" Subject: Re: Phast Phood Date: 15 Aug 91 16:52:24 GMT Organization: Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity In article sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: > It will use a 950 number: 950-1430 (gee, that doesn't spell > anything on the keypad) to pass the call... Just a thought ... I seem to recall that the guarantee is 30 minutes or less delivered, *14* minutes or less for pickup. John DiLeo dileo@brl.mil ------------------------------ From: William Kucharski Subject: Re: Phast Phood Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1991 21:43:11 GMT In article sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: > According to this week's {Network World}, Domino's is teaming with > AT&T and Bell Laboratories (getting a Pizza the action?) to develop a > service that will route a phone call to a single nationwide number to > the store closest to the caller. This is interesting. When Domino's originally expanded into the Milwaukee, WI area, there was one central Domino's number that you called. The central order processing center took your address and order and this information came out of a printer located at the appropriate Domino's location. All in all, it was a pretty neat system. However, in the past few years Domino's changed to a "call your local store" scheme in Milwaukee like they use everywhere else in the country. What the reasons were for the change, I don't know. I thought the original system was pretty cool; perhaps it was some type of pilot program for the national system. Anyone out there that worked for Domino's Pizza in Milwaukee in 1985-6? William Kucharski, Solbourne Computer, Inc. | Opinions expressed above | Internet: kucharsk@solbourne.com Ham: N0OKQ | are MINE alone, not uucp: ..!{boulder,sun,uunet}!stan!kucharsk | those of Solbourne. Snail Mail: 1900 Pike Road, Longmont, CO 80501 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 21:47:39 EDT From: David Leibold Subject: Re: Phast Phood With Domino's using 950.1430 nationwide, and recalling that 950 numbers are generally patterned as 950.1ccc where the ccc is the carrier ID code (for instance, 950.1022 gets MCI, as 022 is an MCI carrier ID code) would it make sense that Domino's or AT&T has 430 assigned as a carried ID code from Bellcore? I wonder what happens if access via 10430+ is done? Your call is connected within 30 minutes or its free :-) dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca also dleibold@attmail.com [Moderator's Note: 10222 is MCI; I don't know about 10022. From here, 10022-anything goes to intercept immediatly. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 01:05 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online Rick Tyler writes: > According to the mailing I received from Pacific Bell last week, area > codes 310 (Southern CA) and 510 (Northern CA) come into being on > September 2, 1991, NOT November 2, 1991, as someone has suggested. Please go back and reread: The 510 code begins in September; The 310 code (the one in question) begins in November. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 17:55 GMT From: Proctor & Associates <0003991080@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online? Rick Tyler writes: > According to the mailing I received from Pacific Bell last week, area > codes 310 (Southern CA) and 510 (Northern CA) come into being on > September 2, 1991, NOT November 2, 1991, as someone has suggested. A recent mailing I got from Bellcore shows 510 effective September 2 and 310 effective November 2. Paul Cook Proctor & Associates Redmond, WA 98052 3991080@mcimail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 10:27:30 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: What Are 700 Numbers Used For? Reply-to: cmoore@brl.mil 10835-1-700 + 7D did not work for me. I got "1 2 , 1 5; welcome to Telecom USA 1+ dialing", and the message said if there were questions, to call 800-383-3333. The message repeated, then I got a fast busy. This was from 302-731 in Delaware. ------------------------------ From: Dill Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1991 16:01:25 GMT On the thread of Illinois Bell's new 'pay-as-you-go-service,' my phone bills have tripled. I live in an apartment with three other roommates and according to our phone bill we make 600-800 calls a month. That ends up being a lot of cash. I love it when IB gives us this story of how they switched plans to bill the people who use the service. That is such bullshit. Some brain at the telco just figured out they would make more money this way so they switched. I wonder how many peole -really- do have lower phone bills. I am sure it is a lot less than they say ... Steve 'Screw ma Bell, before she screws you' Dillinger [ Steve Dillinger :: smd10696@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu :: dill@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu ] [ University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign ] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 22:07:40 EDT From: DLEIBOLD@vm1.yorku.ca Subject: Upcoming Report on Telecommunications: {Globe and Mail} The {Globe and Mail} in Canada has announced that it will be running another Report on Telecommunications section in its 10th September 1991 issue. This would presumably be similar to a section which ran in early April, featuring articles on such matters as competition and deregulations, plus advertising from various carriers and interconnects. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #635 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12836; 17 Aug 91 2:45 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31991; 17 Aug 91 1:21 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31047; 17 Aug 91 0:14 CDT Date: Fri, 16 Aug 91 23:34:13 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #636 BCC: Message-ID: <9108162334.ab29705@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 16 Aug 91 23:34:07 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 636 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Steve Urich] Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Daniel Herrick] Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Mike Northam] Alice's Restaurant (was Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers) [Andy Sherman] Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [John Higdon] Big Bad Radio Shack [Edward Hopper] Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? [Jerry Gitomer] Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Jeff Carroll] Re: U.S. - Canada Calling Cards [John R. Levine] Re: Cable TV Competition [Rick Smith] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Urich Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers Date: 16 Aug 91 11:17:12 GMT Organization: Beyonet Network In article owens@lust.uchicago.edu (Christopher Owens) writes: > For another random datapoint in an extremely random discussion, I > bought a patch cord in a local Radio Shack on Saturday with cash and > the clerk did not ask me for my name or phone number or address. <*> Possible. I have a friend that works part-time as a salesman not at R.S. He has to enter the phone number also and the database he uses has a default entry like 555-5555. Or the R.S you shop at had their system down and they were writing it out manually. Did you get a recipe? [No, but he may have gotten a reciept! :) PAT] In article hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes: [Bomber and FBI Stuff Deleted] > Still feel comfortable? > In article , luddite@dorsai.com (Martin > Luddite) writes: [Martin's Stuff Deleted] > Anybody who is sincerely concerned with privacy could give RS a > completely fictional phone number, address, and even name. A > different one every time you go, if you wish. They don't check ID. <*> Right! Just tell them your name is John Smith, 999-9999. Usually the clerk doesn't care unless his R.S. boss gives him flack. The more blatant you are with your false ID the better you would feel if you don't like to lie. B-) Steve Urich WB3FTP ------------------------------ From: HERRICK, DANIEL Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers Date: 16 Aug 91 11:52:41 EST In article , herrickd@astro.pc.ab.com (Daniel Herrick) writes: > Is there a reader in Chicago who will go to Radio Shack and spend a > dollar and get a receipt with Pat's name address and phone number on > it? We know he shops there. If someone would do the leg work, then > Pat would understand there is a security issue here. > [Dictator's Dictum: And I suppose you know *what four digits* make up > the category where my record is filed, and *which* RS store I go to? > None of the RS stores here share those files with each other. Good > luck ... you'll need it! PAT] You published your home address in response to my jibe a couple days ago about zip + 4. I'm sure there are other alert readers who know where your office is located. You recently described the walk from your office to the R/S where you bought some phone gadget. Your personal privacy is already only as secure as the good will of the readers of comp.dcom.telecom lets it be. It is amusing to watch you pooh pooh other people's concerns about privacy while publishing the dossier that would make a demonstration relatively easy. dan herrick dlh@NCoast.org [Moderator's Note: What I said was that mail to 60690-1570 reaches me as the sole occupant of that code. You'll find its a box at the Downtown Station post office. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Aug 91 16:32:19 PDT From: Mike Northam ext 2651 Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers In article , the Moderator Notes: (responding to John Eaton) ... > [Mderator's Note: All those things are very interesting scenarios; but > do they *really* happen? And again, recall our original correspondent > claimed 'Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers' which in fact the > corporation does NOT do. A *single* clerk, in a *single* RS franchise > somewhere mishandled the records on a *single* sale. > ... that Joe Random must be the guy! Yes sirree! You are grasping for > straws, intent on showing this massive conspiracy by RS to deprive > everyone of their privacy by no doubt peddling it to, let's see ... ah > yes! ... to that great bogeyman, the 'telesleaze'. PAT] [stuff about tracking down PAT's RS store deleted] Just to (needlessly :-)) jump into the fray, let me state that I have received other people's names/addresses several times at various RS stores in a similar manner. It may not be 'company policy', but RS' pressure on salespeople (a $3 incentive for each phone-numbered transaction was reported here) to provide a phone number for _each and every_ sale leads many of them to (randomly) give out such information. I've found myself lately either giving them my real home or business number (to avoid the pleading and hassles of explaining, yet again, my objection to RS' practices) or giving them the local weather number or 555-xxxx, when I'm feeling in an ornery mood. ------------------------------ From: Andy Sherman Subject: Alice's Restaurant (was Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers) Date: 16 Aug 91 13:20:27 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA In article johne@hp-vcd.vcd.hp.com (John Eaton) writes: > Suppose a sheriff finds the receipt with Joe's name on it at the > bottom of a pile of garbage at the bottom of a cliff. > [Mderator's Note: All those things are very interesting scenarios; but > do they *really* happen? Besides the Alice's Restaurant legend (all you youngsters go ask somebody over 35), this actually can happen. My brother, who lives in rural Wisconsin, once emptied his dump truck in front of a closed dump. Yes, "We found your name on this envelope at the bottom of half a ton of garbage" was approximately what they said. (And yes, there were 8x10 color glossy photographs, with circle and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one ...) Yes, I know it's not telecom, but this light hearted example does indicate that you take the issue a bit too lightly, Pat. Because in fact, it was not my brother's mail they found under half a ton of garbage, it was mail belonging to the person from whom he bought the dump truck. They, like Joe Smith, ex Radio Shack customer, were the first ones hassled by the cops. Fortunately for them, my brother had paid by check. Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Aug 91 10:23 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers msiskin@css.itd.umich.edu (Marc Siskin) writes: > Tom Terrorist have is a slick piece of mis-direction. I just toss > this reciept somewhere the police can find it (maybe in the bag I > carry the bomb in) and let the police (assuming it survives) assume > that Ronnie Random customer was the one who purchased parts for the > bomb from Radio Shack. And if this is indeed Radio Shack's procedure, and that receipt is the ONLY evidence that the police have on Ronnie Rondom, then I would suspect that Ron would have very little to worry about. I have seen some pretty thin cases against defendants accused of all manner of high-tech wrongdoing, but this would not even fly across the room if it were made into a paper airplane. I'm afraid I am going to have to agree with Pat here; all of this conjecture is reminiscent of all the garbage people dredge up when arguing against Caller-ID. Radio Shack receipts are NOT real estate title deeds, court warrants, witnessed wills, diplomatic documents, or even car registrations. They are retail store receipts and nothing more. Wake me up when someone gets 20 to life for international conspiracy based solely on the evidence of one erroneous Radio Shack receipt. If people spent as much time worrying about things that matter as they do about this sort of non-issue, this country would probably not be headed down the dumper quite so fast. > The risk (in Comp.Risks terms) here is not so much that I would get > someone's phone number but that I can put in records that can be > searched the fact that someone not myself purchased something that was > used for my purposes. When was the last time Radio Shack records were searched by law enforcement? Can you document a single case? And if so, was someone convicted and sentenced based entirely on that search? If so, let me know; I will get involved. Now, back to telecom... John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: ehopper@attmail.com Date: Fri Aug 16 10:20:07 CDT 1991 Subject: Big Bad Radio Shack Pat: I couldn't stop laughing when I read your scenario about the "abuse" that could be created by the disclosure of one's address and phone number. Of course, the really frightening thing about all this is the degree of paranoia and absence of reality checking found in some of these postings (and of course the rantings one finds in the Telecom-Privacy list). It amazes me, really, that I have never had these problems. Oh, every once in a while I have received odd phone calls and I have been bothered by telemarketers, but it has never been the tremendous burden these poor souls seem to have suffered. On a more serious note, I did discuss this matter with a co-worker who was formerly employed by Tandy. He tells me that, in fact, employees are evaluated based upon the percentage of their sales that bear name, address and phone number information. An employee who lets too many sales go by without getting the required info would be in hot water. In addition to RS, CompuAdd computer stores do the same thing. Ed Hopper ------------------------------ From: Jerry Gitomer Subject: Re: Why Not Four Digit Area Codes? Date: 15 Aug 91 12:59:34 GMT Organization: NPRI, Alexandria VA herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes: > In article , localhost!jerry@uu.psi.com > (Jerry Gitomer) writes: >> their entirety if any fields are changed. This is why the postal >> service had to back down on Zip + 4. > But the Postal Service did not back down on Zip + 4. Don't you notice > the mail that comes to you with 9 digit Zips? I think those silly As originally proposed Zip + 4 would have been required for all mail sent by organizations (and perhaps even all mail). After catching a lot of flak from just about every organization that mails out bills, statements, checks, or whatever the Postal Service backed down and made Zip + 4 optional and set up some special pricing to encourage mass mailers to use it. Jerry Gitomer at National Political Resources Inc, Alexandria, VA USA I am apolitical, have no resources, and speak only for myself. 1-703/683-9090 jerry@npri.com ...uunet!uupsi!npri6!jerry ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road Date: 15 Aug 91 18:47:46 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics In article knauer@cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Knauerhase) writes: > Lastly, in Champaign, IL, not much is outside the A band. But here in > Portland (with banded local calls), I can't call across town for a > flat fee; from Hillsboro, one can't even call to central Portland > without incurring a per-minute charge. Bands should be a lot bigger > in cities. Depends on the city. I'd agree that Hillsboro-Portland ought to be a local call (at least the part of Hillsboro you're calling from); in fact I'm surprised it's not, since we have the same telco, and you have to get fairly far away from Seattle (except to the north, where there's GTE and a county line) before it's long distance to call there. I guess Hillsboro is GTE too, though, huh? Chicago is a different story, though. It's a lot more likely there that your acquaintances will live in the same part of town that you do; I had metro service in Chicago back when they used to offer it (in Evanston, actually), and I don't remember *ever* calling *anyone* who was south of Wrigley Field, or west of Skokie. In smaller (and younger) cities like Seattle, Portland, and, yes, Champaign, your friends are far more likely to live all over town. Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: U.S. - Canada Calling Cards Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 15 Aug 91 13:51:11 EDT (Thu) From: "John R. Levine" Based on experience in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia lat month, I can report that my AT&T calling card (the one with my phone number+PIN, they haven't sent me a new one) is usable just like a Canadian calling card. I used it for intra-Canadian calls, and AT&T told me it would work for calls to third countries, though I didn't have the opportunity to try one. After you enter the card number, an operator comes on and tells you to wait, presumably while they look it up in the U.S card database, but other than that there's nothing funny. The call showed up on the AT&T page of my local bill. The MCI and Sprint 800 numbers work but you can only call back to the U.S. Calls within Canada and to third countries fail with a recording telling you that service is not available. Sprint calls to the U.S. were dialed and went through as normal. One thing that is unclear is how AT&T charges for the call. My suspicion is that they charge you the Canadian price without making any allowance for the exchange rate. For example, a one minute evening calling-card call from Meteghan to Yarmouth NS, 902-742 to 902-645, cost me 72 cents. (There's no PST or GST, since it's not billed in Canada, though there is a separate U.S. federal tax.) Could a reader in Nova Scotia look up the rate and see how much it would have cost billed locally? Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: Rick Smith Subject: Re: Cable TV Competition Organization: SCTC Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1991 14:00:07 GMT Here in Minnesota just about all the cable companies operate as local monopolies, generally with franchise agreements through municipal governments. 74066.2004@compuserve.com (Larry Rachman) writes about monopoly cable: > ME: ... I was thinking of subscribing to cable. Is that the > quality of reception I can expect to receive? > SALESPERSON: (with a straight face) That picture looks perfectly fine > to me. I live about 25 miles south of St. Paul and about 30 miles (as the EM signal flies) from the broadcast antenna farm that all the Twin Cities TV stations use. My $55 Channelmaster antenna in my previous house consistently provided better picture quality. > ME: I'll probably take basic service, but I have a cable-ready TV. How > much of a discount do I get because I don't need the converter box. > SALESPERSON: You don't understand sir, the box is free, so there's no > discount for not having one. Around here most of the municipalities require the local cable monopoly to provide a sort of "sub basic" service. No box, just the wire. In our town the franchise was required to provide such service free if the cable wire was already installed. A local paper reviewed the situation with "sub basic" service and found that it was almost impossible to get cable companies to admit to the existence of that level of service. It generally took some arm twisting before they'd admit it, and they wouldn't usually display that level of service on their rate cards. I've heard rumors that our local cable service now tries to charge for "sub basic" service, though that level of "free" service was part of the franchise agreement with the city. In any case that's the level of service we get now in our house, mostly because our old house lacks a visually appropriate place for an antenna. Rick smith@sctc.com Arden Hills, Minnesota ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #636 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18997; 17 Aug 91 4:52 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02838; 17 Aug 91 3:28 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01850; 17 Aug 91 2:22 CDT Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 1:19:53 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #637 BCC: Message-ID: <9108170119.ab30423@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 17 Aug 91 01:19:48 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 637 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson 950-PIZZA (was Phast Phood) [Ralph W. Hyre] Re: Phast Phood [Ron Newman] Re: Email From Space [Daniel Herrick] Re: Email From Space [Byron Han] Re: Hackers Mail-Bomb Shuttle! [Ralph W. Hyre] No Shuttle Mail Bomb [Joe Abernathy] Re: Pac*Bell is Eager to Begin [Dan Jacobson] Re: Pac*Bell is Eager to Begin [H. Peter Anvin] Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext [William Warner] Re: OKI 900 Cellular Phone Acts as a Pager? How? [Larry DeMar] Re: Bell Techincal Journals [Bud Couch] Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Bud Couch] Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network B'Casters [D. Gregoire] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ralph W. Hyre" Subject: 950-PIZZA (was Phast Phood) Date: 16 Aug 91 14:01:19 GMT Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati In article sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: > (Do we really have enough 950-series numbers for all the franchises > in this country ... I don't believe there's anything inherent in the technology that limits it to 950 numbers. (I'm not an expert on it.) There are probably different tarriffs for IntraLATA vs. InterLATA that make 950 more attractive from a financial point of view than 800 service. Citibank had a 950 number that they used for customer inquiries. I believe customers were routed to the 'closest' regional customer service center. It wasn't quite implemented properly everywhere. Not all of the independent telcos handle 950 calls properly. I imagine Dominoes is only worried about the metropolitan areas they serve, so connectivy wouldn't be a concern for them. I wonder if Domino's will reject calls from pay-phones. I often order a pizza for pick-up or delivery on my way home (ie not from my home phone). 950 calls are usually free from payphones, so that would make me more likely to order pizza from whoever paid for the call (all other factors being comparable). In article fergusom@scrvm2.vnet.ibm.com (Mickey Ferguson) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 629, Message 4 of 8 >> ...I know I don't want to do business with an >> individual store, but my call automatically gets routed there? > [Dominos]. In fact, franchise rules forbid it. PAT] But there still needs to be a POTS number available to customers, somehow. What if you want to call the manager of a store and complain? [Moderator's Note: I suppose you could still call the 950 number. After all, you'd probably want to complain to the same store where you got the food. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Aug 91 13:19:39 EDT From: rnewman@bbn.com Subject: Re: Phast Phood Dialing 950-1430 from here (617-873, Cambridge, MA) results in a LOUD blast of white noise! Any idea what I'm getting? Ron Newman rnewman@bbn.com ------------------------------ From: "90958, HERRICK, DANIEL" Subject: Re: Email From Space Date: 16 Aug 91 12:09:02 EST In article , Byron Han writes: > Engineering judgment dictacted that using commercially available > hardware (fax modems) and software would minimize development time and > reduce exposure for component failure. The "complexity" of the > datalink is simply the standard path that voice takes going from > Orbiter to Ground. This is the nature of the TDRSS system. Thank you, Mr. Han. This sounds like a good engineering judgment. The original description covered the fantastic aspects of the path, not the mundane aspects. We are not familiar with the normal paths of shuttle communications. It seems possible you might have had some friendly conversations with engineers in NASA about the available communications paths (among which you had to choose). If we could prevail upon your good will, after having tried it sorely, would you describe some of the reasons for running voice communications through a routing that seemed so rococo when we first read it described here? I could guess that it might be a combination of low cost and covering most of the shuttle orbit, but I would like to see a more informed description. dan herrick dlh@NCoast.org ------------------------------ From: Byron Han Subject: Re: Email From Space Date: 16 Aug 91 17:37:59 GMT Organization: Apple Computer, Inc. In article herrickd@astro.pc.ab.com (HERRICK, DANIEL) writes: > Yes, there was an explanation, but it explained something much simpler > than the original routing we were told would be used. That routing > involved at least two orbiting satellites besides the shuttle. Didn't > make any sense to me. Still doesn't. Did they use the routing > originally described here? What were the constraints that made that > routing appropriate? The NASA TDRSS (Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System) allows ground controllers to stay in touch with the Orbiter (and other satellites like Hubble). By replacing the old ground station network where the Orbiter was essentially handed off from one ground station to the next while in orbit, NASA has increased the coverage from about 15% to 85%. Orbiter voice and telemtry, instead of being beamed down to Earth directly, is sent to a TDRSS satellite in geosynchronous orbit. The TDRSS satellite then relays the signals to the Primary TDRSS Downlink Site in White Sands, NM. From there, it is a simple satellite hop via commercial communications satellite to Houston (or elsewhere for other satellites). There are currently four TDRSS satellites in orbit out of five launch attempts (one was lost on Challenger STS-51L). Two are partially functional, one is working nominally, and one was just launched by Atlantis STS-43 and is undergoing engineering checkout. Byron Han, Software Artisan Apple Computer, Inc. 20525 Mariani Ave, MS: 81NC Internet: han@apple.COM Cupertino, CA 95014 AppleLink: HAN1 HAN1@applelink.apple.COM Phone: 1.408.974.6450 CompuServe: 72167,1664 ------------------------------ From: "Ralph W. Hyre" Subject: Re: Hackers Mail-Bomb Shuttle! Date: 16 Aug 91 14:30:47 GMT Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati In article sethcohn@alchemy.ithaca.ny. us (seth cohn) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 631, Message 6 of 8 > lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Lemson) writes: >> A test of electronic-mail between earth and laptops aboard the space shuttle >> Atlantis was intended to lay the groundwork for use of E-mail on space >> station Freedom. But the test is in jeopardy after 80 E-mail messages >> were received by the Atlantis crew from unauthorized users. The leak >> behind the E-mail address remains a mystery. > earth. Or by chance is the 'atlantis' address automatically forwarding > things along inadvertently? The actual address *in space* was > different, right? PAT] From my fuzzy recollection of Applelink, there is only one ID and 'mailbox' (on the ground). The Mac user retrieves the message from Applelink to read it. I believe you have a choice of whether to 'download' your messages (from the ground-based mailbox to the Mac) or just look at headers. If one was trained to download without perusing header, then I could see where the astronauts would probably get a little irritated at watching the spinning globe cursor while waiting while 80 message are downloaded. (The spinning globe is a neat bit of irony in space). Remember your reaction when you first scanned comp.dcom.telecom :-) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Aug 91 14:07:35 CDT From: Joe Abernathy Subject: No Shuttle Mail Bomb Details of the Atlantis email in space experiment won't be avaialable until next week, after the mission debriefing. But engineers associated with the mission say that NASA's initial statement appears to be a bit of an overreaction. The shuttle was never in danger, and no shuttle experiments were endangered, by the address published in TELECOM Digest. It was created for that very purpose. This isn't to say that the actual uplink into space wasn't sensitive in other ways, and it isn't to say that someone might have tried to tamper with the more sensitive parts of the link. Nobody's said yet if that happened, though. Cheers. ------------------------------ From: Dan_Jacobson@att.com Subject: Re: Pac*Bell is Eager to Begin Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 10:23:00 GMT > [Moderator's Note: For many years, Commonwealth Edison in Chicago has > given away free light bulbs based on the size of your electric bill > each month. PAT] Lies, lies! :-) It ain't free. There's a "light bulb fee". You owe it to the readers to give the full story below in another "Moderator's Note". Err, me? I no longer live in Commonwealth Edison territory so err, am unfamiliar with the details. [Moderartor's Note: I stand corrected. There is a rate for people who wish 'light bulb service' and another rate for those who do not. Depending on how often you go through bulbs it may be a bargain, or maybe not. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: Pac*Bell is Eager to Begin Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1991 16:58:31 GMT > [Moderator's Note: For many years, Commonwealth Edison in Chicago has > given away free light bulbs based on the size of your electric bill > each month. PAT] We have never got any light bulbs from Edison ... I thought they charged $2 for four light bulbs or something like that ... of course, I don't live in the city. INTERNET: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (hpa@nwu.edu after this summer) BITNET: HPA@NUACC HAM RADIO: N9ITP, SM4TKN FIDONET: 1:115/989.4 "finger" the Internet address above for more information. [Moderator's Note: There is some rate for electricity for people who want the service, and some other rate for those who do not want light bulb service. If on the plan, then your monthly bill detirmines what you pay for the bulbs. I think it is a waste of money. PAT] ------------------------------ From: WARNER%ODNVMS@mps.ohio-state.edu Subject: Re: Baby Bells Can Now Offer Audiotext Date: 15 Aug 91 11:51:23 EST Organization: The Ohio Data Network In article , sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: > I'm not sure *ALL* PUC's are rubber stamps. There are a few that have > seemed somewhat customer pro-active, at least at times. New York, and > occassionally California (go ahead, Higdon, make your day) but they > don't have the resources to fight these issues indefinitely and can't > pay as many or as much to lawyers as the telecos do with our rate > money. Does any state have a customer ombudsman or lobby supported by > a tax or surcharge on the bills ? Ohio has a Office of Consumers' Counsel which is funded by a tax on the public utilities. The current Consumers' Counsel is Bill Spratley. The Office did not fair the State Budget Cuts very well, especially in the funding of expert consultants that are used to fight the utilities. This may limit the effectiveness of their lobbying in the future. They put out a newsletter every so often that discusses what they are doing. The number to call is: (614) 466-8574. (800) 282-9448 (toll free probably just in Ohio.) Address: 77 S High St., 15Th Floor; Colubmus, Ohio 43266-0550. But, they are overwelmed right now dealing with Caller ID, the massive rate increase that the electric companies want to pay for the Zimmer power plant (Was designed and built as a nuclear power plant, then converted to a coal power plant, and may not be needed at all.) , and the problems that Columbia Gas has gotten itself into with expensive gas contracts. William "Bill" Warner, III (N8HJP) WARNER@OHIO.GOV Ohio Data Network WARNER@OHSTPY (Bitnet) 65 E State St, Suite 810 +1 614 466 6683 (Voice) Columbus, OH 43215 +1 614 466 8159 (FAX) ------------------------------ From: Larry DeMar Subject: Re: OKI 900 Cellular Phone Acts as a Pager? How? Organization: Chinet - Chicago public access UNIX Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1991 05:58:23 GMT In article et@ocf.berkeley.edu (Eric Thompson) writes: > I've heard and read that the OKI 900 acts as a pager by allowing a > caller to leave a phone number instead. Am I correct in assuming that > the phone picks up after a certain number of rings and prompts the > caller for a number? Thus incurring .. a minute of airtime? You have it right. You put the phone in pager mode (to answer on some number of rings if you don't). When it answers, it sends the standard "paging beeps" to the caller. The phone then remembers the touch-tones entered by the caller. The phone will hold several such numbers. Email: chinet!larry@gargoyle.uchicago.edu ------------------------------ From: Bud Couch Subject: Re: Bell Technical Journals Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1991 21:47:51 GMT In article selene@osystem.pdx.com, 7@uunet.uu.net writes: > I remember reading somewhere that Bell offered thier "Technical > Information" in the form of journals. Whatever I read never bothered > to quote any sources. If you have any ideas, please send them to me. Which Bell are we talking about here :-) ? AT&T Technical Publications Get PUB 10000, _Catalog of Technical Publications_ -cost $2.50 check or M.O. made payable to AT&T. Send to: Corporate Mailing, Inc. 26 Parsippany Road Whippany, NJ 07981 ATTN: Karen Burns Bellcore I can't tell you off the top of my head how to get the index for TA, TR, etc. Write to: Bellcore Customer Services 60 New England Avenue Piscataway, NJ 08854-4196 Telephone: 1-800-521-CORE (2673) or: 1-908-699-5800 If you are interested in the old Bell System Technical Journal, it metamophosed into the AT&T Bell Technical Journal in 1984, only to become the AT&T Technical Journal the next year. I don't happen to know how to order it, but back issues (to 1968) are available on microfilm or microfiche from University Microfilm in Ann Arbor, MI. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew... standard BS applies ------------------------------ From: Bud Couch Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1991 22:41:57 GMT In article knauer@cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Knauerhase) writes: > Lastly, in Champaign, IL, not much is outside the A band. But here in > Portland (with banded local calls), I can't call across town for a > flat fee; from Hillsboro, one can't even call to central Portland > without incurring a per-minute charge. Bands should be a lot bigger > in cities. As a note, Hillsboro is 15 air miles from "downtown" Portland, (more like 20 from the geographic center) and 12 of those miles are in GTE territory. Portland is US West. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew... standard BS applies ------------------------------ From: Dannie Gregoire Subject: Re: Proposed 20% Tax on Cable TV to Benefit Network Broadcasters Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc. Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1991 19:38:39 GMT I spoke with my Congressman (Ron Mazoli) this morning about this very issue. He personally was opposed to it, and said that the bill in its current wording is not very likely to pass. Dannie J. Gregoire \\\\//// dannie@coplex Copper Electronics Inc. ////\\\\ !uunet!coplex!dannie ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #637 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24765; 17 Aug 91 18:01 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28680; 17 Aug 91 16:40 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20930; 17 Aug 91 15:35 CDT Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 14:51:03 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #638 BCC: Message-ID: <9108171451.ab16991@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 17 Aug 91 14:50:56 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 638 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Standards Activity on Radio WANS in US, Japan [Ralph W. Hyre] Re: Long Distance Across a Road [John Higdon] Re: Long Distance Recommendations [Bill Huttig] Re: Wanted: PBX For Home [Paul D. Anderson] Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Tarl Neustaedter] Re: Citbank Visa/Mastercharge is Too Friendly [Michael P. Deignan] Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Stephanie da Silva] Re: Converting Old Phone With Four Wires to Three Wires [Todd Inch] Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online? [Carl Moore] My Mistake (was 310 Area Code) [Rick Tyler] Panasonic EB-H30 Programming Help Needed [ostrum@andrew.enet.dec.com] Dial Up Terminal Servers in 416 Area (Toronto) [Kevin Coutinho] Global Phone Quality [John Howard Osborn] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ralph W. Hyre" Subject: Re: Standards Activity on Radio WANS in US, Japan Date: 16 Aug 91 14:33:28 GMT Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati In article law@ioe.lon.ac.uk (Lindsay Wakeman) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 628, Message 11 of 13 > What is happening - if anything - in the standardisation of protocols > for Wide Area Radio-based packet networks for data transmission (i.e. > Aloha and its descendants)? The amateur radio community has pushed this the farthest. TCP/IP over an X.25/HDLC variant is a popular option, but the ISO camp is also represented. My opinion is that datagrams are the superior technology, circuit-switching is the wrong metaphor. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Aug 91 10:09 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road Dill writes: > I wonder how many peole -really- do have lower > phone bills. I am sure it is a lot less than they say ... This matter of measured service is at once a net revenue enhancer and a politcal sop. In California, the "poor" person is king. Therefore, utility rate structures have been inverted to subsidize "the less fortunate". It also looks good on certain reports. For instance, PG&E (the northern California electric utility) claims to have rates that are "among the lowest in the nation". This is done by charging less than half price for the first 500 KWH. So the utility then says that the "average" customer using 450 KWH pays less than most areas of the country. But after 500 KWH in the month? Then it is Katy bar the door. My PG&E bill is around $360/month. It is the same with telephone service. Pac*Bell can claim that it costs less in California (particularly under "lifeline") to have a telephone than almost anywhere else in the country. Note nothing was said about USING the telephone -- just about having one. To Pac*Bell's credit there are some pluses. You can have any mix of measured or unmeasured service in the residence. There is none of this business about it must be all unmeasured or all measured. Also, there are no SWBT-style restrictions on how many lines you can have for your BBS or what-have-you. Not to mention there is no problem with business/residence-neutral items such as hunting, ground-start, etc. (Some of my lines have hunting; some of them are ground-start.) Also, I have never been given any razzamatazz about only being allowed to have a certain number of lines in the house. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Aug 91 13:44:54 -0400 From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: Long Distance Recommendations Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL Since you are in GA you can subscribe to ATC's Ring America. It is better than MCI's Primetime since it includes all day Saturday and Sunday. It is $7.50 for the first hour and .10 a minute after that. ATC's Customer Service number is 800 749-9000. They will be rolling out a new Travel Card soon with lots of nice features (I'm not sure what the are yet). They also have local access numbers which are billed the same as the rate you get at home. They also do their own billing and offer many different views of you invoice. Project account codesof three or four digits non-verified are free. Metion my name and account number 139658 and I might get a small referral fee if they are still doing that promo. Let me know what you decide. Bill ------------------------------ From: "Paul D. Anderson" Subject: Re: Wanted: PBX For Home Date: 16 Aug 91 17:54:12 GMT Organization: Dixie Comm, The South's First Commercial Public Access Unix toddi@mav.com (Todd Inch) writes: > Several of you regular readers have mentioned or recommended some > small PBX's appropriate for residential use, including a few models > made by Panasonic, if I recall. > Does anyone know of a vendor for these, or, better yet, have one > laying about that they want to sell? You might watch for bankruptcy sales / foreclosures / etc in the business and legal sections of the newspaper. A friend of mine tells me he got a 12 line / 128 extension system with 20 desk sets this way for $400.00 (yes, four hundred). Paul Anderson * Dixie Communications * (404) 565-0761 * paul@dixie.com ------------------------------ From: Tarl Neustaedter Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road Date: 17 Aug 91 01:48:57 GMT Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc. In article , dill@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dill) writes: > my phone bills have tripled ... we make 600-800 calls a month. > ... plan to bill the people who use the service. That is such bullshit. Boggle. You don't think 600-800 calls a month is a higher than average (perhaps even three times higher than average) use of a residential phone? Tarl Neustaedter tarl@sw.stratus.com Marlboro, Mass. Stratus Computer Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions. ------------------------------ From: "Michael P. Deignan" Subject: Re: Citbank Visa/Mastercharge is Too Friendly Organization: Small Business Systems, Inc., Esmond, RI 02917 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1991 02:52:20 GMT k-rock@sherwood.rent.com (Corporate Raider) writes: > Well while I am on this topic, if you call Citbank Customer Service > line, and if you need to get a balance or a limit on your credit card, > all you have to do is enter in your card number, then it waits and > asks you for your zip code. You then can ask it for the balance of > your account, the maximum credit limit of your account, etc. etc. > Now I think all a crook needs is your card number and your zip code and > they can access your records nite or day, not even a crook, but say > your local merchant wants to make sure you have "enough" he simply > calls the 800 number, enters in your card number and zip code, and > poof he/she has you complete billing history. This is clearly an exageration. While an individual armed with your VISA number and Zip code can in fact obtain anyone's balance and available credit (including next payment due date,) there is no mechanism for an individual to obtain "your complete billing history" or in no way query the machine for other information. The message one obtains is limited to current balance, available credit (generally limit, balance, and holds) and next payment amount and due date. Any further information must be obtained from a Customer Service Rep, which requires interaction with another unit, and requires providing additional information, such as your SSN or mother's maiden name for verification. This isn't to say that the system shouldn't be more secure, by adding a PIN, etc., however. Michael P. Deignan Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 ------------------------------ From: Stephanie da Silva Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1991 05:32:59 GMT In article , john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > ED HOPPER writes: > > The Houston free calling area is at least fifty miles in each direction. > > It includes 3.5 million people. Basic local service is about $12 for > > unlimited calling throughout that area from SW Bell. > Well, let's see. I just installed six lines at home for a "voice BBS". > Now let us look at pricing. Each line costs $4.45/month, or about one > third the price of SWBT. Not to mention the fact that if one has more than three lines hooked up to a BBS, Southwestern Bell automatically charges business rates. No matter if it's a hobby BBS; they'll assume if you want more lines than that, you must be charging your users. That's $40 per line. I have two lines hooked up to my BBS. I pay $17 per line. (The $12 basic rate sounds good in theory...) Stephanie da Silva Taronga Park * Houston, Texas arielle@taronga.hackercorp.com 568-0480 568-1032 ------------------------------ From: Todd Inch Subject: Re: Converting Old Phone With Four Wires to Three Wires Organization: Maverick International Inc. Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 04:09:08 GMT In article Barton.Bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) writes: > In article , rog@dtc.hp.com (Roger > Haaheim) writes: >> I have an old pulse dial phone I'd like to convert to the modular type >> connector but I haven't the foggiest idea what to do with the extra > Get a modular to spade lug cord at (sorry, but they are sometimes > handy) R/S, and connect the red and green to where the previous red > and green went in the phone. If it won't ring, connect the whatever > internal wire went to the old cord's yellow to the new green line > wire's connection. This wire is probably the black one. The red bell wire attaches to the red line cord wire (called the Ring wire) and the black one attaches to the green line cord wire (called the Tip wire), although it used to connect to earth ground, which used to be yellow. The grey and red/grey striped (or whatever is left, I think it used to be a different color) each attach to A and K on the network block or printed circuit board in the phone. In reality, A and K are just two ends of a .47 or so microfarad capacitor. So, if you want spare phone bells, you can just pick up the capacitor (rated at at least 200 volts) from Radio Shack, connect the grey and grey/ red wires to its ends, and connect the remaining two to the phone line. Or leave grey and red/grey connected to A and K in the phone and disconnect everything else for a cheap and easy auxiliary bell. So, who can tell me why there are two different series-connected windings on the bell? Were these rewired funkily for party line ringing or something? And, what about that blue wire to the bell on some trimline phones? > Just tape up the black and yellow line wires from the new cord. But be sure the black and yellow are separated from each other in case you every plug into a jack where they're used for "line two" or something, don't just tape them together. > You can also buy a fat clunky modular plug that takes the spade lugs > on the end of your existing cord. I DON'T like this clunky approach, > but it may be what you want. In this case (a near-no-brainer, you don't even open the phone, but clunky is right) connect both the green and yellow wires to the screw marked GREEN or with the green wire going to the plug. Connect the red and black wires as expected. Occasionally I've rewired phones to move the bell TO the yellow so you can put a switch in the wall jack or remotely located elsewhere to turn the phone on and off by connecting the green and yellow. (I damaged too many phones in my youth by drilling holes in the phone itself for switches, then wanted to remove the switch and was left with an ugly hole.) Really old phones just have two wires to the bell and the bell is just connected in series with the capacitor (a huge metal can inside the phone) across the line. Whenever I wire phones funky, or disconnect the bell inside them, I use a permanent felt tip pen (Sharpie) to write what I've done on the bottom. Erases with denatured alcohol or a rubber eraser. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Aug 91 16:29:06 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: When is 310 Area Code Going Online? Nov. 2, 1991 and May 2, 1992 are both Saturdays. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1991 10:17:21 -0700 From: Rick Tyler Reply-To: mtxinu!Ingres.COM!tyler@uunet.uu.net Organization: Ingres Division, ASK Computer Systems. Subject: My Mistake (was 310 Area Code) I stated that I received a mailing from PacBell implying that both the 510 and 310 area codes go into effect on September 2. Apparently, I was mistaken. A couple of people have e-mailed me, insisting that the date for 310 is November 2, 1991. However, they (and I) do agree that the date for 510 is September 2. My sincere apologies, RT ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 15:30:25 PDT From: Subject: Panasonic EB-H30 Programming Help Needed I have a Panasonic EB-H30 handheld Cellular Phone. Two trips to my cellular carrier's service shop have resulted in a phone that won't roam, and doesn't have the lock feature set up properly. I know how to jumper the phone to access the maintainance mode, and to recall/set the parameters for NAM1 and NAM2. Can anyone send me a set of programming instructions, especially the decoding of the three bit-encoded option locations? Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 15 Aug 1991 14:18:26 EDT From: Kevin Coutinho Subject: Dialup Terminal Servers in 416 Area (Toronto) Organization: York University I was wondering if anyone knows of any dialup terminal servers around the Toronto area, somewhere in the 416 Area Code, I guess. I know the US has a lot of public telnet bridges, sorta like terminal servers where you can dial in and then telnet out to anywhere you want. I'd appreciate any info! I wouldn't mind paying for access but not too much! Thanks. Kevin (YSMA3006@vm1.yorku.ca) [Moderator's Note: I am not sure what you mean by the term 'public telnet bridges'. Most major universities have dialup numbers for use bu authorized persons. It used to be you could call one of these and then rlogin or telnet to other sites in addition to the sites of the sponsoring institution, but this is rare lately because of how phreaks and irresponsible hackers have used them as ways to break in to other sites. Then there is Telenet/Sprintnet, a company which operates a public switched data network. They offer numerous dialups in cities across the USA. Using their PC Pursuit program, you can then jump off the network in a distant city making a 'local' modem call. You would get the information on those phone numbers from the organizations which maintain them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Howard Osborn Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1991 09:53:16 -0500 Subject: Global Phone Quality I'm in the planning stages for a motorcycle trip thoughout the world and I'm hurting for information. The problem is that I want to take a small, portable computer to maintain communication with my "home base" in the United States, but I don't know the best way to go about it. For example, I could try to rely on international telephone calls, but I don't know if line quality is sufficient for modems, especially in places like central Africa or in Asia. Packet radio has been suggested, and I need to look into it, but this is obviously the wrong group for that. :) John H. Osborn osborn@cs.utexas.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #638 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27494; 17 Aug 91 19:06 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31759; 17 Aug 91 17:45 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab28680; 17 Aug 91 16:40 CDT Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 16:12:44 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #639 BCC: Message-ID: <9108171612.ab30046@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 17 Aug 91 16:12:40 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 639 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson FCC Renews Campaign on Enhanced-Services Pricing [Peter Marshall] Book: "Narcissistic Process and Corporate Decay" [Dan Jacobson] Privacy and the Telephone [Ken Jongsma] Teleglobe Canada Regulatory Review [David Leibold] Cheap Foreign Exchange Service [Marcel Mongeon] AT&T Data Network [Ken Jongsma] AT&T 5ESS Feature Handbook [Ken Jongsma] 10xxx# Dialing [izzyej2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu] Astounding Telecom Facts! [Macy Hallock] Caller-ID Phones [Sami Khoury] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: FCC Renews Campaign on Enhanced-Services Pricing From: halcyon!peterm@sumax.seattleu.edu Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 07:51:19 PDT Excerpts from an item in {Communications Daily}, July 15, 1991: New FCC order setting out [ONA] rules for pricing of interstate access for ESPS could raise costs to ESPs as much as three or four times over what they now pay, ADAPSO attorney Joseph Markoski said ... Commission order ... could start another round of protest from ... [ESPs] and from on-line community, industry experts said. Key difference between this round and massive protest lodged against FCC in 1987, when Commission proposed to revoke special ESP exemption from access charges, is that this rule is far more complicated and appears on surface to go along with ESP demands, industry observers said. In 1987, FCC suggested ... exemption be eliminated, which could have resulted in ESPs' paying access charges of as much as $4 per hour, which they said would ruin the ESP industry. Markoski said by virtually requiring ESPs to take access from BSAs or BSEs, effect will be same. Assuming ESPs use average business line that costs $40 monthly now, Markoski said, ONA services could cost same user $160 monthly or more. ESPs may not want to use ONA services now, he said, but they will "have a problem down the road ..." "It's absolutely astounding that the agency that stated its commitment to promoting information services would issue this order," Markoski said.... [From COMMUNICATIONS DAILY, 7/15/91, p.2] The 23:00 News and Mail Service - +1 206 292 9048 - Seattle, WA USA PEP, V.32, V.42 +++ A Waffle Iron, Model 1.64 +++ ------------------------------ From: Dan_Jacobson@att.com Subject: Book Review: "Narcissistic Process and Corporate Decay" Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 10:09:00 GMT Interesting sounding book: Narcissistic Process and Corporate Decay: The Theory of the Organization Ideal / Howard S. Schwartz. Schwartz, Howard S., 1942- New York : New York University Press, c1990. xiv, 151 p. Corporate culture.; Organizational behavior.; Challenger (Space shuttle)--Accidents.; General Motors Corporation--Management.; U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration--Management. isbn 0-8147-7913-1 CONTENTS: PART ONE - The Theory of the Organization Ideal Introduction 3 1 - The Clockwork or the Snakepit: An Essay on the Meaning of Teaching Organizational Behavior 7 2 - On the Psychodynamics of Organizational Totalitarianism 16 3 - Antisocial Actions of Committed Organizational Participants 31 PART TWO - Organizational Decay and Organizational Disaster Introduction 49 4 - Totalitarian Management and Organizational Decay: The Case of General Motors 53 5 - Organizational Disaster and Organizational Decay: The Case of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 73 6 - On the Psychodynamics of Organizational Disaster: The Case of the Space Shuttle "Challenger" 90 PART THREE - American Culture and the "Challenger" Disaster: A Historical Perspective 7 - The Symbol of the Space Shuttle and the Degeneration of the American Dream 107 8 - Conclusion: Addiction and Recovery 127 Notes 137 References 143 Index 147 ------------------------------ Subject: Privacy and the Telephone Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 12:40:19 EDT From: Ken Jongsma I don't know how many people have been following the story about Proctor and Gamble vs the {Wall Street Journal}, but it's getting kind of interesting. Apparently, a week or so ago, WSJ ran a story about some high up P&G people leaving the company. I vaguely remember the story: it had some slightly negative comments about P&G in it and quoted some unnamed P&G sources. Well, P&G was ticked off and has asked the local DA to investigate the loss of trade secrets. This after four whole days of internal P&G investigation. Anyway, the DA was able to subpoena Cinncy Bell *for all call records originating within 513 to the WSJ reporter* for a three and a half month period. The story talked about 35 million toll calls in that period but did not mention local calls. Talk about a fishing expedition. And of course, the Cinncy Bell security people had no problem with this. Hey Macy: What's going on in Ohio? 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: Are they going to search *all* possible numbers for the WSJ? The paper has hundreds of phone lines, just as does P&G. One might call various 800 numbers to reach WSJ; various local numbers in different communities around the USA where bureaus or their syndicate offices are located (and be transferred from there over a tie-line, etc); the main number of the centrex in New York; the direct line to the reporter; the direct line to someone else who then transferred the call; the circulation department with their own group of lines, etc. Or maybe the reporter placed the call to a contact at the company instead of the other way around. P&G has been fighting the world for a long time now; they are still angry about the Satan rumors as well. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 21:55:24 EDT From: DLEIBOLD@vm1.yorku.ca Subject: Teleglobe Canada Regulatory Review Teleglobe Canada is the monopoly supplier of overseas telecommunications in Canada. CRTC hearings have just begun to review regulations concerning Teleglobe. This company was formerly a federal government Crown Corporation until it was privatized and sold to Memotec Data Inc. in 1987 (Memotec has since assumed the Teleglobe name for its own corporation). Teleglobe wants everything but the telephone services deregulated. The CRTC is expected to be quite critical of Teleglobe, particularly with such aspects as cash management systems, rate of return and other financial matters. Bell Canada/BCE don't like the current rates that Teleglobe has, although overseas phone rates have decreased significantly in the past few years. BCE wants Teleglobe to be more of a wholesaler of telecommunications services to the other phone companies in Canada, with concern that Canadian companies will move overseas traffic to private networks in other countries. Teleglobe, from one of its international calling guides, has a complex rate structure for customer-dialed overseas calls with respect to rates and discount periods. British Telecom, on the other hand, seems to have a cleaner "rate band" structure with a minimal number of rate groupings. The Teleglobe rate card listed at least 75 different rate categories, depending on the country dialed. ------------------------------ From: marcelm@joymrmn.uucp (Marcel Mongeon) Subject: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service? Organization: The Joymarmon Group Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 03:11:44 GMT I would like people in Toronto to be able to call me in Hamilton (about 40 miles west of Toronto) toll free. Obviously I could put in an 800 number (and pay through the nose if a lot of people use it) or put in a Foreign Exchange Trunk (and pay a relatively hefty flat monthly rate -- about $500 per month). However, is the following possible?? Toronto to Oakville is a local call. Oakville to Burlington is a local call and Burlington to Hamilton is a local call. Can I put a phone in each of Oakville and Burlington both with call forwarding and then forward the calls from the Oakville number to Burlington and then from the Burlington number to my ultimate number in Hamilton. Therefore, when someone from Toronto wants to call me they can dial the local number in Oakville without charge, I get the call in Hamilton and all I have to pay is two monthly rates for the basic phone service in each of Burlington and Oakville. Obviously, I would probably need a place to put phones in each of those two places but that isn't a problem. Also, I realize that this is not truly FX service in that I can't place calls in reverse. What type of signal degradation might I expect? As I understand it, all the switches involved would probably be digital. Would the connection be suitable for Telebit or other data? As a related question can a Northern Telecom DMS forward more than one call at a time? For example, if the Hamilton number that I am pointing the Burlington calls to in the above is actually a set of hunted trunks, can more than one person at a time from Toronto call me using only one line in Oakville? Or will the Oakville CO know that a call has already been forwarded and it is still in progress? Finally, Bell Canada offers a service that I have heard of called Remote Call Forwarding where they give you a telephone number in one CO that is automatically set to forward calls to a number in another CO. There is no physical set associated with the remote number. Although it would seem this was originally designed to generate LD revenues from the forwarded calls, would such a service be allowed in the above scheme? If so, I would save myself the aggravation of having to keep the two "dummy" sets in each of Oakville and Burlington. Marcel D. Mongeon e-mail: ... (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root or joymrmn!marcelm [Moderator's Note: Remote Call Forwarding with most telcos is tariffed only as a business service. You'll want to insure the same generous flat rate service available in the communities in question on residence phones is available to business phones as well. As soon as local calls start getting measured and timed, linking any two or three together via call forwarding *rarely* is less expensive than a straight dial-thru as a long distance call. If you just use residential line call forwarding, you will still need to install service at the interim points, and pay the monthly bill for the line and the call forwarding feature. How many calls per month will you need to receive before you amortize the monthly base charges for two or three interim service points and the installation costs associated with each? Simply put, chain-forwarding as we call it rarely if ever is a viable alternative to just placing calls and paying the tolls. Go with an 800 number and control who you allow to use it. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T Data Network Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 13:39:17 EDT From: Ken Jongsma The current {PC Week} has an article about packet data networks available to the public. One of the ones they mentioned was an AT&T network designed for those that access database vendors without the need to go through a gateway such as Compuserve. The number they gave in the magazine article was 950-1288 as a national access number. This number indeed works from my area. That is, a modem answers and one can get carrier. However, at that point the AT&T net is apparently waiting for some type of account number or handshaking arrangement, as there is no response to the usual carriage returns or breaks. Does anyone have any additional information on this net, what it connects with and what the rates are? Almost as an aside, what an interesting concept for someone like Compuserve. That is, using a single national 950-XXXX number instead of individual numbers for each city. 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: From 312 at any time during the past day, calls to 950-1288 return an IBT intercept 'all circuits are busy now'. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T 5ESS Feature Handbook Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 13:40:04 EDT From: Ken Jongsma Someone in the Digest recently recommend the 5ESS Feature Handbook. I'd like to thank that person! This is a neat book. It breaks down every possible feature available for the 5ESS. Some hightlights: Network Call Denial. Allows the switch to interrupt call processing for all calls that arrive on specified trunks. A query is sent to an external database and, depending on the response, the call is either completed normally or is rejected and routed to an announcement, if the customer has not paid his/her bills to AT&T. Leased Network 8 Hours Past MDR. This feature generates intermediate Message Detail Recording (MDR) records periodically for those calls which have been in progress for more than 8 hours. This feature helps in the identification of problem facilities and network abuse. The bool is 430 pages long (softcover) and with shipping, goes for just over $5 from the AT&T Customer Information Center. AT&T Publication #235-390-500. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ...sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Aug 91 12:16 PDT From: Hansel Subject: 10xxx# Dialing In Los Angeles (213), when dialing 10333# I am connected immediately to what appears to be their long distance calling port (950-1033). I recieve a tone and can enter the same calling card that works on 950-1033. When I dial 10835# I recieve the long distance port for Telecom*USA's calling cards. When dialing 10288# I am connected directly to an AT&T operator. I have not tried any other combinations. Basically, immediately after hitting the # key I am transfered to their long distance calling card port. Hansel izzyej2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu izzyej@uclamvs.bitnet hansel@sq51.ca.cap.gov hansel@pro-palmtree.cts.com [Moderator's Note: I am amazed by the response on 10288#. We get nothing from that here except an intercept. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 00:06 EDT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Astounding Telecom Facts! In article Steve Forrette writes: [ Regarding conversation with PacTel rep concerning high cost of intra-LATA toll calls routed via PacTel: ] > The rep gave me a very straightforward answer -- "it actually costs more > to complete a call of a shorter distance!" > I knew there had to be a good reason! This, of course, is why the telco's want to begin charging us for local calls. Those local calls cost them so darn much to carry, and they're such a nuisance, tying up their nice clean ESS, as well. 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] ------------------------------ Subject: Caller-ID Phones Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 22:38:53 -0400 From: Sami Khoury On the subject of Caller-ID, in Canada, other than the boxes that can be hooked to the phone line, there exist one phone, the Maestro by Northern Telecom, that can be used with the Caller-ID service. Is the Caller-ID system somehow standard in North America, and if so does anyone know of any other company that makes phones for the Caller-ID service with advanced features such as alphanumeric display. This way one can associate a name to a number and get the name rather than the number displayed. Sami Khoury sami@davinci.concordia.ca ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #639 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02961; 17 Aug 91 21:14 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30951; 17 Aug 91 19:50 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04427; 17 Aug 91 18:46 CDT Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 17:45:49 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #640 BCC: Message-ID: <9108171745.ab19861@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 17 Aug 91 17:45:31 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 640 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cable TV Competition [Shawn Goodin] Re: Tour of a CO [Dave Levenson] Re: Cheap 1200 Baud Modems [Jason Williams] Re: Pac$Bel "Bonus Zone" [Marty Brenneis] Low Technology Email From Space [Bruce Perens] Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Steve Thornton] Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [William J. Carpenter] Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [ANS1@psuvm.psu.edu] Re: 950-PIZZA [David E. A. Wilson] Re: Alice's Restaurant (was RS Gives Out Phone Numbers) [Dan Jacobson] Re: Phast Phood [Tim Russell] FAX / Modem Autoswitches - Which Ones Work? [Steve Owens] Dial 0 for Operator? (In Schools/Office Buildings) [Dan Jacobson] Lonely Repair Service [Jeff Sicherman] IXO Protocol Files for Archives [J. Brad Hicks] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: shawng@pro-charlotte.cts.com (Shawn Goodin) Subject: Re: Cable TV Competition Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1991 17:17:17 GMT 74066.2004@compuserve.com (Larry Rachman) writes: > I stopped off at Radio Shack on the way home to buy a new TV antenna. > It gets 2-13 with a better picture than cable provides, and for the > $60 saved, I could rent 30 movies per month, and I could never watch > that many. As an added premium, I enjoy the reverse snobbery of *not* > having cable. Only problem is what do you do if you live in an area where you CANNOT put up an external antenna? In my neighborhood, we have the dreaded local deed restriction which prohibits external antennas and such on roofs, towers, etc. No satellite dishes either. While a table-top antenna works, it looks tacky on top of a $2,400 TV, and my attic doesn't have enough room for hiding the antenna in there. Strangely enough, the local cable company here is Cablevision of Charlotte as well. Same lousy picture, etc. This really bothers me -- especially since an external antenna (with rotor) is capable of picking up stations in other markets around North Carolina and South Carolina. Any suggestions? UUCP: ....!crash!pro-charlotte!shawng | Pro-Charlotte - (704) 567-0029 ARPA: crash!pro-charlotte!shawng@nosc.mil | 300-9600 baud (HST) 24 hrs/day INET: shawng@pro-charlotte.cts.com | Log in as "register" [Moderator's Note: Try putting the table-top antenna in the attic by a window with one of those signal boosters attached to it; then snake the coax down in the way you would from a rooftop antenna. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Tour of a CO Date: 17 Aug 91 20:55:18 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , thomas%mvac23.uucp@udel.edu (Thomas Lapp) writes: [ describing a tour of the central office serving his residence ] > One of the highlights was watching my host do a line test on my > residential line (which is serviced out of that office). Everything > (DC, AC, etc) tested well within specs, and I also found out that my > "pair" from CO to my end-user equipment is 31,800 (+/- 10) feet! (It > measured a 65 dB loss for this distance, by the way). All the testing > was done via a single terminal console in an office in the CO. Are you sure there isn't a decimal point missing here? I can believe a loop loss of 5 - 10 dB, but 65 dB -- I don't think you'd be able to hear the dial tone, much less the far end! Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: Jason Williams Date: 16 Aug 91 16:56:44 Subject: Re: Cheap 1200 Baud Modems As I recall, the cheap 1200 baud modems at Damark are Atari SX212 modems in disguise (I believe they say SC212). They should have an Atari SIO interface and an RS-232 interface. The following opinions are my own and not those of anyone else who might be registered on fquest.fidonet.org. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 10:10:28 PDT From: Marty the Droid Subject: Re: Pac$Bel "Bonus Zone" I had some version of PacBel's bonus plan, (Circle Calling?). Each month there was a report of my savings with the plan. When I saw a negative number for six months in a row I called and cancelled the plan. It seemed to me that they were happy to tell me that I would be better off without the plan. For all the net.whining about PacBell I still think they aren't all that bad. (Try GenaTEl sometime.. :-) Marty 'The Droid' Brenneis ...!uupsi!kerner!droid Industrial Magician droid@kerner.sf.ca.us (415)258-2105 KAE7616 - 462.700 - 162.2 KC6YYP ------------------------------ From: bruce@pixar.com (Bruce Perens) Subject: Low-Technology Email From Space Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1991 02:58:27 GMT > From: han@apple.com (Byron Han) > Organization: Apple Computer, Inc. > The data path described is indeed the simplest possible with respect > to the twin constraints of minimizing crew training time and > minimizing software development time. Astronauts haven't had any problems dealing with the much more sophisticated amateur radio packet communications when there has been any motivation to do so. There isn't any motivation this time because this is little more than an Apple Computer Inc. publicity stunt at taxpayer expense. And the sad fact is, Apple's effort is low-tech. I'm not a ham, but have read about the SAREX missions and amateur packet networks. Ham packet uses CSMA/CD over radio, and a reliable X-25 data link, for about $250 per modem/protocol-unit. They did this in their spare time, on kitchen tables, and then established an intercontinental repeater network composed of systems belonging to clubs and individuals. The resulting technology is straightforward and elegant, and can be used to link a ground station directly to space when both sides of the link are using _hand-held_ transceivers. Contrast this to the Rube Goldberg implementation used to connect this misson to AppleLink. Bruce Perens The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author, not of his employer or any other organization. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 04:18:30 EST From: Steve Thornton Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Customer Phone Numbers Regarding the Radio Shack dispute, I realize that moderation is not a strong point on this or any other list, but it remotely possible that yes, RS's policy sucks for lots of reasons, and no, it's not a major problem in the world today. I have been pressured to state my full name and address when making a cash sale, which P's me O, especially compared to normal behavior, such as _anyplace_ else. It never occured to stupid me to give a false name or address. I guess I have to reconcile myself to the fact that I must lie to secure my rights. So, why don't you all just stuff RS? What do they have that you can't get elsewhere? Personally, I hate RS and their policy, so I don't go there. I can get diodes mail-order. I see personal data as a serious problem in the future, but the current schemes are weak. Steve ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 16:11:35 EDT From: William J Carpenter Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > [Moderator's Note: All those things are very interesting scenarios; > but do they *really* happen? Late this past week, NYC police issued a public apology to a man. The police provided his picture to the media, and it was shown on every front page and TV news show in town. He was wanted "for questioning" in connection with a recent well-publicized series of five rapes. They had his picture because he was filmed using one of the victim's cards at an ATM machine shortly after one of the crimes. The photo was quite clear (not one of those blurry hidden camera shots). Dozens of people did their duty and reported his whereabouts to the police. Unfortunately, the ATM machine/software/operators/(not clear from the news) misidentified him, and he just happened to have made a transaction with his own card around the same time someone else used the stolen card. Do these things *really* happen? Bill Carpenter att!hos1cad!wjc or attmail!bill [Moderator's Note: It is not clear to me what the connection is between a RS receipt deliberatly diddled up by a clerk and a photo from an ATM machine mis-identified by bank employees. One thing is certain though: Soon the man misidentified as a rapist is going to be very rich. If it were me, suit would be filed for defamation of character against the bank owning the ATM; the City of New York (whose employees, the police are instructed by their employer); and where they are known by subpoena of 911 logs, the individuals who called to turn in my name. The bank and the city would settle handsomly. And if a customer of RS is injured by the actions of a dealer's employee, they should likewise sue RS and the dealer involved. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ANS1@psuvm.psu.edu Organization: Penn State University - Great Valley Graduate Center Date: Saturday, 17 Aug 1991 16:22:54 EDT Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers In article , Steve Urich says: > Did you get a recipe? [No, but he may have gotten a reciept! :) PAT] ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ But then again, he also might have received a receipt! :-) Arthur [Moderator's Note: Touche! And a recipe for continued success with a mailing list is to know when to end a thread and when to continue it. Thanks for a brilliant and witty conclusion to this one, Arthur! PAT] ------------------------------ From: David E A Wilson Subject: Re: 950-PIZZA Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 17:58:26 EST Here in Australia Telecom has 10,000 numbers allocated for businesses that want one number that can be advertised anywhere in the country but when called will terminate at the nearest or appropriate office. The calls cost a single unit (24c just like a local call) and the numbers have the form 13xxxx. David Wilson Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong david@cs.uow.edu.au ------------------------------ From: Dan_Jacobson@att.com Subject: Alice's Restaurant (was Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 08:20:00 GMT On 16 Aug 91 13:20:27 GMT, andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) said: > Besides the Alice's Restaurant legend (all you youngsters go ask > somebody over 35) Hey bud, even my youngest sibling who's 28 has heard that Arlo Guthrie record. ------------------------------ From: Tim Russell Subject: Re: Phast Phood Date: 17 Aug 91 20:17:16 GMT Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA In article Jeff Carroll writes: > Pizza Hut already has tried something like this in the Seattle > area; my wife and I were on a Pizza Hut kick at the time, and were > frequent customers until I called and discovered that although I live > within two miles of two different Pizza Huts, they weren't equipped to > deliver to my house. Godfather's Pizza (who I work for at the corporate office) also tried this in Seattle, and it's also closed down; supposedly it was too expensive to operate. How that can be considering the profit margin on pizza I don't know. :-) Obviously we didn't do anything as fancy as Domino's proposes: we just had an 800 number and people manning (personing) the phones. Gee, now I'll /always/ know the number of the Domino's that I won't give my business to because they support pro-life groups! :-) Tim Russell russell@ursa-major.spdcc.com [Moderator's Note: Ah, please! No responses here to the final paragraph in Mr. Russell's article. I'm sure just as many folks will remember the number for the opposite reason. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steve Owens Date: 16 Aug 91 16:55:47 GMT Subject: FAX / Modem Autoswitches - Which Ones Work? Date: 16 Aug 91 16:55:47 GMT Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR We would like to share a phone line between our FAX machine and our Unix dialup - Sun3/160 + Telebit. Does anyone have any experience with auto fax-modem swtich boxes that really work? We would like the operation to be completely transparent to our fax users. Thanks in advance. Steve ------------------------------ From: Dan_Jacobson@att.com Subject: Dial 0 for Operator? (In Schools / Office Buildings) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 91 14:50:00 GMT Most of us probably have some special phone system for our school or office building with shortened local versions of regular phone numbers. A common scenario is to have special phone number(s) for emergencies, e.g., "93151". "911" (what United States children are drilled to remember to call in emergencies) is often disabled, as it's a prefix to office phones "91100" thru "91199". "0" (the key that even has the name "Oper" on it) might even get a recording: "we're sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialed..." since it might have been forgotten about by your building's phone planners. One day a panicked visitor (or even a local person who forgets the "93151" and can't find a reminder sticker or poster) will try calling "911", then "0" and get nowhere. Later, lawsuits and bad press will result from whatever disaster occurred, not to mention loss of life, etc. There is probably a similar situation with the phone system in you the reader's office building. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Aug 91 22:21:24 -0700 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Lonely Repair Service Organization: Cal State Long Beach Having got some either wrong or confusing information about wiring for my newly 'installed' additional line, I called 611 for some information. The call seemed to go to a central operator somewhere (didnt even know my area code from the call) and was told I would be called back. The guy who called (not the one who did the outside wiring was very helpful but went on and on about what to look for on the inside wiring, repeating the same instructions many times. Are these guys starved for human interaction? Also thought I heard kids in the background. I hadn't realized that Pac*bell was a home-based business. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 16:49 GMT From: "J. Brad Hicks" <0004073044@mcimail.com> Subject: IXO Protocol Files for Archives I am sending two files for the Telecom Digest archives that are the result of my request several weeks ago for information on the IXO protocol. The IXO/TAP protocol is the preferred computer-to-computer interface for calling pagers; your computer and modem dial a modem number at the local paging company, and using the IXO packet format send the pager ID (phone number) and the message. The first file, "pager.bin.uqx", is a free application for all Macintosh HyperCard 2.1 users that will handle digital paging. The second one, "IXO.example", is the text of the source code that handles the actual IXO session. It's in HyperTalk scripting language, but that's English-like enough that any halfway clever hacker ought to be able to translate it into just about anything. Special thanks to Brent Chapman of Telebit who faxed me a copy of the IXO/TAP protocol spec. If you want your own copy of this document, try calling Glenayre Electronics at 1-604-263-1611 and ask if you can get a copy of chapter seven of manual GLP-3000-180 (mine is from Issue 5: 91/01/30, pages 7-1 to 7-13). Questions about pager.bin.uqx or IXO.example can be directed to me at 1-314-275-3645, via AppleLink at B0186, via Compu$erve at 76012,300, via MCI Mail at JBHICKS, or via Internet to jbhicks@mcimail.com. [Moderator's Note: This file will be available in the archives over the weekend sometime. You can use anonymous ftp to lcs.mit.edu. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #640 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26449; 18 Aug 91 6:30 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19706; 18 Aug 91 4:59 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16319; 18 Aug 91 3:52 CDT Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 3:15:57 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #641 BCC: Message-ID: <9108180315.ab17101@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 18 Aug 91 03:15:52 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 641 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Ed Hopper] Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [David Ritchie] Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Andrew Payne] Re: Alice's Restaurant (was RS Gives Out Phone Numbers) [Jamie Mason] Re: Alice's Restaurant (was RS Gives Out Phone Numbers) [Dan Jacobson] Re: Long Distance Across a Road [John Higdon] Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Ken Jongsma] Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Gary Snow] Re: Setting Up a Fax Gateway [James Cummings] Re: Privacy and the Telephone [Ken Jongsma] Re: Phast Phood [Ed Hopper] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers From: ED HOPPER Date: Sat 17 Aug 91 19:27:48 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, TX - 713-997-7575 In article, levine@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Leonard P Levine) writes: > An apology is called for. The poster described a situation in which a > company's practices caused a customer name and address to be passed on to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > someone else. Wait a minute! No one has presented conclusive evidence that Tandy Corp has, *AS A POLICY*, any practice which, when *PROPERLY EXECUTED*, leads to the disclosure of that most secret of all data, your telephone number. Do Tandy employees, in trying to dodge Tandy policy abuse the process? Probably. Can such an abuse lead to the heinous crime of telephone number disclosure? Probably so, again. Would Tandy take action to correct the matter by disciplining the employee in question if one complained to the appropriate Tandy officials? No probably about it, I am positive they would. In fact, the individual in question could easily lose his job. Of course, it's more fun to create this tempest in a thimble by posting an account of this heinous crime with the headline "Radio Shack gives out telephone numbers". > That was and is wrong. You (Pat) were wrong to abuse him. > You should apologize and correct your behaviour. You are > a MODERATOR, not a king. Be moderate. Perhaps Mr. Levine owes an apology to Tandy for claiming that this was their *POLICY*. Tell you what I'm gonna do ... on my next trip to Dallas, I'll make a detour to Fort Worth and PERSONALLY deliver Mr. Levine's apology to Tandy Corp. -> Leonard P. Levine e-mail levine@cs.uwm.edu -> Professor, Computer Science Office (414) 229-5170 -> University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Home (414) 962-4719 -> Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A. FAX (414) 229-6958 Hello, Telesleaze, Inc? Have I gotta a hot number for you! Yeah, University Professor in Wisconsin. Carries on about privacy, but then posts his home number on an international network, so I am sure he would love to hear from you. Whats that? Oh yeah, I'm sure he'd buy a reality check ... Satire mode off. Come on folks, do you really believe that this is a normal practice? Do you think that's the instructions RS employees get? Have you ever worked in a retail environment? People make mistakes, people get sloppy, people cut corners. It's not a big capitalist conspiracy, it's just the incompetence of the typical entry level clerk and the bad design of operational policies. And quite frankly, more the former than the latter. Mr. Levine, I don't mean to poke too much fun at you, but to carry on so and then post your home number seems a little silly to me. > [Memo From the King: Now if I were not a benevolent king, your > message would never have seen the light of day here, would it? > Pardon me as I giggle, but I always get amused when people from > Usenet tell me I should apologize for something. As the late Jack > Benny phrased it, 'Really, Mary'. PAT] Hmmm ... Patrick I??? All hail the King! Ed Hopper ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 22:22:06 mdt From: David Ritchie Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers > [Moderator's Note: What I said was that mail to 60690-1570 reaches me > as the sole occupant of that code. You'll find its a box at the > Downtown Station post office. PAT] Pat, Post Office boxholders physical addresses are a matter of public record. I *think* (but am not certain) that this information is available upon request by sending mail to: Postmaster City, State, ZIP and asking that information concerning P.O. Box 1570 (I don't know your box mumber, but could easily determine it via a ZIP code directory). Dave Ritchie ritchie@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com [Moderator's Note: Indeed, it is 1570 at 60690, as I say from time to time in the introductory message to this group which is posted monthly or so in comp.dcom.telecom. And you can do a box inquiry by writing to Postmaster , Attention Lock Box Supervisor. In your request, cite section 44.D of the Postal Service Administrative Manual. Request the name and street address of the boxholder, plus the telephone number and name(s) of the person(s) authorized to open the box and sign for mail. But where your scheme falls short is this only applies to *business* boxes ... not personal boxes; and I believe you need to include the statement in your request, "the box was used for an extension of credit and to solicit the public", meaning you should be certain it was used for those purposes. When the post office clerk reviews the application, if the question "will this box be used to solicit the public?" is answered in the negative, the reply you will receive is that postal records indicate the box is for personal use, and therefore the records are not available under the Freedom of Information Act. Good try though! Got any other ideas? PAT] ------------------------------ From: payne@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Andrew Payne) Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers Organization: Cornell Theory Center Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1991 01:56:42 GMT In article TELECOM Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: It is not clear to me what the connection is > between a RS receipt deliberatly diddled up by a clerk and a photo > from an ATM machine mis-identified by bank employees. One thing is > certain though: Soon the man misidentified as a rapist is going to be > very rich. If it were me, suit would be filed for defamation of > character against the bank owning the ATM; the City of New York (whose > employees, the police are instructed by their employer); and where > they are known by subpoena of 911 logs, the individuals who called to > turn in my name. The bank and the city would settle handsomly. And if > a customer of RS is injured by the actions of a dealer's employee, > they should likewise sue RS and the dealer involved. PAT] Aw come on, Pat! The solution to the man's problem is *not* to run off an sue everyone in sight. Instead, he should approach the bank and the police and ask that their apology be spread (evening news, whatever) in the same fashion the wanted report was spread. I have no respect for people who feel that you should sue first and work out the details later. Lawsuits are a LAST resort, not a first option that you exercise or lose. Litigation is expensive, time consuming, and by many measures, very non-productive. I'm a big fan of reasonable, mature, negotiated solutions to problems -- not court mitigated solutions, unless they are absolutely necessary. The courts are overbooked, the lawyers are making a bundle (I'm not a lawyer basher -- I would be one myself is circumstances were different), and the insurance companies are making out like bandits selling insurance to everyone scared to death they are going to get the pants sued off of them. I know doctors that can't practice because they can't afford $100,000 per year in medical malpractice (you do the path, how much do you have to pay your doctor to cover his/her insurance?). I know businesses that can't do business because someone might misuse their product and sue their pants off. My wife is a dental hygienist and I'm scared to death that someone is going to walk into their office, walk out and sue the pants off of everyone there. Then I'm going to have to spend *MY* time defending us against someone with a chip on their shoulder. One of these days I'm going to collect all of the absurd lawsuits into a book. Did you hear about the guy who replaces a spark plug on his lawnmower and forgot to replace the wire to the plug? He spilled gas when filling it, and when he pulled the cord the spark was in the wrong place: he was burnt up between the legs. Briggs and Stratton lost to the tune of $8 million or so to Stanley Preiser, about as high-powered a lawyer as you can get. Is this progress? Andrew C. Payne, N8KEI UUCP: ...!cornell!batcomputer!payne INTERNET: payne@theory.tc.cornell.edu [Moderator's Note: But what you are forgetting is that banks, like insurance companies, rarely settle anything without getting sued. An old joke goes, "what is the purpose of paying insurance premiums?", and the answer is, "that's so when you have a claim, you have legal standing to sue the insurance company trying to collect." Typically, the only thing banks understand is getting bashed around. More on this in a later message. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jamie Mason Subject: Re: Alice's Restaurant (was Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers) Organization: University of Toronto Computer Services Advisor Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1991 20:36:26 -0400 On 16 Aug 91 13:20:27 GMT, andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) said: > Besides the Alice's Restaurant legend (all you youngsters go ask > somebody over 35) In article Dan_Jacobson@att.com writes: > Hey bud, even my youngest sibling who's 28 has heard that Arlo Guthrie > record. Hey bud, even *my* youngest sibling who's *12* has heard that Arlo Guthrie record. Jamie [Moderator's Note: I don't think my little nephew -- age 18 months -- who lives with me has heard of it yet. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dan_Jacobson@att.com Subject: Re: Alice's Restaurant (was Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 22:47:00 GMT > Hey bud, even my youngest sibling who's 28 has heard that Arlo Guthrie > record. On Sat, 17 Aug 91 17:28:58 -0700, crawford@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Brian Crawford) said: > You tell 'em! I'm 28 and I've worn out my Arlo Guthrie album, > can recite it from memory, and can even play it on the gi-tar! Of course these days I only listen to rap and rap-related music. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 18:00 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road Stephanie da Silva writes: > Not to mention the fact that if one has more than three lines hooked > up to a BBS, Southwestern Bell automatically charges business rates. > No matter if it's a hobby BBS; they'll assume if you want more lines > than that, you must be charging your users. That's $40 per line. FORTY DOLLARS! A business line from Pac*Bell, including rip-off access charges, taxes, fees, and dealer markup comes in at around $16. Even if Pac*Bell regraded BBS owners to business, it would not be a real hardship. But Pac*Bell has no silly restrictions on how many lines a hobby project is entitled to. You order, you get, you pay. > I have two lines hooked up to my BBS. I pay $17 per line. (The $12 > basic rate sounds good in theory...) You already pay more than business lines would cost you with Pac*Bell. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 23:04:29 EDT From: Ken Jongsma Tarl Neustaedter writes: > Boggle. You don't think 600-800 calls a month is a higher than average > (perhaps even three times higher than average) use of a residential phone? But Tarl, that's not the point. Granted, 600-800 calls a month are way above normal residential usage. However, there is no evidence to support the idea that 600 local calls cost the telco any more money. Once the central office is in place *and sized to meet the peak demand*, there is no reason for local calls to be metered. All the telcos are trying to do is move service billings from cost based (which is what monopolistic utilities should be based on), to "value" based, similar to what movie studios do. It's just a way of taking more money out of everyone's bank account while sounding *so* reasonable. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ From: Gary Snow Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road Organization: Clark College, Vancouver Wash, USA. Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1991 05:16:29 GMT In article Jeff Carroll writes: > Depends on the city. I'd agree that Hillsboro-Portland ought to be a > local call (at least the part of Hillsboro you're calling from); in > fact I'm surprised it's not, since we have the same telco, and you > have to get fairly far away from Seattle (except to the north, where > there's GTE and a county line) before it's long distance to call > there. I guess Hillsboro is GTE too, though, huh? Yes, unfortunately Portland is GTE (I like having US West and I live just across the river in Vancouver). From what I hear though all of Portland's outlying areas will be local calls, starting in November. Now if they would just make it a local call between Portland and Vancouver we would be all set. Gary Snow uunet!clark!gsnow or gsnow@clark.edu ------------------------------ From: james@dlss2.UUCP (James Cummings) Subject: Re: Setting Up a Fax Gateway Date: 18 Aug 91 00:05:38 GMT Organization: RedRock Development In article John Higdon writes: > A word of warning for those of you setting up a fax gateway in your > UNIX-based PC. > Some months ago, I checked into doing just that. The consensus was > that the DigiFAX software (by DigiBoard) was the way to go. It > supports two modems: Hayes and Brooktrout. I bought the Hayes JT Fax > 9600. Ya-HA! This must be what caused DigiBoard to buy out PC Research! Those of you who might not know ... PC Research is the company that marketed Jetroff (... hmmm ... would that mean that Jetroff should be extra compatible with DigiFAX?). Even used the Brooktrout equipment, I believe. > neither company has expressed any desire to fix the problem. There > is no workaround. I'll bet Rick wouldn't be real pleased about that one. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Privacy and the Telephone Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 23:08:06 EDT From: Ken Jongsma I should clarify something with regards to my previous post on this subject. The telephone records subpoenaed were for all calls to the WSJ reporter's home phone, not her business office phone. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Phast Phood From: ED HOPPER Date: Sat 17 Aug 91 19:28:16 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, TX - 713-997-7575 In article, dileo@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil (John J. DiLeo) writes: > In article sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff > Sicherman) writes: >> It will use a 950 number: 950-1430 (gee, that doesn't spell >> anything on the keypad) to pass the call... > Just a thought ... I seem to recall that the guarantee is 30 > minutes or less delivered, *14* minutes or less for pickup. An article in the {Dallas Morning News} on the subject reports that Dominoes marketing campaign in the test market area capitalized on the number thusly: "For people who work 9 to 5, call the 1 4 30 minute delivery." You realize of course, that someone is making big bucks for thinking that one up! I could see people who have low analytical capabilities might assume that the number is 925-1430, not 950-1430. Ed Hopper ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #641 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26919; 18 Aug 91 6:43 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19706; 18 Aug 91 5:04 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16319; 18 Aug 91 3:52 CDT Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 3:48:46 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #642 BCC: Message-ID: <9108180348.ab19233@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 18 Aug 91 03:48:41 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 642 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Lightening Surge Protection [Pat Verner] Administrivia: Monitoring Soviet Communications [TELECOM Moderator] White House? No, the Brown House [Carl G. Moore, Jr.] GTE Gives Out Unlisted Addresses (was ATT Universal Card) [Randy Gregor] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 91 19:36:00 PDT From: Pat Verner Subject: Lightning Surge Protection Hi Pat, The South African Highveld has one of the highest lightning occurences in the world, and to operate equipment without protection can be very costly. The following article was written a short while ago, and I am forwarding it to you with the author's permission after seeing several complaints in your newsgroup! It is a bit long, and I have shortened it a little, but you may still find it of general interest! TELEPHONE LINE SURGE ARRESTOR (C) 1990 Tim Jackson P.O. Box 199 Cresta, RSA 2118 Tel: +27-11-476-1346 Fido: 5:7101/1.17 What follows is a bit on why most lightning protection schemes for modems and other such devices (cordless phones, answering machines, fax machines etc.) fail at what they were intended to do and how you can build a circuit yourself that will work as well as any circuit for the purpose can. Firstly let me say that the circuit itself is not unique at all. There are a number of people such as the manufacturers of PABX equipment and others who use either the same circuit or a variation thereof. The important point is that this circuit WORKS! There are others, some very similar, that don't work nearly as well. Also it is critically important to understand HOW lightning causes the damage it does. Once you get this you'll see why most protection schemes fail and you'll have a good idea of how to avoid damage. There are schemes for protecting your equipment such as Ken Burke's patented Spark Gap (R) system. This is a system whereby the modem is unplugged from the phone line and the modem's telephone jack is left lying on the desk or floor thus creating a spark gap between itself and the wall socket of about half a metre. There is no doubt that this system is very effective although it won't give much protection against a raving lunatic with a fourteen pound hammer. Neither will my circuit but I'm working on it ... The problem with the Spark Gap (R) system is that it is manually activated and thus subject to Murphy's law. Murphy's law of Spark Gap (R) systems is that you'll remember to unplug your modem ninety nine times when there is actually no need to and on the hundredth time, when you rush out in a helluva hurry and forget to unplug it lightning will zap the blasted thing. There was another system written about on this board a while back which was designed to automatically disconnect your modem from the line by means of a relay powered by your PC's PSU so that when you switched off your PC your modem would be automatically disconnected. This is a good system for those who do switch their PC's off when not in use provided you follow the instructions carefully regarding earthing and use a relay with well-spaced contacts. The details are available on Golden City Opus (and other boards, I'm sure) under the name of TRANZORB.ZIP. The problem is that while it does have surge arrestors in it, these would only give limited protection. I have three phone lines (I work from home) which between them have a fax machine, a modem, an answering machine, a recording unit and several "fancy" phones connected to them. Clearly, it would be tedious to unplug this lot every time Annie hid in the cupboard. Annie is one of my cats who is scared to death of thunder and hides away when she detects a rumble five hundred kays away. A couple of years ago I stayed in Kyalami where the telephone lines are strung up on poles for miles and miles just inviting lightning to zap them. Every time there was a storm I would quickly set up my stuff and experiment on various methods of "taming" the phone line. I can honestly say from practical experience and as a result of many incinerated attempts that the circuit presented here works and works well. Before we get to the circuit itself let me squash a few myths and establish a few facts: I assume that anyone reading this is at least slightly technical. There is no difference, for practical purposes, between internal and external modems when it comes to lightning damage. Most people are under the impression that if your modem is external the lightning is somehow contained. Bongggg. You provided a wonderful path right into your PC when you connected your external modem to your serial port. The fact that part of the package (the modem) is outside your PC and part (serial card) is inside means zilch. As far as lightning is concerned there is no difference. It is true that SOME external modems have better lightning protection circuitry than their internal counterparts but that is incidental. Now for the part that most people (and I'm talking about suppliers here too) don't realise. Your phone line consists of a pair of wires across which a fairly wide voltage range appears depending on exactly what's happening. The voltage will typically be between about 10 Volts (when you're using the line) and a maximum peak voltage of around 200 Volts (when it's ringing). The voltage ACROSS the line is one thing. The voltage between the line and earth is another thing altogether. The problem is that most people provide protection for a voltage surge across the line, such as the gas arrestor found in SAPO plugs, but almost no one worries about the voltage between the line and earth and this is what does the real damage. In Telcospeak the two wires of a phone line are referred to as the "A" and "B" wire. If you are running a bog standard phone (that doesn't mean a bathroom phone) then protection against surges across A and B is adequate. Hence the gas arrestor in SAPO telephone plugs. Problem is, as soon as you connect a device to the phone system that is also connected to your electrical mains you are introducing a third "line" and that is EARTH. Devices in this category include fax machines, modems (internal modems are connected to mains by virtue of being in your PC), answering machines, some fancy telephones, cordless phones etc. What happens is that although the modem (I'm not going to list all the other devices each time) is not connected directly to 220 Volts it is fed power via a transformer which IS connected to mains. Now the transformer has a certain insulation between the primary and secondary windings but if you force the secondary to a potential a few thousand Volts higher than earth potential then the insulation will break down and suddenly your modem IS connected directly to 220 Volts, even if it's just briefly. Although your phone line is at earth potential at the exchange end it is ripped up to several thousand volts at your end if lightning strikes nearby. This high voltage, although not necessarily between the A and B wires, is certainly felt between A and B as a unit, and earth. In other words a high voltage is induced into the line pair pulling the line way above earth potential. What happens is that this voltage finds its way through your modem to earth by one of many possible routes often with catastrophic results. The way to prevent this happening is to provide a path from your phoneline to earth for the surge to follow without going via your modem. The circuit at the end of this blurb does just that. It uses a chip from Texas Instruments which was designed for just that purpose. It is essentially transparent when the line is at normal working voltages (up to about 200 Volts) but above that voltage it shorts your line to earth for as long as the surge lasts. The trick is to install the unit in the line between the telephone jack and your modem (ie: not too far from the modem, like in another room) and connect the earth lead from the circuit to the earth pin on the SAME PLUG that feeds your PC. You can connect it to the chassis of your PC if you find that easier. Just check that the chassis is connected to earth. I've yet to find a PC where it wasn't but just check anyway. =============================================== 10 ohm 5 Watt >----------+-----/\/\/\/------------------+-------------> Phone Line A | | <=>300V Gas Arrester ____|_____ To Modem | | A | | |TISP2290| |--------+--------------------------|C | Earth | | B | | ----+----- <=>300V Gas Arrester | | | | | To Modem Phone Line B | | >----------+-----/\/\/\/------------------+-------------> 10 ohm 5 Watt Circuit drawn as best as possible with ASCII by Pat Verner. ============================================= The telephone line enters the circuit on the left of the diagram and the feed to your modem is on the right of the diagram. What happens in between is this: The phone line has a gas arrestor from each leg to earth. In other words, two gas arrestors. One from A to earth and one from B to earth. The line then has a resistor in series with each leg (A and B) before being connected to the TISP2290 (the Texas Instruments chip mentioned earlier). This chip has three pins. The outer two (A and B in the diagram) are connected to the resistors while the centre one (C) is connected to earth. The metal tag of this component is internally connected to the earth pin (C), just for the record. The modem is fed from the outer two pins of the TISP2290. The way the circuit works is as follows. The bulk of the energy involved in a surge is dissipated by trusted (and slow as treacle) gas arrestors. The TISP2290 absorbs the high speed spike that the gas arrestors miss and is itself protected by the two resistors which provide a little current limiting. The modem, being fed from the same point as the TISP2290 is protected by the whole circuit. For those who have to know, the TISP2290 works in a manner similar to a zener array connected between the A and B wire and earth so as to limit the voltage between any of three points to about 200 Volts. As you know this is not entirely effective and so if the voltage rises to 290 Volts (hence TISP2*290*) then this crafty critter cuts in triacs to crowbar the offending points to earth until the surge has passed. This all happens superfast so as to afford the best possible protection. Just a bit about the individual parts. The Gas arrestors SHOULD be available from most electronics hobbyist shops. Anything in the range 250 Volts to 400 Volts will do. The resistors are 5 Watt wire wound jobbies of 10 Ohms although any power rating will do (be prepared to change them every lightning strike if you use quarter watt jobs :-) I recommend you use 5 Watt wire wounds) and the value of 10 Ohms can actually be anything from 10 to 47 Ohms. The TISP2290 may be hard to find. It comes in a TO220 package (looks like a 78 series voltage regulator) in case you have to explain it to anyone. The agents in JHB are Multikomponent (Tel: (011) 974-1521) and I'm sure they will send you one COD (I'm not sure about this) or tell you where you can get one if your local electronics shop dude goes blank when you ask him. I buy directly from them but then I'm in JHB and you might not be. Assembling the unit is piece of cake. I have supplied the artwork for a printed circuit board and, while not essential that you use it, it makes life easier. uunet!m2xenix!puddle!5!7101!22.6!Pat.Verner Internet: Pat.Verner@p6.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Monitoring Soviet Communications Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 16:34:00 GMT Although I mentioned several days ago about a new file in the Telecom Archives, apparently the message did not get circulated as well as it should have, so here goes again: "Monitoring Soviet Communications" is a new file you will enjoy if you like shortwave/ham radio things. It is far too large, or I would have included it here in the Digest. The file is quite detailed and explains how to tune your radio and set up your equipment to enjoy listening to some fascinating messages. The Telecom Archives is accessible using anonymous ftp: lcs.mit.edu Then when logged in, 'cd telecom-archives'. I hope you will enjoy this file as much as I did. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 20:49:20 -0400 From: Carl G Moore Jr <00860@brahms.udel.edu> Subject: White House? No, the Brown House April 30, 1965 {New York Times} article (page 37 column 8) was about a Mrs. Brown who lived in Ridgewood area of Queens, NYC, and had the same number as the White House except for area code (212 at that time for Queens, and 202 for Washington DC). A few calls every day came to Mrs. Brown intended for the White House, and on Friday and Saturday nights some of those calls were from people who were upset at the President (Lyndon Johnson at the time) and wanted him to have a piece of their minds. Mrs. Brown even got a letter from President Johnson thanking her for her handling of the wrong-number calls. (The phone number is not given; it is 456-1414 today for the White House, as it probably was then.) ------------------------------ From: Randy@trout.nosc.mil Subject: GTE Gives Out Unlisted Addresses (was ATT Universal Card) Date: 17 Aug 91 15:16:17 GMT Organization: Computersmith, Los Angeles In article newton@gumby.cs.caltech.edu (Mike Newton) writes: > + I have two unlisted lines, one w/ ATT, one w/ MCI through Amex > + I am _very_ strict about who I give my number out. > So, guess what the one company is that I still get > - regular junk mail, and > - irregular phone pitches from? > ATT > -- the one company I can't hide my phone numbers from. [...] Sounds familiar. I have unlisted service at a certain address with GTE. About the only mail I receive at that address is the GTE bill. This line has no designated long distance carrier. The only company who sends junk mail to me (not "Resident") at that address is AT&T. The address on their envelope exactly matches that on my GTE bill for the unlisted number. The _only_ place AT&T could have gotten this address from is GTE. Is it legal, in California, for GTE to give out unlisted phone numbers and addresses to AT&T for marketing purposes? (I have used 10288 quite a bit, but this is billed through GTE.) This is really not a big deal for me, but I always thought that unlisted numbers and addresses were to be kept confidential. BTW, AT&T promised to remove me from their mailing list. No dice. I still get their junk mail. Randy Gregor rlg@xenon.sr.com [Moderator's Note: California has nothing to say about it. Most telcos do not give out non-pub numbers for marketing purposes, but there is one exception: one of the rules of divestiture is that telco *must* provide your name, address and telephone number to long distance carriers on request. If you have *ever* made a long distance call from that line using AT&T, then they are entitled to know who/where you are, ostensibly for billing purposes, but once they have the information in file, having billed you, I presume they can use it for marketing purposes. Your pub or non-pub status is irrelevant. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #642 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19043; 18 Aug 91 15:47 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04022; 18 Aug 91 14:20 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04307; 18 Aug 91 13:11 CDT Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 12:26:42 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #643 BCC: Message-ID: <9108181226.ab01299@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 18 Aug 91 12:26:38 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 643 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Survey of E-mail Systems [Donald R. Newcomb] Glossary of Telecom Terms [Jerry J. Anderson] "CALL ME" Cards and Independent Telcos [Michael Ho] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald R Newcomb Subject: Survey of E-mail Systems Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1991 20:33:43 GMT I have updated my earlier posting comparing various e-mail services for personal use. I want to thank everyone who responded and supplied corrections to my posting. To put some persons' concerns to rest, my only relationship with any vendor of computer services is as a customer. In this study, I based my comparisons on the grades of service which would give the lowest cost for the least use. I have struggled with finding a good format to present my findings. I found that some people did not relate well to the matrix I used in my first posting. Others did not agree with the basis I was using to make my comparison. Sort of like, "Why compare the price of the basic sedan when everyone is going to order A/C and automatic anyway." To alleviate these concerns I have included a brief discussion based on my understanding of each system's features and pricing. My information may be incorrect. Some providers are hard to "pin down" on prices and features. I encourage you to check with providers yourself before purchasing a service. If glaring errors remain in my listing, I would appreciate your corrections. I have tried to provide a phone number or e-mail address to contact each service for information. Three types of charges are detailed: A. Setup: A one time charge to get your account established. B. Annual minimum: What you will be charged even if you don't use the system. C. Hourly access: What it costs (often a range of costs) to occupy a port even if you don't send or receive mail. This is a problem area for my analysis. Some systems bundle access via PSN or 800 number into this figure, some don't. Other charges for e-mail are assumed to be a function of the number of characters or messages sent or received. Charges of this type are indicated by a "$" in the matrix. A problem arises in that "$" does not indicate "how much." So, while both Omnet and ATT Mail indicate a "$" to send to Telemail, for Omnet this is about $.06 while for ATT Mail it is $.40-.85 . The features are: A. Can send mail to various networks and systems: 1. Intermail: Internet, SPAN, UUCP, BITNET and all the systems connected by Internet. 2. Telemail: Sprint Mail, NASA Mail, Omnet etc. 3. MCI Mail 4. Compuserve 5. GEnie: General Electric's E-Mail 6. TELEX: Unrestricted World-wide Telex 6a. Personal Telex number. User has a personal Telex number for receiving Telex vs. common Telex number using a code in the message to route the message. 7. Telegram: World-wide delivery. 8. Paper Mail: Delivery by USPS. 9. Dialcom: Tymnet E-mail 10. FAX: B. X.400 addressing: Utilizes and receives X.400 addressed messages. C. Packet network connections. D. Telnet: Access to and from Internet Telnet. E. Usenet: Has at least a basic Usenet News F. Binary File Transfer. Has a way to transfer binary files. G. File Store: User has at least 360K characters of storage. H. 800 number: Access from toll-free 800 number for lower 48 states. I. Receipt: Sender can request an automatic receipt when a message is read. J. Auto-forward: User can set mailbox to automatically forward incoming mail to _any_ possible destination. (The acid test is to forward incoming e-mail to a FAX) The systems compared, so far, are: 1. Omnet (a source of Telemail) 2. MCI Mail 3. ATT Mail 4. ESL (Western Union EasyLink) 5. GEnie (Star*Services) (not same as Quickcom) 6. Pinet (American Institute of Physics) 7. World (Software Tool & Die, world.std.com) 8. Portal (Portal Communications) 9. Netcom (Online Communication Services) 10. Compuserve 11. Fidonet Features-Read Down Costs ($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| | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Omnet |$ $ $ $ ? $ Y N $ $ Y $ S N N $ $ $ Y N 75 180 4-16@ MCI Mail |$ $ $ $ N $ Y N $ $ Y $ S N N ? $ Y ? N 0 35 0 ATT Mail |$ $ $ $ ? $ Y N $ ? Y $ A N N $ $ Y Y Y 0 30 0 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 $ $ N $ S 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 Portal |Y Y Y Y ? D D N D D N D S N N Y Y ? N Y 15 168 0 Netcom |Y Y Y Y ? D D N D D N D N Y Y Y ? N N Y 0 180 0 Compuserve|$ $ $ $ ? $ ? N $ ? ? $ M N N Y Y $ ? N 40 30 1-12? Fidonet |Y Y Y Y ? D D N D D N D N N N ? ? N N ? 0? 0? 0? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 A=ACUNET Packet Network M=Multiple Packet Networks ?=Unsure *=Minimum sum of usage charges @=Includes domestic PSN charges Note:(*) DASnet is a service that provides systems and individuals with a gateways to a variety of incompatible e-mail systems. Despite frequent mention of DASnet, this is not an endorsement of their service. They can help you get mail to and from many networks, but the addressing is often complex (not realy their fault). Delivery is not always instantaneous. Six hour delivery is not uncommon. Direct DASnet connections are available for electronic mail systems and networks. Legal considerations may restrict the means of connection. A monthly charge of $4.75 plus usage charges apply to DASnet services for individuals. For information contact, (help@11.das.net). More details: Omnet: There are various ways to obtain GTE Telemail (a.k.a. Sprintmail) the one I am most familiar with is Omnet. Omnet is popular with oceanographers and meteorologists and probably costs more then some other Telemail providers. I once could have had a Telemail account for $25.00 setup + $15.00 a year + usage, but that opportunity passed. A few years ago, connections between Telemail and Internet were "iffy" at best; now things are more reliable. Telemail has long been tied closely with Telenet. I don't even know if it is possible to dial directly into a Telemail host. Well developed connections to FAX, Telex etc. (/id=service/o=omnet/admd=telemail/c=usa/@sprint.com) MCI Mail: Provides access to most networks. Private inbound Telex number. High use option (Preferred Pricing) available at $10.00/month for 40 "domestic electronic messages." No charge to access or retrieve mail. Basic communications are charged for message origination or forwarding plus a small annual fee ($35). Normal access via 800 number or Telenet. Seems set to compete with ATT Mail and vice versa. (0002740106@mcimail.com or 800-444-6245) ATT Mail: Provides access to most networks. Private inbound Telex number. Auto-forward supported (even to Telex or FAX). Various extra-cost options, but basic communications are charged for message origination or forwarding plus a small annual fee ($30). No charge to access or retrieve mail. One nice extra is message pick-up via 800 number with synthesized voice ($.50 per minute). Normal access is 800 number or ACUNET packet network. For someone who wants to receive a lot but send very little looks quite attractive. No Usenet. The gotcha is that ATT's $100+ software is required or you get charged an extra $.45+ to create each message online. You must have their software to send or receive binary files. This charge is not on their price list and is only mentioned obliquely in the brochures. It makes me wonder about other hidden charges. In fairness to ATT, I should say that they seem to specialize in linking in-house corporate mail systems to outside networks. In this application the expense of their software would be reasonable.(800-624-5672) ESL: EasyLink was Western Union's attempt at e-mail. It has recently been purchased by ATT but is still separate from ATT Mail. ESL can be best described as "virtual Telex." For companies that send a lot of Telex, ESL may be a good choice. Charges are based on the infamous "Telex minute" (about 400 char) and are lower than most other Telex connections. No "account maintenance" fee but a monthly minimum applies. There are no connections to Internet (except via DASnet). (800-624-5672) GEnie: I'm not sure GEnie should be described as an e-mail system as it does not seem to provide connections to any other system. GEnie Star*Services are economical and have many interesting features but e-mail is strictly local. (800-638-9636) Pinet: Pinet is a service of the American Institute of Physics. It is primarily intended for use by members of affiliated societies (AGU, APS, AAS etc). It is included because I have personal experience as a user. Basicly a Gould UTX/32 host with a restrictive mail shell. Normal access via 800 dial-in. Telenet access has been recently added and may replace the 800 number. Well connected to Telnet but users can't FTP. Access to Telex, paper mail, FAX etc. provided by system connection to DASnet. Abbreviated Usenet. (admin@pinet.aip.org) World: Software Tool & Die, Brookline MA. Sun 4 host. Well connected to Nearnet and SURAnet for Telnet and FTP but not rest of Internet (yet). They pride themselves on having an absurdly large number of news feeds (2500+). User has regular shell with only restriction being a rather "soft" file space quota of about 500 K bytes. Quota can be raised for small charge. Sign up for $20/mo and you get 20 hours with $1/hour above 20. Normal access is via dial-up or Telnet. Compuserve PSN access is available for $6.00 per hour surcharge. (office@world.std.com) Portal: Well known as UUCP & Usenet server. Also provides personal accounts. Access via Telenet $2.50-$15.00 per hour surcharge. Storage charge of $.04/K/month above 100 K bytes. Not well connected for FTP & Telnet. Cupertino, CA. (cs@portal.com) Netcom: This was a big surprise. Online Communications Services seems (if I am reading their brochure correctly) to provide unlimited access to Intermail, Telnet, FTP, archives and more for a flat $15.00 per month. Well connected to Internet. 9600 baud dial-ups. No packet net or 800 number access. San Jose, CA. (bobr@netcom.com) Compuserve: Well known to Joe Public. Provides 1001 services in addition to e-mail. Seems to provide FAX, Telex, Intermail, commercial mail connections etc. Brochures high on gloss; low in facts and prices. (800-457-6245) Fidonet: Fidonet is a world-wide, store-and-forward network for PCs. In theory, it connects BBS users from South Africa to Greenland and on all continents. A hierarchal addressing system organizes the net into geographic zones and nets organized around a local hub. A one-way message may take 2-3 days to arrive at its destination. FidoNet is gated to Internet via the fidonet.org domain. It is possible for a FidoNet node to set up a DASnet link for other services, but this may not be via Internet or UUCP. No set cost schedule. FidoNet nodes in my area are all cost free. No single P.O.C. Node list available via FTP on asuvax.eas.asu.edu in /stjhmc/nodelist.txt . Also via BITFTP on BITNET. Donald Newcomb newcomb@world.std.com (just a customer) ------------------------------ From: "Jerry J. Anderson" Subject: Glossary of Telecom Terms Date: 18 Aug 91 05:21:50 GMT Organization: Kansas State University I am a newcomer to the telecom field, and am finding an amazing amount of new T- and FLA's (Three- and Four-Letter-Acronyms) to learn. To try to organize what I know, and perhaps reduce the culture shock for the next person, I am trying to create a glossary of telecom terms. Right now all I have is a list of acronyms and abbreviations/shorthand. Eventually, I would like to include much more, perhaps definitions. Please look over the following list and fill in any blanks you know or can guess at. Also, please tell me of any mistakes I have made in the stuff *I've* guessed at. Please send your additions/corrections to me, jerry@ksuvm.ksu.edu, *not* to this newsgroup. If I get a good response, I will post the list to the net. Also, please send *only* your additions/corrections -- not the entire list. That will make it much easier for me to add your contribution to the list. Many thanks. jerry 10xxx 5ESS 5ESS telephone switch 7D 7 Digits 913-537 Area Code 913, prefix 537 CO COmpany COS Class Of Service CSMA/CD DOSS ELL Equipment Line Location EPEC ESS G2 Generic-2 telephone switch IBT ISDN Integrated Services Data Network ISN Integrated Services Network switch ISO International Standards Organization IXC Inter-eXchange Carrier IXO IXO/TAP LATA Local Access and Transport Area LD Long Distance MDR Message Detail Recording OPX PBX Private Branch eXchange PUC REVAC SMDR Station Message Detail Recording T1 TCP/IP Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol TelCo TELephone COmpany TWO Telephone Work Order USOC Universal Service Order Charge X.25 X.25/HDLC [Moderator's Note: Jerry and all other readers are invited to check out the glossaries on file in the Telecom Archives. We have various files there which explain/define terms in common use. Check out the files which begin with the word 'glossary'. The Telecom Archives is available by anonymous ftp from lcs.mit.edu, and there is an ftp/mail service set up especially for telecom readers. Write for information from telecom-archives-request@letni.lonestar.org. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Tiny Bubbles..." Subject: "CALL ME" Cards and Independent Telcos Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1991 16:52:21 GMT I called AT&T (you know, the ones who used to end every phone call with "Would you agree that I provided you with EXCELLENT service today?") and asked about getting one of those "CALL ME" calling cards -- the ones which work only to the billed phone number and nowhere else. They almost gave it to me, but while closing the call, they happened to ask if I was under US West. I replied no, I'm under this independent telco, Lincoln Telephone in Lincoln, Nebraska. They said oops, we can't issue that, LT&T has to. So I'll just call them up and ask for it. But my question is: WHY? Is there still a special relationship of some kind between AT&T and the RBOC's such that certain kinds of billing can be done only through RBOC's? No conspiracy charges here; I'm just curious. Also, are there any companies besides AT&T which offer such a billed-number-only calling card? I'm pretty sure US Sprint doesn't, but I don't know how to reach any other carriers. And my call volume doesn't make a personal 800 number worthwile. ... Michael Ho, University of Nebraska Internet: | Harry was too homely for Sally. (I have proof.) Disclaimer: Views expressed within are purely personal and should not be applied to any university agency. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #643 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19271; 18 Aug 91 15:52 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04022; 18 Aug 91 14:25 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04307; 18 Aug 91 13:11 CDT Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 13:07:20 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #644 BCC: Message-ID: <9108181307.ab03342@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 18 Aug 91 13:07:09 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 644 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson The Phone Book Company Got my Phone Number, [Dan Jacobson] 900 'Lawyer' Number Comments [Bob Falcon] Re: Rapid Repeat Dialing [Bob Falcon] Consequences of Posting Your Phone Number in TELECOM Digest [Dan Jacobson] Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [William Degnan] Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [Dan Jacobson] Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers [William J. Carpenter] Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Mike Riddle] Re: Wanted: PBX For Home [Julian Macassey] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan_Jacobson@att.com Subject: The Phone Book Company Got my Phone Number, Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 08:22:00 GMT > [Moderator's Note: California has nothing to say about it. Most telcos > do not give out non-pub numbers for marketing purposes [...] It was time to refresh my ChicagoLand "regional" suburban phone book collection (approximately seven phone books), this time admitting to myself that I really don't need an upstairs set and a downstairs set (they're free, you know.) [Telecom nurd note (in the tone of television's Monty Python's "the cupcake suffered minor abrasions, but the tomato was fully intact" bicycle accident sketch): This time Illinois Bell gave me the 800 number of their phone book publishers, Donnelley Directory ("a company of the Dun & Bradstreet Corporation") for me to call, instead of playing go-between while I waited on hold. Must be a new policy, as my seven books per two years order probably didn't set off their VIP warning light.] The Donnelley Directory person asked me my name and home phone number, which I gave, thinking they would just pull my address up out of their database like Illinois Bell can, but no, the person continued on to ask me my address. Donnelley must have refused Illinois Bell's terms to use the confidential Illinois Bell database. My pulse quickened, I asked if I was now going to be on some mailing list, "Oh no" they said. , the phone book company, of all places, now has my carefully guarded phone number to sell to the criss-cross directory dweebs or whatever ... who knows? ..., . ------------------------------ Subject: 900 'Lawyer' Number Comments Date: 18 Aug 91 09:26:54 EDT (Sun) From: Bob Falcon I saw a 'new' 900 number advertisement on one of our local channels this morning. It caught my eye (ear?) because it mentioned one of my 'pet-peeves': LAWYERS! 1-900-976-LAWS, just $39.50 per minute. Now we all know lawyers (for the most part) are 'sleazy', but this really is ridiculous. The advertisement goes something like this: "Talk to a lawyer by phone, pay by the minute, NOT by the hour WITHOUT ever leaving your home", blah blah blah. It flashes the price at the end for a few seconds, BUT NOT the company name of who runs this number. (I see Audio Communications Inc. on a LOT of the 976 / 900 numbers). Well, THIS made my day, and I almost choked to death on my breakfast , what a crock! Now what can a lawyer do for you over the phone? I sure you can get some 'basic' advice, but a face-to-face with a lawyer is eventually going to be needed to gets things done, no? Well, anyway, I thought I'd post this to give a few of you a 'laugh' [i.e. those who have opinions of lawyers like myself ] and to give another example of a 'useless' audiotex 'service'. I wonder what kind of audiotex 'services' the RBOCS are going to come up with when they get the OK to get into the business? Probably more of the same useless junk! I don't remember EVER seeing a USEFUL audiotex 'service' ever advertised, how about you all? Have a good one, Catchya later, Bob Falcon [ Co-Sysop : Turbo 386 Remote Access ] [ 1:273/917 @Fidonet.org ] UUCP: bfalcon@rescon.UUCP : { cdin-1 || dsinc } !alba2l!rescon!bfalcon [Moderator's Note: What is the difference between getting legal advice in this way versus purchasing one of the many books available which teach you how to fill out your own legal forms, etc? None, really. And yes, there are worthwhile audiotext services available. What about the weather forecasts and news headlines, to name a couple? Not all of the 900 stuff is sleaze by any means, although I seldom use it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 91 09:28:04 EDT (Sun) From: Bob Falcon Subject: Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? tester@cmcl2.nyu.edu (Mr. Pez) writes : >> 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?). >> Back in 1988, it was already being sold to telcos in Pennsylvania >> and a few other middle Atlantic states. If this were the case in PA. [Philly] I'd have been 'red flagged' to death . There are some very hard to get on BBSs that I rapid redial all the time, as well as using the modem to dial radio stations (for contests and getting requests on air ). I never had ANY problem from the telco about this. So either they don't care or they don't have it enabled. I have the modem set to dial as fast as it can reliably dial, and it seems to redial every six or seven seconds until it gets through. The Procomm + communications program will redial continuously until I stop it or there is a POWER FAILURE . Any comments on if I should continue this or to stop if it will cause problems are appreciated. Have a good one. and happy dialing . Catchya later, Bob Falcon [ Co-Sysop : Turbo 386 Remote Access ] [ 1:273/917 @Fidonet.org ] UUCP: bfalcon@rescon.UUCP : { cdin-1 || dsinc } !alba2l!rescon!bfalcon ------------------------------ From: Dan_Jacobson@att.com Subject: Consequences of Posting Your Phone Number in TELECOM Digest Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 10:16:00 GMT On 18 Aug 91 01:27:48 GMT, ED.HOPPER@ehbbs.hou.tx.us (ED HOPPER) said: > Leonard P. Levine e-mail levine@cs.uwm.edu > Professor, Computer Science Office (414) 229-5170 > University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Home (414) 962-4719 > Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A. FAX (414) 229-6958 > Hello, Telesleaze, Inc? Have I gotta a hot number for you! Yeah, > University Professor in Wisconsin. Carries on about privacy, but then > posts his home number on an international network. I get unsolicited resumes sent to my e-mail address. I get unsolicited employment agencies' calls when I post my office phone number here. They must think I'm a "big telecom daddy" ... if they only knew ... [GNU Emacs editor command:] (describe-variable 'mail-vanity-address) mail-vanity-address's value is "Dan_Jacobson@ATT.COM" Documentation: *Just like a vanity automobile licence plate. Masks the current underlying machine addresses, e.g., "att!maintenance!washroom_services!bowl_crew!dan" :-) :-) ------------------------------ From: William Degnan Date: 17 Aug 91 17:38:28 Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers On John Higdon (john@zygot.ati.com ) writes to All: > When was the last time Radio Shack records were searched by law > enforcement? Can you document a single case? And if so, was someone > convicted and sentenced based entirely on that search? If so, let me > know; I will get involved. One case, I believe was documented in "CHIEF", biography of NYPD chief of detectives Robert Seedman. The bomb was constructed with a 60-minute timer from ... guess where. They took receipts from all the stores in the area and went through 'em. Narrowed it down to somebody who had purchased a couple of them from different stores, as I recall. I know that a name and address on the slip is a management emphasis item. The managers catch hell for missing one. Therefore the salespeople catch hell. There is a tendency to write it up with the last customer's name, but the "smart" ones do it with an acquantance's name since the last customer might have been a mystery shopper. RS people sometimes wake up in cold sweats saying over and over, "can I have your name and address?". Ever wonder why you get a flyer some months and not in others? The computer tracks your average "ticket". I have been told by senior management types that they compute the average price of that month's flyer and if you average at least that amount ... you get it. At Christmas all bets are off. You may get a few. When I shop the Shack, I often give my phone number as 817 390-3011. Some will immediately recognize that number as the main LDN for for RS HQ. I sometimes give the president's name and address, so they'll be sure to send him a flyer. Surprising how many sellers don't recognize their president's name. Does anybody know the story behind the story on how RS got slammed? I know that they were pret-ty sore at a three-lettered IXC. * Origin: Private Line - Stealth Opus in Austin (1:382/39.0) William Degnan, Communications Network Solutions -Independent Consultants in Telecommunications- P.O. Drawer 9530 | ARPA: wdegnan@f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org Austin, TX 78766-9530 | !wdegnan@attmail.com | Voice +1 512 323 9383 [Moderator's Note: At the RS stores here, they do *not* say 'give me your phone number'. They say, 'what are the last four digits of your phone number?' ... big difference. And yes, please do tell us how RS got slammed. It should an interesting story. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dan_Jacobson@att.com Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 08:51:00 GMT TELECOM Moderator noted: > But where your scheme falls short is this only applies to > *business* boxes ... not personal boxes; and I believe you need to > include the statement in your request, "the box was used for an > extension of credit and to solicit the public", meaning you should > be certain it was used for those purposes. When the post office > clerk reviews the application, if the question "will this box be > used to solicit the public?" is answered in the negative, the reply > you will receive is that postal records indicate the box is for > personal use, and therefore the records are not available under the > Freedom of Information Act. Good try though! Got any other ideas? Uh oh, Pat's depending on the clerk following a policy 100% correctly. A new clerk might just read the portion of the manual about businesses. The perpetrator can keep on trying till they hit an absent-minded clerk. [Moderator's Note: Just like an RS clerk may not follow instructions correctly. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 11:36:00 EDT From: William J Carpenter Subject: Re: Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories >> [My story about misidentified rape suspect in TAM photo] > [Moderator's note about lawsuits] payne> Aw come on, Pat! The solution to the man's problem is *not* payne> to run off an sue everyone in sight. Instead, he should payne> approach the bank and the police and ask that their apology be payne> spread (evening news, whatever) in the same fashion the wanted payne> report was spread. In case anyone is wondering, the apology was pretty well-publicized. I don't know if it made the front pages of the papers, but it was on the TV and radio news. The cynic in me makes me believe that part of the size of the media followup was in reporting the police and bank goofup rather than just trying to make things even for the poor guy. Someone else posted that you could never be convicted on this kind of evidence (well, really on Radio Shack receipt kind of evidence). True enough. However, the misidentified man in this case is obviously having an unpleasant time of it. (As an incidental note, they really picked an unlucky guy. He's an NYC cab driver, so he meets a lot of the public all day in his job. If anyone wants to turn him in, they have plenty of info, since his hack license must be displayed so that passengers can read it.) Finally, the Moderator asks what the connection is to Radio Shack. I never said their was one. I used the story to illustrate that unlikely scenarios do happen, which had been questioned in earlier postings. Before this, I thought that the transaction and photo matchup at ATM machines was pretty foolproof, and I would have thought that the bank and police would check extra double careful with whipped cream and a cherry on top before they would publicize the photo (because they're already tuned in to the lawsuit angle). Guess not. Bill Carpenter att!hos1cad!wjc or attmail!bill [Moderator's Note: Thanks *again* to all who have participated in this thread, but it really has gotten way (way-way!) off the theme. I have to stop printing these, and get on with other topics. Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mike Riddle Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road Organization: Nebraska Inns of Court Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1991 11:51:43 GMT In john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: [complaint #1 deleted] > ... Pac*Bell has no silly restrictions on how many lines a > hobby project is entitled to. You order, you get, you pay. >> I have two lines hooked up to my BBS. I pay $17 per line. (The $12 >> basic rate sounds good in theory...) > You already pay more than business lines would cost you with Pac*Bell. Note to Immoderator: You must have somebody forging posts with Higdon's identifier. Has he /ever/ had anything good to say about Pac Bell? Maybe the reason they don't provide service to his perception of the nationally-expected level is that they don't charge enough to make it pay? Apologies in advance to JH, but as Flip Wilson used to say, "the debbil made me do it! <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> riddle@hoss.unl.edu | Nebraska Inns of Court postmaster@inns.omahug.org | +1 402 593 1192 Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet | 3/12/24/9600/8N1/V.32/V.42bis ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Wanted: PBX For Home Date: 18 Aug 91 12:50:31 GMT Reply-To: Julian Macassey Organization: Xenon Systems News n Mail, Hollywood In article emory!Dixie.Com!pda@gatech. edu (Paul D. Anderson) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 638, Message 4 of 13 > toddi@mav.com (Todd Inch) writes: >> Several of you regular readers have mentioned or recommended some >> small PBX's appropriate for residential use, including a few models >> made by Panasonic, if I recall. > You might watch for bankruptcy sales / foreclosures / etc in the > business and legal sections of the newspaper. A friend of mine tells > me he got a 12 line / 128 extension system with 20 desk sets this way > for $400.00 (yes, four hundred). What you get at bankruptcy auctions can often not be a bargain, unless you really know what you are doing. The people who strip out offices etc are often just grunts. They do not know what all the parts of the phone system are. You may get the console and some phones and not the actual CPU. You will usually not get the connecting cables for the PBX etc. You will almost never get docs -- they usually throw those away. Unless you are familiar with exactly that brand and model, so know what bits are there, you are better off buying new, or from a reseller who will satnd behind the gear. At auctions, not only do they not know what they are selling, they don't want to hear from you if it is defective either. Now, if you know someone is going out of business, you can do well for both parties if you approach them and make a cash offer for the gear. This way, the seller gets a fair price. The buyer knows if it works and exactly what he is getting. The buyer can remove the gear withou damaging it. The buyer gets to take the backboards, surge supressors, documents, cables and other bits the auctioneers think you don't need. As a final note. Often access to the dumpster or premises after the auction is over and the landlord wants access can often yield all sorts of treasures. Julian Macassey at xenon. julian@xenon.sr.com Voice: (213) 654-2822 Paper Mail: 742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue, Hollywood, California 90046-7142 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #644 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08714; 18 Aug 91 23:01 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06090; 18 Aug 91 21:32 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09819; 18 Aug 91 20:27 CDT Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 19:31:17 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #645 BCC: Message-ID: <9108181931.ab00305@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 18 Aug 91 19:31:06 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 645 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Monitoring Soviet Communications [werner@cs.utexas.edu] Re: Sure-Fire Privacy Protection in Thailand [Jim Gottlieb] Re: Long Distance Across a Road [John Higdon] Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Randal L. Schwartz] Re: "CALL ME" Cards and Independent Telcos [Bill Huttig] Re: 950-PIZZA (was Phast Phood) [Mike Shawaluk] Call 1-800-TASSELS (was Phast Phood) [Donald E. Kimberlin] Re: Tour of a CO [Donald E. Kimberlin] Re: AT&T Data Network [John C. Fowler] Who Needs 900, 976-Weather When You Got USENET, Internet [Dan Jacobson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 06:36:28 CDT From: werner@cs.utexas.edu Subject: Re: Monitoring Soviet Communications Organization: Dept of Computer Sciences, UTexas, Austin > The Telecom Archives is accessible using anonymous ftp: > lcs.mit.edu > Then when logged in, 'cd telecom-archives'. > I hope you will enjoy this file as much as I did. Hi Pat, Thanks for making that file available; you probably forgot to include the exact name of the file, but it would be nice if you could remember to indicate the exact filename next time you post a pointer to a file; I'm sure it would be appreciated by many. Cheers, Werner [Moderator's Note: 'monitor.soviet.xmissions'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: Sure-Fire Privacy Protection in Thailand Date: 18 Aug 91 14:09:52 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan DLEIBOLD@vm1.yorku.ca (woody) writes: > I spotted a 1991 Bangkok (English-language) directory in a library > tonight. > "...Simply dial your own number > from an outside line and see who answers. This test is best conducted > when you are sure no one is home and your house or office is secure. Getting a telephone line in Bangkok can take up to five years. So it is understandable that someone not so graced might want to borrow your line to RECEIVE calls. Jim Gottlieb Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan E-Mail: or Fax: +81 3 3237 5867 Voice Mail: +81 3 3222 8429 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 10:46 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road Ken Jongsma writes: > All the telcos are trying to do is move service billings from cost > based (which is what monopolistic utilities should be based on), to > "value" based, similar to what movie studios do. At the risk of sounding uncharacteristically reasonable, there is some justification for usage-sensitive local calling. I have mixed feelings about it because I both am hurt by it and benefit from it. It has been demonstrated by recent exchanges in this forum that the basic cost of a measured telephone from, say, Pac*Bell is MUCH lower than the basic cost of an unmeasured line from SWBT. Therefore, there are many who would pay less if their usage was low to moderate. Some would pay more, but the pricing does reflect value received from the system. Your argument is that anyone who wants a phone, whether it be for heavy use, or only for a sense of security should bear equally the costs of maintaining the local exchange system. While I personally do not take issue with that, there are many (particularly in California) who feel that a gabber should pay more than a grandma who only gets calls on weekends from her family. My fear is that metered local calling does indeed open the door to enhanced revenue by the telcos. I have personally caught Pac*Bell padding the local call count on my business lines. When I hit a rep with the evidence, the charges were reduced faster than greased lightning. Most people do not have the wherewithall to monitor such things, so Pac*Bell routinely does this sort of thing even now, as it does on most anything that is a peg count rather than itemized detail. It routinely happens on my Pac*Bell WATS, which is my main reason for running an SMDR. > It's just a way of taking more money out of everyone's bank account > while sounding *so* reasonable. If telcos were actually honest about it, it would be a legitimate form of pricing. However, I would fight it every inch of the way. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: But John, what keeps the electric, gas or water utilities from fudging on their meters? What convenient method does the public have to calibrate or check the accuracy of those meters? Or do you feel everyone's electric bill should be averaged out with what BART uses included in the calculations? IBT provides call detail on request at no charge for a 'reasonable' number of requests if desired. One you get ESS you can have it also. Maybe once every six months I ask for my call detail. PAT] ------------------------------ From: merlyn@iWarp.intel.com (Randal L. Schwartz) Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road Reply-To: merlyn@iWarp.intel.com (Randal L. Schwartz) Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1991 21:53:45 GMT In article , gsnow@clark (Gary Snow) writes: > In article Jeff Carroll cs.washington.edu> writes: >> Depends on the city. I'd agree that Hillsboro-Portland ought to be a >> local call (at least the part of Hillsboro you're calling from); in >> fact I'm surprised it's not, since we have the same telco, and you >> have to get fairly far away from Seattle (except to the north, where >> there's GTE and a county line) before it's long distance to call >> there. I guess Hillsboro is GTE too, though, huh? > Yes, unfortunately Portland is GTE (I like having US West and I live > just across the river in Vancouver). From what I hear though all of > Portland's outlying areas will be local calls, starting in November. > Now if they would just make it a local call between Portland and > Vancouver we would be all set. This is really fuzzy and incorrect. Here's how it is: Portland downtown and Portland Eastside (and across the river in Vancouver) is US West. The 'burbs west of Portland are generally GTE. The "local calling area" is mostly a hub-n-spokes sorta thing. 'burbs on the Westside can call each other, and 'burbs on the east side can, and both can call downtown Portland, but not from the east to the west. Surprisingly, Hillsboro *can* call Portland downtown. In fact, the next 'burb even further west (Forest Grove) can call downtown too. I don't know why the original poster said they couldn't (but I didn't say anything here until there was a higher level of disinformation than I could tolerate). Howver, maybe what the original poster meant was that Hillsboro (and even Beaverton, between Hillsboro and Portland) *cannot* call Gresham, which is to the east of Portland and distinguishable only on a map of political boundaries. :-) I don't know enough about what's happening in November to really comment about it, but if I recall correctly, for a flat fee, I can increase my calling area in Beaverton to include everywhere that downtown Portland can call. At least there's no mandatory measured service. Sigh. Just another phone caller, Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 ========== merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: "CALL ME" Cards and Independent Telcos Date: 18 Aug 91 18:29:13 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL They way things seem to work now is that the LEC issued Call Me cards are not always restricted when using some IXC's. The AT&T Call Me cards (the new ones without you phone number) are not restricted for LEC calls within your LATA. (They will in the future allow more than one restricted number per card). The cost of the personal 800 number from MCI might be worth it even if you have a low call volume since the calling card calls are surcharged. (Around $.80) I think. So there is no Call Me type card that is 100% safe. Bill ------------------------------ From: Mike Shawaluk Subject: Re: 950-PIZZA (was Phast Phood) Date: 18 Aug 91 12:01:52 GMT Organization: Milwaukee Information eXchange (Public access Usenet, Email) In rhyre@cinoss1.att.com (Ralph W. Hyre) writes: > I don't believe there's anything inherent in the technology that > limits it to 950 numbers. (I'm not an expert on it.) There are > probably different tarriffs for IntraLATA vs. InterLATA that make 950 > more attractive from a financial point of view than 800 service. > But there still needs to be a POTS number available to customers, > somehow. What if you want to call the manager of a store and > complain? Another question related to this is: if I have 900 number blocking on my phone, will it also prevent me from making 950 calls? How about 700 number calls (which were discussed in a previous thread that's gone now, and that I didn't read 'cause I got back from vacation and had 6000 unread messages and just killed most of them :-( )? Mike Shawaluk oovvoo@mixcom.com [Moderator's Note: There is no relation whatsoever between 900 calls and 950 calls, or 700 calls for that matter. Some (most?) telcos now offer blocking of calls to 900/976, but 950 is never blocked, and what you get from dialing 700-anything is purely between you and your long distance carrier. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 19:46 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Call 1-800-TASSELS (Was: Phast Phood) Jeff Sicherman opened a thread (Digest v11,iss626) about Domino's Pizza using an AT&T development intended to route your call to the nearest store for entry and delivery. Since then, there were some musings about potential dial network abuse and problems in routing the calls. But Jeff's original post complained about one acronym: > ...they will be routed to a Transaction Services Store Locator > Service Node (couldn't they come up with something that has a decent > acronym?) Hmmmmm ... TSSLS, eh? Well, why not simplify the whole thing and uae INWATS to make the number to call 1-800-TASSELS, or is that number still in use by the burlesque theater in Chicago? [Moderator's Note: I just now checked, and 800-827-7357 just rang somewhere with no answer. I don't ever recall 800-827 being a Chicago area 800 prefix, at least in the days when we had burlesque shows downtown. Both the World Playhouse and the Fine Arts went back to G and R rated films. Then there was the Monroe Theatre: Open 22 hours per day, (closed from 5-7 AM so the janitor could disinfect the nasty place!), the Monroe had the same phone number for the sixty years it stood there as a sanctuary for dirty old men and younger office clerks with time to kill during the lunch hour: WABash 3111, served from an ancient stepper switch. Some burlesque shows, but mostly they were into foreign porn movies with English subscripts which they preferred to call 'art films'. The Monroe was raided by the police one last time and torn down about 1968. What theatre were you thinking of? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 19:48 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Tour of a CO In article Tom Lapp tells about visiting his local Telco's central office to be: > ...pretty amazed by both the equipment that they have, and what they > don't have. However, there was one very important item all too many telephone exchange offices don't have, that this one seems to lack, too. It shows up in this comment of Tom's: > One of the highlights was watching my host do a line test on my > residential line (which is serviced out of that office). Everything > (DC, AC, etc) tested well within specs, and I also found out that my > "pair" from CO to my end-user equipment is 31,800 (+/- 10) feet! (It > measured a 65 dB loss for this distance, by the way). All the testing > was done via a single terminal console in an office in the CO. A subscriber cable pair 31,800 feet long would put your house about six miles from that building, Tom. Is that the case? I query it because the VAST majority of telephone stations in the US are within about three miles (15,000 feet) and most are closer than that. But here's the real problem, Tom. 31,800 feet of even the smallest gauge wire used for local subscriber lines, 26 AWG, has a loss of about 2.8 decibels per mile, or perhaps just under 18 decibels if your pair really WAS 31,800 feet long. Beyond that, the loop rsesistance of 26 AWG runs about 440 Ohms per mile, so your loop resistance would be about 2600 Ohms. That's just about twice the loop resistance that most telephone exchanges can service a telephone set on. If he obtained a reading of 65 decibels loss on your loop, it would be a circuit just plainly out of business in analog telephony. In fact, a major part of the objective of dial telephone service is to keep the loss on your subscriber loop to 8 decibels or so. Based on what you were shown, it seems the greatest lacking in that CO is competent transmission technicians. But don't feel too bad. It's been that way for decades. What is interesting to see is that replacing the old electromechanical jocks with computer jocks hasn't improved that shortage. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 18:42 GMT From: "John C. Fowler" <0003513813@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: AT&T Data Network I just tried dialing 950-1288 from White Rock, New Mexico (U.S. West), but all I got was the mysterious recording, "We're sorry. It is not necessary to dial the digits 950 before dialing your carrier access code." Other 950 numbers, like the one given recently for Domino's Pizza, end up with a generic "number cannot be completed as dialed" recording. It looks to me like U.S. West is reserving 950-1288 just in case AT&T ever decides (or is required) to implement 950 access to their regular network. John C. Fowler, 3513813@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: Dan_Jacobson@att.com Subject: Who Needs 900, 976-WEATHER When You Got USENET, Internet Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 15:01:00 GMT TELECOM Moderator noted: > yes, there are worthwhile audiotext services available. What about the > weather forecasts and news headlines, to name a couple? Not all of the > 900 stuff is sleaze by any means, although I seldom use it. PAT] Weather? I can look in USENET ("netnews") group chi.weather: From: sys@mgweed.UUCP (WA9DNZ) Subject: [Sun 10:21] CHICAGO METROPOLITAN FORECAST (CHILFPCHI) CHICAGO METROPOLITAN FORECAST NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE CHICAGO IL 1130 AM CDT SUN AUG 18 1991 .THIS AFTERNOON... PARTLY SUNNY WITH A 40 PERCENT CHANCE OF SHOWERS AND THUNDERSTORMS. HIGH IN THE LOWER 80S. WEST WINDS AROUND 10 MPH BECOMING NORTH TO NORTHEAST TOWARD EVENING. [...] Nifty no? Straight from the horse's mouth. How about a crontab (a UNIX command) job every few hours that gets the current color national weather map plus current North American satellite photo via FTP from vmd.cso.uiuc.edu:phil.515/* (I have seen scripts about this in USENET group "sci.geo.meteorology". Please refer to there for any further information.) You could then probably automatically have these updated into your workstation screen's background thus making your pals think you're cooler that that old chump 5 o'clock TV weather- person. Pat also mentions news. Well with USENET your head will be swimming with (net)news. For 5 o'clock news style news, I believe you can get a "Clarinet feed" into your USENET netnews, but that costs money (shudder). In real life of course I would just flip on the radio (at the exact correct time to avoid all the ads and "WBBM" station ID reminders) to catch the weather forecast, thus avoiding having to login to USENET, or pay tolls for 976-WEATHER type calls. (Or I might tune to 162.55 Mhz weather station if I had that kind of radio.) And yes, computer network access does cost money (though often not directly, to say, a university student.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #645 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08765; 18 Aug 91 23:05 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06090; 18 Aug 91 21:36 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09819; 18 Aug 91 20:27 CDT Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 20:23:20 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #646 BCC: Message-ID: <9108182023.ab31088@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 18 Aug 91 20:22:51 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 646 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Sikes Address to Federal Communications Bar Assn. [via Scott Loftesness] Re: USOC Standard (Standards??? - ROTFL!) [Donald E. Kimberlin] Dial-a-Pope [Toronto Star via Rick Broadhead] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Loftesness Subject: Sikes Address to Federal Commuications Bar Association Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 15:22:38 PDT Organization: Glenbrook Systems, Inc. Reply-To: sjl@glenbrook.com Pat, I thought the group might find this of interest. Scott --------------------------------- August 9, 1991 CHAIRMAN SIKES ADDRESSES CHICAGO CHAPTER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS BAR ASSOCIATION Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Alfred C. Sikes today addressed members of the newly formed Midwest Chapter of the Federal Communications Bar Association. Sikes centered his remarks on the future: reviewing key features of a blueprint for the future that was developed during his tenure as head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (Telecom 2000); assessing key FCC actions; and discussing where communications and communications policy are headed. Calling "competition the key recommendation" throughout Telecom 2000, Sikes noted the report also predicted that "pluralistic markets would prove the best, the most reliable guarantee of national progress." He said, "It is a pluralistic, not simply competitive, communications which is our policy focus." Sikes said the goal of FCC initiatives over the last 24 months has been "to foster both competition and pluralism, and to encourage surer and more rapid delivery of public benefits." In conclusion, Sikes reported that "Today, our nation's telecommuni- cations networks, products and services are on the leading edge globally." Looking to the future, he said we will continue to exert world leadership, "if we assure pluralistic markets and constantly renew our nation's underlying assets." (See below for complete highlights of the Chairman's speech.) Highlights of FCC Chairman Alfred C. Sikes' Address before the Chicago Chapter of the Federal Communications Bar Association Previous to becoming FCC Chairman, Sikes headed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). During his tenure a blueprint for future national communications was developed. The resulting 672-page report was called Telecom 2000. The word "transformation" was pivotal in the Telecom 2000 blueprint. Telecommunications then, and now, is fast becoming an essential ingredient of the transformation that is called the "Information Age." And, telecommunications is also becoming a primary "economic engine." The key recommendation throughout Telecom 2000 was "competition," and the report predicted that pluralistic markets would prove the best, the most reliable guarantee of national progress. It is a pluralistic, not simply competitive, communications market which is our policy focus. Pluralistic markets are similar, but they're also quite different. They're almost always competitive. Typically, you'll have many contending commercial players of varying size. At the same time, you'll also see -- or hope to see -- a good deal of technological and commercial change. In the case of communications, given the Government's role, pluralistic markets post a number of difficult public policy challenges. Such as: Striking a sound balance between the "hard-market" competition that's theoretically good, and the practical reality that competitors -- especially small entrepreneurial firms -- are important agents of change. Government policymakers confront a continuing challenge: they have to craft market safeguards that curb discriminatory cost-shifitng or the manipulation of the telephone network by quasi-monopoly providers; at the same time, they have to foster an open market environment -- one that is conducive to all firms of all sizes making a national contribution. Compounding the policy challenge in communications is yet another familiar facet of communications pluralism -- namely rapid technical change and progress which, in many cases, is due to smaller companies. Both domestically and internationally, today's communications market is experiencing the leading edge of competition between wire-based and spectrum-based technologies and companies. Government can directly affect both the velocity and direction of change. In short, government manipulation of costs and pricing has the clear potential to compromise the development of world-class technologies and services. Telecom 2000 noted that there are aspects to competition in addition to just price and cost rivalry. For example: the importance of innovation and the contribution small entrepreneurial firms have always made to that critical process. Telecom 2000 concluded confidently that America would stay on the leading edge of telecommunications development in an increasingly competitive world -- if barriers to entry and investment were eliminated, while government also concomitantly checked the exercise of "market power." FCC actions over the last 24 months -- where our goal has been to foster both competition and pluralism, and to encourage surer and more rapid delivery of public benefits -- that have affected pluralistic markets, investments and universality included: - "Price caps" or incentive regulation for the Bell companies, GTE, and several other major local exchange companies; - Changes in the rules governing competition in long-distance business services; - Rules to accord radio service innovators a "Pioneer's Preference" in spectrum allocation; - Beginning the process of developing a new, high-technology spectrum reserve and working closely with Congress to shift channels from the Federal Government's spectrum inventory to the private sector; - Review of FCC radio and broadcast television rules; - Work on the high-definition television (HDTV) front; - Convening a "Regulatory Summit" of all the State commission chairs to build and broaden an advanced communications national consensus. A second Federal-State communications conference is planned for this October; - Conducting an all-day hearing on "Networks of the Future;" A key element of the Telecom 2000 blueprint is allowing the Bell companies the chance to compete in "information services." Today, our nation's telecommunications networks, products and services are on the leading edge globally. If we assure pluralistic markets and constantly renew our nation's underlying assets, we will continue to exert world leadership. [end] Scott Loftesness, 515 Buena Vista Ave., Redwood City, CA 94061 Fax: 415-369-4270 Internet: sjl@glenbrook.com Others: 3801143@mcimail.com -or- 76703.407@compuserve.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 19:44 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: USOC Standard (Standards??? - ROTFL!) In Digest v11,iss621, Joe Stein started a thread dealing with yet another form of The Lore of The Phone Company, by asking: > One of the questions I have had for a long time is what is 'USOC' and > are any references available? Our Moderator immediately replied with the standard words we've all been taught: > [Moderator's Note: USOC = 'Universal Service Order Codes'... look in the > USOC book... This whetted Joe's appetite, so he asked in Digest v11,iss625: > Where can one get a copy of the USOC book? I am curious as to what > all it covers, and even more so, now. Laird Broadfield added the usual dead-end people run into about the mystical document called the "USOC Book": > Okay, so where do we lay hands on a USOC book? We've all picked up > the (everyday) ones from dealing with them for so long ... but where is > the master reference? Inquiring minds want to know! I've looked in > Bellcore and AT&T catalogs; is USOC qua USOC an obsolete referent? (BTW, > why is it *so* difficult to beat the available features out of the local > reps? "Can I get BCF/RNA forwarding on a residential line?" "Ummmm, what?" > (five minutes of hold later) "Okay, can it go off centrex?" "Ummmm.... > I dunno." Pathetic*Bell strikes again (or do the rest of you get this > too?) And there the tale usually ends. Nobody ever has an answer for the Joes and Lairds. It's just taken as a given that since their name is "Universal," then USOCs must indeed be truly UNIVERSAL, another "standard" of The Phone Company, The Phone Business, those emblems of all that`s solid and well-organized and efficient in the worlds of technology and business, right? Something you can hang your hat on, right? The truth is, in fact, just like so much of what one keeps finding about the once-monolithic Bell System and its "independent" satrapies of the monopoly era, USOCs have never been "universal." They are only as universal as the vision of the particular Telco you're talking to. Worst of all, they use similar or even identical USOCs to mean different things in different companies. It didn't start out being a mass of confusion. In fact, USOCs are part of an attempt reaching way back into the monopoly Bell System to try to get company standards for data processing of the records and business ov AT&T and its monopolized industry. The umbrella for all this was called Bell System Common Language (BSCL). Having realized that the whole Bell System's ponderous paper records needed to be normalized in order to use computers, BSCL was a needed thing. Some of its more public elements were Common Language Location Identifiers (CLLI, often verbalized, "silly" by the people you talk to), Common Language Equipment Identifiers (CLEI, often verbalized as "klee-eye" in the field0 and Universal Service Order Codes (USOC, usually verbalized as "yew-sock"). It all began as a marvelous national plan, but didn't take long to founder in expansive confusion. People began to find out that there wasn't one uniform nationwide "Bell Way" to do things. It soon became apparent that New England Tel's people had found one piece of Western Electric apparatus to perform a given function, using a certain set of its options, and that was what New England Tel did with it. When you got into Pacific Telephone, they used a DIFFERENT piece of Western Electric apparatus for the same function ... and in fact, the Norther California Division's engineers had settled on a different piece than had the Southern Division. There was NOT a national "standard" way or piece of equipment for performing any given detail function. (Western Electric didn't sit in judgment of how the Operating Companies did their jobs; WECo merely built what they ordered. In fact, not only were there various devices used in different parts of different companies, these varied with time, depending on what kind of switching machine they might be used with. So, OK, we should have had a mass of CLEIs but certainly there could be a "universal name" for what it did, couldn't there? Nope. Not after the accountants and lawyers got their fingers into it. All they had to do was start raising their usual screens. You know them: How the capital investment, depreciation and rate of return showings for all the different regulators in all the states made it impossible for the Bell System to have one or even a few USOCs for the laundry list of products sold by Telcos ... and the Grand Dream of BSCL turned into not a simplification, but yet another bureaucratic mire to insure even fuller employment for administrators of the "plan." Meantime, the non-Bell satrapies all joined in with their OWN "common language" plans, creating their own smaller bureaucracies. So, what was well underway by the time of the Big Bang of 1984 was a nice mess, just known to be "universal" and a "standard" nationwide. Oh, there are some fairly common elements, like 1FR for a flat-rate private residential dial line, and 1MB for a private measured business line and such, but it doesn't take long before all the accessories and blinkers and extras like rotary hunt group services become VERY different USOCs in different Telcos; even in different exchanges of the same Telco, as mentioned previously. The result: There's been a different USOC book for every telco for years. Now, tariffs describe the function of each USOC for the regulators to approve, and that's the document you, Joe Public, are supposed to have a copy to read to find out what you are getting for what price. Of course, since the Big Bang, many items are not regulated, and thus are not in the tariff on file ... they are "proprietary." So, in addition to finding there are variations everywhere in what the USOCs you get billed for mean, you also find that you are not authorized to have the book to decode them! Oh, you can ask for a USOC book, and you'll get told that you ought to have one, but then you'll find out you never get it ... unless you obtain one by some sort of "unofficial, don't tell anyone I gave you this" route. Retirees who set themselves up as consultants usually have one, and still know someone "on the inside" who will slip them one, so they'll say it's "no problem." It isn't, for them. AT&T people don't see there's any problem with USOCs, because the AT&T set has all long been filed with the FCC, and it is uniform ... for AT&T ... nationwide, and readily available. What most such AT&T people don't know is that an AT&T USOC for a certain telephone set might get you a Special Services transformer for some kind of private line service in a local company. Toby Nixon tried to help in a contribution that mentioned the USOCs the FCC placed in its Part 68 regulations for plugs and jacks, but those USOCs are for but a small part of the thousands of USOCs for all the things a telco provides and bills for. The Part 68-listed USOCs are msot useful for terminations at the end of a Telco line ... until you find out your local Telco has some DIFFERENT ones. And what's the latest on USOCs? Well, our favorite folks at Tinker Bell out in California have dreamed up some new USOCs of their own for even the nice old RJ-11. Yep, PacBell seems to have decided that there's need to define what that jack on the wall is used for in more detail than the FCC way. Just a week ago, I got razzed by an AT&T Circuit Layout Engineer who called me on the phone to tell me that my order had to be changed; that I had to select between one of several forms of some new USOC PacBell had come up with. It was just too confusing to decide by the fast telephonic description, so I asked for a fax of the papers she was reading. The answer: "I don't think I can do that. These UNIVERSAL Service Order Codes are PROPRIETARY to PacBell. You just tell me what you want it to do, and I'll translate that into whatever you need." I of course, said, but how will I know the price of what I'm ordering? The answer sounded like an echo from the 1960's: "Don't worry about that. We'll take care of you." Yeah. Just like you always did. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 20:33:36 EDT From: Rick Broadhead Subject: Dial-a-Pope From the {Toronto Star}, Saturday August 17, 1991. DIAL-A-POPE CATCHING ON IN THE U.S. The Vatican is reaching out to the world, but it looks as if Canada won't be heeding the call. In the U.S., if you dial a 900 number, you can get a daily spiritual pick-me-up from Pope John Paul II. The multilingual, Vatican-authorized service, affectionately known as Dial-a-Pope, is officially titled "Christian Messaging From the Vatican." A spokesman from Bell Canada says there is no such number in this country. But Des Burge, director of communications for the Archdiocese of Toronto, says he thinks the service, for which U.S. callers pay a fee, is a good way to help people feel more connected to the Pope. Rick Broadhead ysar1111@VM1.YorkU.CA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #646 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22194; 19 Aug 91 4:12 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05393; 19 Aug 91 2:45 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad16923; 19 Aug 91 1:37 CDT Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 1:21:14 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #647 BCC: Message-ID: <9108190121.ab20815@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 19 Aug 91 01:21:07 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 647 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Setting Up a Fax Gateway [John R. Levine] Re: Long Distance Recommendations [John R. Levine] Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [William Degnan] Re: Telephony Subscriptions [Donald E. Kimberlin] Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Frederick G. M. Roeber] Re: 950-PIZZA (was Phast Phood) [David Ash] Re: Cable TV Competition [Stan M. Krieger] Hurricane Bob Updates on 900 Number (was Who Needs 900, 976) [P. Chisholm] Massive Privacy Invasion! [Ed Hopper] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Setting Up a Fax Gateway Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 16 Aug 91 18:28:13 EDT (Fri) From: "John R. Levine" In article is written: > Some months ago, I checked into [Unix fax modem software]. The > consensus was that the DigiFAX software (by DigiBoard) was the way to > go. It supports two modems: Hayes and Brooktrout [but the Hayes won't > work in the same system as an Adaptec SCSI controller.] I looked into them, too. Digiboard bought out Rick Richardson's PC Research, which sold a very nice HP Laserjet back end for troff, called jetroff, and a related fax package called jetfax. Support was great, since Rick answered his own phone. Digiboard raised the prices and haven't done a heck of a lot of development. I'd expect them to adapt them to Digiboard hardware products, but they haven't, yet. So instead I got TruFax from COS, Inc., 9 Huron Way, Lawrenceville NJ 08648, phone 609-771-6705, fax 609-530-0898, email bill@cosi.uucp. Their modem is the Everex EverFax 24/96E which attaches to any fast serial port. The basic fax send and receive software is very solid, though the user interface is rather clunky. Outgoing faxes can either come from existing bitmaps or else there is an HP Laserjet scan converter which can image pretty much anything you can send to a laserjet. I usually use troff and jetroff, as do COS themselves. Incoming faxes can be sorted by sender's TSI with mail messages being sent to the recipient and/or sent to the printer. Their user interface software is kind of clunky, but I found it no big deal to write my own shell scripts to send faxes, including making up cover sheets automatically, multicasting, and other odds and ends. They store incoming faxes in their own funky format, but I wrote a seven line script that turns it into PBM format which you can turn into anything. (COS will probably pick it up, I sent it to them.) The software runs under 386 Unix, where it needs a serial port either on a smart card or with a 16550 buffered UART, and on Suns where any serial port will do. Support is good, as again the developer answers his own phone. The price for the software and modem were, the last time I checked, somewhat lower than for Digifax and either of its supported modems. There is one cool feature that Digifax has that might merit its higher price: in combination with the very expensive Brooktrout board, you can put your fax cards on DID lines to which hundreds of numbers are assigned and give each of your users a separate fax number. If you are building a fax gateway to a large network, that might be an advantage, otherwise I'd go with Trufax. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Long Distance Recommendations Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 16 Aug 91 17:51:16 EDT (Fri) From: "John R. Levine" I suspect that you will find that for a bill under $100 / month the difference among the various carriers is down in the noise. If you make more than $25 per month of inter-LATA calls, it's worth getting one of the discount packages such as Reach-out or Sprint Plus. There are funny little differences in service that may make a difference to you. For example, I have two lines at my home in Massachusetts and two more at my beach cottage in New Jersey. Sprint is the only one of the big three that can put all four lines on the same bill and use the aggregate as the basis for computing my quantity discount. MCI says that they can only combine lines in the same region, and Mass. and N.J. are in different regions. AT&T still bills via the local telcos, which means that in Mass. they can't even combine two residential numbers at the same address. So I stick with Sprint. MCI has a "friends and family" discount plan which gives you an extra 10% off calls to a set of numbers you identify if they all use MCI. If there are people you call frequently who already use MCI or wouldn't mind switching, this may be a good deal. (Be sure they're willing, or MCI's telemarketers will pester them forever.) One reason that rates are so close is that in many cases their margins are razor thin. The late night long distance rates for all the carriers are in the vicinity of .105 to .12 per minute, with the access charges paid to the local telcos taking up about .09 of that. At that price, there isn't a lot of wiggle room. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: William Degnan Date: 18 Aug 91 19:38:38 Subject: Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? On Bob Falcon (rescon!bfalcon@gvlv2.gvl.unisys.com ) writes to All: > There are some very hard to get on BBSs that I rapid redial all > the time... > Any comments on if I should continue this or to stop if it will > cause problems are appreciated. Yeah. Knock it off. It is a problem but not for the reason you may think. Some BBSs have end of call processing that may take a minute or several minutes. If you hammer dial a system, you may cause it to be unavailable to callers -- including yourself. I have seen cases where the call is answered toward the end of the caller's time-out cycle. It waits several seconds, decides it has lost the caller and resets by which time the caller is back, the call answered at the end of cycle again. "I can NEVER get on your system", they say. ("So?", I think.) * Origin: Private Line - Stealth Opus in Austin (1:382/39.0) William Degnan, Communications Network Solutions -Independent Consultants in Telecommunications- P.O. Drawer 9530 | ARPA: wdegnan@f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org Austin, TX 78766-9530 | !wdegnan@attmail.com | Voice +1 512 323 9383 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 19:40 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Telephony Subscriptions In Digest v11,iss620 Wayne Correia posts: > Telephony is not worth bothering with. It is a content-free management > journal that provides me of little or no value. > I subscribed, but not again. You may find material more useful in arch-rival publication of decades, , now just for short. Even if the content doesn't please you better, the price is excellent: $0.00. ------------------------------ From: roeber@cithe7.cithep.caltech.edu Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road Date: 18 Aug 91 13:55:20 PST You guys have it lucky. It may be long distance across the road, but it's still domestic. If I want to call from my home in St. Genis, France to the LEP control room a couple km away near Prevessin, France, it's an *international* call, with international rates. (Why? The main CERN site is half in Switzerland, and the internal lines -- even for buildings and sites entirely within France -- are all DID lines off of the Swiss system.) There's no problem the other way: one internal prefix for local Swiss calls, another for local French ones. But for some reason there's no french CERN number. And France Telecom is not cheap. Sigh. 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 ------------------------------ From: David Ash Subject: Re: 950-PIZZA (was Phast Phood) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1991 02:01:15 GMT In article TELECOM Moderator responds to Mike Shawaluk : > [Moderator's Note: There is no relation whatsoever between 900 calls > and 950 calls, or 700 calls for that matter. Some (most?) telcos now > offer blocking of calls to 900/976, but 950 is never blocked, and what > you get from dialing 700-anything is purely between you and your long > distance carrier. PAT] For the first couple of months of the Stanford student telephone system's existence, 900, 976, and 950 were all blocked. I guess a number of students made a stink about it, since 950 was made available fairly soon. It seems this shows there must be some technological connection between 900/976 and 950 which makes it easier to block all three. David W. Ash ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu HOME: (415) 497-1629 WORK: (415) 725-3859 [Moderator's Note: It is not so much that 900 and 950 are the same kind of service; they are not. More than likely it was a case of the Stanford management wanting to greedily keep all the long distance commissions for themselves. Letting a student go '950' to a carrier of choice is not a very wise business decision. Ask any COCOT owner! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 22:10:35 EDT From: S M Krieger Subject: Re: Cable TV Competition Organization: Summit NJ > With all this discussion of multiple dialtone and cable television > suppliers in the same territory, I thought it might be interesting to > describe a specific case history... > The upstart competitor was Cablevision, bigger, already in many areas > on Long Island, and 'ready to serve you better.' Here's a good example of how Cablevision tried to serve their customers better. For over 20 years, a cable-only channel, MSG (for Madison Square Garden), has been available in the NY City area as part of basic cable service. Its original purpose was to broadcast events from Madison Square Garden, primarily all Knicks are Rangers home games. While its programming has expanded to include a number of road games (WWOR- channel 9, became less and less interested in those games), as well as 75 Yankees games (another 75 are broadcast on WPIX- channel 11), MSG is still a basic cable channel. The marketing decision is for saturation, and to make money from commercials, instead of as a pay-cable channel, although I believe because of the big money paid to the Yankees, there is a charge of 50 cents a customer to each cable system (but the Yankees deal occurred after the event I'm about to describe). Well, a few years ago, Cablevision customers were unable to get MSG. The company that was "ready to serve you better" decided that they would carry MSG only as a premium channel (this would be in addition to an existing sports premium channel, SportsChannel, that carries Islanders, Devils, Nets, and 75 Mets games). MSG refused such an arrangement, and complaints to Cablevision were answered with a simple "we're having contract problems with MSG"; what they didn't say was that they, and not MSG, were the cause of the "problems". Cablevision even refused a truce that would've at least let their customers get the Knicks and Rangers playoff games. Cablevision eventually gave up, but it did cause their customers the loss of a season's worth of games. So, how can this abuse be stopped? Stan Krieger AT&T UNIX System Laboratories Summit, NJ smk@usl.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 23:03:45 EDT From: Paul S R Chisholm Subject: Hurricane Bob Updates on 900 Number (was Who Needs 900, 976) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories According to the Weather Channel, there's a 900 number (run, I think, by the National Hurricane Center) for updates on Hurricane Bob, which is in the process of hitting the United States. The number is 1-900-288-8800; it costs ninety-five cents (U.S.A.) a minute. (Pat, sorry if this gets to you too late to reach Digest readers in time, but I just saw it!) In article Dan_Jacobson@att.com writes: > Weather? I can look in USENET ("netnews") group chi.weather: But what group would *this* go in? (And why does cbnewsl, which is supposed to serve AT&T employees in New Jersey, have articles in chi.weather but none in nj.weather?) Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories, paul.s.r.chisholm@att.com att!epic!jupiter!psrc, psrc%jupiter@epic.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind. [Moderator's Note: In Chicago on Chinet, they run it under 'chi.weather'. It is the same script I hear recited on the phone at 312-976-1212. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Massive Privacy Invasion From: ED HOPPER Date: Sun 18 Aug 91 14:01:43 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, TX - 713-997-7575 Well Pat, I have spent the past 24 hours in contemplation of all the fear and loathing generated by the Radio Shack controversy. In fact, I spent that 24 hours cross-legged in the closet, in the dark. My mantra was "priiiivvvaaaaccccyyyyy ... priiiivvvaaacccyy". Then, after 24 consecutive hours of this, a flash of inspiration struck me (well, it might have been oxygen deprivation, but I am pretty sure it was inspiration!). What Radio Shack is doing is trivial compared to the privacy rape committed by another set of sexist, racist, specist, homophobic, politically uncorrect, white male Republicans. (Damn! That's enough reason to burn 'em at the stake right there!) This greedy corporation has managed to amass the names, addresses and phone numbers of most people in five states. Then they have promptly distributed it to all sorts of bad people. I know for a FACT that this greedy corporation (We'll call them TGC for short) has distributed this list to EVERY police agency in the area. And I KNOW that the police have USED this information!! I also know, FOR A FACT, that most convicted rapists and murders in the area (and we have more than a few of those) also have access to this list! In fact, TGC even gives this out to telemarketers. And they have used it to, now sit down because this is shocking, they have used it TO MAKE MONEY!!! This list has been in paper form for a long time (this conspiracy has been going on for years!!!!) But now there's been talk that, with the cooperation of Other Greedy Corporations (OGC's for short), this may all go into an online database. As all good technophobes know, any information put into electronic form is, automatically, more dangerous to our privacy. Now, I also have it on good authority that TGC demands MONEY (that's right, filthy MONEY!) to keep your name off the list. Let's add economic oppressors to that list of condemnations above! I couldn't rest until I went to USENET with this. I know it's full of all sorts of right-thinking individuals who would be willing to slip on their sandals, pack an organic sandwich and hitch-hike to St Louis, the headquarters of TGC, to protest this RAPE of our PRIVACY! Yes, you see, TGC is Southwestern Bell. And they distribute this invasion of our privacy in book form, it's called "The Telephone Directory". Ed "I have seen the light" Hopper This message brought to you by the National Committee for Reality in Usenet. [Moderator's Note: Thank you, Ed ... may I join your committee? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #647 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03210; 20 Aug 91 8:36 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29740; 20 Aug 91 2:02 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02709; 20 Aug 91 0:53 CDT Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 23:57:59 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #648 BCC: Message-ID: <9108192357.ab22237@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 19 Aug 91 23:57:36 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 648 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Gordon D Woods] Re: Long Distance Across a Road [H. Peter Anvin] Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Tarl Neustaedter] Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Herman R. Silbiger] Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [Charlie Lear] Re: AT&T Data Network [John R. Levine] Re: AT&T Data Network [Dave Levenson] Re: Cable TV Competition [Nick Sayer] Re: Cable TV Competition [Lars Poulsen] Re: Phast Phood [Clay Jackson] Re: Phast Phood [Roy M. Silvernail] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 10:57:53 EDT From: Gordon D Woods Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > [Moderator's Note: But John, what keeps the electric, gas or water > utilities from fudging on their meters? What convenient method does > the public have to calibrate or check the accuracy of those meters? People can easily check the calibration of their meters and since they are permanent installations they don't need to be checked very often. See misc.consumers.house for calibration details; it seems to come up every three months. ------------------------------ From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1991 16:25:59 GMT In article of comp.dcom.telecom, roeber@cithe7.cithep.caltech.edu writes: > There's no problem the other way: one internal prefix for local > Swiss calls, another for local French ones. But for some reason > there's no French CERN number. How come you are not bringing this up with the people responsible at CERN? Since they apparently have a prefix for local French calls, they must have some form of connection to the French side. Also, since the CERN site as you point out is half in France, the French PTT can hardly refuse to connect to a PBX on the French side ... whereafter CERNs internal network would connect. P.A. INTERNET: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (hpa@nwu.edu after this summer) BITNET: HPA@NUACC HAM RADIO: N9ITP, SM4TKN FIDONET: 1:115/989.4 NeXTMAIL: hpa@lenny.acns.nwu.edu "finger" the Internet address above for more information. ------------------------------ From: Tarl Neustaedter Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road Date: 19 Aug 91 09:53:17 GMT Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc. In article , wybbs!ken@sharkey.cc.umich. edu (Ken Jongsma) writes: > But Tarl, that's not the point. Granted, 600-800 calls a month are way > above normal residential usage. However, there is no evidence to > support the idea that 600 local calls cost the telco any more money. > Once the central office is in place *and sized to meet the peak > demand*, there is no reason for local calls to be metered. By that logic, long distance calls should not be metered either, since once you have the lines in place sized to meet peak demand, there is no additional cost. At least in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, utilities like the phone company are allowed rates on a basis of a predetermined profit (or loss), and the rates are adjusted to match (it's not that simple, but that's the theory). When someone is charged a higher rate (for whatever reason), everyone else's rates drop by a corresponding insignificant amount. There are several reasons to charge based on usage: 1) Keep peak demand down. If you charge people based on number of calls they make, the really large users will make fewer calls, reducing peak demand, thus reducing the amount of new hardware needed. 2) Reduce abuse. I see comments in this group about people who do things like use modems to dial radio stations for contests, and rapid repeat dialing to get into BBSes. In my area, they get away with that for free, even though they impose a heavy burden on the system (and thus require installing more hardware to support their abuse). 3) Equity. If I use my phone three times a month (two incoming calls, one outgoing), should I really be paying the same amount as the above mentioned coalition of four people calling 800 times a month? I think they should be charged at least four times as much as me, since they are four people to my one. Tarl Neustaedter tarl@sw.stratus.com Marlboro, Mass. Stratus Computer Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 07:43:02 EDT From: Herman R Silbiger Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article , roeber@cithe7.cithep. caltech.edu writes: > You guys have it lucky. It may be long distance across the road, but > it's still domestic. If I want to call from my home in St. Genis, > France to the LEP control room a couple km away near Prevessin, > France, it's an *international* call, with international rates. (Why? > The main CERN site is half in Switzerland, and the internal lines -- > even for buildings and sites entirely within France -- are all DID > lines off of the Swiss system.) There's no problem the other way: one > internal prefix for local Swiss calls, another for local French ones. > But for some reason there's no french CERN number. And France Telecom > is not cheap. Sigh. Cross border calling to France in the Geneva area is possible without dialing the international access number, using the city code 023. It seems to me that there should be a similar arrangement from France to Switzerland. I don't know about the rate structure. Herman Silbiger ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? Organization: The Cave MegaBBS, Public Access Usenet, Wellington, NZ Date: 19 Aug 91 23:17:05 NZT (Mon) From: clear@cavebbs.gen.nz In article William Degnan writes: > Yeah. Knock it off. > It is a problem but not for the reason you may think. Some BBSs have > end of call processing that may take a minute or several minutes. If > you hammer dial a system, you may cause it to be unavailable to > callers -- including yourself. Then don't use brain dead software. If your BBS has more than one caller you have to assume that someone will dial in immediately when another person hangs up. You don't need repeat dialing to do that -- ever hung up a phone and had it ring again straight away, or picked it up to dial out and have someone say, "Sheesh! That was quick answering!"? If a BBS takes longer than one or two seconds to do end-of-call housekeeping, it should either keep the modem off hook while it is doing it or else it should reset the modem when ready to accept another call. One of the worst offenders in this regard is Remote Access. I looked after a RA board for a couple of months and hated it -- not because of the user interface, but because of the huge hassles caused by the length of time the damn thing took to reset. Brain Dead Software Inc. My own system, on the other hand, does all housekeeping and resets in under two seconds. Every night I see RING appear immediately someone logs off, yet the system handles it just fine. So does my local CO. Maybe you should be looking at how you can optimise your system to keep pace with your telco's. 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 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: AT&T Data Network Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 17 Aug 91 22:13:45 EDT (Sat) From: "John R. Levine" In article you write: > 950-1288 as a national access number [to AT&T data network] > [Moderator's Note: From 312 ... 950-1288 returns an IBT intercept ... Here in south Jersey it gets a most peculiar recording: "We're sorry, it is not necessary to dial the digits 950 before dialing your carrier access code. Please hang up and try your call again." A little experimentation suggests that 950-1XXX and 950-0XXX give this for most valid 10XXX codes, except that 950-0222 gives a tone burst that sounds like they want me to dial something. It's different from the recording that NJ Bell gives for a bogus 10XXX code, and from the recording for a random 950-XXXX. Dialing 1288 immediately tells me that my call cannot be completed as dialed. (Recall that N.J. has strict NANP dialing, where a leading 1 means that an area code follows, independent of local/toll or intra/inter-LATA.) Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: AT&T Data Network Date: 20 Aug 91 02:30:55 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , wybbs!ken@sharkey.cc. umich.edu (Ken Jongsma) writes: > The current {PC Week} has an article about packet data networks > available to the public. One of the ones they mentioned was an AT&T > network designed for those that access database vendors without the > need to go through a gateway such as Compuserve. The number they gave > in the magazine article was 950-1288 as a national access number. This > number indeed works from my area. When I called it from NJ, it answered (at 9600 bps, V.32) with the message: Welcome to AT&T Information Access Service Please Sign-on: Not having any idea what it was expecting, I tried a carriage return. It repeated the original message. I entered a short string of characters, and it said: "Invalid command" and then repeated the original message. It disconnected without further output after about one minute of inactivity. I'll let you know at the end of the month what this call cost! Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: Nick Sayer Subject: Re: Cable TV Competition Organization: The Duck Pond public unix, Stockton, CA Date: 18 Aug 1991 20:50:56 UTC shawng@pro-charlotte.cts.com (Shawn Goodin) writes about silly antenna restrictions: > This really bothers me -- especially since an external antenna (with > rotor) is capable of picking up stations in other markets around North > Carolina and South Carolina. Any suggestions? Quite frankly, I suggest civil disobediance. Put up three wire folded dipoles: one about 2 1/2 meters long for channels 2-6, one about 3/4 of a meter long for 7-13, and one about a third of a meter long for UHF. Make them of nice, cheap wire and the worst they can do is climb up on your roof and rip them out. When they do, put another set up. A folded dipole, incidently, looks like this: +------------------------------+ +-------------+ +--------------+ | | The 'top' is a wire, and the bottom is a wire broken in the center and each side connected to opposite sides of some 300 ohm twinlead. At each end the top and bottom wire are connected together. So the whole antenna is sort of a squashed loop. The antenna will have an impedance of 300 ohms or so, hence the 300 ohm twinlead. This sort of antenna is what they usually include with FM stereo equipment. By the way, if your house is pre-wired for cable, don't be surprised if the developer made a deal with the cable company to trade pre-wiring for antenna restrictions. Nick Sayer mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us N6QQQ 209-952-5347 (Telebit) ------------------------------ From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Re: Cable TV Competition Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 17:19:22 GMT In article shawng@pro-charlotte.cts.com (Shawn Goodin) writes: > Only problem is what do you do if you live in an area where you CANNOT > put up an external antenna? In my neighborhood, we have the dreaded > local deed restriction which prohibits external antennas and such on > roofs, towers, etc. No satellite dishes either. While a table-top > antenna works, it looks tacky on top of a $2,400 TV, and my attic > doesn't have enough room for hiding the antenna in there. The following is rumors, and I don't have a strong enough motivation to track it down and sort it out, but you may ... When the Reagan administration decided -- as part of the general strategy to give all the friendly fat cats a license to print money -- encouraged the FCC to deregulate cable TV, they supposedly issued a regulation voiding all local restrictions on antennas, in order to nominally make all use of CATV be "voluntary". Does some other reader have real information about this (such as when this rule was issued, and possibly a number or other reference for it)? Here in Santa Barbara, CA, we get only one station off the air, the local ABC affiliate. The "local" CBS station is 60 miles away in Santa Maria, behind a mountain range. The NBC station is even further North, in San Luis Obisbo, behind that same mountain range. The PBS station is 120 miles away, in Los Angeles. Nevertheless, the cable company has "proven" to the County that "the average household in the coverage area can receive six stations off the air", and thus the cable company does not enjoy a "de facto monopoly", and thus is entitled to be deregulated. Of course, this deregulation is one-sided. The part of the franchise contract that provided for an exclusive license to operate a CATV system still stands. Only the technical requirements (two-way channels with data capability, expanded bandwidth, etc) and the rate review process have been deleted. As could be expected, basic service rates have doubled in the five or six years since they weaseled out of this regulation. The only good thing we have gotten in return, has been CSPAN. I would be very happy if there was a way to obtain sub-basic service at less than the current $18.85 per month. It irks me every time I write that check, but I guess not enough for me to give up PBS and CSPAN. And not enough to cough up $2000 for a satellite dish. Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM ------------------------------ From: Clay Jackson Subject: Re: Phast Phood Date: 19 Aug 91 22:46:03 GMT Organization: US West NewVector, Bellevue, Wash. In article sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: > It's called the Store Locator Service by AT&T (StoreFinder by > Domino's) and will replace Domino's current system which uses regional > telemarketing centers for order taking and distribution. It will use a > 950 number: 950-1430 (gee, that doesn't spell anything on the keypad) > to pass the call and ANI data from the local switch to AT&T nearest Actually, Pizza Hut has something like this now, without the ANI piece. We had an interesting run-in with it the other nite -- it seems that whoever added the NPA's to their database didn't bother to tell the poor clerks what to do when the NPA you give 'em isn't in the database, and all the data entry software does is beep at the poor clerk. Clay Jackson - N7QNM US WEST NewVector Group, Inc clayj@cjsysv.wa.com | ...uunet!uswnvg!cjackso ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Phast Phood From: "Roy M. Silvernail" Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 00:27:23 CDT Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: [about Domino's Pizza and AT&T, and Store Locator, after which PAT adds:] > [Moderator's Note: Only 49 states? I think there's no Domino Pizza in > Alaska because that state has a law against driving an old junked-up > machine faster than 85 miles an hour on municipal streets. :) It's not a law, Pat ... it's just that the Anchorage Municipality expected to use the income from selling Anchorage Telephone Utility to pave the streets. (that's the OB telecom content) And anyway, calling some of those auto-paths "streets" is being entirely too charitable. :) :) Seriously, I remember Domino's having several Anchorage stores. But I'd bet that Alaska is still the holdout, since Anchorage is hardly a majority of Alaska, and Dominos may not have any other locations in the state. (Floyd, care to help me out?) Roy M. Silvernail |+| roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #648 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22595; 20 Aug 91 14:47 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27946; 20 Aug 91 10:14 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28908; 20 Aug 91 9:06 CDT Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 8:09:11 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #649 BCC: Message-ID: <9108200809.ab13464@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 20 Aug 91 08:08:56 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 649 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Setting Up a Fax Gateway [John R. Levine] Re: Lightning Surge Protection [Mike Schuster] Re: Who Needs 900, 976-WEATHER When You Got USENET, Internet [David Lemson] Re: E-Mail Systems [Ed Hopper] Re: Long Distance Recommendations [Herman R. Silbiger] Re: Long Distance Recommendations [John R. Levine] Re: Alice's Restaurant (was RS Gives Out Phone Number) [John Eaton] Re: Massive Privacy Invasion [Ethan Miller] Re: Monitoring Soviet Communications [Carl Moore] IBT Call Detail Charges [Dave Mausner] FAX Machine Message [Tom Lowe] Call Management Information [Don Culanag] Transport Protocols for Operating Environment platforms [Dan Pezeley] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Setting Up a Fax Gateway Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 16 Aug 91 18:28:13 EDT (Fri) From: "John R. Levine" In article you write: > Some months ago, I checked into [Unix fax modem software]. The > consensus was that the DigiFAX software (by DigiBoard) was the way to > go. It supports two modems: Hayes and Brooktrout [but the Hayes won't > work in the same system as an Adaptec SCSI controller.] I looked into them, too. Digiboard bought out Rick Richardson's PC Research, which sold a very nice HP Laserjet back end for troff, called jetroff, and a related fax package called jetfax. Support was great, since Rick answered his own phone. Digiboard raised the prices and haven't done a heck of a lot of development. I'd expect them to adapt them to Digiboard hardware products, but they haven't, yet. So instead I got TruFax from COS, Inc., 9 Huron Way, Lawrenceville NJ 08648, phone 609-771-6705, fax 609-530-0898, email bill@cosi.uucp. Their modem is the Everex EverFax 24/96E which attaches to any fast serial port. The basic fax send and receive software is very solid, though the user interface is rather clunky. Outgoing faxes can either come from existing bitmaps or else there is an HP Laserjet scan converter which can image pretty much anything you can send to a laserjet. I usually use troff and jetroff, as do COS themselves. Incoming faxes can be sorted by sender's TSI with mail messages being sent to the recipient and/or sent to the printer. Their user interface software is kind of clunky, but I found it no big deal to write my own shell scripts to send faxes, including making up cover sheets automatically, multicasting, and other odds and ends. They store incoming faxes in their own funky format, but I wrote a seven line script that turns it into PBM format which you can turn into anything. (COS will probably pick it up, I sent it to them.) The software runs under 386 Unix, where it needs a serial port either on a smart card or with a 16550 buffered UART, and on Suns where any serial port will do. Support is good, as again the developer answers his own phone. The price for the software and modem were, the last time I checked, somewhat lower than for Digifax and either of its supported modems. There is one cool feature that Digifax has that might merit its higher price: in combination with the very expensive Brooktrout board, you can put your fax cards on DID lines to which hundreds of numbers are assigned and give each of your users a separate fax number. If you are building a fax gateway to a large network, that might be an advantage, otherwise I'd go with Trufax. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: schuster@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Lightning Surge Protection Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 15:24:52 PDT > The circuit at the end of this blurb does just that. It uses a chip > from Texas Instruments which was designed for just that purpose. It is > essentially transparent when the line is at normal working voltages > (up to about 200 Volts) but above that voltage it shorts your line to > earth for as long as the surge lasts. > For those who have to know, the TISP2290 works in a manner similar to > a zener array connected between the A and B wire and earth so as to > limit the voltage between any of three points to about 200 Volts. As > you know this is not entirely effective and so if the voltage rises to > 290 Volts (hence TISP2*290*) then this crafty critter cuts in triacs > to crowbar the offending points to earth until the surge has passed. I've looked high and low, and then some. I'vwe searched better than a dozen parts catalogs and can't find anything even =remotely= similar to this. Does anyone know of a US source for small quantities of this part? Mike Schuster NY Public Access UNIX: schuster@panix.com | -70346.1745@CompuServe.COM The Portal (R) System: schuster@cup.portal.com | -MCI Mail,GEnie: MSCHUSTER ------------------------------ From: David Lemson Subject: Re: Who Needs 900, 976-WEATHER When You Got USENET, Internet Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1991 03:23:35 GMT Dan_Jacobson@att.com writes: > Nifty no? Straight from the horse's mouth. How about a crontab (a > UNIX command) job every few hours that gets the current color national > weather map plus current North American satellite photo via FTP from > vmd.cso.uiuc.edu:phil.515/* (I have seen scripts about this in USENET > group "sci.geo.meteorology". Please refer to there for any further > information.) You could then probably automatically have these > updated into your workstation screen's background thus making your > pals think you're cooler that that old chump 5 o'clock TV weather- > person. A programmer here at UIUC has written a package that will display current weather maps on an X terminal, in color even. The sources are in uxc.cso.uiuc.edu:/pub/wxmap-1.13.tar.Z, I don't know what it takes to set up a server for this. The package is extremely versatile -- you can display radar, storm watches, temps, winds, and much more (and all at the same time, even). > Pat also mentions news. Well with USENET your head will be swimming > with (net)news. For 5 o'clock news style news, I believe you can get > a "Clarinet feed" into your USENET netnews, but that costs money > (shudder). Last night, the news on Gorbachev's coup reached our clari.news.flash feed within a few (maybe two or three) hours of its happening. That's pretty good. David Lemson University of Illinois Computing Services Consultant Internet : lemson@uiuc.edu UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson NeXTMail : lemson@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu BITNET : LEMSON@UIUCVMD ------------------------------ Subject: Re: E-Mail Systems From: ED HOPPER Date: Sun 18 Aug 91 16:19:55 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, TX - 713-997-7575 > ATT Mail: Provides access to most networks. Private inbound Telex > (...Stuff deleted) > The gotcha is that ATT's $100+ software is required or you > get charged an extra $.45+ to create each message online. UUCP connections also do not pay a message creation fee. > You must have their software to send or receive binary files. Not so. Issue the command "download ##" where ##=Message number, at the AT&T Mail command line. it is, for now, plain old, dumb, XModem checksum. The mail header can be easily stripped off with a basic program and maybe even with a shell script. I've done it several times. > ESL: EasyLink was Western Union's attempt at e-mail. It has recently > been purchased by ATT but is still separate from ATT Mail. ESL A friend who works for AT&T Easylink tells me that the merger of the two services should occur next year. Right now the same people run both services. Ed Hopper ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 07:47:50 EDT From: Herman R Silbiger Subject: Re: Long Distance Recommendations Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > There are funny little differences in service that may make a > difference to you. For example, I have two lines at my home in > Massachusetts and two more at my beach cottage in New Jersey. Sprint > is the only one of the big three that can put all four lines on the > same bill and use the aggregate as the basis for computing my quantity > discount. I have three lines into my home in NJ, and on my NJBell bill the AT&T calls are identified by number (not the NJBell calls), and all get the Reach Out discounts. Herman Silbiger ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Long Distance Recommendations Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 16 Aug 91 17:51:16 EDT (Fri) From: "John R. Levine" I suspect that you will find that for a bill under $100 / month the difference among the various carriers is down in the noise. If you make more than $25 per month of inter-LATA calls, it's worth getting one of the discount packages such as Reach-out or Sprint Plus. There are funny little differences in service that may make a difference to you. For example, I have two lines at my home in Massachusetts and two more at my beach cottage in New Jersey. Sprint is the only one of the big three that can put all four lines on the same bill and use the aggregate as the basis for computing my quantity discount. MCI says that they can only combine lines in the same region, and Mass. and N.J. are in different regions. AT&T still bills via the local telcos, which means that in Mass. they can't even combine two residential numbers at the same address. So I stick with Sprint. MCI has a "friends and family" discount plan which gives you an extra 10% off calls to a set of numbers you identify if they all use MCI. If there are people you call frequently who already use MCI or wouldn't mind switching, this may be a good deal. (Be sure they're willing, or MCI's telemarketers will pester them forever.) One reason that rates are so close is that in many cases their margins are razor thin. The late night long distance rates for all the carriers are in the vicinity of .105 to .12 per minute, with the access charges paid to the local telcos taking up about .09 of that. At that price, there isn't a lot of wiggle room. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: John Eaton Subject: Re: Alice's Restaurant (was Radio Shack Gives Out Phone Numbers) Date: 19 Aug 91 15:29:02 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard, Vancouver, WA > When the post office > clerk reviews the application, if the question "will this box be > used to solicit the public?" is answered in the negative, the reply > you will receive is that postal records indicate the box is for > personal use, and therefore the records are not available under the > Freedom of Information Act. Good try though! Got any other ideas? Sure. Place an ad in a local paper offering something for sale and list the PO Box number as the contact address. Show that paper to the clerk and they will be happy to give you the physical address. The fact that Radio Shack does not have an official policy to give out customers names is meaningless. NASA did not have an official policy of launching exploding space shuttles but created a system that allowed it to occur. They should realize that the system is being abused and correct it. John Eaton !hp-vcd!johne [Moderator's Note: But your technique is fraudulent to say the least, and would eventually get traced back to you. Looking for a conviction for mail fraud, are you? PAT] ------------------------------ From: ethan miller Subject: Re: Massive Privacy Invasion Organization: utter chaos Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1991 22:20:51 GMT In article ED.HOPPER@ehbbs.hou.tx.us (ED HOPPER) writes: > Now, I also have it on good authority that TGC demands MONEY (that's > right, filthy MONEY!) to keep your name off the list. Let's add > economic oppressors to that list of condemnations above! Why are phone companies allowed to charge for unlisted and non-published numbers? In particular, Pacific Bell doesn't charge me for keeping my modem line unlisted. The reason? There's already a listed number at my address. Anyone know the rationale behind this? ethan miller--cs grad student elm@cs.berkeley.edu #include ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 10:16:10 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Monitoring Soviet Communications So, this notice comes just a day or two before the apparent deposing of Gorbachev. It was a breaking story on KYW news- radio between 11 PM and midnight, Eastern Daylight Time, on Sunday 19 August. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1991 17:55:02 CDT From: "Dave Mausner, X4450" Reply-To: dlm@hermes.dlogics.com Subject: IBT Call Detail Charges > [Moderator's Note: IBT provides call detail on request at no > charge for a 'reasonable' number of requests if desired. When you get > ESS you can have it also. Maybe once every six months I ask for my > call detail. PAT] IBT charges $3 per month for regular call detailing for private lines. The reports arrive two months after each billing period closes. Dave Mausner, Sr Tech Consultant / Datalogics Inc / Chicago IL / 312-266-4450 dlm@hermes.dlogics.com [Moderator's Note: But they will give you a couple month's worth for free if you call with questions about the correctness of their billing. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tlowe@attmail.com Date: Mon Aug 19 13:21:47 EDT 1991 Subject: FAX Machine Message I recently misdialed a number and received a fax machine. What was interesting is that the owner of the fax machine had an announcement that said something like "You have dialed a fax machine. If you are sending a fax, press your start button now. Otherwise, check your number and call again". I called it back again, but from my fax machine that sends the tones while it calls, and it didn't play the message. Apparently the device listens for the tones and plays the message if it doesn't get the tone. Has anyone heard of this device? Or is it part of the fax machine. Tom Lowe tlowe@attmail.COM ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 07:36:18 PDT From: Don Culanag Subject: Call Management Information I have been given the task of locating any available or presently installed call management database tracking and reporting systems. We are an aerospace manufacturing company with about 10,000 users. We support UNIX/EKS/CRAY mainframes. Our staff is responsible for handling both hardware and software questions on these platforms. We would like to see a system which is X-based or SunView graphic user interfaces accessible from a variety of terminals and workstations. Thanks in advance for any help. ------------------------------ From: Dan Subject: Transport Protocols for Operating Environment platforms Organization: R+D Cowboys -- HITLab, Seattle Date: 19 Aug 91 04:41:04 I'd like some feed-back from those knowledgeable and experienced in network protocol design and implementations, hence the broad list of cross-postings. For Tele-presence/Operating Environment platforms, we need a rugged transport protocol like in the IP suite since we don't know all of the network types we'll be running on. That is, we would like one transport protocol for LANs and WANs at a wide range of speeds and signal-to-noise ratios. Here's what I had in mind. A lot of thought went into the IP suite and it was changed as necessary -- a sort of maturation. That seems to be a good place to start, considering my lab is not a networking research lab. (However, I would like to deeply persue such research in grad school or industry in about a year...) My idea -- probably not new: The protocol at the transport level is a cross between datagrams and connection-oriented communications models. It's datagrams with configurable options: - toggle acknowledgements on/off and when on, specify the ACK- count size for sequencing; - variable time-outs lengths defaulting to the `slow-start' technique; - variable retransmission attempt counts. Thus, straight datagrams and full connection-oriented models will be supported with the same protocol. Has this been attempted before? Initial implementations will be built on top of UDP/IP for its existing header fields. The application layer protocols are simply messages, but these messages may be larger than one packet, of course. Yes, an everything protocol might be nice but could be a nightmare, but while I'm at it: Synchronization may become a necessary feature for the applications, so working NTP into the picture would be nice. I'm just looking for some quick feedback. (follow-up to comp.protocols.misc) Thanks. Dan P. ps - this would be interesting to specify in Estelle and to simulate with GROPE. Gee, I'm not doing too much this week... :) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #649 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00398; 21 Aug 91 2:59 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13047; 21 Aug 91 1:34 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29965; 21 Aug 91 0:26 CDT Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 23:41:47 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #650 BCC: Message-ID: <9108202341.ab07893@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 20 Aug 91 23:41:28 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 650 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AppleLink in Space [Info-Mac via Tom Coradeschi] Calling Card Access Numbers [Bill Huttig] NY Tel Ringmate Problems [Michael Brown] AT&T Merlin 820 KSU For Sale [Wayne D. Correia] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 10:14:36 EDT From: Tom Coradeschi Subject: AppleLink in Space Organization: Electric Armts Div, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ Forwarded from Info-Mac... tom coradeschi <+> tcora@pica.army.mil Date: Fri, 16 Aug 91 14:19:28 +0000 From: bill@ntb.apple.com Subject: AppleLink in Space [Yes, yes, not counting packet radio.] The very first electronic mail message from space was sent by the crew of the space shuttle mission STS-43 last Friday, August 9, using a Macintosh Portable and specially configured AppleLink software: Hello Earth ! Greetings from the STS-43 Crew. This is the first Applelink From space. Having a __GREAT__ time, wish you were here,... send cryo, and RCS! Have a nice day...... Hasta la vista, baby,... we'll be back! editor's note: cryo = cryogenics (meaning, send more fuel for life support--air, etc.) RCS = Reaction Control System (meaning, send more fuel for maneuvering/control) In other words, they wanted to stay up there! --------- The primary mission of STS-43 was to deploy a fourth TDRS satellite (Tracking and Data Relay Satellite). The shuttle was launched at 11:02 AM EST on Friday August 2, and landed at about 8:30 AM EST on Sunday August 11. The shuttle carried a Macintosh Portable on board. It was used for four primary purposes: 1) Testing four cursor control devices: a) the Mac Portable`s built-in trackball b) a modified aircraft control stick fitted with a thumb ball at top c) a 2-inch trackball d) an optical mouse 2) Connecting to AppleLink and sending mail and disk files 3) Recording LBNP (lower body negative pressure) medical results along with other mission notes and provided procedures for doing medical experiments. 4) Shuttle flight path tracking using an application called MacSpOC (Shuttle Portable Computer). MacSpOC presents a real-time display of the shuttle`s orbital position against a world map along with with day and night cycles, tracking stations, and emergency reentry information. In addition, the Macintosh acted as an alarm clock (in tandem with the WristMac") alerting the crew when it is time to do certain experiments, etc. o THE CREW: ---------- John Blaha (commander) Mike Baker (pilot) Shannon Lucid (mission specialist) G. David Low (mission specialist) Jim Adamson (mission specialist) o THE MAC IN SPACE TEAM: ----------------------- NASA Debra Muratore -- Project Manager Pat Wilson -- Hardware flight qualification guy (lead) Mark Gersh -- NASA headquarters project monitor Apple Computer, Inc. Byron Han -- lead programmer, data forwarder application general technical support, all-around great guy James Beninghaus -- programmer, data forwarder application general technical support, got to watch the launch live Michael Elliot Silver -- AppleLink resource management, technical support, CCL support, host support, security operations, plethora of prolific prose Claire Marguerite Silver -- Brilliant Security Magic Bruce Gee -- resource management, technical support Dan Eakin -- JSC (Johnson Space Center) federal systems sales Eagle Technical Services Shari Matzner -- Programmer (LBNP and crewnotes) McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company Nancy Leonard -- Programmer (wristmac/smart alarm integration) Dan Adamo -- Programmer (MacSpOC) Rockwell Mark Dean -- Advisor (electronic flight data file) Lockheed Dr. Kritina Holden -- cursor control device experiment Dr. Mihriban Whitmore -- cursor control device experiment Robert Wilmington -- cursor control device experiment Benjamin Beberness -- cursor control device experiment Kit Chow -- Hardware flight qualification guy Many, many people pulled together to make this project happen. We learned as much from our failures as we did from our successes. It has provided us with much information which is crucial to future missions, and to space station Freedom. I greatly look forward to working with this outstanding team again. Michael Elliot Silver ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Calling Card Access Numbers Date: 20 Aug 91 01:48:16 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL I am putting together a calling card access list. I have done FL and will be doing the MCI/US Sprint/AT&T/Allnet/ATC numbers for overseas countries soon. Please send me any additional list information that you might have. 031 - ATC/Telus/Teltec can use numbers indicated 628 (ATC/Telus integrated the North American Telephone numbers into the Teltec numbers) 800 service and local dialup same card number 222 - MCI 333 - US Sprint 444 - Allnet 488 - MetroMedia/ITT 628 - ATC/Telus/NAT can use numbers indicated 031 789 - ATC/MicroTel/Transcall America 800 service and local dialup different cards East/West Cost Florida United States Nation Wide (031) ATC/Telus ................. 800 330-9090 (222) MCI ........................... 950-1022 (222) MCI ....................... 800 950-1022 (333) US Sprint ................. 800 877-8000 (444) Allnet .................... 800 783-1444 (789) ATC/MicroTel .............. 800 741-2255 (862) ATC/SouthTel .............. 800 950-1862 Florida State Wide (031) ATC/Telus .................... 950-1031 (628) ATC/North American Telephone . 950-1628 (628) ATC/North American Telephone 1 950-1628 (789) ATC/MicroTel ................. 950-0789 (789) ATC/MicroTel ............... 1 950-0789 (862) ATC/SouthTel ................. 950-1862 Bartow <813> (628) .............................. 665-5538 Boca Raton (031) .............................. 395-2710 (789) .............................. 392-2866 Bradenton {see also Sarasota} (031) .............................. 747-5592 Brooksville <904> (628) .............................. 799-8989 Broward County (031) .............................. 524-7400 Clearwater <813> {see also Pinellas County} (031) .............................. 441-9677 (628) .............................. 461-1064 (789) .............................. 799-4082 Cocoa {see also Melbourne} (031) .............................. 639-3000 (789) .............................. 639-0950 Dade County {see also Miami} (031) .............................. 624-7878 Daytona (628) .............................. 252-0105 (031) .............................. 252-1730 Daytona Beach (789) .............................. 253-0294 East Lakeland <813> (628) .............................. 665-5538 Ft. Lauderdale {see also Broward County} (789) .............................. 467-6720 Ft. Myers (789) ............................ 1 950-0789 Ft. Pierce (031) .............................. 466-1660 (789) .............................. 464-3788 Gainesville <904> (031) .............................. 378-0419 (628) .............................. 378-2255 Hudson <813> (628) .............................. 845-0051 Jacksonville (031) .............................. 354-1039 (628) .............................. 356-5800 (789) .............................. 358-7119 Kissimmee (031) .............................. 847-9805 Lakeland <813> (031) .............................. 682-8189 (628) .............................. 688-1075 (789) .............................. 666-2195 Lake Wales <813> (628) .............................. 696-1350 Melbourne (031) .............................. 950-1862 (031) .............................. 984-0025 (789) .............................. 768-0101 Miami <305> (031) .............................. 381-8410 New Pt. Richey <813> (628) .............................. 845-0051 (789) .............................. 845-7676 (789) .............................. 847-1809 Orlando (031) .............................. 843-6707 (628) .............................. 839-1400 (789) .............................. 422-2763 Palm Beach County (031) .............................. 833-7702 Panama City (031) .............................. 265-0405 Pensacola (031) .............................. 477-4005 Pinellas County {see also Clearwater} (031) .............................. 441-9677 (031) .............................. 461-1064 Plant City {see Lakeland} Sanford (031) .............................. 740-7791 Sarasota {see also Bradenton} (789) .............................. 951-6086 (789) .............................. 377-2986 St. Augustine <904> (031) .............................. 824-0679 (628) .............................. 797-2490 (789) .............................. 829-2540 St. Petersburgh <813> {see also Pinellas County & Clearwater} (628) .............................. 823-1181 Stuart (031) .............................. 288-0300 (789) .............................. 286-6300 Talahassee <904> (031) .............................. 681-9325 (789) .............................. 681-6884 Tampa (031) .............................. 222-0654 (628) .............................. 229-0096 (789) .............................. 237-5555 Tarpan Springs <813> {see Pinellas County & Clearwater} Venice <813> (628) .............................. 493-8005 Vero Beach (031) .............................. 778-1440 (789) .............................. 569-8400 West Palm Beach (789) .............................. 832-1133 Winter Haven <813> (628) .............................. 293-1825 Winter Park <407> (031) .............................. 843-6707 Zephyrhills <813> (628) .............................. 973-0280 ------------------------------ Subject: NY Tel Ringmate Problems Date: Sun, 18 Aug 91 12:44:49 EDT From: Michael Brown I had Ringmate service installed on one of my lines (718-968-XXXX) when it first became available. I was given two additional numbers both 718-251-XXXX. No problem for the first few months, but I started noticing collect and third party long distance calls billed to one of the Ringmate numbers. I had the charges removed, after explaining to NY Tel's billing center that this was a Ringmate number, and that I would never call anyone in that particular area (the calls were billed to rural North Carolina), that I don't use the LD company that the calls were billed by, that I most certainly would not accept any collect calls from persons unknown to me, and finally, that I was out of town on several of the days in question and that no one had access to the line to my knowledge. The charges were removed, cheerfully the first time, and somewhat begrudgingly the next time. By the third bill that these charges were showing up on, I began to suspect fraud. I decided to dial the Ringmate number in question, to see what would happen. Lo and behold, my answering machine did not pick up, but a person unknown to me did! I called NY Tel, and informed them that they had assigned my Ringmate number to another customer. This was greeted with disbelief, but a few days later I received a phone call confirming this, and with a weak apology an offer of another Ringmate number. I accepted, and wrote the episode off. The next month, I started to continuously receive calls asking for a person unknown to me. A few days later I got a call from someone asking if this number was indeed 251-XXXX. I said, "Yes it is, but it's a Ringmate number". NY Tel had goofed again, and assigned the other Ringmate number to a new subscriber. Fortunately, the gentlemen in question worked for NY Tel, and we both reported the problem. He received a new number, and I was "allowed" to keep the number in question. I called NY Tel to complain, and I received a weak explanation that the problem was known and that it was being worked on. Yet another bill with bogus LD charges showed up again the next month (June '91). At this point, I was tired of spending two hours on the phone with the various business and repair offices of NY Tel every time my phone bill came in, and I called the "President's Hotline". I complained very loudly to the flak-catcher, inquiring why, if I had brought this problem to their attention so long ago, hadn't they done something about it? The flak-catcher said that nothing could be done about the problem, but that they would "monitor" my account every month to make sure that this problem didn't have to concern me. I found this to be an entirely unsatisfactory answer and filed a complaint with the New York State Public Service Commission. Amazingly, the PSC got results within hours. I received a call from NY Tel that was extremely apologetic. The -critter explained that the root of the problem was that Ringmate numbers show up as unused numbers in NY Tel's database, and that there is no way that they can be flagged as being used by Ringmate (Sarcasm on: YEAH, RIGHT. Sarcasm off.) The -critter said that she would "personally monitor" my account every month and make sure that this problem did not occur again. Sure enough, the July bill was right on the money -- no problems. Then again, I was away for two weeks during July. I just got the August bill and there are more bogus calls listed, during the two weeks that I was away! I guess it's back to the Public Service Commission. Michael Brown mwb@jpradley.jpr.com or uunet!murphy!jpradley!vtssys!mike VTS Systems 718-968-1971 871 East 55th Street Brooklyn, NY 11234 [Moderator's Note: It is rather incredible the teleco has no way to show these numbers assigned to someone else. I've had the same service from IBT for many months now and it works fine. They even fixed all my numbers to automatically block collect and third number calls at my request. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "wayne d. correia" Subject: AT&T Merlin 820 KSU For Sale Date: 20 Aug 91 09:10:40 GMT Organization: apple computer, inc. - mac system s/w Merlin 820 KSU, fully loaded (8 lines, 20 stations) including "Feature Package 2/v1". Note -- this is KSU only -- no phones. This was taken out of service and replaced with a larger Merlin KSU. $500 o.b.o + 1/2 shipping costs (if any.) Replies to wdc@apple.com Thanks! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #650 ******************************