NOTE: Issues arrive in the archives out of order at times due to mail system problems. All issues between 651-700 should be here. You will find most of them in order, but if some are out of order, they will usually be within an issue or two of where they belong. PAT   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04164; 21 Aug 91 4:04 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19334; 21 Aug 91 2:41 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab13047; 21 Aug 91 1:34 CDT Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 0:53:11 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #651 BCC: Message-ID: <9108210053.ab24165@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 21 Aug 91 00:53:05 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 651 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson We're Sorry, But the Country is Low On Phone Numbers [Paul Sutcliffe, Jr.] Running Out of Numbers [Carl Moore] NYNEX to Charge For 411 in Massachusetts as of 9/14/91 [Ron Newman] More TCIA: Telecom and Computer Industry Acronyms [Dennis Blyth] Telephone Scrambler [Colin Plumb] Using 10555 For Long Distance Calls [Bob Frankston] Hurricane Bob Knocks Out 617-262 [Bob Frankston] Hurricane Bob, Telco, and Power [Steven Gutfreund] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Paul Sutcliffe Jr." Subject: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low On Phone Numbers Organization: Personal System, Lancaster, PA, USA Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1991 03:04:20 GMT Reprinted from the {Lancaster, PA Sunday News}: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low On Phone Numbers By John Markoff N.Y. Times News Service The nation is rapidly running out of telephone numbers. As facsimile machines, cellular phones, pocket pagers, computer modems and business telephones proliferate, the supply of unassigned numbers is being exhausted in the area codes serving the largest American cities, like 212 for Manhattan and the Bronx and 213 for Los Angeles. When that happened in the past, an area code was split into two, based on geography, but today only three unallocated area codes remain: 210, 810 and 910, and they may not be enough to satisfy the booming demand. Yet they must last until July 1995, when a new numbering plan is scheduled to take effect, telephone industry executives say. The expansion cannot take place until then because all of the nation's telephone switches must be reprogrammed -- a complex and time-consuming task. ``You have four full years to go,'' said Frank J. Saletel, director of major-market access planning for New York Telephone. ``It's not a New York City concern as such, but there could be some areas of the country that may have to resort to rationing their delivery of numbers.'' The change in the numbering system planned by Bellcore, the telephone industry research organization responsible for allocating phone numbers in North America, will permit the creation of area codes that do not have a ``0'' or ``1'' as the middle digit. Computerized telephone switching equipment currently looks at the second digit of an area code to determine whether a long-distance call is being made. Some telephone industry executives say the needed changes may be costly and frustrating and will require many callers to dial eleven digits, rather then seven, even when calling a neighbor in the same area code. They also say the change will be difficult for the telephone companies and create serious problems for businesses. Further confusion will be created because of differences in how toll calls are dialed within area codes. Bellcore cannot enforce standards but can only recommend changes to individual state public utility commissions. So far the Bellcore plan has been put in place in 23 area codes, and about half of those require callers to dial 1 plus their own area code before the number, while the others just have to dial the number. A number of alternative solutions to the Bellcore plan are being proposed. Some industry people are backing an idea that would increase the local dialing sequence to eight digits, rather than seven, and several smaller telephone companies have proposed shifting to a four-digit area code. No serious consideration is being given to the idea of combining lightly used area codes to provide more numbers to congested areas. ``Like lambs to the slaughter, American telephone users are being led into a course that will have far worse implications than what most of us see at the moment,'' said David C. Henny, president of the Whidbey Telephone Co. in Langley, Wash. In a recent industry technical journal, Henny proposed a system of four-digit area codes, which he says would be a simpler alternative to the Bellcore plan and provide a 10-fold increase in area codes. He says his plan would require fewer changes in telephone switching systems and would result in numbers that are easier for people to remember. Bellcore officials say their plan is the most efficient and inexpensive method of coping with the proliferation of telephone numbers and that their system will last well into the next century. They also say the alternatives would likely cause more confusion or would be more expensive because every telephone customer would have a new number. Such a switch would force businesses across the country to change stationery and business cards, among other adjustments. Bellcore's interchangeable area code plan will increase the potential number of phone numbers to approximately six billion. The plan would add 640 area codes to the current supply of 152. These area codes allow a potential of 900 million numbers, with about 250 million numbers in use now. Within each area code, there are 792 available prefixes, consisting of 10,000 numbers. Area codes and prefixes that begin with 0 or 1 are avoided, and some numbers like ``800'' and ``900'' are reserved for special uses. The plan will also create overlapping area codes. Rather than carve Manhattan into two geographic areas with different codes, in January New York Telephone will add a second area code, 917, to overlap Manhattan's existing 212 dialing area. INTERNET: paul@devon.lns.pa.us UUCP: ...!rutgers!devon!paul ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 11:09:29 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Running Out of Numbers I'd like to discuss the {New York Times} article of this past weekend with some brief remarks. Displayed in a little box by itself is the excerpt "There could be some areas of the country that may have to resort to rationing their delivery of numbers," by Frank J. Saletel, identified in the article as director of major-market access planning for N.Y.Telephone. It also says "But now only three unallocated area codes remain: 210, 810 and 910, and they may not be enough to satisfy the booming demand." What are 610 and 710 to be used for? [Moderator's Note: 'Area code' 610 is used by Canadian TWX machines, and must remain that way for the time being. All the old Western Union codes for TWX here in the USA (310,410,510,710,810,910) have been or are being converted to regular area codes. Canada is a different situation, and since they are part of the North American numbering plan 610 has to be kept unavailable for area code use right now. 710 is something called 'special government services' or 'government special services', and although I've asked a couple times, I've never received any information about it. Perhaps someone can comment about it now. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman) Subject: NYNEX to Charge For 411 in Massachusetts as of 9/14/91 Date: 20 Aug 91 19:26:02 GMT Organization: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc. From a New England Telephone bill insert: (big type, front cover): Calling Directory Assistance more than ten times a month may add to your telephone bill. Announcing a new Residence Directory Assistance Charging Plan. Beginning September 14, 1991, residence customers will be charged 34 cents for each directly dialed Directory Assistance call made in excess of ten calls per month. For example, if you make 20 calls to Directory Assistance during your billing month, you will be charged for ten calls totalling $3.40. This new charging plan includes all 411 and 1-555-1212 calls within your Eastern Massachusetts (617/508) or Western Massachusetts (413) New England Telephone calling area. How will the money be used? According to recent legislation, New England Telephone will use the revenue generated from Directory Assistance to help fund a statewide Enhanced 911 emergency network, as well as help provide special telecommunications services and equipment for the speech and hearing impaired. Are there any exemptions from Directory Assistance charges? There is no charge for Directory Assistance calls made from pay phones. Ron Newman rnewman@bbn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 15:53:36 -0400 From: Dennis Blyth Subject: More TCIA: Telecom and Computer Industry Acronyms I'm not a telecom employee or phone phreak but can answer limited questions about acronyms. I work in the marketing side of the computer business in a company soon to be owned by a giant telecommunications company. Well, here goes my attempt at some answers: CO is Central Office, not COmpany, IMHO IMHO is in my humble opinion, BTW BTW is by the way ESS is Electronic Switching System PUC is Public Utilities Commission This is a state group which regulates utilities in each state. So in Ohio we call it the : PUCO IBT is *most probably* Illinois Bell Telephone. (My guess is the telecom moderator, PAT, used to work for IBT.) One of AT&T's Chairmen used to be the President of IBT, and IBT was reported to be 'one of the best, if not the best' of the state Bell organizations when under AT&T. Another possibility for the above: IBT income before tax is a commonly used term by accountants in the computer and telecom industries as well as in others. X.25 is a communications protocall for sending messages between computers. (Ask the techies for more detail, if you dare/care!) Some others you may find worthwhile: AOS Alternative Operator Service COCOT is something similar to AOS, IMHO, actually I don't know what this is exactly and I would like to see a posting which clarifies the difference between an AOS and a COCOT. (Also, what follows below: some acronyms for the computer industry (plus one government agency.) What follows should be interpreted as :-) IBM stands for 'Itty Bitty Monopoly' used to refer to a large corporation which is until recently, reasonably successful in dominating the computer business worldwide. (In Europe, for example, they are more than twice the size of their nearest competitor, another American headquartered corporation.) THE CASH is slang for National Cash Register. The predecessor to the NCR Corporation, the result of the merger of AT&T Computer Systems and NCR. NCR 'means computers' according to former advertisements of THE CASH. T is the stock symbol for AT&T, short for 'telephone'. T-CASH is the marriage of T plus THE CASH :-) :-) No relation to Tom Cash, Johnny Cash, or Johnny Paycheck. Or T-Bills. MA BELL is a reference to AT&T, mother of the RBOCs. MAMA CASH is the marriage of MA BELL AND THE CASH according to an analyst from the Gartner Company, a market research company servicing the data processing industry. CRAP is an acronym given to the NCR-AT&T merger by a scientist from NASA in an exchange over the net. He said it stands for 'CASH REGISTERS AND PHONES'. I am sure this acronym is not related to our product quality. Our products are some of the most reliable in the computer industry. NASA the acronym for the agency that pays the salary for the person who called us CRAP. I say it stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Others say it stands for "NOT ALWAYS SAFE ALOFT". Hope this adds to your understanding of our industry/(ies)!! :-) :-) :-) Dennis Blyth, Manager, Marketing Research, NCR Europe Group Dennis.Blyth@daytonOH.NCR.COM ------------------------------ From: Colin Plumb Subject: Telephone Scrambler Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1991 23:12:07 -0400 Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA I just received a fascinating present, and this seems like the forum to talk about it in. It's a 500 set (basic black) bolted to the top of a black box with a light on the front labelled "CIPHER REC. IND." (Cipher Receive Indicator?). The line cord goes into the phone, but the handset (with a "confidencer", instructions: "hold close to mouth", and a rocker bar in the handle, like the volume adjustments made by Western Electric) goes into the box. The back of the box has two six-pin screw-collar plugs, one female labelled "J1 AUDIO" and one male labelled "J2 RADIO". (Both are threaded externally.) There's also a gold-plated miniature coax connector (like a cable TV one, only smaller) labelled "J3 CIPHER REC." The box itself is labelled COMMERCIAL TELEPHONE ADAPTER HYX-60/TSEC ASSY NO. ON288082-1 SERIAL NO. ### MFR. CODE NO. ##### (Omitted in case it's a cipher key.) The telephone has a pull-up switch on the left plunger which causes some sounds to come from relays in the box. The box has an external power supply (20 VAC 500 MA PART NO ON 288124) but it isn't needed for normal operation. Inside are two 15 x 2 pin edge connectors with cards plugged in. One has the telephone handset plugged into it, holds three relays, a power transistor, several heavy-duty caps and resistors, and two SSI IC's (Motorola LM339N/L8217 and NS :M8237/LM723CN). It's generally pretty sparse. ASSY NO. ON288164 ARTWK REV B. The other board is green (as opposed to yellowish-white), ASS'Y NO. ON321903, has a number of chips (the biggest is CD4067BE/RCA/231, a 24-pin chip that's .6 in wide) and removing it doesn't interrupt normal telephone use. The telephone is connected to the base through a 9-pin D connector. Male on the bottom of the phone, female on the box (which is about 1.75" thick), but only six pins are used. (All nine are wired in the box, though.) Anyway, I'm busy extracting a schematic from the thing and attempting to figure out what the damn thing does. Does anyone out there know anything about such a box? The line cord has six wires (Red, Green, Black, Yellow, Blue, White) ending in spade lugs. The red and green pair connect to the voice circuitry and are polarity-insensitive. The phone's wiring is rather more complicated than a usual 500 set (the pull-up plug has two NO contacts and the hookswitch has six double-throw switches). It'll take me a while to unscramble that. Colin ------------------------------ From: frankston!Bob_Frankston@world.std.com Subject: Long Distance Dialing Using 10555 Date: 20 Aug 1991 08:41 -0400 I dialed 10555-1-xxx ..., and got the boingish sound from Telesphere. Since I was using 1- and not 0-, I didn't want to enter a credit card number, and the Telesphere operator never heard of 10555 dialing. But then the 1-700-555-4141 recordings generally thank me for choosing the particular carrier as my "dial 1" carrier. And the 411 nor 0# operators know about giving out 10xxx codes. ------------------------------ From: frankston!Bob_Frankston@world.std.com Subject: Hurrican Bob Knocks Out 617-262 Date: 20 Aug 1991 08:41 -0400 Bob downed the 617-262 exchange. (No, not me, the hurricane). The problem is that 617-262-4700 is used to report problems to Boston Edison. One would think that that particular exchange would get some special protection from electrical outages. Anyone know the details? As an aside, I'm impressed by the ability of the power lines to hold up a heavy tree for hours without collapsing. ------------------------------ From: Steven Gutfreund Subject: Hurricane Bob, Telco, and Power Date: 20 Aug 91 15:19:02 GMT Reply-To: sgutfreund@gte.com Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA Bob visited Eastern MA yesterday. He took out a lot of the power lines in Southeast MA and on the Cape. But not the telco lines. Can someone answer why, when both lines are on poles, (and sometimes the same ones) that it always seems that the power lines get it worse? Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund sgutfreund@gte.com GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA harvard!bunny!sgutfreund [Moderator's Note: But as another correspondent noted, the storm did punch out 617-262. It was really nasty; I noticed the net connections around the east coast were pretty wobbly. My backup site (bu.edu) would not answer all evening, nor would the archives at lcs.mit.edu. And around 1 PM Monday here in Chicago our backlash from the east coast storm was a torrential downpour. Despite all our technology, Mother Nature can still kick our butts ... PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #651 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09062; 21 Aug 91 5:40 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09399; 21 Aug 91 3:55 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19334; 21 Aug 91 2:41 CDT Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 1:55:00 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #652 BCC: Message-ID: <9108210155.ab13556@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 21 Aug 91 01:54:53 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 652 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Telecommunications in France [Randall L. Smith] Telecom Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) List to be Prepared [Dave Leibold] GTE Mobilnet and 415-510 Split [Bruce Perens] Beat the High Cost of LATA Calls by Using Your Car Phone! [Bruce Perens] DMS is Cheaper Than FMR? [Bruce Perens] US West Terminates 976/960 in All 14 States [Joe Mann] Telephone Engineering and Management [Timothy R. Wilhite] Is Possession of Telephone Test Set Illegal? [Gordon D. Woods] AT&T Operates BBS for 5ESS, Other Information [John Holman] Fake 'Extension' Numbers [Carl Moore] Re: Who Needs 900, 976-WEATHER When You Got USENET, Internet [Joel Jones] Re: Who Needs 900, 976-WEATHER When You Got USENET, Internet [W. Carpenter] Re: 900 'Lawyer' Number Comments [Weaver Hickerson] Re: AT&T Data Network [Tim Irvin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Randall L. Smith" Subject: Telecommunications in France Date: 20 Aug 91 19:29:30 GMT Organization: The Internet I'm in the process of reading a book called _2020_Vision_ (ISBN 0-671- 73237-4) by Stan Davis and Bill Davidson (not of c.b.i.p fame). It is fascinating reading for anyone interested in speculating on global informationalization futures. The authors develop convincing arguments and explicit depictions of what is happening with information systems and telecommunications now and of the future as well. They focus on the competitiveness of corporations and countries to the year 2020, but the majority of the book's focus is on the time frame upto 2000 and a lesser extent to 2010. Extensive examples are used such as Japan's Kansai Science City, Singapore's telcom services, French Minitel, AT&T, etc. Many private networks are discussed at length as well. Examples are GM's and Toyota's inter-company networks for dealers and suppliers. Of several points in the dialogue that *seems* incongrous to me is the discussion of the French telecommunications services. The authors rave of the advanced services such as video services (Videotel), electronic shopping, health care, etc. My reservations stem from ancedotal information of horrendous delays in even getting something as simple as a dial tone. Another of the broad points in the book criticizes the US phone/data communications systems. What I read into the book's dialogue is applause for central planning and disdain for decentralized networks. They claim that all the private networks in the US are evidence of the failure of the public access networks. While the motivations for privitizing networks stem from deficiencies and costs of the public network, I still don't know. Is that a bug or a feature? I tend to believe it's a bug with seniority, ergo a feature. The book says the terrible condition of the French networks is 1970's information. Now the French are a global leader. If that's reality, fine. But I'm sure there's some middle ground in there somewhere. What I'd like to hear is, where? Can anyone with current (as in today's) knowledge tell me what the reality of communications are in France? France, are you listening? Postings or e-mail gladly accepted. Thanks! Cheers! randy Uucp: randy@rls.uucp Bangpath: ...!osu-cis!rls!randy Internet: rls!randy@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 19:06:59 EDT From: DLEIBOLD@vm1.yorku.ca Subject: Telecom Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) List to be Prepared There are often many questions about topics and items in the TELECOM Digest which get asked repeatedly. For instance, "What is a COCOT?" or "What's this Archives stuff?". I hope to create an initial FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) list for use with the Digest. This could be posted on a monthly basis, with any timely revisions, and also kept in the Digest Archives at lcs.mit.edu for FTP access, or the letni.lonestar.org archives mail server. As I'll be at vm1.yorku.ca for a bit yet, I will accept contributions at dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca until 26 August (Monday). The initial list will go out sometime after that. From then on, contributions may be directed to the other mail addresses (dleibold@attmail.com or djcl@bnw.debe.fl.us). FAQ lists pop up in various newsgroups like rec.arts.tv and other places where topics tend to make repeated appearances. for now... dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca [Moderator's Note: My sincere thanks for your efforts. We have needed this file for a *long* time ... and I will run it at least monthly when it is finished. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bruce@pixar.com (Bruce Perens) Subject: GTE Mobilnet and 415-510 split Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1991 06:28:00 GMT I got a note today from GTE Mobilnet (San Francisco Bay Area) regarding the 415-510 split. They say that if I want to change my cell phone from the 415 area to 510, they will do it for free, and put a forwarding number intercept recording on my old number for 60 days. They do not offer permissive dialing, but then this isn't a prefix change, they are simply offering to give me a new number. They give you a selection of cities where they have representatives to reprogram your phone. They say there is no charge before January 27, 1992, but they also say to return the order card by August 21, 1991! Bruce Perens ------------------------------ From: bruce@pixar.com (Bruce Perens) Subject: Beat the High Cost of LATA Calls by Using Your Car Phone! Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1991 06:33:09 GMT GTE Mobilnet (San Francisco Bay Area) mentions that they have "the largest toll-free calling area in Northern California, within the 408, 707, 415, and the new 510 area code, from as far north as Cloverdale, south past King City, east to Dixon and Livermore". My evening/weekend airtime is .20/minute, so I can make cellular phone calls for less than the price of a Pac*Bell landline call for many calls between 7 and 11 P.M. Monday-Friday. This wouldn't be true if Pac*Bell didn't charge too much for LATA calls. Bruce Perens ------------------------------ From: bruce@pixar.com (Bruce Perens) Subject: DMS is Cheaper Than FMR? Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1991 06:49:00 GMT This will come as no surprise to lots of you, but I'm just learning about roaming. Most California and Nevada cellular phone companies are hooked up with something I think is called "DMS". If you dial *28, just once, then when your phone isn't in its home area it will be ringed in the system it is in, without any need to activate follow-me roaming. I don't know if the remote systems know you are in them, or if you just get paged in lots of systems, but it works. I do know that the "ping" feature of my phone is activated, so there is a way for a foreign system to know that I am in range without my placing a call. I do know that activating FMR often results in a daily charge, and temporarily disables the no-answer-transfer I programmed in my home system. Using "DMS" instead of "FMR" does not disable my no-answer- transfer, goes through about as fast as "FMR", and doesn't seem to cause the daily roam charge. I did notice that Centel Las Vegas doesn't like to place calls for roamers unless they've activated FMR. Sounds like a rip-off. Bruce Perens ------------------------------ Subject: US West Terminates 976/960 in All 14 States Reply-To: Joe Mann Organization: Orbit TimeSharing [orb], Minneapolis, Mn. Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1991 11:17:49 -0500 From: Joe Mann US West Communications has sent certified letters out to all Information Providers (IPs) last week. The letters tell Information Providers of US West's recent "business decision" to discontinue to provide 976/960 service by the end of the year. The letter goes on to suggest that IP's switch to 800/900. This forces formally 'local' IPs to move service to mostly 'nationwide' coverage, and the costs of the involuntary move will cost many IPs their businesses. This is very disappointing news for existing IPs. The "business decision" comes barely two weeks after Judge Green lifted the 'information' curbs on baby-bells. US West's action sets the stage for the 'Orwellian' information age, and we should all be concerned about this. J. Mann (612) 537-0023 Systems Dynamics Inc. ------------------------------ From: "Timothy R. Wilhite" Subject: Telephone Engineering and Management Reply-To: "Timothy R. Wilhite" Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix (sponsored by U. of Denver Math/CS dept.) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 15:12:46 GMT I would like to subscribe to Telephone Engineering and Mgmt. Would someone post the address and phone number. Thanks in advance. Timothy R. Wilhite kb0aso ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 10:14:32 EDT From: Gordon D Woods Subject: Is Possession of Telephone Test Set Illegal? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories According to the August 14 {Morris County Daily Record} a former AT&T trainer's home was searched (unrelated to telephony). Four "telephone test sets" were found and he is being charged with possessing said test sets (butt sets?). Inspector Peterson of the Morris County prosecutor's office said that it is "illegal to possess telephone test sets unless you can prove your job requires it." Does anyone know if this is true or just some overzealous detective spouting off? There must be a lot of illegal test sets out there from the looks of the flea markets and ham fests. [Moderator's Note: You may be assured that is nothing more than a lot of police BS ... whatever else he is charged with, any good lawyer will get him off on that part of it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1991 12:12:05 CDT Subject: AT&T Operates BBS For 5ESS, Other Information From: John Holman Organization: University of Wisconsin-Whitewater AT&T has a massive data base of 5ESS hardware and software available on a bulletin board called CAPIS/EBBS (Customer Accessible Product Information System/Electronic Bulletin Board System. It is available free to 5ESS User Group Members and switch owners. The CAPIS/EBBS is a reference database of on-line documentation. The service offers: * Menu Acess * Direct Index Access * Extensive Keyword Search Capability * Help Screens * Glossary and Acronym Capability * Printing * Copying from Database to Customise There is plenty here to fill up at least a hard drive or two!!!! The bulletin Board Service is on an 800 line. To get an account call: AT&T Network Systems Kolleen Schulze 2600 Warrenville Rd. Dept. NANW062340 (no kidding!) Lisle, Ill. 60532 Phone 708.510.7381 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 10:19:50 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Fake 'Extension' Numbers Out of curiosity (and the call not being expensive) I called a 900 horoscope line I had seen in a newspaper. It was printed as 900-xxx-xxxx ext. 95. The 95 (guessing from what I heard in the recorded message) was not really a telephone extension but instead like those "Department" numbers you see on some mail-in offers; in other words, it helps the receiving party to learn how you found out about the ad. (I was asked to punch in the two-digit number referring to the newspaper where the ad appeared for that horoscope line.) I am from Delaware, and the number had appeared in a Wilkes-Barre (Pa.) newspaper when I was in that area recently. ------------------------------ From: Joel Jones Subject: Re: Who Needs 900, 976-WEATHER When You Got USENET, Internet Reply-To: jjones@uiuc.edu Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1991 17:10:45 GMT lemson@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (David Lemson) writes: > 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). The programmer is Charley Kline, and it really is a nice piece of work. However, due to the contract we have with the provider of the weather information, the wxmap server is unavailable to people off campus. If you want an example of what wxmap can do, anonymous ftp to vmd.cso.uiuc.edu, then cd to phil.515 and get the file WXMAP.GIF in binary mode. This is a gif file for latest hour of information. Joel Jones jjones@uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 14:51:52 EDT From: William J Carpenter Subject: Re: Who Needs 900, 976-WEATHER When You Got USENET, Internet Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Again quoting David Lemson: > 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). We ran "wxmap" for a while here. It is pretty nice. However, by default it expects to get its data from UIUC. They allowed that for a while but had to shut it down due to licensing restrictions. I just thought I'd mention this to save anyone from wasting time bringing the software up in the expectation that they could get the data from UIUC. If you have weather information locally, it may be possible to feed it into "wxmap", but I haven't looked into that. Bill Carpenter att!hos1cad!wjc or attmail!bill ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 900 'Lawyer' Number Comments Organization: Holos Software, Inc., Atlanta, GA Date: 20 Aug 91 12:11:01 EDT (Tue) From: Weaver Hickerson In article rescon!bfalcon@gvlv2.gvl. unisys.com (Bob Falcon) writes: > 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 Are you sure that it is $39.50 / minute? I find that to be a little hard to swallow. ($2,370.00 / hour) I doubt that anybody would use the line much, since it is much cheaper just to talk to a lawyer in person. Hell, he'd probably come to your house and bring a six pack and a pizza, your choice of toppings, at those rates. Perhaps 3.95 / minute? There are some questions that I might find it worth four bucks a minute to have answered, depending on how fast I got my answer. You can probably have unlimited access to WESTLAW for $2,370.00 / hour. 900-976 ... Perhaps Captain Midnight was transmitting to your breakfast table. Weaver Hickerson Voice (404) 496-1358 : ..!edu!gatech!holos0!wdh [Moderator's Note: In fairness to the original author, that price *may* have been a typographical error. It was unclear in the original unedited queue message ... might have been $39.50 per *call*. If someone gets clarification on this, I'll clarify it here. PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: irvin@northstar.dartmouth.edu Subject: Re: AT&T Data Network Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 10:36:11 +22322638 From: irvin@betelgeuse.dartmouth.edu In TELECOM Digest V11 #639, Ken Jongsma writes: > The number they gave in the magazine article was 950-1288 as a > national access number. This number indeed works from my area. > [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] From 603 calls to 950-1288 gets NET's infamous: "{tri-tone} The number you have reached 9-5-0-1-2-8-8 is being checked for trouble, please try your call again later." Which experience has shown really means: ". . . is not in service." Tim Irvin ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #652 ******************************    Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14907; 22 Aug 91 3:46 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01567; 22 Aug 91 2:16 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23458; 22 Aug 91 1:08 CDT Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 0:32:59 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #653 BCC: Message-ID: <9108220032.ab08208@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 22 Aug 91 00:32:27 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 653 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Hurricane Status Report [NEARnet News via Steven Gutfreund] Re: Hurricane Bob, Telco, and Power [Patton M. Turner] Re: Hurricane Bob, Telco, and Power [Tom Coradeschi] Re: Hurricane Bob, Telco, and Power [Steven Gutfreund] Vulnerability of Telephone and Power Lines [Jerry Leichter] Re: Lightning Surge Protection [Stephen Tell] Re: Dial 0 for Operator? (In Schools / Office Buildings) [Alan Barclay] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 10:31:32 EDT From: Steven Gutfreund Subject: Hurricane Status Report Here is some stuff from ne.nearnet.tech about the outage. As you can see these net gurus tend to think that most of the outage is power related not telco. You might want to put this in telecom. Article: 640 of ne.nearnet.tech From: smiller@NIC.NEAR.NET Subject: Hurricane Status Report Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 13:45:35 EDT Organization: NEARnet News/Mail Gateway Folks, The following is a brief summary of what happened during the heavy weather experienced on Monday, Aug 19th. This list has been culled from the logs kept by the various software monitors running at the NOC. It is interesting to note what outages occurred, perhaps even more interesting to notice what stayed up (Brown). This list represents a manual examination of the logs, it is not guaranteed to be 100% accurate. I have ommitted brief line flapping from this log. Steve Miller Monday August 19th 9:30am Heavy rains caused the simplex ethernet links go down. 10:00 BBN announced shutdown 10:15 NOC staff began turning selected microwave interfaces off. Shutdown were the simplex ethernet links to Prospect and the link between BBN and Harvard. We to shut off the link between Prospect and Lincoln but could not due to a T1 failure on the redundant line to Lincoln. 10:30 The NOC was shut down, personel were sent home The following outages were recorded during the next 20 hours: Xylogic 10:27 Merrimack 10:59 - 10:30am Tuesday Samsung 11:00 - 20:38 Xyplex 11:05 - 8:23am Tuesday MITRE 11:19 - 1:08am Tuesday Bost.Pub.Lib. 11:25 - 6:09am Tues. Ethernet disc. BC 11:36 - 00:07amTues. Bowdoin 12:13 - 7:08am Tues Hyperdesk 12:42 - 7:15am Tues NUSC 13:50 - Dartmouth Branch14:38 - 22:26 Sites affected: UNH Encore 14:48 - 9:09am Tues. Tufts 14:51 - 23:50 Stratus 14:49 - 00:44am Tues Prospect Branch 15:00 - 23:51 Sites affected: Brandeis, Wellesley, GTE, HRI Banyan 15:43 - 23:58 M2C Branch 16:05 - 7:00am Tues. Sites affected: Clark, Clearpoint, OMG, Process Hyperdesk, Sequoia, Viewlogic, Banyan Stratus 16:44 - Jackson 17:00 - 17:41 Line Bouncing Colby 19:18 - Bates 20:54 - 7:46an Tues Clearpoint up @ 8:15am Tues Process up @ 10:42am Tues At approx. 00:00 Tuesday, BBN staff began turning the simplex ethernet links to Prospect back on. Tuesday, August 20th As on 12:00 Tuesday, the only remaining sites which appears to be out due to the storm are NUSC and Xylogic. The NOC has been unable to contact anyone at these sites. Additionally, we have lost contact with Woods Hole and have not been able to contact them. Article: 636 of ne.nearnet.tech From: smiller@NIC.NEAR.NET Newsgroups: ne.nearnet.tech Subject: Re: Hurricane Status Report Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 16:56:24 EDT Organization: NEARnet News/Mail Gateway Steve, Although it is difficult to say for sure (the logs only record up and down), my impression was that these outages were for the most part due to power (A sampling of 10 or so hosts indicated recent power-ups). A majority of these outages were due to site staff turning the power off rather than losing it. On the microwave links, surprisingly only the DEC -> MIT line was affected. Microwave ByPass had people in the field and had already been to MIT when we called this morning. It was initially thought to have been a baseband amp which failed but, after replacing it the link remained down. The cause of that failure remains to be determined. I had also anticipated that the wind may have blown the dishes out of alignment but it doesnt seem to have. A tribute to the strength of the mounting hardware...:-) Steve Miller Article: 641 of ne.nearnet.tech From: stev@FTP.COM (stev knowles) Subject: Re: Hurricane Status Report Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 15:36:22 EDT Organization: NEARnet News/Mail Gateway An interesting thing to find out for those outages was: were most of them caused by power loss, or line failure? If they were power failure, there is not much to have been done. Did any of the microwave stations need to be adjusted because the aim was off? we have one here between our buildings, and we had no problems. Good stuff, I would say . . . . Article: 642 of ne.nearnet.tech From: long@NIC.NEAR.NET (Dan Long) Subject: Re: Hurricane Status Report Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 16:07:10 EDT Organization: NEARnet News/Mail Gateway > An interesting thing to find out for those outages was: were most > of them caused by power loss, or line failure? If they were power > failure, there is not much to have been done. Virtually all were power-related. Either the site shut down for preventive reasons or they really did have a power failure. There was only one phone line outage I'm aware of and that went bad well before the brunt of the storm hit. > Did any of the microwave stations need to be adjusted because the aim > was off? We have one here between our buildings, and we had no problems. We had one NEARnet link that was DOA after the storm. They have tried replacing an amplifier with no lasting success. We'll mention to them that the antennas should be checked. It's a short shot so it could have shifted into a marginal position. WHOI is connected through MIT via their own Microwave. They are still down -- cause unknown. > Good stuff, I would say. Thanks, Dan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 14:52:14 CDT From: "Patton M. Turner" Subject: Re: Hurricane Bob, Telco, and Power Steven Gutfreund writes: > Can someone answer why, when both lines are on poles, (and sometimes > the same ones) that it always seems that the power lines get it > worse? There are several reasons I can think of: 1) Power lines are located above telephone and CATV lines. This means they are the first to be hit by falling limbs. 2) The telephone plant must be physically damaged for it to be put out of service. The power plant can fail because of fault induced transients. The use of reclosers does help prevent or isolate the loss of power due to faults (especially temporary faults). If the power company's protection system isn't up to par a fault on the drop at my house could wipe out power to the whole neighborhood. 3) Telephone plant is frequently buried. This is generally not possible for power distribution, except for back lot applications in some subdivisions. Buried AC distribution or subtransmission cables will inductively couple with each other, which can cause large reactive losses. 4) With a few exceptions (mostly drops), telephone cable is lashed to a support line usually 6M or 10M strand. The strand is attached to the poles with large steel clamps (three bolt clamps) bolted to the pole. The cable itself has no tension on it as power cable does, as it is lashed to the strand with galvanized wire similar to electric fence wire. Power cable is instead sagged. meaning it is run under tension between poles, and attached to ceramic insulators on the poles. The lines are under much more tension in the winter because of contraction of the conductor. This is especially true of power lines which are frequently aluminum or steel reinforced aluminum (ACSR), which has a higher coefficient or thermal expansion. After the fact, however the power plant is much easier to restore than the telephone company's. This can be especially true in areas still using lead sheath cable. Phone company rules also generally call for linemen to wait until the power company has finished in an area before they will begin work. This rule is often violated if the company has time to repair drops in areas with no downed power lines. Pat Turner KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA.NOAM pturner@eng.auburn.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 9:02:35 EDT From: Tom Coradeschi Subject: Re: Hurricane Bob, Telco, and Power Organization: Electric Armts Div, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ Steven Gutfreund writes: > Bob visited Eastern MA yesterday. He took out a lot of the power > lines in Southeast MA and on the Cape. But not the telco lines. Can > someone answer why, when both lines are on poles, (and sometimes the > same ones) that it always seems that the power lines get it worse? A quick guess would be that the power lines are the uppermost set on any given pole, with phone lines next down, and CATV the lowest. As they are the highest, any branch, tree trunk, whatever, falling will be reasonably likely to strike power lines first (assuming, of course, that the falling object started life *above* the power lines...). Sure would be nice if all that stuff were buried. My wife and I live at the top of a reasonably (for New Jersey) tall mountain. Our power regularly goes out during thunderstorms. But the strike which causes the outage occurs at a much lower altitude than we. This is simply because all our power, phone and cable lines are underground. The 13(?)kV feed into the area is not! tom coradeschi <+> tcora@pica.army.mil ------------------------------ From: Steven Gutfreund Subject: Re: Hurricane Bob, Telco, and Power Date: 21 Aug 91 14:19:42 GMT Reply-To: sgutfreund@gte.com Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA In article , sg04@ploni.berkeley.edu (Steven Gutfreund) writes: >> Bob visited Eastern MA yesterday. He took out a lot of the power >> lines in Southeast MA and on the Cape. But not the telco lines. Can >> someone answer why, when both lines are on poles, (and sometimes the >> same ones) that it always seems that the power lines get it worse? >> [Moderator's Note: But as another correspondent noted, the storm did >> punch out 617-262. It was really nasty; I noticed the net connections >> around the east coast were pretty wobbly. My backup site (bu.edu) >> would not answer all evening, nor would the archives at lcs.mit.edu. >> And around 1 PM Monday here in Chicago our backlash from the east >> coast storm was a torrential downpour. Despite all our technology, >> Mother Nature can still kick our butts ... PAT] But why were they down? GTE Labs shut down all their machines because of worries about power flakiness. Most of the universities closed at 10:30am and I suspect many machines were turned off. In those few areas where phone service was lost, it is back in a day, but power is out on the cape till this weekend. It really seems to me that there is an anomoly to be explained. We have people at the labs who have lost power for hours or days but not phone service. The radio talk shows are still full of calls from people on Cape Cod that have no power. Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund sgutfreund@gte.com GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA harvard!bunny!sgutfreund ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 22:33:49 EDT From: Jerry Leichter Subject: Vulnerability of Telephone and Power Lines In a recent TELECOM, Steven Gutfreund wonders why storms always seem to hit power lines more severely than telephone lines, even if both are on the same pole. If it's a matter of the lines being physically knocked down, I doubt there are significant differences -- though it's worth noting that power lines are strung above phone lines, and that a pole will have two or three power wires but usually only one phone cable. So perhaps power lines ARE more vulnerable. However, in many cases when power is out the wires themselves are fine. Rather, a momentary glitch -- whether from a nearby lightning flash, from a branch falling across two phases and quickly vaporizing, or whatever -- tripped a breaker somewhere. Breakers on power lines are designed to reset automatic- ally; but if they are tripped too often (in a limited amount of time?), they STAY tripped. Resetting them must be done by hand. Not only that, but for safety one would never simply reset a tripped breaker -- it's important to first ensure that the line downstream is safe. It takes time just to walk the length of the line and check. A couple of hundred tripped breakers can take a while to reset, even if no wires are actually down. Jerry ------------------------------ From: Stephen Tell Subject: Re: Lightning Surge Protection Date: 21 Aug 91 00:42:20 GMT Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill In article schuster@cup.portal.com writes: > In article somebody writes: [The original reference was lost] >> 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. The behavior of each half of each of the three protectors is essentialy that of an SCR with a zener diode in the gate circuit. Once triggered, it crowbars the voltage down to only a few volts. It is designed so the SCR has a rather high holding current to avoid "latch-up" by the normal phone line voltage after the surge has passed. All this info from the Texas Instruments "Telecommunications devices data book", 1989, which has data sheets and detailed applications notes on this gadget. The application notes are oriented towards use in line cards for electronic central office equipment. > Does anyone know of a US source for small quantities of this part? Newark Electronics has them. At least, they have several members of the family; I got a half dozen of the TISP2180 from them (same device, but only a 180-volt zener voltage). Steve Tell tell@cs.unc.edu H: +1 919 968 1792 #5L Estes Park apts UNC Chapel Hill Computer Science W: +1 919 962 1845 Carrboro NC 27510 ------------------------------ From: Alan Barclay Subject: Re: Dial 0 for Operator? (In Schools / Office Buildings) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 09:28 CDT In article Dan Jacobson writes: > 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". > 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. Here in the UK most PABX use 9 as the prefix for external calls, as our emergency number is 999 that means that the visitor dialing 9-999 will get connected as normal. Also 0 isn't labeled as Oper, infact none of the keys is labelled with anything other than the number,#,* so that confusion doesn't come up either. The only confusion is when somebody with a pulse dial phone which often use the * & # for things like redial & mute trys to use a MF phone. Alan Barclay iT | E-mail : alan@ukpoit.uucp Barker Lane | BANG-STYLE : .....!ukc!ukpoit!alan CHESTERFIELD S40 1DY | VOICE : +44 246 214241 Derbys, England | FAX : +44 246 214353 iT - The Information Technology Business Of The Post Office ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #653 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18341; 22 Aug 91 4:56 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26561; 22 Aug 91 3:23 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01567; 22 Aug 91 2:16 CDT Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 2:00:19 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #654 BCC: Message-ID: <9108220200.ac05846@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 22 Aug 91 02:00:00 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 654 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson P&G And The Grand Jury [Walter C. Scott] Telephones and the Soviet Coup [AP via Bill Berbenich] Settlement Announced in Hayes/Everex Patent Case [Toby Nixon] Weather Information Servers [Darin S. Lory] Information Wanted on AT&T Tariff 12 [David Leibold] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: P&G And The Grand Jury From: halcyon!walter@sumax.seattleu.edu Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 07:25:12 PDT Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service On 8-12-91, the {Wall Street Journal} published a front page story on an investigation by Cincinnati police of phone records following a request by Procter & Gamble Co. to determine who might have furnished inside information to the {Wall Street Journal}. The information, ostensibly published between March 1st and June 10th, 1991, prompted P&G to seek action under Ohio's Trade Secrets Law. In respect to a possible violation of this law, a Grand Jury issued a subpoena for records of certain phone calls placed to the Pittsburgh offices of the {Wall Street Journal} from the Cincinnati area, and to the residence of a {Wall Street Journal} reporter. By way of context, the Pittsburgh offices of the {Wall Street Journal} allegedly were of interest in that Journal reporter Alecia Swasy was principally responsible for covering Procter & Gamble, and worked out of the Pittsburgh office. On 8-13-91, CompuServe subscriber Ryck Bird Lent related the Journal story to other members of CompuServe's TELECOM.ISSUES SIG. He issued the following query: ================ TEXT BEGINS ================= Presumably, the records only show that calls were placed between two numbers, there's no content available for inspection. But what if CB had voice mail services? And what if the phone number investigations lead to online service gateways (MCI MAil, CIS), are those also subject to subpoena? ================ TEXT ENDS ==================== At the time of Mr. Lent's post, it was known that the {Wall Street Journal} had alleged a large amount of phone company records had been provided by Cincinnati Bell to local police. An exact figure did not appear in Lent's comments. Thus, I can't be certain if the Journal published any such specific data on 8-12-91 until I see the article in question. On 8-14-91, the Journal published further details on the police investigation into possible violation of the Ohio Trade Secrets Law. The Journal then asserted that a Grand Jury subpoena was issued and used by the Cincinnati Police to order Cincinnati Bell to turn over phone records spanning a 15-week period of time, covering 40 million calls placed from 655,297 phone numbers in the 513 area code. The subpoena was issued, according to the {Wall Street Journal}, only four working days after a June 10th, 1991 article on problems in P&G's food and beverage markets. Wednesday [8-14-91], the Associated Press reported that P&G expected no charges to be filed under the police investigation into possible violations of the Ohio Trade Secrets Law. P&G spokesperson Terry Loftus was quoted to say: "It did not produce any results and is in fact winding down". Loftus went on to explain that the company happened to "conduct an internal investigation which turned up nothing. That was our first step. After we completed that internal investigation, we decided to turn it over to the Cincinnati Police Department". Attempts to contact Gary Armstrong, the principal police officer in charge of the P&G investigation, by the Associated Press prior to 8-14-91 were unsuccessful. No one else in the Cincinnati Police Department would provide comment to AP. On 8-15-91, the Associated Press provided a summary of what appeared in the 8-14-91 edition of the {Wall Street Journal} on the P&G investigation. In addition to AP's summary of the 8-14-91 Journal article, AP also quoted another P&G spokesperson -- Sydney McHugh. Ms. McHugh more or less repeated Loftus' 8-13-91 statement with the following comments: "We advised the local Cincinnati Police Department of the matter because we thought it was possible that a crime had been committed in violation of Ohio law. They decided to conduct an independent investigation." Subsequent to the 8-14-91 article in the Journal, AP had once again attempted to reach Officer Gary Armstrong with no success. Prosecutor Arthur M. Ney has an unpublished home phone number and was therefore unavailable for comment on Wednesday evening [08-14-91], according to AP. In the past few weeks, much has appeared in the press concerning allegations that P&G, a local grand jury, and/or Cincinnati Police have found a "novel" way to circumvent the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In its 8-15-91 summary of the 8-14-91 Journal article, AP quoted Cincinnati attorney Robert Newman -- specializing in First Amendment issues -- as asserting: "There's no reason for the subpoena to be this broad. It's cause for alarm". Newman also offered the notion that: "P&G doesn't have to intrude in the lives of P&G employees, let alone everyone else". The same AP story references Cincinnati's ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union Regional Coordinator, Jim Rogers, similarly commenting that: "The subpoena is invasive for anyone in the 513 area code. If I called {The Wall Street Journal}, what possible interest should P&G have in that?" In a later 8-18-91 AP story, Cleveland attorney David Marburger was quoted as observing that "what is troublesome is I just wonder if a small business in Cincinnati had the same problem, would law enforcement step in and help them out?" Marburger also added, "it's a surprise to me," referring to the nature of the police investigation. In response, Police Commander of Criminal Investigations, Heydon Thompson, told the Cincinnati Business Courier "Procter & Gamble is a newsmaker, but that's not the reason we are conducting this investigation." P&G spokesperson Terry Loftus responded to the notion P&G had over-reacted by pointing out: "We feel we're doing what we must do, and that's protect the shareholders. And when we believe a crime has been committed, to turn that information over to the police." Meanwhile, the {Cincinnati Post} published an editorial this past weekend -- describing the P&G request for a police investigation as "kind of like when the biggest guy in a pick-up basketball game cries foul because someone barely touches him." Finally, AP referenced what it termed "coziness" between the city of Cincinnati and P&G in its 8-18-91 piece. In order to support this notion of coziness, Cincinnati Mayor David Mann was quoted to say: "The tradition here, on anything in terms of civic or charitable initiative, is you get P&G on board and everybody else lines up." As one who lived near Cincinnati for eight years, I recall Procter & Gamble's relationship with Cincinnati as rather cozy indeed. Walter C. Scott The 23:00 News and Mail Service - +1 206 292 9048 - Seattle, WA USA PEP, V.32, V.42 ------------------------------ From: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Subject: Telephones and the Soviet Coup Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 19:19:41 EDT Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Here's the telecom angle on the Soviet coup, from the Associated Press financial wire. -------------------------------- By W. DALE NELSON Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Federal Communications Commission on Wednesday approved the use of a Soviet communications satellite system by two U.S. phone companies to meet the "dramatic increase " in demand for U.S.-Soviet circuits in the wake of the political turmoil in Moscow. The FCC's Common Carrier Bureau granted AT&T and IDB Communications Inc. temporary authority to use 24 circuits on the Soviet satellite system Intersputnik. It will be the first time Intersputnik will be used for voice transmissions between the two countries, AT&T spokesman Herb Linnen said. He said such calls are now carried over Intelsat, a consortium of western nations that provides satellite service. AT&T said it had previously reached an agreement with Soviet officials for use of the Intersputnik satellite system, but the agreement was subject to approval by the FCC. Linnen said it was not certain how soon the new circuits could be in service, "whether it's a day, or two days or a week or a month." Linnen said AT&T had been trying since December 1989 to get permission to beef up circuits to the Soviet Union. "Since Monday, it's been an absolute nightmare trying to complete calls," he said. The FCC said the temporary authority was not to extend beyond Feb. 19. In a filing with the commission on Tuesday, AT&T said it was experiencing as many as 4,000 attempts in a five-minute period to make telephone calls from the United States to the Soviet Union, compared with about 5,000 call attempts in an hour normally. Both AT&T and IDB had sought emergency authority to use the Intersputnik circuits even before the outbreak Monday of the coup attempt in the Soviet capital that collapsed Wednesday. They argued the additional circuits were needed because of warmer relations between the two countries. In its reply to IDB, the commission said, "Although the quality of telephone service between the U.S. and the Soviet Union was at unacceptable levels at the time IDB's request was filed, recent political events have led to a dramatic increase in demand ..." It told AT&T that as a result of this increase, "it appears that the service quality between the U.S. and the Soviet Union has deteriorated dramatically." The commission said AT&T and IDB, an international service based in Rockville, Md., were the only carriers in a position to make use of Intersputnik capacity. IDB applied for 30 circuits and AT&T for 90, but the commission said only 24 are available. AT&T said it notified Soviet communications officials of the FCC action so that engineering and other technical work could be started in both countries. John Berndt, president of AT&T International Communications Services, said the additional circuits will help ease traffic congestion, but calling volume in recent years indicates as many as 2,300 circuits are actually needed. The company said service over the 67 satellite and cable circuits it has been using for Soviet service had diminished somewhat on Wednesday, with news that the coup against President Mikhail Gorbachev had failed. ---------------------- So there you have it! Because of those extra international telephone circuits, Gorbachev was able to arise from the ashes. :-) Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Settlement Announced in Hayes/Everex Patent Case Date: 21 Aug 91 13:54:04 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA HAYES MICROCOMPUTER PRODUCTS, INC. P.O. Box 105203 Atlanta, Georgia 30348 Telephone: 404/840-9200 Fax: 404/441-1238 Beth Logan/Peggy Ballard EVEREX SYSTEMS, INC. 415/683-2421 415/683-2491 Kimball Brown/Anne Butler FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE H-1891 HAYES AND EVEREX REACH A SETTLEMENT OF MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR PATENT LITIGATION Atlanta, GA, 21 August 1991 -- Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. and Everex Systems, Inc. jointly announced today that they have reached an amicable settlement of the patent litigation between the two companies involving the Heatherington '302 Patent owned by Hayes. As part of the settlement, Everex joined the increasing number of modem manufacturers who have taken a royalty-bearing license under the Patent. Everex also agreed to pay Hayes $2.5 million in satisfaction of the judgment awarded to Hayes for past infringement. On 25 January 1991, a San Francisco Jury found that the Heatherington '302 Patent was valid and that Everex and co-defendants, Ven-Tel Systems, Inc. and OmniTel, Inc., had each willfully infringed the Patent. The Jury awarded damages to Hayes totalling $3.5 million, with Everex's portion totalling $1.6 million. Because of the Jury's finding of willful infringement, Judge Conti, in his ruling of 22 April 1991, doubled the damages and awarded Hayes attorneys' fees and expenses of litigation. In addition, the Judge issued an injunction against further infringement, but stayed that injunction with respect to the defendants pending the appeal, so long as they pay royalties for use of the Patent. Although Everex initiated an appeal of the rulings against it, Everex has dropped its appeal as part of the settlement and has agreed with Hayes to end the litigation between the companies. This decision releases Everex of the necessity of continuing with the posting of bonds and payment of other substantial expenses related to the litigation. "We are pleased with Everex's decision to settle this litigation and hope that this decision will encourage more companies to come to the table to discuss taking a license with Hayes instead of requiring the expense of a trial and risking increased damages with a finding of willful infringement," said Hayes President Dennis C. Hayes. Hal Clark, President of Everex, expressed satisfaction with the settlement. "We are pleased that the uncertainty and expense of the appeal process is now behind us," stated Clark. "The resolution of this matter opens up new avenues of opportunity for our two companies." The settlement with Everex does not involve OmniTel and Ven-Tel, the other defendants from the San Francisco case. Those parties have appealed the adverse decisions against them. "We expect a favorable ruling from the appellate court against these two parties in the near future," said Hayes. Companies may obtain further information about Hayes Licensing Program for its 40 U.S. Patents and corresponding foreign patents by contacting Hayes Business Development/Intellectual Property Licensing at Hayes World Headquarters (P.O. Box 105203, Atlanta, Georgia 30348). [marketing blurbs deleted] ### 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: Wed, 21 Aug 91 09:39:56 EDT From: "Darin S. Lory" Subject: Weather Information Servers I, too, once enjoyed in the weather information that I display on my Sun workstation using WXMAP. Matter of fact, I have the last WXMAP I could display hanging on my refrigerator. But I found by luck, two Information DBMSs - both at the University of Michigan. 141.212.100.9 telnet martini.eecs.umich.edu 3000 Location DBMS 141.212.196.79 telnet madlab.sprl.umich.edu 3000 Weather/Earthquake DBMS Telnet to either one, the first gives you location information of any town or city in the US with latitude and longitude. The second gives weather and earthquake information in the US, with several locations in each state (depending on the state). Both are text based. Hope this helps. Darin S. Lory Kaman Sciences Corporation Advanced Technology Division Network Analyst Utica, New York +1.315.734.3663 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 23:22:38 EDT From: DLEIBOLD@vm1.yorku.ca Subject: Information Wanted on AT&T Tariff 12 This sounds like an infrequently asked question, but the recent {Communications Week} had a feature story on MCI being allowed to use a "Tariff 12" service, or something like that, which seemed to be proprietary to AT&T. MCI hopes it will allow for better value to their international service, but MCI had been somewhat critical of this. My quick peek at the CW didn't reveal what a Tariff 12 was supposed to be, other than it involved some secretive, proprietary material and that MCI was plugging into it ... whatever it is. Are there any other details about this, at least details which can be revealed? dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #654 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21023; 22 Aug 91 6:00 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10027; 22 Aug 91 4:30 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26561; 22 Aug 91 3:23 CDT Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 2:35:11 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #655 BCC: Message-ID: <9108220235.ab02585@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 22 Aug 91 02:35:03 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 655 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Telecom in the Channel Islands [Martin Baines] Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Satellite? [Steve Dillinger] Flakey T1/What is BELL PUB 62411 [Bob Stodola] RISKS of Calling 911 From Cellular Phones [RISKS Digest via Seng-Poh Lee] Phone Company Cut Me Back to Pulse Dialing [Jack Meth] Properly Calibrated Electric Meters [John W. Shaver] Re: Transport Protocols for Operating Environment Platforms [Lars Poulsen] Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low On Phone Numbers [David Bernholdt] Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low On Phone Numbers [Ron Newman] Re: 900 'Lawyer' Number Comments [David Leibold] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin Baines Subject: Telecom in the Channel Islands Date: 21 Aug 91 08:19:54 GMT Reply-To: Martin.Baines@uk.sun.com Organization: Sun Microsystems Ltd Hi all, I have just returned from a much needed break to Guernsey in the Channel Islands. While I was there, I got bored and was looking through the local telephone Book. It appears that the phone service is run by an organization called the "Guernsey Telecommincations Commission" which trades as "Guernsey Telecom". However, for all dialing purposes Guernsey is a part of the UK phone system (STD code 0481), the phone book even lists "Star Services" that are available from the (in)famous System-X exchange. My question is this: could someone who knows, say how Guernsey Telecom (and Jersey Telcom for that matter) relates to the rest of the UK phone network, and BT in particular? A friend suggested that BT operated the service under contract from the States of Guernsey (the government), is this true? All input greatly received. [For those not familiar with the Channel Islands (Les Iles Anglo-Normandy), they are a small group of islands off the North West Coast of France, that due to historical accident owe alligence to the British Crown, but are self governing. They are split into two administrations: Jersey (the largest Island) and the Balliwick of Guernsey (all the other Islands).] Martin Baines, Sales Support Manager, Sun Microsystems Ltd, 306 Science Park, Cambridge, CB4 4WG, UK Phone Email UK: 0223 420421 JANET: Martin.Baines@uk.co.sun International: +44 223 420421 Other UK: Martin.Baines@sun.co.uk Internet: Martin.Baines@UK.sun.com ------------------------------ From: Dill Subject: Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Satellite? Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 15:46:15 GMT This is something that has been bothering me for well over a year and I am curious exactly what causes it. When calling from Champaign, IL, to a friend on Long Island NY I find the conversation often drops into what can be called half-duplex. If I am talking and she is not, her side of the conversation seems to 'drop.' Ie: I hear nothing from her end. It is very annoying and noticable when there is somekind of background noise whether it just be line noise or a TV on in the background. I find myself going "hello, hello?" (to her annoyance also..). I think I remember hearing some years ago that the coversation does indeed go half duplex because the signal is going over a satellite. When one side of the connection is silent the satellite releases the channel for someone else. When they start to talk again it reconnects it. Is this the case? It's -really- bothersome. [ Steve Dillinger :: smd10696@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu :: dill@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu ] [ University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign ] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 15:37:50 EDT From: Bob Stodola Subject: Flakey T1 / What is BELL PUB 62411 Our local phone company supplies us with a T1 line connecting two buildings. We connect two ethernets using a Vitalink bridge and Digital Link Corporation DSU/CSU. Over the last six months, Bell has been trying to "upgrade" our T1 line from copper to fiber. Each time they do, the link becomes flakey from ethernet to ethernet even though TPC says the line is clean. Each time, they restore the copper link and problems disappear. The reference manual for the DSU/CSU has an internal switch which "controls whether or not the DL551V II will be forced to comply with BELL PUB 62411." What is BELL PUB 62411, and why might it make the difference here? Also, the vendor suggested we explore a switch which controls the scrambler/descrambler which purportedly "will pseudo randomly change DTE data to improve the ones density." Again, why might this make a difference here? Alternately, if anyone has any suggestions, please email them to me. Thanks. Robert K. Stodola Phone: (215) 728-3660 Manager, Research Computing Services FAX: (215) 728-2513 The Fox Chase Cancer Center internet: RK_Stodola@fccc.edu 7701 Burholme Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19111 USA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 22:00:46 -0400 From: Seng-Poh Lee Subject: RISKS of Calling 911 From Cellular Phones Organization: GNUest - GNU Guest Spotted in RISKS DIGEST 2.14 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1991 08:09 EDT From: "E. M. Culver x5416" Subject: RISKS of calling 911 from cellular phones I have wondered what happens when you call 911 from a cellular phone. In Connecticut, you get the State Police who will (maybe) help you. 911 coverage here approaches 100%, so calling 911 from a cellular phone is not necessarily silly. Somebody tried, nobody got hurt and the human side of the system did not work ... [Digested from "Cellular Caller Gets Runaround Reporting Fire", New Haven (Connecticut) Register, 13 August 1991. I removed the individual names.] A Wallingford, Connecticut woman called to report a fire in her public housing duplex on August 9 (at about 11:45am) by calling 911 on her cellular telephone. In Connecticut, 911 calls from cellular phones are routed to the nearest state _State Police_ barracks. The State Police dispatcher told the woman "This number is for state police emergencies only. You have to call 1-411 {the information number } and get the number of your local fire department." Fine -- she did that. The Wallingford Fire Department's dispatcher told her to call 911. In frustration, she called the Wallingford Police, told the story and waited. After a few minutes (this was less than a mile from the fire house) she concluded the Fire Department had not been told. She called the fire department again, saying "My house is burning down and nobody's going to come?" and getting agitated. About 25 minutes after the call to 911 the fire trucks arrived. A maintenance worker sent by the housing authority had already put out the fire. There were no injuries. The Fire Chief said the Fire Department is instituting a policy change so dispatchers will handle emergency calls on non-911 lines instead of directing callers to dial 911. The State Police get 911 calls from cellular phones because these calls are usually report traffic accidents. State Police dispatchers are supposed to route fire calls to the appropriate local fire department. 911 calls made from regular phones can be traced to the physical address from which the call originated -- either the old fashioned way or with an advanced form of caller ID, which give the dispatcher the physical address of the phone originating the call. Seng-Poh Lee ------------------------------ Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center Date: Wednesday, 21 Aug 1991 10:52:56 EDT From: JKMJJ%CUNYVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu Subject: Phone Company Cut me Back to Pulse Dialing Last night my phone service was downgraded from tone/pulse to pulse only. Aside from dialing taking a bit longer, it has had no ther effect. About a week ago I got a note from my local TelCo (NY Telephone area code 718). It told me that I have been using tone dialing without paying for it. If I want to keep tone service, I was asked to call an number to make this service request and be prepared to pay >$5.00 per line per month. If I don't make the service request, NYTel would switch me back to pulse dialing. It has always been my understanding that tone service was easier (cheaper) for the TelCo to provide that pulse. Has this changed? Has this happened to anyone else? Any other comments are welcome. Jack Meth John Jay College of Criminal Justice New York, NY 10019 BITNET JKMJJ@CUNYVM ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 91 08:19:32 MST From: Mr John W Shaver Subject: Properly Calibrated Electric Meters I used to be a board member of an electric utility. Our lab standards were traceable to NBS in two steps. The state regulations required us to get individual meters to a certain accuracy (I don't remember how close but it was about +/- 0.1 %. The readings were taken at a very low power level and at about 75% of rating.) Meters tend to slow down with age, the grease on the bearings stiffens and the friction slows the meter up. I am not sure, but 20 years ago one electric clock in a residence did not draw sufficient power to move the meter. John W. Shaver 602 538 7622 // DSN 879 7622 // FTS 658 7622 FAX 538 0656 // DSN 879 0656_// FTX 658 0656 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 09:21:35 PDT From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Re: Transport Protocols for Operating Environment platforms Dan Pezely wrote in comp.dcom.telecom: > 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. To which I replied: > I would suggest that you implement TCP and IP as per the RFC's; > NO CHANGES. What makes you think you might need to change it ? And Dan countered: > We need more than just connection-oriented and straight datagrams; we'd > like something which is semi-reliable and gives up after a few tries-- > fewer than with TCP. However, we don't know exactly how many tries to give > up after, and with newer CPUs and networks, the params may change. > We will, of course, use UDP/IP for its header info for compatibility, but > some of the organizations funding our lab are willing to run any protocol > developed for our projects-- protocols which would probably be developed > jointly with another lab or school. > Also, IP is being used on the high speed nets, but with gigabit nets, I > understand that the ID field can get wrapped around while some packets are > still traveling from coast-to-coast. Some of our projects will definately > put such things to the test (when, I don't know). And here I (Lars) speak again: I am glad to hear that you are willing to use IP; at least this lets you route through other people's networks, and through local network built with off-the-shelf components into your (monitoring?) systems. As to your specific list of issues: (1) The point at which a TCP implementation gives up and resets the connection is an implementation issue, not a protocol issue. You could make it tunable and still stay TCP compatible/interoperable. (2) If you need a "soft reset" capability to allow data loss to be recognized without breaking the connection (X.25-like) then you do have a requirement that TCP cannot handle. (3) If you have more than 2**32 bytes in flight, you do have a sequence number wrap-around problem. I respectfully submit, though, that if you expect to carry gigabits per second over a SINGLE connection, you will have MANY technical obstacles to overcome, and you had better have beaucoup funding. >> Thank you! Does this criteria alter your opinion at all? Actually, Rockwell is probably fairly indifferent ... but your note sounded very much like the usual calls for "reliable datagram protocols" which usualy turn out to require more overhead and work less well than TCP. In fact the biggest shortcoming of TCP for most applications that claim to need to invent another protocol, is the lack of record boundaries. And these can usually be inserted by prefixing each record with a byte count, and sending the last buffer of the record with a PUSH bit. If you need to get something operational with two years, I still think TCP is your best bet. If you have funding for long-term research, you could take a look at XTP, and if that doesn't work for you either, you could start an IETF working group towards a "super-TCP" with the extra features that you need. > ps - I'd like to post this to the list of newsgroups which the > moderator of comp.dcom.telecom forgot to cross-post to: > comp.protocols.misc, comp.protocols.tcp-ip, comp.protocol.iso, > comp.dcom.lan, and comp.dcom.telecom > is this ok with you? I personally have no objection, but be forewarned, that as a matter of editorial policy, TELECOM does not accept crosspostings. In my opinion, the "right" place for this discussion is on the TCP-IP mailing list, also seen as comp.protocols.tcp-ip. Thus, I have cc'd this to both TELECOM and TCP-IP. Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM [Moderator's Note: Thanks for the follow up on this, and yes, TCP-IP is probably better suited to handle the discussion from this point foreward. Regards cross posting, I prefer not to do it for routine stuff, but will occassionally for good, solid material the readers here might otherwise miss. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "David E. Bernholdt" Subject: Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low On Phone Numbers Date: 21 Aug 91 14:36:53 GMT Organization: Quantum Theory Project, Univ. of Florida In article paul@devon.lns.pa.us (Paul Sutcliffe Jr.) writes: > We're Sorry, But the Country is Low On Phone Numbers I wonder if anyone has statistics on the number of phone numbers per capita in this country? Not only do we have an explosion in the number of uses for telephone lines, we have recently seen the telcos selling "virtual telephone lines" -- things like "RingMaster", which use additional phone numbers put no more physical circuits. David Bernholdt bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu Quantum Theory Project bernhold@ufpine.bitnet University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 904/392 6365 ------------------------------ From: rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman) Subject: Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low On Phone Numbers Date: 21 Aug 91 17:32:11 GMT Organization: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc. The NYT article mentions "the current supply of 152" area codes. So just what are the 152 legal area codes? The formula N[0/1]X gives 8*2*10 = 160. If we remove all the N00 and N11 codes, we get 160 - 16 = 144. Someone on this list must know the answer. Also, is there any reason that the following could not be used as area codes? 211,311,511,611,711,811,200,300,400,500,600 Ron Newman rnewman@bbn.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 23:16:57 EDT From: DLEIBOLD@vm1.yorku.ca Subject: Re: 900 'Lawyer' Number Comments Any $39.50/minute service like the dial-a-lawyer described makes Inmarsat calls look like quite a bargain; however, the Law Society of Upper Canada has had a service called Dial-A-Law which gives out recorded general information on various legal topics. The Toronto number is (416) 947.3333, and they had an 800 number operating which was valid for at least Ontario. It should be noted that the information on there is subject to all sorts of legal disclaimers, and that what you get will be based on Canadian law (and in turn with emphasis on the province of Ontario). Disclaimer: this information is subject to change or cancellation; no warranty expressed or implied; ... batteries not included; etc :-) dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca (for a bit yet; get those FAQ's in) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #655 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22281; 23 Aug 91 10:28 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07136; 23 Aug 91 8:57 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29972; 23 Aug 91 7:48 CDT Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 7:36:29 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #656 BCC: Message-ID: <9108230736.ab18759@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 23 Aug 91 07:35:56 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 656 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Billing INTRA-Lata Calling to My Carrier [Jack Decker] Re: FAX/Modem Autoswitches - Which Ones Work? [Terry Gold] Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [Tony Shepps] Re: Tour of a CO [Thomas Lapp] Re: NYNEX to Charge For 411 in Massachusetts as of 9/14/91 [Ethan Miller] Re: Phast Food [Chris Farrar] Re: AT&T Data Network [Ken Jongsma] Re: AT&T Data Network [John Higdon] Re: AT&T Data Network [Phydeaux] Re: Cable TV Competition [Shawn Goodin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 17 Aug 91 18:00:55 CDT From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Billing INTRA-Lata Calling to My Carrier > 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? Actually, since these are intrastate calls, the FCC has nothing to do with it. What happened is that maybe two or three years ago the Michigan Public Service Commission decreed that Interexchange Carriers should be allowed to carry intralata calls within Michigan, but that customers would have to dial the appropriate "10XXX" code to specify a carrier other than the Local Exchange Carrier (either Michigan Bell or GTE North, depending on which company serves your exchange). Part of the reasoning behind this (and I don't recall all the details offhand, so this is from memory) is that the Michigan Public Service Commission decided that according to law (either Michigan or federal, don't recall which) they could only regulate facilities-based carriers, not those that simply resold transmission capability of other carriers. At the time, the only facilities-based Interexchange Carriers in the state were (as I recall) AT&T, MCI, and U.S. Sprint. Even Allnet was not considered a facilities-based carrier, if I recall correctly. So if the MPSC had decreed that only Michigan Bell or GTE could handle intraLATA calls, it would have prohibited the three largest carriers from handling such calls, but the other carriers would have been perfectly free to handle such calls. Of course, the Local Exchange Carriers could still have blocked transmission of such calls to Interexchange Carriers when 1+number (or 10XXX+1+number) was dialed, but not calls sent via mechanisms. Also, on a purely practical level, Michigan Bell had been allowing calls dialed using 10XXX+1+number to go to the desired carrier for quite some time, and of course calls placed using "950-" or other access numbers had always worked, and I suspect that the Commission didn't want to deal with complaints from folks who suddenly found that this formerly available access was denied. At the time all this was going on I was following it quite closely. I think the result is pretty fair -- the local telcos get the default traffic from those who don't care to choose a carrier, yet those who do care and who want to save a little extra money can dial around the local telco. In practice, last I heard was that somewhere between 95% and 98% of all intraLATA calls still go to Michigan Bell or GTE North. I don't mind that as long as the choice to do otherwise remains available. > 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. Yep, sure is. MetroNet (a company out of Lansing) does this too, and they offer some interesting features that are unique to their company ... like the first 47 seconds of every call are free (if your call is completed within 47 seconds, you're not charged for it), free directory assistance calls, and some really great rates on intrastate calls. The flip side is there is a monthly minimum or service charge and some of these feature work differently for intrastate vs. interstate calls, plus the first minute of calls that DO last longer than 47 seconds is a bit loaded (not too badly, though). I have to believe they lose some money doing things like this but they must make it back somewhere. Disclaimer: I don't work for Metronet, although if you sign up with them and tell them I referred you, I supposedly get a $20 referral bonus. If you think that makes this message too self-serving, just don't tell 'em I sent you! :-) Jack Decker 1804 West 18th St. #155, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan 49783 Via Node 1:154/600, 20:19 8/12 ReMapper To Point 99 ------------------------------ From: tgold@attmail.com Date: Tue Aug 20 13:54:27 MDT 1991 Subject: Re: FAX/Modem Autoswitches - Which Ones Work? I have a Sharp UX-182 fax machine that is not dedicated to the line it is on. The problem with autoswitches seems to me to be that many people will dial the fax number and wait for the machine to answer. If they don't hear the fax machine, they think they've made a mistake. The UX-182 has a feature that allows an answering machine to be connected. When someone calls my fax line, the answering machine answers and instructs them to "press start now" if they are sending a fax, or wait for the beep if they want to leave a message. Most automated fax systems can deal with it, though some can't. If the caller does try to send a fax, the answering machine is disconnected and the fax works as usual. I have it set up this way to avoid dedicating a line for the infrequent incoming fax. I have roll-over on two lines, so if one is busy, they go to the fax/answering machine. Terry Gold Gold Systems, Inc. ISDN PBX-to-host and voice response tgold@attmail.com (303) 447-2837 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? From: cellar!toad@uunet.uu.net Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 09:55:29 EDT Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system clear@cavebbs.gen.nz writes: > In article William Degnan writes: >> 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. Brain-dead software -- like Unix? We run a BBS under Unix. Although the BBS itself (Waffle) handles end-of-call processing quickly, Unix requires a few seconds to reset the modem and the port. We find that calling at just the wrong moment -- always accomplished by hammer dialing -- causes the caller to get an interrupted carrier signal from the modem. This isn't too bad a situation, since the caller's comm program will probably just time out, but one could imagine a caller with brain-dead comm software. This kind of war dialing should be done by the switch anyway, shouldn't it? Tony Shepps toad@cellar.UUCP (...{tredysvr|uunet}!cellar!toad) - The Cellar BBS +1 215 336 9503 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 21:39:36 EST From: Thomas Lapp Subject: Re: Tour of a CO Reply-To: thomas%mvac23@udel.edu "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> writes: > In article Tom Lapp tells about visiting > his local Telco's central office to be: >> 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. In answer to your question, yes, my house *is* about six miles from the CO that it is serviced from. I understand that a significant portion of that is on fiber, and not copper. > [more discussion over figures showing that the numbers I quoted > couldn't possibly be right] > 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. I plead ignorance on this one. I was reading a computer screen which had 65 dB on it, and I *thought* my host said that it was the loss over that length of circuit. I obviously need to get clarified on that. > Based on what you were shown, it seems the greatest lacking in > that CO is competent transmission technicians. But don't feel too I wouldn't say that. My host had over 25 years experience doing everything from line work to management. I'd say the fault is in the person telling the story -- me. I'll check back with my host and get some clarification on what I was shown and post an explanation when *I* understand it :-). tom internet : mvac23!thomas@udel.edu or thomas%mvac23@udel.edu (home) uucp : {ucbvax,mcvax,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas ------------------------------ From: ethan miller Subject: Re: NYNEX to Charge For 411 in Massachusetts as of 9/14/91 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 09:56:59 GMT In article rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman) writes: > From a New England Telephone bill insert: > Calling Directory Assistance more than ten times > a month may add to your telephone bill. > Beginning September 14, 1991, residence customers will be charged 34 > cents for each directly dialed Directory Assistance call made in > excess of ten calls per month. For example, if you make 20 calls to > Directory Assistance during your billing month, you will be charged > for ten calls totalling $3.40. This is nothing new. This charge has existed for several years in California, and I recall it existing in Providence, RI (NYNEX/New England Telephone) when I was in college in 1987. Here in the SF Bay Area, the charge is $.25 per call over five for residences, and $.25 per call over two for businesses. I see nothing wrong with this charge, as long as the phone company is willing to provide free directories for local areas (and exemptions for those who can't use the directories). ethan miller--cs grad student elm@cs.berkeley.edu #include ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 20:04:13 PDT From: Chris Farrar Subject: Re: Phast Food Organization: Professional Thinkers Guild, Windsor, Ont., FidoNet 1:246/20 * forwarded from Imex's TELECOM echo by Nigel Allen (nigel.allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org) Replying to a message from Jeff Sicherman > 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. How will this work in Canada, where Domino's also operate, and the only way to order a pizza is to look in the phone book and find the closest Domino's or let the store you call transfer the call to the store that serves your area. > [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 You watched the 60 Minutes episode where they followed Domino's drivers in a van equipped with traffic radar that clocked a driver at 65mph in a 25 mph zone who then denied speeding, didn't you? > true Domino's is trying to cut the delivery time down to fifteen > minutes in midtown Manhattan during the evening rush hour? That should be about half a block, unless they are delivering by bicycle :-) * Origin: Professional Thinkers Guild (519) 256-8717 (Windsor) (1:246/20) Chris Farrar - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Chris.Farrar@f20.n246.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Subject: Re: AT&T Data Network Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 10:46:49 EDT From: Ken Jongsma I went back and reread the {PC Magazine} article on the AT&T data network and extracted a few more details: Information Access service started in July of this year. It is intended as an adjunct service for those who already subscribe to AT&Ts Accunet packet data network. If the 950-1288 number does not work in your area, AT&T provides an 800 number. Users pay an extra flat rate fee for use of the service, based on access speed and expected usage. Upon logging in, the user is presented with a customized menu of third party services available. International access is expected in the near future. No data on what services Information Access can connect to were listed. (PC Magazine, Sep 10, 1991, page 386) Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 09:16 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: AT&T Data Network irvin@northstar.dartmouth.edu writes: > From 603 calls to 950-1288 gets NET's infamous: "{tri-tone} The > number you have reached 9-5-0-1-2-8-8 is being checked for trouble, > please try your call again later." > Which experience has shown really means: "... is not in service." This is probably true, but what is really happening is that the number is being forwarded to an intercept announcer which has no programming for that particular number. When a number is changed or disconnected it is simply forwarded (with DNIS) to the mechanical intercept. The intercept machine looks up the number dialed and give the new number or even just a curt, "No further information is available about...". If a call shows up on its doorstep and there is NO entry at all, then you get the "being checked for trouble" business. This can sometimes happen when the CO people are faster than the intercept/business office people. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 09:23:02 PDT From: Phydeaux Subject: Re: AT&T Data Network Hmm ... here in 708 land all I get is an "all circuits busy" intercept... reb *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* reb@ingres.com or reb%ingres.com@lll-winken.llnl.GOV ICBM: 41.55N 87.40W h:558 West Wellington #3R Chicago, IL 60657 312-549-8365 w:reb ASK/Ingres 10255 West Higgins Suite 500 Rosemont, IL 60018 708-803-9500 [Moderator's Note: That's because you're getting the same fine service from IBT that I, your neighbor in 312 get from IBT. I get the same message here. PAT] ------------------------------ From: shawng@pro-charlotte.cts.com (Shawn Goodin) Subject: Re: Cable TV Competition Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 11:16:33 GMT mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us (Nick Sayer) writes: > 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. Unfortunately, no such luck. I believe the usual reason for the restriction is to preserve the "look and value" of the homes in the neighborhood -- heaven forbid that those unsightly antennas and dishes would dare contribute to urban decay/blight/home values. Meanwhile, they seem to allow these fences around the yards that appear to have been designed and built by Tarzan ... I'll try the dipoles ... if I wanted to cut one for, say, channel 7, wonder what the measurements should be? 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: I'm not going to do all this math at this hour of the morning. Essentially, find channel 7's frequency (about 180 megs). Detirmine the length of the electromagnetic wave on the assumption that the wave travels at about the speed of light, and makes 180 million such trips, or 'cycles' in a second. Cut a piece of wire to some fraction of the resulting length ... probably a few inches. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #656 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27243; 23 Aug 91 11:54 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15355; 23 Aug 91 10:05 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07136; 23 Aug 91 8:57 CDT Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 8:03:12 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #657 BCC: Message-ID: <9108230803.ab20247@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 23 Aug 91 08:03:01 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 657 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Information Wanted on AT&T Tariff 12 [Jack Dominey] Re: Information Wanted on AT&T Tariff 12 [Andy Sherman] Re: Information Wanted on AT&T Tariff 12 [John R. Levine] Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Scott Hinckley] Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Mike Morris] Re: Fake 'Extension' Numbers [John Higdon] Re: Is Possession of Telephone Test Set Illegal? [Patton M. Turner] Re: Massive Privacy Invasion [Jim Redelfs] Re: Phast Phood [Robert E. Zabloudil] Re: Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Satellite? [Toby Nixon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Thu Aug 22 10:34:57 EDT 1991 Subject: Re: Information Wanted on AT&T Tariff 12 In Volume 11 : Issue 654 of the digest, David Leibold (DLEIBOLD@vm1. yorku.ca) asked about AT&T's recent Tariff 12 agreement with MCI. *Disclaimer - my knowledge of Tariff 12 is rather vague and general. I work with small customers who seldom even use T1's. The following is based on what I've picked up in company-wide news and announcements and in trade publications.* Tariff 12 is another FCC tariff that describes what network services AT&T can legally offer. (It's sometimes known as Virtual Telecommunications Network Service, or VTNS.) Unlike other tariffs that describe general offerings like WATS (Tariff 2) or interstate private lines (Tariff 11), Tariff 12 consists mainly of a series of Options. Each of these Options details a specific package of inbound, outbound, and dedicated services, available to customers fitting a given description (number of locations using each service, etc.). I *believe* specific commitments to x years and y minutes of usage are included. The rates for the services are, as I understand, lower than any comparable AT&T offerings, up to and including Software Defined Network. Each Tariff 12 Option is written with a particular (and very large) customer in mind, and the value of the agreement is usually in the millions of dollars per year. But, since AT&T is prohibited from making special deals, there is a constant tug-of-war with the FCC over whether each new Option is general enough to be legal. MCI and Sprint have argued strongly that Tariff 12 agreements are unlawful, though I guess MCI may change their tune. The Tariff 12 agreement with MCI is apparently for a very large volume of international service but I don't know the specifics. Jack Dominey, AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA 404-496-6925 or AT&TMail: !dominey ------------------------------ From: Andy Sherman Subject: Re: Information Wanted on AT&T Tariff 12 Date: 22 Aug 91 16:33:31 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA In article DLEIBOLD@vm1.yorku.ca writes: > This sounds like an infrequently asked question, but the recent > {Communications Week} had a feature story on MCI being allowed to use > a "Tariff 12" service, or something like that, which seemed to be > proprietary to AT&T. MCI hopes it will allow for better value to their > international service, but MCI had been somewhat critical of this. Tariff 12 is a tariff under which AT&T may make offerings to businesses which are cheaper than normal in order to meet comptitive offerings. MCI and Sprint are frequent commenters against particular Tariff 12 filings, for obvious reasons. The piece refers to the fact that MCI has become a Tariff 12 customer, I believe for International Service (which they will resell). There are two schools of thought about the uninitiated (including me) about this. One is that MCI bought a Tariff 12 service to find out as much about the process so that they can fight Tariff 12's more effectively. The other school of thought is that MCI just undercut their own objections to Tariff 12 by becoming a Tariff 12 customer. 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! ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Information Wanted on AT&T Tariff 12 Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 22 Aug 91 20:56:26 EDT (Thu) From: "John R. Levine" Tariff 12 is the way that AT&T cuts special deals with large corporations. One of the rules with common carriers is that they are supposed to offer the same rates to all customers in a given category, e.g. if one customer gets a 5% discount at $200, they all do. Under Tariff 12, they've filed a few dozen extremely specific rate plans each of which applies to a single very large customer. I suppose that if your telecom needs happened to be exactly the same as, say, DEC's, you could get the same Tariff 12 rate, but you'd better have exactly the same requirements in the same cities as they do. Exactly how much of a Tariff 12 filing is in the public record seems to be a sticky issue. I haven't seen the {Communications Week} article, so I can't say whether MCI is buying service from AT&T under Tariff 12 (quite possible for things like service to third world countries) or they're cutting deals of their own. ------------------------------ From: Scott Hinckley Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road Date: 22 Aug 91 13:51:42 GMT Reply-To: scott@hsvaic.boeing.com In dill@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dill) writes: > 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 Well, lets see... assuming: average 700/month 700calls 12month 1year -------- X ------- x ------ = 23 outgoing calls / day 1month 1year 365day You DON'T consider this above average use??? It sounds to me like they are charging those who use the services. I wouldn't be surprised if the average calls/day was in the three to five neighborhood. If you assume each call lasted ten minutes, that's 3:50/day, or 116 hours/month. Even at only five min/call that is some HEAVY useage. VoiceNet:Scott Hinckley | ATTnet:+1 205 461 2073 | VW & Apple Forever! Internet:scott@hsvaic.boeing.com | UUCP:...!uw-beaver!bcsaic!hsvaic!scott US snail:110 Pine Ridge Rd / Apt# 608/ Huntsville / AL / 35801 DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions ------------------------------ From: Mike Morris Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1991 07:45:30 GMT gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow) writes: 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. In a similar vein, a friend of mine lives in Mohave Valley, AZ. just across the river from Needles, CA and has an office in Needles, ten minutes from his house. Not only is it a toll call to call home, it's a different LATA. On a regular basis, he and his wife drive 20-25 minutes to Bullhead City, AZ and over the bridge to Laughlin, NV for dinner at the Riverside Casino - $4.95 for all you can eat, and multiple trips to the cafeteria line are encouraged. That's a third LATA, all within a 30 minute circle of their house. I was in Needles to do the 7/4/91 fireworks show and needed to call someone - I was in the only 24-hour restaurant in the area - the Needles Denny's). The COCOT wanted $1.90 for a three minute call across the river. Ouch. I won't tell you what I had a mental picture of putting down the coin slot of the COCOT. Mike Morris WA6ILQ PO Box 1130 Arcadia, CA. 91077 818-447-7052 All opinions must be my own since nobody pays me enough to be their mouthpiece... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 09:23 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Fake 'Extension' Numbers Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) writes: > (I was asked to punch in the two-digit number referring > to the newspaper where the ad appeared for that horoscope line.) Now I know why I read TELECOM Digest! This is a great idea -- I cannot begin to add up all the money clients have wasted on misdirected advertising. In some cases, when an ad was discontinued, call counts actually went UP. Using these psuedo extensions would give instantaneous feedback to an advertiser who could make weekly surgical corrections and not dump money down the rat hole. Advertising can be very expensive, especially if it is not working. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: The use of 'department numbers' has long been a very good way to detirmine *where* someone saw your ad, or on what radio station they listened to your message. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 15:28:43 CDT From: "Patton M. Turner" Subject: Re: Is Possession of Telephone Test Set Illegal? Gordon D Woods writes (Quote from newspaper ... parts deleted) > Inspector Peterson of the Morris County > prosecutor's office said that it is "illegal to possess telephone test > sets unless you can prove your job requires it." I was told the same thing by a sheriff's deputy nicknamed "Bubba". He confiscated an old rotary test set I had, but let me go. His story was that only the phone company could buy them legally, thus it was probably stolen. He didn't believe I stole it, so he let me go. I didn't argue, since I had a TS-21, lasher, climbing belt and hooks, and a TDR in the toolbox of my truck. He refused to believe that one could work on phone lines, without working for AT&T (to him AT&T, not SCB was the phone company). He said he was going to return the test set to it's rightful owner. Somebody at the phone company must have gotten a laugh out of that one. BTW: I had a pistol in the truck, and he never asked to see my permit; unfortunately our county doesn't issue test equipiment permits. Just to be safe, I now have Xerox copies of some reciepts for equipiment that I carry with me. I thought I would need them last Saturday morning when I was pulled over by the campus police because I had a reel of hardline in the back of my truck. Patton Turner KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.NOAM pturner@eng.auburn.edu [Moderator's Note: More police BS! If/when they confiscate that stuff, demand a receipt for it, and sue if necessary to get it back! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 13:33:16 cst From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: Massive Privacy Invasion Reply-To: ivgate!macnet!jim.redelfs@uunet.uu.net Organization: Macnet Omaha Ethan Miller wrote: > 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? In the case of NPU (Non-published) services, the telephone company does indeed offer a SERVICE, albeit rarely used. When a caller to Directory Assistance is told that the service is NON-published, and then tells the operator that an EMERGENCY exists, the Service Assistant takes the CALLER's name and number and then attempts to call the non-published service customer and convey the message. *WHY* they are allowed to charge for this service is certainly debatable. Non-Listed Service? I've never been able to figure out that charge. As for your MODEM line, you have a choice (probably) of either another listing (even under another name else where in the directory) or NO listing at all. JR Tabby 2.2 MacNet Omaha (402) 289-2899 - O.M.U.G. On-Line (1:285/14) [Moderator's Note: Actually, it is rarely the local DA operator who will intervene, but if you declare an emergency to the supervisor or her superior, *someone* will attempt to reach the party; advise them of your claims; and provide them with *your* number if they wish to respond to your 'emergency'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Robert E. Zabloudil" Subject: Re: Phast Phood Date: 22 Aug 91 15:23:22 GMT Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus In article kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 635, Message 7 of 13 > This is interesting. When Domino's originally expanded into the > Milwaukee, WI area, there was one central Domino's number that you > called. ... > 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 They had a single number here in Columbus, too, like Pizza Hut did and does. The last time I called the Domino's central number, they said my store had to be called direct at 47x-0030. I don't seem to recall calling that number very much since. No real grudge, just a coincidence ... the market here has several good pizza places 8^) but no Happy Joe's 8^(. Bob Zabloudil rzabloudil@dsac.dla.mil ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Satellite? Date: 22 Aug 91 13:17:14 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , dill@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dill) writes: > and I am curious exactly what causes it. When calling from Champaign, > IL, to a friend on Long Island NY I find the conversation often drops > into what can be called half-duplex. If I am talking and she is not, > her side of the conversation seems to 'drop.' Ie: I hear nothing from > her end. Actually, this can happen on just about any long-distance circuit that is going through circuit multiplication equipment that uses TASI (Time Assignment Speech Interpolation), including international submarine cables (including fiber) and satellites. TASI takes advantage of the fact that most of the time only one side of the connection is active, and allows the other direction to be used for other conversations. In some TASI systems, you hear this as a complete absence of sound from the remote end, which can be quite annoying (as you noted!). Newer (better) TASI systems incorporate "noise regeneration" technology; they measure the level and nature of noise on the circuit, and when they reassign the circuit to another connection, the equipment on the receiving end regenerates that level of noise so that you don't hear the confusing silence. I'm very surprised, though, that you would hear this at all on a call from Illinois to New York; you normally encounter it only on international connections. Virtually all US calls are carried as duplex PCM 64kbps channels, with no TASI, ADPCM, DCME/PCME, or other multiplication equipment involved. Which long distance carrier are you using? Is it sensitive to time of day or other factors? Has it always been this way, or is this a new (hopefully temporary) phenomenon? 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 #657 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07050; 23 Aug 91 23:48 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28295; 23 Aug 91 22:22 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12300; 23 Aug 91 21:14 CDT Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 21:08:03 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #658 BCC: Message-ID: <9108232108.ab04114@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 23 Aug 91 21:07:30 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 658 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Telesphere Sued By Creditors; Forced Into Bankruptcy [TELECOM Moderator] Thank You For Calling, on Echo-Tel [Linc Madison] CWA Stages Informational Picket at Radio Shack Against AT&T [Jeff Leyser] German Modem Query [Eric Brunner] Looking For a Phone Line Simulator [Dan Everhart] Book Review: Women and The Phone Company [David Leibold] Greene Decision Appealed [halcyon!walter@sumax.seattleu.edu] HAW-4 Repeater Failure ... Anybody Know the Skinny? [Robert Gutierrez] Recommendations For Protocol Conversion to/from TCP/IP [John C. Schultz] RJ11, RJ14, RJ45 Specifications: Mechanical, Electrical, Both? [Peter Lee] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 19:53:37 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Telesphere Sued By Creditors; Forced Into Bankruptcy On Monday, August 19, Telesphere Communications, Inc. was sued by a group of ten creditors who claim the company best known for its 900 service isn't paying its bills. The group of creditors, all information providers using 900 lines provided through Telesphere claim they are owed two million dollars in total for services rendered through their party lines, sports reports, horoscopes, sexual conversation lines and other services. They claim Telesphere has not paid them their commissions due for several months. The group of creditors filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Maryland asking that an Involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy (meaning, liquidation of the company and distribution of all assets to creditors) be started against Telesphere. The company said it will fight the effort by creditors to force it into bankruptcy. A spokesperson also said the company has already settled with more than 50 percent of its information providers who are owed money. Telesphere admitted it had a serious cash flow problem, but said this was due to the large number of uncollectible bills the local telephone companies are charging back to them. When end-users of 900 services do not pay the local telco, the telco in turn does not pay the 900 carrier -- in this case Telesphere -- and the information provider is charged for the call from a reserve each is required to maintain. But the information providers dispute the extent of the uncollectible charges. They claim Telesphere has never adequately documented the charges placed against them (the information providers) month after month. In at least one instance, an information provider filed suit against an end-user for non-payment only to find out through deposition that the user *had* paid his local telco, and the local telco *had* in turn paid Telesphere. The information providers allege in their action against the company that Telesphere was in fact paid for many items charged to them as uncollectible, 'and apparently are using the money to finance other aspects of their operation at the expense of one segment of their creditors; namely the information providers ... ' Telesphere denied these allegations. Formerly based here in the Chicago area (in Oak Brook, IL), Telesphere is now based in Rockville, MD. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 02:56:40 PDT From: Linc Madison Subject: Thank You For Calling, on Echo-Tel I received a call on Monday from my parents, who were on vacation in International Falls, Minnesota. They were calling me from a telephone served by ConTel, and I must say it was the worst telephone connection I have had in years. The problems, though, were oddly lopsided. They, on the originating end, heard me faintly and their own voices at a roughly normal level. I heard them normally, and my own voice echoed about a dozen times. There was no echo suppression whatsoever, except for minimal attenuation over the lines. It was a dramatic demonstration of the usually transparent fact that the two voice paths are separate. Any speculation on what exactly went awry with the connection? The call was just a brief "Happy Birthday," so we didn't try again for a better line. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu = ucbvax!tongue1!linc [Moderator's Note: And from all of your friends on the net, best wishes for many more happy birthdays to come. :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 13:03:20 -0400 From: Jeff Leyser Subject: CWA Stages Informational Picket at Radio Shack Against AT&T Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast) Several members of the Communications Workers of America local office were outside a Radio Shack in downtown Cleveland today handing out leaflets. The leaflet is reprinted below. Has anyone else seen this in other parts of the country? Does anyone know the specific complaints of the CWA? FOR YOUR INFORMATION AT&T UNFAIR CONTRACTING OUT EMPLOYEES' WORK DISREGARDING EMPLOYEE'S JOB CLASSIFICATION AT&T and the Communciations Workers of America are party to contracts which establish the terms of employment for AT&T employees. The purpose of those contracts is to create a set of fair working conditions which apply equally to everbody -- so that AT&T employees are treated and paid fairly in return for their professional and skilled work. AT&T, however, is ignoring those conditions by unfairly contracting out some of its employees' work and by assigning work without regard to its employees' job classifications established by its contract with them. Some of the work AT&T is unfairly contracting out is being performed at Radio Shack's facilities. AT&T promises to provide quality telecommunications service to Radio Shack, and its employees are a big part of that quality service which AT&T provides. Now AT&T is changing the rules on its employees; can its promises to Radio Shack be far behind? The Communications Workers do not want to interefere with, restrain, or coerce anyone or in any way interfere with their business. It only seeks to inform you, the public -- AT&T customers -- about what is going on here today at Radio Shack and other places. Be certain that the service you purchase from AT&T is done by AT&T employees and CWA members. Thank you for your support. COMMUNCIATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 4340 216-292-4340 -------- Jeff Leyser jeffl@ncoast.org leyser@tsa.attmail.com Opinions? I thought this was typing practice! ------------------------------ From: Eric Brunner Subject: German Modem Query Organization: Well maybe: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1991 09:55:29 GMT Some of Telebit's brass are going to the Federal Republic(s) in two week's time to speak with senior Bundespost volks. I'd like to get as much as the telecom list's corporate knowledge as is available in August, (not much I'm guessing), before they (Tbit's brass, less me, I'm busy) toddle off. In addition to modems (which I personally care not too greatly about), Tbit also makes a dialup IP router (I'm the "tester, or consulting director" thereof, multi-ouches, it (the NetBlazer) is usable, even admirable, actually effective) -- think "just add dial tone, modems, and IP routes to Mars" and you've got the idea -- under interesting conditions crashes still produce, but for vanilla (real life less UUNET-like pseudo-carriers) it works fine, unless you speak kanji. Fixes for this, ppp and misc junk by InterOp 91. Buzz words are: o who's who in the Deutches Bundes Post (DBP), o V.32 w/wo "bis", and the rest of the obvious modem standards, o Federal Republic modem "regulation" (read: vascular restriction), o IP over J-random-euro-corp's private X.25 backbone, o IP over J-random-euro-corp's utilization of a public X.25 carrier, o who's who in the FGR modem OEM market, o any "auto-dial is verboten/answering machines must speak DBP-esse" horror stories or better (more on target) given the above, o Euro (better mainstream German) X.25 board+software vendors or consulting persons/houses, o economic health of Euro modem vendors (Nokia et cetera), o J-random words-of-advice for a router/vmunix hack trying to advise a modem (now also dialup router) vendor principals about to blow beaucoup silver bullets on a senior DBP meeting o viewing the above, anything semi-rational, even semi-irrational. Yes, I know, host-side software (various ppp implementations, various slip implementations) _must_ be made NetBlazer friendly. They're on my lengthy queue. Thanks in advance, and stone the crows at home, Consulting for, definitively authoritatively speaking for NetBlazer features and bugs, but not representing Telebit Corp. or any modem, pad, or pbx, but equally authoritative on InterOp [88, 89, 90, and 91], and the Pre- and Post-Reno releases of 4bsd on the IBM RT. Eric Brunner Tule Network Services - 4bsd/rt project ------------------------------ Subject: Looking For a Phone Line Simulator Reply-To: dan@dyndata.celestial.com Date: 21 Aug 91 09:11:37 PDT (Wed) From: Dan Everhart I would like to find out about equipment one would use for simulating various qualities of phone line connections. A client has an application which communicates using a pair of modems. We would like to measure the performance of the application as the quality of the connection is degraded. E.g. noisy lines, long distance connections, echo, delay, distortion, etc. I'm interested in finding out names, model numbers, and capabilities of equipment, who the manufacturers and vendors are, and any personal recommendations people have. Are there any circuit designs around for such devices? Building one ourselves is an alternative. I know only the basics about telephone line characteristics, so I'd also appreciate references to articles which have relevant or detailed information. Thanks a lot! dan@dyndata.celestial.com uunet!{camco,fluke}!dyndata!dan 206-743-6982 7107 179th St SW Dynamic Data & Electronics Edmonds, WA 98026, USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 22:30:55 EDT From: David Leibold Subject: Book Review: Women and The Phone Company {The Toronto Star} on 17 August 1991, pg F11, features a review of "'Hello Central?' - Gender, Technology, And Culture In The Formation Of Telephone Systems" by Mich`ele Martin (McGill-Queen's University Press, 219 pgs). The idea of this book, from what the review seems to indicate is "This new technology did not sweep over a sheep-like population. Women, in particular, forced the phone company to change its plans for an elite instrument for the business community by using it to overcome the isolation Victorian society had imposed on them." A number of other interesting items are noted: - 676 independent telcos in the province of Ontario from 1906-1915 (this number was drastically reduced by Bell's predatory nature, plus what the Star review noted as "cozy relations with government".) - Bell's construction of plant, with its poles and wires, had some organized opposition in the late 19th century. - six pound headsets for operators in the old days. - when a businessman's wife phoned him at work to ask for a loan of $5, he had the phone disconnected promptly. (This was 1878.) - footnote 2 of the book apparently states that "for instance, a television set cannot be used as a sewing machine". 'Hello Central' seems to be an academic work, but one with some interesting telephone history and the concept that women made the boys at the phone company dance to their tune. I have no formal connections with McGill-Queen's University Press, {The Toronto Star}, or most other entities implied by the above. As for getting the actual review, check your nearby major library. As for the actual book, try McGill University in Montreal or Queen's in Kingston, Ontario. dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ Subject: Greene Decision Appealed From: halcyon!walter@sumax.seattleu.edu Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 15:41:55 PDT Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service The American Newspaper Publishers Association [ANPA] was the first to file an appeal of the July 25 ruling by Judge Harold Greene allowing the Regional Bell Operating Companies [RBOCs] to become original providers of electronic information. ANPA filed their appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals on 8-20-91, according to the Associated Press. AP reports ANPA President Catherine Black as stating "today's filing is just the next step in ANPA's continuing fight to preserve competition and to protect consumers by preventing the ... (Baby Bells) from providing information services over telephone lines they totally control as regional monopolies." Walter 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: Robert Gutierrez Subject: HAW-4 Repeater Failure ... Anybody Know the Skinny? Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 01:11:55 GMT Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez Organization: NASA Science Internet - Network Operations Center I was involved in a circut restoration for a couple of international data lines (one to Japan, one to Korea, and one to Hawaii), and a repeater failure on HAW-4 made us reroute over spare Intelsat capacity. Any info about what exactly is going on, like is it true AT&T has an ETR of two weeks for the barge to get there??? We had to rewrite geography by jumping over Intelsat from San Francisco to Tokyo, then Tokyo to Hawaii via TPC-3. Our Korean circut is doing a double hop because it was a HAW-4/San Fran/Intelsat hop to Korea, now it's Hawaii-Tokyo (TPC-3), then Tokyo-San Fran (Intelsat), then San Fran - Korea (Intelsat again). Two second ping time ... wheee!!! Robert Gutierrez NASA Science Internet, Network Operations Center. ------------------------------ From: "John C. Schultz" Subject: Recommendations For Protocol Conversion to/from TCP/IP Organization: 3M Company, 3M Center, Minnesota, USA Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 02:10:43 GMT If this is a FAQ, please let me know and point me in the right direction. I have a need to transfer data interactively over various wide area networks such as X.25, SNA, DECNET, various TCP/IP systems and some token ring networks (IBM, Novell). Interactive in this sense means I need to be able to request and obtain data interactively as for example how ftp works on TCP/IP networks. I am solicting opinions on what people recommend to go between varied networks and protocols in terms of hardware and software. Coming from the UNIX world, I would prefer an SNA, X.25, conversion to and from TCP/IP though I am open to other suggestions. My idealized solution would be a relatively low cost (< $10,000 or so?) hardware/software solution which could be implemented on a per node basis. Thus one node may have only an X.25 connection, another may have only SNA, some nodes may have both, etc. I presume that the <$10,000 price excludes IBM hardware/software solutions. I would also be interested in maintenance and support issues that people ahve found from what I hope are more than one vendor. Thanks for any suggestions and I can summarize if there is any interest. John C. Schultz EMAIL: schultz@halley.serc.3m.com 3M Company, Building 518-01-1 WRK: +1 (612) 733-4047 1865 Woodlane Drive, Dock 4, Woodbury, MN 55125 ------------------------------ Subject: RJ11, RJ14, RJ45 Specifications: Mechanical, Electrical, Both? Reply-To: plee@mit.edu Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 23:08:15 -0400 From: Peter Lee I am in search of specs for RJ11, RJ14 and RJ45 modular jacks. I have looked through most of the promising ANSI/EIA (RS) standards without much result; and most books on telephony don't even acknowledge their existence. I am primarily interested in what these terms, RJ11, etc., specify. Are they mechanical specifications for the jacks, jacks with cabling, electrical signalling protocols, or what? Is there a body that defines these standards, or is it just de facto ones set by telephone companies? Any pointers to documents (on-line, or otherwise) would be appreciated. Peter Lee MIT Information Systems plee@mit.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #658 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15992; 24 Aug 91 2:57 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27562; 24 Aug 91 1:30 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02036; 24 Aug 91 0:23 CDT Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 23:32:15 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #659 BCC: Message-ID: <9108232332.ab30955@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 23 Aug 91 23:32:06 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 659 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Telex and the USSR [Newark Star-Ledger via Tom Coradeschi] Peculiar "Service Order Confirmation" [Linc Madison] Help Needed Identifying Mystery 900 Call [akcs.raven@ddsw1.uucp] Need Phone Number For Compression Labs [Allen Robel] "Great Technologies" Sighted [Bruce Perens] Does the ISDN DC Signalling Spec Violate Hayes' Patent? [Russ Nelson] GTE and Strange Charges [Justin Leavens] No Letters on Dial/Keypad? [Carl Moore] Information Wanted on Call Back / ANI Number for 619-755 [David G. Cantor] FAQ List: Get Those Entries Submitted [Steve Thornton & TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 14:26:13 EDT From: Tom Coradeschi Subject: Telex and the USSR Organization: Electric Armts Div, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ From the Newark, NJ {Star-Ledger}, Friday August 23, 1991 ACCESSING THE TRUTH Jersey Telex Bases Kept Soviets Abreast of Ongoing Event By JOHN T. HARDING Photo, with caption: "MCI technician Rocco Berardi, center, inspects the company's major switching center for international telex calls with engineer Susan Tobey and staff specialist John Rodin." Citizens in the Soviet Union kept informed of coup events and world reaction by tapping into information databases in New Jersey this week. MCI International, which operates its Insight database in Piscataway, got a "thank you" message from the citizens of Togliatti City in the U.S.S.R. "This was the only channel which we were able to get during the coup," the message from Togliatti said. Using Associated Press news reports in events in Moscow, officials said they decided to support Boris Yeltsin, president of the Russian republic, and oppose the leaders of the coup that ousted Mikhail Gorbachev. Local authorities in Togliatti "had the ability to obtain the full, true information via your agency immediately," the Soviet citizens said. "We thank you for the possibility to obtain the truth about the information of events," the city said, and "our position supporting elected government" of Yeltsin "was based on information obtained from MCI Insight." "Your information was the weapon which today is the cause that legal government returned its power," the message said. Togliatti, named after the Italian communist leader Palmiro Togliatti, is on maps with the spelling Tolyatti. It is an industrial city on the Volga River, about 500 miles east of Moscow. The Soviet customers called in to the Piscataway computer using telex, the station-to-station printing telegraph system introduced in 1950 but surpassed by computers and facsimile machines in America, Western Europe and other industrialized countries around the world. Telephone traffic during the crisis was running much as 100 times the normal level, according to American Telephone and Telegraph Co. And this clogged the lines not only for voice traffic but for computers and fax machines as well, since they use same lines, said AT&T spokesman Monty Hoyt. "Telex lines are independent," Hoyt said, and while traffic was heavier on the telex system, it was not delayed. AT&T acquired its Update international information service and its FYI domestic information service from Western Union early this year. Nina Scozzari, global telex programming director at AT&T Easylink, based in Upper Saddle River, said that "whenever there is any kind of major world issue, good or bad, we have increased traffic." In the Soviet Union last week, radio and television stations were shut down, she noted. And with telephone lines jammed, telex remained a major information source, accessible to 1.7 million users in 160 countries worldwide through MCI International and AT&T Easylink, the two major telex operators. There are 1,627 telex users in the Soviet Union. The central computers in Piscataway and Upper Saddle River are programmed to relay messages from telex senders to computer receivers and vice versa, officials said, enabling two-way communications. "Normally, Soviet citizens have so many sources of news they don't have to use American sources," according to Hoyt. But during the first two days of the coup, "There were as many inquiries to our Update news service in those two days as there was all year," Hoyt said. On Wednesday, the MCI Insight news file "accounted for 80 percent of all calls from the Soviet Union," according to MCI spokesman Alan Garratt, compared to as little as three percent a week before. Don Casey, director of inbound telex: traffic at AT&T pointed out that telex "is central to communications worldwide because it is reliable, and you know who you're talking to." An "answerback" code on the printing telegraph machines prevents phony messages, he said. Garratt said, "You can almost judge world crises by the number of inquiries we get." When people in Third World nations "want unbiased reports," Garratt said, they connect to the database "and go right to the news section." Whenever local news access breaks down, telex users dial back to the U.S. for information contained in the databases, industry spokesmen said. MCI provides news reports from the Associated Press, while AT&T feeds UPI news reports. In worldwide communications, Garratt pointed out, "You have to use a system that works at both ends," and in many parts of the world, that means telex. "In the U.S. and Europe, we have combined everything -- telephone, fax machines and computers," Garratt said. But less-developed areas only have telex machines, which operate separately from the telephone system. In America, customers use computer terminals, which are much faster and display and store the information electronically. Telex machines operate at 66 words per minute, and can print information only on paper. "Any telex terminal, in the world can access this data base," Garratt noted. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 03:10:45 PDT From: Linc Madison Subject: Peculiar "Service Order Confirmation" I got a rather curious letter from Pacific*Bell today, in an envelope marked "Important Information About Your Telephone Service." The letter begins, "Thank you for the opportunity to help plan your telecommunications service. The enclosed material confirms: * The services you recently ordered * The itemized monthly rates for those services * Any service connection charges * Your Service Order number" Page two lists a S.O. number, with a notation to add 1 PAC*BELL calling card. So far, it's all pretty routine, except for one minor thing: I haven't recently ordered any services. I haven't spoken to Pac*Bell, order or billing dept., in a couple of months at least. So I calls in to me order rep and asks her what's the story here. It occurred to me while I was on hold during this conversation, that the change might be to switch to the new area code, since my calling card is 415-NXX-XXXX-XXXX and I'm switching to 510 in a week and a half. The obvious hitch there, though, is that I have two Pac*Bell calling cards; 1 regular and 1 one-number. The rep went off into hold land for a while longer, and then came back with the answer: Somehow, Pac*Bell's PIN database had gotten munged, so they entered my current PIN as a new card in order to make sure it continues to work. The confirmation letter was then automatically generated. Sounds pretty strange to me, all around. I've used this calling card on a number of occasions, including earlier this year, with no problems, so any error would have to be moderately recent. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu = ucbvax!tongue1!linc Area Code 510: 10 days and counting.... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 02:09 CDT From: BBS Public Access Subject: Need Help Identifying Mystery 900 Call Ok, I have a question. Hopefully someone can enlighten me. First, a bit of background. I have US Sprint as my long distance company. I reside in Illinois, therefore I have Illinois Bell as my local telephone service. I got my bill today, and there was a charge from AT&T (no, that's not a typo) for $50.00. Looking at the itemized page, I see that there was a 1-900 number dialed (specifically, 1-900-884-2900) even though NO ONE in this household dials 900 numbers at all (no, no small children, brain-dead teenagers or anything of that sort). I called AT&T and found out that certain numbers, no matter what LD carrier you have, are billed under AT&T anyway. So, that's not a problem. I also had the charge removed from my bill and had 900 blocking switched on by my local telephone company. The thing that was really strange about this is that the "Called Place" section gave the abbreviation of "FINNCLINFO" and the call lasted for only *one minute or less*. The charge for this one call was $50.00. I am quite baffled. Here are my questions ... I hope someone can help: 1) Does anyone have any idea at all what service (fraud) this could be? Maybe, by some freak chance, someone will recognize the number or can look it up? The fellow at AT&T said it was NOT listed in his papers or whatever, and that he just could NOT figure out what it was. 2) There is a slight possiblity that an irresponsible idiot friend of the family could have dialed (possibly accidentally) this number. However, barring that, is there ANY WAY whatesoever for someone to charge a number like this to my bill without actually being in my house and dialing from my phone? 3) Who the hell can get off charging $50.00 for a ONE MINUTE call??? Thanks for any help or info anyone can provide. Terry akcs.raven@ddsw1.MCS.COM ------------------------------ From: robelr@ucs.indiana.edu (Allen Robel) Subject: Need Phone Number For Compression Labs Reply-To: robelr@mythos.ucs.indiana.edu Organization: Indiana University Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 05:03:14 GMT Hi, Does anyone have a phone number or address for Compression Labs, maker of codecs and MCUs? Any help, naturally, will be appreciated. Allen Robel robelr@mythos.ucs.indiana.edu University Computing Services ROBELR@IUJADE.BITNET Network Research & Planning voice: (812)855-7171 Indiana University FAX: (812)855-8299 ------------------------------ From: bruce@pixar.com (Bruce Perens) Subject: "Great Technologies" Sighted Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1991 17:55:46 GMT There were some messages a while back about a Pacific Bell "Great Technologies" cordless telephone product that was supposed to have a couple of miles range. To my knowledge, that product was never released and "Great Technologies" had their phone number disconnected. While shopping in "Whole Earth Access" (the Northern California equivalent of a general store), I noticed three Pac*Bell phones, one or two of which said "Great Technologies" on the boxes. There was a feature desk phone, a one-channel cordless phone for $39, and a 10-channel cordless phone for $69. Neither of the cordless phones made claims of enhanced range. Bruce Perens ------------------------------ From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) Subject: Does the ISDN DC Signalling Spec Violate Hayes' Patent? Reply-To: nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu (aka NELSON@CLUTX.BITNET) Organization: Crynwr Software, guest account at Clarkson Date: 22 Aug 91 22:12:38 In article <4129.28b3b4d4@hayes.uucp> tnixon@hayes.uucp writes: > The patent in question was 4,549,302, "Modem with Improved Escape > Sequence", related to the combination of guard time and a pattern of > characters to change a modem from online data state to command > state. The ISDN U-interface DC signalling specification requires a guard time and pattern of bits (either 6, 8, or 10) to put the NT-1 into Quiet or ILM state. You know, I think that we're going to have to see a few *big* companies like AT&T, Northern Telecom, or Siemens screwed before we see any change in the software patent botch ... hopefully it will happen before we completely lose our lead on software innovation. russ ------------------------------ From: Justin Leavens Subject: GTE and Strange Charges Date: 23 Aug 91 22:58:21 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Well, to anyone who likes to bash Pac*Bell, I suggest giving GTE a shot. They make Pac*Bell look like a "service-oriented" company. Anyway, I got the bill for installation of my new GTE phone line the other day and was fairly ticked about the whole thing. First of all, my roommate and I wanted our own lines. However, since GTE claimed there was only a single phone line "allocated" for our apartment, the second line would cost $80 to install, while the first one would be $40. There was no inside wiring work needed, no problems involved, all they had to do was give us two lines instead of one, and we'd take care of the wiring from the protector box. Still, the second line was twice the price. Pac*Bell provided all lines at the same price, charging extra only if you needed inside wiring work done. Can GTE do this? I assume they can, since they did, but still ... Another thing, there was an item on my bill labeled "Temporary Surcharge as Allowed by the CPUC" for about $20. GTE claims that this is a surcharge of 19.01% that is levied on basically all charges except for long-distance calls on your bill each month, to cover things "Like if the phone lines go down or something. ..". 19.01%? Is this right? I don't remember this from Pac*Bell either. God, I never thought I'd say this, but I want my Pac*Bell back. They actually seem pretty good right now. Justin T. Leavens Microcomputer Specialist University of Southern California :Mail to: leavens@aludra.usc.edu Student Health and Counseling Services: leavens@spiff.usc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 15:54:22 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: No Letters on Dial / Keypad? Recently, a call guide I looked at had a note about businesses' use of letters in phone numbers. It said that if your dial or keypad does not have letters, to refer to the sketches provided in that call guide. Since when do "they" make phones without letters? [Moderator's Note: "They" makes lots of phones with numbers only. Not AT&T of course, not that I've seen of theirs, but many of the other manufacturers of phones choose to put numbers only on a few of their models. One had numbers only on the keys, and a little chart on the bottom of the phone which translated the letters to numbers. PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: dgc@math.ucla.edu Subject: Information Wanted on Call Back / ANI Number for 619-755 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 15:11:38 +0100 From: "David G. Cantor" Can someone tell me what the call back number and line identification numbers, etc. are in Del Mar, California (area-code, prefix = 619-755)? Thanks. dgc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 09:49:26 EST From: Steve Thornton Subject: FAQ List: Get Those Entries Submitted > I hope to create an initial FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) list for > use with the Digest. This could be posted on a monthly basis, with any (etc.) > [Moderator's Note: My sincere thanks for your efforts. We have needed > this file for a *long* time ... and I will run it at least monthly > when it is finished. PAT] This would make a nice present for new subscribers to the Digest. Give people a little bit of grounding and they won't be so confused at first (well, I was). Steve Thornton / Harvard University Library / +1 617 495 3724 netwrk@harvarda.bitnet / netwrk@harvarda.harvard.edu [Moderator's Note: Yes, it should be a very welcome addition to the Telecom Archives and as a file for new readers. And there is still time for suggestions and submissions to go to the compiler of the list. So if you have ideas for things which should be in an FAQ file for telecom, send them to David Leibold . PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #659 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20170; 24 Aug 91 4:08 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30120; 24 Aug 91 2:38 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27562; 24 Aug 91 1:30 CDT Date: Sat, 24 Aug 91 0:52:55 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #660 BCC: Message-ID: <9108240052.ab28427@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 24 Aug 91 00:52:47 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 660 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T American Transtech and Pastor Bob's 'Success-N-Life' [Dave Leibold] Phone Rates for Major Carriers [Hansel] Radio Days: The ARI System [Bob Izenberg] Telephones in Elevators [TELECOM Moderator] NET's Call Answering Service [Jon Sreekanth] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 21:54:57 EDT From: DLEIBOLD@vm1.yorku.ca Subject: AT&T American Transtech and Pastor Bob's 'Success-N-Life' {The Door}, the magasine with the 'Green Weenie' awards, had another winner -- or actually loser -- relating to telecom. It's Jan/Feb '91 issue (#116) had as its "Loser of the Month" one Robert Tilton who runs a televangelist ministry known as "Success-N-Life", a program that tends not to preach historic Christianity as much as it does the gospel according to Barnum, namely the separation of fools and cash. The particular incident which prompted this Green Weenie was documented in {The Courier-News} of Bridgewater, NJ in its 27 September 1990 edition. Its front-page story, "AT&T employees didn't have a prayer", dealt with Tilton's hiring of AT&T American Transtech telemarketers as "prayer partners". {The Door} included {The Courier-News} report in its Loser of the month award. One portion of {The Courier-News} article goes like this: "There were people with major problems, in tears and hysterical," the employee said. "They were saying personal things that you wouldn't tell a stranger. They thought they were calling professional people in a ministry. If those people only knew they were calling AT&T and talking to temps and God knows who else, I'm sure a lot of those people would be terribly, terribly upset." This particular incident resulted in 135 AT&T workers handling some 40,000 calls. A spokesman for AT&T Transtech stated that Success-N-Life normally took its own calls, but that the overflow of calls during Tilton's trip to Israel ({The Door} quips, "Israel, TX, perhaps?) meant that Success-N-Life wanted AT&T Transtech in Jacksonville, FL to handle the overflow. There was apparently an option for AT&T to transfer callers over to Success-N-Life directly if necessary, say for extremely distraught persons. From other parts of the {Door} article, it appears that a specific telemarketing script was used for this campaign. Telemarketers were to end all calls with the statement "Your miracle will come to you as you pray with Pastor Bob the prayer of agreement." {The Courier-News} obtained that telemarketing script which was used during Tilton's Israel campaign during 11-24 September 1990. {The Door} ended its award with the declaration "To Pastor Robert "Bob" Tilton, we proudly present our AT&T Green Weenie. All he needs to do is call 1-800-IMA-**** and a "concerned weenie" will answer." And concerned that person on the other end of the 1-800- number would be, as it represents that same collision firm as mentioned in my previous post of that other telecom-related Green Weenie from {The Door} (that number being censored by me to protect the innocent bystanders) Having said that, {The Door} is definitely not a telecom publication; it just seems to have had some phone-related incidents to work with lately. dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca, djcl@bnw.debe.fl.us, and plenty other mail drops [Moderator's Note: {The Door} is a funny magazine though. Considered the 'MAD Magazine' of religious publications, it does a tremendous job of satirizing the worst features of organized religion. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 08:39 PDT From: Hansel Subject: Phone Rates for Major Carriers MCI Rates 1-800-444-4444 400 Mile Call (CA-CA) 800 Mile Call (CA-NM) Day $.18 / $.1687 $.2279 Night $.1655 / $.1191 $.13 Calling Card Surcharge : $.45 Instate Calls $.75 Out of State Calls -> MCI Has National PrimeTime, $7.50 First Hour ($.125/Min) and $.10833 each aditional minute (for evening hours only, M-F 1700-0800, Sat, Sun -1700). -> MCI Has SuperSaver Saturday,$5.00 First Hour, 4 Hours Max, Saturday Only -> Friends & Family, 20% Discount on All Calls to other registered numbers with MCI (No Charge) - - - - - US Sprint Rates 1-800-877-4646 400 Mile Call (CA-CA) 800 Mile Call (CA-NM) Day $.23 / $.18 $.23 Evening $.18 / $.14 $.14 / $.15 Night $.17 / $.12 $.13 Calling Card Surcharge: $.55 Instate $.75 Out of State $1.75 Op Assist Station to Station $3.50 Op Assist Person to Person -> Over $20 in Evening Calls = 20% Discount (May be a combination of different lines and your calling card) -> USAA Members, 7% Discount - - - - - AT&T Rates 1-800-CALL-ATT 400 Mile Call (CA-CA) 800 Mile Call (CA-NM) Day $.19 / $.17 $.23 Evening $.17 / $.13 $.14 / $.15 Night $.16 / $.12 $.13 / $.14 Calling Card Surcharge: $.53 Instate $.80 Out of State -> Reach Out America: First Hour $10 (.16666) - - - - - Metromedia/ITT 1-800-275-0100 400 Mile Call (CA-CA) 800 Mile Call (CA-NM) Day $.29 / $.19 $.22 Evening $.23 / $.15 $.15 Night $.17 / $.11 $.12 Calling Card: 950-0488 No Surcharge 1-800-347-0488 $.75 Surcharge Local Calls: 1-10 Mile 11-22 Mile 23-100 Mile Day $.17 $.20 $.22 Evening $.11 $.13 / $.14 $.15 Night $.08 $.10 $.11 - - - - - Thrifty Tel 213-516-8202 Round Town Calling Card Accessable only from 213, 818, 714, 805, 619 $.25 Minute Flat Rate Any time of Day, anywhere you call. - - - - - All Net 1-800-783-2020 400 Mile Call (CA-CA) 800 Mile Call (CA-NM) Day $.26 $.25 Evening $.22 $.21 Late Evening $.18 $.14 Night $.14 $.12 Calling Card: No Surcharge, No Monthly Charge, you pay only for the calls/ services you use. It will be billed directly to a major credit card unless you have All Net Dial 1. Local Calls : InterLATA: Day: $.30 Min Night: $.255 Min All Net Dial 1 Rates (I'm not sure how they correspond to Calling Cards, Dial 1 AllNet Inforeach $.38 Minute AllNet voiceQuote: $.70 Minute Call Delivery $1.60 / Message $.25 to verify Call Delivery (Optional) VoiceMail $6.00 / Month No Charge to leave messages (parties leaving messages) $.38 / Min to Listen to Messages Teleconferencing: Dial-Out/Call-In: $2.00 first Minute $.49 each additional minute (* Rates are PER PARTICIPANT) See next post for more information on Allnet's services... Hansel Lee Internet: izzyej2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu Office: Bitnet: izzyej2@uclamvs.bitnet 213-390-9363 Pro-Line: hansel@pro-palmtree.cts.com [Moderator's Note: Due to space limitations, Hansel's article on Allnet could not be included here, but will follow in the next issue of the Digest later Saturday morning. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bob Izenberg Subject: Radio Days: The ARI System Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 23:06:01 CDT Reply-To: bei@dogface.austin.tx.us The recent post about Telebit personnel in Germany reminded of a project that Blaupunkt was working on back in 1982 over here. The FM/AM station that I was working at was a test site for what Blaupunkt called ARI, for Automotive Road Information. The plan was for the system to carry traffic information that you wouldn't have to be tuned to all the time. If you were in a region that was affected by a reported road condition, your radio would turn on and play the report. As I recall, the ARI signals that we were testing were harmonics of the 38 khz stereo pilot. The test system didn't interfere with our regular SCA. I've heard that the German equivalent is still going. Does anyone know if Blaupunkt gave up on the U.S. ARI system, and, if so, when and why? Did any television stations do ARI testing? Bob ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Aug 91 0:22:31 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Telephones in Elevators I got a chance to use a phone in an elevator today. Most of us have seen the little door above the elevator buttons, opened it and saw the phone or intercom inside ... but fortunatly the need to use it is rare. I took some things to an attorney Friday, downtown in the Chicago Temple Building, and as luck would have it the elevator got stuck on the way down, between the 8th and 9th floors. We had stopped on 9, someone got off, I was then alone as the doors closed and the car started down, only to go about ten feet and slam to a halt ... and sit there. Inside the little box was a 'wall phone', older vintage, with a rotary dial, receiver and very short curly cord from receiver to the phone unit. But instead of a phone number on the little round disk in the center of the dial, there appeared the phrase "Private Line 64112" or a similar number. Lifting the phone off hook caused a phone elsewhere to start ringing immediatly. The ring was obviously coming from a 5-Xbar type CO, which surprised me, since I *thought* those were all gone in Chicago. The phone was answered after three or four rings by someone I found out was the 'elevator starter', or lobby monitor in the Chicago Temple Building on the first floor. The conversation went: (him) Hello there car three. What can I do for you this afternoon? (me) You can try getting me out of here for starters. (him) Oh yeah? Where'you at? Let me look .... He apparently was looking at the lighted status panel showing which elevator is where at any given time. (him) Oh yeah, I see ya ... between eight 'un nine ... the alarm light I get here is a fuse blew. How many's in the car? (me) Just me. (him) Okay, well sit tight a minute. I'll get the building engineer to change the fuse; he's up in the penthouse working now, so it should just be a minute. I told him I wouldn't go anywhere, and would wait for someone to show up so I could 'show them what was wrong' ... he laughed and thought that was a great joke, saying 'keep your sense of humor about you, son, and thank god its Friday.' I hung up the phone, and waited two or maybe three minutes in silence, just standing there. The phone rings ... (another man) Hi, this is the engineer. Who's in there, just you? I told him I was alone. (him) Well do me a favor and press the red stop button in, so the elevator is on emergency stop. I did so. (him) Okay what I'm gonna do is crank by hand, and lower you to eight. The door circuit is working okay so when it levels on eight the door will come open by itself. And true to his word, the car started c-r-e-e-p-i-n-g slowly downward. After thirty seconds or so of this, it stopped, and the door opened; a welcome sight indeed on the eighth floor. I told him I was getting out and hung up the phone. The car stood there for a few seconds and the doors closed. It apparently remained parked there until the repair man came around to fix the problem. But feeling adventerous, I decided to go look at the other end of the operation and took another elevator back up to the top floor then walked up another flight of stairs to the elevator machinery to meet my rescuer ... the guy had a twelve button, eleven line phone (with a hold button) and a headset jack. Most of the buttons were terminations for the 'private lines' which apparently were ring-downs, one per elevator car. A couple buttons were extensions from the PBX serving the building. The guy had the headset on and was chatting away with someone from the elevator company. This *big* giant hand crank was in place on one of the gears, and apparently by turning the crank, he was able to lift or lower the elevator a reasonable distance by hand. As he told the story to the elevator company (and I listened) one of the big 'sixty amp stick fuses' had blown, and although he had put in a couple new ones, 'they keep popping as soon as I put them in'. I had never paid attention before -- as often as I have been in the Temple Building -- but in the lobby the attendant had the same kind of phone without a headset, along with a few other things on his phone. All in all, an educational afternoon for me, even if I did get back to the office later than planned. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Jon Sreekanth Subject: NET's Call Answering Service Organization: The World Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1991 04:47:26 GMT I recently signed up for New England Telephone (Nynex) voice mail, on my home line, 617-547-. Here are some observations : 1. It costs $11.60 to turn on the service, plus $4 per month. Outgoing message can be up to two minutes, up to 30 incoming messages, each of two minutes maximum, can be stored. 2. The DTMF-based command interface is un-intuitive, but there is continuous, occasionally irritating voice help. 3. A big surprise was the lack of programmability: they ask for the number of rings at which you want the answering to kick in, and it costs $11.60 to change it later (!) The outgoing message and password can be changed, though. 4. Initially, I did not get the promised stutter dial tone. After calling and complaining, they fixed it. An unexpected side effect is when I use my no-name modem while there are still messages waiting, the stutter dial tone confuses it, and it occasionally hangs up with "No dial tone". 5. The message access number is not toll free. I guess that was asking too much. Of course, there's no concept of toll saver. It's a local number, and calls to that number are counted towards Measured Rate totals. This seems like nickel and diming. 6. The thing that bothers me the most (and may prompt me to turn off the service after a while) is there is no mention of how to turn off the answering temporarily. When I'm expecting an important call, especially an international call, etc., this could be a hassle. 7. The interaction with call waiting is also annoying. I have selective call waiting, and when I don't turn call waiting off, it produces the beep, which is fine. However, when I turn off call waiting, by dialling *70, number, callers get a busy. This is fairly brain-damaged, because it forces me to choose between call waiting and voice messaging, rather than selectively having one or the other during a particular call. 8. There seems to be no interaction with call forwarding. Yes, I have both call waiting and call forwarding. They weren't offering Ringmate (distinctive ringing), or I'd have gotten that too :-) On the whole, I'm not pleased with it. In the beginning, the only advantage of a service over my trusty Panasonic answering machine was the potential that no caller would ever hear a busy. Given the various flaws, I'm tempted to ask: is it just the residential service that's crippled, or does the business service also have all the above restrictions? Regards, Jon Sreekanth Assabet Valley Microsystems, Inc. | Fax and PC products 346 Lincoln St #722, Marlboro, MA 01752 | (617) 876-8019 jon_sree@world.std.com | ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #660 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22860; 24 Aug 91 5:10 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00806; 24 Aug 91 3:45 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab30120; 24 Aug 91 2:38 CDT Date: Sat, 24 Aug 91 1:47:44 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #661 BCC: Message-ID: <9108240147.ab00402@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 24 Aug 91 01:47:41 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 661 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Allnet Calling Features [Hansel Lee] Recent AT&T Changes [Justin Leavens] Automated Collect Calls [Carl Moore] Department Numbers and ANI [Terry Gold] Definitions Wanted For RJ-11 / RJ-14 [Christopher Cotton] Payphones Begin Showing 0 + 215 + 7D [Carl Moore] Re: Lonely Repair Service [Bud Couch] Re: Cable TV Competition [Roy Stehle] 950-1288 Explained [Ed Hopper] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 08:42 PDT From: Hansel Subject: Allnet Calling Features Well, I received an Allnet calling card in the mail yesterday and was suprised by the number of features it offers. The Calling Card is 11-Digits, the access port is 1-800-783-1444 or 1-800-783-2000 (They don't advertise the 2000 number), Their customer service number is 1-800-783-2020 (or 1-800-783-0000, 1-800-783-4255).. Allnet features: -:- International Calls to over 100 countries (Standard) Option USA, for calling outside the country. Friendly Allnet Access operators make quick connections for you from select international locations to anywhere in the US. Option USA Numebers (when dialing from other countries:) Country: Option USA Number: Australia 0014-800-125-197 Belgium 118671 Canada 1-800-965-1444 Denmark 8001-0658 Finland 9-800-1-59601 France 05-90-2919 W. Germany 0130-8-14247 Greece 00800-12-2100 Hong Kong 800-6159 Ireland 1-800-55-7508 Israel 00177-150-1067 Italy 1678-97038 Japan 0031-12-2453 Malaysia 800-0758 The Netherlands 06-0228491 Singapore 800-1881 Spain 900-99-1450 Sweden 020-79-3934 Switzerland 046-05-8812 United Kingdom 0800-89-2695 -:- SpeedLink: Connects you to the reservations lines of most major airlines, hotels, and car rental agencies. SpeedLink Codes: Airline Code Hotels Code Car Rental Code American 10 Days Inn 30 Alamo 50 Continental 11 Embassy Suites 31 Avis 51 Delta 12 Hilton 32 Budget 52 Northwest 14 Holiday Inn 33 Dollar 53 Pan Am 15 Hyatt 34 Enterprise 54 Southwest 16 Marriot 35 Hertz 55 TWA 17 Quality Inn 36 National 56 United 18 Radisson 37 Thrifty 57 US Air 19 Ramada 38 Sheraton 39 -:- InfoReach: connects you to a world of information, 24 hours a day. Call for timely stock market updates, weather, news, financial information, health tips, sports updates and more. Weather Updates: 6701 Atlanta 6711 Detroit 6720 Minneapolis 6703 Boston 6712 Honolulu 6721 New York 6705 Chicago 6713 Houston 6723 Phoenix 6707 Cleveland 6715 Indianopolis 6725 Pittsburgh 6708 Columbus 6717 Los Angeles 6726 St. Louis 6709 Dallas 6718 Miami 6727 San Diego 6710 Denver 6719 Milwaukee 6728 San Francisco 6729 Seattle 6730 Tampa 6731 Washington DC News & Financial Information: 6050 National News 6055 Business News 6059 Currencies 6052 Internat News 6057 Stock Market 6061 Commodities 6063 Precious Metals Sports Updates: 6011 Sports Facts 6230 National Sports 6239 NFL Report 6013 Sports Heros 6251 NBA Report 6256 Maj League Baseball 6016 Big Game 6237 Sports Stumpers 6253 NHL Report 6258 College Report Health Tips 8010 Symptoms of Alcoholism 8226 High Blood Pressure 8013 Co-Dependency 8283 Diet, Exercise & Weight Loss 8036 Arthritis Symptoms 8290 Dieting Tips 8075 Burn Prevention 8506 Sun Protection 8112 The Common Cold 8523 How to Quit Smoking 8139 What is Depression? 8526 Effects of Smoking 8221 Reducing Cholesterol 8532 Muscle Injuries 8533 Muscle Cramps 8556 Active Nutrition 8567 Coping with stress 8613 First Aid for a Choking Child Home Tips: 6300 Your Daily Smile 8832 Advice for Home Buyers 6302 Wine Rack 8855 Electrical Re-wiring and Repair 6305 Recipe Line 8856 Fusebox/Circut Breaker Checklist 6309 Today in History 8875 Types of Home Security Systems 8693 What is a Will 8881 Interior Home Improvement 8811 Air Conditioning Check 8812 Furnace Checklist 8886 Exterior Home Improvement 8896 Weed Control 8902 Garden Tips 8923 Services of a Real Estate Agency 8753 Real Estate Agents Horoscopes 6586 Aquarius 6588 Aries 6590 Gemini 6592 Libra 6587 Pices 6589 Taurus 6593 Virgo 6596 Scorpio 6597 Sagittarius 6598 Capricorn Entertainment 6110 Top 10 Pop Albums 6112 Top 10 Pop Singles 6115 Top 10 Country 6123 Movie Review 6128 Video Rentals 6130 Hollywood Starline 6553 All My Children 6555 Another World 6556 As The World Turns 6557 The Bold & The Beautiful 6559 Days of Our Lives 6560 General Hospital 6561 Guiding Light 6562 Knots Landing 6563 LA Law 6565 Loving 6566 One Life to Live 6567 Santa Barbara 6570 The Young And the Restless -:- VoiceQuote: Real time, last trade stock market updates. You can even create a [sorry, message was truncated here. PAT] -:- Allnet Voice Mail: You're assigned a personal voice mail-box (1-800-875-SEND). -:- Allnet Teleconferencing Meet-Me Conference: You get your own personal 800 number. Schedule conference through the Allnet operator. Participants use your 800 number to join. Dial-Out conference: The conference operator contacts and connects all the participants Call-In Via Allnet Access: If someone is hard to reach or you would like their portion of the conference to be charged to their Allnet card, they may call in to join your conference using Allnet access. -:- Allnet Call Delivery: Enables you to leave a recorded message to be delivered via the phone, whenever you'd like. For instance, if the person you're calling is on the line or not answering and you can't wait to call back, our IMMEDIATE Delivery option lets you leave your message and our automated service will continue calling for you. Up to 8 attempts will be made to deliver your message. With FUTURE Delivery you can schedule the time and date your message should be delivered, or even schedule your own wakeup call. (NOTE: The message will be considered received when the phone is answered regardless of wether it is an answering machine, call attendant, computer, or person). -:- Rates: AllNet InfoReach: $.30 Minute AllNet voiceQuote: $.70 Minute Call Delivery $1.60 / Message $.25 to verify Call Delivery (Optional) VoiceMail $6.00 / Month No Charge to leave messages (parties leaving messages) $.38 / Min to Listen to Messages Teleconferencing: Dial-Out/Call-In: $2.00 first Minute $.49 each additional minute (* Rates are PER PARTICIPANT) -:- Dialing Procedures: National/International Calls: 1-800-783-2000 (1444) Domestic: 0+ACN + 11 Digit Code International: 011+Country Code+City Code+Number + Code Special Features (voiceQuote, InfoReach, Call Delivery, etc) 1-800-783-2000 (1444) * + 11 Digit Code At Special Features Menu Enter: 1: InfoReach 4: SpeedLink 2: Call Delivery 5: Teleconferencing 3: Voice Mail SpeedLink: Quick Access: 1-800-783-2000 (1444) SepedLink Code (2 Digits) + * + Calling Code Voice Mail (Leave Messages) 1-800-875-SEND (7363) Mailbox's 875 + 4 Digits 878 + 4 Digits -:- Note: Most Information is directly quoted from the Allnet Access Service Guide "Your Complete guide to calling convenience with Allnet Access" -:- See previous message in earlier Digest for rate information. Hansel Lee Internet: izzyej2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu Office: Bitnet: izzyej2@uclamvs.bitnet 213-390-9363 Pro-Line: hansel@pro-palmtree.cts.com ------------------------------ From: Justin Leavens Subject: Recent AT&T Changes Date: 23 Aug 91 22:40:40 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Isn't it AT&T that boastfully advertises that their calling cards are easier to use than any other company's (they poke at Sprint very directly, in fact)? I just read this little notice in the LA Times that says: "AT&T is issuing new AT&T Calling Cards with a 14 digit number that is no longer based on the customer's home phone number. Customers will be notified by AT&T regarding the new AT&T Calling Card before the tariff becomes effective January 1, 1992." Interesting move. I guess their planners weren't in very good touch with their Marketing Department. Justin T. Leavens Microcomputer Specialist University of Southern California :Mail to: leavens@aludra.usc.edu Student Health and Counseling Services: leavens@spiff.usc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 16:29:05 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Automated Collect Calls I have placed a collect call via the C&P carrier within the Baltimore LATA. After the normal "bong", if I did not punch in a credit-card number, I was told to punch in 11 for a collect call or to hold the line for an operator. I punched the 11, then got a different prompt for me to say my name, which I did, then I was told to wait while the phone system determined if the charge would be accepted. I was told there would be a period of silence after the phone was answered (although I then heard the receiving party's initial greeting before the silence cut if off); when the charge was accepted (I don't what is done to accept it) the receiving party was again heard on the line. ------------------------------ From: tgold@attmail.com Date: Fri Aug 23 14:33:36 MDT 1991 Subject: Department Numbers and ANI John Higdon commented about department numbers being used to determine where someone heard or saw an advertisement. This is called "sourcing" and is one use for ANI delivery. If your telemarketing application can look at the caller's area code and prefix, it can keep track of what areas are being reached most effectively without using many different 800 numbers or extensions. Terry Gold tgold@attmail.com Gold Systems, Inc. 303 447-2837 [Moderator's Note: What you say would be true if the advertising was purely local in nature, i.e. ads in various newspapers around the country with mostly local circulation. But ANI, as valuable as it is, would not answer the question of effective advertising if your ads were in national publications likely to be read anywhere in the USA. How can ANI detirmine for example if I read your ad in the {Wall Street Journal}, {Time} or {News Weak} Magazines or the {Reader's Digest}? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Christopher Cotton Subject: Definitions Wanted For RJ-11 / RJ-14 Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1991 23:46:50 GMT Can someone please tell me where I could find a definitive answer to exactly what RJ-11 and RJ-14 are. The problem is this: From what I understand is that connectors on the back of your analog phone may or may not be called a RJ-11 connector. The Modular Handset may/may not be called RJ-14 (It is the smaller of the connectors.) All I know is that if I go to Radio Shack and ask them to give me a RJ-11 connector they give me the ones with six tracks (the larger one that is in the back of your phone), and if I ask for RJ-14 connector I get the smaller one (used in the handset cord). Anyone know the correct answer? Are they protocols? And I would like references as to where you got the information. Thanks, Christopher Cotton ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 18:06:30 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Payphones Begin Showing 0 + 215 + 7D On a recent stop at a Pennsylvania Turnpike service area (westbound near King of Prussia), I noticed the "Out of Change?" card on the pay phones there. They now have "area code +" inserted for the 0+ notice. (215 area is preparing for N0X/N1X prefixes.) ------------------------------ From: Bud Couch Subject: Re: Lonely Repair Service Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1991 19:56:40 GMT In article sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: > Having got some either wrong or confusing information about wiring > for my newly 'installed' additional line, I called 611 for some > information. > 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. Actually, what it means is that you raised enough h*ll that they called some poor guy at home who was either on vacation or worked a different shift, to answer your questions. As someone who has handled these kind of calls while my wife is tapping her foot at the door, waiting to go out to the theater, I tend to empathize more with the guy on the other end of the line. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentroxb If my employer only knew... standard BS applies ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 09:38:35 -0700 From: Roy Stehle Subject: Re: Cable TV Competition rganization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA In article hawng@pro-charlotte.cts. com writes: > Unfortunately, no such luck. I believe the usual reason for the > restriction is to preserve the "look and value" of the homes in the > neighborhood -- heaven forbid that those unsightly antennas and dishes > would dare contribute to urban decay/blight/home values. I have a friend whose home has such a restriction. We mounted a standard TV (log periodic) antenna in his attic suspended from the rafters. There is a slight attenuation from the roof, but the added gain and installation height of the antenna gave superior results over a set of rabbit ears. Roy Stehle - SRI International ------------------------------ Subject: 950-1288 Explained From: ED HOPPER Date: Thu 22 Aug 91 20:49:05 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, TX - 713-997-7575 The September 10, 1991 issue of {PC Magazine} (I'm not kidding) explains 950-1288. The article states: "A new AT&T service, released in July of this year, is the company's Information Access Service. Intended primarily for Accunet Packet Service customers who regularly access on-line third-party databases, IAS allows users to dial the toll free 950-1288 from anywhere in the United States. A customizable menu appears that allows users to choose from among the third party services available under IAS, eliminating the need to pay the local dial-up charges usually associated with online database access. Information Access Service users pay an extra flat-rate fee, based upon speed (300-9600 bps) and expected usage, on top of their regular Packet Service charges." I'll query the salescritters in the office tomorrow for (publicly distributable) info on the service. What do you want to bet that PC Ragazine has at least part of the above wrong??? :-) Ed Hopper ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #661 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23367; 24 Aug 91 5:22 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00806; 24 Aug 91 3:50 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac30120; 24 Aug 91 2:38 CDT Date: Sat, 24 Aug 91 2:25:21 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #662 BCC: Message-ID: <9108240225.ab14927@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 24 Aug 91 02:25:02 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 662 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Tour of a CO [Al L. Varney] Re: Tour of a CO [Thomas Lapp] Re: Phast Phood [Nigel Allen] Re: Hurricane Bob, Telco, and Power [Paul S. Sawyer] Re: Hurricane Bob, Telco, and Power [Owen M. Hartnett] Re: Phone Company Cut me Back to Pulse Dialing [John Higdon] Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service [Tony Harminc] Re: Telecommunications in France (Summary) [Randall L. Smith] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 22:47:57 CDT From: Al L Varney Subject: Re: Tour of a CO Organization: AT&T Network Systems In article thomas%mvac23@udel.edu writes: > 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. ... What they don't have is a lot of bulky equipment ... > I even saw a large section of raised floor which was completely empty. I don't believe "raised floor" space is used for any switching or transmission equipment, so maybe that area used to be an old IBM mainframe/disk ranch.?? Or an old operator area, perhaps. The TIRKS database (all those cross-connect records, etc.) used to justify some pretty huge systems. > 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." Having worked on 1A ESS(tm) from the first office in 1975, I will take that as a compliment. But the first such office was cut over in 1976, and Suncrest wasn't one of the follow-on ten offices I helped install in 1976/77, so your "more than 20 years" must be less than 15! Or maybe you saw one of the many number 1 ESS offices installed in West Virginia in the late '60s and early '70s? The only difference in in the processor and support equipment, so they are difficult to tell apart by listening. > 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. The 1A ESS's in Wilmington could handle ALL the Wilmington traffic, if sufficient lines/trunks were added. But they don't do ISDN, or support fancy operator consoles, so more modern switches are typically needed. Once you put in the other switches, there is little reason to use them to handle some of your customer growth. Just a few comments (from memory): Wilmington was the third or fourth 1A ESS CO site, back in the mid '70s. It was also the largest (probably still is) in terms of area covered by the Switch. Almost 500 frames, with about half of the frames used to hold the old trunks that interfaced to the T1 Carrier system (maybe D3?) channel banks on another floor. All later 1A ESS COs used a cheaper/smaller unit, with about a 5:1 reduction in space for those types of trunks. I never saw Wilmington actually in service. My last visit was when the cable racks and frames were installed, and the massive trunk/line wiring effort was in full swing. (My job was to give the installers some on-the-job training on testing the 1A ESS Processor. Testing on the processor usually overlapped much of the multi-week network wiring effort, and wiring of the actual cross-connects to the "real world" overlapped the testing of the network fabric.) I was always impressed with the skill with which a good Western Electric installation supervisor could keep all those folks busy, in spite of scheduling problems in deliveries, etc. Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 21:25:46 EST From: Thomas Lapp Subject: Re: Tour of a CO Reply-To: thomas%mvac23@udel.edu A while back, I wrote about a tour I recently took of my local CO. "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> then took me to task for some comments I made: >> 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. I talked with my tour host again to get the Real Story. The equipment was indeed correct in showing that I was 31,800 ft. from my CO. HOWEVER, most of that distance is via fiber with signal regenerators at the appropriate distances. In further conversation, I discovered that indeed it is fiber up to a location which is about one to two miles from my location (as the cable runs -- about 3/4 mile as the planes fly). The rest of the distance is on copper. Therefore, for loss purposes, my line is only about one to two miles from the "CO". I also found out that I am about equidistant from two COs, so I'm further than most people. > 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. Agreed. The reading was mis-interpreted on my part. This was the loss on the TOTAL LOOP IF there were no loading coils or fiber regerators on the line. To me, that means that the line test took into account the total amplification of the loop and removed it to come up with the figure. I guess if one says that loss should not be over 10 dB, than there would be 55 dB of "amplification" on my loop, eh? > Based on what you were shown, it seems the greatest lacking in > that CO is competent transmission technicians. But don't feel too My host knows his stuff. It is just your lowly reporter who doesn't know diddly. tom internet : mvac23!thomas@udel.edu or thomas%mvac23@udel.edu (home) uucp : {ucbvax,mcvax,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 15:00:16 PDT From: Nigel Allen Subject: Re: Phast Phood If you would like to get a 950- number for your pizza restaurant so you can compete more effectively with Domino's, or perhaps for the long distance company you will be opening in a few weeks, or if you just plain bored, you can request a 950 number by writing to the following official at Bellcore: Mr. Bob Cantu Bell Communications Research 290 Mt. Pleasant Avenue, Room 1B230 Livingston, N.J. 07039 or telephone him at 201-740-4639 (I found this person's name and address listed in {Telephone Engineer & Management} magazine, by the way.) I have this terrible feeling that all the soon-to-be-opened pizza and chicken delivery restaurants owned by TELECOM Digest readers will exhaust the supply of available 950 numbers before the end of the month. Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ From: "Paul S. Sawyer" Subject: Re: Hurricane Bob, Telco, and Power Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 17:21:04 GMT In article sgutfreund@gte.com writes: > Bob visited Eastern MA yesterday. He took out a lot of the power > lines in Southeast MA and on the Cape. But not the telco lines. Can > someone answer why, when both lines are on poles, (and sometimes the > same ones) that it always seems that the power lines get it worse? Overhead telephone plant is usually MUCH more rugged than electric (at least since open wire was replaced by cable ...) and the nature of high voltage electric lines is to burn or kick out fuses/breakers when crossed by branches. Telephone service around New England is becoming more and more reliant on local power, however, as remote nodes and SLIC's are being installed. We had a freak local storm the day before Hurricane Bob (MUCH worse than the hurricane ...) The power was out for about 12 hours; after a few hours NE Tel brought a portable generator to the nearby SLIC, as the batteries therin had started to fail; the phone service was noisy, but did not fail during this period. When Hurricane Bob hit, the power was out at my house for about 25 hours; this time, since the affected area was much larger, they did not get around to starting the generator, and we were without phone service for several hours. Paul S. Sawyer {uunet,attmail}!unhtel!paul paul@unhtel.unh.edu UNH CIS - - Telecommunications and Network Services VOX: +1 603 862 3262 Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3523 FAX: +1 603 862 2030 ------------------------------ From: "Owen M. Hartnett" Subject: Re: Hurricane Bob, Telco, and Power Date: 22 Aug 91 20:49:16 GMT Reply-To: "Owen M. Hartnett" Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science An interesting phenomena occurred after Bob: Although my home in Rhode Island never lost telco service, (I did lose power, but that's irrelevent) when I went to work Tuesday in Boston, I was unable to dial home. The message "Due to the hurricane, we are unable to connect calls in that area. Please try again later." It appears that although phone service was functional, NETel shut down certain areas where the hurricane hit. Having the operator dial the number did connect me, however, so if you really have to get through in such a circumstance, the operator is worth a try. I believe that the same tactic was used in the Bay area after the big earthquake. Owen Hartnett omh@cs.brown.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 11:20 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Phone Company Cut me Back to Pulse Dialing JKMJJ%CUNYVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu writes: > It has always been my understanding that tone service was easier > (cheaper) for the TelCo to provide that pulse. Has this changed? This is one of those "perceived value" issues. Yes, with modern equipment it IS cheaper for various reasons to have customers use tone dialing. But there are telcos with mindsets that this (now standard) method of signaling can be an excuse for higher charges. Pac*Bell got bitten in the butt over this, however. Several years ago, one of my clients suddenly found higher charges on his bill. An inquiry revealed that Pac*Bell had arbitraily started charging for tone service on lines that were specifically ordered without it. I was advised that a representative of Pac*Bell had visited the premesis and had seen tone phones and reported this to the company. (That's right: we were using the TT service, but I knew that they could not deny it with the crossbar switch. A Pac*Bell friend told me that all the ORs were tone equipped.) I told Pac*Bell to "turn off the tone service immediately", refund the extra charges, and to stop charging in the future. I got various hems and haws, one of which was that my client would not be able to make calls if they did that. I said, "We will take that chance. Turn it off NOW." The long and the short of it was that Pac*Bell could NOT turn off the tone service and my client did not pay for it either. My client was NOT going to pay extra for a "service" that the utility had to supply to everyone anyway. Pac*Bell's answer to this utimately (with all of its antiquated crossbar offices) was to simply raise EVERYONE's rates and then offer tone service as "standard". This way it got its "enhanced services" revenue and no one could wiggle out of it. > Has this happened to anyone else? It would have happened here if Pac*Bell had even semi-modern equipment that would have enabled it to turn off non-payers. > Any other comments are welcome. I think $5.00 per line is really a rip-off. Is your base rate exceptionally low? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 14:49:18 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service marcelm@joymrmn.uucp (Marcel Mongeon) wrote: > 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. Well one thing (surprisingly) about this is that is explicitly legal. The CRTC ruled a year or two ago that a Toronto company offering similar service commercially (between Markham and Oakville I believe) was not breaking any laws or regulations because they were not reselling or repackaging a long distance service! The reasoning is slightly bizzare, but it stands. > 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? In a word: no. Or is that yes? That is, the CO *does* know that it is currently forwarding a call, and the original number is marked busy. > 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? RCF is tariffed by Bell Canada as a business service only. At our outrageous 800 rates however, it might conceivably come out worth while. Tony H. [Moderator's Note: But bear in mind that the individual links in a chain-call-forward scheme have to in total cost less than the toll charge would otherwise. Else where is the savings? This working out in a way financially beneficial to the subscriber is very rare. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Randall L. Smith" Subject: Re: Telecommunications in France (Summary) Date: 22 Aug 91 19:45:47 GMT Organization: The Internet Not too long ago I posted the request relating to the subject line above and I received several very interesting replies. In general it seems Teletel (a French public initiative) has a modern, successful and active system called Minitel. Minitel offers 13,000 different information services to the average French household and businesses. While I received a warm fuzzy regarding its success and usefulness, not too many tangables were provided. All in all, most felt it was modern. Thats helpful :-(. One reply indicated some vague problems and reservations of maintaining its state of the art position in world class telecommunications. I couldn't get anything solid in that area though. Perhaps it's just telecom envy. :-) One person reminded me I didn't give the publisher of the book, 2020 Vision by Stan Davis and Bill Davidson. They then proceeded to fail to give me their return e-mail address (of course the header was munged). Well, for the record it is published by Simon and Schuster. Their address is: Simon & Schuster Building Rockefeller Center 1230 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020 ISBN # 0-671-73237-4 Thanks for all the help. Cheers! randy Uucp: randy@rls.uucp Bangpath: ...!osu-cis!rls!randy Internet: rls!randy@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #662 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26418; 24 Aug 91 6:28 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02598; 24 Aug 91 4:59 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad00806; 24 Aug 91 3:51 CDT Date: Sat, 24 Aug 91 3:02:15 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #663 BCC: Message-ID: <9108240302.ab25451@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 24 Aug 91 03:02:06 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 663 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Satellite? [Floyd Davidson] Re: Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Satellite? [Christopher Lott] Re: Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Satellite? [Herman R. Silbiger] Re: Cable TV Competition [Tad Cook] Re: Cable TV Competition [Nick Sayer] Re: RISKS of Calling 911 From Cellular Phones [Michael A. Covington] Risks of Calling 911 From Radio Links [Ed Greenberg] Re: Vulnerability of Telephone and Power Lines [David Hawkins] Re: Pac*Bell is Eager to Begin [Brett G. Person] Re: NYNEX to Charge For 411 in Massachusetts as of 9/14/91 [Henry Schaffer] Re: NYNEX to Charge For 411 in Massachusetts as of 9/14/91 [Dave Niebuhr] Re: Billing INTRA-Lata Calling to My Carrier [Jack Dominey] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Satellite? Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1991 01:28:23 GMT In article dill@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dill) writes: > When calling from Champaign, IL to a friend on Long Island NY I > find the conversation often drops into what can be called half-duplex. Are you getting a satellite circuit on that route? What carrier are you using? !! > If I am talking and she is not, > her side of the conversation seems to 'drop.' Ie: I hear nothing from > her end. It is very annoying and noticable when there is somekind of > background noise whether it just be line noise or a TV on in the > background. I find myself going "hello, hello?" (to her annoyance > also..). I think I remember hearing some years ago that the > coversation does indeed go half duplex because the signal is going > over a satellite. When one side of the connection is silent the > satellite releases the channel for someone else. When they start to > talk again it reconnects it. Is this the case? It might be the case. The old way of doing satellite circuits was called SCPC, Single Channel Per Carrier, which puts up a single FM modulated carrer for each voice channel. It is voice actuated, so it does in fact drop out when you don't talk. The point at which it comes up is -32 to -36 dB below test tone level. Background noise in many locations is just about that. You can hear dogs bark, kids cry and scream, and loud blower motors. And it is in fact annoying when it cuts in and out. If it is not adjusted correctly (say it won't cut in until 5 or 10 dB louder than it should), it is extremely annoying. There are other types of equipment that actually do use a different channel every time you start talking ... They really sound bad. I don't think any major carrier is still using it. Most satellite systems being installed now use one carrier per T1 group. The carrier is always present and there is no VOX to make it click and clunk. The digital systems also use echo suppression instead of echo cancellors, which is another big improvement. On the old systems you can hear the EC cut in and out if you both talk at the same time. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 11:46:39 -0400 From: Christopher Lott Subject: Re: Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Satellite Organization: University of Maryland Dept of Computer Science About so-called half-duplex phone calls: I noticed similar behavior on calls from Ohio (614-486) to Maryland (301-699) on MCI -- calls from Mom. Dead silence while I was speaking, and a very slight lapse before the line began to transmit her speech when she said something. All of these calls were during cheap rate periods, I think mostly Saturday and Sunday. It didn't happen on every call, though. If the room where you are is noisy, you don't notice. It took me a while to go from thinking "this connection is poor, hmm, oh well" to "gosh, it's DEAD silent when I'm speaking, this feels like a multiplexed line!" Now I'm at 301-422, a few miles away, and it hasn't happened yet that I've noticed. Or maybe it's always been noisy when she calls ;-) Christopher Lott \/ Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 cml@cs.umd.edu /\ 4122 AV Williams Bldg 301 405-2721 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 21:07:16 EDT From: Herman R Silbiger Subject: Re: Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Satellite? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article , hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes: > Actually, this can happen on just about any long-distance circuit that > is going through circuit multiplication equipment that uses TASI (Time > Assignment Speech Interpolation), including international submarine > cables (including fiber) and satellites. TASI takes advantage of the > fact that most of the time only one side of the connection is active, > and allows the other direction to be used for other conversations. In Actually, TASI is rapidly being replaced by a newere technology called DCME, Digital Circuit Multiplication Equipment. This not only performs TASI like functions, but also recodes the speech to a lower bit rate, currently 16 Kbps. The equipment also demodulates facsimile and transmits it at baseband, gaining a 6:1 advantage. For packet transmission there is a similar PCME. None of the major carriers uses TASI or DCME domestically. Herman Silbiger ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cable TV Competition From: Tad Cook Date: 23 Aug 91 22:58:30 GMT shawng@pro-charlotte.cts.com (Shawn Goodin) writes: > I'll try the dipoles ... if I wanted to cut one for, say, channel 7, > wonder what the measurements should be? Here it is ... more than you wanted to know. For the half wave dipoles that Nick was describing, the approximate length for each TV channel would be: Channel length 2 8', 2 1/2 " 3 7' 5 1/8 " 4 6' 9 3/8 " 5 5' 11 " 6 5' 6 " 7 2' 7 3/4 " 8 2' 6 11/16 " 9 2' 5 3/4 " 10 2' 4 3/4 " 11 2' 3 5/16 " 12 2' 3 1/8 " 13 2' 2 3/8 " For a half wavelength in feet, divide 468 by frequency in MHz. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP or, kt7h@polari.uucp or, 3288544@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: Nick Sayer Subject: Re: Cable TV Competition Organization: The Duck Pond public unix, Stockton, CA Date: 24 Aug 1991 04:48:56 UTC shawng@pro-charlotte.cts.com (Shawn Goodin) writes: > mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us (Nick Sayer) writes: >> 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. > Unfortunately, no such luck. I believe the usual reason for the > restriction is to preserve the "look and value" of the homes in the > neighborhood -- heaven forbid that those unsightly antennas and dishes > would dare contribute to urban decay/blight/home values. Still, FOAF word has it that this has occured in at least one case. And most HOAs and CATV companies are just slimy enough to do this sort of thing. > [Moderator's Note: I'm not going to do all this math at this hour of > the morning. [...] The length of a dipole is half the length of the wave you want. The length of a wave in meters is 300/x where x is the frequency in MHz. Channel 7 is 174-180 MHz. Split the difference to get 177. 300/177 is 1.694915. Divide that by 2 and you get 84.745 centimeters. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to convert that into inches, but it's a few inches short of a yard. Purists will bitch and moan that light doesn't travel 300 km/s in a wire, but I've never known it to make a difference, and certainly not when trying to receive a signal 6 MHz wide, let alone a band of 6 of them. Nick Sayer mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us N6QQQ 209-952-5347 (Telebit) ------------------------------ From: "Michael A. Covington" Subject: Re: RISKS of Calling 911 From Cellular Phones Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 02:48:30 GMT That is a sad story. In our county, *any* emergency service is equipped to take requests for any other, and to route them to the proper place immediately. When I see traffic accidents, I often use our ham repeater to inform authorities. The best way to do this is to call University of Georgia Security and tell them what's going on. They are the least busy of the various dispatchers, they are accustomed to dealing with high technology (i.e., they don't disbelieve any technology they aren't familiar with), and they are very good at getting messages to the right place in a hurry. Michael A. Covington | Artificial Intelligence Programs The University of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602 U.S.A. mcovingt@aisun1.ai.uga.edu mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 11:33 PDT From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Risks of Calling 911 From Radio Links A recent poster discussed problems calling in non auto-related emergencies to the 911 center servicing cellular phones. Many systems hand all cellular 911 calls to the highway patrol, for example. Ham operators are subject to similar problems. We use repeaters with interfaced telephone lines for reporting emergencies. A call to 911 is useless, since it will typically get the 911 center that dispatches for the repeater site, usually a desolate mountain top. The dispatcher cannot understand how somebody on the mountaintop could be reporting an emergency on the freeway, or in downtown. As a result, and due to the patchwork of cities and towns in the Santa Clara Valley, most repeaters offer between ten and twenty emergency autodials, to reach police and fire services for the various jurisdictions in the area. This makes it difficult for us to offer emergency autodial to hams not previously affiliated with the repeater sponsor. One local repeater owner is an 18 year veteran dispatcher for the county sheriff. He is unable to effect a notation on his E-911 record that would indicate that the caller is on a mobile phone. They just don't have the facility. It's frustrating, at best, and I have to keep emergency autodial codes for three repeaters in the car. edg ------------------------------ From: David Hawkins Subject: Re: Vulnerability of Telephone and Power Lines Date: 23 Aug 91 16:31:58 GMT Organization: Sybase, Inc. In the referenced article, leichter@lrw.com (Jerry Leichter) wrote: > In a recent TELECOM, Steven Gutfreund wonders why storms always seem > to hit power lines more severely than telephone lines, even if both > are on the same pole. The difference is that power lines are normally insulated by air, and phone lines with a more solid form of insulation. Storms have more impact on the insulating properties of air. ;-) > Not only that, but for safety one would > never simply reset a tripped breaker -- it's important to first ensure > that the line downstream is safe. It takes time just to walk the > length of the line and check. A couple of hundred tripped breakers > can take a while to reset, even if no wires are actually down. In theory that might be nice, but it doesn't often happen in practice. I've reset breakers that were feeding 20 miles of line. The actual delay is the length of time that is the total of (1) time until someone calls the power company, (2) time until the power company can catch an available employee, and (3) length of time until the employee can get to the breaker. In one case the customers on one branch line didn't call in for 48 hours, so it was more than 48 hours before they got service resumed. Later, (former employee of Georgia Power) David Hawkins dhawk@sybase.com ------------------------------ From: Brett G Person Subject: Re: Pac*Bell is Eager to Begin Date: 23 Aug 91 12:43:11 GMT Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND I think this is a BAD THING. These people can barely find a local number for me now. It taks them a couple days to fix a simple problem with my phone line -- and they still charge me for it. Come to think of it, wasn't AT&T broken up in the first place because they had too strong a hold on communications? Brett G. Person North Dakota State University uunet!plains!person | person@plains.bitnet | person@plains.nodak.edu ------------------------------ From: "Henry E. Schaffer" Subject: Re: NYNEX to Charge For 411 in Massachusetts as of 9/14/91 Reply-To: "Henry E. Schaffer" Organization: NCSU Computing Center Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1991 15:14:43 GMT In article elm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (ethan miller) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 656, Message 5 of 10 > In article rnewman@bbn.com (Ron > Newman) writes: > ... I see nothing wrong with this charge, as long as the phone > company is willing to provide free directories for local areas (and > exemptions for those who can't use the directories). I suggest that they should not charge for information on numbers which were issued after the directory was issued. This gets to be a concern when the directory is nearly a year old. henry schaffer n c state univ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1991 12:45:22 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" Subject: Re: NYNEX to Charge For 411 in Massachusetts as of 9/14/91 In article rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman) writes: > From a New England Telephone bill insert: > Calling Directory Assistance more than ten times > a month may add to your telephone bill. > Beginning September 14, 1991, residence customers will be charged 34 > cents for each directly dialed Directory Assistance call made in > excess of ten calls per month. For example, if you make 20 calls to > Directory Assistance during your billing month, you will be charged > for ten calls totalling $3.40. The customers of the New York Telephone portion of NYNEX get charged as soon as three calls have passed and that may go the way of the dinosaurs if the Telco gets its way. I can't state with any degree of accuracy, but I seem to remember that the NY Tel calls to 411 cost more, too. On the surface, it sounds like the Utility (oops - Public) Service Commissions may have a little more backbone in the NE Tel portion of NYNEX than NY Tel. Dave Niebuhr Brookhaven National Laboratory Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov ------------------------------ From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Fri Aug 23 11:02:45 EDT 1991 Subject: Re: Billing INTRA-Lata Calling to My Carrier In Digest Volume 11 : Issue 656, Jack Decker writes: > Yep, sure is. MetroNet (a company out of Lansing) does this too, and > they offer some interesting features that are unique to their company > ... like the first 47 seconds of every call are free (if your call is > completed within 47 seconds, you're not charged for it) ... I have > to believe they lose some money doing things like this, but they must > make it back somewhere. This is an interesting "feature". Sounds to me as though MetroNet doesn't have answer supervision, so they just crank up the biller 47 seconds after they get the call. Be sure you hang up any call if the other end rings seven times -- I'll bet you get billed if you wait until after the eighth ring. On second thought, that's optimistic. How much of that 47 seconds gets eaten up *before* the other end rings, anyway? (My guess is about 17, with the other 30 being the real 'grace period'.) If my somewhat educated guess is correct, they make their money back on calls that never complete. Also, thanks for a lucid explanation of the how's and why's of intra-LATA dialling in Michigan. I've seen lots of discussion of this topic, but usually the guesswork/information ratio is much higher. Jack Dominey AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA 404-496-6925 AT&T Mail: !dominey or !bsga05!jdominey ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #663 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13072; 25 Aug 91 5:24 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31711; 25 Aug 91 0:13 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08976; 24 Aug 91 23:04 CDT Date: Sat, 24 Aug 91 22:22:20 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs Subject: A Decade of TELECOM Digest: 10 Years Old Today! BCC: Message-ID: <9108242222.ab26940@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> This weekend marks the tenth anniversary of the founding of TELECOM Digest, which began August 24-25, 1981. TELECOM Digest was begun as an offshoot of the HUMAN-NETS discussion group on the Arpanet of those days. There had been some technical discussion about phones that summer on the HUMAN-NETS group, and it was decided to move the technical phone stuff to a list of its own for people who were interested. Thus, TELECOM Digest was started with Jon Solomon as the Moderator. The first message in the Digest was one of introduction, and explained the purposes of the new mailing list. That first message appears below: 25-Aug-81 01:35:31-EDT,0013963;000000000001 Date: 25 Aug 1981 0135-EDT From: JSOL Subject: TELECOM Digest V1 #1 To: Telecom: ; TELECOM AM Digest Tuesday, 24 Aug 1981 Volume 1 : Issue 1 Today's Topics: Administrivia - Welcome Aboard USRNET - Alternative to A. T. & T. Problems with Dimension - One Persons Views ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Aug 1981 0118-EDT From: the Moderator Subject: Administrivia Welcome to TELECOM. This digest is a spinoff from the HUMAN-NETS discussion on the telephone network and switching equipment. Parts of this digest are in fact submissions to HUMAN-NETS which were never published, and are presented here to spark the discussion. The archive for this is in the usual place, DUFFEY;_DATA_ TELCOM at MIT-AI, and we will shortly be adding to the archive the discussions that have taken place in HUMAN-NETS relating to telecommunications. I will be moderating this list from Rutgers, as I do with POLI-SCI, but you can still send mail to TELECOM@MIT-AI, or TELECOM@RUTGERS. If you want to communicate with the maintainers then you should send mail to TELECOM-REQUEST@MIT-AI, or TELECOM-REQUEST@RUTGERS. Enjoy, JSol ----------------------- JSol, as he was known to many netters of the day, was employed at the time by Rutgers University, and maintained the list from his work station there. Eventually Jon Solomon wound up at Boston University, and the Digest was published there for a couple years. When personal problems forced Jon to give up his work with the Digest, I assumed the responsibility of Moderator in November, 1988. I continued using the facilitites of Boston University to publish the Digest and maintain the Telecom Archives for few months, pending a move to a more locally based site here in the Chicago area. And early in 1989, the Digest relocated at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, where I am the guest of the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department of the University. Jon continued as a technical advisor to the Digest for a few more months, until further personal matters forced him to 'resign' completely from networking. For about two years now, he has no network access of any kind. Although Usenet's 'comp.dcom.telecom' newsgroup was originally a separate group entirely (and technically, still is separate from the Digest), for a few years now, the Digest has been gatewayed to Usenet for the benefit of many readers there who prefer to read telecom as part of net news rather than through a separate e-mailing. The gateway to Usenet had been inoperative for about a year during the middle eighties, but resumed in 1988 when Chip Rosenthal agreed to maintain it for awhile while I was publishing the Digest in Boston. Once the relocation to Northwestern was complete, the postmaster here at the time (Jacob Gore) helped set up the gateway to operate from here, and I took over the responsibility for it as well as the Digest itself. Just as TELECOM Digest itself was spun-off from HUMAN-NETS now a decade ago, two recent groups had their origin in telecom: The Computer Underground Digest began when discussion of 'hacking and phreaking' versus the legal ramifications of same began to dominate telecom. Then later, the Telecom Privacy Digest began as an overflow for messages from telecom on the controversial topic of Caller-ID, and it has since expanded to include discussions on many aspects of privacy and telecom. Originally, TELECOM Digest was distributed only via the Internet and Bitnet. For the past couple years, distribution has been considerably expanded to include delivery on mcimail.com, attmail.com, sprintmail.com, fidonet.org, and various international networks. From a limited number of reader/participants in the summer, 1981 the readership has grown to about 50,000 readers daily. And speaking of readers, several of the readers have been around since issue one ... they know who they are, and if I tried to list them here I would surely forget some by accident. But the real increase in readership has occurred in the past two years. The early issues of the Digest talked about 'rumors' of new services AT&T was starting which have since become quite commonplace. Writers in the early eighties pondered whether or not the divestiture of AT&T would actually happen, or if the company would be spared. When divestiture finally did take place, the Moderator called for discussion on the historic changes which were then going on. By that time, Jon Solomon was publishing the Digest at USC-ECLB. The Digest started 1983 with this note: 1-Jan-83 23:18:53-PST,8663;000000000001 Return-path: JSOL@USC-ECLB Mail-From: JSOL created at 1-Jan-83 21:01:26 Date: 1 Jan 1983 2101-PST From: Jon Solomon Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #1 Sender: JSOL@USC-ECLB To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Saturday, 1 January 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 1 Today's Topics: Administrivia - New Year - New Volume - TCP/IP Cutover Life Line Service And Unmeasured Service Interstate Vs Intrastate Long Distance ANI Failures Common In Some Areas Holiday Dialing Trivia Mixed Flat- And Timed/Measured- Service In Providence, RI ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 January 1983 2045-PST From: The Moderator Subject: Administrivia First of all, I wish to extend best wishes to all of TELECOM's readers on this new year. This year marks the beginning of the deregulation of Telephone companies across the country. I would like to encourage discussion of what the telephone companies seem to be doing now that they are in a more relaxed regulatory market. I heard a rumor that at 1201 AM on Jan 1st, AT&T opened a computer company, anyone have news about that? Also, there are some articles on measured service, and while I realize that this is a hot issue right now, I would like to remind everybody that TELECOM (and the ARPANET for that matter) cannot be used to rally support for any particular viewpoint because the DCA consideres that abuse of the network resources. TELECOM is forced to comply with this. Please, no political messages, thanks. We are now in Volume 3. Volume 2 has 141 issues in it, the last issue of Volume 2 (#141) was delivered on December 28th. If you did not receive it, please let me know. Also, the ARPANET is now running TCP (Transmission Control Protocol)/IP (Internet Protocol) instead of NCP (Network Control Protocol). Basically this transmission protocol was developed to facilitate the growing number of networks and media to connect them with. This protocol is expected to bring a great improvement in functionality over the next coming months, but during the initial phases of installation, stability on the ARPANET is expected to be marginal (if at all). If you receive garbled digests, or repeated copies, it is most likely due to this conversion. Finally, I wish to publicly apologize to Alyson Abramowitz, who sent the note about the DEC ENet addressing bug. She apparently did not wish me to broadcast her note on the digest (she sent it to TELECOM-REQUEST, and I felt it was appropriate to distribute as useful information, but I neglected to ask her permission). Once again, I wish everyone an excellent year in 1983! [--JSol--] The reference to 'AM', as in TELECOM AM Digest was a mystery to me at first, but Jon explained it saying in the early days the estimate was that two issues would be necessary some days, with news items in the AM or morning edition, and overflow discussion in the PM edition. But the so-called PM edition never really got off the ground, and in actual practice, Jon published the Digest as time permitted each day. His call for a discussion of divestiture brought forth this response from a reader several days later: 11-Jan-83 15:18:19-PST,6004;000000000000 Return-path: JSOL@USC-ECLB Mail-From: JSOL created at 11-Jan-83 15:13:20 Date: 11 Jan 1983 1513-PST From: Jon Solomon Subject: TELECOM Digest V3 #3 To: TELECOM: ; Reply-To: TELECOM at USC-ECLB TELECOM AM Digest Wednesday, 12 January 1983 Volume 3 : Issue 3 Today's Topics: Baby Bell - The First Day Cellular Mobile In Washington, D.C. Area V&H, Area Codes 307 & 308 Query - How To Deal With Harrassing Phone Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed 5 Jan 83 17:02:33-PST From: Jim Celoni S.J. Subject: 1st-day encounter w/ Baby Bell We've been deciding on a new PBX, and Pacific Telephone was one of the contenders. I decided to call our account executive Monday, but didn't have her number at the new local American Bell, Inc. office (a different building from Pac Tel), so called her old number. A secretary from another group answered and told me what she thought the new number was. I called it and got a recording ("not in service ... no referral"), so called our Pac Tel Market Administrator (who worked with her on the proposal). He said he couldn't give me her number, that he'd signed an agreement that if he talked business to an ABI rep without a customer designating ABI as its agent, he was fired. (He also said that last year he had ten accounts, now 300.) So I called local directory assistance, but all they had was one American Bell *PhoneCenter* (there are many in the area!). Then I called 415 directory assistance, which gave me the SF office, which gave me the numbers for the ABI National Response Center (800/ 247-1212), which gave me another SF office I could call collect (but "wasn't likely to be for our account"--we're over cutoff of 40 stations), which gave me a local ABI employee's number, which I called but got no answer. Then I called 800 information, which gave me an ABI "general business" number (800/ 521-5221), which gave me a local "general business" number (also 800, even though office is 3 mi away) . The one at the last number didn't know whether our rep or her boss worked there, but that I'd gotten the right number. Next, I called the local ABI employee, who answered this time and had numbers for my AE and her boss (and the correct local office number, which differed from the one that gave me the recording in one digit). I was disconnected when she tried to transfer the call to her. (Today I found out the ABI office has a Dimension PBX, incidentally.) I talked with the AE today, who gave me her address (but didn't know zip) and said she still has the file on us she had as a Pac Tel employee, except for the network-related binders she couldn't take. She confirmed the PBX pricing she preannounced last month (20% off tariffs--still high--and no change on Applications Processor). Switches still aren't for sale, but peripherals will be (are?), and other maintenance options will be available (less service for less cost). According to her, the local ABI office is now a profit center--if it doesn't achieve E-to-R (expenses to revenue) ratio better than 12:1 this year, it vanishes. ABI is part of AIS (AT&T Information Systems), as is AT&T International. At mid-year, when the Operating Companies' installed base (e.g. existing Dimensions & Horizons) is transferred to ABI, ATIX (AT&T IntereXchange Service) will become part of AIS to handle current Long Lines accounts. Finally, she said there's a lot she still doesn't know. (From my understanding of the breakup, it's not clear some of what she told me is right, either--please publish corrections.) Many questions remain about Baby Bell, big and little. (Our former Pac Tel repairman works for ABI now. What will he be doing until the installed base moves?) I hope to hear about developments, as they break, in TELECOM. +j -------------- And indeed there were many messages in the Digest throughout 1983 talking about the historic breakup of 'Ma Bell'. Not everyone then or now agrees divestiture was in the public interest, and one frequent contributor in years past to the Digest sent along his feelings in the form of a song: 12-Jul-83 09:14:32-PDT,4930;000000000001 Return-path: <@LBL-CSAM:vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM> Received: from LBL-CSAM by USC-ECLB; Tue 12 Jul 83 09:12:46-PDT Date: Tuesday, 12-Jul-83 01:18:19-PDT From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: "The Day Bell System Died" Return-Path: Message-Id: <8307121614.AA17341@LBL-CSAM.ARPA> Received: by LBL-CSAM.ARPA (3.327/3.21) id AA17341; 12 Jul 83 09:14:35 PDT (Tue) To: TELECOM@ECLB Greetings. With the massive changes now taking place in the telecommunications industry, we're all being inundated with seemingly endless news items and points of information regarding the various effects now beginning to take place. However, one important element has been missing: a song! Since the great Tom Lehrer has retired from the composing world, I will now attempt to fill this void with my own light-hearted, non-serious look at a possible future of telecommunications. This work is entirely satirical, and none of its lyrics are meant to be interpreted in a non-satirical manner. The song should be sung to the tune of Don Mclean's classic "American Pie". I call my version "The Day Bell System Died"... --Lauren-- ************************************************************************** *==================================* * Notice: This is a satirical work * *==================================* "The Day Bell System Died" Lyrics Copyright (C) 1983 by Lauren Weinstein (To the tune of "American Pie") (With apologies to Don McLean) ARPA: vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM UUCP: {decvax, ihnp4, harpo, ucbvax!lbl-csam, randvax}!vortex!lauren ************************************************************************** Long, long, time ago, I can still remember, When the local calls were "free". And I knew if I paid my bill, And never wished them any ill, That the phone company would let me be... But Uncle Sam said he knew better, Split 'em up, for all and ever! We'll foster competition: It's good capital-ism! I can't remember if I cried, When my phone bill first tripled in size. But something touched me deep inside, The day... Bell System... died. And we were singing... Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? Is your office Step by Step, Or have you gotten some Crossbar yet? Everybody used to ask... Oh, is TSPS coming soon? IDDD will be a boon! And, I hope to get a Touch-Tone phone, real soon... The color phones are really neat, And direct dialing can't be beat! My area code is "low": The prestige way to go! Oh, they just raised phone booths to a dime! Well, I suppose it's about time. I remember how the payphones chimed, The day... Bell System... died. And we were singing... Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? Back then we were all at one rate, Phone installs didn't cause debate, About who'd put which wire where... Installers came right out to you, No "phone stores" with their ballyhoo, And 411 was free, seemed very fair! But FCC wanted it seems, To let others skim long-distance creams, No matter 'bout the locals, They're mostly all just yokels! And so one day it came to pass, That the great Bell System did collapse, In rubble now, we all do mass, The day... Bell System... died. So bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? I drove on out to Murray Hill, To see Bell Labs, some time to kill, But the sign there said the Labs were gone. I went back to my old CO, Where I'd had my phone lines, years ago, But it was empty, dark, and ever so forlorn... No relays pulsed, No data crooned, No MF tones did play their tunes, There wasn't a word spoken, All carrier paths were broken... And so that's how it all occurred, Microwave horns just nests for birds, Everything became so absurd, The day... Bell System... died. So bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? We were singing: Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? ------------------ The new features available on phones in the middle eighties were the source of many messages here. One contributor to the Digest from the very beginning -- and still we hear from him now and again -- was John Covert. A problem submitted to columnist Ann Landers caught his eye, and he forwarded it to the group: Date: 14-Jan-1983 09:42 From: decwrl!RHEA::CASTOR::J_COVERT%Shasta at Sumex-Aim Subject: Call Waiting makes it to Ann Landers Dear Ann Landers: What is proper when one has the new telephone device that allows a person to receive a second call while engaged in a first? I believe it is rude to cut off the first caller just because another call comes in. A once-close friend of mine always did that. Recently she bawled me out for avoiding her, complained that I never call anymore. Just as I began to explain, her phone clicked. She told me she had to take another call. Unless the second call is an emergency, I believe one should tell the second caller, "I have someone on the line and will return your call as soon as possible," then go back to the first call and wind it up gracefully. Right or wrong? - San Antonio You are right. This problem is one I've been hearing a lot about since all the high-tech telephone equipment has been popping up. Thanks for writing. -------------- Imagine considering call-waiting to be 'high-tech'! But when the Digest started, almost all the readers were serviced from crossbar or step switch central offices. Things like Caller-ID and CLASS were unheard of except by a very few people working on developing them. John Covert also submitted about the same time a message discussing the 'new' cellular phone system being installed in Washington, DC. In fact, cellular service was still new and a novelty all over the United States during the early eighties. A review of old issues of TELECOM Digest during this time period found several messages from people wanting to know what cellular service was and how it worked. Someone said to me that none of the topics in the Digest are new any longer, that all have been discussed in the past, and this is probably true. Today we talk about area code splits and the new calling cards being issued. In 1984, Carl Moore and John Covert both discussed the 'new' area code 818, and how well or poorly it was being phased in at telco offices around the USA. This special issue of the Digest noting the tenth anniversary could go on and on with old messages from the past, but I would hardly know where to begin and where to stop. To review the back issues of the Digest, clear back to the beginning in 1981, all you need to do is use anonymous ftp to lcs.mit.edu, and pull back issues to your heart's content. You'll no doubt be amazed at the topics under discussion eight, nine and ten years ago ... and how indeed, there is 'nothing new' in the Digest today. But there are new topics of course, things that none of the readers in those days imagined would occur. In the begining days, the Telecom Archives was intended to simply be a repository for back issues, but as time went on, various files were also stored away with items of interest. Today, the Telecom Archives is loaded with interesting files on a variety of subjects of interest in areas of telephony. Like the Digest itself, the archives have been stored at various institutions. Shortly after I assumed responsibility for the Digest at Boston University, the archives (which were stored there at the time) were moved to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where a huge amount of room had been set aside. At BU we were unfortunatly running out of space, and the older issues had to be compressed. Even then, space was at a premium. Not so at lcs.mit.edu, where we have many times more space alloted for the archives than in the past. In another message over this tenth anniversary weekend, I'll post a current index of files available in the archives, with instructions for obtaining them for yourself, if you wish to read the back issues or other interesting items we have stored there. Here's hoping the Digest is around ten years from now, in 2001! Goodnight. Patrick Townson TELECOM Moderator   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13076; 25 Aug 91 5:24 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06233; 25 Aug 91 3:49 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08300; 25 Aug 91 2:39 CDT Date: Sun, 25 Aug 91 1:41:52 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #665 BCC: Message-ID: <9108250141.ab26292@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 25 Aug 91 01:41:34 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 665 Inside This Issue: A Decade of TELECOM (1981-91) Re: Need Phone Number For Compression Labs [John Higdon] Re: NET's Call Answering Service [John Higdon] Re: AT&T Data Network [Jack Decker] Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service [Conrad Nobili] Re: Telephones in Elevators [Randal L. Schwartz] Re: Cable TV Competition [John Higdon] Re: Looking For a Phone Line Simulator [Patton M. Turner] Half-Duplex Phone Conversations via Speakerphone [Dan Jacobson] Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [David B. Thomas] Re: Help Wanted: Just an Address! [Dan Fandrich] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 24 Aug 91 01:28 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Need Phone Number For Compression Labs robelr@ucs.indiana.edu (Allen Robel) writes: > Does anyone have a phone number or address for Compression Labs, maker > of codecs and MCUs? From the San Jose telephone directory: Compression Labs 2860 Junction Avenue San Jose, CA 408 435-3000 John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Aug 91 02:25 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: NET's Call Answering Service Jon Sreekanth writes: > On the whole, I'm not pleased with it. In the beginning, the only > advantage of a service over my trusty Panasonic answering machine was > the potential that no caller would ever hear a busy. Given the various > flaws, I'm tempted to ask: is it just the residential service that's > crippled, or does the business service also have all the above > restrictions? Actually, compared to an answering machine, the service is lacking in many ways. You are severely limited as to storage capacity. As you pointed out there is no toll saver, no conveniently adjustable rings, and (now get this) poorer reliability. WHAT? -- you say. Why that is one of the big selling points. It is in all the commercials for the product. Well, look at it this way. On Thurday, the Pac*Bell "Message Center" died in the Bay Area for about a day. According to Pac*Bell, the problem was caused by failure in TWO pieces of hardware. Now was someone inconvenienced because an answering machine failed? No, THOUSANDS of people were inconvenienced because an answering machine failed. Reliability? My answering machine has not skipped a beat in many years. Ask any user of the "Message Center" if the service has been that dependable. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Aug 91 09:42:00 EDT From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: AT&T Data Network In a message dated 17 Aug 91 17:39:17 GMT, 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. Strangely enough, while this number may work from lower Michigan, it apparently does not yet work from the 906 area code (Michigan's Upper Peninsula), 632 exchange (Sault Ste. Marie). And it's not that 950- numbers are completely blocked from here, because 950-1232 reaches Superior Telecom (however, it does seem to be "no man's land" for certain other carriers - 950-1022 [MCI] reaches an intercept operator, as does the 950-1288 number you mentioned along with any other invalid 950-number, but 950-1033 [Sprint?] yields a busy signal and 950-1488 [ITT?] cuts to a reorder [fast busy] after a LONG delay). You would think that if ANYBODY's 950 access number would work correctly, it would be AT&T's, but it doesn't, so it isn't truly national access yet (of course, this is the same phone exchange that blocks 950- calls that originate from coin phones, so who knows what sort of weird programming they've got in this switch?). > 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? I don't, but I hope someone else picks up on this. > 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. I truly wish that somebody like GEnie would do this. As I understand it, 950- numbers are SUPPOSED to be accessible from an entire LATA, and can usually be made to work by dialing the number as given, or with a preceeding "0" or "1" in some older exchanges, or failing all of that, by complaining to the PUC (this works in Bell and possibly GTE areas, but I wouldn't guarantee that an independent would open up access to these numbers ... does anyone know the legality of an independent telco deliberately blocking calls to 950- numbers?). Actually, I'd like to know what the costs are to have a 950 access number. I would imagine that there is a monthly charge, but are calls to 950 numbers also charged by the minute? If so, does the charge vary depending on where the call originates, or is it a flat rate no matter where in the LATA the call is coming from? Does it vary depending on the time of day? And can any firm get a 950 number, or is it only available to "common carriers?" Just curious... Jack Fido: Via D'Bridge 1:232/10 08/22 17:22 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1991 18:17:13 -0500 From: conrad_nobili@harvard.edu Subject: Re: Cheap Foreagn Exchange Service In , TONY@mcgill1.bitnet (Tony Harminc) wrote: > marcelm@joymrmn.uucp (Marcel Mongeon) wrote: >> 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. [stuff deleted] > RCF is tariffed by Bell Canada as a business service only. At our > outrageous 800 rates however, it might conceivably come out worth > while. [more stuff deleted] > [Moderator's Note: But bear in mind that the individual links in a > chain-call-forward scheme have to in total cost less than the toll > charge would otherwise. Else where is the savings? This working out > in a way financially beneficial to the subscriber is very rare. PAT] Pat, a couple others have missed the point here too.... I believe the original poster was running some sort of dial-up BBS service. It may well be that "working out in a way financially beneficial to the subscriber" was not the primary issue ... or it could be that doing so involves other elements besides phone charges. The original poster wants his BBS to be reachable by a local call from Toronto. This way he reaches more people and his BBS gets more widely known. Or maybe he even *charges* for access to his BBS (I'm not saying he does -- I don't recall that he said either way in his original post -- the point is that he *could*) in which case the equation to determine whether his setup was "financially beneficial to the subscriber" would involve these charges. So, it sounds like his scheme may be a reasonable one. If he really can reach more people (in Toronto) with this setup, and they are paying enough to him for BBS access, obviously, he will have to do some math first, as it sounds reasonably elaborate and he will only get *one* connection from Toronto to Hamilton at a time unless he gets business service and RCF. His computation will involve estimates of how many subscribers he will get from Toronto that he wouldn't otherwise if he just charges flat monthly rates; how many calls each of these people will be able to get through the single path if he charges on a per-call basis; what percentage the line will be used if he charges per minute of access. Conrad C. Nobili Harvard University Internet: conrad_nobili@harvard.edu Office for Info. Tech. BITNET: CONRAD AT HARVARDA 1730 Cambridge Street voice: (617) 495-8554 Cambridge, MA 02138 fax: (617) 495-0715 [Moderator's Note: The largest companies in the USA wish to have their customers be able to call them conveniently from anywhere and everywhere. So they use in-wats (800) service; they use foreign exchange service; they use tie-lines. Please note they do NOT chain several call-forwards together. What do they know that our BBS sysop is missing? They know that the cost of two or more local calls plus the associated recurring line charges, etc are not an efficient and less expensive approach. If our BBS correspondent wishes to receive calls from a wide area and pay for those calls as a part of the cost of promoting his BBS, I assume he wants to do it as inexpensively as possible also. Therefore the way to go is with 800 or FX; both are perfectly legal in business (not quasi-legal at best) as is the chain forwarding scheme. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Aug 91 17:14:48 PDT From: "Randal L. Schwartz" Subject: Re: Telephones in Elevators Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA In article you write: > (him) Okay what I'm gonna do is crank by hand, and lower you to eight. > The door circuit is working okay so when it levels on eight the door > will come open by itself. > And true to his word, the car started c-r-e-e-p-i-n-g slowly downward. > After thirty seconds or so of this, it stopped, and the door opened; > a welcome sight indeed on the eighth floor. I told him I was getting > out and hung up the phone. The car stood there for a few seconds and > the doors closed. It apparently remained parked there until the repair > man came around to fix the problem. Interesting. If he's cranking it by hand, it should have been easier to take you *up* to nine, instead of down to eight, because the counterbalances are typically set for a "half-full" load. I wonder why he chose to lower you instead. Hmm... Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn [Moderator's Note: I won't swear to it, but I think he tried that, and said something about it was 'locking up on him' so we would go the other way instead. Shows what I know about elevator machinery! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Aug 91 18:41 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Cable TV Competition Roy Stehle writes: > I have a friend whose home has such a restriction. We mounted a > standard TV (log periodic) antenna in his attic suspended from the > rafters. There is a slight attenuation from the roof, but the added > gain and installation height of the antenna gave superior results over > a set of rabbit ears. There is a distinction that has not been mentioned yet. You should determine whether the restriction on antennas is via covenent in the deed or a local law or ordinance. If written into the deed or other land use agreement, then you are hosed. If it is simply a law or ordinance, there is a workaround. Get your ham ticket. Then put up whatever towers and antennas you deem necessary to pursue your hobby. No local law or ordinance can prevent you from doing this (per applicable Federal Titles). While you are at it, you might slip in some wideband antennas that are capable of receiving various bands from 54 Mhz to around 700 Mhz (otherwise known as TV antennas). After all, hams have TV as well as SSB, CW, RTTY, etc. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Aug 91 23:42:26 CDT From: "Patton M. Turner" Subject: Re: Looking For a Phone Line Simulator Dan Everhart asks about phone line simulators to test modem performance under marginal conditions. Micro Seven Inc. makes such a device. It allows one to simulate amplitude and frequency dependant attenuation, as well as distortion. I have never used this model so I can't comment on it. The only line simulators I have used were made by Progressive Electronics or Proctor. Both companies build reliable equipiment and may make what you need. Jensen sells the Micro Seven simulator for $1625. They should be able to fax you more info. Pat Turner KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.NOAM pturner@eng.auburn.edu ------------------------------ From: Dan_Jacobson@att.com Subject: Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Speakerphone Reply-to: Dan_Jacobson@ihlpz.att.com Date: Sat, 24 Aug 91 08:28:00 GMT Regarding Re: Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Satellite; cml@cs. umd.edu (Christopher Lott) adds: > Dead silence while I was speaking, and a very slight lapse before > the line began to transmit her speech when she said something. > "gosh, it's DEAD silent when I'm speaking, this feels like a > multiplexed line!" Don't you also hate those folks who love to put you on their low quality speakerphones? Me: "I can't tell if you're trying to interject something while I'm talking, James. As you insist on putting me on your speakerphone instead of stooping to pick up the handset, I recommend we use Citizen's Band radio protocol: "roger", "over". Over, Rover." ------------------------------ From: "David B. Thomas" Subject: Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? Organization: yenta unix pc, rio rancho, nm Date: Sat, 24 Aug 91 16:17:52 GMT I know I tuned in late on this thead, but I hope to sneak this in. I just wrote and posted a program that dials a number over and over again. I was doing this manually to try to win radio contests, and so I thought, "why no automate it?". Someone warned me that I could get into trouble. Is this true? What does this law actually say? I could understand if it were illegal to use the program, but it amazes me if I could do some hard time for publishing a totally obvious programming quickie that's actually no faster than the "redial" button on my phone. Please, no lectures on the antisocial character of such a program. I want to know what the law is. little david ------------------------------ From: Dan Fandrich Subject: Re: Help Wanted: Just an Address! Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada Date: Sat, 24 Aug 91 19:41:18 GMT > Would someone please send me the address of PC Dialog, the makers of > PC based VOX mail cards? The PC Diallog voice mail card was made by CMC International (of Seattle, I think). They were bought out six or seven years ago by Votrax (the voice synthesis IC people) and the father of a friend of mine. I don't know the whereabouts of Votrax, but Vic Greek of KTV Inc. has offered to field any questions you have at (604) 852-3842. Chances are he won't be around and you'll have to leave a message on his PC Diallog box. Dan Internet: shad04@ccu.umanitoba.ca CI$: 72365,306 FidoNet: 1:153/511.1 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #665 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29993; 25 Aug 91 11:24 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03039; 25 Aug 91 10:27 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06406; 25 Aug 91 1:22 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31711; 25 Aug 91 0:13 CDT Date: Sat, 24 Aug 91 23:12:46 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs Subject: A Decade of TELECOM Digest: The Archives Files BCC: Message-ID: <9108242312.ab10092@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest is ten years old! The Digest first began publication on August 24-25, 1981. Another message today gives a little history and background from the early days of the Digest and comp.dcom.telecom. Over this tenth anniversary weekend, I decided to bring everyone up to date on the files available in the archives, and explain how to go about pulling them as desired. There are two methods available for using Telecom Archives: 1) If you have internet ftp permission, then you can use anonymous ftp to reach the archives. a) ftp lcs.mit.edu b) login anonymous give your username@site as password c) cd telecom-archives For ease in reviewing the main and sub-directories for titles of files, you might wish to pull the files with the first word 'index' in their name. The main directory is listed below, along with one of the more popular sub-directories. Just use regular ftp commands to get the files you wish. 2) If you do NOT have internet ftp permission, then you will need to use an ftp/mail server. Bitnet sites can use the server sponsored by Princeton University, however all non-internet readers of telecom are specifically encouraged to use the mail/ftp server especially set up for telecom use. The details appeared in a help file published in the Digest in May, and are repeated below: From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: New Telecom Archives Server on Line; Current Index of Files 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) ----------------- Pat again: What Doug means is the back issues of the Digest are not yet available *via this service*. If using ftp, then of course you can get the back issues or any other desired files. When this project is finished, I believe it will be set up so that individual back issues can be pulled, at least for the most recent volumes created here at Northwestern. (We may have some problems with lack of standardization from the JSol days ... time will tell how those old issues work out.) -------- Next, I have attached here the current index to the archives, for the benefit of ftp users. *This is not the same index as Doug will give you if you use his new program*. Same articles, but use his index to order via his service. Below is the main directory, and the sub- directory devoted to telecom.security.issues. I have not included here the sub-directories on Minitel, Tymnet or a couple other things. The back issues of the Digest are in sub-directories by year and volume number. Again, I stress this is the ftp version ... Doug does not yet have any back issues of the Digest on line. We are running TWO archives right now in parallel: the one at MIT which has always been there for users with ftp-ability, and the new one at Doug's site which is gradually being constructed, although quite a bit is available now. 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. Now here is the main directory for the Telecom Archives at lcs.mit.edu updated as of 8-24-91: total 3188 drwxrwxr-x 12 telecom telecom 5632 Aug 24 23:29 ./ drwxrwxr-x 24 root wheel 1024 Aug 24 01:03 ../ drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 512 Mar 2 23:40 1981-86.volumes.1-5/ drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 512 Mar 2 23:14 1987.volumes.6-7/ drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 512 Mar 2 23:07 1988.volume.8/ drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 512 Mar 2 22:54 1989.volume.9/ drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 1024 Mar 2 22:51 1990.volume.10/ drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 512 Aug 22 02:04 1991.volume.11/ -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 663 Jan 27 1991 READ.ME.FIRST -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 25799 Sep 12 1990 abernathy.internet.story -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 68508 Mar 14 03:38 aos-new.fcc.proposals -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 68224 Nov 20 1990 aos-rules.procedures -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 60505 Feb 24 1991 apple.data.pcs.petition -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 18238 Nov 9 1990 area.214-903.split -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 35017 Mar 2 21:24 areacode.guide -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 9397 Mar 2 21:26 areacode.program.in.c -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 20826 Mar 3 00:09 areacode.script-c.moore -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 21264 Apr 14 1990 areacode.script-dupuy -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 9078 Mar 2 21:29 areacode.script-revised -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 474 Feb 11 1990 att.service.outage.1-90 -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 18937 Aug 1 1989 auto.coin.collection -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 4788 Jun 10 1990 books.about.phones -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 21702 Nov 20 1990 braux.bill.call.blocking -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 10019 Jan 27 1991 calendar.of.events.1991 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 61504 Jul 30 1990 caller-id-legal-decision -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 4569 Apr 14 21:03 caller-id-specs.bellcore -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 39449 Dec 14 1990 cellular.carrier.codes -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 16188 Mar 14 03:22 cellular.fraud.abernathy -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 2755 Mar 14 03:34 cellular.fraud.prevention -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 17016 Aug 5 1990 cellular.phones-iridium -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 24455 Feb 6 1991 cellular.program-motorola -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 15141 Aug 1 1989 cellular.sieve -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 298 May 31 1990 cellular.west.germany -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 16292 Mar 18 1990 class.ss7.features -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15023 Sep 30 1990 cocot-in-violation-label -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 38981 Oct 12 1990 cocot.complaint.sticker -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 70477 Sep 5 1990 computer.bbs.and.the.law -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 23944 Aug 1 1989 computer.state -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 9150 Jan 31 1990 country.code.list -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 11370 Feb 9 1990 country.codes.revised -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 11267 Feb 25 1990 cpid-ani.developments -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 436 Mar 16 16:54 deaf.communicate.on.tdd -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15877 Sep 1 1990 dial.tone.monopoly -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 28296 Sep 29 1990 dialup.access.in.uk -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 39319 Aug 1 1989 docket.87-215 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 13622 Aug 18 21:42 e-mail.system.survey -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 16367 Sep 1 1990 e-series.recommendations -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 3422 Jan 20 1990 early.digital.ESS -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 62602 Aug 1 1989 ecpa.1986 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 97987 Aug 4 1990 ecpa.1986.federal.laws -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 39956 Jul 14 1990 elec.frontier.foundation -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 5922 Feb 22 1991 email.middle-east.troops -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 20660 Sep 5 1990 email.privacy -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 8504 Jan 27 1990 enterprise-funny-numbers -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 19836 Nov 20 1990 fax.products.for.pc -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 33239 Aug 1 1989 fcc.policy -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 19378 Aug 1 1989 fcc.threat -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 484 Jan 14 1990 fcc.vrs.aos-ruling -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 9052 Aug 1 1989 find.pair -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 47203 Aug 1 1989 fire.in.chgo.5-88 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 1998 Jan 27 1990 fire.in.st-louis.1-90 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 377 Jan 27 1990 fires.elsewhere.in.past -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 1247 Feb 10 1990 first.issue.cover -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 14105 Nov 24 1990 genie.star-service -rw-r--r-- 1 map telecom 116881 Aug 24 23:28 glossary.acronyms -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 43101 Jan 27 1991 glossary.isdn.terms-kluge -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 42188 Jan 14 1990 glossary.phrack.acronyms -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 67113 Jan 14 1990 glossary.txt -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 68804 Feb 2 1990 hi.perf.computing.net -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 2337 Jan 27 1990 history.of.digest -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 32625 Mar 29 1990 how.numbers.are.assigned -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 31520 Aug 11 01:49 how.phones.work -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15302 Jan 20 1991 how.to.post.msgs.here -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 1616 Nov 20 1990 index-canada.npa.files -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 411 Nov 20 1990 index-minitel.files -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 0 Aug 24 23:29 index-telecom.archives -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 1715 Jun 22 22:24 index-telecom.security -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 343 Jan 20 1991 index-tymnet.info -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 936 Mar 3 00:06 intro.to.archives -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 12896 Nov 20 1990 isdn.pc.adapter-hayes -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 10590 Aug 11 01:50 lata.names-numbers.table -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 4816 Aug 1 1989 lauren.song -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 801 Aug 1 1989 ldisc.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 2271 Aug 1 1989 ldnotes.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 13675 Aug 1 1989 ldrates.txt -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 12961 Aug 18 21:42 lightning.surge.protect -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 12260 Jan 20 1990 london.ac.script -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 12069 Mar 5 1990 london.codes.script -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15604 Aug 1 1989 mass.lines -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 463 Aug 1 1989 measured-service drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 512 Nov 20 1990 minitel.info/ -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 36641 Aug 1 1989 mnp.protocol -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 2450 Jan 20 1990 modems.and.call-waiting -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 29973 Aug 11 01:58 monitor.soviet.xmissions -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 7597 Feb 10 1990 named.exchanges -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 16590 Oct 21 1990 net.mail.guide -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 3014 Jan 27 1990 newuser.letter -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 32815 Mar 25 1990 nine.hundred.service -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 34805 Jul 30 00:57 npa.301-410.split -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 2795 Aug 3 16:09 npa.510.sed.script -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 45105 Mar 2 22:14 npa.800-carriers.assigned -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 30091 Jul 23 19:27 npa.800.carrier.list -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 13779 Sep 19 1990 npa.800.prefixes -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 45109 Mar 2 21:28 npa.800.revised -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 33440 May 12 1990 npa.809.prefixes -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15488 Nov 20 1990 npa.900-carriers.assigned -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 15099 Mar 8 06:42 npa.900.how.assigned dr-xr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 1024 Feb 2 1991 npa.exchange.list-canada/ -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 16534 Feb 11 1990 nsa.original.charter-1952 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 9886 Jan 23 1990 occ.10xxx.access.codes -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 6847 Mar 2 21:28 occ.10xxx.list.updated -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 7714 Jul 23 19:26 occ.10xxx.new.revision -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 8593 May 5 1990 occ.10xxx.notes.updates -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 14354 Aug 12 1990 octothorpe.gets.its.name -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 8504 Jan 27 1990 old.fashioned.coinphones -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 2756 Jan 27 1990 old.hello.msg -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 60707 Aug 18 21:44 pager.bin.uqx -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 13079 Aug 22 01:34 pager.ixo.example -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 70153 Aug 1 1989 pc.pursuit -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 5492 Aug 1 1989 pearl.harbor.phones -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 28922 Aug 11 01:49 phone.patches -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 38772 Aug 1 1989 pizza.auto.nmbr.id -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 14189 May 6 02:39 radio-phone.interfere.1 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 11696 May 6 02:40 radio-phone.interfere.2 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 8452 May 6 02:40 radio-phone.interfere.3 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 17950 Jan 14 1990 rotenberg.privacy.speech -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 4184 Jul 27 23:58 sprint.long-dist.rates ---------- 1 ptownson telecom 20526 Jun 11 00:32 st.louis.phone.outage -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 9764 Jan 20 1990 starline.features -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 46738 Jan 18 1990 starlink.vrs.pcp -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 103069 Apr 26 1990 sysops.libel.liability -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 3857 Aug 1 1989 tat-8.fiber.optic -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 27533 Feb 9 1990 telco.name.list.formatted -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 31487 Jan 28 1990 telco.name.listing -rw-rw-r-- 1 ptownson telecom 224495 Aug 24 06:28 telecom-recent drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 1024 Jun 22 22:12 telecom.security.issues/ -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 21831 Jan 20 1991 telsat-canada-report -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 11752 Aug 1 1989 telstar.txt drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 512 Dec 10 1990 tymnet.information/ -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 26614 May 29 1990 unitel-canada.ld.service -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 116 Oct 22 1990 white.pages -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 37947 Aug 1 1989 wire-it-yourself -rw-rw-r-- 1 telecom telecom 4101 Aug 1 1989 wiring.diagram -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 24541 Aug 1 1989 zum.debate -------------- Next is the sub-directory for the security related files. The other sub-directories for Mintel, Canadian NPA, etc are not included here but can easily be examined by ftp users on line. total 1001 drwxr-xr-x 2 ptownson telecom 1024 Jun 22 22:12 ./ drwxrwxr-x 12 telecom telecom 5632 Jun 22 22:24 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 6144 Mar 14 03:29 cellular.fraud.abernathy -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 2755 Mar 14 03:32 cellular.fraud.prevention -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 13343 Feb 25 1990 computer.fraud.abuse.act -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 27395 Jun 23 1990 craig.neidorf.indictment -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 9354 Jul 30 1990 craig.not.guilty -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 67190 Jun 23 1990 crime.and.puzzlement -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 62602 Aug 12 1990 ecpa.1986 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 97987 Aug 12 1990 ecpa.1986.federal.laws -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 21918 Dec 2 1990 illinois.computer.laws -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 28935 May 19 1990 jolnet-2600.magazine.art -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 30751 Mar 7 1990 jolnet-attctc.crackers -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 43365 Jan 28 1990 kevin.polsen -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 35612 Apr 1 1990 legion.of.doom -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 20703 Aug 12 1990 len.rose-legion.of.doom -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 2516 Jun 14 01:03 len.rose.in.prison -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 184494 Jun 22 22:04 len.rose.indictment-1 -rw-r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 192078 Jun 22 22:05 len.rose.indictment-2 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 67099 Nov 4 1990 telecom.usa.call.block-1 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 31995 Nov 20 1990 telecom.usa.call.block-2 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 10833 Nov 20 1990 telecom.usa.call.block-3 -r--r--r-- 1 ptownson telecom 14821 Sep 12 1990 war.on.computer.crime --------------- People using Doug's new service will probably find the same file names as above in the index there ... but use his index to check exact spellings and any little differences there may be. Have fun! Do catch up on back issues you have missed as well as any special files you may have not seen before .... and remember to check Doug's index regularly since it will be getting larger as he gets his files completely on line. And why not send a note of thanks to Doug also, for his work over the holiday weekend in getting this up and running for telecom readers. From all of us Doug, thanks! ------------- So that, in a nutshell, is what the Telecom Archives is about. The first half dozen entries in the directory above are sub-directories to the back issues. Older issues are somewhat haphazard in the way they are filed, owing to troubles long ago with storage and mail. Newer issues are in groups of fifty issues per file, along with any special issues which may have come out at the same time. The file entitled 'telecom-recent' are the most recent issues. We flush this file every fifty issues, on the issues numbered x50 and x00, with the file then being moved into the appropriate back issues area. So for your convenience if you have missed an issue or two in recent days, the telecom-recent file would usually be the first place to look. Of course, I can supply the most recent dozen or so back issues from my own archives here at eecs.nwu.edu on request. Hopefully soon, there will be an FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) file as part of the Archives. David Leibold is working on it now should you wish to add contributions. Wish list: eventually, I'd like to see an index to the back issues which can be searched by subject and author. As of yet, this does not exist, as I tell at least one person every week. Sorry! Here's hoping the Digest is around ten years from now in 2001! Patrick Townson TELECOM Moderator   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00346; 25 Aug 91 11:29 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03039; 25 Aug 91 10:32 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06406; 25 Aug 91 1:30 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac31711; 25 Aug 91 0:13 CDT Date: Sun, 25 Aug 91 0:00:38 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs Subject: Usenet Introductory Message BCC: Message-ID: <9108250000.ab24427@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Welcome to comp.dcom.telecom / TELECOM Digest --------------------------------------------- (starting year eleven, 8-25-91) This is a periodic posting to readers of the comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup to let you know a little about the group and how to go about posting here. TELECOM Digest is a mailing list publication distributed on several computer networks worldwide, including the Internet, MCI Mail, Fido, ATT Mail and many others. It is gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as 'comp.dcom.telecom'. It is distibuted to subscribers of the PC Pursuit network operated by Sprintnet on their free BBS "Net Exchange". On Fido, it appears on many BBS' at the option of the local sysop. 'Telecom' is a moderated newsgroup, meaning that all submissions must be routed through the Moderator for approval, editing, sorting and final posting. Unlike an unmoderated group where you can ollow up direct to the group with your article, moderated newsgroups will not accept your posting direct. Although you may respond to individual writers by email, all postings or follow ups to the newsgroup must be sent by email to 'telecom@eecs.nwu.edu'. TELECOM Digest and comp.dcom.telecom are one and the same. The Digest is a mailing list sent to people who do not receive net news or who prefer to read the Digest (single long message with several articles) version. Messages in the Digest are the identical messages you read here in this newsgroup, single message style. At the time each issue of the Digest is mailed out (usually there are three or four issues each day) a copy is 'burst' into individual messages and gatewayed to Usenet for the comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup where they are available at about the same time the mailing list copies are delivered. Which version you receive is up to you. Write and ask if you wish to be added to the mailing list version. TELECOM Digest is a news and discussion forum on subjects relating to telecommunications in general and voice telephony in particular. The messages range from technical in nature to questions and answers for novices. Comments about telephone company services and operations are welcome, however we are unable to print any messages containing information which could be used to defraud telephone companies or long distance carriers. We have to prohibit 'phreaking' information in order to legally protect the many sites and networks which carry this newsgroup and/or TELECOM Digest. Please help reduce bandwidth: ============================= Before you reply to an article you see here*, please read *all* messages in the group. If someone else has responded, please do not send your own response unless you have something substantially different to say, or some correction which must be made. Unfortunately, because of the volume of mail received, I am only able to print at best about half of what is received daily, and usually much less. More people can have a chance to participate if you will hold repetitive replies to a minimum. Please try to edit your message according to the style in which you see other messages appearing here. Messages which require the *least* editing work are more likely to be used. Make sure you have a relevant, descriptive header attached to your message. Observe previous headers, and make your REply header match exactly! Please DO NOT cross post to other newsgroups and TELECOM Digest without advising me. No one wants to read the same article in a half dozen different groups! Signatures are automatically truncated with cute.quotes, fancy.borders and drawings removed. This frees up enough space for another one or two messages each day. Other newsgroups we are affiliated with: ======================================== Telecom Privacy Because of the large volume of mail received on the topic of Caller*ID, we have an 'overflow' mailing list just for that purpose. The Digest/comp.dcom.telecom prints *news and technical comments* about Caller*ID. We request that political and social commentaries on this volatile topic be addressed to 'telecom-priv@pica.army.mil'. This list was started just for the topic of telecommunications privacy. => To subscribe, write the moderator: telecom-priv-request@pica.army.mil Computer Underground Digest Likewise, the social and legal ramifications of 'hacking' and 'phreaking' have been hot topics of discussion. CuD began as a 'side-discussion' of these topics in the Digest, and now is an email publication in its own right. => To be added to the mailing list or submit articles, write the moderator: tk0jut2@niu.bitnet. Articles sent to comp.dcom.telecom which more appropriately belong in one of the two above categories are automatically forwarded by myself. The Auto-ACK shows your article was received: ============================================= Most of you will receive an auto-reply 'form letter' when you write to telecom@eecs.nwu.edu. Sometimes it does not work right and you may not get a reply, but usually you will. Due to the volume of mail received, I am unable to answer personal questions/comments about telephony except in the Digest itself. If your article cannot be used for some reason, I will try to return it or at least send you a note explaining why it cannot be used. This will probably be a form letter also. If you do not get the ACK, *and* you do not see your article *and* you do not get a reply from me within a week, please write and ask if your article was received. DO NOT send a duplicate copy unless I ask for it. If your article is not printed, don't take it personally: I get about a hundred submissions daily and print 20-30 of them. Good spelling, punctuation, and following the Chicago Manual of Style will greatly enhance your chances. If you get a personal reply to a telecom message from me, you were one of very few who did. I can't usually reply personally to telecom mail. Back issues / other files in Telecom Archives ============================================= To obtain back issues of TELECOM Digest (ten year's worth!) and obtain dozens of other telecom files of interest, visit the Telecom Archives. This collection of material was started in 1981 and contains everything you ever wanted to know about the US phone system, and a lot more. [ Well, almost everything :) If it hasn't appeared in this newsgroup in the last few years, then it wasn't worth knowing about! :) "All the telecom news that fits, we print", and all that! :) ] If at an Internet site: ftp lcs.mit.edu login anonymous give name@site as password cd telecom-archives dir the main and several sub-directories For Bitnet: use an archives mail server, such as the one at bitftp@pucc.bitnet For UUCP/Fido/MCI Mail/ATT Mail and others: an archives mail server is maintained exclusively for telecom files. Write and *specifically* ask for the email/ftp server help file: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu. The massive amount of space needed to maintain the Telecom Archives was donated by and is maintained by MIT and Mike Patton of their staff. My thanks to MIT for their help. Other stuff: ============ TELECOM Digest was founded by Jon Solomon in August, 1981. I've been the Moderator/producer/editor/facilitator since the summer of 1988. I live in Chicago, and work from accounts provided to me by the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department at Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. As one of the larger users of mail and news on delta.eecs.nwu.edu, I thank the folks involved for their patience and resources. To contact me: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (for submissions to Digest) telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu (for administrivia; mailing list stuff, etc) ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (personal NON-TELECOM mail to me) ptownson@bucsa.bu.edu (ditto) ptownson@eris.berkeley.edu (ditto) ptownson@anableps.berkeley.edu (ditto) 0002224956@mcimail.com (ditto) ptownson@attmail.com (ditto) patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (ditto) Telex: 155296378 or 6502224956 SNAIL: POB 1570, Chicago, IL 60690 Voicemail: 708-518-6335 (Ext. 1) That's it! Enjoy the TELECOM Digest/comp.dcom.telecom! Patrick Townson TELECOM Digest Moderator   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00553; 25 Aug 91 11:34 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac03039; 25 Aug 91 10:37 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08300; 25 Aug 91 2:39 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac06406; 25 Aug 91 1:30 CDT Date: Sun, 25 Aug 91 0:48:15 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #664 BCC: Message-ID: <9108250048.ab13675@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 25 Aug 91 00:47:26 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 664 Inside This Issue: A Decade of Telecom: 1981-1991 Ten Years of It: Starting Year Eleven [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Ten Years of It [Gene Spafford] Re: Ten Years of It [Werner Uhrig] Re: Ten Years of It [RISKS Forum] Re: Ten Years of It [Funny Guy] Re: More TCIA: Telecom and Computer Industry Acronyms [John Adams] Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low On Phone Numbers [Carl Moore] Re: Phast Food [David Leibold] Re: What Are 700 Numbers Used For? [Barton F. Bruce] Re: Converting Old Phone With Four Wires to Three Wires [Barton F. Bruce] Re: German Modem Query [Lars Poulsen] Re: Cable TV Competition [Eric Lee Green] Re: Cable TV Competition [Scott Dorsey] Re: Cable TV Competition [William Degnan] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 25 Aug 91 0:09:41 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Ten Years of It: Starting Year Eleven The Digest completes ten years of publication this weekend. The changes we have seen in telecommunications in the past decade are far too numerous to mention regardless of how many special issues I put out devoted to the topic. We start year eleven with this issue. I suspect Jon Solomon would be very proud of his creation. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Ten Years of It Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 07:31:34 EST From: Gene Spafford That is definitely one of the older lists. On a slightly different topic, where are the telecom ftp archives? spaf [Moderator's Note: Use anonymous ftp to lcs.mit.edu. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 9:00:15 CDT From: Werner Uhrig Reply-To: Werner Uhrig Subject: Re: Ten Years of It Congratulations and thanks for all the good work! Cheers, ---Werner ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 8:10:00 PDT From: RISKS Forum Subject: Re: Ten Years of It Congratulations! [Moderator's Note: Of course, PGN, like Gene Spafford, needs no introduction here. PGN moderates his own highly successful, highly readable RISKS Digest, and has done so for many years. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Ten Years of It Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 17:01:22 EDT From: Funny Guy I am not sure what you mean by mailing list. Sf-lovers existed long before then. Human-nets, from which telecom sprang, is the earliest I know of, but it is of course now dead. [Moderator's Note: I hope when CuD and Telecom Privacy have their tenth anniversary there will be no messages saying 'they sprang from telecom, but it is of course long dead.' Hopefully the Digest will be here under someone's moderation in 2001 to accept congratulatory notes on the twentieth anniversary. And to the several of you who wrote notes of congratulations not included here, thanks very much. PAT] ------------------------------ From: john adams Subject: Re: More TCIA: Telecom and Computer Industry Acronyms Date: 23 Aug 91 19:54:46 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article , dblyth@oatseu.daytonoh. ncr.com (Dennis Blyth) writes: > I'm not a telecom employee or phone phreak but can answer limited > questions about acronyms. I work in the marketing side of the > computer business in a company soon to be owned by a giant > telecommunications company. > AOS Alternative Operator Service > COCOT is something similar to AOS, IMHO, actually I don't know what > this is exactly and I would like to see a posting which clarifies the > difference between an AOS and a COCOT. COCOT is Customer Owned Coin Operated Telephone with an excellent article on the whole subject of AOS's and COCOT's appearing in a recent IEEE Spectrum January ('90 or '91 Technology review issues). As such, a COCOT refers to the actual instrument while AOS refers to the *Service* provided from an *alternate* *operator*. Jack (John) Adams | Bellcore RRC 4A-253 (908) 699-3447 {Voice} | (908) 699-0231 {Facsimile} jadams@nvuxl.bellcore.com | kahuna@attmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 18:01:09 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low On Phone Numbers Here is the table that was given in the {Baltimore Sun's} version of the article. It's input "as is"; I know that 201/908 and 214/903 are fully cut over already, and that some split dates might be off. Running out of numbers: The seven most crowded U.S. telephone area codes follows (sic). (Area code) -- City or area -- Number of prefixes in use (213) Los Angeles County (excluding San Fernando Valley) 742 Will split to 213 and 310 in February. (201) Northern New Jersey 708 (301) Maryland (entire state) 701 Will split to 301 and 410 in November. (404) Atlanta and northern Georgia 691 Will split to 404 and 706 in November. (415) San Francisco metropolitan area 679 Will split to 415 and 510 in October. (212) New York City (Manhattan and Bronx only) 674 Will split to 212 and 917 in January. (214) City of Dallas 672 Source: Bellcore {N.Y.Times} News Service [Moderator's Note: Carl is another contributor who 'came along opening day' so to speak; he's been writing in these columns since 1981. PAT] ------------------------------ From: djcl.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu Subject: Re: Phast Food Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1991 01:33:23 GMT Chris.Farrar@f20.n246.z1.fidonet.org (Chris Farrar) writes: > Replying to a message from Jeff Sicherman >> 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. > How will this work in Canada, where Domino's also operate, and the > only way to order a pizza is to look in the phone book and find the > closest Domino's or let the store you call transfer the call to the > store that serves your area. Since Canada doesn't have 950 service (yet), it seems that Domino outlets in Canada (yes, there are some in Ontario, at least) will likely continue to use local number arrangements, or if anything an 800 number could be set up. Telecom Canada is planning an 800 service that could route to various numbers, but that service might not be specific enough for certain cities, or parts of cities. However, Caller ID and other technologies could be used instead. Incidentally, Pizza Pizza in Toronto made its 967.1111 number quite famous. Indeed, one pizza outlet responded with a 767.1111 number. Catchy pizza outlet numbers also include 2-4-1 Pizza's Toronto 241.0241 and Vancouver's 222 Pizza, which is 222.2222. In Ottawa, Pizza Pizza uses 737.1111 since 967 prefix in 613 NPA already belongs to another city (Belleville, if I recall correctly). In fact, Pizza Pizza had the 967.1111 number booked in New York City at one time. Disclaimer: I'm no mouthpiece for any particular pizza operation. I rarely order for pizza these days anyway. dleibold@attmail.com, djcl.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu and others [Moderator's Note: David is compiling the FAQ file for the Telecom Archives, and wants *your* submissions. Send them to him at his various addresses. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: What Are 700 Numbers Used For? Date: 23 Aug 91 22:01:34 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , overlf!n2aam@kb2ear. ampr.org (Dave Marthouse) writes: > 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 > [Moderator's Note: Most long distance carriers have stuff going on in > ... each carrier can do what they want with their portion of 700. PAT] NOPE, no such thing as 'THEIR PORTION'. This is NOT 800 service. EACH carrier gets the WHOLE 700 NPA code, just as each gets to carry ALL of say 212 to NYC. It is 800 and 900 that are hacked and divied up. If you dial 10abc + 1.700.234.5678 it might be free Father Joe's Dial-a-Prayer, but 10def +1.700.234.5678 might be Sleezoid's BIG BUCKS for DIAL-A-PORN. Of course you need not use 10xxx if 'your' default carrier was the desired one. ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Converting Old Phone With Four Wires to Three Wires Date: 23 Aug 91 22:26:49 EDT In article , toddi@mav.com (Todd Inch) writes: > 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? Yup. Each 'half' are actually to quite different values and were used for different CO types to indicate the second party on a two party line. The connection, when off hook, was from the B terminal which is supposed to be the electrical 'center' of the transmission network through one or the other of the ringer coil 'halves' to ground. Being in the 'center' no noise is supposed to be added to the talk path. ------------------------------ From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Re: German Modem Query Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA Date: Sat, 24 Aug 91 05:32:44 GMT In article brunner@telebit.com (Eric Brunner) writes: > Some of Telebit's brass are going to the Federal Republic(s) in two > week's time to speak with senior Bundespost volks. I have a slightly sour taste at the thought that you would like to pick our brains so that you as a consultant can sell the collective wisdom of the net to your temporary employer. It would not have been quite so sour if you personally could use the information. But I won't let that keep me from offering some technical information about the German Datel networks. Like a number of other European countries, Germany believes in separate facilities for voice and data. For data, they offer a choice between a circuit-switched system (Datex-L, I think it is called) with an X.21 interface, complete with dialling, and a packet-switched-system, called Datex-P, with a very standard X.25 interface. Dial-up modem use is considered a necessary evil, and Bundespost really wants you to use their modems if you have to use modems. X.21 is a great interface in the 9600 to 64,000 bps class (much more robust than V.35) but for some reason it never caught on in the US, so few if any US vendors have anything that can do X.21 dialling. X.21 is also used for access circuits to the packet network, but since the circuit always goes to the packet exchange, you don't need to dial, so you can use adapters for either RS422 or RS232 interfaces. Bundespost's X.25 is very flexible, but before you get approval, they want to know your profile in excruciating detail. How many seconds is your T21 timer, what happens on a RESET timeout, ... that kind of stuff. And once recorded and approved, the profile is frozen. If the switch ever catches you doing differently than what is approved, the subscriber circuit is taken out of service, even if it matches exactly somebody else's approved equipment. No unauthorized testing here, and no bugfix releases without recertification. Say hi to Denis Aull for me. Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 91 00:55:49 CDT From: elg@elgamy.raidernet.com Subject: Re: Cable TV Competition smk@attunix.att.com (S M Krieger): >> The upstart competitor was Cablevision, bigger, already in many areas >> on Long Island, and 'ready to serve you better.' [description of Cablevision refusing to carry MSG as a "basic" service:] One thing overlooked in the TCA vs. MTV censorship controversy down in the Southland was that the crux of the problem was TCA's insistence upon making MTV a "premium" service. Since MTV is basically an advertising medium and makes its money by reaching the widest audience possible, they refused to do so, at which point TCA cut off the MTV. Despite the fact that the MTV folks had already told them that it was perfectly allowable to cut off INDIVIDUAL subscribers who had problems with MTV's contents. The eventual "compromise", after all the fuss, was that TCA said "Okay, we'll carry MTV again as a basic converter-box channel, but now we'll cut it off for free for anybody who doesn't want it." In other words, they made it sound as if MTV had given them something unprecedented. In actuality, MTV had allowed such all along. TCA has also dealt very arrogantly with the local governments, and has increased rates with little regard for public opinion. Currently, local governments don't have much of a stick to use on TCA. The FCC forbids them from setting TCA's rates, apparently, and the local market is too small (population-wise) and spread-out (area-wise) to make it profitable for two cable companies to compete in this market. Yet another example of a "natural monopoly", and why such "natural monopolies" should be under strict governmental control. It scares me that they're considering loosening controls on the "Baby Bells", when the "Babies" have exhibited much of the same sort of arrogance and disdain for the public that TCA exhibited. Eric Lee Green elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM uunet!mjbtn!raider!elgamy!elg ------------------------------ From: Scott Dorsey Subject: Re: Cable TV Competition Organization: NASA Langley Research Center Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1991 16:17:52 GMT In article mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us (Nick Sayer) writes: > The length of a dipole is half the length of the wave you want. The > length of a wave in meters is 300/x where x is the frequency in MHz. > Channel 7 is 174-180 MHz. Split the difference to get 177. 300/177 is > 1.694915. Divide that by 2 and you get 84.745 centimeters. I'll leave > it as an exercise to the reader to convert that into inches, but it's > a few inches short of a yard. Purists will bitch and moan that light > doesn't travel 300 km/s in a wire, but I've never known it to make a > difference, and certainly not when trying to receive a signal 6 MHz > wide, let alone a band of 6 of them. Multiply that 300 by .94 to get the speed of light in a metal rod, or .90 for the speed of light in a hollow metal tube. Greater diameter means a greater bandwidth; 1/2" copper piping is great. I got these correction factors many years ago from a 1940's edition of the ITT handbook, and they seem to work. If they are a bit off, go get a grid dip meter and fine tune things by hand. Scott ------------------------------ From: William Degnan Date: 23 Aug 91 20:43:12 Subject: Re: Cable TV Competition On Shawn Goodin (shawng@pro-charlotte.cts.com ) writes to all: > the neighborhood -- heaven forbid that those unsightly antennas and > dishes would dare contribute to urban decay/blight/home values. > Meanwhile, they seem to allow these fences around the yards that > appear to have been designed and built by Tarzan ... I'll try the > dipoles ... if I wanted to cut one for, say, channel 7, wonder what > the measurements should be? How about 468/(frequency in Mhz) for total length? The ARRL antenna book has lots of formulae. We explored setting up a microwave dish at a client's residence (and home office) to avoid attracting attention of the neighbors, we were going to build a tree house and put the antenna in the tree house's attic. Urban camoflage! Can you have a tree house? Got room in the back yard for a gazebo? Hang the antenna and rotor from the apex. 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #664 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07218; 25 Aug 91 13:29 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05131; 25 Aug 91 11:59 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14969; 25 Aug 91 10:52 CDT Date: Sun, 25 Aug 91 9:53:03 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #666 BCC: Message-ID: <9108250953.ab23102@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 25 Aug 91 09:52:38 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 666 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Phone Company Cut me Back to Pulse Dialing [Mickey Ferguson] Re: AT&T Data Network [Roy M. Silvernail] Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service [Floyd Davidson] Handouts Wanted :-) [Jack Decker] Measuring T1 Jitter in dB [Dave R.Turk] Re: Flakey T1 / What is BELL PUB 62411 [Dave R.Turk] ISDN Call Tracker Needed -- HELP! [Conrad Nobili] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mickey Ferguson Date: 22 August 1991, 12:07:59 PDT Subject: Re: Phone Company Cut me Back to Pulse Dialing JKMJJ%CUNYVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu writes: > Last night my phone service was downgraded from tone/pulse to pulse > only. Aside from dialing taking a bit longer, it has had no other > effect. > About a week ago I got a note from my local TelCo (NY Telephone area > code 718). It told me that I have been using tone dialing without > paying for it. If I want to keep tone service, I was asked to call an > number to make this service request and be prepared to pay >$5.00 per > line per month. If I don't make the service request, NYTel would > switch me back to pulse dialing. > It has always been my understanding that tone service was easier > (cheaper) for the TelCo to provide that pulse. Has this changed? > Has this happened to anyone else? About five years ago I bought a VERY cheap tone dialing phone to give to my parents so that they could access Sprint and call me using my Sprint number, charging the call to me, but also allowing them to call using their 11 PM night rate for Ohio instead of me calling them using my 8 PM California rate. They had tone only service (this was with an old GTE service - don't know what kind of switch) in Wadsworth, OH. I was playing around with the phone one time when I was home visiting and noticed that when I dialed using the tone phone, to my amazement, the call was completed. Thus, for some amount of time, they had tone service but weren't paying for it. About a year or two ago, Wadsworth got a new (probably only ten years old technology instead of thirty :) switch from GTE, and the tone dialing no longer worked. They would have to pay some amount (was it $1.50 or $2.00 per month? I don't remember.) to have tone service. Of course, they had no need for the tone service, so didn't pay for it. They just dial Sprint using one of the pulse phones, then pick up the tone phone when Sprint is connected to punch in my access code. This reminds me of another story about phone service in Wadsworth. For many years we had a party line, and we didn't want to pay extra each month (along with a changeover fee) to convert to a private line. But even more important to my Dad was that he didn't want to have to change his phone number, which was the only way GTE would give us the private line. But they also told us that as soon as service on all of the other parties on the party line had been disconnected, we could get our private line without changing the number. It took about ten years, and GTE didn't add new customers to our existing party line, but eventually we got our private number without having to pay the changeover fee. If I recall, the other party got tired of having to share the line with three *TEENAGERS* and converted *THEIR* line to a private line, and *THEY* probably ended up paying a conversion fee! :) (Boy, was it THAT long ago? :) Mickey Ferguson Rolm Systems fergusom@scrvm2.vnet.ibm.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: AT&T Data Network From: "Roy M. Silvernail" Date: Sat, 24 Aug 91 10:36:15 CDT Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN irvin@betelgeuse.dartmouth.edu writes: >> [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] > From 603 calls to 950-1288 gets NET's infamous: "{tri-tone} The > number you have reached 9-5-0-1-2-8-8 is being checked for trouble, > please try your call again later." In Minneapolis, 950-1288 gets me a modem. It sounds like a USR connect sequence, which connects to my machine at 2400 (since I have a 2400 modem). I got no response, though. It seemed insensitive to characters entered. Roy M. Silvernail |+| roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service Organization: Chinet - Chicago public access UNIX Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1991 08:07:14 GMT In article TONY@mcgill1.bitnet (Tony Harminc) writes: > marcelm@joymrmn.uucp (Marcel Mongeon) wrote: >> 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? > In a word: no. Or is that yes? That is, the CO *does* know that it > is currently forwarding a call, and the original number is marked > busy. I'm not sure what a DMS-100 does, though I'd find that strange. A Northern Telecom SL-1 PBX definitely can forward multiple calls, and I can't think any good reason not to allow it with a DMS-100. Is there a reason? Floyd ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 18:48:00 EDT From: Jack Decker Subject: Handouts Wanted :-) So, you say you've got some unusual or antique telephones, or phone parts sitting around, and you hate to throw it away but you just don't have room to keep it laying around? Is that what's bothering you, Bunky? Well, grab a carton from the shipping department and toss it all in and address the carton to: Mr. Bob Riddell Northern Telephone Company Wawina, Minnesota 55794 Now, this isn't a joke, although Bob doesn't know I'm posting this message here. But I visited Bob a couple of weeks ago, and besides owning one of the nation's smallest telephone companies (I think he has about 30 customers, give or take a few), he is an avid collector of antique (and not so antique) phones, switchboards (corded and otherwise), and even CO switching equipment (he has an operating strowger CO in his basement, that connects all his various makes and models of working antiques phones together). The truth is, I doubt there is as complete a collection of old and antique phones (especially early common-battery manual and dial phones) anywhere, although some museums may have some rarer models that he doesn't have. Not only that, but he can tell you the history of just about every phone he has. The funny part is, he has more phones on his basement phone exchange than on the "real" one that serves Wawina. Mind you, I don't think he's into BUYING antique phones but if someone gives him one, it will get a good home (he has them displayed on three walls of his basement now, and the whole collection may be moved to a converted mobile home soon). I know I have a couple boxes of 30 years accumulation of miscellaneous old phone parts and I intend to send him a surprise package real soon now! While I'm soliciting handouts :-), if anyone ever has a dialer that is capable of doing tone to pulse conversions but perhaps doesn't function properly in some other area, I could give it a good home here. Actually, I already have such a device but it's a real cheapie (got it surplus ... a small, unbranded unit in a white PLASTIC case that runs very warm) but the problem is that it often detects voices as touch tones and will occasionally send out a string of dial pulses in the middle of a conversation, sometimes even cutting off a call! So if anyone has something like a Mitel dialer lying around and it's just surplus to you, let me know, maybe we could work something out. (Wishful thinking, I know, but it never hurts to ask.) Jack Decker U.S. Snail address: 1804 W. 18th Street #155, Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783-1268 Fido: Via D'Bridge 1:1/211 08/23 12:55 ------------------------------ From: portal!cup.portal.com!Dave_R_Turk@uunet.uu.net Subject: Measuring T1 Jitter in dB Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 18:13:05 PDT Netters- I am trying to measure the jitter transfer characteristics of a piece of T1 equipment. According to the applicable specs (TR62411 and others), jitter transfer is measured in dB. I have a question about the dB calculation. If I want to measure power gain in dB, it looks like this: GAIN (dB) = 10 LOG (Pout/Pin) If I want to measure voltage gain in dB, it looks like this: GAIN (dB) = 20 LOG (Vout/Vin) In the above two cases, the things being measured are power and voltage, respectively. In measuring jitter, the thing being measured is unit intervals. What is the equation for calculating jitter gain? I have tried to work the problem backwards by examining jitter transfer tolerance plots showing corner points and a known dB/decade slope, but the multiplier I come up with is weird ... 14.14. Any ideas would be appreciated. daveturk@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ From: portal!cup.portal.com!Dave_R_Turk@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Flakey T1 / What is BELL PUB 62411 Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 18:11:14 PDT stodola@fccc.edu (Bob Stodola) writes: > ...Bell has been trying to "upgrade" our T1 line from copper to > fiber. Each time they do, the link becomes flaky... Check that the DSU/CSU is in close proximity to the fiber modem (within 85'). Fiber modems require a signal which is around 0 dBsx on its equipment side. The copper line would be unaffected because the line repeaters are able to regenerate the signal. > What is BELL PUB 62411, and why might it make the difference > here? The current version of this document is AT&T Technical Reference 62411, dated December, 1988. (A more widely accepted document is ANSI T1.403-1989.) Setting the DSU to comply with 62411 causes a change in the way the DSU/CSU enforces one's density. 62411 specifies that for every window of 8(N+1) bits, there be at least N ones present. N goes from 1 to 24. This is commonly referred to as the 8(N+1) algorithm. If the data stream does not have the requisite number of ones, the CSU inserts them, corrupting data. To prevent the one's density issue from ever coming up, the DSU/CSU should be optioned for 1.344 towards the Vitalink LAN bridge. If this is done, the DSU/CSU will have enough overhead (1.544-1.344) to ensure the signal always has enough ones. > ...the vendor suggested we explore a switch which controls > the scrambler/descrambler which purportedly "will pseudo > randomly change DTE data to improve the ones density." The effects of a pseudo-random scrambler on a digital bit stream in an effort to increase average one's density is dubious. What you gain in scrambling long sequences of zeros is lost in scrambling long sequences of ones. Scramblers are sometimes used in digital radios to reduce the effects of all ones or all zeros idle codes on spectral emissions (birdies), and I have heard of scramblers being used in DS1C. Again, if the DSU/CSU is optioned for 1.344 towards the LAN bridge, density should not be an issue. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1991 20:18:44 -0500 From: conrad_nobili@harvard.edu Subject: ISDN Call Tracker Needed -- HELP! Greetings telecom gurus. I have been reading this group off and on over the past year and have been very impressed with the expertise here. I am confident that something will come of my queries. Here is the situation. We operate several computer "hotlines" here. It has been deemed necessary that management have information such as the number, day of week, time, and duration of calls, the affiliation of the caller, name of the answerer, and rough category of problem (operating system and application). Currently this information is recorded on paper forms by the answerers (technical support super-geniuses such as myself ;-) ), entered into a Mac database by casual staff members who are largely unfamiliar with the problem domain and the intended use of the data, and then uploaded to an IBM mainframe where SAS programs are run to analyze and summarize the data. Needless to say this whole procedure is way sub-optimal. The information collected in the first place is not even close to complete -- if we're _really_ busy almost no data is recorded at all. In addition, there are lots of errors introduced along the way. And the whole concept of trying to pigeonhole Harvard affiliations is ridiculous. So, I have had a vision for over a year. We have this slick new digital phone system -- a 5ESS switch and our phones are AT&T ISDN 7506 phones with LCD displays and data interfaces. The displays show time of day, CallerID, call duration, and other things. It strikes me that we are getting most of the stuff that management _really_ needs at our phones courtesy of the switch. And we can even _see_ most of it. Now if we could only have it all recorded in an automated fashion ... we could then use it to calibrate (and hopefully invalidate) or replace parts of our manual data collection system. In an effort to realise this vision, I contacted our phone service consultants. After much mulling and consulting with manufacturers they seemed to think that they would be able to make a change to our service that would record a (very small) subset of the information that arrives at our LCD displays and summarize it in monthly reports. When they actually tried to implement this change total destructive chaos ensued. I don't remember the details, but something about the multiple lines that we have appearing (and maybe not ringing) on various phones fought with the new change. At any rate we were without service on some of the lines for days, and other lines blinked in and out of existence in a somewhat wanton fashion. We had to back off of the test of this stuff. Subsequently I have seen a CallerID device in a phone accessories catalog. It would seem to be exactly what we need, but that it only records the last 70 or so calls (and may not record duration) and it has no interface to the outside world other than through its LCD display. What we need is a similar device that would also record the call duration and that would provide for output to a computer via RS-232, so that the data could be put into a database without (much) human intervention (no data entry). Does such a device exist? If so where and how do we get one (or more)? If not does anyone have any suggestions as to how best to go about making one? I took my 7506 phone apart at work in an attempt to get ideas. Unfortunately I am at home now and can't give chip numbers or otherwise describe things in detail. It would be really wonderful if we could find this device. And if not it seems like it would not be impossible to _make_ one (although most of the chips in the phones are the low-profile soldered type, possibly making it annoying to do so). I can _see_ virtually all the info we need on the LCD panel already. I suppose I could simply point a camera at it -- but digital electronics would seem a much more elegant solution. We would have _complete_ and (largely) _correct_ data! Although we would not be gathering the (meaninglessly) fine affiliation details automatically, we _could_ make some broad categorizations by exchange: 495 = faculty and staff, 493 = student, 432 = Medical Area.... I lust for this. I think my coworkers and management would too if they really understood it (maybe they do, but sometimes they look at me strangely when I suggest stuff like this.) Please, I hope someone can help us out. Please copy any postings to me, as I cannot always keep up with this group. I anxiously look forward to any information out there. Apologies if this has been discussed before. All I have seen is a mention of a CallerID device with an RS-232 port, but it was a not-very-definitive passing mention. A query to the poster revealed that he did not in fact know manufacturers or model numbers. And he was at AT&T, so I figured if he didn't know it was worth my posting this. Conrad C. Nobili Harvard University Internet: conrad_nobili@harvard.edu Office for Info. Tech. BITNET: CONRAD AT HARVARDA 1730 Cambridge Street voice: (617) 495-8554 Cambridge, MA 02138 fax: (617) 495-0715 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #666 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20864; 26 Aug 91 1:50 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26198; 26 Aug 91 0:11 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07212; 25 Aug 91 23:03 CDT Date: Sun, 25 Aug 91 22:08:15 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #667 BCC: Message-ID: <9108252208.ab08981@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 25 Aug 91 22:08:08 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 667 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Speakerphone [Michael Ho] Re: Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Speakerphone [Conrad Nobili] Re: Help Wanted: Just an Address! [Dave Levenson] Re: NET's Call Answering Service [Darryl Jacobs] Re: AT&T Data Network [David W. Tamkin] Re: Telephones in Elevators [Bill Berbenich] Re: Looking For a Phone Line Simulator [Conrad Nobili] Re: NYTel Charges for 411 [Dave Niebuhr] Re: Department Numbers and ANI [Dan Jacobson] Re: Telephone Line Status Indicator Box [SCOHEN@wvnvm.wvnet.edu] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tiny Bubbles..." Subject: Re: Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Speakerphone Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1991 14:50:55 GMT Dan_Jacobson@att.com writes: > Don't you also hate those folks who love to put you on their low > quality speakerphones? Which brings up a question: Is there any such thing as a "high-quality speakerphone"? I, personally, have never seen such a beast. My AT&T cordless has a speakerphone on it, but like all other speakerphones I've seen, it sounds from the other end like you're talking into a toilet. ... Michael Ho, University of Nebraska Internet: ho@hoss.unl.edu | "Florida Or Bust." Disclaimer: Views expressed within are purely personal and should not be applied to any university agency. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1991 22:00:10 -0500 From: conrad_nobili@harvard.edu Subject: Re: Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Speakerphone > Don't you also hate those folks who love to put you on their low > quality speakerphones? I've found a good way of dealing with this is to put the call on *my* speakerphone. I am not sure why, but I find that the conversation goes much more smoothly that way. I don't know how speakerphones compare, but our AT&T ISDN 7506 phones seem to have decent speakerphone capabilities. Anyone else found this to work? Conrad C. Nobili Harvard University OIT conrad_nobili@harvard.edu 1730 Cambridge Street CONRAD AT HARVARDA (617) 495-8554 ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Help Wanted: Just an Address! Date: 25 Aug 91 20:19:57 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , shad04@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Dan Fandrich) writes: > ... I don't know the whereabouts of Votrax... Votrax, Inc. 24027 Research Drive Farmington Hills, MI 48335 800 521 1350 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: JacobsD Subject: Re: NET's Call Answering Service Date: 25 Aug 91 21:59:12 GMT Reply-To: JacobsD Organization: AT&T, Denver, CO In article jon_sree@world.std.com (Jon Sreekanth) writes: > I recently signed up for New England Telephone (Nynex) voice mail, on > my home line, 617-547-. Here are some observations : > 1. It costs $11.60 to turn on the service, plus $4 per month. > Outgoing message can be up to two minutes, up to 30 incoming messages, > each of two minutes maximum, can be stored. I was one of the early subscribers to US West's Voice Messaging service in Denver. I dont remember the exact details, but I believe I got free installation and a couple of months free service when I signed up. Now the service is 6.95 per month. I don't recall any limits on message length or number, but messages currently can be held for 999 days. All of this subject to change, of course, whenever US West decides to change it. > [discussion of other features that are identical to US West's setup] > 4. Initially, I did not get the promised stutter dial tone. After > calling and complaining, they fixed it. An unexpected side effect is Sounds like the people doing the voice mail setup in your CO are still learning the ropes. > 5. The message access number is not toll free. I guess that was > asking too much. Of course, there's no concept of toll saver. It's > a local number, and calls to that number are counted towards > Measured Rate totals. This seems like nickel and diming. I have flat rate service, so it doesn't bother me that the message access number is not toll free. One thing US West didn't mention until I asked about it is that it is possible to retreive messages by calling your home phone number; if you press the * key while your message is playing, you get prompted to press #, then enter your number and security code just like on the message access number. This is nice if you're out of town and have AT&T's Reach Out America with the Calling Card option, MCI's Personal 800 service, or some other way to place cheap calls to your home from other parts of the country. NET's service may be different, of course. If the above doesn't work, either call them and ask, or play around with the touch tone pad and see if you can figure it out. > 6. The thing that bothers me the most (and may prompt me to turn off > the service after a while) is there is no mention of how to turn off > the answering temporarily. When I'm expecting an important call, > especially an international call, etc., this could be a hassle. If you have two lines and call fowarding, just forward the calls to the second line (assuming that line doesn't have voice mail) or to a cellphone (if you have one). If you only have one line, you're probably out of luck. > 7. The interaction with call waiting is also annoying. I have > selective call waiting, and when I don't turn call waiting off, it > produces the beep, which is fine. However, when I turn off call > waiting, by dialling *70, number, callers get a busy. This is fairly > brain-damaged, because it forces me to choose between call waiting and > voice messaging, rather than selectively having one or the other > during a particular call. Again, sounds like the CO crew doesn't know what they're doing. I have call waiting and voice mail, and *70 redirects all calls to voice mail. The problem here with voice mail and call waiting is that when you are getting the beeps indicating that someone is calling, that call will never go to voice mail, no matter how long the call rings. When I first signed up, I was given a choice of what kind of calls went to voice mail, busy and/or non-answered. I was also asked if I had call waiting and had explained to me the scenarios where calls would *NOT* go to voice mail, depending on whether call waiting was disabled or not and what type of calls were administered to go to voice mail. Sounds to me like they did not set you up so that calls that would be indicated as busy by the CO would go to your mailbox. > 8. There seems to be no interaction with call forwarding. Yes, I have > both call waiting and call forwarding. They weren't offering Ringmate Ask New England Bell how to send all calls immediately to voice mail if you have call forwarding. When I asked US West that question, they gave me what they called the 'port number'. This is the number in your CO that all busy/nonanswered calls get forwarded to if you are a voice mail subscriber. An immediate call forward (*72) to that number will send all your calls straight to your mailbox. Calling that number from outside the switch or from a nonsubscriber on the same switch gets a prompt to reenter the number you are dialing or to press # to retreive messages. Entering your phone number gets your mailbox. Entering another voice mail subscriber's (on the same CO) phone number gets their mailbox. (I have yet to try other voice mail subscribers on different COs.) I've found several uses for the port number. For instance, if I'm expecting an important call at home and must go out for a while, I can forward calls from my home number to the cellphone, then forward nonanswered calls from the cellphone to the port number (most cellular switches have three flavors of call forwarding -- immediate, busy, and non-answered). If I don't answer the cellphone, the caller gets prompted to reenter the number they just dialed to get to my mailbox. This trick just can't be done with an answering machine on the home phone line. Indeed, since I rarely turn off non-answered call forwarding on the cellphone, those few people who have my cellphone number know to enter my *home number* when they hear the prompt in order to leave me a message. That means I only need one voice mailbox for home and cellular calls (and I don't have to pay an extra 6.95/month for a cellular voice mailbox :-). > On the whole, I'm not pleased with it. In the beginning, the only > advantage of a service over my trusty Panasonic answering machine was > the potential that no caller would ever hear a busy. Given the various > flaws, I'm tempted to ask: is it just the residential service that's > crippled, or does the business service also have all the above > restrictions? No caller should hear a busy, keep on complaining to NET until they get your mailbox set up right. I know one person here who got misadminstered with business voice mail instead of residental. We played with it for a while and found it had all the traditional voice mail features (urgent messages, offline message preparation, message forwarding, etc). Unfortunatly, they took it away when I called to complain that MY voice mail service didn't have the same features as hers :-(. If you don't like the service, call up and complain first before dropping it. Most of the limitations of the current home voice mail offerings are there because the telcos think we're too stupid to use the same advanced features at home that they are selling to businesses (where do they do think office workers come from? :-). If customers start demanding more, maybe they'll see the light and give us more (fat chance, I know, but what else can you do, it's unregulated). Here at least, the voice mail people are in a separate office (with their own 800 number no less) and are willing to tell you ways to improve the service that aren't in the user guides. Various trade articles I've seen indicates that the telcos are aware of the shortcomings (especially the lack of call screening) and are trying to improve the situation. Darryl Jacobs Bell Laboratories, Denver darryl_jacobs@att.com Note: I won't even claim these views as mine. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Aug 91 17:52 CDT From: "David W. Tamkin" Subject: Re: AT&T Data Network Jack Decker asks in volume 11, issue 665: > Actually, I'd like to know what the costs are to have a 950 access > number. And can any firm get a 950 number, or is it only available > to "common carriers?" Citibank VISA and Citibank MasterCard, at least for the ordinary silver cards whose customer service number is (800) 843-0777, can be dialed at 950-1492. It took them the longest time to stop printing it as "1-950-1492" on my bills, even though I live in an area where the 1 isn't just unnecessary but is outright forbidden. That number reaches the same people as (800) 843-0777 as far as I know. Holders of their Preferred cards have a different 800 number to call, so I don't know about 950 service for them. So Citibank's credit card division and Domino's Pizza appear to be able to get 950 numbers without being long-distance carriers. David W. Tamkin Box 7002 Des Plaines, Illinois 60018-7002 +1 708 518 6769 dattier@gagme.chi.il.us GEnie:D.W.TAMKIN CIS:73720,1570 MCI Mail:426-1818 ------------------------------ From: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Subject: Re: Telephones in Elevators Date: Sun, 25 Aug 91 21:14:48 EDT Here in the lovely Van Leer Electrical Engineering Building, where I have my palacial office, there is an elevator. It is intended primarily for freight, but the building lazy-bones (like me, occasionally) use it as a passenger elevator. The building is only five stories - four of which are served by the elevator. My office is on the fourth floor. About once a month, I'd guess, the elevator gets stuck. About a year ago, I was the lone stuck-ee. When it looked as though things weren't going to start back up, I picked up the phone in the elevator to summon help. Rather than being an expensive ringdown, the phone is a POTS line (under the local DMS-100) with an autodialer that calls out as soon as the receiver is lifted. The phone has no dial - but I'd imagine that if one had a DTMF dialer they could at least place an on-campus phone call. In any event, I lifted the receiver and heard the autodialer call an on-campus extension. The campus police promptly answered and I told them of my dilemma and where I was. The dispatcher said help would be on the way. Moments later (sooner than anyone could have responded to a call from the police), the elevator was back in motion and I was released from my erstwhile coffin. Came to find out that someone had inadvertently switched off the breaker which controls the elevator (but obviously NOT its lights or the autodialer - thank heavens). Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1991 22:21:33 -0500 From: conrad_nobili@harvard.edu Subject: Re: Looking For a Phone Line Simulator Dan Everhart wants a phone line simulator... I have noticed that MacUser Labs always uses something from Processing Telecom Technologies. You can see the equipment in a picture on page 109 in the May, 1991 MacUser review of fax modems. I don't know anything about these devices except that MacUser seems to stick with them, and their modem reviews seem to be among the best in the consumer computer rags (I know, that doesn't necessarily say much...). Conrad C. Nobili Harvard University OIT conrad_nobili@harvard.edu 1730 Cambridge Street CONRAD AT HARVARDA (617) 495-8554 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1991 9:28:16 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" Subject: NYTel Charges for 411 I looked on this month's bill for 411 calls and it shows five at .45 EACH. I wish I had NETel for their freebie calls (10 would be too many for me). Again, another example of NYTel getting their way at the expense of the ratepayers with the express approval of the Public Service Commission. Dave Niebuhr Brookhaven National Laboratory Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov ------------------------------ From: Dan_Jacobson@att.com Subject: Re: Department Numbers and ANI Date: Sat, 24 Aug 91 08:09:00 GMT > would not answer the question of effective advertising if your ads > were in national publications likely to be read anywhere in the USA. > How can ANI detirmine for example if I read your ad in the {Wall > Street Journal}, {Time} or {News Weak} Magazines or the {Reader's > Digest}? PAT] [Boring side fact:] often a seemingly national publication often has different ads when read in different parts of the country. An easy example is for the middle most sheet (middle four pages) at the magazine's staple to be a regional insert. ------------------------------ From: SCOHEN@wvnvm.wvnet.edu Subject: Telephone Line Status Indicator Box Date: 23 Aug 91 21:30:15 GMT I am sharing a telephone line with several other individuals that we use in an async dial-up situation with a separate modem on each PC. The problem is that we can not discern when the line is in use since we each have simply a modular plug in the office. If we don't check beforehand and dial out through the modem, we disconnect the individual who is already logged on. I understand that AT&T used to sell a modular plug box with a small light which glowed when the line was in use. I can't find that part anywhere! I would appreciate your help in locating a vendor for that part or any suggestions you have for our situation. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #667 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22246; 26 Aug 91 2:14 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26198; 26 Aug 91 0:16 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07212; 25 Aug 91 23:03 CDT Date: Sun, 25 Aug 91 22:58:19 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #668 BCC: Message-ID: <9108252258.ab18285@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 25 Aug 91 22:58:08 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 668 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Flakey T1/What is Bell Pub 62411 [Bud Couch] Call Extenders [Jack Decker] Need Help Choosing AT&T Plan [Steve Shimatzki] 950 Data Access (was AT&T Data Network) [John R. Levine] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bud Couch Subject: Re: Flakey T1 - What is Bell Pub 62411? Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1991 16:26:30 GMT In article stodola@fccc.edu (Bob Stodola) writes: > Our local phone company supplies us with a T1 line connecting two > buildings. We connect two ethernets using a Vitalink bridge and > Digital Link Corporation DSU/CSU. Over the last six months, Bell has > been trying to "upgrade" our T1 line from copper to fiber. Each time > they do, the link becomes flakey from ethernet to ethernet even though > TPC says the line is clean. Each time, they restore the copper link > and problems disappear. > The reference manual for the DSU/CSU has an internal switch which > "controls whether or not the DL551V II will be forced to comply with > BELL PUB 62411." What is BELL PUB 62411, and why might it make the > difference here? Also, the vendor suggested we explore a switch which > controls the scrambler/descrambler which purportedly "will pseudo > randomly change DTE data to improve the ones density." Again, why > might this make a difference here? Actually, it's AT&T Pub 62411, and it was the controlling document for years for interconnection of customer owned T1 CSU's to the network (when the FCC first allowed this in 1983? '84? they told AT&T to write a spec and then issued it as if it was part of Part 68). The ones density requirement is there because the clock on a T1 signal is derived from the signal - no one's, no clock. This was a "Network Harm" issue because some (older) repeaters would "sing" at frequencies that would interfere with some other carrier types if they had no signal; i.e. lots of zeros. Therefore CSUs were required to insert extra one's in the signal (which are errors) if the terminal equipment didn't generate enough. 62411 had the usual Bell Labs imprimatatur -- the one's density requirement was written by the same people who describe the generation of the QRSS signal in terms of Modulo 2 arithmetic, instead of as a 20 bit shift register, with 17 and 20 fed back through an XOR gate to the input. But I digress ... the spec required not less than N ones in any (N+1) x 8 window, with the window length limited to one frame. Because the FCC didn't give AT&T much time to come up with this, not a lot of testing was done, and there turned out to be a big glitch. The aforementioned QRSS signal, the standard test signal for T1, turns out to *not* meet this spec. If a CSU manufacturer builds a CSU to meet it, said CSU will return errors when a QRSS signal is looped through it for testing. This requirement was changed when the "official" Part 68 came out, but the inertia of the telephone system insured that it hung on, in the form of tariffs. Therefore, manufacturers put in switches to do one's density enforcement in different ways, one of which was "62411". And as to your question; it should make no difference at all. There is no mechanism in 62411 to remove the extra ones at the other end. If they didn't appear on the mettalic circuit, they shouldn't appear on the fiber.The metallic-to-fiber converter has it's own method of insuring one's density, but this is transparent (it's converted back at the other end). Perhaps another netter can help with the "scrambler" portion; personally, I don't see how any scrambler with a psuedorandom sequence length of less than ten or so frames is going to "improve" one's density. Even it out, perhaps, but not improve. I would look at the clock sources involved here. If you had a dedicated point to point metallic circuit, one end was master and the other slaved it's clock to it. When you convert to fiber, your signal is undoubtedly going through a mux. If this mux is a synchronous device, your clock is being changed. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew... standard BS applies ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Aug 91 18:10:00 EDT From: Jack Decker Subject: Call Extenders In a message dated 30 Jul 91, drears@pica.army.mil (Dennis G. Rears) writes: > I would like to be able to call line two or three and be connected > to one so that I can dial out on one. Ideally, be able to call out on > both if I want a conference call. Is it possible? What equipment do > I need? I am not really worried about security right now. Also will > the phone company (NJ Bell) allow me to block outgoing calls on a > particular line? And the Moderator Notes: > [Moderator's Note: You need a call extender which will pick up one > line and connect to one or two other lines on request via touch tone > instructions you enter. Call extenders are available many places. The > telco will also equip a line for one-way service (incoming or outgoing > calls only) on request. Actually, I had once envisioned a computer controlled interface that would connect to one or two phone lines, detect (and be able to generate) various common tones, detect the line voltage at any given time, and that would be able to tie the two phone lines together (with or without inline amplification). Sort of along the same lines, except that the interface would be a slave under the control of a host PC, so that you could easily program it for any application you might have in mind. I wrote up a text file on this proposed device several years ago, and if anyone is really interested I suppose I could post it here (so long as you realize up front that it's NOT a professionally prepared proposal, therefore it may take a couple of readings before you fully understand what I'm talking about). But anyway, I'd be interested in sources for these call extenders, and there's one other product I'd love to see. This would be a single line unit designed to plug into a home phone line. After a predetermined number of rings it would answer the line and present the caller with a dial tone. The caller would then enter one of two possible security codes (four to ?? digits in length) followed by a phone number. Then, depending on which code was entered, the unit would do one of two things: 1) Three way calling mode: It would "flash" the line, receive dialtone for three way calling, if necessary dial the (user programmable) local code to activate three-way calling (or "call transfer", where available), wait for dialtone if necessary, dial the desired number, and either (depending on how the unit is programmed) disconnect after the extended call is answered (for those with "call transfer") or just hold the line open for the duration of the call (probably until line voltage momentarily drops to zero, or standard dialtone is heard, although other triggers could be used to disconnect the unit... but not just any continuous tone, please, or it might take modem/fax tones as a disconnect signal!). 2) Call forwarding mode: It would hang up, wait five seconds, pick up the line, send the local code to activate call forwarding, send the number to call, wait for ring or busy signal, hang up and immediately do it again (to make sure it "takes"), then wait for single ring or a certain number of seconds to pass, then pick up line and send code to DEactivate call forwarding. To use this feature you'd call in, give the unit your access code and the number you want to call, hang up (and let it set up the call forwarding), then call back. After you have been connected, the unit would cancel the call forwarding so that you could do the same thing with a different number later. Obviously, the idea behind this is so that someone could put one of these units at a location in an area that is both a local call to their number, and to a number they want to call. Or, for a traveling salesman that has to make a lot of calls back to his home city, he could hang one of these on a phone line, get an 800 number to terminate on that line, then call in and make "local" calls (in his home area) for the price of an 800 number call, rather than a credit card call. In the three way calling mode (which would probably be the way most people would use it, unless audio quality is degraded between the two end points of the conversation), it might be nice to have a way to end one call and start another by pressing various touch tone keys (e.g., press the "#" key for two seconds to disconnect the current call and begin another). Also, it might be nice if the unit could be used to remotely program call forwarding on a semi-permanent basis (the only problem with this is, once you've programmed it the first time, you can't very well call back in to re-program it later since your second call would be forwarded! I haven't figured out a way around that yet!). A deluxe model could also allow act as a typical voice/answering machine/fax/modem switch ... a caller could be instructed to enter a digit to signify a voice, FAX, or modem call ... but if the caller entered one of the special security codes, then the call forwarding/ call transfer functions would be activated. BTW, I know you could POSSIBLY do something like this with some of the add-on cards for the PC, but many people would not want to dedicate a PC to this type of function, even if they knew how to set one up in this way. I think in this case the standalone unit is the way to go. Now, if anyone happens to know of an EXISTING device that operates anywhere near to the way I've described, please send some information. Either a manufacturer's or distributor's name and address, plus phone number if you have it, would be great. Jack P.S. Thanks very much to all who sent information on sources for Merlin system parts, it was much appreciated! Fido: Via D'Bridge 1:232/10 08/22 17:21 [Moderator's Note: One way to regain control of a device which is on a phone line that has been call-forwarded elsewhere is to have a second 'ringmaster' (or as IBT calls them, a 'distinctive-ringing' number which camps on the first line but does NOT forward along with the main line. I have a distinctive-ringing number attached to my first line for just this reason. In addition, my 800 numbers go to the distinctive number, enabling me to identify these calls when they come in. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Saturday, 24 Aug 1991 15:49:55 EDT From: Wish-Bringer (Steve Shimatzki) Subject: Need Help Choosing AT&T Plan Hi, I know that most people here have their favorite LD carrier, and for good reasons, but I'd like some UNBiased oppinions/help if you could. When I bought my books for our fall semmester here at Penn State-Fayette, I got something called a 'college survival pak'. In this little 'college survival pak' was an AT&T brochure for the AT&T Student Saver Plus Plan ... some of its benefits are: @ Full Hour of EVENING and WEEKEND calls: (all day Sat. Sun. until 5Pm and Sunday - Friday, 10Pm -> 8AM.) With additional time being $6.60 an hour, prorated. @ 25% of AT&T's evening Rates (Sun - Friday, 5Pm -> 10Pm) @ 10% off Daytime Calling (Mon- Fri., 8Am -> 5pm) And when you sign up You get an AT&T LD certificate good for 60 minutes of free AT&T LD calling ... (a value of $8.25 according to back of brochure so it may be more or less minutes, depending on WHERE you call. :) I get all this for just $8.70 a month. So, here are my questions for the AT&T reps ... or MCI (ITT.. etc.) if you want a chance to steal a (currently) loyal customer... 1) Is the full hour for EVERY MONTH? (Ie... I pay $8.70 for the first hour, and then $6.60 for each additional hour? Or is the hour free each month, and the $8.70 is like a Membership (??) fee?) Or is it a ONE TIME DEAL, and is it separate from the FREE hour for signing up???? 2) I thought night rates ran all day Saturday and Sunday along with 10PM through the night Mon. -> Friday ... when did this change? At least that is it says in my phone book, but the brochure says "Sunday UNTIL 5Pm...." 3) Basically, I just want a plan for me and my rooomate, we don't care about the call manager; we are not so lazy that we can't keep track of who and where we call ... we just want good rates/savings on regional calls (for my roomate) and intrastate calls for me (same state, but different area codes.) I know the internet isn't supposed to be used for business dealings, that's why I only wish to have input for others, that may have the services mentioned, or that know of such services that may be better or not. Also if anyone knows what to look out for ... ie, the local Bell company charging to change the service we have and such. Thanks, Steven Shimatzki-| InterNet : SJS132@psuvm.psu.edu | BBS : (412)-277-0548 | Snail Mail: ---- Rd# 1 Box 20-A Dunbar, Pa 15431 [Moderator's Note: The brochure you received sounds like AT&T's Reach Out America plan. You get one hour of calling for the basic rate shown each month with additional hours at the lesser amount. Apparently the coupon was for a free hour of calling as an inducement to join. Although it may suit your roomate's purposes, be sure the plan will allow intrastate (same state) calling for the same price. It may not work for your calls! Usually AT&T (or any long distance carrier) will pay the fee charged by your local telco to make the change in service. And yes, Sunday evening from 5-10 PM is *not* in the plan ... this is a very popular time to use the phone and the rates are higher then. For specifics about Reach Out America and how it might apply in your case, call 800-222-0300. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: 950 Data Access, was AT&T Data Network Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 25 Aug 91 12:12:09 EDT (Sun) From: "John R. Levine" In article you write: >> 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. > Actually, I'd like to know what the costs are to have a 950 access > number. I would imagine that there is a monthly charge, but are calls > to 950 numbers also charged by the minute? Ho ho. They sure are. Remember the 1987 modem tax furor that keeps popping up from time to time (as in "send little Craig a card telling him that you don't want a modem tax")? What the FCC was proposing was, basically, that packet nets like Tymnet, Sprintnet, and Compuserve (CIS has a very large packet net used by many services other than their own) be treated the same as voice long distance carriers, with 10XXX, 950 numbers, etc. The reason that everyone had a panic attack is that there is a per minute access cost of six to nine cents which seems quite reasonable for voice calls but pretty awful for on-line services which now cost between one and twenty cents/minute. The access cost is split between the originating and terminating ends so there would probably be no terminating end charge, but even three or four cents/minute would be a disaster to the lower-priced services such as Genie, Delphi, and Prodigy. Note that even if they didn't switch to 950, the existing numbers would have been reclassified as Feature Group A access for which there is still a per-minute charge for both incoming and outgoing calls. In a rational world, it would clearly make sense to get modem calls off the PSTN and onto a data net as close to the endpoints as possible to avoid the silliness of dedicating a 64KBPS voice channel to a 1200 BPS modem call. I note that this is already starting to happen a little -- a message a few days ago reported that the latest whizbang multiplexors used on international phone circuits recognize fax calls and transmit just the fax bits, not the digitized analog version of them. But until there is pricing that reflects that it should be cheaper to pass 2400 or even 9600bps than 64K bps, don't hold your breath. I suppose the RBOCs will shortly be telling us how much better off we'd be if the nasty old judge let them do it themselves, but given the way they've overpriced ISDN, no thanks. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #668 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26190; 26 Aug 91 3:18 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30684; 26 Aug 91 1:24 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac26198; 26 Aug 91 0:16 CDT Date: Sun, 25 Aug 91 23:48:21 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #669 BCC: Message-ID: <9108252348.ab00701@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 25 Aug 91 23:48:14 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 669 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Pager.IXO.example File Addition to Archives [TELECOM Moderator] More Millenium Payphone Notes [David Leibold] Cable Companies and "Other Antennas" [Jerry Leichter] More Troubles With New York Telephone [Dave Niebuhr] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 25 Aug 91 23:07:32 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Pager.IXO.example File Addition to Archives Here is a little information about a new file in the Telecom Archives. In the archives it is filed as 'pager.ixo.example' in order to keep it near the other pager file there. The notes below will give you a little idea what to expect from the file itself which is considerably larger and includes the required coding. PAT ---------- IXO PROTOCOL EXAMPLE Author: J. Brad Hicks Language: HyperTalk Rev. Date: 20 Aug 91 The following two HyperTalk functions implement the IXO/TAP protocol sufficiently to handle numeric paging. To use these scripts in HyperCard or SyperCard, place them in the stack/project script, then call them using: DialPager param1,param2,param3 where param1 is the modem phone number of the local paging company, param2 is the phone number for the pager you want to beep, and param3 is the message to appear on the pager. For debugging purposes, everything sent back from the modem is stored in global variable SaveBuffer. REQUIREMENTS: You will also need four of the HyperCard XCMDs/XFCNs for serial port control: configureSPort, recvUpTo, sendSPort, and closeSPort. These commands are all availabe via the "HyperCard Serial ToolKit" from APDA. For those of you who are translating this into other languages, those all do what you'd expect except for recvUpTo, which takes three parameters. Param1 is the byte to stop at; if "", then it runs until it times out. Param2 is the maximum wait time, in 60ths of a second. Param3 is optional, and if it's anything but empty then it gets inserted before the serial port data. IMPLEMENTATION LIMITS: The IXO/TAP protocol supports sending multiple messages and multiple phone numbers in a single transaction. Since I didn't need it for my purposes, I didn't implement them. If you feel brave (and have the cooperation of your local paging company), you can send a theoretically infinite number of pager id/message packets in a single phone call by ending every packet except the last one with instead of . CONTACTING THE AUTHOR: J. Brad Hicks can be most reliably contacted via MCI Mail at JBHICKS or Internet to the same address, jbhicks@mcimail.com. CompuServe users can also send mail to 76012,300. AppleLink subscribers can send mail to B0186. Via US mail, send to 12364 Spanish Trace Dr., Apt. G, Maryland Heights, MO 63043-2354, USA. Absolute last-ditch efforts only may be made to 1-314-275-3645, roughly 8:30 am to 5:30 pm Central Time (UCT+6). DISCLAIMER: This script is provided as-is and for free, and warranted to be worth at least that much. Although I developed it while at MasterCard, neither MasterCard International nor its membership endorses this product. The author denies responsibility for any consequences, positive or negative, arising out of anybody's use of this code, or any work derived from this code. Test thoroughly. Protect yourself. --------------- If you use paging devices a lot, I hope this new addition to the Archives will be of help to you. My thanks to Mr. Hicks for sending it along to telecom. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Aug 91 01:11:14 EDT From: DLEIBOLD@vm1.yorku.ca Subject: More Millenium Payphone Notes I had a chance to examine (in better detail) the Millenium payphones that are starting to appear in Bell Canada territory. These are card-oriented phones that take a variety of cards: Calling card from a Telecom Canada telco (Bell Canada, BC Tel, AGT, etc - we had baby Bells up here long before the U.S. :-) ), Visa, MasterCard, American Express, AT&T cards, and recently the Enroute card. Alas, attempts to get an MCI card or a Southern Bell card met with failure, as the phones sense these as invalid card types. The Southern Bell cards can be used in card dialing, however, as 0 + area code + number (boing) + SB card #; operators manually verified the Southern Bell cards when dialed from payphones, but not when called from more conventional lines. This is likely due to fraud prevention considerations; it's easier to go after people on regular phone lines if there was a problem with a card call. The Bell Canada cards, on the other hand, tended not to require manual verification, since the databases for the numbers were likely handy, even in other provinces. I did some more exploration on how tolerant the Millenium phones were to various dialing methods. The tests were based on dialing a long distance number within 416, then a local number. After the number was dialed from the payphone, the rate would either be determined and then displayed on the unit (and voice-synthesised through the receiver) or it would be declared as an invalid number. (On a few occasions, the rating of a call would fail, with a message asking the caller to hang up and try again, without explaining much else; overall, this was not common from my findings). Long Distance, within 416: - dialed as 1 + number : timeout, then call was rated - dialed as 1 + 416 + number : call was rated shortly thereafter - dialed as just number : timeout, then message that call was invalid - dialed as 416 + number : message that call was invalid Local number: - dialed as 1 + number : timeout, then call was rated local (25c) - dialed as 1 + 416 + number : call was rated as local call - dialed as just number : timeout, then call was rated as local call - dialed as 416 + number : call was rated as local call The system is fairly tolerant of dialing methods; it is even fairly flexible when it comes to payment methods. I put in 20c, then dialed a local number, then the display came back to indicate the 20c credit and that 5c more was needed to make up the full amount of the local call (25c). Cards could also be put through at various stages; I didn't try mixing cards and coins, though, but that might be a possibility. The only curious point about the dialing was that local seven-digit calls had a timeout after the last digit, whereas dialing them as 416 + number would cause them to dial immediately after the last digit. One interesting feature is the use of a lighted green fluorescent display that can be read in various lighting conditions. This is a two-line display where informational messages and call costings are found, in either English or French (according to a toggle button on the phone, allowing switching between languages). And that's a more precise idea of how the Millenium payphone operates; for reference, I posted some other basic impressions of the Millenium in the Digest a few weeks ago. dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca (only for a few more days) dleibold@attmail.com, djcl@bnw.debe.fl.us --- thereafter... [Moderator's Note: Readers will please remember that David Leibold is currently preparing a FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) file for the Telecom Archives, and to be distributed to new subscribers to the list. He wants your input -- ASAP -- since he intends to finish this in the next day or two. Send your FAQ text to him at the above addresses. Please do it now. Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Aug 91 08:37:16 EDT From: Jerry Leichter Subject: Cable Companies and "Other Antennas" The apartment building where I used to live (in New Haven, CT) provided a great example of how cable companies play the game. When I moved in (let's see, it's almost twelve years ago now), you had three choices for your TV: Rabbit ears or some other internal antenna (which gave you a good signal on one local New Haven channel and was just passable on something like two Hartford channels from about 30 miles away); a central antenna provided by the building, which gave you excellent reception on the New Haven and Hartford channels as well as on the New York City channels from about 75 miles away - but VHF only); and cable. The building antenna system consisted of a large antenna on the roof, a distribution amp in the basement, and some nice coax run internally to the building. It was free. The cable plant was HORRIBLE -- wires kind of strung randomly around the outside of the building, rusted connectors. At its best, the cable signal was comparable to what you could get from the building antenna; often, it was worse. It was also known for going out completely for hours at a time, and of course no one ever answered the phone at the cable company's trouble line. The only reason to subscribe to cable was to get some of the special cable channels. A few people did, but it was rare. About six years after I moved in, the cable company decided to upgrade their plant. They worked their way through the neighborhood; at my building, the ripped out all the old crap, put in all new wiring from the street, up the driveway, in neat runs over the outside of the building, with new, sealed junction boxes. Nice, professional job. (Too bad the junction boxes would start to rust within a year or two.) One day about the time they finished the new installation, my TV, connected to the building system, stopped working: The building system was no long delivering any signal. Fortunately, I had long ago figured out where the distribution amp was, and that it was easily accessible. A quick check showed that the whole system was still in place -- someone had just unplugged the amp. Plugging it back in restored the signal. In talking to other people from the area, I determined that this was not an isolated case. Because of New Haven's location, building systems had been fairly common at one time. They usually "broke" about the time cable was installed or upgraded. Word had it that the cable company paid off the building super. In the case of my building, the service was interrupted once more, months later, perhaps when someone from the cable company happened to be in the building on a job. I plugged the amp back in again, and service returned. I eventually subscribed to cable -- I wanted to watch Star Trek, The Next Generation, which wasn't available at the time on any channel accessible without cable. So I don't know whether the system was disconnected again later. Of course, it will eventually break, and no one will fix it. BTW, just to give you an example of the meanness involved in all this: At the time I moved in, almost all of my neighbors were retired people, many in their 80's and 90's, living on fixed incomes. Many had been in the building for twenty years or more. Hardly the group that would know what to do when the amp was unplugged. Also, hardly in a position to pay for cable -- though many they did, because especially in bad weather they were heavy TV watchers. One interesting sidelight on the cable business should be of interest to TELECOM Digest folks: There's a simple reason why cable rates rose sharply, even while they were nominally regulated (and even more, of course, when regulation was eliminated). During the '80's, cable systems were considered hot investment properties. They had at least two things going for them: A captive market, and an easy way to determine "value". Sales of systems were on the basis of number of subscribers; there was a "magic number" of dollars per sub- scriber. To investors, things like condition of plant were irrelevant; all they cared about was subscriber count (and for less-developed systems, market penetration, I suppose -- but the stuff on the block was generally "mature"). In the ra-ra days of the early to mid '80's, the "magic number" went up with every sale. I no longer remember how much it went up, but I think it was by a factor of twelve or so in a couple of years. Some proposed sales, especially just before the collapse of the market at around the time the stock market crashed in '87, went completely overboard. But the game for investors, of course, was to borrow money, buy, wait a bit for the "magic number" to go up (and it always did), then sell and go on to the next racket. Some cable com- panies changed hands three or four times in a couple of years, at a jacked-up price each time. Now, to a cable subscriber, the ultimate owner of the local franchise is of little importance -- except for one problem: The purchases were always made with borrowed money, much of it at very high interest rates for junk bonds. The interest payments, of course, were legitimate business expenses. When it came time to calculate cable rates that would guarantee the franchisee's fixed rate of return, the interest expenses had to be covered first. So, of course, the rates kept going up. Cable companies could, and did, argue the rightness of their position with a straight face -- after all, THEY had nothing to do with the (increased -- though they neglected to mention that) interest expense -- that was just money due to banks and bondholders! The cable company was doing its best to keep costs down (by not having enough staff to answer phones -- except on the initial sales line, of course) and by not maintaining its plant. Fortunately, we weathered the '80's without the RBOC's "coming into play" in the way the cable companies did. (The end result of all the financial shenanigans for the cable companies was the consolidation that had always been anticipated. These days, three or four large companies own almost all the franchises -- but a huge amount of money was sucked out of "the system" -- AKA the subscribers -- by intermediaries along the way.) Changes in the economy and general atmosphere make a return to '80's-style finance unlikely any time soon. However, the whole form of the manipulation -- turning wild speculation into "legitimate" business expenses -- is hardly unique to the cable industry. The RBOC's, with their "hands off" unregulated subsidiaries, are in a position to play the same kinds of games, and some of them have. Expect to see more of that. Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1991 9:20:41 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" Subject: More Troubles With New York Telephone Mike Brown at jpradley.jpr.com writes about the hassles he had with New York Telephone and the frustration in trying to get them to do something. My daughter recently went through one of their seemingly continual runarounds. When she had her number assigned, we had found out that it had previously belonged to a real sleaze who had bill collectors and other assorted ilk constantly pestering her. Telco's answer: change your number (first time free). Since it was new and she had given it to several friends she didn't want that hassle. Well, the calls continued and the telco said "Our hands are tied if you don't want to change the number and anyway we don't reassign numbers for several months anyway". To make a long story short, she had the d****d thing ripped out and is now using ours much to her relief. In general, New York Telephone is incompetent to do much of anything except collect money each and every month. And then, they tend to goof up too many times. I wish there were an alternative to them so I could get away from their greedy pockets. The Utility (oops Public) Service Commission can't seem to do much of anything except rubber-stamp rate increases on a yearly basis. Dave Niebuhr Brookhaven National Laboratory Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov [Moderator's Note: It sounds to me like they were perfectly competent in this case. What would you have had them do, intercept all arriving calls and ask 'are you a bill collector calling?'. They offered to give her a new number -- free, which they don't have to do -- and probably would have given her a free intercept as well for awhile so her friends could catch up with her. NY Tel may be 'incompetent' in some ways, but in this instance you and your daughter were being very unreasonable. The previous subscriber might well have been off the number for several months; it is that long before some past due accounts go to collection. Just what would you have had NY Tel do? And I can just imagine her saying "oh, what a relief it is to have to run over to mom and dad's place whenever I want to make a call." PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #669 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12885; 27 Aug 91 1:12 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18408; 26 Aug 91 23:44 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11551; 26 Aug 91 22:37 CDT Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 22:31:50 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #670 BCC: Message-ID: <9108262231.ab03081@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 26 Aug 91 22:31:09 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 670 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Radio Days: The ARI System [Lars Poulsen] Re: GTE Switches [Brian Crowley] Re: 950 Data Access, was AT&T Data Network [John Higdon] Re: Is Possession of Telephone Test Set Illegal? [Julian Macassey] Re: Telephone Line Status Indicator Box [Toby Nixon] Re: Telephone Line Status Indicator [Dan Wheeler] Re: Weather Information Servers [Darin S. Lory] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Re: Radio Days: The ARI System Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 04:20:16 GMT In article bei@dogface.austin.tx.us writes: > The FM/AM station that I was working at was a test site for > what Blaupunkt called ARI, for Automotive Road Information. The plan > was for the system to carry traffic information that you wouldn't have > to be tuned to all the time. If you were in a region that was > affected by a reported road condition, your radio would turn on and > play the report. The German radio traffic information system is indeed a joy to behold. And it cannot possibly work here, for a variety of reasons. The European world of broadcasting has been somewhat decentralized and deregulated in the last decade; if that invalidates any of what I tell below, I'll be happy to hear about it. After all, it's been almost 14 years since I cruised the autobahns regularly. Germany -- like most European countries -- has three full-coverage FM radio networks. The German system is state-by-state. One is mostly news, talk, and family programs. One is usually classical music. And one is mostly easy listening, country and western, rock oldies, and occasionally "teenager music"; it also carries a two-minute news update on the hour. This latter channel -- which is usually by far the most listened to -- is what carries the traffic information system: A one-minute specific report from the highway patrol hourly most of the day, every 15 minutes at commute times, or if there is significant roadwork going on. You don't need an ARI-equipped radio to benefit from the system. The frequency of the ARI-channel is posted on a blue 12"x18" sign by the side of the autobahn every 10 km or so. There is also a letter which is useful if you have an ARI-equipped radio: If you dial the letter on a special switch on the receiver, it will ONLY receive the ARI station for this zone !! Since the traffic bulletin opens and closes with a DTMF sequence (usually hidden in a bar of music) the receiver can also be set to be silent except during the bulletin. Presumably, it can also be set to silence only the bulletin. Where this differs from US "drivetime traffic bulletins" is that it is delivered with German precision from the horse's mouth. The following, while entirely fictional, is typical of the compact style: On E-96 southbound before the E-67 interchange on the West side of Frankfurt, traffic is slow due to roadwork. Traffic is backed up 6 kilometers, expect a 17-minute wait. If desired, the choke point can be avoided by taking the Kesselofen exit and following the U-26 detour route. On E-67 westbound before the E-96 interchange traffic is slow but not stopped due to the same roadwork. There is no effective detour. Overall traffic is heavy due to vacationtime. There is a one hour wait at the Garmisch-Partenkirchen border crossing." Driving in Germany, one learns to pay attention to these bulletins. The German autobahns get resurfaced every four years or so; always in the summer. When it's time to start work, they will close one side of the highway for a week, divide the three lanes plus shoulder on the other side into 2 narrow lanes in each direction, and then switch and do the other side. The resulting choke is spectacular. When the regular cruise speed is 100 mph you want to know about this in advance. The other specialty above, is the "U-number". The freeway administration has designated detours from each exit to the next. Get off at any offramp. Notice the U-number on the blue square on the offramp, and follow the blue squares and arrows along country roads until they deposit you on the next on-ramp. Instant pre-signed detours for any accident, closure, overload etc. The system cannot be transplanted here, because no commercial broadcasting station would allow the State Police to interrupt its programming at will. What if they should break during a commercial? Also, with the local nature of US broadcasting, it is difficult to set up a reasonable full-coverage network. The US has a similar system specifically designated for emergencies -- the EBS system -- but it usually does not work when needed. Finally, the European freeway systems are "extras". There is always a "traditional" highway parallelling a freeway; thus available as a fallback. In the US, there often is no alternate. Around here, even bicycles have to use the freeway if they want to go up the coast. (Something that leads to fatal accidents every year). So do tractors. As a result, when the freeway is closed or overloaded, there is nowhere else that can be recommended. Alternate routes only work until they become widely known, then they clog up instantly. The question is not why ARI dies in the US; the question is why Bosch/Blaupunkt thought it could possibly work. Thank you for reminding me of this wonderful system, though. Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Aug 91 23:23:51 PDT From: Brian Crowley Subject: Re: GTE Switches In Telecom-Digest Volume 11, Issue 564, Joe Kelsey (joe@zircon.gte. tele.com) presents an interesting discussion on the type of switching equipment used by GTE in area code 206: > In GTENW for area code 206, there are six #5ESS COs, in addition to > the tandem #5ESS in Everett (Everett (Casino), Bothell and Redmond COs > are #5ESS in the Puget Sound area). Almost all of the rest of the > switches (especially in the 206 area) are GTD-5's (sixteen total). > There is one Vidar, four EAX2's (early SPC switch), three CXP5's (#5 > cross-bar) and four SXS (step-by-step!). According to my list, GTENW > (Washington, Oregon, Idaho) has 73% of the #5ESS in all of GTE! My home is served by the Bothell CO (206-488). When GTE replaced the old switch with the #5ESS (about two years ago? How time flies...), I received a little flier in my bill explaining what was to happen, when the cutover date was, etc. Imagine my suprise when I saw that they were going to provide me with the best in phone service with a #5ESS! It seems to me that GTE must have put a *lot* of development money into the GTD-5 switch, so why are they upgrading CO's with 5ESS switches? There has been a lot of talk in the Seattle papers lately about US West wanting to implement CLASS services in Washington State. Anyone know if GTE has similar plans? I would *love* to get CALLER-ID or CALL-TRACE after my recent experience with my wifes ex-husband abusing our telephone and our local law enforcement departments inability to deal with the same (but that's another story). Brian Crowley DNS: brian@amc.com Applied Microsystems Corp. UUCP: uunet!amc-gw!brian Redmond, WA ATT: 206-882-2000 Ext. 328 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 01:47 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: 950 Data Access, was AT&T Data Network "John R. Levine" writes: > Ho ho. They sure are. Remember the 1987 modem tax furor that keeps > popping up from time to time (as in "send little Craig a card telling > him that you don't want a modem tax")? > In a rational world, it would clearly make sense to get modem calls > off the PSTN and onto a data net as close to the endpoints as possible > to avoid the silliness of dedicating a 64KBPS voice channel to a 1200 > BPS modem call. As I read this, I was musing over that very furor about a year ago. Message after message talked about why a telco should be justified in charging MORE for a modem connection than for a voice connection. But as John has so clearly pointed out, the telco is using a 64 KBPS data circuit to carry data at about 1/10 that rate. The reality is that when you make a data call, you are transmitting much LESS information than when you simply talk (and your voice must be faithfully represented at the other end.) But we all thought ISDN would be the answer. Subchannels that would run at the actual data rate and all that. The problem is, telcos such as Pac*Bell only want ISDN to serve its Centrex marketing needs. The company has no interest in using the technology to actually serve customers -- hence the silly pricing. When T1 and ISDN are priced according to reality, the people will benefit, but the telcos will have to suffer revenue reductions from people taking advantage of lower cost alternatives. You don't suppose that this is why the pricing is the way it is. > I suppose the RBOCs will shortly be telling us how much > better off we'd be if the nasty old judge let them do it themselves, > but given the way they've overpriced ISDN, no thanks. We may be back to this notion of perceived value. Since ISDN is "the latest and greatest", it should cost more, right? Never mind that it makes it possible for the telco to more effectively use its bandwidth and save money hand over fist. I fear ISDN may be the new "Touch Tone" of inappropriately priced "value added" services. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Is Possession of Telephone Test Set Illegal? Date: 25 Aug 91 13:58:30 GMT Reply-To: Julian Macassey Organization: Xenon Systems News n Mail, Hollywood In article gdw@gummo.att.com (Gordon D Woods) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 652, Message 8 of 14 > According to the August 14 {Morris County Daily Record} a former AT&T > trainer's home was searched (unrelated to telephony). Four "telephone > test sets" were found and he is being charged with possessing said > test sets (butt sets?). Inspector Peterson of the Morris County > prosecutor's office said that it is "illegal to possess telephone test > sets unless you can prove your job requires it." Does anyone know if > this is true or just some overzealous detective spouting off? There > must be a lot of illegal test sets out there from the looks of the > flea markets and ham fests. In my chats with telco security types, I know they often throw in a charge re possesing stolen telco property. If an ex employee has telco property in his possession, then the telco assume it is stolen. So maybe AT&T security and the DA got their wires crossed with a "he shouldn't have four AT&T butt sets if he is an ex employee" message. In the U.S.A., anyone can buy, own and use a butt set. When I came to the U.S., I was amazed to see an IMTS phone installer have a butt set in his toolbox. He laughed when I reacted as if he had an anti tank gun in his possession. I checked (in Southern California) and yes, anyone, even an illegal alien, could own as many butt sets as he could afford. But obviously using a butt set to clip to the neighbours phone line for "dicount long distance" service will put you in prison. Also, you can make your own butt sett with an AT&T trimline phone, a couple of aligator clips and some wire. That is what Susan Thunder used to use. See the recent book "Cyberpunk" for a description of what she used her home brewed butt set for. Julian Macassey at xenon. julian@xenon.sr.com Voice: (213) 654-2822 Paper Mail: 742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue, Hollywood, California 90046-7142 ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Telephone Line Status Indicator Box Date: 26 Aug 91 11:00:29 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , SCOHEN@wvnvm.wvnet.edu writes: > I am sharing a telephone line with several other individuals that we > use in an async dial-up situation with a separate modem on each PC. > The problem is that we can not discern when the line is in use since > we each have simply a modular plug in the office. If we don't check > beforehand and dial out through the modem, we disconnect the > individual who is already logged on. I can't help you with finding the "line in use" indicator light box, but I thought I'd ask whether or not you've tried using the Dial Tone Detection feature of your modem? This is enabled with the X2 and X4 settings (X4 also enables busy signal detection). When the modem goes off-hook, it first listens for dial tone before it starts to dial, and (assuming the feature is well-designed in your modem) if it hears a modem carrier will simply go back on hook and issue a NO DIALTONE result code. I share a single phone line in my office between the modems on my Mac and my PC, and having dial tone detection enabled keeps me from inadvertently interrupting a call from one computer by trying to start one on the other. 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 ------------------------------ From: Dan Wheeler Subject: Re: Telephone Line Status Indicator Date: 26 Aug 91 23:02:16 EST Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati SCOHEN@wvnvm.wvnet.edu wrote: > I am sharing a telephone line with several other individuals that > we use in an async dial-up situation with a separate modem on > each PC. The problem is that we can not discern when the line is > in use since we each have simply a modular plug in the office. > If we don't check beforehand and dial out through the modem, we > disconnect the individual who is already logged on. > I understand that AT&T used to sell a modular plug box with a small > light which glowed when the line was in use. I can't find that part > anywhere! I would appreciate your help in locating a vendor for that > part or any suggestions you have for our situation. There were plans for building in-use lights posted to the TELECOM Digest a few months ago. I was about to build a couple when I found what seems to be a better solution to exactly the same problem you have. I was afraid that we would forget to look at the light -- and mess up the modem calls in spite of the indicator. Radio Shack sells a device called a Teleprotector Voice/Data Guard (43-107, $7.95). You need one for each extension. The catalog description is so poor that I couldn't tell what it did, but the salesman claims that with one on an extension, if the line is in use, the phone or modem on the extension will not be connected to the line. The people I'm working with on this bought two of them, but I have not seen them yet and I cannot vouch for how well they work. Peace, Daniel D. Wheeler Internet: Dan.Wheeler@UC.Edu Education & Psychology Bitnet: wheeler@ucbeh University of Cincinnati Phone: (513)556-3607/861-3941 Cincinnati, OH 45221-0002 FAX: (513)556-2483 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 09:42:27 EDT From: "Darin S. Lory" Subject: Re: Weather Information Servers > 141.212.100.9 telnet martini.eecs.umich.edu 3000 Location DBMS > 141.212.196.79 telnet madlab.sprl.umich.edu 3000 Weather/Earthquake DBMS Sorry if I didn't state this, that you are to telnet to the specific port 3000 like so: telnet madlab.sprl.umich.edu 3000 Help information and next-step information is available as soon as you are connected. Darin S. Lory Kaman Sciences Corporation Advanced Technology Division Network Analyst Utica, New York +1.315.734.3663 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #670 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17161; 27 Aug 91 2:32 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02845; 27 Aug 91 1:00 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18408; 26 Aug 91 23:44 CDT Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 23:31:39 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #671 BCC: Message-ID: <9108262331.ab07235@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 26 Aug 91 23:31:36 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 671 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cable Companies and "Other Antennas" [Carol Springs] Re: Telephones in Elevators [Michael Katzmann] Re: Hurricane Bob, Telco, and Power [Dean Cookson] Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service [Peter Sleggs] Re: Does the ISDN DC Signalling Spec Violate Hayes' Patent? [oberman Re: Long Distance Across a Road [Kim Bailey] Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low On Phone Numbers [Carl Moore] Re: Phast Food [Floyd Vest] Re: Half Duplex Conversations via Speakerphone [Sandy Kyrish] Re: More Troubles With New York Telephone [Rich Zellich] Re: More Troubles With New York Telephone [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carol Springs Subject: Re: Cable Companies and "Other Antennas" Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 11:06:02 EDT This is getting away from telecom, but I had to laugh when I read Jerry Leichter's account (Volume 11, Issue 669) of sudden TV reception interruption in his old apartment building after cable upgrades. He was able to correct the problem himself by plugging in the distribution amp for the building antenna. I live in an apartment outside Boston that has both cable access (the choice of most residents) and an old master antenna on the building roof. The master antenna is mentioned prominently in the promotional literature for the building. When I moved in, I found that reception of VHF stations via the free master antenna was excellent but that that of UHF stations was nonexistent (so I thought). I set up a UHF antenna atop my TV, which could pick up some stations albeit with poor reception. Later I discovered that the signal for channel 38 was being frequency-shifted to channel 9 on the receiving end, and channel 56 to channel 11. "How clever of them!" I thought. "This must be the only way they could make things work. Now, if only they'd thought about channels 25, 44, and 68 as well ..." (Note that my original connections had been made on the assumption that the UHF stations could come in "as is" through the coax for the master antenna; it was only later that I had rerouted for separate UHF input.) Some months later, I was talking to an elderly neighbor who, although not technically inclined, is in full possession of her faculties. She told me that the building's master antenna used to pick up all stations, including the UHF stations, and route them properly to the appropriate dial settings -- until cable had been installed some ten years ago. After that, "because the wires were a mess," she and her husband weren't picking up most stations properly. When she and other neighbors complained, "they" sent someone out to fix things and, when the initial attempt "didn't work," kept sending repair people for some time. The upshot was that 38 and 56 stayed "mixed up," and 25, 44, and 68, which had earlier come in clearly, were no longer available via the master antenna. My neighbor and her husband especially missed 44, a PBS station. When I later called my landlord, who, with his late father, had been around when all this was going on, he professed mystification about the whole thing and expressed surprise that I was getting any kind of decent UHF reception from the master antenna at all, being "down in the bowl" as I am. He said he would discuss the situation with "an electrician friend" of his. I followed up with a letter containing my neighbor's account (without naming names -- no sense getting her in trouble!), in which I described clearly what stations we could get as what and what we couldn't get at all, and added that reception on all receivable stations, including channels 38/9 and 56/11, was excellent despite our being "down in the bowl." I added that I would appreciate hearing from him on the matter at his earliest convenience. Needless to say, I never heard from my landlord and am still using my indoor antenna to get a fuzzy signal on channels 25 and 68, neither of which, fortunately, I'm inclined to watch often in any case. I content myself with ripping down the cable ads that appear every now and then on the bulletin boards in our supposedly secure laundry rooms. Carol Springs carols@drilex.dri.mgh.com ------------------------------ From: Michael Katzmann Subject: Re: Telephones in Elevators Organization: University of Maryland at College Park Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 15:47:34 GMT In article bill@eedsp.gatech.edu writes: > Here in the lovely Van Leer Electrical Engineering Building, where I > have my palacial office, there is an elevator. In the category of strange but true: When I was an undergrad at the Univ. of N.S.W. (in Sydney) the phone system was grossly overloaded, and the radio club, which was on the roof of the Elec. Eng. building was low on the list to get a line! We were, however, next to the lift well and could tap into the emergency phone line. Well after making alot of calls to find one that was engaged all the time, we worked out what our number was! One day I got in to the lift on my way to a lecture. It was crowded with students and a professor of mine and, yes you guessed it, the phone rings. The girl nearest the phone picks it up and, with a very incredulous look enquires whether Michael Katzmann is here! Of course I answer, "Oh yes, That's the call I've been expecting." Later on, in response to my professor's enquiry so you think you've got a small office! Michael Katzmann (VK2BEA/G4NYV/NV3Z) Please email to this address | Broadcast Sports Technology | 2135 Espey Ct. ...uunet!opel!vk2bea!michael| #4 \|/ Crofton MD 21114-2442 (301) 721-5151 ------------------------------ From: Cookson Subject: Re: Hurricane Bob, Telco, and Power Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1991 17:23:21 GMT In article pturner@eng.auburn.edu (Patton M. Turner) writes: > Steven Gutfreund writes: >> Can someone answer why, when both lines are on poles, (and sometimes >> the same ones) that it always seems that the power lines get it >> worse? > There are several reasons I can think of: > 1) Power lines are located above telephone and CATV lines. This means > they are the first to be hit by falling limbs. Telco cables are also pretty bloody stong. There is a large (three foot diameter) oak tree lying across some telco cables on the route from my house to office. The weight of the tree on the cables has caused the poles on either side to bend inward, and the tree has pulled the cable to within six or eight feet of the ground. The tree has been there since hurricane Bob rolled through (last Monday), and the lines seem to be holding it up quite nicely. Dean Cookson (Opinions? What opinions??) dcookson@mitre.org The MITRE Corp. Unix Systems Group M/S B020 Burlington Rd. Bedford Ma. 01730 508-851-9341 (H) 617-271-3642 (W) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cheap Foreagn Exchange Service From: Peter Sleggs Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1991 10:38:04 -0400 Organization: Bellatrix Systems Mississauga, ONT Canada >>> 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. > [Moderator's Note: The largest companies in the USA wish to have their > customers be able to call them conveniently from anywhere and > everywhere. So they use in-wats (800) service; they use foreign > exchange service; they use tie-lines. Please note they do NOT chain > several call-forwards together. What do they know that our BBS sysop > is missing? They know that the cost of two or more local calls plus > the associated recurring line charges, etc are not an efficient and > less expensive approach. If our BBS correspondent wishes to receive > calls from a wide area and pay for those calls as a part of the cost > of promoting his BBS, I assume he wants to do it as inexpensively as > possible also. Therefore the way to go is with 800 or FX; both are > perfectly legal in business (not quasi-legal at best) as is the chain > forwarding scheme. PAT] I think one piece of info is missing here. A call from Toronto to Oakville that is not long distance costs nothing! There is currently [at least there better not be as they haven't told me on my bill] no charge for local calls [yet!] I know of one BBS who is doing exactly this as I understand the setup. peters@beltrix.guild.org or torag!beltrix!peters [Moderator's Note: But are those local calls 'free' when business service is involved, or only when residential service is used? And where will space be found to put the phones in those towns along the way? Hang them on the wall of an answering service, per chance? Will the space they occupy be given gratis? Don't forget to include rental of space for the instruments (or are there friends who will allow the instruments in their home for free?) in the costs involved. PAT] ------------------------------ From: oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov Subject: Re: Does the ISDN DC Signalling Spec Violate Hayes' Patent? Date: 26 Aug 91 18:03:17 GMT In article , nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes: > You know, I think that we're going to have to see a few *big* > companies like AT&T, Northern Telecom, or Siemens screwed before we > see any change in the software patent botch ... hopefully it will > happen before we completely lose our lead on software innovation. First, having read the patent in question, I'm not sure it's not legal. The only real question would seem to be prior art. But I'm not a lawyer. But as to the question of AT&T or NT paying royalties, I suspect that they already license this patent. While I don't think Hayes has disclosed just who has licensed it, it is my understanding that a great many companies have done so. It would not surprise me if AT&T is one of them. R. Kevin Oberman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Internet: oberman@icdc.llnl.gov (415) 422-6955 Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing and probably don't really know anything useful about anything. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 14:46:06 EDT From: Kim Bailey Subject: Re: Long Distance Across a Road > 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. The Atlanta free calling area is also extensive. It parallels that which was described for Houston. Our rates: Line Access/Unlimited Local Service ....... $16 Measured Service/Line Access .............. $ 8 First 25 calls/month are free $.12/call after that -- no limit on duration Kim Bailey ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 10:04:13 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low On Phone Numbers The {Baltimore Sun} version of this article had the following additional stuff (besides putting in a local note, i.e. the new 410 area code in Maryland): The 917 code initially will be used for assigning new numbers for cellular phones, pagers and New York Telephone's internal operations, but officials say they may eventually distribute numbers in the new area code to computer users and regular telephone customers. This model, in which one geographic region will have a pool of two or more area codes, will ultimately require callers to dial 11 digits for both local and long-distance calls. For example, a Manhattan resident with a 212 area code might have a next-door neighbor in the 917 area, and eventually, a third neighbor might end up in yet another new area code. The Bellcore officials prefer a standard, nationwide 11-digit dialing sequence to avoid different dialing procedures in different parts of the country. "People are going to get used to 10-digit numbers," said Ron Conners, the Bellcore district administrator in charge of the North American numbering plan. "Psychological studies have shown people don't care what they have to dial, as long as it's consistent. "I think we can pretty much say that the United States has the best numbering plan in the world," Mr. Conners said. ------------------------------ From: Floyd Vest Subject: Re: Phast Food Date: 26 Aug 91 09:29:10 CDT Chris.Farrar@f20.n246.z1.fidonet.org (Chris Farrar) wrote: >> true Domino's is trying to cut the delivery time down to fifteen >> minutes in midtown Manhattan during the evening rush hour? > That should be about half a block, unless they are delivering by bicycle :-) Auburn, AL, a city of 10,000 non-students swells to 100,000 on a football weekend in the fall. Domino's delivers by bicycles ... without the 950 number. Floyd Vest Manager, Administrative Systems--Auburn University, Alabama USA Voice: +1 205 844 4512 BBS: +1 205 745 3989 FIDO: 1:3613/3 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 14:36 GMT From: Sandy Kyrish <0003209613@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Half Duplex Conversations via Speakerphone There are several good speakerphones but they all cost in the hundreds or thousands of dollars. The Shure ST-3000 is an excellent model (looks like a spaceship). The NEC VoicePoint is also remarkable. You get what you pay for ... Also, responding to the question of why two people each on speakerphones sound better than one on speakerphone and one on handset ... partially the effect is psychological. When you're on the handset, you can hear the half-duplex effect clearly and annoyingly, but when you're also on a speakerphone, you're less likely to hear (or notice) the other end cutting in and out. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 14:34:46 CDT From: Rich Zellich Subject: Re: More Troubles With New York Telephone In TELECOM Digest V11 #669, PAT writes: > [Moderator's Note: It sounds to me like they were perfectly competent > in this case. What would you have had them do, intercept all arriving > calls and ask 'are you a bill collector calling?'. They offered to Damn straight! Southwestern Bell would do it here in St. Louis (and did, for a friend of mine; I was startled one evening to receive such an operator intercept inquiring as to what party I was calling). Rich ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 02:02 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: More Troubles With New York Telephone On Aug 25 at 23:48, TELECOM Moderator writes: > The previous subscriber might well have been off the > number for several months; it is that long before some past due > accounts go to collection. Just what would you have had NY Tel do? Not to mention the fact that some numbers can almost NEVER be reassigned. Any business that receives a high volume of calls will destroy that number for anyone else's use for many years. In fact, one of the numbers that appears in my home has probably been permanently tainted. I had an associate that also had a voice BBS for a couple of years and then he moved. The number was referred, but it was some time before he got the system running at his new residence. In fact, the referral was discontinued months before the system was running on the new number. When the system was turned on, it was packed within two hours with kids who had obviously been trying the new number regularly. Heaven help anyone who gets reassigned his old number! 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 #671 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22585; 27 Aug 91 3:56 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27905; 27 Aug 91 2:26 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02845; 27 Aug 91 1:04 CDT Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 0:41:30 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #672 BCC: Message-ID: <9108270041.ab30465@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 27 Aug 91 00:41:00 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 672 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers [M. Covington] Re: Recent AT&T Changes & MCI [Mikel Manitius] Re: ISDN Call Tracker Needed -- HELP! [David E. Martin] Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service [Pierre Lavallee] Re: Need Help Identifying Mystery 900 Call [Tad Cook] Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? [Toby Nixon] Re: Looking For a Phone Line Simulator [Toby Nixon] Re: FAX Machine Message [Brian Gordon] Re: Telesphere Sued By Creditors; Forced Into Bankruptcy [Chris Dinkel] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Michael A. Covington" Subject: Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low On Phone Numbers Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 04:44:59 GMT The obvious thing to do is split North America into more than one "country" for dialing purposes. Currently most of North America is country number 1. I propose: 10 for USA east; 11 for USA west; 12 for Canada and the appropriate parts of Mexico, Bahamas, and what-not. Then each of the three regions could have a full set of area codes, and you would have to dial *one* extra digit *only* when calling another region. Why not? Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. | mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu | N4TMI Assistant to the Director, Artificial Intelligence Programs The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, U.S.A. [Moderator's Note: It would come out a little lop-sided. You'd recover a huge number of area codes for the US-west, and an even greater number for Canada and Mexico. They'd never use them all up, yet the US-east would recover fewer codes by comparison, and use them all up very quickly (ten years, perhaps?). It might work if 'US-west' started well east of the Mississippi River. Mental exercise for readers: Where would is the 'mathematical center' of area codes in the USA? That is, in what state are there an equal number of area codes to the east and west of it? North and south? What if Canada is included? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 14:09:10 EDT From: Mikel Manitius Subject: Re: Recent AT&T Changes & MCI Reply-To: mikel@aaa.com > "AT&T is issuing new AT&T Calling Cards with a 14 digit number that is > no longer based on the customer's home phone number. Customers will be > notified by AT&T regarding the new AT&T Calling Card before the tariff > becomes effective January 1, 1992." > Interesting move. I guess their planners weren't in very good touch with > their Marketing Department. When I lived in Fairfax, VA for a short time in an appartment I subscribed to the MCI Calling Card. They first tried to give me a regular calling card number with a four-digit PIN, but then said that they could not because an account with that number was still active. So they had to issue a card to me with a derivative of my home phone number (I don't pretend to follow they logic here). The interesting part of the story is that the new number in itself could end up being a potential MCI customer's home phone number, thus starting (or continuing) a chain reaction. Now living in Florida I have an MCI and an AT&T calling card, each differ only in their four digit PIN. My only grumble is that when calling your home number, MCI doesn't let you just key in the PIN like AT&T does. The other main difference is that MCI has an access number (like others), and you can't just dial 10222 + 0 + NUMBER and then use your MCI card, like with AT&T. However I find having the access number an advantage, with it you are not subject to many hotel surcharges, or getting some carrier other than that of your choice, which can happen when dialing just 0 + NUMBER on many payphones and using an AT&T calling card. One more interesting point regarding MCI's "Friends and Family" program. I'm not an "MCI Dial 1" customer, but do often use MCI. I found out it is possible to participate in the program if you are an MCI customer with a calling card. MCI will code your phone number to your calling card account number. Any 10XXX calls made thereafter from that number are eligable for the F+F discount, PLUS anyone calling that number will be eligable for the F+F discount if that number is in their F+F list. The side effect is that any 10XXX calls made will now be billed directly from MCI, not the telco. Mikel Manitius mikel@aaa.com ------------------------------ From: "David E. Martin" Subject: Re: ISDN Call Tracker Needed -- HELP! Date: 26 Aug 91 21:07:09 GMT Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory; Batavia, IL In article conrad_nobili@harvard.edu writes: > Subsequently I have seen a CallerID device in a phone accessories > catalog. It would seem to be exactly what we need, but that it only > records the last 70 or so calls (and may not record duration) and it > has no interface to the outside world other than through its LCD > display. What we need is a similar device that would also record the > call duration and that would provide for output to a computer via > RS-232, so that the data could be put into a database without (much) > human intervention (no data entry). Since you have ISDN lines, no commercial caller ID equipment will work. Caller ID sends a modem tone down the line that the caller ID equipment picks off. Your ISDN phone communicate digitally during call setup using a standard called Q.931. I don't know of any phones that make the setup information available, but some of the ISDN terminal adapters (the equivalent of a modem with ISDN) do make a subset of the setup information available. Try Hayes ISDN Technologies, (415) 974-5544; AT&T Network Systems (800) 233-5820; or Fujitsu Network Switching, (408) 954-1088. 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: Pierre Lavallee Subject: Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service Date: 26 Aug 91 20:06:39 GMT Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In , TONY@mcgill1.bitnet (Tony Harminc) wrote: > marcelm@joymrmn.uucp (Marcel Mongeon) wrote: >> 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. > [Moderator's Note: But bear in mind that the individual links in a > chain-call-forward scheme have to in total cost less than the toll > charge would otherwise. Else where is the savings? This working out > in a way financially beneficial to the subscriber is very rare. PAT] Local calls are free in Bell Canada's area. Make a ten second call, a ten minute call or even a ten hour call, its the same price: FREE! Make one call a day, ten calls a day, a hundred ... you get the point, its free! A user is charged a monthly rate for his phone lines (about $10) and then a monthly rate for the Call Forwarding feature ($4). The rates listed are for residential services. Pierre Lavallee ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Need Help Identifying Mystery 900 Call From: Tad Cook Date: 26 Aug 91 19:01:57 GMT Terry akcs.raven@ddsw1.MCS.COM writes: > I got my bill today, and there was a charge from AT&T (no, that's > not a typo) for $50.00. Looking at the itemized page, I see that > there was a 1-900 number dialed (specifically, 1-900-884-2900) even > though NO ONE in this household dials 900 numbers at all (no, no > small children, brain-dead teenagers or anything of that sort). > The thing that was really strange about this is that the "Called > Place" section gave the abbreviation of "FINNCLINFO" and the call > lasted for only *one minute or less*. The charge for this one call > was $50.00. I am quite baffled. No, I don't think there is a way for anyone to charge this to your account without actually dialing it from your line. At least no conventional way. A friend of mine who would love to have a credit card, but has no credit rating, got a call recently from a solicitor that offered her a credit card if she would dial a 900 number that he gave her. In exchange they would send a list of banks that she could apply to for a credit card, and if she didn't end up getting one, they would refund the $50 charge for the 900 call. They offered this as a "guaranteed" VISA card service. This sounded to me like one of the notorious "credit clinic" scams that offer to "fix" your credit rating for a fee. I wonder if the call on Terry's line to "FINNCLINFO" could have been to some entity such as "FINANCIAL CLINIC INFO" ?? Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP or, kt7h@polari.uucp or, 3288544@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Are There Rules Against Rapid Repeat Dialing? Date: 26 Aug 91 10:40:14 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , mailrus!gatech!unmvax!bbx! yenta!dt@uunet.uu.net (David B. Thomas) writes: > I just wrote and posted a program that dials a number over and over > again. I was doing this manually to try to win radio contests, and so > I thought, "why no automate it?". Someone warned me that I could get > into trouble. > Is this true? What does this law actually say? The FCC does not regulate software -- OR human-initiated dialing. It only regulates what the Part 68-approved hardware can do. Your modem is not what is dialing repeatedly on its own, so it is not breaking the rule (and it would be on the head of the manufacturer if it did, not you). Even the most recent proposed revision of the redialing rule specifically exempts "equipment under external computer control", because the FCC knows it would be futile to try to get into the business of regulating software. So, don't worry. By the way, if you're really serious about winning the contests, you probably have a better chance doing it manually and using your redial button -- your ear can detect a busy signal much faster and more reliably than a modem or telephone. 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 ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Looking For a Phone Line Simulator Date: 26 Aug 91 09:55:32 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , dan@dyndata.uucp (Dan Everhart) writes: > I would like to find out about equipment one would use for simulating > various qualities of phone line connections. The three major vendors of telephone line simulation equipment are: Consultronics Ltd., (AEA Division) 6270 Perth Street P.O. Box 938 Richmond, Ontario K0A 2Z0, Canada (613) 838-2554 Processing Telecom Technologies 4955 Corporate Drive Huntsville, AL 35805 (205) 837-7880 Telecom Analysis Systems, Inc. 34 Industrial Way East Eatontown, NJ 07724 (201) 544-8700 Sorry, I can't offer any more information about their equipment, except to say that we use primarily TAS equipment in our labs. > Are there any circuit designs around for such devices? Building one > ourselves is an alternative. No, it's not an alternative. They are very complicated devices. Each of the major simulator manufacturers have dozens of man-years of engineering tied up in their equipment. Modern simulators are based on DSPs, which take considerable expertise to program. A phone line simulator is not just a spool of wire and some components. > I know only the basics about telephone line characteristics, so I'd > also appreciate references to articles which have relevant or detailed > information. Obtaining a copy of EIA standard 496-A would be a good start, although there are several other books and documents that would be of interest. The three major vendors all produce equipment that can perform the tests outlined in 496-A. Also, all three are active participants in the standards committee (TIA TR-30.3) that is working on the next generation specification of test lines (EIA-496-B) that will include impairments specifically designed to test echo cancelling modems. 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 ------------------------------ From: Brian Gordon Subject: Re: FAX Machine Message Date: 26 Aug 91 23:40:23 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. In article tlowe@attmail.com writes: > 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. I've had the opposite class of problems -- my computer, acting as a FAX sender, calling a FAX number and never getting through. I eventually called from a voice line and got that same message. Since my system was never convinced that a FAX had answered, it never sent tones. A mixed blessing, at best, that device would seem to be. Brian G. Gordon briang@Sun.COM briang@netcom.COM ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 91 22:39:49 EDT From: "CHRIS D." <71477.3010@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Telesphere Sued by Creditors; Forced Into Bankruptcy I need to help Patrick Townson get his facts straight about Telesphere. I am one of the 11 not 10 companies involved in the IPG (information providers group) attempting to settle with Telesphere. > On Monday August 19, Telesphere Communications, Inc. was sued by a > group of ten creditors who claim the company best known for its 900 > service isn't paying its bills." Where did this information come from? > ...claim they are owed two million dollars Actually it is alot higher than that; we are willing to settle for two million. We have not placed an order of chapter 7 against Telesphere. Telesphere is still based in Oak Brook IL. They moved a portion of their operations back to MD. They have always been a MD corporation. Due to the situation I can not say very much, but it makes me sick to read things that haven't even been investigated properly. Chris Dinkel [Moderator's Note: If you are going to get sick, I suggest you do it in the offices of the Associated Press (they sent out the story); the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court (those records were examined by the AP), or the attornies who filed the paperwork and are litigating with Telesphere. The same article appeared in both the {Chicago Sun Times} and the {Chicago Tribune} the same day; on Friday following the events of the Monday prior. So don't get sick here, okay? By the way, how does it feel to be the one *getting* ripped off for a change? Your whole industry is badly in need of reform; what with horoscope readings, Tarot sessions, Madame Nina Nostradamus, sex and more sex; Lucky Winning Numbers For Your State Lottery and more. How much were *you* raking in per call? My personal reaction is a plague on both your houses. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #672 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26348; 27 Aug 91 5:02 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32240; 27 Aug 91 3:36 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac27905; 27 Aug 91 2:27 CDT Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 1:35:44 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #673 BCC: Message-ID: <9108270135.ab02093@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 27 Aug 91 01:35:04 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 673 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Pacific Bell "Message Center" Breakdown, August 22, 1991 [D. Schacter] Re: NET's Call Answering Service [Henry Mensch] Wyoming, Land of the Friendly COCOT? [David Singer] Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls [Justin Leavens] Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service [Marcel Mongeon] Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service [Ken Abrams] Re: Telephones in Elevators [Clay Jackson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: llustig!david@decwrl.dec.com Subject: Pacific Bell "Message Center" Breakdown, August 22, 1991 Date: Sun Aug 25 23:24:19 1991 (My comments follow the article.) {San Francisco Chronicle}, Saturday, August 24, 1991, page A10 Headline: Pac Bell Message Center Breaks Down Subhead: Electronic answering service out of whack for 21 hours By Dan Levy, Chronicle Staff Writer In its worst high-tech collapse yet, Pacific Bell's Message Center answering service broke down for 21 hours around the Bay Area before being repaired yesterday, leaving thousands of irate customers without access to their phone messages. Pac Bell officials said yesterday that two components in the system's main switching facility failed simultaneously just before noon Thursday, throwing the entire Message Center system into disarray. It was the longest-ever shutdown for the ten-month-old system, put into service by Pacific Bell in November as a precursor to a wide range of modern telecommunications services, including access to stock quotations and other financial data. A Message Center failure left the system down for four hours in December. The shutdown caused customer mailboxes to stop taking messages at 11:40 a.m. Thursday in San Francisco and the East Bay. People trying to leave messages could not get through to the system, and customers trying to retrieve messages encountered an unending ring. The failure affected thousands of Bay Area customers who have signed up for the pioneering system since November, touted as a reliable, contemporary alternative to the phone answering machine. Subscribers pick up messages by punching a personal code into a telephone. Although company officials stressed that no messages were lost, customers were fuming. Hundreds of subscribers bombarded Pac Bell switchboards with complaints. "It's been down lots of times, but I can't believe it this time," said Larry Littlejohn of San Francisco, a subscriber since December who relies on the service for his business. "They're playing on the edge of high-tech and they don't know what they are doing. They're finding all these bugs in the system at the expense of the customers." The system failure occurred at the point where phone voice transmissions are converted to a digital signal and sent to the company's main computer in Pleasant Hill, where messages are stored and retrieved, according to network control manager Tim Keese. Two "hardware cards" failed to make the conversions, so that the main computer was unable to recognize the signals, Keese said. Previous glitches occurred in the system's programs, which can be corrected relatively quickly, he said. It was also rare that two hardware cards should break down at the same time, he added. Service was restored in San Francisco at 8:10 a.m. yesterday and 10:10 p.m. Thursday in the East Bay after technicians discovered the faulty equipment in the downtown San Francisco switching center, said Sandy Hale of Pac Bell's information services group. Pac Bell experienced a rash of breakdowns earlier in the year but attributed them to the newness of the system. The system would occasionally hang up on callers or shut down unexpectedly. "It was definitely unexpected," Hale said. "The system has been quite stable for many months now. We're getting pretty good at diagnosing these kinds of things." My comments: 1. Pacific Bell has been touting its residential voice mail as a more reliable replacement for the answering machine. They stopped the promotion for a time after word got out that their system was losing about ten percent (!) of all messages. 2. Pacific Bell's current promotion points out that answering machines are an old technology, but voicemail is new. Apparently, the company expects us to believe that new == more reliable. 3. There are times when centralizing a function makes it more reliable. This doesn't appear to be one. When the voicemail system went down, customers could not even rush to a store to buy their own answering machine as a workaround, it would appear. And what voicemail customer would know about the failure? Unlike an answering machine, which has a light to blink rapidly when the machine detects a fault, residential voicemail does nothing, and since the service is pitched as being "more reliable," why would you suspect it? David Schachter internet: david@llustig.palo-alto.ca.us uucp: ...!{decwrl,mips,sgi}!llustig!david ------------------------------ From: Henry Mensch Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 11:25:03 -0700 Subject: Re: NET's Call Answering Service Reply-To: henry@ads.com John Higdon wrote: > Well, look at it this way. On Thurday, the Pac*Bell "Message Center" > died in the Bay Area for about a day. According to Pac*Bell, the > problem was caused by failure in TWO pieces of hardware. Now was > someone inconvenienced because an answering machine failed? No, > THOUSANDS of people were inconvenienced because an answering machine > failed. > Reliability? My answering machine has not skipped a beat in many > years. Ask any user of the "Message Center" if the service has been > that dependable. It hasn't. I've had it since May, and last week was the last straw. (I had hoped I was buying into a service *more reliable* than my answering machine, which fails about twice a year.) As a result of last week's outage, I missed connecting with some friends who were visiting from Berlin ... I've personally identified at least five outages of several hours duration during the time I've had the Message Center service (they only tell you about service outages half the time ... I found out because I dialed in to pick up messages and they never picked up). Most laughable remark of the day: The Pac*Bell people keep bleating "No messages were lost." Well, none were taken, either, and in my book those messages were "lost." (In case you couldn't tell, I'm about to unplug the Message Center.) Henry Mensch / Advanced Decision Systems / ------------------------------ Subject: Wyoming, Land of the Friendly COCOT? Date: Sun, 25 Aug 91 22:19:31 -0800 From: singer@almaden.ibm.com While driving through Wyoming earlier this month, I noticed that all the RBOC payphones I encountered wanted 35 cents for a local call, but the COCOTs were happy with a quarter. I didn't need to make any local calls from payphones, but if I had, I'd've gone COCOT-hunting. On a related note, one of the COCOTs used an outfit named "TelTrust" as its long distance carrier; it claimed that, if you were to charge your call on Visa or MasterCard, you'd save 25% over AT&T operator-assisted charges. If you used a telco credit card, you'd pay more. Again, I didn't try it (I refuse to make credit-card LD calls on anybody but the "big three"), but it was an interesting marketing ploy. David Singer -- Internet: singer@almaden.ibm.com BITNET: SINGER at ALMADEN Voice: (408) 927-2509 Fax: (408) 927-4073 (If I needed a disclaimer, I'd put one here.) ------------------------------ From: Justin Leavens Subject: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls Date: 26 Aug 91 22:19:15 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA I used a 900 number to order a product, given certain promises from the salespeople who I had talked to over the phone. When I received the product, it was exactly *not* what they had told me, and so I returned the product and expected a refund. AT&T (who billed the call) took the charge off my bill for 30 days, during which time I wrangled with the company to get the charge reversed, but after 30 days of wrangling, the company was still not responding and wouldn't reverse the $50 charge. Now, four months later, AT&T wants money for the call; I've returned the product to the 900 company, and the 900 company has sent me a letter stating that due to billing disputes with AT&T and their collecting company, they've gone out of business, AT&T has stopped billing for their service, and the 900 company has no money for refunds. Can AT&T still force me to pay this bill? According to what I've been able to gather, AT&T retroactively stopped billing customers for their service the same month I was billed for the call, and the company is now gone. AT&T claims that it is simply the "bill collector" for the call, but it seems to me that if they do the billing, then they probably profit off the calls, and should shoulder *some* responsibility when it comes to rip-off companies doing fraudulent business. Or are they protected under their common carrier status? Justin T. Leavens University of Southern California :Mail to: leavens@aludra.usc.edu Student Health and Counseling Services: leavens@spiff.usc.edu [Moderator's Note: AT&T's claim at this point is against the 900 company. The fact that the 900 company is now out of business is their problem, not yours. They're taking the easy way out, with you as an easy to reach target, but you complied with all the rules. Tell them to stay off your case. PAT] ------------------------------ From: marcelm@joymrmn.uucp (Marcel Mongeon) Subject: Re: Cheap Foreagn Exchange Service Organization: The Joymarmon Group Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 01:07:42 GMT conrad_nobili@harvard.edu writes: (Lot's of stuff from my original post deleted by chaining call-forward phones.) > Pat, a couple others have missed the point here too.... I believe > the original poster was running some sort of dial-up BBS service. > It may well be that "working out in a way financially beneficial to > the subscriber" was not the primary issue ... or it could be that > doing so involves other elements besides phone charges. Stuff deleted concerning my "BBS" > [Moderator's Note: The largest companies in the USA wish to have their > customers be able to call them conveniently from anywhere and > everywhere. So they use in-wats (800) service; they use foreign > exchange service; they use tie-lines. Please note they do NOT chain > several call-forwards together. What do they know that our BBS sysop > is missing? They know that the cost of two or more local calls plus > the associated recurring line charges, etc are not an efficient and > less expensive approach. If our BBS correspondent wishes to receive > calls from a wide area and pay for those calls as a part of the cost > of promoting his BBS, I assume he wants to do it as inexpensively as > possible also. Therefore the way to go is with 800 or FX; both are > perfectly legal in business (not quasi-legal at best) as is the chain > forwarding scheme. PAT] First: No its not a BBS. Actually it's a hotel!! (C'mon Pat remember me? The guy with the somewhat enlightened hotel phone charging policy :-) :-) ) Why? Because a lot of our guests (that's what we call our customers in our trade) are from Toronto and letting their offices etc. phone them toll free would be just another service in our enlightened telecommunications policy. Second: Pat, You have no idea what Mother Bell in Canada charges for lines! We have an FX from Hamilton to Oakville (abt 30 km. CO to CO) right now. Cost is $450.00 per month!!! Into the Toronto CO proper would be about $750.00 per month for 70km (abt 40 miles). Incoming 800 service effectively costs 50 cents per minute from Toronto so even a minimal 15 hours of use per month would be up in these sort of dollars as well. On the other hand (and I notice a lot of people from Chicago make this mistake :-) ) we have flat local service. Each of the two lines I would need to chain would cost about $50 per line tops. No matter how you slice it $200 is cheaper than $400 or more! Final: The real issue is using Call forward on a Northern Telecom switch can two or more calls be going on the forwarded line at a time? If so, then the system of using chained call forwards works even better in that I don't have to but extra trunks except at the destination. If anyone has call forwarding in Canada, I would appreciate their trying it. Marcel D. Mongeon e-mail: (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root or joymrmn!marcelm ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1991 18:28:27 GMT > In article TONY@mcgill1.bitnet (Tony > Harminc) writes: > I'm not sure what a DMS-100 does, though I'd find that strange. A > Northern Telecom SL-1 PBX definitely can forward multiple calls, and I > can't think any good reason not to allow it with a DMS-100. Is there > a reason? There is a very good reason for imposing a limit, although it need not (necessarily) be only one. Line A forwards to line B in another C.O. Line B, in turn, forwards back to Line A. If there is no limit on the number of calls that will forward at either end, a loop is formed that will VERY quickly tie up all the circuits between office A and B. Fixed forwarding can be set to a number of calls greater than one. Variable (dial) call forwarding is set to a limit of one because most users don't need more than one at a time and (probably more importantly) it is easier and cheaper to have a fixed limit of one. Ken Abrams nstar!pallas!kabra437 Springfield, IL kabra437@athenanet.com (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ From: Clay Jackson Subject: Re: Telephones in Elevators Date: 26 Aug 91 17:38:58 GMT Organization: US West NewVector, Bellevue, Wash. Well - here's my 'phone in elevator' story: About four years ago, my wife, two year old daughter and 70 year old mother visited the (newly opened) University Bookstore in Bellevue. They have a parking lot under the store that is a floor down from the main store. Since my mom sometimes has a hard time with stairs, and my wife had our daughter in her arms, we decided to take the elevator rather than walk up the stairs from the parking lot. We got in, the doors closed and up we went. When we got to the top level, the doors didn't open. We went back down and the doors STILL didn't open. After about three trips, we decided that they weren't going to open. So, I hit the 'STOP' button on the top floor (where there were at least people outside the elevator) and opened the door to pick up the phone. It was a POT, with a plastic plate over the buttons and an autodialer (this happened at about 1400 on a summer Sunday afternoon). After the autodial and about 40 rings, someone answered 'ADT Security -- what's the trouble?'. I explained the situation to him, at which point he said 'OK -- get off the line, joker!' and hung up. So, I repeated the autodial and got the same guy. We went through this drill another two times before I could finally convince him (by suggesting to him that if he ignored me again and maybe, just maybe we were REALLY stuck in this elevator, he might not have his job) that we really WERE stuck in the elevator in Bellevue. It turns out that HE (the ADT guy) was in ADT's SEATTLE (about 10 miles as the crow flies, about 13 miles across a rather large lake by car) dispatch center. All he was able to do was call the store, where no one there knew what to do, except page the manager, who was out sailing, and call the number listed on the elevator for 'Service'. The elevator service number was a recording, with a 'Leave your number at the tone and our after hours rep will be paged'. The head cashier (or whoever we were shouting at thru the still closed doors) kept us informed of all these developments as it was getting warmer and warmer in the elevator. After about 25 minutes, I decided I'd had enough, and told the person on the other end to call '911', and tell them that there was a 70 year old woman and a two year old trapped in an elevator. That worked! In ten minutes, Bellevue FD was there and had us out. Although we left our names and phone numbers with the bozos at the U Bookstore, we never did hear word one from them. We DID get a nice postcard from the Bellevue FD, asking us to comment on our 'interaction' with them. Clay Jackson - N7QNM US WEST NewVector Group, Inc clayj@cjsysv.wa.com | ...uunet!uswnvg!cjackso ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #673 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15287; 28 Aug 91 3:19 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11439; 28 Aug 91 1:53 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06160; 28 Aug 91 0:46 CDT Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 0:29:49 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #674 BCC: Message-ID: <9108280029.ab04432@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 27 Aug 91 00:29:38 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 674 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Telecom's Tenth Anniversary [ED HOPPER] Happy 10th. Where's the Cake? [Jim Thomas / Gordon Meyer, CuD] More on US West and 976 IPs [Peter Marshall] States Covered by Baby Bells [Dave Niebuhr] Compatibility of Australia / New Zealand Phones [Richard Batt] Video TeleConferencing List Needed [Allen Robel] Payphones Thanking Me [Brett G. Person] Addresses of Local Phone Companies [Joel Jones] Pennsylvania LATA Map Wanted [Sean Williams] HAW-4 Repeater Failure [Steve W. York] AT&T Calling Cards [IronEagle] What is Illegal About Butt Sets? [Michael L. Gantz] It's no Accident [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Telecom's Tenth Anniversary From: ED HOPPER Date: Mon 26 Aug 91 14:01:22 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, TX - 713-997-7575 Pat, I guess this counts as the world's slowest followup (:-)), but since I was there, I want to correct a few inaccuracies: > Date: Wed 5 Jan 83 17:02:33-PST > From: Jim Celoni S.J. > Subject: 1st-day encounter w/ Baby Bell > We've been deciding on a new PBX, and Pacific Telephone was one of the > contenders. I decided to call our account executive Monday, but > didn't have her number at the new local American Bell, Inc. office (a > different building from Pac Tel), so called her old number. A > secretary from another group answered and told me what she thought the > new number was. I called it and got a recording ("not in service ... > no referral"), so called our Pac Tel Market Administrator (who worked > with her on the proposal). He said he couldn't give me her number, > that he'd signed an agreement that if he talked business to an ABI rep > without a customer designating ABI as its agent, he was fired. (He > also said that last year he had ten accounts, now 300.) All of the above was part of the brick wall that the FCC put up between ABI and the rest of the company. Giving phone numbers out was a no-no. In fact on January 3, 1983, I walked into an office with an empty desk. No files, no manuals, no nothing. > So I called local directory assistance, but all they had was one > American Bell *PhoneCenter* (there are many in the area!). It was then policy, and remains so, in some areas to this day, for marketing offices to have "non-pub" service. Yes, that is incredibly stupid. My theory as to why: Sales oriented people still do not have control of most parts of AT&T. The "hard-liners" from outfits like Methods and Procedures still have a lot of influence on the mindset internally particularly in organizations like DP&CT (Data Processing and Corporate Telecommunications). They believe the 800 number is all that is necessary. Since they don't understand how sales is structured, they don't see the irrelevance of their assumptions. (Perhaps we need a coup???) I recall an event in early January, 1983 in my ABI office. Two of our "star" sales people were approached by their manager (we were all in a bullpen office together) around 5 PM. I didn't hear much of the conversation, but the two "stars" gathered up their personal effects and promptly left the building. It turns out that they had been suspended without pay for three days for attempting to get Bell data improperly. > Many questions remain about Baby Bell, big and little. (Our former > Pac Tel repairman works for ABI now. What will he be doing until the > installed base moves?) That wasn't true then. The service people worked for the Bell companies for another year, doing installation and maintenance for ABI under contract. Finally, there were a couple of mentions about this being "divestiture". Not so, this was the formation of American Bell, Inc., the fully separated subsidiary chartered to sell new equipment. This was an outgrowth of the FCC Computer II case, not Judge Greens decision. That (the MFJ) was not really implemented until 1/1/84. Ed Hopper formerly American Bell, Inc. Class of 83 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Aug 91 13:24 CDT From: TK0JUT1@mvs.cso.niu.edu Subject: Happy 10th. Where's the Cake? Happy 10th Pat. And, as one of the offspring that you and TELECOM Digest have spun off, keep it up for another ten. Like Joannie Mitchell says, "you never know what you have 'til it's gone," so hang in there at least until the Cubs win a world series. Jim Thomas / Gordon Meyer Co-Editors, CuD ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Aug 91 08:25:10 -0700 From: Peter Marshall Subject: More on US West & 976 IPs From Tim Healy, "US West to Curtail Pay-Per-Call Information Services," {Seattle Times}, 8/24/91, B7: US West Communications says it plans to eliminate pay-per-call services such as Taxline, Tel-A-Date and other 976 information services by the end of the year because they aren't as profitable as the company would like. The companies affected say the decision will put them out of business and deprive customers of valuable information and services. The dispute is likely to be played out before state utilities regulators throughout US West's 14-state region ... US West said it will file with regulators next month to eliminate the service. Earlier this month, US West sent letters to 131 companies that provide the information services, including 35 in Washington, informing them of the decision. Valeriu Comsa, who operates a 976 line providing Washington Lottery results, said a group of information providers plans to meet early next month to map a strategy to fight US West's decision. US West is the first of seven regional phone companies to say it wants to eliminate 976 offerings. Comsa and others said they think US West wants to get into the business of providing information services itself. But Maureen Brothers,advertising manager for US West in Denver, said the move is strictly a "business decision...." "(976) isn't as profitable as we need it to be. It isn't losing money yet, but if we continued offering it, it could well become a money loser," Brothers said. Frank Blethen, publisher of {The Seattle Times} and chairman of a newspaper industry committee on telecommunications issues, said US West should have to prove to regulators that its 976 service is not profitable. US West is the gateway through which telephone information services must go, said Blethen. "With that kind of control, US West has a high burden of proof to show why these services are being discontinued," he said. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1991 17:23:26 -0400 (EDT) From: NIEBUHR@aux.bnl.gov Subject: States Covered by Baby Bells I know that this information had been around before and I had it at one time but can't find it. I know that NYNex covers New York and the New England states, but what states are in the other Baby Bells? I can figure some of them out by their general area but could easily have left some out. Could the net help me with this (I promise not to lose the list this time). (Ignore the address in the header, my regular mailer on bnlcl6.bnl.gov is broken). Thanks in advance. Dave Niebuhr Brookhaven National Laboratory Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov ------------------------------ From: R Batt Subject: Compatibility of Australia / New Zealand Phones Date: 24 Aug 91 16:44:22 GMT Organization: University of Adelaide, South Australia Hi. Does anyone know what government agency in New Zealand should be approached to find out what phones and modems are approved for use? Could an Australian phone be used with two adapters Oz -> modular -> Kiwi ? Are Netcomm modems (Oz 240 volt) sold in New Zealand? Thanks for any help. cheers, Richard ------------------------------ From: robelr@ucs.indiana.edu (Allen Robel) Subject: Video/TeleConferencing List Needed Reply-To: robelr@mythos.ucs.indiana.edu Organization: Indiana University Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 19:12:42 GMT Hi, Anyone know if there's a list dealing with Video and Teleconferencing? If not, is anyone interested in starting such a beastie? I've been more or less charged with coming up with a list of organizations that are currently running/maintaining privately owned conferencing facilities. The powers that be would like to talk with some of these organizations before we plunge headlong into this mire and I haven't the foggiest notion of where to start. Thus, the question about the list. I'd be more than happy to share the information I've been able to acquire about these technologies with anyone that's interested. Thanks! Allen Robel robelr@mythos.ucs.indiana.edu University Computing Services ROBELR@IUJADE.BITNET Network Research & Planning voice: (812)855-7171 Indiana University FAX: (812)855-8299 schedule: finger robelr@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu ------------------------------ From: Brett G Person Subject: Payphones Thanking Me Date: 26 Aug 91 06:38:46 GMT Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo I called home tonight (a local call) and was surprised when I got a "thank you" after depositiong the last of my $0.25. Seems to me that the last time I used a payphone, I didn't hear any message like that. Maybe the phone company was just happy to see that I did indeed have enough money to make the call. Brett G. Person North Dakota State University uunet!plains!person | person@plains.bitnet | person@plains.nodak.edu ------------------------------ From: Joel Jones Subject: Addresses of Local Phone Companies Reply-To: jjones@uiuc.edu Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1991 16:50:25 GMT Well, the Telecom Archives has a wonderful list of local phone companies, but it is lacking in any other kind of detail. I am interested in addresses, coverage areas, exchange numbers, etc. Does anyone know where such information can be found? I've asked at the libraries around here, but when purchasing phone books, they are mainly concerned with the Baby Bells and those larger cities that aren't covered by RBOCs. I want a complete list. Joel Jones jjones@uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 23:07 GMT From: Sean Williams <0004715238@mcimail.com> Subject: Pennsylvania LATA Map Wanted Does anyone know where I can get/access a LATA map of Pennsylvania. I need one to use in a presentation. It can be a GIF or RLE graphics file, or anything else I could access with a Mac. If I can't find one, I'll have to cut one out of the phone book and paste it in ... (what an archaic method!) Thanks! Sean "Back to school in 6 days" Williams Rochester Institute of Technology ------------------------------ From: Steve_W_York@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: HAW-4 Repeater Failure Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 23:04:21 PDT Robert Gutierrez asked if anyone had information on HAW-4 that had gone down and left him routing his circuits all over God's creation. I was also inconvienienced by this, but not to the degree he was. I had called LA from Maui to make sure that an 800 number worked from 808. I intended to do a brief live broadcast on KFI the nest day. On Sat 8/17 the connection was perfect. Of course, that was the day of the test call, not the broadcast. The next day, we flew over to the Big Island. I looked at the clock and figured that I might have to do the broadcast on my hand held phone, as it took a while for my wife to haggle for a decent rent-a-car. Though the signal level in the airport was not great, it would be usable (one or two blocks of five possible). As we drove out of the Kona airport and headed north, the hand held went to NO SERVICE. It remained this way for the rest of the stay unless we went south into Kailua. Anyway, we arrived at the hotel and I ran for a payphone and called into the station. After a variety of slow and rapid busy signals, I got through about 30 seconds prior to air time. The connection was awful. I could barely hear the host broadcasting from the studio. It felt like the delay was almost a second, though I know that it must have been less. On my end there was echo as well. That made for a very short call. Two days later I was looking at a copy of the {Honolulu Advertiser} and found a story buried on page 15. The failure occured at about 1 AM on Sunday, 8/18. The undersea cable in question is three years old and runs between Makaha and Point Arena in Northern CA. It is part of a connection that actually runs from California to Hawaii to Guam and on to Japan. The article also pointed out that the cable is fiber and has the capacity to carry 30,000 simultaneous conversations. There is another cable that can be used, but it is lower capacity, being METAL. It runs between Makaha and San Louis Osbispo, CA. AT&T was sending their Honolulu based cable ship, the Charles L. Brown, to find and fix the problem. She was scheduled to depart Monday 8/19. Sailing time was projected to be 3 1/2 days. The problen apparantly was "nearer California than Hawaii." Apparently the cable is 40% owned by AT&T and the rest by more than 20 other carriers. Anybody care to guess what AT&T will charge the other carriers for their share of the repair cost? In the meantime, trafic is being routed to the skies and callers are learning to tolerate the poorer transmission quality. Steve York Internet steve_w_york@cup.portal.com Compu$erve 72617,503 ------------------------------ From: IronEagle Subject: Can AT&T Calling Cards be Used in Australia? Organization: RMIT Computer Centre, Melbourne Australia. Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1991 00:14:09 GMT I am posting this for a friend from the USA who has an AT&T calling card and who would like to use it in Australia ... is this possible? I know that it is possible to use the Australian version of this device (the Telecom Telecard) overseas, etc. If anyone can help, email me, and I will pass the infomation on. Thanks in Advance, Damien ------------------------------ Subject: What is Illegal About Butt Sets? Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 0:01:13 EDT From: "Michael L. Gantz" Reply-To: gantzm@gantz.bowlgreen.oh.us O.K. I have to ask, Why are butt sets illegal in some areas, and who made them illegal? I've been reading about these things in this group and don't understand what the big deal is. When we say butt sets we ARE talking about the little phone thingys with the touchtone pad on the back and alligator clips, right? Who decided that you can't have them, and why? My specialized catalog has about twelve different models, some cheap some expensive. And if I couldn't purchase one, couldn't I just put alligator clips on any ol' phone and have the same thing. Just trying to figure out what the big deal is ... Michael L. Gantz ! gantzm@gantz.bowlgreen.oh.us 213 Napoleon Rd. ! osu-cis!bgsuvax!gantz!gantzm Bowling Green, Oh 43402 ! (419) 353-5029 [Moderator's Note: Buttsets are NOT 'illegal' anywhere. Possession of stolen property (including stolen telco buttsets) is illegal, of course, but the units themselves are legal. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 16:56:16 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: It's no Accident I have passed through Accident, Md. on U.S. 219. This was formerly served by 826, apparently absorbed into 746. (Area 301 and remaining there when 410 is formed.) Pay phones I found in the former Accident exchange were 746-8442 and 746-8455. One business displayed the numbers 826-8333 and 387-4081 (387 being the Oakland exchange serving the McHenry area), and when I called local directory assistance, I was told it had numbers on 387 and 746, and I then asked for the 746 number: 746-8333 (notice the same last four digits as the 826 number). Another business had telephone 826-8803 displayed; notice everything being xxx-8xxx. Dialing 826 got an immediate intercept "cannot be completed as dialed". ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #674 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22338; 28 Aug 91 5:32 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25863; 28 Aug 91 4:02 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07081; 28 Aug 91 2:54 CDT Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 2:52:56 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #675 BCC: Message-ID: <9108280252.ab24427@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 28 Aug 91 02:52:43 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 675 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service [Ken Dykes] Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service [David Lesher] Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service [Tony Harminc] Re: Radio Days: The ARI System [Ralf Bayer] Re: Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Speakerphone [William Degnan] Re: Hurricane Bob, Telco, and Power [Juliet Sutherland] Instruction Card For 412-329 [Carl Moore] Calls From Ridgely, W. Va. [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 06:18:20 EDT From: Ken Dykes Subject: Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service Organization: Thinkage Ltd. In article is written: > In , TONY@mcgill1.bitnet (Tony Harminc) > wrote: >> marcelm@joymrmn.uucp (Marcel Mongeon) wrote: >>> 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 >> RCF is tariffed by Bell Canada as a business service only. At our >> outrageous 800 rates however, it might conceivably come out worth > [Moderator's Note: The largest companies in the USA wish to have their > customers be able to call them conveniently from anywhere and > everywhere. So they use in-wats (800) service; they use foreign > exchange service; they use tie-lines. Please note they do NOT chain > several call-forwards together. What do they know that our BBS sysop > is missing? They know that the cost of two or more local calls plus > the associated recurring line charges, etc are not an efficient and What they do NOT know is that in this part of *CANADA* we do not have *measured* local service -- local calls are essentially free. Just monthly line costs to worry about. Also, our 800 and long distances services really are grossly overpriced. Of course each "hop" would cause signal loss, I would suspect 2 or 3 hops would be about the practical maximum. Ken Dykes, Thinkage Ltd., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada [43.47N 80.52W] postmaster@thinkage.on.ca kgdykes@thinkage.on.ca thinkage!kgdykes kgdykes@watmath.waterloo.edu [129.97.128.1] kgdykes@thinkage.com ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 18:06:34 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers Peters and others were talking about chaining call forwarding. PAT stated that if this was such a good idea, why wouldn't Big Business do it? One thing that never ceases to amaze me is the amount of money Big (and little) Business wastes in this country. Over the years, at a number of employers, I have seen all kind of good ideas be discarded. Why? Well, the reasons vary: 1) It (the idea) threatens some sacred cow. Maybe it's a better idea than the boss's. 2) The boss can't understand it, but does not want to admit his lack of comprehension. 3) It *WILL* save money -- that's the problem. Power in a bureaucracy is measured in dollars controlled. If the money is spent by the Telecommunications Dept. but it is billed back to Marketing, so much the better. Why should Telco Dept. worry about the cost? 4) Your reason goes here.... Please also remember that PAT is stuck in a metered_call mindset. There are many, many places in the USA where business and residence calls are flat rate. I've made it a point to NEVER live in a "every call as expensive as a COCOT" environment. Instead of comparing local calling areas, let's compare the # of flat rate phones callable. I have several friends with call forwarding permanently installed. In one case, it's been there so long, the service address is not there anymore! But so long as Ma gets a check ... The whole process became much easier since Ma introduced remotely programmed Call Forwarding. I just proposed that another site here in town get this to cut $300.00 worth of cross-county UUCP to $33.00 worth of local service. Guess what, said site's Telecommunications Office won't agree. Guess they'd lose their cut. wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 19:42:21 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service Floyd Davidson wrote: > In article TONY@mcgill1.bitnet (Tony > Harminc) writes: >> marcelm@joymrmn.uucp (Marcel Mongeon) wrote: >>> 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? >> In a word: no. Or is that yes? That is, the CO *does* know that it >> is currently forwarding a call, and the original number is marked >> busy. > I'm not sure what a DMS-100 does, though I'd find that strange. A > Northern Telecom SL-1 PBX definitely can forward multiple calls, and I > can't think any good reason not to allow it with a DMS-100. Is there > a reason? The DMS100 may well be capable of forwarding multiple calls at a time, but there are good reasons why they don't set it up that way in public telephone service. When a call is forwarded (and assuming that there are three COs involved i.e. the originating, the middle (forwarding one) and the destination, then during the forwarded call you are actually tying up inbound and outbound hardware. If they let you do this for the price of one line with call forwarding, you could forward an entire PBX worth of calls for next to nothing. The easiest example of how this could go wrong is if you set up a call forwarding loop between two COs, i.e. A forwards to B which forwards to A. This would quickly tie up all the trunks between the COs (and even alternate routes, tandems etc. if available). To prevent this the forwarding CO must mark the line as being in use. In theory, with SS7 the COs could all "know" what was going on (in fact they wouldn't have to use any hardware, trunks etc. at all in some cases, (e.g. if a number in CO A calls one in CO B which is forwarded to a third in CO A, then a little exchange of data is all that's required to complete the call entirely within CO A's facilities.) Whether they actually do this I don't know. Tony H. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 10:24:17 BST From: Ralf Bayer Subject: Re: Radio Days: The ARI System In article Lars Poulsen writes: > [...] The German radio traffic information system is indeed a joy to > behold. And it cannot possibly work here, for a variety of reasons. > The European world of broadcasting has been somewhat decentralized and > deregulated in the last decade; if that invalidates any of what I tell > below, I'll be happy to hear about it. After all, it's been almost 14 > years since I cruised the autobahns regularly. They started to admit 'private' radio stations -- but they use the ARI system happily, just like the public stations do. > [...] A one-minute specific report from the highway patrol hourly > most of the day, every 15 minutes at commute times, or if there is > significant roadwork going on. They have the traffic report with a summary of all the conditions as you described (varying in length from 10 seconds "Nothing to report" to several minutes), and they will interrupt their programming for updates. The 'one-minute' reports would have been the norm 14 years ago, but these times are gone. The traffic report will interrupt EVERY programming (even the news) when there is a report of a so called "Geisterfahrer", someone driving in the wrong direction on the autobahn. All other traffic reports will interrupt music, but usually neither the news nor the advertising, nor the (usually short) news/reports items brought on these channels. The interruption of the programming is completely in the hands of the radio stations themselves. The police sends the traffic reports to the stations by telex, and the stations take it from there. > You don't need an ARI-equipped radio to benefit from the system. The > frequency of the ARI-channel is posted on a blue 12"x18" sign by the > side of the autobahn every 10 km or so. There is also a letter which > is useful if you have an ARI-equipped radio: If you dial the letter on > a special switch on the receiver, it will ONLY receive the ARI station > for this zone !! Since the traffic bulletin opens and closes with a > DTMF sequence (usually hidden in a bar of music) the receiver can also > be set to be silent except during the bulletin. Presumably, it can > also be set to silence only the bulletin. There are not many receivers anymore with the letter-regions buttons, this appearently never got off the ground. Many stations will also send traffic reports from neighbouring zones, and some stations are more popular than others, like in southern Hessen almost nobody tunes into the official local station (Hessischer Rundfunk), everbody listens to the station from neighbouring Rheinland-Pfalz and Baden-Wuertemberg (SWF 3), just because they have much better programming. Also, the region-letters can't distinguish between different stations carrying ARI for the same region, e.g. public vs. private stations. Modern receivers sometimes have a facility to recognize the station by name and also the name of the particular transmitter, by using a data protocol that is carried over the air. These receivers can try and tune to a different frequency for the same station whenever reception on the current frequency gets bad. I haven't seen any receivers that could blank out the bulletin. Sometimes this would be useful (like Fridays between 4 and 6 pm, when the traffic summary easily runs five to ten minutes, or on that fateful first day with snow each winter, when traffic just grinds to a halt). If you have a cassette radio and have tuned the radio to an ARI station, the traffic bulletin will interrupt the cassette -- useful if you don't like their regular programming. > [...] Driving in Germany, one learns to pay attention to these bulletins. > The German autobahns get resurfaced every four years or so; always in > the summer. Though this is not TELECOM related -- they save a lot of money doing this, as the road doesn't have to be rebuilt completely, just the topmost part of the surface gets replaced. And they have to do this in summer as the weather conditions in Germany won't allow anything else. > The system cannot be transplanted here, because no commercial > broadcasting station would allow the State Police to interrupt its > programming at will. What if they should break during a commercial? As mentioned above, the radio stations control the bulletins themselves, the only case when traffic reports interrupt everything that might go on is the "Geisterfahrer", all other reports will be done in time. > Finally, the European freeway systems are "extras". There is always a > "traditional" highway parallelling a freeway; thus available as a > fallback. Many times it's just not worth the while to use an alternate, it's just as well to sit in the traffic jam and wait through it. Sometimes the alternate routes are as clogged as the autobahn, and the 'traditional' highway often goes through villages (which are narrower, and much more frequent even in rural areas than they are in the States). Ralf Bayer, Software Engineer -------------------- email: bayerr@glas.motcid Motorola European Cellular Infrastructure Division European Software Centre, Cork, Eire ---- Only speaking for myself. ------------------------------ From: William Degnan Date: 26 Aug 91 19:01:25 Subject: Re: Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Speakerphone On Tiny Bubbles... (ho@hoss.unl.edu ) writes to All: > Which brings up a question: Is there any such thing as a > "high-quality > speakerphone"? I, personally, have never seen such a beast. The Mitel Superset 4 is as close to hot stuff as there is. But, you need to buy a PBX to make it work (with some noteable exceptions (so don't write ok?)). I kinda like the Plantronics Phonebeam. You can stick the microphone in your shirt pocket or pass it around the conference table (kinda like token ring passing). The link from the microphone to the base is via free-space IR. I don't know if they still make 'em but you can get one used from any number of secondary market sources in any case. Know how to get _off_ the other guy's lousy speakerphone? Just start talking with something very embarressing. "Hey, you know that long-legged babe you were shacked up with ..." "Hey, that package you were waiting for from Columbia ever show up ..." They get you on the handset _real_ fast. }8-) * 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: Mon, 26 Aug 91 14:06:16 EDT From: Juliet Sutherland Subject: Re: Hurricane Bob, Telco, and Power Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article , paul@unhtel.unh.edu (Paul S. Sawyer) writes: > Telephone service around New England is becoming more and more reliant > on local power, however, as remote nodes and SLIC's are being > installed. We had a freak local storm the day before Hurricane Bob > (MUCH worse than the hurricane ...) The power was out for about 12 > hours; after a few hours NE Tel brought a portable generator to the > nearby SLIC, as the batteries therin had started to fail; the phone > service was noisy, but did not fail during this period. When > Hurricane Bob hit, the power was out at my house for about 25 hours; > this time, since the affected area was much larger, they did not get > around to starting the generator, and we were without phone service > for several hours. Please note that SLC is a registered trademark of AT&T Network Systems. The general category name for that type of equipment is Digital Loop Carrier (DLC). Most DLC installations are provided with battery reserve sufficient for about 8 hrs, with hookups for emergency generators to provide power after that. The 8 hrs is somewhat nominal, though, since the actual reserve depends on the calling traffic volume, age of the batteries, temperature, etc. As DLC is being used for more and more loops, the local phone companies are starting to have to think about emergency power plans in cases of natural catastrophe. Some areas are better prepared than others (that is, have plans and equipment, including enough generators, in place). BTW, the person who took the CO tour in Wilmington and mentioned that he was served off of fiber feeder is almost certainly being served by some type of DLC system. The technician in the CO could have showed him the fiber multiplexer in the CO and the central office end of the DLC system (assuming that his line is served from one of the analog switches). Juliet Sutherland Digital Loop Carrier Systems Engineering AT&T Bell Labs Whippany, NJ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 17:00:39 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Instruction Card For 412-329 412-329 exchange (Farmington, Pa.) is in SE corner of 412 area and touches both W.Va. and Md., so that 814 does not touch W.Va. Instruction card on a Bell of Pa. pay phone says, for long distance, 1 + 7D within area and 1 + NPA + 7D to other areas. But I got automated requests for money when I dialed 391-xxxx (391 is Pittsburgh) and 301-746-xxxx (301-746 is Friendsville in nearby Md.), so that at least part of 412 would need reprogramming for N0X/N1X prefixes (no indication yet they'll come to 412) or for NXX area codes. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Aug 91 16:49:57 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Calls From Ridgely, W. Va. As I wrote earlier, subject exchanges (304-726 & 738) have 7D local calling to Cumberland, Md. (staying in 301 at 301/410 split). Cumber- land includes a 707 prefix, and sure enough, this is what I got on a pay phone on 304-726 (notice that 707 and 916 are adjacent area codes in California): 707-xxxx got intercept telling me I had to deposit 25 cents. 916-xxx-xxxx got intercept telling me I had to dial a 1 first. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #675 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06472; 29 Aug 91 3:48 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07809; 29 Aug 91 2:19 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10545; 29 Aug 91 1:12 CDT Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 0:22:58 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #676 BCC: Message-ID: <9108290022.ab24662@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 29 Aug 91 00:22:47 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 676 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Pacific Bell "Message Center" Breakdown, August 22, 1991 [John Higdon] Re: Telephones in Elevators [Rob Woiccak] Re: Telephones in Elevators [Herman R. Silbiger] Re: GTE Switches [Herman R. Silbiger] Re: Telephone Line Status Lights [Rob Woiccak] Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Short on Phone Numbers [Steve Thornton] Re: Hurricane Bob, Telco, and Power [Scott Hinckley] Re: NYNEX to Charge For 411 in Massachusetts as of 9/14/91 [Scott Hinckley] Re: 950 Data Access, was AT&T Data Network [Mikel Manitius] Re: Need Help Identifying Mystery 900 Call [Justin Leavens] Re: Need Help Identifying Mystery 900 Call [] Re: More Troubles With New York Telephone [David Lesher] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 04:19 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Pacific Bell "Message Center" Breakdown, August 22, 1991 llustig!david@decwrl.dec.com wrote: > The system failure occurred at the point where phone voice > transmissions are converted to a digital signal and sent to the > company's main computer in Pleasant Hill, where messages are stored > and retrieved, according to network control manager Tim Keese. How much do you suppose Pac*Bell pays itself for all of that trunkage from every single central office in the Bay Area back to Pleasant Hill? If it had to pay what independent providers would be charged, you know very well that the "Message Center" would not cost under $5 per month. Be that as it may, besides the poor reliability there appear to be two serious flaws in the Message Center: 1. Lack of storage space. Lately, I have called many people, heard the outgoing announcement, and then been told, "That box is currently full. Please call again later. Goodbye." A standard answering machine tape can hold an enormous amount of speech compared to the tiny allocation for each subscriber to the Message Center. 2. The privacy fanatics would have us use answering machines to screen calls rather than the much more effective CPID. Well, you cannot use the Message Center for that purpose. Once the call is intercepted by the Message Center, you have lost control of and you cannot monitor the call. So call screening would be a matter of periodically checking your box to see who called and then calling them back. On your nickel. Is it not interesting how if an independent provider offered something as flawed and unreliable as the Message Center, we would be calling him a sleaze and a fraud? But when it is the sublime telco, we stroke our beards, contemplate our navels, and lightly dance around some of the "small" shortcomings of the "otherwise great, innovative product". John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 09:13:16 EDT From: funky love flower Subject: Re: Phones in Elevators An interesting twist on the phone in the elevator theme exists at the school I attended as an undergraduate. There was an elevator in the two story library. And in that elevator was a phone. But the twist was that the phone was not just a direct link to a service desk. Rather, it had its own number and none of its calls out were blocked (great potential for evil there ...). However, we were honest types -- the only calls I made from that phone were local. But we did use it as an "office" phone when we were working upstairs in the library: we'd just sit ourselves close enough to the elevator door so that we could hear the phone ring. Sometimes, during finals, it was the only way to reach us. rob woiccak - rewoicc@erenj.bitnet - zyxwvtsrqnmlkjhgfdcb ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 08:58:17 EDT From: Herman R Silbiger Subject: Re: Telephones in Elevators Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Another elevator story: Some 20 years ago, at a large telecommunications research laboratory which will remain unidentified, a group of human factors researchers decided for a to perform a survey using the telephone in the elevator. The phone would be called, and the person answering it would be asked questions. A sample conversation might be as follows: Q: To make better use of the elevators in this building, we are making an elevator travel survey. In which direction are you traveling. A: Down Q: Are you traveling with anyone. A: Yes, a friend. Q: What floor are you getting off. A: First. Q: What will you do on the first floor. A: Get coffee. Q: Will you have cream in your coffee. A: No. Can you finish, I have been holding the door open, and people want to use the elevator. Very few people caught on that the survey was not serious! Herman Silbiger ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 09:06:47 EDT From: Herman R Silbiger Subject: Re: GTE Switches Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article , brian@amc.com (Brian Crowley) writes: > In Telecom-Digest Volume 11, Issue 564, Joe Kelsey (joe@zircon.gte. wrote: > My home is served by the Bothell CO (206-488). When GTE replaced the > old switch with the #5ESS (about two years ago? How time flies...), I > received a little flier in my bill explaining what was to happen, when > the cutover date was, etc. Imagine my suprise when I saw that they > were going to provide me with the best in phone service with a #5ESS! > It seems to me that GTE must have put a *lot* of development money > into the GTD-5 switch, so why are they upgrading CO's with 5ESS > switches? About three years ago GTE sold their switch business to AT&T, since GTE did not want to invest in developing ISDN capability. Initially, AT&T had a 50% interest, which would increase to 100% over five years. The company is still operated independently, but this will probably change in the long run. I think it is called ATG. Herman Silbiger ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 09:29:46 EDT From: funky love flower Subject: Re: Telephone Line Status Lights Organization: fegmaniax anonymous, inc Daniel Wheeler sez: > Radio Shack sells a device called a Teleprotector Voice/Data Guard > (43-107, $7.95). You need one for each extension. The catalog > description is so poor that I couldn't tell what it did, but the > salesman claims that with one on an extension, if the line is in use, > the phone or modem on the extension will not be connected to the > line. It works, but it can work too well. When I moved into my current apartment, I bought one of these things knowing that my roommate was pretty clueless and would occasionally pick up the phone when he knew I was on the modem (maliciousness aside, that is an extremely annoying habit I've been trying to cure him off). I put the voiceguard (I got mine from an AT&T Phone Center as I recall) on the jack downstairs and it worked like a charm. If I was on the modem, never was I interrupted by him picking up downstairs. However, all was not solved -- if, for instance, we got a phone call and I answered it upstairs and it was for him, he could not pick up the phone downstairs with the guard installed. Eventually, we both got sick of this and I can put up with the occasional interruption. Now, if I can only convince him that we don't need Call Waiting. rob woiccak -- rewoicc@erenj.bitnet [Moderator's Note: Your mistake was putting the device downstairs where everything on the wiring-in-common from upstairs (modem, phones upstairs, etc) would trigger it. Make your modem the last stop on the circuit (which runs around your house) if possible; then put the device on the back of the modem. That way the modem will kill everything downstream, but other phones in the middle will not affect each other. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 09:18:29 EST From: Steve Thornton Subject: Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers On Tue, 27 Aug 91 0:41:30 CDT in TELECOM Digest, TELECOM Moderator noted: > well east of the Mississippi River. Mental exercise for readers: Where > would is the 'mathematical center' of area codes in the USA? That is, > in what state are there an equal number of area codes to the east and > west of it? North and south? What if Canada is included? PAT] The area code map in my phone book, like most maps these days, is real purty but not even close to accurate. Nonetheless, I did a rough count and found 65 area codes east and 65 west (give or take a couple) of a line following the western borders of Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, and Ontario. North/south is a little trickier -- there aren't any good east/west divisions in the east; I decided to include New Jersey in the north and Pennsylvania in the south. The north then includes the top half of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois (north of 309), all of Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, Idaho, and Oregon, plus obviously Canada. This would put the area code center of North America at the intersection of 815 and 217 in Illinois with 219 and 317 in Indiana, which is pretty close to Indianapolis, at least on this crummy map. This is (_very_ approximately -- no scale) about 500 miles due northeast of the geographical center of the US, somewhere in Kansas. Canada is so huge that the geographical center of the continent is probably way up by Minneapolis or someplace. Steve Thornton / Harvard University Library / +1 617 495 3724 netwrk@harvarda.bitnet / netwrk@harvarda.harvard.edu ------------------------------ From: Scott Hinckley Subject: Re: Hurricane Bob, Telco, and Power Date: 27 Aug 91 14:47:28 GMT Reply-To: scott@hsvaic.boeing.com > [Moderator's Note: But as another correspondent noted, the storm did > punch out 617-262. It was really nasty; I noticed the net connections > around the east coast were pretty wobbly. My backup site (bu.edu) > would not answer all evening, nor would the archives at lcs.mit.edu. > And around 1 PM Monday here in Chicago our backlash from the east > coast storm was a torrential downpour. Despite all our technology, > Mother Nature can still kick our butts ... PAT] That is because of the brain-dead practice of hanging lines that I have seen ever since I moved to the south. In CA all the lines were underground (of course there we have earthquakes to move the ground around for us, severing those lines.) Every time we have: a) an ice storm b) a tornado c) heavy winds d) an ailing tree We can lose electricity,cable,phones. It seems like the lower frequency of outages for underground cables would compensate for the higher installation cost in a fairly short time. Oh well ... VoiceNet:Scott Hinckley | ATTnet:+1 205 461 2073 Internet:scott@hsvaic.boeing.com | UUCP:...!uw-beaver!bcsaic!hsvaic!scott US snail:110 Pine Ridge Rd / Apt# 608/ Huntsville / AL / 35801 DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions ------------------------------ From: Scott Hinckley Subject: Re: NYNEX to Charge For 411 in Massachusetts as of 9/14/91 Date: 27 Aug 91 14:56:15 GMT Reply-To: scott@hsvaic.boeing.com In rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman) writes: > From a New England Telephone bill insert: > Beginning September 14, 1991, residence customers will be charged 34 > cents for each directly dialed Directory Assistance call made in > excess of ten calls per month. Wow, this is a good deal compared to everywhere I have lived. One or two calls free, all others $.50/each. VoiceNet:Scott Hinckley | ATTnet:+1 205 461 2073 Internet:scott@hsvaic.boeing.com | UUCP:...!uw-beaver!bcsaic!hsvaic!scott US snail:110 Pine Ridge Rd / Apt# 608/ Huntsville / AL / 35801 DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 13:59:30 EDT From: Mikel Manitius Subject: Re: 950 Data Access, was AT&T Data Network > We may be back to this notion of perceived value. Since ISDN is "the > latest and greatest", it should cost more, right? In Canada, according to Canadian communications laws, any "new and improved" service must cost less than the old service it replaces. Therefore a 9600bps DDS circuit costs less than an old analog four wire pt-pt leased line. Mikel Manitius mikel@aaa.com ------------------------------ From: Justin Leavens Subject: Re: Need Help Identifying Mystery 900 Call Date: 27 Aug 91 20:53:31 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA > A friend of mine who would love to have a credit card, but has no > credit rating, got a call recently from a solicitor that offered her a > credit card if she would dial a 900 number that he gave her. In > exchange they would send a list of banks that she could apply to for a > credit card, and if she didn't end up getting one, they would refund > the $50 charge for the 900 call. They offered this as a "guaranteed" > VISA card service. Just to let you know, the now defunct company that AT&T was trying to bill me for offered exactly this same approach. They went by the name of Credit Builders and they were located in Texas. Their sales people offered me a "credit card" and denied that it had anything to do with a secured card, though their money-back guarantee stipulated that you had to be declined for *three* secured cards (no easy feat for even the worst credit histories) to receive a refund. Stay away from this service. All they offer is a ten page booklet with names and addresses of places offering credit cards, all information that can be found for a lot less than $50. And that's if you ever actually receive the information. Justin T. Leavens University of Southern California :Mail to: leavens@aludra.usc.edu Student Health and Counseling Services: leavens@spiff.usc.edu ------------------------------ From: forags@nature.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Need Help Identifying Mystery 900 Call Organization: University of California, Berkeley Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1991 01:05:24 GMT In article Tad Cook writes: > No, I don't think there is a way for anyone to charge this to your > account without actually dialing it from your line. At least no > conventional way. Third-party billing will sometimes work. I just had PacBell remove a charge for a 900-call which somebody had made from another phone and charged to my number (I've since had third-party billing turned off ... ) 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: I was not aware that calls to a 900 number could ever be operator-assisted. The only tariff I knew existed was for direct dial rates. And coin phones in Chicago may *not* call 900. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: More Troubles With New York Telephone Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 23:05:34 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers > Not to mention the fact that some numbers can almost NEVER be > reassigned. Any business that receives a high volume of calls will > destroy that number for anyone else's use for many years. A friend of a friend did just that. The FOAF ran some kind of wheeler-dealer operation whereby he tried to be a middleman on a 100 million dollar deal to get cement from say: France to Spain. In doing so, the FOAF ran up large overseas bills. When business got worse, the bill got bigger as he tried to bambozzle some deal. In the early 70's Ohio Bell cut him off for being ten days late. But you see, the amount due was $42,000.00. The number assignments went untouched for years, despite one of them being an x000. Every so often, for a lark, my friend would call and ask about getting service. The name, number or the FOAF's {former} address was enough to get bumped to a supervisor ASAP. I can almost hear the lock and trace starting from here ;_} ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #676 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10473; 29 Aug 91 5:05 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31711; 29 Aug 91 3:29 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac07809; 29 Aug 91 2:23 CDT Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 1:51:50 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #678 BCC: Message-ID: <9108290151.ab31627@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 29 Aug 91 01:51:40 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 678 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: More on US West & 976 IPs [Tad Cook] Re: More on US West & 976 IPs [Eric Smith] Re: Addresses of Local Phone Companies [Tad Cook] Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low On Phone Numbers [Ethan Miller] Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low On Phone Numbers [Super Abuser] Re: Telecommunications in France [Jeff Carroll] Re: Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Speakerphone [Ron Bean] Re: Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Satellite [Don Lewis] Re: FAX Machine Message [W.A.Simon] Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service [Steve Elias] Reprogramming Switches [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: More on US West & 976 IPs From: Tad Cook Date: 28 Aug 91 17:35:20 GMT Peter Marshall writes: > From Tim Healy, "US West to Curtail Pay-Per-Call Information > Services," {Seattle Times}, 8/24/91, B7: > US West Communications says it plans to eliminate pay-per-call > services such as Taxline, Tel-A-Date and other 976 information > services by the end of the year because they aren't as profitable as > the company would like. The companies affected say the decision will > put them out of business and deprive customers of valuable > information and services. I was the guy who tipped the reporter about this story, after reading about it here on TELECOM Digest. There was a posting here last week from someone who complained that the letter to the information providers came out a couple of weeks after the Judge Green decision to allow the Bell companies into the business of providing information themselves, rather than just transporting it. This was after the Baby Bells had been doing some heavy lobbying, saying that they wouldn't do anything unfair or anti-competetive if they were allowed in this business. I gave the reporter the phone number of the fellow who had posted the article here on TELECOM Digest, and encouraged him to dig a little deeper than what US West might tell him. I hoped he would find a story in the timing of the two announcements, and the fact that US West only cited "business reasons" as their reasons for shutting off all the information providers. But in the end there was no mention in his article of the Baby Bells being allowed to compete with information providers themselves, and how unfair it seems for US West to shut down the IPs immediately after US West was allowed into the business. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP or, kt7h@polari.uucp or, 3288544@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: Eric Smith Subject: Re: More on US West & 976 IPs Organization: Telebit Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1991 18:49:46 GMT On 25 Aug 91 15:25:10 GMT, peterm@rwing.uucp (Peter Marshall) said: > Frank Blethen, publisher of {The Seattle Times} and chairman of a > newspaper industry committee on telecommunications issues, said US > West should have to prove to regulators that its 976 service is not > profitable. US West is the gateway through which telephone > information services must go, said Blethen. "With that kind of > control, US West has a high burden of proof to show why these services > are being discontinued," he said. What, now everyone has a right to have US West do their billing for them? They can just get a 800 line or even a normal line and bill via credit card. If they do it right it might even make them more money than they get now. The mistake isn't eliminating 976 service now, it was instituting it in the first place. Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Addresses of Local Phone Companies From: Tad Cook Date: 28 Aug 91 17:37:07 GMT Joel Jones writes: > Well, the Telecom Archives has a wonderful list of local phone > companies, but it is lacking in any other kind of detail. I am > interested in addresses, coverage areas, exchange numbers, etc. Does > anyone know where such information can be found? I've asked at the > libraries around here, but when purchasing phone books, they are > mainly concerned with the Baby Bells and those larger cities that > aren't covered by RBOCs. I want a complete list. One good source is the state PUC for the area you are interested in. If you want a list of complete addresses and exchanges for independant telcos, try the TE&M Directory. It lists all of the exchanges, addresses and phone numbers, state by state, for all of the non-Bell telephone companies. It comes out annually, and is available from: Edgell Communications 24th floor 233 N. Michigan Ave. Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-938-2300 Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP or, kt7h@polari.uucp or, 3288544@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: ethan miller Subject: Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low On Phone Numbers Organization: utter chaos Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 02:14:37 GMT In article Carl Moore writes: > The Bellcore officials prefer a standard, nationwide 11-digit > dialing sequence to avoid different dialing procedures in different > parts of the country. > "People are going to get used to 10-digit numbers," said Ron > Conners, the Bellcore district administrator in charge of the North > American numbering plan. "Psychological studies have shown people > don't care what they have to dial, as long as it's consistent. There's a problem with this. Other studies have shown that people's short-term memory can hold about seven unrelated items. That's how long phone numbers are now. Area codes are considered separately (you know you're calling San Francisco, and you remember 415 as a unit). If numbers go to ten (somewhat random) digits, it'll be considerably harder to remember the number between phone book or directory assistance and dialing. Instead of assigning random area codes to a locality, why not just vary the second digit of the area code? Thus, Manhattan would get 212, 222, 232, and so on. Now, someone only has to remember one extra digit instead of three. ethan miller -- cs grad student elm@cs.berkeley.edu #include ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 22:37:59 -0400 Subject: Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low On Phone Numbers From: Super Abuser > The obvious thing to do is split North America into more than one > "country" for dialing purposes. > Currently most of North America is country number 1. > I propose: 10 for USA east; 11 for USA west; 12 for Canada and the > appropriate parts of Mexico, Bahamas, and what-not. A typical Yankee attitude |8-) I am led to believe that US maps, that do show Canada, have it placed somewhere in the West Indies. I always thought we were a third world country, but that's pushing it a bit far ... > Then each of the three regions could have a full set of area codes, > and you would have to dial *one* extra digit *only* when calling > another region. Why not? As communication satelites and hand held phones are becoming the standard, area codes and long distance rates are making less and less sense. We should start thinking in terms of individual phone number (wholly randomly assigned), coded into a smart-card of some kind, which we could plug in any telephone device in the world, and make it our phone for the duration of the insertion. We should also think of phone calls as something we pay by the second, not by the mile. William "Alain" Simon alain@elevia.UUCP alain%elevia@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Telecommunications in France - Summary Date: 28 Aug 91 23:06:04 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics In article rls!randy@cis.ohio-state.edu (Randall L. Smith) writes: > Not too long ago I posted the request relating to the subject line > above and I received several very interesting replies. In general it > seems Teletel (a French public initiative) has a modern, successful > and active system called Minitel. Minitel offers 13,000 different > information services to the average French household and businesses. > While I received a warm fuzzy regarding its success and usefulness, > not too many tangables were provided. All in all, most felt it was I had brief exposure to a public Minitel terminal a couple of years ago in Paris. It took me five or ten francs to figure out how to place a call (although I thought I understood what the terminal was telling me, my French is pretty limited), and I spent another fifteen or twenty francs, walking away with precious little in the way of useful information (I think I was after train schedules, or something like that). On the basis of my brief encounter, I'd say that Minitel is slightly more difficult to operate than my videocassette recorder, with some hefty user interface problems. My understanding is that Minitel was heavily subsidized and slow to take off, with much of the early use being the equivalent of our phone sex traffic. Has this situation really changed significantly in the average French home? Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Speakerphone Date: Tue Aug 27 18:29:46 1991 From: Ron Bean In article , ho@hoss.unl.edu (Tiny Bubbles) writes: > Dan_Jacobson@att.com writes: >> Don't you also hate those folks who love to put you on their low >> quality speakerphones? > Which brings up a question: Is there any such thing as a "high-quality > speakerphone"? I, personally, have never seen such a beast. My AT&T > cordless has a speakerphone on it, but like all other speakerphones > I've seen, it sounds from the other end like you're talking into a > toilet. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ This reminds me of the cheap-o "speakerphone" device from Radio Shack that we bought my grandparents back in the early 70's. It had no direct connection to the phone; you put the handset in a cradle, where a coil picked up the signal from the earpiece, and a sort of funnel directed sound into the mouthpiece. The weight of the handset activated the amplifier, which was run by a 9v battery. There was no amplification of the outgoing sound. Of course we had to try it out, so my Uncle went out to call us from a payphone. His first comment was "You sound like you're yelling down a sewer pipe." So, that's what we called it. At family gatherings like Thanksgiving and Christmas, if a relative called from some other part of the country, we'd say "hang on a sec, I'll put you on the sewer pipe". I'm pretty sure we still have it somewhere. In later years, I achieved a similar effect by connecting a suction-cup pickup coil to the stereo in the next room (with about 30' of wire), so several people could listen, but only one could talk. zaphod@madnix.UUCP (Ron Bean) {harvard|rutgers|ucbvax}!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!zaphod ------------------------------ From: lewis@ssigv.UUCP (Don Lewis) Subject: Re: Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Satellite? Organization: Silicon Systems, Nevada City CA Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1991 08:07:37 GMT In article hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes: > I'm very surprised, though, that you would hear this at all on a call > from Illinois to New York; you normally encounter it only on > international connections. Virtually all US calls are carried as > duplex PCM 64kbps channels, with no TASI, ADPCM, DCME/PCME, or other > multiplication equipment involved. Which long distance carrier are > you using? Is it sensitive to time of day or other factors? Has it > always been this way, or is this a new (hopefully temporary) > phenomenon? I've had connections like this from Nevada City, CA to Melbourne, FL on MCI. I don't recall the time of day. Don "Truck" Lewis Phone: +1 916 265-3211 Silicon Systems Internet: (under contruction) FAX: +1 916 265-2931 138 New Mohawk Road UUCP: {uunet,tektronix!gvgpsa.gvg.tek.com}!ssigv!lewis Nevada City, CA 95959 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: FAX Machine Message Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 17:22:02 EDT From: "W.A.Simon" > In article tlowe@attmail.com writes: >> 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. > I've had the opposite class of problems -- my computer, acting as a > FAX sender, calling a FAX number and never getting through. I > eventually called from a voice line and got that same message. Since > my system was never convinced that a FAX had answered, it never sent > tones. A mixed blessing, at best, that device would seem to be. The problem is that both machines expect the other one to initiate the exchange. In regular modems, the standard is that the answering machine starts. In the fax world, it is still free for all. However, I would not be too worried by this technology, it is sure to follow the Darwinian path of least resistance. Manual fax machines are becoming extinct, so will this "smart" box, as it relies on the existence of the dying beast. And ISDN is supposed to address these problems much more elegantly, whenever it happens. William "Alain" Simon alain@elevia.UUCP alain%elevia@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 12:40:31 PDT From: eli@cisco.com wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) wrote: > Peters and others were talking about chaining call forwarding. PAT > stated that if this was such a good idea, why wouldn't Big Business do > it? Because it's illegal. In Massachusetts, anyway. The tariffs are written such that it is illegal to use call forwarding as a means of avoid toll charges. eli steve elias ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 15:20:54 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Reprogramming Switches There's been a lot said about the NXX area codes (generalized from N0X/N1X) and how they will require reprogramming of all switches. Now go back to the beginning of N0X/N1X PREFIXES (first used in 1970s in Los Angeles area); is it true that some switches would not accept long distance calls (within country code 1, that is) where the 10-digit number (including the area code but excluding leading 1 or 0), was not of the form N[01]X-NNX-XXXX ? [Moderator's Note: Absolutely! And not just years ago ... some are still confused now. The *only* way I could convince someone to fix a Rolm PBX downtown as of a couple years ago was to give them my voice mail number (708-518-6335) as the *only* way to reach me. For a year, I could not call my voicemail from that location, and everyone ignored my complaints. Trouble is, they like to call me for advice and counsel every week or so ... when they *had* to call that number, they soon got ahold of someone at Rolm and spent the money to get it fixed. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #678 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14022; 29 Aug 91 6:18 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29296; 29 Aug 91 4:37 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac31711; 29 Aug 91 3:30 CDT Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 2:27:34 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #679 BCC: Message-ID: <9108290227.ab16882@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 29 Aug 91 02:27:11 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 679 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Intl Workshop on Quality in the Evolving Telecom Network [Susan Webber] CLASS Service Comes to Rural America [Jack Decker] US and Canadian Telex Numbers [Dan Sahlin] AT&T Likely to Block Calls From Ark. to News Service [haynes@cats.ucsc.edu] FAQ List Coming Up [Dave Leibold] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Webber Subject: Intl Workshop on Quality In The Evolving Telecom Network Organization: gte Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1991 20:15:23 GMT CALL FOR PARTICIPATION International Workshop on Quality In The Evolving Telecommunication Network Tuesday, April 28 through Thursday Noon, April 30, 1992 L'Auberge de Sedona, Sedona, Arizona Sponsor: IEEE Quality Assurance Management Committee, IEEE Communications Switching Committee & IEEE Communications Software Committee OBJECTIVE There are many factors influencing the evolution of the telecommunication network and the associated support systems. There is a trend toward enhanced services, reduced cycle time, increased intelligence of the network itself, and a move to features developed and controlled by service providers and users. These trends will mandate significant change in today's quality processes. Quality expectations will continue to rise, along with continued pressures to deliver new features and services in shorter time frames. These driving forces of schedule and quality will require new, creative, multiple vendor#customer partnerships. The goal of this workshop is to provide a forum for end users, service providers, and telecommunication developers to discuss future quality needs and issues relative to the evolving telecommunication network and Operational Support Systems (OSS). Throughout each session, one or more of the following issues should be addressed: - How will quality of new services be assessed? - How can quality be improved with reductions in cycle time? - How can creative quality partnerships be forged as the needs for services developed and controlled by service providers increase? - What is the best way to manage the quality of products/services provided by multiple vendors? - What are the impacts of software reuse on quality, productivity, and associated metrics? - How does the Malcolm Baldrige Award process and the ISO 9000 Series standards help us move toward network evolutionary needs? - How can the telecommunication network be protected (security and reliability)? Participation in the following topics is invited: - Software reuse and other development initiatives and associated quality and productivity metrics. - Development interval reduction. - Quality and reliability needs as more intelligence in the network is provided. - Vendor/Customer/User partnerships. - Measurement of new customer services. - Quality issues relative to customer developed and controlled services. - Use of Malcolm Baldrige Award process to improve quality. - System integration quality issues associated with hardware, operating systems and application software provided by multiple vendors. - The role of the ISO 9000 Series Standards in quality system improvement ADVISORY COMMITTEE - George Grzybowski (AGCS, Phoenix, AZ) - Venkita Seshadri (AT&T#BL, Holmdel, NJ) ORGANIZING COMMITTEE - Susan Webber, Co#Chair (AGCS, Phoenix, AZ) - Richard Blue, Co#Chair (SSC, Lake Mary, FL) - John Salcido (Pacific Bell, San Ramon, CA) - Chuck Bish (Pacific Bell, San Ramon, CA) PROGRAM COMMITTEE - Francois Coallier (Bell Canada, Montreal, Canada) - Tony Donato (GTE, Phoenix, AZ) - Lynda Francks (Pacific Bell, San Ramon, CA) - Sheryl Hawes (Pacific Bell, San Ramon, CA) - Bill Hoberg (AT&T, Lisle, IL) - Kelly Krick (Northern Telecom, Research Triangle Park, NC) - Randy Sanders (Bellcore, Livingston, NJ) - Frank Straka (Ameritech Services, Rolling Meadows, IL) - G. T. (Tim) Surratt (AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL) - Robert Webber (AGCS, Phoenix, AZ) DATES November 29, 1991 - Deadline for abstracts January 31, 1992 - Notification of acceptance February 14, 1992 - Deadline for registration and payment of fees Sun., April 26, 1992 - Organizers arrive Mon., April 27, 1992 - Participants arrive Tue., April 28, 1992 - Workshop begins Thu., April 30, 1992 - Workshop ends INFORMATION FOR PARTICIPANTS Workshop sessions will be organized into groups of brief presentations of up to 15 minutes each, followed by an open discussion period. These presentations should emphasize practice, problems, and directions in meeting new technologies. Where possible, case studies should be presented to illustrate results. In addition to prepared discussions, a number of panel discussions will be arranged to discuss relevant issues. Speakers should submit an abstract (between 200 and 500 words) and a high#level outline of a proposed presentation. A full paper will not be required. Other participants should submit a brief statement of their relevant experience on a particular topic. The attendance will be limited to 70 in order to facilitate open discussion and enhance interactions. ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO: Susan Webber AG Communication Systems Corporation 2500 West Utopia Road, P. O. Box 52179 Phoenix, AZ 85072-2179 TEL: 602-582-7783, FAX: 602-582-7111 ------------- Susan Webber, AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, AZ Internet: gtephx!webbers@asuvax.eas.asu.edu UUCP: !{ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!samsung!romed!asuvax | att}!gtephx!webbers TEL: 602-582-7783, FAX: 602-582-7111 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Aug 91 10:36:00 EDT From: Jack Decker Subject: CLASS Service Comes to Rural America The following message was originally posted in the Fidonet MDF conference: Original From: Dan J. Rudiak To: All Subject: CLASS Service Comes to Rural America CLASS FEATURES COME TO RURAL AMERICA Research Triangle Park, N.C., August 20 -- For the first time, a broad range of sophisticated telecommunications services traditionally found in the work place will be available to residents in rural America. Custom Local Area Signaling Services, known as CLASS, transform the telephone into a powerful tool that puts subscribers in control of who can call them at home and when. Two rural telephone operating companies this week begin a two-week technical trial of CLASS on Northern Telecom's DMS-10 telephone company central office switch. The trials, involving some 150 lines, are being conducted with Geneseo Telephone Company in Geneseo, Ill., and Molalla Telephone Cooperative in Molalla, Ore. CLASS features include Calling Number Delivery, Calling Number Delivery Blocking, Customer Originated Trace, Automatic Recall, Automatic Callback, Distinctive Ringing/Call Waiting, and Selective Call Rejection, Selective Call Forward and Selective Call Acceptance. CLASS capabilities are made possible through the deployment of Common Channel Signaling System No. 7 (CCS7), an intelligent network architecture which uses special signaling for call setup and routing. It improves the efficiency of the network and provides telephone companies with the capability to offer their customers a host of advanced services. "We wanted to be the first to introduce CLASS to the rural market because our customers are demanding the same sophisticated telecommunications features they see available in Chicago," says Darrell Oldfield, manager, Central Office Equipment, Geneseo Telephone Company. "Deploying CLASS on the DMS-10 makes it possible for a telephone company like ours to cut costs and offer our customers the latest services through CCS7." The Geneseo trial involves testing all CLASS features between three DMS-10s on approximately 100 lines. Geneseo will install CLASS on its four other DMS-10s in December. All CLASS features will be tested on approximately 50 lines on Molalla Telephone's one DMS-10 and five remote switching centers, including three of Northern Telecom's original DMS-10 remotes. "Our customers have been asking for CLASS features ever since we introduced CCS7 into our network last year," said Gil Stenger, Molalla Telephone General Manager. "We also wanted to link our CCS7 network with nearby Stayton." After the trial, Molalla customers can subscribe to all CLASS features except Calling Number Delivery. Geneseo subscribers will be able to get all CLASS features except Calling Number Delivery and Automatic Recall. Tariffs for Calling Number Delivery in Illinois and Oregon are expected in 1992. Both Geneseo Telephone and Molalla Telephone have contracted with Independent Telecommunications Network, Inc. (ITN) in Kansas City, Mo., to be their CCS7 network provider. Installing CLASS on the DMS-10 involves hardware and software upgrades. The new software, the 404.40 release, will be generally available November 1. An upgrade to the 400E processor is also required. Geneseo Telephone, in northwestern Illinois, was founded in 1926. Serving some 6,500 subscribers, it has seven DMS-10 400 Series central office switches in its network. Molalla Telephone Cooperative, located in a rural area 28 miles southeast of Portland, was founded in 1912. Molalla Telephone is a member of the Oregon Telephone Association, a group of 21 rural operating companies joining together to offer CCS7 and other sophisticated telecommunications to their rural serving areas. Northern Telecom is the leading global supplier of fully digital telecommunications switching systems, providing products and services to telephone operating companies, corporations, governments, universities and other institutions worldwide. Northern Telecom has 49,000 employees and had 1990 revenues of $6.8 billion. In addition, in the first quarter of 1991 th company acquired STC PLC, a leading United Kingdom telecommunications firm with 14,000 employees and 1990 telecommunications revenues of approximately $1.6 billion. --- BWave/Max v2.00 [NR] * Origin: Gorre & Daphetid (403)280-9900 SDS GSDS (1:134/14.0) ------------------------------ From: Dan Sahlin Subject: US and Canadian Telex numbers Organization: SICS, Swedish Inst. of Computer Science Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1991 19:14:40 GMT What is the secret on how to decode US and Canadian Telex numbers? According to my (Swedish) Telex directory there are several Telex networks (or networks reachable from Telex) in the US and Canada. Each of them is assigned a "country number" as follows. Some are also assigned a two letter country code. country country Canada number code TWX, 610 series 26 others, 01-07 series 21 USA except Alaska, Hawaii and the TWX network 23 CCI 237 FTCC 238 Graphnet 233 UB ITT 234 UI ITT (DTS) 235 RCA 232 UR TRT 231 UT TWX 25 UQ WUI 236 UW WUTCO 230 UD Teletex 2306 or 256 Given a number with the country code supplied there are no problems. However, it seems that the country code is usually omitted, and so also information about which network the number belongs to. For example, to what networks do these numbers belong: 15529XXXX, 650222XXXX, 470XXX (where X corresponds to a digit)? I have been told the following. Ten digit numbers starting with 310,410,510,710,810,910 are most probably US TWX numbers. Ten digit numbers starting with 610 are Canadian TWX numbers. But how do I distinguish between the other networks? In my older Telex directory, CCI, FTCC, Graphnet, ITT, RCA, TRT and WUI all had country number 23, but apparently this has changed as you can see from the table above. My interest is not purely academic, as I have recently connected our Telex/Teletex box (an IX44 from Intertex) to our Unix machines. (If you also have an IX44, I'll be glad give you the software I have written.) We are now able to send a receive Telex/Teletex just as ordinary email. Subaddressing has been implemented in the Teletex network, and I am hoping to give each Unix user his personal Telex/Teletex number. I would like to put the burden on finding out what network a particular number belongs to on my software, to simplify the use of the system. As I am still testing out my software, I would very much appreciate getting mail, in particular from Teletex subscribers abroad. Our Telex number is "8126154 SICS" (in Sweden; the country code S is not used for Teletex machines) and our Teletex number is "2401-8126154 SICS". Dan Sahlin, SICS, Sweden email: dan@sics.se [Moderator's Note: Telex numbers beginning 650 are assigned to MCI Mail for use as non-interactive (non-conversational) telex message drops. That is, you can write to them, and they back to you, but not in real time. Telex numbers beginning 15, followed by seven more digits (at present, the first three are always 529) are the same as above, for AT&T Mail. For example, my AT&T Mail telex number is written as 155296378, based on my box 529-6378 on that system. My MCI telex number is 6502224956 based on my mailbox 222-4956. Numbers beginning with 610 are Canadian TWX (*not* telex), and numbers beginning 910 are the Easy Link email service which used to belong to Western Union and now belongs to AT&T. The others you mentioned of 410, 510, 710, 810 were snatched back from Western Union by Bellcore and are or will be soon used as area codes for voice telephones in the USA. PAT] ------------------------------ From: 99700000 Subject: AT&T Likely to Block Calls From Arkansas to News Service Date: 28 Aug 91 00:50:15 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Open Access Computing This was in the {Arkansas Gazette} last week. By DeAnn Smith, Gazette staff "A news service in San Diego has asked American Telephone & Telegraph Co. to block all incoming calls from Arkansas because of a Pine Bluff woman who ties up phone lines claiming she's married to singer Michael Jackson. "Copley Radio Network, which serves about 1000 radio stations, calls the 31-year-old woman 'The Pine Bluff Blabbermouth Menace.' "Capt. Lee Hurd of the Pine Bluff Police Department said he was reviewing the woman's calls for possible misdemeanor harassment charges. "The phone company is expected to approve the news service's request. "The network says the woman dials a toll-free number at least 20 times a day to ramble on about being married to Michael Jackson. "Hurd says she claims Jackson and pop singer Whitney Houston have a conspiracy to steal her and Jackson's two teen-age children. "The police captain says she has racked up almost $1,000 worth of telephone calls on the number used by radio stations. He said he talked to the Pine Bluff woman Monday in an effort to get her to stop calling. The woman has called the number at least 15 times since their talk, he said." haynes@cats.ucsc.edu haynes@ucsccats.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 23:16:40 EDT From: DLEIBOLD@vm1.yorku.ca Subject: FAQ List Coming Up The Frequently Asked Questions list, version 1, will be following along shortly. This file deals with some common questions and topics raised in TELECOM Digest. Hopefully, readers will check this file before sending reams of inquiries to the Moderator. Many thanks go to York University, which supplied an account (and some lodging to boot) during the past few weeks. Mail to me from this point on should be directed to the other accounts: dleibold@attmail.com (provided their Internet gateway comes back to life soon), djcl@bnw.debe.fl. us, djcl@sol.cs.fau.edu, Dave.Leibold@f135.n82.z89.imex.org. The vm1.yorku.ca should be considered obsolete as of Thursday night. Thanks to those who sent in suggestions for this. The information in the FAQ list will be updated as information and new developments roll in. Hopefully, this will become part of the monthly postings on comp.dcom.telecom not to mention an Archives file. [Moderator's Note: Watch for this as a special mailing over the weekend. It will be in the archives beginning about the same time, and will be phased into the 'new reader letter' which goes out to all mailing list additions about the same time. My sincere thanks for this effort! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #679 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18480; 29 Aug 91 7:40 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07809; 29 Aug 91 2:23 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10545; 29 Aug 91 1:12 CDT Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 1:10:25 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #677 BCC: Message-ID: <9108290110.ab23016@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 29 Aug 91 01:10:15 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 677 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Radio Days: The ARI System [Wolf Paul] Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls [Michael A. Covington] Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service [Floyd Davidson] Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service [John R. Levine] Re: What is Illegal About Butt Sets? [W. H. Sohl] Re: What is Illegal About Butt Sets? [Gordon D. Woods] Re: What is Illegal About Butt Sets? [John R. Covert] Re: States Covered by Baby Bells [Dave Niebuhr] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wolf Paul Subject: Re: Radio Days: The ARI System Organization: Alcatel Austria - ELIN Research Center G.m.b.H. Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1991 19:47:24 GMT lars@spectrum.cmc.com (Lars Poulsen) writes: > The system cannot be transplanted here, because no commercial > broadcasting station would allow the State Police to interrupt its > programming at will. What if they should break during a commercial? From listening to German and Austrian ARI traffic announcements, I would conclude that they are made by broadcasting station announcers, under broadcasting station control, even though the information comes from the police or automobile associations. Thus, it would not have to disrupt a commercial or any other important part of programming. (I have never heard the news interrupted, which on these stations usually comes in five-minute blocks at the top of the hour). The few seconds delay while waiting for a convenient slot would not reduce the announcement's usefulness. > Also, with the local nature of US broadcasting, it is difficult to set > up a reasonable full-coverage network. The US has a similar system > specifically designated for emergencies -- the EBS system -- but it > usually does not work when needed. If someone -- Blaupunkt or whoever -- wanted to set up a system like this and signed up one station per coverage area, it could be made to work, I should think. Actually, the AAA would be a more likely organizer. > Finally, the European freeway systems are "extras". There is always a > "traditional" highway parallelling a freeway; thus available as a > fallback. In the US, there often is no alternate. Around here, even > bicycles have to use the freeway if they want to go up the coast. > (Something that leads to fatal accidents every year). So do tractors. > As a result, when the freeway is closed or overloaded, there is > nowhere else that can be recommended. Alternate routes only work until > they become widely known, then they clog up instantly. Unfortunately your last sentence above is more and more true in Europe, as well. The traditional highways have often not been kept in shape, or have actually been narrowed to discourage traffic going through towns and villages, and they are no longer a good alternative, especially during the heavy travelling season of summer. Nonetheless it is still useful to know ahead of jams or other problems, one can always decide to take a break at the next roadside cafe rather than in the middle of the jam. Wolf N. Paul, Computer Center Alcatel Austria - Elin Research Center, Ruthnergasse 1, A-1210 Vienna-Austria E-Mail: cc_paul@rcvie.co.at Phone: +43-1-2246913 (h) +43-1-391621-122 (w) ------------------------------ From: "Michael A. Covington" Subject: Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 00:59:17 GMT Concerning 900 numbers and billing disputes, here are comments that I submitted to the FCC in April, 1990. Basically, this sums up the case against having 900 numbers at all. COMMENTS ON PROPOSED REGULATION OF ``900 NUMBERS'' AND SIMILAR TELEPHONE SERVICES These comments refer to the FCC's proposed regulation of telephone services in which part of the telephone company's charge for the call is paid to the recipient of the call ("900 numbers" and "976 numbers"). The FCC should consider a total ban on services of this type because: (1) They are a misuse of the financial arrangements between the subscriber and the telephone company. * Telephone subscribers establish a credit rating for the charges normally levied by the telephone company. This does not prove that they can handle the much larger debts genera- ted by 900 and 976 services. * Telephone accounts normally have no credit limits. This is the root of the problem in numerous widely publicized bil- ling disputes. * Telephone subscribers are accustomed to the normal charges for long-distance calls. They are often aghast at the high charges for 900 and 976 calls. (2) They impose an unreasonable security burden on telephone subscribers. * In the old days I didn't have to worry much about children or visitors misusing my telephone. The most they could do was run up long-distance charges by calling individuals, and it would be easy to find out whom they called and thereby identify the person responsible for any misuse. * Today, however, it's quite possible for my children and guests to run up gigantic charges calling 900 numbers, and because they don't speak with identifiable individuals, I would have no way to find out who made the calls. * Telephones are not normally kept under lock and key. The security risk created by 900 and 976 numbers is unreas- onable. (3) As is frequently pointed out, 900 and 976 numbers create a gigantic opportunity for fraud, deception, and exorbitant pricing of worthless services. * The root of this problem is that direct telephone billing is not an appropriate way to sell anything other than telephone service; it is much too easy to conceal the fact that there is a charge, or make customers forget about the charge, or misrepresent the amount of the charge. * This problem is inherent in the technology and cannot be solved by regulation alone. No law of physics requires people to tell the truth over the telephone. Even when regulated, some vendors will break the regulations whenever no one is listening. (4) The existing credit-card industry provides a reasonable alternative. * If callers to 900 and 976 numbers were required to give a credit card number (by voice or by keypad), this would establish that: * The subscriber knows there is a charge for the call. * The subscriber has adequate credit (this can be checked electronically in just a few seconds). * The caller is not a child or visitor playing pranks. (Existing methods of detecting unauthorized credit card use could be brought to bear.) * The consumer is fully protected by existing regulations in the credit industry. * Further, this would impose no security risk on telephone subscribers other than the presently-existing need to keep credit card numbers confidential. In summary, the telephone companies, by instituting 900 and 976 services, have attempted to re-invent the credit-card industry and to drag the FCC into credit regulation, which is not the FCC's job. The existing credit-card industry, with its own regulations, should do the job instead. Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. | mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu | N4TMI Assistant to the Director, Artificial Intelligence Programs The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, U.S.A. ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1991 12:45:11 GMT In article samsung!athenanet.com! kabra437@uunet.uu.net (Ken Abrams) writes: >> In article TONY@mcgill1.bitnet (Tony >> Harminc) writes: Tony didn't write it. I did. >> I'm not sure what a DMS-100 does, though I'd find that strange. A >> Northern Telecom SL-1 PBX definitely can forward multiple calls, and I >> can't think any good reason not to allow it with a DMS-100. Is there >> a reason? > There is a very good reason for imposing a limit, although it need not > (necessarily) be only one. Line A forwards to line B in another C.O. > Line B, in turn, forwards back to Line A. If there is no limit on the > number of calls that will forward at either end, a loop is formed that > will VERY quickly tie up all the circuits between office A and B. Ok, that makes sense. (I don't work line switches and don't think of things like that.) > Fixed forwarding can be set to a number of calls greater than one. > Variable (dial) call forwarding is set to a limit of one because most > users don't need more than one at a time and (probably more > importantly) it is easier and cheaper to have a fixed limit of one. I don't agree with either the idea that a user doesn't need it, or that its easier or cheaper. But... The DMS-100 has several types different of call forwarding, and arrangments may be different from one switch to the next. I've verified that on at least one DMS-100 and on one SL-1 the line that is forwarded to a hunt group can be dialed multiple times. There are problems with drawing conclusions from examples though, and I don't mean to say that because I know of a case where it works this way, that it always works that way. The two example cases are a couple rather specially arranged switches and are likely to do most anything. One is owned by the military (it does handle commercial traffic as well as autovon traffic), and does not allow universal call forwarding (ie. a line can't be forwarded out of the switch). The SL-1 is owned by the long distance company .... it does all kinds of things you don't allow on your PBX. I also checked out one of the local commercial line switchers here (Fairbanks Municpal Utilities System) and it will not forward more than one call at a time. (That was fun ... we forwarded their testboard number to mine. If it had allowed multiple calls we were gonna forward mine back and ...) For the person who originally asked if it can be done, it seems that yes it can be ... but what he really needs to know is if the particular switch he will be getting service from is arranged to provide what he wants or not. It could be either way. And it seems that another answer to his problem is just ordering more lines from the distant exchange, and forwarding each one. 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. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 27 Aug 91 15:13:50 EDT (Tue) From: "John R. Levine" I gather that some implementations of call forwarding will only allow a single unsupervised forward per number at a time. Once the call supervises, other forwards for the same number are allowed. This avoids forwarding loops. The number of simultaneous forwards is doubtless a software parameter. I can easily imagine that the telco sets the limit to one to maximize the number of RCF numbers it sells, though it seems a pretty poor use of phone numbers. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: W. H. Sohl Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 13:18:43 GMT Subject: Re: What is Illegal About Butt Sets? Reply-To: W. H. Sohl Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article gantzm@gantz.bowlgreen.oh. us writes: > O.K. I have to ask, > Why are butt sets illegal in some areas, and who made them illegal? > [Moderator's Note: Buttsets are NOT 'illegal' anywhere. Possession of > stolen property (including stolen telco buttsets) is illegal, of > course, but the units themselves are legal. PAT] PAT's comment MAY be true, and possibly may not. It is possible that one or more states may have a law(s) on their books that makes it illegal to possess telephone test equipment. Remember, if such a law exists, it was probably written years ago when no one owned their own equipment. Now before anyone jumps on me with the argument that states can't regulate telephone stuff (ie, only the FCC can), rest assured that such situations have not prevented states in the past from attempting to exert control on state levels. Case in point, at least seven states have laws which make it illegal to have a radio reciever in an automobile that is capable of receiving police radio transmissions. While there is currently an FCC docket that is addressing this with a possible end result being a stated federal preemption, no such explicit federal preemption exists now, so people (usually with a radio scanner) that are stopped in those states can and are prosecuted for violation of those laws. Again, I am not aware that any law exists in any state to actually prohibit possession of telephone test equipment, but with 50 states, it is possible. Bill Sohl (K2UNK) || email Bellcore, Morristown, NJ || UUCP bcr!taichi!whs70 (Bell Communications Research) || or 201-829-2879 Weekdays || Internet whs70@taichi.cc.bellcore.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 08:36:46 EDT From: Gordon D Woods Subject: Re: What is Illegal About Butt Sets? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > [Moderator's Note: Buttsets are NOT 'illegal' anywhere. Possession of > stolen property (including stolen telco buttsets) is illegal, of > course, but the units themselves are legal. PAT] I forgot to include in the beginning of this thread the reason (excuses?) given for it being illegal to own butt sets. According to the Morris County, NJ prosecutor, the reason they are illegal is because they can be used to illegally tap telephone lines. No mention was made of them being stolen property. The latter concept came up from people's actual experiences with the law. It would appear you need more than a sales receipt to protect yourself. [Moderator's Note: The Morris County NJ prosecutor needs to litigate this with a good defense attorney who will slow him down a little. We do not make legal-to-own things illegal in the USA because they 'can be used' for some illegal activity. After all, cigarette lighters 'can be used' to burn down people's houses, and automobiles 'can be used' to make the commission of many crimes more feasable for the person who needs to get away afterward. I think Morris County would lose on appeal, if it got that far. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 17:49:53 PDT From: "John R. Covert 28-Aug-1991 2049" Subject: Re: What is Illegal About Butt Sets? Sorry Pat. In about 1972 a good friend of mine (since 1975) was arrested in a phone closet at SUNY Stoneybrook. He was charged and convicted of "possession of burglar's tools" -- the butt set. He was not charged with anything else, no toll fraud, no nothing. john [Moderator's Note: The context is all important here, John. If he was in the phone closet without authorization, then he was indeed a burglar. In that case, had he jimmied open the door with a screw driver, the screw driver would have been a burglar's tool also. Are you suggesting that any non-(establishment)-telco person who contracts for repair of privatly owned telephone equipment and lines can be convicted (forget about the arrest, that's just police BS) for owning burglar's tools? Of course, in 1972 there were no such 'independent contractors' with any lawful status, I guess. What you say was probably correct twenty years ago, but not now, I feel certain. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1991 10:21:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Dave Niebuhr Subject: Re: States Covered by Baby Bells When I posted my request for states that are covered by the various Baby Bells, I neglected to mention that it was for overall geographic information and that the internal distribution wasn't necessary. I know that NYNEX covers New York and the New England area. I wasn't interested in who the operative companies are/were such as NYTel, NETel or any others. Sorry for the confusion. Dave Niebuhr Brookhaven National Laboratory Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #677 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05156; 30 Aug 91 5:04 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18244; 30 Aug 91 3:18 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02279; 30 Aug 91 2:11 CDT Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 1:20:37 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #681 BCC: Message-ID: <9108300120.ab23978@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 30 Aug 91 01:20:32 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 681 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Seeking Information on Mongolian Telecommunications [Paul Gillingwater] Information Wanted on Demon Dialer Model 176T [Scott Keller] Scientific American on Information [malcolm@apple.com] 976 and 900 Billing by Telcos [Lauren Weinstein] Security and Privacy at the Message Center [Lauren Weinstein] ISDN in California [Electronic Design via malcolm@apple.com] Canadian Long Distance Competition Update [Dave Leibold] Other Bell Canada News Notes [Dave Leibold] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Gillingwater Subject: Seeking Information on Mongolian Telecommunications Organization: Actrix Information Exchange Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 08:29:00 GMT Yes, there really is a telephone network in the People's Republic of Mongolia. I understand that the Japanese government has recently announced investment in this area, and that there is a proposed satellite ground station to be established there. I would appreciate hearing people's opinions on what sort of network would be appropriate for introducing into that country, given its low population (two million) and large geography, as well as lack of in-depth technical infrastructure. Other areas of interest are the legislative framework, other foreign investment and references to recent information on this matter. I would also appreciate knowing about any recent initiatives on behalf of the ITU or Asian Development Bank. Please reply by e-mail; I will summarize if appropriate. Paul Gillingwater, paul@actrix.gen.nz ------------------------------ From: sekell%bb1t@uunet.uu.net Subject: Information Wanted on Demon Dialer Model 176T Date: 28 Aug 91 23:44:12 -7 Organization: Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO A friend recently picked up a "Demon Dialer" at a hamfest. He was told that the manual with it does not apply to this particular model. After trying it out, it looks like it really doesn't. I would appreciate hearing from anyone having a manual for this device that they would be willing to sell or copy. Or perhaps just an address or phone for Zoom Telephonics, Inc. In addition, any info on the operation of the device, internal jumper settings, and type of battery this thing takes for memory backup (two inches long with 9v-like clips on either end) would be greatly appreciated. INFO: Demon Dialer by Zoom Telephonics, Inc. Model 176T. Rear of "incorrect" manual has "0903DDI" printed on it and is copyright 1983. This unit has a battery of some sort for backup and not the capacitor as described in this manual. Scott Keller KA0WCH Monsanto Agricultural Company sekell@monsanto.com (314) 537-6317 packet: ka0wch@k0pfx.mo.noam ------------------------------ Subject: Scientific American on Information Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 09:14:19 -0700 From: malcolm@apple.com This month's issue of Scientific American is devoted to articles about computers and information. All of them are very well written. There are a number of telecom related issues such as this quote from Nicholas Negroponte (MIT Media Lab): "Over the next 20 years, television and telecommunications will swap their primary means of transmission." This idea comes from his belief that intelligent network nodes will do more to improve the information flow then just bigger data pipes. By trying needlessly to justify the inevitable, many network products and services being proposed now are contrived or, worse, made with total disregard for concurrant advances in computing. People with vested interest in the network are saying that we need big data pipes connecting our machines because we will be naive about how to process and store information. One such claim, for example, is that we will need broadband networks to transmit video. In fact, we already know that video can be delivered over the T1 (1.5 megabit-per-second) twisted pair copper wires existing today. The real products and services of the future will come from imaginative applications of both channel and computing capacity, not from either alone. Check out the September 1991 Scientific American for this and other visions of the future. Malcolm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 13:04:21 PDT From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: 976 and 900 Billing by Telcos Greetings. No, the telcos aren't obligated to do billing for information providers (IPs). But if they aren't willing to do so, they damn well better not expect to have permission to provide their own information services billed to customers' phone bills! The telcos know that the reason the IPs like 900 and 976 numbers is because of the "impulse" nature of the purchase. The telcos want to cash in on those impulses as much as all the existing IPs. While I am generally opposed to the concept of the telcos becoming information providers due to the obvious anticompetitive problems that would result (note that I say "would", not "could"!), at the very least the telcos must expect to provide the same access and billing services to external IPs that they would to their own internal operations. Unfortunately, this is very difficult to police. The telcos have vast resources in their regulated rate base, and it is almost impossible for outsiders to determine whether the internally charged rates are realistic or nothing but "funny money" being pushed around between internal telco accounts. I am not a big fan of 976 and 900 numbers in general -- I suspect that some valuable services that are offered through these mechanisms are being negated by the overall "sleaze factor" that the public has come to associate with these systems (obviously this isn't fair to all IPs; many are anything but sleazy operations; I simply point out the prevailing public attitude -- driven home by endless late night "Girls Girls Girls" ads on television...) I suspect that in the end the problems with 900 and 976 numbers may eventually result in their demise through legislative action on a national level -- whether or not this would be a serious loss is of course open to discussion and argument. But in any case, we can at least demand as even a playing field as possible from the telcos if they are (unwisely) permitted to enter the IP business. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 13:04:21 PDT From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: Security and Privacy at the Message Center On the subject of the PacBell "Message Center" ... one topic rarely discussed in this regard relates to the security of messages. Exactly who at telco has access to them, and under what conditions, both "officially" and "unofficially"? What is the legal situation regarding the privacy of messages stored on a telco computer? Can government agencies request access to stored messages, with or without a search warrant? Could they get permission to listen to large numbers of messages looking for particular conversations, targetting particular persons or topics? What about similar unofficial or official access to possible archives of old messages on backup tapes? One assumes that the Message Center disks are well backed up, and you could store a *lot* of voicemail messages on a single Exabyte tape. It would be completely practical for year's worth of everyone's messages to be archived in comparatively little space. Could a party under investigation be subjected to having years worth of their telephone messages being purused? Subscribers are being encouraged by the telcos to think of these voicemail services as just "super" answering machines. But as people are gradually learning, they aren't "super" at all, and are far different from conventional answering machines, with decidedly different potential problems. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Subject: ISDN in California Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 14:05:59 -0700 From: malcolm@apple.com From {Electronic Design}, August 22, 1991 ISDN Spreads through the Golden State - Growing interest in Integrated Services Digital Network (IDSN) services in California is prompting Pacific Bell, a subsidiary of the Pacific Telesis Group to step up its deployment of the technology, which it offers as Centrex IS (Integrated Systems). The company cites two reasons for the increased interest. First, business organizations are becoming more aware of the benefits of ISDN for desk-to-desk networking, file transfer, remote LAN access, personal-computer LAN bridging, Group IV facsimile, and customer service call management. The second reason is new ISDN-based applications, such as Pacific Bell's RealtyLink, are finding homes in a variety of new markets among business and residential customers, and manufacturers of central-office switches, ISDN terminal equipment, and computer-software developers. The multichannel RealtyLink connects all participants in a transaction for exchange of voice, data, and images. Why does this paragraph seem to have so little to do with reality???? Anxiously awaiting the day when the bits get home .... Malcolm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 22:39:48 EDT From: DLEIBOLD@vm1.yorku.ca Subject: Canadian Long Distance Competition Update (From {Bell News} (Bell Canada) 19 August 1991 edition) Bell files part one of final argument in long distance case. We're into the home stretch in the long distance proceeding . On July 29, Bell and the other parties in the debate filed part one of their final argument to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). This argument related to issues raised by the federal regulator in its public notice of last year on long distance competition rather than the bids of Unitel and B.C. Rail/Lightel (BCRL) to enter the long distance market. Also on July 29, Unitel and BCRL submitted final argument on their own applications (see accompanying story). Final argument is based on information brought forward in the evidence of the parties, and during the hearings held by the CRTC from April 15 to July 5. Once this part of the process is concluded, it will be up to the commission to decide the future of long distance in Canada. Different scenarios for long distance In last summer's public notice on this question, the CRTC asked for comments on a number of issues besides the Unitel/BCRL bids, such as the benefits and disadvantages of various structures for the long distance business. Three different structures include: * staying with today's system; * extending the current rules for resale to the Atlantic provinces (resale refers to the bulk purchase of private line facilities from carriers such as Bell or Unitel, for resale at a discount); * reselling bulk discount long distance services which cannot be resold under today's rules (e.g. WATS); * entry into the market by one or more long distance carriers (i.e. companies with their own networks) besides the telephone companies. In its argument, Bell said that implementing the Vision and keeping the industry structure in place today would bring customers more benefits and be less costly to the country than the other options. Bell Vision would deliver more benefits. The Vision is Bell's five-year plan to reduce long distance rates while keeping rates for local service low. The plan also includes continued modernization of the network, high levels of research and development (R&D) and productivity gains which could not be matched by Unitel or BCRL. Although Bell will file its argument on the Unitel/BCRL bids later on, the company did comment on them because they provide a useful example of several carriers entering the market. Bell pointed out that both proposals would result in much higher costs to the industry than the current system, and in more limited cuts to long distance rates as well as higher local rates. In addition, Bell said that neither Unitel nor BCRL would be able to stay in business if those companies were to contribute as much to local service as Bell does. Unitel/BCRL couldn't stay in business. Referring to discussions which took place during the hearings, Bell noted that BCRL proposed to pay only about 11 percent of its revenues towards local service, while Unitel proposes to pay about 35 per cent. By contrast, about 63 per cent of Bell's revenues from public long distance revenues go to support basic local service. On the subject of WATS resale in the long distance business, Bell said in its arguments that resellers would add $1 billion to industry costs over the next ten years. In addition, Bell said resellers tend to focus on large customers rather than the needs of medium and small customers. On August 23, Bell and the other telephone companies will file arguments on the Unitel/BCRL bids, with reply from the would-be competitors due September 3. ------------- Unitel and BCRL say competition will benefit customers. While each party in the debate filed its argument on the CRTC public notice issues July 29, Unitel and BCRL also filed argument on their own proposals to provide long distance service in Canada. Both companies claim their brand of competition would deliver more benefits to Canadians than the Bell Vision. In particular, Unitel says that competitive entry would force the telephone companies to become more innovative and customer responsive. On the hotly debated issue of local rates, Unitel claims its "contribution" payments to local service would be enough to keep local rates from rising. This assumes that its forecasts of two per cent productivity growth and four per cent market growth are realized. Bell maintains that Unitel's proposal for contribution is much less than it pays and that this, along with the extra costs of connecting two networks, would force local rates up. Unitel's argument also says that if Bell and the other telephone companies are unable to achieve the productivity gains they predict, local rate increases would be necessary to reduce local rates to the levels set out in the Vision. However, Bell is confident that it will achieve the productivity gains it forecasts because of the spread of new technology such as digital and fiber optics. Like Unitel, BCRL claims that the Bell Vision is a poor substitute for competition and promotes its own vision which it says would be of special benefit to small business customers. BCRL is a reseller, and as such is interested in serving selected business markets. The company's argument stated again that its proposed rate of contribution -- a fraction of what Bell pays -- would be enough to keep local rates affordable. Bell will file its argument on these applications August 23. reply-to: djcl@sol.cs.fau.edu djcl@bnw.debe.fl.us etc etc. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 23:44:27 EDT From: DLEIBOLD@vm1.yorku.ca Subject: Other Bell Canada News Notes The Bell News (Bell Canada) had some recent items such as: - Advantage Canada, a volume discount long distance service from Bell, receives final approval from the CRTC (Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission). Discounts of up to 30% are possible. - Bell Canada employees in Toronto and Ottawa can get to try a voicemail service for free; after the trial, it will cost $5.50/month plus regular service charge. - Bell begins to file concluding arguments regarding long distance competition in Canada; Ontario and Quebec governments are opposed to long distance competition, particularly as specified in the Unitel/BCRL bids; Unitel and BCRL on the other hand say competition will benefit consumers - Quarterly financial notes - Bell employees get a jump ahead of most of the public for tickets to a series of Anne Murray concerts in Ontario (October-November). These concerts are part of the Bell Legacy Concerts, this year supporting The Environmental Youth Alliance. If time permits (and it's running out fast...) some more details on the above might be posted tomorrow. Otherwise, those with access to a Bell News could probably elaborate on any or all of these items. (vm1.yorku.ca is closing... replies please to djcl@bnw.debe.fl.us, or dleibold@attmail.com, or whatever....) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #681 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08399; 30 Aug 91 6:02 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31151; 30 Aug 91 4:26 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18244; 30 Aug 91 3:12 CDT Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 2:08:21 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #682 BCC: Message-ID: <9108300208.ab22112@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 30 Aug 91 02:08:04 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 682 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson "Swinging Grounds?" [Robert Wier] 510 Revisited [Carl Moore] Mitel - New Products [Dave Leibold] No More PacBell Personal Number Charges [Mark Lottor] Wireless Headset Phone Wanted [Mike McNally] AT&T ACUS System Just Installed Here [Kevin Kadow] VCR Plus Number Formats [Eric Kiser] For Emergency Dial 1-900-911 :-( [Jack Winslade] Happy 10th [Dennis G. Rears] Ten Years Ago in TELECOM Digest # 1 [Bill Huttig] Re: Ten Years of It: Starting Year Eleven [Joe Pistritto] Re: GTE Switches [Bud Couch] Re: US and Canadian Telex Numbers [Carl Moore] Re: 950-1288 Explained [Darren Alex Griffiths] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 23:23:20 -0700 From: Robert Wier Subject: "Swinging Grounds?" Recently, my house (which is situated in a little mountain town in S.W. Colorado) was visited by a telco tech after I has talked with US West about a problem. The ACTUAL problem was that there is still a stepper switcher in use there, and I have touch tone service. Thus there is a converter in the CO which converts the TT to pulse to actually dial. I was having problems this summer because of the increase in banks and other large institutions starting to use tt based response systems, like for checking your account balance. The TT to pulse converter was intercepting my TT signals even after I was connected to the bank, and sending pulses. This of course totally zonked the bank's response system. I had asked them how to get the TT signals thru without the converter kicking in once the connection was established. The suggestion is to hit the # key after the connection is established. I havn't tried this yet (I've been away from home since the fall semester started here). Anyone know anything about a solution to this? However, the point of this message is that they surveyed my line and found a "swinging ground", probably caused by water in a box, or having gotten into my cable. They came out and checked, and sure enough the problem is on MY side of the box. Now here is the question: he disconnected from the telco system, and measured my cable (with no phones attached). Now, this was an *OLD* instrument, bakelite case, probably 50's or early 60's. And sure enough the needle (digital, we don't need no stinkin' digital!) swung up and down in a somewhat random manner. I asked he was he was measuring, but I never could get a clear answer (all he would say was that he was measuring "to ground"). After he left I tried to get the same sort of reading as a diagnostic tool with an analog VOM (which measures up to the megaohm scale on the high end and down to 100 ohms on the low end). I couldn't duplicate what he was seeing, no matter what combination of connections I tried (ring - ground rod, tip - ground rod, etc). The ONLY thing I could see was about a 500K resistance between the tip and ring (should have been infinite). I cut off that branch of the wiring, called the guy in the CO back, and he said the diagnostic now looked fine. My question is, what were they measuring and how can I do the same to check to see if I have cured the condition? THANKS! Bob Wier College of Engineering Northern Arizona University / Flagstaff, Arizona Internet: rrw@naucse.cse.nau.edu | BITNET: WIER@NAUVAX | WB5KXH or uucp: ...arizona!naucse!rrw ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 15:14:07 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: 510 Revisited I tried 510-215-3596, posted in this Digest earlier. It failed again from my residence phone in Delaware, on 302-731, via AT&T and MCI. Does the local switch weed out incorrect area codes before handing off the call to a long distance carrier? But it worked from office phone on 301-278, and also from a pay phone on 301-272, carried by AT&T. (These Maryland prefixes will go into 410 area.) I intend to stick to the announced effective date of 2 Sept 1991 (Labor Day) for area code 510. i.e., I do not intend to contact the local company unless the above calls from Delaware still don't work after then. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 23:26:29 EDT From: DLEIBOLD@vm1.yorku.ca Subject: Mitel - New Products Mitel Corp., maker of PBX systems and other telephone equipment, announced on Tuesday a new line of "modular" equipment that can be tailored to individual uses. The idea presented seems to be that the equipment can be put together like "Lego". As Mitel marketing vice-president Tony Bawcutt put it, "We've done for telephones what Macintosh did for computers ... we've made it easy, we've made it intuitively appealing and we've made it compelling." Mitel production is to be streamlined with production of four phones that can be programmed for any language, and sold throughout the world. Third parties could now be able to write software for the new system, similar in concept to how companies can make software and hardware for PCs. CEO Anthony Griffiths stated that Mitel is still selling in more than 70 countries, is fourth largest in North American PBX sales, and might be able to turn a small profit this year, after losing $107 million last year. Staff and operations have been cut since, particularly the Boca Raton, FL office which was moved to Virginia and scaled back to perform marketing functions. The rest of the story can likely be found in papers from Wednesday on. {The Toronto Star} had a business article regarding the Mitel announcement today (28 August 91). dleibold@attmail.com djcl@bnw.debe.fl.us ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 16:26:21 PST From: Mark Lottor Subject: No More PacBell Personal Number Charges I just got a note that said PacBell will no longer charge monthly fees for personalized numbers starting next month. This will save me $3.50 a month on my business line ($1.50 if you have a personal line). They claim they are doing this to be nice, but I can't believe it. Is there some reason they were forced to drop the charges? Maybe so customers won't claim they "own" a number since they were paying for a specific one? ------------------------------ From: mcnally@wsl.dec.com (Mike McNally) Subject: Wireless Headset Phone Organization: DEC Palo Alto Date: 29 Aug 91 16:17:29 GMT I'd like to buy a wireless phone, and I'd be happiest if it had a headset option for hands-free use. Does such a thing exist, and if so is it priced within reason? Note that I don't mean a cellular phone; I want a typical domestic cheap-o cordless. Mike + Software + Digital Equipment + Western Software + mcnally@ McNally + Laborer + Corporation + Laboratory + wsl.dec.com [Moderator's Note: Check out 'Hello Direct'; 1-800-HI-HELLO. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Kevin Kadow Subject: AT&T ACUS System Just Installed Here Reply-To: technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow) Organization: Technology News, IIT, Chicago, IL Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 05:31:15 GMT We just got ACUS installed in the dormitories (activated just one week ago) and since then I've stumbled across a few questions ... According to the brochure, we pay AT&T a $11.00 monthly fee for outgoing service, rather than getting the service direct from Illinois Bell. Since we don't get a bill from Bell, I'm confused as to how my local calls are billed. Each room gets a four digit number, used for free calls between the dorms. Incoming callers must dial 808-xxxx where xxxx is the extension. Does ACUS have any interesting "features"? Like a standard PBX we get a four-digit phone number. After they activated the phones they sent a rep. around to "verify" each number -- does ACUS have an internal ANI (line identifying number?) To make outgoing calls one must dial: 9-(desired number) + (your seven digit code) technews@iitmax.iit.edu kadokev@iitvax (bitnet) My Employer Disagrees. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 10:48:54 EDT From: kiser@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil Subject: VCR Plus Number Formats I know this isn't a telecom related issue, but does anyone know how the VCR Plus entries are encoded? All that I know is that is Huffman compressed, and I think it contains the time on, time off, channel and date. None of this is verified, but some of it came out of Scientific American. Also, if anyone has any good info on Huffman encoding, that would be of use too. I'm just curious about the whole encoding process & how it uses Huffman encoding to make each entry simple. Any help or direction on this is appreciated. Thanx in advance, Eric [Moderator's Note: Answers should be directed to Eric; not the Digest. Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 21:49:10 cst From: Jack Winslade Subject: For Emergency Dial 1-900-911 :-( Reply-to: jsw@drbbs.omahug.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 In his monologue tonight, Johnny Carson stated that beginning shortly in Los Angeles, they would begin charging for emergency calls to 911. He did say he was serious, and clarified by stating that before an ambulance would be dispatched, the caller must either have Blue Cross insurance or a credit card. I know Carson kids a lot, but he >DID< say he was serious. Does anyone have the full story on this ?? This is the first I have heard of it. Good day! JSW ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 9:54:21 EDT From: Dennis G. Rears Subject: Happy 10th This is probably getting old by now, but happy 10th anniversary. The TELECOM Digest along with the RISKS Digest are the best moderated lists I have subscribed to. Keep up the good work. Hope to see you at your 20th anniversary. Dennis [Moderator's Note: Dennis Rears is the Moderator of Telecom Privacy, a mailing list which originated with this group. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Ten Years Ago in TELECOM Digest # 1 Date: 29 Aug 91 03:10:19 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL I thought it might me interesting to pull some stuff from old issues of the Digest and start a column. Here is the first installment. Some articles/headers may be missing due to archive. Items will be separted by ### Ten Years ago in Telecom-Digest Number: 1 ### From the 26 Aug 81 issue of MIS Week newspaper: W.U. TO ACQUIRE 50% OF AIRFONE Upper Saddle River, N.J. - Western Union Corp. said last week it has agreed to acquire a 50 percent interest in a new communications system, owned by Airfone Inc., that will allow passengers on commercial airlines to place a telephone call while in flight. [stuff deleted] The system, it said, is expected to be operational during the second half of next year. ### Date: 27 Aug 1981 17:47:36-PDT In real life: Steven M. Bellovin, U. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Subject: direct-dial credit card calls There certainly are plans for it; about two years ago, the phone company changed the format of their credit card numbers to 14 digits (from a shorter string containing alphanumerics) specifically to pave the way for direct dialing. I don't know that service will be available from ordinary phones, or only the special "Charge-a-Call" phones in the airports, etc. ### Date: 28 Aug 1981 0225-EDT From: Hobbit Subject: Credit calls, etc. To throw some more ideas into that bucket: I heard someplace that they are going to implement a central-database system wherein the user will enter his credit code from the phone and then make his call. This would supposedly eliminate the use of 'synthesized' credit codes or out-of-date ones, or codes that the sys people can tell the machine to ignore because of problems. What it will introduce of course is being able to beat on codes without human intervention [operators] and I have a feeling that it would lead to about the same crime rate as before! [stuff deleted] ### End of Ten Years ago in Telecom-Digest ### ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 09:55:57 PDT From: Joe Pistritto Subject: Re: Ten Years of It: Starting Year Eleven In comp.dcom.telecom you write: > The Digest completes ten years of publication this weekend. The > changes we have seen in telecommunications in the past decade are far > too numerous to mention regardless of how many special issues I put > out devoted to the topic. Well, thanks Pat, for all the effort you've put into this thing. I know I've been reading it off and on (mostly on) since 1982, and contributing occasionally, and know how much of your time it must take to make this thing work. It's been fun, and here's hoping we'll still be doing this ten years from now! Telecom Digest, a net institution you are now! ------------------------------ From: Bud Couch Subject: Re: GTE Switches Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 00:11:30 GMT In article brian@amc.com (Brian Crowley) writes: > Imagine my suprise when I saw that they > were going to provide me with the best in phone service with a #5ESS! > It seems to me that GTE must have put a *lot* of development money > into the GTD-5 switch, so why are they upgrading CO's with 5ESS > switches? Because GTE is no longer in the telephone switch or transmission equipment manufacturing business. First they gutted (deliberately or inadvertantly?) Lenkurt, and sold the still-warm corpse off to Siemens. Then they formed a "joint venture" with AT&T for the switchgear (Automatic Electric) side -- which was just a thinly disguised method to allow the Reagan "anti-trust" (hah!) section of the DOJ an excuse to ignore the fact that AT&T would have sole ownership of a competitor after some time period (which I beleive is past). Anybody in Phoenix - does AT&T own you wholly now? Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew... standard BS applies ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 10:23:14 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: US and Canadian Telex numbers Moderator writes: > Numbers beginning with 610 are Canadian TWX (*not* telex), and numbers > beginning 910 are the Easy Link email service which used to belong to > Western Union and now belongs to AT&T. The others you mentioned of > 410, 510, 710, 810 were snatched back from Western Union by Bellcore > and are or will be soon used as area codes for voice telephones in the > USA. This doesn't quite fit in with what was said in the recent "running out of numbers" article, which said that 210, 810, 910 are available as area codes (not announced or in use). We know 310,410,510 are coming as area codes before the year is out, and I wondered aloud what 610 & 710 were used for. ("USA" should be country code 1; 905 has been announced, but is not in use yet, for Ontario.) [Moderator's Note: I wish someone would write in detail about 710, which is defined as 'special government services'. Please. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Darren Alx Griffiths Subject: Re: 950-1288 Explained Date: 29 Aug 91 23:05:54 GMT Reply-To: Darren Alx Griffiths Organization: Open Systems Solutions, Inc. -- UNIX R Us. In article ED.HOPPER@ehbbs.hou.tx.us (ED HOPPER) writes: > "A new AT&T service, released in July of this year, is the company's > Information Access Service. Intended primarily for Accunet Packet > Service customers who regularly access on-line third-party databases, > IAS allows users to dial the toll free 950-1288 from anywhere in the > United States. (other parts of description deleted) > What do you want to bet that PC Ragazine has at least part of the above > wrong??? :-) I'm willing to bet quite a lot. I just tried the number and got a rather interesting result. After two rings a recorded voice said "71-G we're sorry" and it was followed immediately by a fast busy signal. I suppose this new AT&T service could be very useful if you're having a bad day, your SO just dumped you or your boss decided to cut your pay, simple call the above number and a pleasant female voice will say that someone cares. Darren Alex Griffiths, OS Solutions, Inc. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #682 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08911; 30 Aug 91 6:09 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31151; 30 Aug 91 4:33 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac18244; 30 Aug 91 3:18 CDT Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 2:36:58 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #683 BCC: Message-ID: <9108300236.ab32285@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 30 Aug 91 02:36:33 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 683 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Pizza and Telecom Inflation (was Phast Food) [Dennis Blyth] CallerID Program For PC Hits the Street [Phydeaux] VISA/Mastercard Automated Authorization [Douglas Scott Reuben] MCI Friends and Family [John Higdon] Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls [John Higdon] Re: Phones in Elevators [Jeff M. Carlson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dennis Blyth Subject: Pizza and Telecom Inflation (was Phast Phood) Organization: NCR International - Europe Group, Dayton Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 16:21:00 EDT (Previous post about how university town goes from 10,000 to 100,000 on a football weekend, and that the pizza company delivers by bicycle.) (A lot of this is not very telecom related, but I thought it might teach a competition lesson, a market economy lesson, and might entertain besides.) The same pizza company being mentioned in this newsgroup (I avoid name since we are not allowed commercial messages on this net) :-) in the 'late 60's' (I date myself :-) :-) advertised having the 'WORLD'S LARGEST pizza ovens' at its store right next to (and almost exclusively serving) the campus of MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, and they delivered using both a fleet of compact cars and some motorcycles. This company was headquartered near the campus of another well known UNIVERSITY (IN) MICHIGAN, (two guesses, folks!! but the first guess does not count!) :-); and I was never aware of them advertising large pizza ovens there.... :-) so maybe the folks at that other university were not such big pizza fans as we were... although the owner of that company was able to take his profits and buy a famous local professional sports team. (If you can't guess who this is by now, then you (1) know nothing about MICHIGAN (2) know little about professional sports, and (3) are not into franchise pizza joints.) BTW, the profits from this little pizza venture sponsor an amazing Christmas season light display in the Detroit area that is sooooo popular that it generates monumental traffic jams and that some of the locals would like it banned. Also, this firm is a major contributor to many non-profit agencies, United Way, etc., all from the profits from pizza! And pizza is one of the most nutritious fast foods there is!!! Hurray for free enterprise, profits are a good thing, IMHO. Now, the telecom connection comes in (yes, it was a stretch! :-) Now, who can compare the inflation in delivered pizza prices to U.S. telecommunication costs: In 1969, their delivered pizza price was $ 1.25 for a 12 inch pizza with pepperoni and extra sauce. The same pizza is in the $ 8 - 10 dollar range today, what an impact inflation makes!! How does this compare to the price changes in the long distance market and POTS local market? It may make one wish they were in the pizza business (?) Some of your telecom readers of the bean counter, excuse me, financial analyst mentality may wish to fill in a chart which looks like this: (all costs in current dollars) 12 inch pizza 3 min ld call 3 min local call 1969 1991 and maybe repeat the excercise in constant 1969 dollars (eg, inflation adjusted) to make the point. Go ahead, somebody do it and post to the net, (if Pat, alias 'the king' moderator, will permit this thread to continue) so others can see. Related note: as we analyze the 'market' price for pizza and telecom, consider the impact competition has on the market. That Detroit area headquartered pizza place has competition from ANOTHER DETROIT area headquartered pizza company that offers two pizzas (whatever type and variety) for the price of one. A COLA company related pizza restaurant now enters the fray with home delivery. And look what is happenning to the pizza cost for us 'end - users' !! Now maybe you telecom competition watchers can draw an anology. More related to telecom: A consultant friend of mine told me that 'many moons ago', he worked on an assignment for a 'Michigan based pizza delivery company' (guess who, probably hq'd in the Detroit metropolitan area) that was investigating setting up a 'single number nationwide' for pizza delivery. He tells me that a (telecom) trade industry publication published an estimate of costs and various other factors for this project. The consultant was quite proud of the fact that (allegedly) their estimates / forecasts of the costs are very close in line with what is being published today. BTW, I can't disclose the consultant firm name, nor the name of the pizza company due to professional ethics, market research confidentiality practices, and the fact that that might constitute a commercial message on the net. Disclaimer: I own no stock in any pizza delivery company, but I really love eating pizza (lots of pepperoni and sauce, please!). I do own stock in several long distance telecom providers, and I hope the profits from these stocks will enable my children to attend University and eat a lot of pizza while there and between now and then! (smirk on: I'd love to post this to privacy and perhaps risks as well, but honestly, I can't see the risk in anybody knowing my pizza ingrediant preference. smirk off.) BTW, with CID, that Michigan pizza company could note, "thank you, Mr. Blyth, we note that your last order was for a large pepperoni, extra sauce, extra cheeze, would you like that again? Ohhhh, yes, Mr. B. (pause while order taker scans screen of information about past delivery problems to the B residence), could you please have your Doberman locked up approximately 25 minutes from now, so our delivery person can get through?") Ahhhh, the wonders of ISDN technology. Dennis Blyth, Manager, Marketing Research, NCR Europe Group Dennis.Blyth@daytonOH.NCR.COM Fax: 1-513-445-6078 Phone: 1-513-445-6580 [Moderator's Note: It is certainly true that unlike everything else, phone calls cost *less* than they did twenty years ago. Try the chart shown above and see the difference for yourself. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 17:02:43 PDT From: Phydeaux Subject: CallerID Program For PC Hits The Street The 8/26 issue of {PC Week} has a review of a program for the PC which "correctly identifies callers by phone number and in some cases, by name, from the caller ID signals sent through the phone line by the ...central office." The product is $295 and includes an adapter for a serial port. Sounds pretty expensive to me. reb -- *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* reb@ingres.com or reb%ingres.com@lll-winken.llnl.GOV ICBM: 41.55N 87.40W h:558 West Wellington #3R Chicago, IL 60657 312-549-8365 w:reb ASK/Ingres 10255 West Higgins Suite 500 Rosemont, IL 60018 708-803-9500 f U cn rD tHs thN u cN Us Unx 2 ------------------------------ Date: 30-AUG-1991 02:47:47.95 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: VISA/Mastercard Automated Authorization Hi all, I was asked a question a bit out of my area of expertise, and thought perhaps a few people here might know: I am looking at a project where a computer will have to interface with a credit-card validation system (VISA, MC, etc...NOT BOC/AT&T). Basically, what will be needed is a means by which a user at the computer will be able to enter his/her credit card number and expiration date, and while online, have the card checked for validity. If so, the user will be able to proceed. Upon termination of the session, the computer will then bill the card for the amount of time used. I can do the software for this, but what I need to know is how to connect the computer to the VISA/MC system(s). Is there a way to do this via touch tones? (I recall a few "enhanced" Charge-A-Calls from Pac*Bell would dial out some number when you slid your Visa card through, and seemed to "communicate" with the VISA/MC validation system via Touch-Tones (no modem, etc.) If not, how do you connect a POS (modem) terminal to a PC? Are there any devices out there which will do that? (I am pretty sure there are -- I hate to bring up the name, but Radio Shack seems to do this regularly ...) Finally, a bit of an aside: I recall that there was an 800 number for the "Watson" card demo. I thought it was something like 800-4WATSON. Does it still exist? Anyone know the correct number? Thanks in advance for any and all help! Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 00:04 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: MCI Friends and Family I have been watching the MCI spots for "Friends and Family". Various "users" give their stories, which generally include and statement of how much they save per year over AT&T. The one I saw moments ago featured an elderly woman who claimed a projected savings of $300 per year. I thought about that for a minute and realized that $300 per year would not even begin to pay for the sort of trouble I have experienced with MCI in the past. So even MCI's own spots have convinced me to stay with "that other company". John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 11:30 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls "Michael A. Covington" writes: > Concerning 900 numbers and billing disputes, here are comments that I > submitted to the FCC in April, 1990. Basically, this sums up the case > against having 900 numbers at all. I was going to avoid raising my blood pressure and let all of this pass, but after several re-readings, I could not stand it any more. Your inaccuracies and faulty conclusions need to be addressed. Hopefully, the FCC has recognized them as well. But then knowing the FCC as I do, maybe not. > * Telephone accounts normally have no credit limits. This is > the root of the problem in numerous widely publicized bil- > ling disputes. This is absolutely not true. Most telcos (including Pac*Bell) have some very definite limits on telephone credit. If those limits are exceeded, an immediate effort is made to contact the customer and make special payment arrangements, which usually means an immediate payment for the charges currently owed. > * Telephone subscribers are accustomed to the normal charges > for long-distance calls. They are often aghast at the high > charges for 900 and 976 calls. This is more a matter of taking responsibility for one's own actions and usage than it is a matter of other's practices. It is common knowledge that 900/976 calls cost extra. It is widely known that some of them are very expensive. If a person makes the call ignorant of the charge (and then does not bother to listen to the announcement of the charges at the beginning of the call and THEN does not hang up during the grace period), he deserves whatever bill he gets. > * In the old days I didn't have to worry much about children > or visitors misusing my telephone. The most they could do > was run up long-distance charges by calling individuals, and > it would be easy to find out whom they called and thereby > identify the person responsible for any misuse. 900/976 blocking is free and takes one phone call to implement. Then you can have all of the undisciplined and mentally ill people you want around your telephone. If you are too lazy to call about such blocking, you deserve to pay. > * Today, however, it's quite possible for my children and > guests to run up gigantic charges calling 900 numbers, and > because they don't speak with identifiable individuals, I > would have no way to find out who made the calls. Again, what is the matter with blocking? > * Telephones are not normally kept under lock and key. The > security risk created by 900 and 976 numbers is unreas- > onable. Blocking? > (3) As is frequently pointed out, 900 and 976 numbers create a > gigantic opportunity for fraud, deception, and exorbitant pricing of > worthless services. So does the world at large. To eliminate an industry because there is a chance or an opportunity for fraud reeks of the government providing cradle to grave security for everyone. Besides, there have been a number of protections implemented by the industry itself to protect morons from themselves. > * The root of this problem is that direct telephone billing is > not an appropriate way to sell anything other than telephone > service; it is much too easy to conceal the fact that there > is a charge, or make customers forget about the charge, or > misrepresent the amount of the charge. So does the credit card industry. Most people would be aghast at the interest charges and fees that are paid to these "service providers". Have you made similar filings with the FTC? Again, many of the new procedures voluntarily adopted by IPs themselves prevent this very thing. Most services say right up front what the charge is and that hanging up now will prevent it. What more do you want? > * This problem is inherent in the technology and cannot be > solved by regulation alone. No law of physics requires > people to tell the truth over the telephone. Even when > regulated, some vendors will break the regulations whenever > no one is listening. No law can force people to tell the truth anywhere at anytime. Do you advocate eliminating all business transactions between private parties? Shall we eliminate all commerce because some people somewhere will break the rules? If you are defrauded by a 900/976 provider, you have the same (if not better) recourses that you do in any other business dealings. You can refuse to pay; you can have the charges removed; you can take legal action; etc., etc. > * If callers to 900 and 976 numbers were required to give a > credit card number (by voice or by keypad), this would > establish that: The customer has a credit card. And what if one does not have a credit card? Sorry, he is just out of luck. So what you advocate is just another restriction on the lives of people who, sometimes by choice, do not possess a bank credit card. Obviously, you missed the whole point of 900/976: the ability to casually use a service without having to make prior billing arrangements or having to carry a bank or other credit card. Your entire filing is based on matters of inconvenience, stupidity, and fraud. If we could eliminate those factors from life, frankly life would be a big bore. However, two currently common practices nullify 100% of your arguments. The first is 900/976 blocking. The second is up-front announcement of the charges and a hang-up grace period. > In summary, the telephone companies, by instituting 900 and 976 > services, have attempted to re-invent the credit-card industry and to > drag the FCC into credit regulation, which is not the FCC's job. I beg your pardon. It is not the telcos that have been behind this, but our everything-to-everyone congresscritters. Frankly, I would just as soon have the FCC stay out of this lest it become like everything else the FCC is in charge of. The FCC is one of the most inept agencies in the Federal government. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: "Jeff M. Carlson" Subject: Re: Phones in Elevators Date: 29 Aug 91 22:26:54 GMT Organization: NSF ERC for Computational Field Simulation Ah yes, the fun we used to have with the phone in the four story EE building on campus. We discovered the telephone number of this phone one day by accident. We used to call it in hopes of finding some undergrad riding up and down instead of walking and ask them to bring up a snack or coffee from the vending machine on the ground floor. NSF Engineering Research Center email: Carlson@ERC.MsState.Edu P.O. Box 6176 Phone: (601) 325-2476 Mississippi State, MS 39762 Fax: (601) 325-7692 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #683 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20908; 30 Aug 91 9:27 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02279; 30 Aug 91 2:11 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01413; 30 Aug 91 1:02 CDT Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 0:42:27 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #680 BCC: Message-ID: <9108300042.ab24899@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 30 Aug 91 00:42:15 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 680 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Coresident Area Codes [Don Lynn] Phone Gall [Brendan Kehoe] TDD/TTY Devices [Joshua E. Muskovitz] Baudot Related Information Wanted [Dipto Chakravarty] What's a GTD5 Switch? [Jeffrey C. Honig] A New Breed of Payphone [Bob Frankston] Transpacific TCP/IP [Chet Wood] Some USOC RJ-Codes From the Good Old Days [Dave Mausner] Cellphones and 911 in CA [Marty Brenneis] NY Tel Ringmate Problems Update [Michael Brown] How Do You Get TT LD Access? [Robert Wier] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1991 11:12:44 PDT From: DLynn.El_Segundo@xerox.com Subject: Coresident Area Codes Messages on the Digest indicate that having 917 and 212 area code numbers intermixed in the same area is a new concept. I believe that in certain areas this has already been happening. Many years ago I used to live in an area in which this mixing should happen when the 310 area code split occurs. If someone reading this can provide more up-to-date information, I would be glad to hear it. But here is my current understanding: Inglewood is a suburb of Los Angeles. I grew up there. Back then telephone prefixes had letters (but only two, not three like Chicago). For example, my family had an ORegon 8-xxxx number for awhile, and later had an ORchard 1-xxxx number. Of course they both became 67 prefixes many years ago when the powers that be decided we could darn well learn all numbers. Why, might you ask, would they use two different prefix words for the same numbers (ORegon and ORchard for 67)? Well the Inglewood CO was just barely out of the local (= Free, unmeasured, uncounted calls) calling area for downtown Los Angeles. Several other areas also sat just beyond a local call to/from downtown LA, and had similar situations to what I describe below. In the days before ZUMs and such, that meant you paid Message Units (per-minute charges) to call downtown LA from Inglewood. So Pac Tel, as they were known in those days, offered ORegon numbers (678-xxxx) for those who wanted a weird shaped local calling area that included downtown LA and a small area around Inglewood, or ORchard numbers (67{anything-but-8}-xxxx) for those who wanted a standard approximately 8 mile radius local calling area about Inglewood that excluded downtown LA. The cost difference was small, not like getting a Foreign eXchange number, or even wide area calling, like is offered now. So far all this is from memory of happenings 30 plus years ago, but I just checked a new phone book, and 678 still has a different local area biased toward downtown LA. So in the area served by the Inglewood CO you have a sprinkling of houses with 678 mixed in practically every block of houses with 671, 677, etc. The surprise is that by Thanksgiving, all the 67{not8}s will have moved to area code 310, while the 678s will remain in area code 213. So it will be 11 digit time to dial some of your next door neighbors, even though it is a local call. Of course right at the area code boundary (which appears to be the middle of the first street wholly within the city of Inglewood, NOT precisely at the city limit, but that is the subject of another harangue), people will have to dial (1 and) the area code to reach their neighbor, but the effect with the 678 numbers will occur at thousands of points up to several miles into area code 310. I believe that this same effect happened with a few prefixes similar to 678 when they split 818 off from 213 several years ago. (Because it affects this discussion, I will mention that the LA area has had for MANY years the requirement to dial 1 ONLY to indicate area code. That is, seven digits for numbers with the same area code, whether long distance or not, and 1+AC+7digits for another area code, whether long distance or not. It appears this will remain so for the foreseeable future.) Don Lynn [Moderator's Note: Although we do not have coresident area codes as will has been suggested with 212/917, we do have on the far northwest side of Chicago an area where 312/708 are comingled frequently, owing to telco's strict observance of 312=Chicago and 708=not Chicago. We have lots of little pockets which are either other towns (or no town at all, unincorporated areas) all jumbled together with the two area codes literally next door or across the alley from each other. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1991 14:36:00 -0400 From: Brendan Kehoe Subject: Phone Gall Reply-To: brendan@cs.widener.edu The latest copy of {Information Week} (August 26, 1991) includes a story entitled "Phone Gall". It details an IW investigation into how AT&T has sued (or is in the process of suing) nearly 20 of its large business users for refusing to pay for calls made by hackers through their corporate telephone systems. The list includes: Avis Citgo Petroleum Group Perkin-Elmer Corp Jiffy Lube Procter & Gamble FMC Corp the United Nations (the largest bill, with nearly $1M) Nassau/Paradise Island Promotion Board It's a fascinating article that I'm sure will be of interest to TELECOM Digest and Computer Underground Digest readers. Brendan Kehoe Widener Sun Network Manager Widener University, Chester, PA brendan@cs.widener.edu [Moderator's Note: And indeed, AT&T *should* make them pay. It is not the fault of AT&T that those organizations have trap doors into their phone systems -- of their own volition, for their own convenience -- which were left unguarded. The real 'phone gall' belongs to the phreakers who ripped them off (and their supporters, I might add, who feel phreaking is such a harmless, victimless thing to do.) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 15:55:37 EDT From: "Joshua E. Muskovitz" Subject: TDD/TTY Devices A few questions: 1. Is TDD and TTY the same? 2. I know that TDD is not compatible with "normal" modem traffic. Is there a "hayes-compatible" TDD-type device available anywhere? I'm interested in (possibly -- for now I'm just getting feelers) setting up a TDD-based BBS. It would have to be specially designed for the limitations of TDDs (like one/two line screens, etc.) I'm not that familiar with TDDs. Does anyone have any suggestions, comments, or observations about what would be helpful, useful, or relevant? Sorry to be wordy, verbose, and obfuscating ... Also, are there any readers who are members of the deaf community who would be interested in working on this with me? Please email your response, copying telecom if you think it is relevant. Thanks, Josh Muskovitz joshm@kgnvmy.vnet.ibm.com ------------------------------ From: Dipto Chakravarty Subject: Baudot Related Information Wanted Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1991 20:46:41 GMT I am trying to locate some info on one of U.S Army's character sets, called BAUDOT, a five-bit character set that used be used in the army for teletype devices. We plan to use 'stty cs5' setting on a UNIX machine so that the bits can be mapped to the Baudot character set. I need to know where can I find out a Character Set Conversion Chart that lists the "Baudot" codes and relate them to Unix's 'stty' setting "cs5". Any pointers on this will be much appreciated. Please send e-mail to dipto@ats.com. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ dipto@ats.com uunet!ats!dipto dipto@umbc.BITNET In-real-life: +1 301 384 1425 dipto@umbc4.umbc.edu Dipto Chakravarty CMSC, U. of MD ------------------------------ From: jch@mitchell.cit.cornell.edu (Jeffrey C Honig) Subject: What's a GTD5 Switch? Organization: Info Technologies/Network Resources; Cornell U. Ithaca, NY USA Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1991 13:33:17 GMT I'm buying a house served by a local phone company (the Trumansburg Home Telephone Company) and recently found out that they have a GTD5 switch. Can someone comment on the vintange and technology of a GTD5? Who is the manufacturer? They offer ringmate, call waiting and the like, is it also possible for the GTD5 to support ISDN? Thanks. Jeff ------------------------------ From: frankston!Bob_Frankston@world.std.com Subject: A New Breed of Payphone Date: 28 Aug 1991 10:26 -0400 I was in Forest Hills, New York (Queens) Monday and ran across a new breed of payphone. Service was provided by an outfit called NAI (their service number is 800-FONE-FIX I think). The phone itself didn't seem to have a number, just a way of reporting problems (#450 in this case). The card said that LD service was via ATT and offered to accept MC and Visa. What made me suspicious was that they didn't say that they weren't adding a surcharge since the LD service was not provided by ATT, just the lines were. 10288 got the standard machine-voice explaining that was it was invalid. Dialing 00# got me some sort of operator who was unable to get me ATT. I tried again and did get someone to connect me with ATT. The ATT operator claimed the line was already defaulting to ATT. Maybe I'm overestimating NAI and it is possible this it was just a plain outgoing only phone. But there seems to be an opportunity to route all the phones through an NAI PBX which can do its own billing and call handling and then resell ATT LD services with a markup. Does anyone know more about this kind of phone? If it doesn't exist, then it will. ------------------------------ From: Chet Wood Subject: Transpacific TCP/IP Organization: Advansoft Research Corp, Santa Clara, CA Date: 28 Aug 91 08:56:59 Hi, We have a need to establish a TCP/IP link with our parent company in Japan. Our bandwidth requirements are not great, so I had the idea of getting a 56KB line and a multiplexer, and using 19.2KB or so to run a SLIP/PPP link, and using the rest of the bandwidth for voice and fax lines. Does anyone have any experience with such a setup? Thanks, Chet Wood . (408) 727-3357 X269 chet@Advansoft.Com . Advansoft Research Corporation arc!chet@apple.COM . 4301 Great America Parkway, 6th floor apple!arc!chet . Santa Clara, CA 95054, USA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1991 10:42:49 CDT From: "Dave Mausner; Datalogics, Inc; Chicago" Reply-To: dlm@hermes.dlogics.com Subject: Some USOC RJ-codes From the Good Old Days A few telecom readers have asked about the RJ codes. I have an old USOC book from IBT here on my lap. It lists the order code and tariff reference number for many familiar jacks in the "RJ" series. For the benefit of the many, here are some RJ order codes, IBT descriptions, and Chicago-area prices as of 12/82: USOC Description Price $ RJA1X 4 pin jack 1.80 RJA2X mini module jack 6.40 RJA3X 12 pin jack 3.15 RJ11C single line bridged tip and ring 4.50 RJ12C single line bridged tip and ring ahead of line cct 4.50 RJ13C single line bridged tip and ring behind line cct 4.50 RJ14C two-line bridged tip and ring 4.50 RJ15C single line bridged tip and ring weather proof n/a RJ16X voice jack with mode indication leads for 9dB data eq 4.50 RJ17C single line bridged tip and ring hosptal critical care area 4.50 RJ25C three line bridged tip and ring 4.50 Dave Mausner, Sr Tech Consultant / Datalogics Inc / Chicago IL / 312-266-4450 dlm@hermes.dlogics.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 10:32:09 PDT From: Marty the Droid Subject: Cellphones and 911 in CA When you dial 911 in California from a cellphone you get the local CHP (Highway Patrol) dispatcher. This comes in to them on a 911 line that they can use to transfer you to local agencies. Here is the rub ... When they transfer you, it is to a regular line into the requested agency, not a 911 line. This means that that agency can't transfer you to the proper desk to take your call. (Part odf this is due to ignorance on the part of the local folks who don't know how to transfer a line on a PBX. :-} ) I learned this when I needed an ambulance in SF and couldn't remember the number for C-MED (Central Medical dispatch for SF). The CHP 911 operator transferred me to the SFPD who would not take the call and said they could not transfer me to C-MED. It took some cajoling on my part to get the PD person to give me 431-2800 as the C-MED numnber. Luckly on my part the patient was not in critical condition. I called the CHP supervisor today and spoke with her about this matter. She agreed that this could cause a problem and perhaps a change is needed in the system. She said she'd call me back and let me know what's going on. Perhaps the CHP 911 folks should be able to transfer to the local PSAPs just like a 911 landline call. Marty 'The Droid' Brenneis ...!uupsi!kerner!droid Industrial Magician droid@kerner.sf.ca.us (415)258-2105 ~~~ KAE7616 - 462.700 - 162.2 ~~~ KC6YYP ------------------------------ Subject: NY Tel Ringmate Problems Update Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 12:58:43 EDT From: Michael Brown NY Telephone's latest pronouncement on my Ringmate service problem is that when the replacement number was assigned, it was done so at the CO level, but not at the local switch. Consequently, the replacement number may have had a dial tone accessible to it for a period of time in July. Their opinion was that it was possible for an accidental cross-connection at the switch to have caused my account to be charged for someone else's calls. They report that there are no further inconsistencies in their database, and that they are continuing to monitor the situation. Michael Brown mwb@jpradley.jpr.com or uunet!murphy!jpradley!vtssys!mike VTS Systems 718-968-1971 871 East 55th Street Brooklyn, NY 11234 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 23:30:55 -0700 From: Robert Wier Subject: How Do You Get TT LD Access? This summer I travelled quite a bit (drove about 6,000 miles in two months). Since the type of travel I was doing involved differing length stops in the places I was going thru, I would not know where I might need to stop that night until, say, about 2 in the afternoon. So, I'd call ahead to Motel 6 (or whatever) and make a reservation. Here's my question: on pay phones which don't have ATT as the default LD carrier (which is the one I use and have a card for) I would as often as not have to call the local operator and ask for an ATT access line. (102880 doesn't seem to work a whole lot in little bitty towns in NM, CO, TX, and AZ). Fine, but since I was usually calling from a gas station or convenience store, there were normally a bunch of people standing around. I didn't particulary want to announce my card number and PIN aloud in these situations. However, even at places with TT phones, I could never get the ATT operator to connect me with a LD dial tone where I could punch in my number from the keypad. This problem was bad enough in some places it might take me 30 mins or so to get a "slot" where no one was around so I felt safe giving my card number. Does anyone know of a way to do this? Maybe an 800 access number to the LD computer at ATT? Sure would make things easier. THANKS! Bob Wier College of Engineering Northern Arizona University / Flagstaff, Arizona Internet: rrw@naucse.cse.nau.edu | BITNET: WIER@NAUVAX | WB5KXH or uucp: ...arizona!naucse!rrw Moderator's Note: Most of the little towns you speak of where 10288 does not seem to work in fact default to AT&T anyway, and there are very few places where zero-plussing the number will not work. If by chance after zero-plussing you do not hear the AT&T oral logo, *then* hang up and dial the local operator if 10288+0+ does not work. And small town gas stations are not like LaGuardia; ie, I don't think you have much to worry about speaking softly into the phone unless you see someone actually standing there pad and pencil in hand, etc. There is no provision for 'getting an AT&T dial tone'; nor does AT&T plan on any sort of 800 line in the near future that I am aware of. The same people you are afraid will be listening to you could also be watching over your shoulder as you touch the buttons, couldn't they? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #680 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23856; 31 Aug 91 3:14 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07421; 31 Aug 91 1:46 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18983; 31 Aug 91 0:40 CDT Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 23:45:30 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #684 BCC: Message-ID: <9108302345.ab22820@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 30 Aug 91 23:45:25 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 684 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls [Justin Leavens] Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls [Sander J. Rabinowitz] Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls [Jeff Wasilko] Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls [Michael A. Covington] Re: FAX Machine Message [Herman R. Silbiger] Re: FAX Machine Message [William Simon] Re: FAX Machine Message [Bob Frankston] Re: Telephones in Elevators [Chris McEwen] Re: Need Help Identifying Mystery 900 Call [Carl Moore] Re: AT&T Likely to Block Calls From Arkanasas to News Service [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Justin Leavens Subject: Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls Date: 30 Aug 91 22:46:39 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA In article John Higdon writes: > "Michael A. Covington" writes: >> * Telephone accounts normally have no credit limits. This is >> the root of the problem in numerous widely publicized bil- >> ling disputes. > This is absolutely not true. Most telcos (including Pac*Bell) have > some very definite limits on telephone credit. If those limits are > exceeded, an immediate effort is made to contact the customer and make > special payment arrangements, which usually means an immediate payment > for the charges currently owed. Yes, but when you run over your bank card credit limit, you can't charge any more. Your phone will never tell you that you can't make a call because you've already called too many times and owe too much money. > 900/976 blocking is free and takes one phone call to implement. Then > you can have all of the undisciplined and mentally ill people you want > around your telephone. If you are too lazy to call about such > blocking, you deserve to pay. I'd love to put blocking on my phone, but if you're involved with computers or software at all, you'll notice that more and more companies are switching over to 900 number customer support programs. Usually you get maybe 30 days free support or so, but then all support after that is done by the 900 number. As a consultant, I find that I need to use these numbers more and more often, much to my chagrin. But if I blocked 900/976, I'd be stuck unable to support some of my clients without major hassle. >> * The root of this problem is that direct telephone billing is >> not an appropriate way to sell anything other than telephone >> service; it is much too easy to conceal the fact that there >> is a charge, or make customers forget about the charge, or >> misrepresent the amount of the charge. > So does the credit card industry. Most people would be aghast at the > interest charges and fees that are paid to these "service providers". > Have you made similar filings with the FTC? Again, many of the new > procedures voluntarily adopted by IPs themselves prevent this very > thing. Most services say right up front what the charge is and that > hanging up now will prevent it. What more do you want? > No law can force people to tell the truth anywhere at anytime. Do you > advocate eliminating all business transactions between private > parties? Shall we eliminate all commerce because some people > somewhere will break the rules? If you are defrauded by a 900/976 > provider, you have the same (if not better) recourses that you do in > any other business dealings. You can refuse to pay; you can have the > charges removed; you can take legal action; etc., etc. I disagree. You've obviously never been defrauded by an IP. There are laws concerning credit card charges and your rights regarding them, as well as credit card companies that are willing to help you investigate fraudulent charges and clear up problems. Information providers are generally at least two or three levels away from the carrier, which means that someone caught by a fraudulent IP has to track down the number of the providor from the billing party, which is generally some kind of middleman/broker operation, who will then refer you to another company, and so on. It seems to me that the regulations and operation of companies concerning credit cards work towards the rights of the consumer, whereas the 900/976 industry includes a billing party (generally AT&T or another carrier) who really has no idea with whom they're doing business, a brokerage that just wants to profit, and has nothing to do with telco billing OR information, and the IP who has guaranteed billing no matter what their operation is like. And most of them are small operations which are content to cash in big and then disappear out of business as soon as any problems mount. Something seems wrong with that. Justin T. Leavens University of Southern California :Mail to: leavens@aludra.usc.edu Student Health and Counseling Services: leavens@spiff.usc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Aug 91 01:46 GMT From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <0003829147@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls JH> John Higdon (on 29 Aug 91), responding to: MC> "Michael A. Covington" ... JH> I was going to avoid raising my blood pressure and let all of this JH> pass, but after several re-readings, I could not stand it any more. Ah, there's nothing like sitting back and reading TELECOM Digest and watching the 900/976 debates fly once again. ;-) I think my very first article in the Digest [last year] was on this subject. The fact that controversy has gone on this long appears to indicate that solutions are hard to come by. Tonight I'll try to present a possible compromise. MC> * Telephone accounts normally have no credit limits. This is MC> the root of the problem in numerous widely publicized bil- MC> ling disputes. JH> This is absolutely not true. Most telcos (including Pac*Bell) have JH> some very definite limits on telephone credit. If that's the case, shouldn't the credit limit be revealed to the customer? With my bank cards, I know *exactly* what my credit limit is even before I make my very first purchase on the card. But with the telco, I haven't the slightest idea what the credit limit is. [One exception: I have a $100 credit limit on my old AT&T card from college, which I still use.] JH> If those limits are JH> exceeded, an immediate effort is made to contact the customer and make JH> special payment arrangements, which usually means an immediate payment JH> for the charges currently owed. In that case, shouldn't the customer have the right to voluntarily lower the threshold when this is done? For example, I have never exceeded $200 on any single phone bill. If the calls suddenly went over, say, $300, I'd rather be advised of that right then and there then have the telco wait some higher threshold is reached. [Note: I'm not saying this should be mandated, but it strikes me as being a good business practice.] JH> It is common knowledge that 900/976 calls cost extra. It is widely known JH> that some of them are very expensive. If a person makes the call JH> ignorant of the charge (and then does not bother to listen to the JH> announcement of the charges at the beginning of the call and THEN does JH> not hang up during the grace period), he deserves whatever bill he gets. Ah, but you're assuming first of all that the grace provision you speak of is used by all telcos and with all 900/976 services. I'm not sure that is the case. Secondly, some of the 900/976-type services are appearing on other exchanges (212-540 was one of them, I believe), and *THAT* is not widely known. MC> * In the old days I didn't have to worry much about children MC> or visitors misusing my telephone. The most they could do MC> was run up long-distance charges by calling individuals, and MC> it would be easy to find out whom they called and thereby MC> identify the person responsible for any misuse. JH> 900/976 blocking is free and takes one phone call to implement. Then JH> you can have all of the undisciplined and mentally ill people you want JH> around your telephone. If you are too lazy to call about such JH> blocking, you deserve to pay. BUT ... is this 'all or nothing' approach acceptable? There are actually 900 or 976 services which I find I might have some use for later. The use of those services would be lost along with Dial-A-[Censored]-Story- For-Only-$4.00-a-minute. [But I have a possible compromise. See below.] JH> Most services say right up front what the charge is and that JH> hanging up now will prevent it. What more do you want? Frankly, I think it should be mandated. MC> * If callers to 900 and 976 numbers were required to give a MC> credit card number (by voice or by keypad), this would MC> establish that: JH> The customer has a credit card. And what if one does not have a credit JH> card? Sorry, he is just out of luck. So what you advocate is just JH> another restriction on the lives of people who, sometimes by choice, JH> do not possess a bank credit card. Obviously, you missed the whole JH> point of 900/976: the ability to casually use a service without having JH> to make prior billing arrangements or having to carry a bank or other JH> credit card. *** POSSIBLE COMPROMISE *** Option 1: All 900/976/540/etc. calls are billed directly on the phone bill. For responsible adults with a grip on their children, or others who feel that toll-call security is not a major concern. Option 2: Total 100% blocking. Used where security *is* a concern, and where future use of these services is not anticipated anytime in the near future. Option 3: Credit card authorization. Used where security remains a concern, but a responsible telephone user still wishes to occasionally use a toll service. The user would be prompted to enter the credit card number each time a call is made. Perhaps the user could be charged a small fee each month the service is used so that the telco can recoup the additional costs behind this option. Now, then: What's wrong with having this type of choice? JH> [...] two currently common practices nullify JH> 100% of your arguments. The first is 900/976 blocking. The second is JH> up-front announcement of the charges and a hang-up grace period. But to reinterate: I don't think that practice is universal. Can someone outside of Pac*Bell country verify this? Sander J. Rabinowitz | sjr@mcimail.com +1 615 661 4645 | 1981 - 1991 Brentwood, Tenn. | Celebrating 10 years of TELECOM Digest | 8-) ------------------------------ From: Jeff Wasilko Subject: Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 12:01:11 EDT Organization: RIT Communications, Rochester, NY To this day, I'm still trying to figure out why John Higdon said: > "Michael A. Covington" writes: >> * Telephone accounts normally have no credit limits. This is > This is absolutely not true. Most telcos (including Pac*Bell) have > some very definite limits on telephone credit. If those limits are > exceeded, an immediate effort is made to contact the customer and make > special payment arrangements, which usually means an immediate payment > for the charges currently owed. I realize that the local telco could keep tabs on a customer's LD bill, but isn't there a considerable delay while the IP and the billing telco exchange billing tapes? Wouldn't it be possible to rack up a large bill in a month, unbeknownst to the telco? Or is the billing information exchanged quickly? John was right: 900/976 blocking and a hangup grace period are all the protection most people need ... Jeff (jjwcmp@ultb.isc.rit.edu) ------------------------------ From: "Michael A. Covington" Subject: Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 19:41:56 GMT Re my comments to the FCC on 900 calls, look at the date. Those comments were submitted quite a while back, _before_ 900 blocking was widely available, and _before_ 900 calls has to begin with an announcement of charges and a grace period. Of _course_ it's not an accurate description of the situation now. Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. | mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu | N4TMI Assistant to the Director, Artificial Intelligence Programs The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, U.S.A. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 18:27:16 EDT From: Herman R Silbiger Subject: Re: FAX Machine Message Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article , alain%elevia.UUCP@larry. mcrcim.mcgill.edu (W.A.Simon) writes: > The problem is that both machines expect the other one to initiate the > exchange. In regular modems, the standard is that the answering > machine starts. In the fax world, it is still free for all. However, > I would not be too worried by this technology, it is sure to follow > the Darwinian path of least resistance. Manual fax machines are > becoming extinct, so will this "smart" box, as it relies on the > existence of the dying beast. And ISDN is supposed to address these > problems much more elegantly, whenever it happens. In fax communication, the called machine also starts. When the calling machine is in manual mode, and the operator pushes the "start" button, the calling machine starts its reply. There is work going on today on call identification, but so far no elegant solutons have been found. There are also potential problems on ISDN, when multiple devices are on a passive bus, and the High Level Compatibiity (HLC) signaling element is not carried, or the device has more than one capability. Herman Silbiger ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 21:49:34 -0400 Subject: Re: FAX Machine Message From: Super Abuser > There is a CCITT standard for a calling FAX machine to announce its > presence. This is optional in the interests of supporting compatibility with > older and manual systems. If a remote system doesn't recognize a call from a > computer FAX board, I'd put the blame on the PC Board. And it is because it is optional that it voids the whole benefit of having a standard. I love standards, everybody should have one. William "Alain" Simon alain@elevia.UUCP alain%elevia@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu ------------------------------ From: frankston!Bob_Frankston@world.std.com Subject: Re: FAX Machine Message Date: 29 Aug 1991 20:24 -0400 There is a CCITT standard for a calling FAX machine to announce its presence. This is optional in the interests of supporting compatibility with older and manual systems. If a remote system doesn't recognize a call from a computer FAX board, I'd put the blame on the PC Board. ------------------------------ From: Chris McEwen Subject: Re: Telephones in Elevators Date: 30 Aug 91 15:26:10 GMT Organization: The Graphics BBS (2D,3D,GIF,Animation) +1 908/469-0049 A few years ago a person working for me would program the shop's telephone to forward calls to the elevator in a local office building whenever he was alone in the shop. It took about a week for the complaints to reach a crescendo. Chris McEwen Internet: cmcewen@gnat.rent.com | The Computer Journal Editor, TCJ uucp: ..!att!nsscmail!gnat!cmcewen | PO Box 12 GEnie: c.mcewen -or- TCJ$ | S Plainfield NJ 07080 | (908) 755-6186 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 9:32:51 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Need Help Identifying Mystery 900 Call This replies to forags@nature.Berkeley.EDU: You mean someone called 0-900-xxx-xxxx? How would the call have been dialed? The operator didn't try to verify the charge being authorized by the 3rd party before putting the call through? What did you do to turn the 3rd-party billing off? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 10:10:20 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: AT&T Likely to Block Calls From Arkansas to News Service Oh, and have there been any legitimate calls from Arkansas to that news service? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #684 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24165; 31 Aug 91 3:18 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07421; 31 Aug 91 1:51 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18983; 31 Aug 91 0:40 CDT Date: Sat, 31 Aug 91 0:25:19 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #685 BCC: Message-ID: <9108310025.ab11878@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 31 Aug 91 00:25:09 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 685 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Telephone Line Status Lights [Tad Cook] Re: Telephone Line Status Lights [H. Peter Anvin] Re: Telephone Line Status Lights [Jeff Sicherman] Re: Telephone Line Status Lights [Jim Rees] Re: What is Illegal About Butt Sets? [Wolf Paul] Re: What is Illegal About Butt Sets? [Steve Suttles] Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service [Vance Shipley] Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service [Dave Levenson] Re: Hurricane Bob, Telco, and Power [Bob Frankston] Underground Cable (was Himicane Bob) [Gerry Lawrence] Re: Reprogramming Switches [Carl Moore] Re: More on US West and 976 IPs [Chris McEwen] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Telephone Line Status Lights From: Tad Cook Date: 29 Aug 91 18:23:27 GMT Daniel Wheeler sez: >> Radio Shack sells a device called a Teleprotector Voice/Data Guard >> (43-107, $7.95). You need one for each extension. The catalog >> description is so poor that I couldn't tell what it did, but the >> salesman claims that with one on an extension, if the line is in >> use, the phone or modem on the extension will not be connected to >> the line. rob woiccak -- rewoicc@erenj.bitnet sez: > It works, but it can work too well. (stuff deleted) If I was on the > modem, never was I interrupted by him picking up downstairs. However, > all was not solved - if, for instance, we got a phone call and I > answered it upstairs and it was for him, he could not pick up the > phone downstairs with the guard installed. Eventually, we both got > sick of this and I can put up with the occasional interruption. Moderator's Note sez: > Your mistake was putting the device downstairs where everything on > the wiring-in-common from upstairs (modem, phones upstairs, etc) > would trigger it. Make your modem the last stop on the circuit (which > runs around your house) if possible; then put the device on the back > of the modem. That way the modem will kill everything downstream, but > other phones in the middle will not affect each other. PAT] Actually, this won't work either. Putting an exclusion device on the back of the modem will only exclude the modem when anyone else is off hook first. Probably what Patrick meant to say is to wire the modem jack directly to the demarc, and put everything else on a branch in series with the exclusion device. To solve the problem of transferring control from a non-excluded to an excluded phone, you need a better quality exclusion module than what Radio Shack has to offer. Proctor and Associates makes a wide variety of exclusion modules for many applications. There are unbalanced and balanced voltage operated modules (they split either one side of the line, like the Tandy unit, or both sides, for optimum balance, noise immunity and voice privacy) and there are models that are current sensitive and split the lines into groups, with different hierarchies of exclusion. You can reach Proctor and Associates for information on exclusion modules at : Proctor & Associates 15050 NE 36th St. Redmond, WA 98052-5317 Phone: 206-881-7000 Fax: 206-885-3282 internet: 3991080@mcimail.com Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP or, kt7h@polari.uucp or, 3288544@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: H. Peter Anvin Subject: Re: Telephone Line Status Lights Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 19:40:55 GMT In article of comp.dcom.telecom, funky love flower writes: > It works, but it can work too well. When I moved into my current [...] > -- if, for instance, we got a phone call and I answered it upstairs > and it was for him, he could not pick up the phone downstairs with the > guard installed. Eventually, we both got sick of this and I can put up > with the occasional interruption. I use the Teleprotector from Radio Shack for just this purpose. We have two phones in our apartment, and I have one Teleprotector on each, plus one on the modem. It works fine, this way: 1. If the modem in running, the phone will not interrupt. 2. If someone is on the phone, the modem will not try to dial out (I am a FidoNet point). 3. If my roommate tries to pick up the phone while I am talking, it will be dead quiet. 4. To transfer a call (if my roommate picks up a call for me, for example): First pick up the other phone (which will be quiet), then hang up in the other room. The second phone will be "alive" as soon as the first one is hung up, and the call will be properly transferred. This Teleprotector thing is the second best thing to a home PBX or distinctive-ring decoder ... > Now, if I can only convince him that we don't need Call Waiting. Change your modem dial string from "ATDT" to "ATDT*70W" (if your modem supports the * tone) or "ATDT1170W" if it does not. 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. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 01:39:09 -0700 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: Telephone Line Status Lights Organization: Cal State Long Beach The September, 1991, {Radio Electronics Magazine} has a project for a Phone-line sentinel that indicates if a line is in use. ------------------------------ From: rees@pisa.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Re: Telephone Line Status Lights Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 22:11:02 GMT In article , REWOICC@erenj.bitnet (funky love flower) writes: > I put the voiceguard (I got > mine from an AT&T Phone Center as I recall) on the jack downstairs and > it worked like a charm. If I was on the modem, never was I > interrupted by him picking up downstairs. However, all was not solved > -- if, for instance, we got a phone call and I answered it upstairs > and it was for him, he could not pick up the phone downstairs with the > guard installed. > [Moderator's Note: Your mistake was putting the device downstairs > where everything on the wiring-in-common from upstairs (modem, phones > upstairs, etc) would trigger it. Make your modem the last stop on the > circuit (which runs around your house) if possible; then put the > device on the back of the modem. That way the modem will kill > everything downstream, but other phones in the middle will not affect > each other. PAT] Another way to do this is leave the VoiceGuard downstairs. Then when you're upstairs and get a call for your roommate, tell the other party to hold, and hang up the phone. Then tell your roommate to pick up the phone. Every CO I've used will keep the connection up for a minute or two on incoming calls. This is by design, so that you can hang up and then pick up a different phone. Is this universal or have I just been lucky? [Moderator's Note: In crossbar and other older offices, you can do what you say. In newer ESS offices, you take your chances. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Wolf Paul Subject: Re: What is Illegal About Butt Sets? Organization: Alcatel Austria - ELIN Research Center G.m.b.H. Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 08:22:56 GMT gantzm@gantz.bowlgreen.oh.us (Michael L. Gantz) writes: > O.K. I have to ask, > Why are butt sets illegal in some areas, and who made them illegal? > [Moderator's Note: Buttsets are NOT 'illegal' anywhere. Possession of > stolen property (including stolen telco buttsets) is illegal, of > course, but the units themselves are legal. PAT] And the situation seems to be that a lot of cops and other law enforcment people have not yet realized that one can get butt sets other than by stealing them from the telco :-) ... I also think that they cannot imagine what you might want with one if you're not telco staff, other than illegaly tap into someone's line, either for snooping purposes, or to steal phone service. It's a little bit like being caught with a skeleton key in your possession, without a pretty good explanation. Although that, to my knowledge, actually IS illegal in some jurisdictions. The underlying problem is that law enforcement people tend to consider their perception of things as binding on everyone else :-). Wolf N. Paul, Computer Center Alcatel Austria - Elin Research Center, Ruthnergasse 1, A-1210 Vienna-Austria E-Mail: cc_paul@rcvie.co.at Phone: +43-1-2246913 (h) +43-1-391621-122 (w) ------------------------------ From: Steve Suttles Subject: Re: What is Illegal About Butt Sets? Date: 29 Aug 91 22:49:11 GMT Organization: DB Access Inc., Santa Clara, CA In article , gdw@gummo.att.com (Gordon D. Woods) says: > I forgot to include in the beginning of this thread the reason > (excuses?) given for it being illegal to own butt sets. According to > the Morris County, NJ prosecutor, the reason they are illegal is > because they can be used to illegally tap telephone lines. No mention > was made of them being stolen property. The latter concept came up > from people's actual experiences with the law. It would appear you > need more than a sales receipt to protect yourself. Pat's rebuttal (sorry) aside, I feel obligated to point out that I can do anything with a standard telephone and some wire that most people can do with a buttset. A buttset is simply a telephone that is more modular than most. Whichever argument applies to one applies to the other. To give even more weight to Pat's argument, consider that hands can be used for illegal purposes, and are largely required for most illegal purposes. I do not expect the proposal that possesion of hands to be made illegal would fly. Not because it is ridiculous, but because lawmakers have hands. sas ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Subject: Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service Organization: SwitchView Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 14:29:54 GMT In article our Mmoderator injects: > [Moderator's Note: But bear in mind that the individual links in a > chain-call-forward scheme have to in total cost less than the toll > charge would otherwise. Else where is the savings? This working out > in a way financially beneficial to the subscriber is very rare. PAT] Remember that in Canada we usually get flat rate local service with a fairly large free calling area too. So this sort of thing is realistic. Vance Shipley vances@xenitec vances@ltg ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Cheap Foreign Exchange Service Date: 29 Aug 91 11:45:32 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA NJ Bell has offered remote call forwarding, under tariff, for a number of years. The service consists of a phone number, anywhere in New Jersey, with no physical line or phone associated. The number is forwarded to the number of the paying subscriber, somewhere else in the state. There is a small monthly charge, and each forwarded call is charged the normal direct-dial rate (as if there were a physical line with forwarding in effect). They offer this as a low-cost alternative to 800 or FX service, for businesses who want a 'phone presence' in a distant area. I don't know if it is offered to residential customers. (Note that all business service in NJ is measured rate, so there are no 'free' calls.) 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: frankston!Bob_Frankston@world.std.com Subject: Re: Hurricane Bob, Telco, and Power Date: 29 Aug 1991 20:13 -0400 It was the whole 617-262 exchange, located in the Prudential Center in Boston that went down (fast busy). All the wiring is underground there. Especially the interexchange wiring. ------------------------------ From: gwl@bigguy.eng.ufl.edu (Gerry Lawrence) Subject: Underground Cable (was Himicane Bob) Reply-To: gwl@bigguy.eng.ufl.edu (Gerry Lawrence) Organization: UFNET University of Florida Network Operations Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 14:27:58 GMT Subject: Re: Hurricane Bob, Telco, and Power scott@hsvaic.boeing.com (Scott Hinckley) writes: > That is because of the brain-dead practice of hanging lines that I > have seen ever since I moved to the south. In CA all the lines were > underground (of course there we have earthquakes to move the ground > around for us, severing those lines.) > Every time we have: > a) an ice storm > b) a tornado > c) heavy winds > d) an ailing tree Other reasons to put cable (fiber, TP, electric or CATV) underground: e) gunshots, intentional and otherwise (yes, that's right!) f) cars hitting poles (even if they don't bring it down, they can cause major havoc) g) more danger for cable types (like me!) h) Tree service trucks and other "Cherry Pickers" ("Move it over to the left, Jethro! BZZZZZZZT!! AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!) I) less disruption of traffic etc during installation. j) Once the conduit is laid, installations are much cheaper, more timely and cause less disruption to traffic and the public. k) Cable on poles LOOKS LIKE SHIT! > It seems like the lower frequency of outages for underground cables > would compensate for the higher installation cost in a fairly short > time. > Oh well ... It is well known that cable buried in conduit is more cost effective in the LONG run than airial, even in earthquake zones. The problem with putting more of it underground is the CWA, who think it means less jobs for them, in the LONG run. (idiots in my opinion, fiber to the home is on the way, it might not be them that gets to pull it!) Here at the University of Florida, all cableing between buildings (electric, telecom, UFNET fiber and CATV video) is underground. BACKHOES are still a problem. Every time I see one on campus, I ask the operator who he is and where he's going. We've only experienced one cable break via these guys, and we believe it was intentional. If you're REALLY woried about backhoes, you can encase the conduit in concrete, as is required for electric cable underground. Gerry Lawrence UFNET [Moderator's Note: Wires on poles do look pretty bad. Have you ever seen real old photographs of large urban areas right after the turn of the century? Poles every few feet with lots of wires criss-crossing in all directions ... the sky above you was covered with wires. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 10:24:20 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Reprogramming Switches Responding to the Moderator's Note: That's why longer time has to be allowed for a new area code to be fully cut over. ------------------------------ From: Chris McEwen Subject: Re: More on US West and 976 IPs Date: 30 Aug 91 15:35:33 GMT Organization: The Graphics BBS (2D,3D,GIF,Animation) +1 908/469-0049 eric@napa.telebit.com (Eric Smith) writes: > The mistake isn't eliminating 976 service now, it was instituting it > in the first place. Hear! Hear! Chris McEwen Internet: cmcewen@gnat.rent.com | The Computer Journal Editor, TCJ uucp: ..!att!nsscmail!gnat!cmcewen | PO Box 12 GEnie: c.mcewen -or- TCJ$ | S Plainfield NJ 07080 | (908) 755-6186 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #685 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01138; 31 Aug 91 14:37 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab21704; 31 Aug 91 13:06 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01467; 31 Aug 91 11:53 CDT Date: Sat, 31 Aug 91 11:43:21 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #687 BCC: Message-ID: <9108311143.ab24762@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 31 Aug 91 11:43:07 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 687 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Phone Gall [Gary L. Dare] Re: Phone Gall [Justin Leavens] Re: More TCIA: Telecom and Computer Industry Acronyms [Robert E. Zabloudil] Re: For Emergency, Dial 1-900-911 [Robert L. McMillin] Re: For Emergency, Dial 1-900-911 [John Higdon] Re: AT&T ACUS System Just Installed Here [Michael Ho] Re: Compatibility of Australia / New Zealand Phones [Paul Gillingwater] Re: MCI Friends and Family [Michael Graff] Friends and Family is Really Friendly! [Paul Wilczynski] 800 Number Abuse (was AT&T Blocks Calls From Arkansas) [Mikel Manitius] Re: What's a GTD5 Switch? [John Higdon] Re: 950-1288 Explained [Justin Leavens] Re: 950-1288 Explained [Michael Schuster] Re: NY Tel Ringmate Problems Update [Tad Cook] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gary L Dare Subject: Re: Phone Gall Reply-To: Gary L Dare Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1991 15:37:34 GMT Wednesday's {New York Times} Business section (Aug. 28/91) had an article on this topic; legally, the firms are liable to the bills run up on their LD carrier. Mitsubishi is taking AT&T to court, though, for having provided them with an office switch and their service contract -- thus, being ultimately responsible for hacker break-ins on their system. Gary L. Dare gld@cunixD.cc.columbia.EDU gld@cunixc.BITNET ------------------------------ From: Justin Leavens Subject: Re: Phone Gall Date: 30 Aug 91 22:01:00 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA In article brendan@cs.widener.edu writes: > The latest copy of {Information Week} (August 26, 1991) includes a > story entitled "Phone Gall". It details an IW investigation into how > AT&T has sued (or is in the process of suing) nearly 20 of its large > business users for refusing to pay for calls made by hackers through > their corporate telephone systems. [more details deleted] > [Moderator's Note: And indeed, AT&T *should* make them pay. It is not > the fault of AT&T that those organizations have trap doors into their > phone systems -- of their own volition, for their own convenience -- > which were left unguarded. The real 'phone gall' belongs to the > phreakers who ripped them off (and their supporters, I might add, who > feel phreaking is such a harmless, victimless thing to do.) PAT] I agree with most of what you say, but part of the point of this article is that these organizations are dealing with telecom equipment that they obviously don't know how to use efficiently enough to plug up the all the cracks. Whether this is a fault on the part of the businesses or the equipment dealers there's debate. But the companies argue that AT&T, who has the technological resources to keep hacker problems low, seem more interested in finding hacker problems and billing the companies anyways rather than work for solutions to plug the leaks in the first place. I can't find the article at this moment, but I seem to remember that AT&T has maybe five staff members working with businesses to curb hacking, and "tens" of lawyers dedicated to suing the people who don't want to pay the hacker's bills. I dunno, I always seem to have a hard time feeling sorry for AT&T. Justin T. Leavens University of Southern California :Mail to: leavens@aludra.usc.edu Student Health and Counseling Services: leavens@spiff.usc.edu ------------------------------ From: "Robert E. Zabloudil" Subject: Re: More TCIA: Telecom and Computer Industry Acronyms Date: 30 Aug 91 15:51:46 GMT Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus In article dblyth@oatseu.daytonoh. ncr.com (Dennis Blyth) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 651, Message 4 of 8 > PUC is Public Utilities Commission > This is a state group which regulates utilities in each state. So in > Ohio we call it the : PUCO Although each state has one, they go under various names. Not to be nitpicky, of course 8^). I grew up with the Illinois Commerce Commission in the news ... I think they use the same initials in Iowa ... of course, veteran readers of this group I'm sure would understand PUC... > IBT is *most probably* Illinois Bell Telephone. (My guess is the > telecom moderator, PAT, used to work for IBT.) PAT's LEC is IBT, or Illinois Bell. As a kid, I always wondered why we had IBT on our side of the river, but they had Northwestern Bell across the mississloppy (why not Iowa Bell?) > AOS Alternative Operator Service > COCOT is something similar to AOS, IMHO, actually I don't know what > this is exactly and I would like to see a posting which clarifies the > difference between an AOS and a COCOT. From what I remember, when you pick up a COCOT, often designed to look like a common payphone, you get connected to an AOS. However, there are other ways to get an AOS (like some hotel/motel phones). ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 10:04:01 PDT From: "Robert L. McMillin" Subject: Re: For Emergency, Dial 1-900-911 Jack Winslade (Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org) asks: > In his monologue tonight, Johnny Carson stated that beginning shortly > in Los Angeles, they would begin charging for > emergency calls to 911. He did say he was serious, and clarified by > stating that before an ambulance would be dispatched, the caller must > either have Blue Cross insurance or a credit card. I don't know for sure if this is true, but I wouldn't doubt Johnny's word if he were being serious. The City of Angels, strapped in a financial crisis, was investigating the possibility of charging for 911 dispatches. I suppose that this means they've gone ahead and done it, unless Carson's wrong... I'll have to check the back issues of the Times I keep for just such an emergency. The LA city Fire Department now responds to every call they get. This didn't used to be so; dispatchers routinely screened calls, looking for those that just sounded like cranks or hypochondriacs. However, last year a 911 dispatcher repeatedly refused to send paramedic units a woman whose husband was dying from a heart attack because she didn't sound convincing. About two years ago, a 911 call to LA county sheriffs went unanswered. In this second case, a woman having a birthday party at her apartment received a phone call from her ex-husband, who threatened to kill her and then did. Owing to the negative publicity ensuing from both these events, LACFD now must answer every call no matter how trivial sounding. The ensuing tremendous increase in responses has resulted in an explosion of costs. Plans call for LACFD to close certain station houses, reduce shifts, and run on smaller crews, as well as charging outrageous fees for anything used by emergency crews. If there is further interest, I can post the figures here: memory tells me that a $2.00 band-aid was the least expensive item on the list. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 12:14 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: For Emergency, Dial 1-900-911 Jack Winslade writes: [Re: Los Angeles charging for 911] > I know Carson kids a lot, but he >DID< say he was serious. Does > anyone have the full story on this ?? This is the first I have heard > of it. There was a newspaper story about a month ago that indicated that if someone uses the services of the paramedics, the County of Los Angeles would be sending them a bill. It was stressed over and over that a dispatch would occur regardless of anyone's ability to pay, but afterwards there would be a settlement. The purpose was to recoup some of the cost of maintaining the 911 emergency medical service. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: "Tiny Bubbles..." Subject: Re: AT&T ACUS System Just Installed Here Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1991 18:27:04 GMT Kevin Kadow writes: > According to the brochure, we pay AT&T a $11.00 monthly fee for > outgoing service, rather than getting the service direct from Illinois > Bell. Er, well, I've heard of universities levying fees to have phone service, but AT&T? Is it legal for a long-distance company to sell dial tone? ... Michael Ho, University of Nebraska Internet: ho@hoss.unl.edu Disclaimer: Views expressed within are purely personal and should not be applied to any university agency. ------------------------------ From: Paul Gillingwater Subject: Re: Compatibility of Australia / New Zealand Phones Organization: Actrix Information Exchange Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1991 19:27:46 GMT In article rbatt@adam.adelaide.edu.au (R Batt) writes: > Hi. Does anyone know what government agency in New Zealand should be > approached to find out what phones and modems are approved for use? > Could an Australian phone be used with two adapters Oz -> modular -> > Kiwi ? Are Netcomm modems (Oz 240 volt) sold in New Zealand? This is no longer controlled by a government agency. It is now managed by the Access Standards Section of Telecom Corporation of New Zealand, which is owned by Bell Atlantic and Ameritech (as well as a recent public share issue). The phone number to try: +64-4-823333 Ask for Access Standards. Netcomm modems are sold in NZ, but they must be modified before it is permitted to connect them to the network. (Basically, this means disabling any Bell standard capabilities, and changing some of the voltage levels). The general situation is that only items with a NZ Telecom "Telepermit" are allowed to be connected. This is no longer enforced by law however -- at worst, Telecom NZ may ask you to disconnect the apparatus from their network, and may engage in civil action if you persist in connecting unapproved equipment. I have personally used an Australian specs. Netcomm modem on the NZ network without problems. Remember that NZ uses BT jacks, so you may require a different connector cable. These are readily available. Paul Gillingwater, paul@actrix.gen.nz ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 12:27:02 PDT From: Michael Graff Subject: Re: MCI Friends and Family Reply-To: graff@mlpvm2.vnet.ibm.com In TELECOM Digest V11 #683, John Higdon writes: > an elderly woman ... claimed a projected savings of $300 per year. $300! Let's see, suppose she's saving 20% off AT&T, that means her annual phone bill was $1500. That's $125 per month. Isn't that a bit much for Grandma? Somehow, I don't think this is a typical calling pattern for an elderly woman. (Yes, I'll grant that she's probably calling relatives all over the country, but still, this seems excessive to me. I don't think my grandmother spends nearly this much, and she has plenty of grandchildren to keep in touch with.) Michael ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 19:16 GMT From: Paul Wilczynski <0002003441@mcimail.com> Subject: Friends and Family is Really Friendly! I'm an MCI Telephone subscriber, and have one person on my Friends and Family list. (All of my other friends and family were scared off from converting to MCI for my benefit!) The first bill I received after I signed on to the program didn't have the F&F discount. I called MCI, and they not only credited me with the discount to the one number on the F&F list, they credited me 20% on *all* my calls for that month. They *did* know that I only had one person on the list at the time they issued the credit. Pretty good customer service, if you ask me. Paul Wilczynski [I have no affiliation with MCI Telephone except as a satisfied customer. I do have an affiliation with MCI Mail as an agency.] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 11:31:14 EDT From: Mikel Manitius Subject: 800 Number Abuse (was AT&T Blocks Calls From Arkansas) > "A news service in San Diego has asked American Telephone & Telegraph > Co. to block all incoming calls from Arkansas because of a Pine Bluff > woman who ties up phone lines claiming she's married to singer Michael > Jackson. From what I hear 800 number abuse is fairly common. Here at the American Automobile Association we have an 800 number that members can call from anywhere in North America for Emergency Road Service ("Supernumber"). On a recent tour through those facilities they said they receive many "crank" calls each day, many from the same people over and over. There is one guy in particular that keeps calling from the San Fransisco Bay Area, he calls about ten times a day and rambles on about various obscenities. They've contacted the local police department, but apparently there is little that can be done. Unlike the news service above, they can't block calls from any one area, because they may be from genuine AAA members requiring service. Mikel Manitius mikel@aaa.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 12:20 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: What's a GTD5 Switch? jch@mitchell.cit.cornell.edu (Jeffrey C Honig) writes: > Who is the manufacturer? They offer ringmate, call waiting and the > like, is it also possible for the GTD5 to support ISDN? GTE is the manufacturer and it will not support ISDN. Development was abandoned on the switch before ISDN became a reality for it. Or, more accurately, a joint venture was created with AT&T. AT&T has no interest in seeing the GTD5 progress in any way to compete with its very own product, the 5ESS. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Justin Leavens Subject: Re: 950-1288 Explained Date: 30 Aug 91 22:20:22 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Okay, this 950-1288 ... I think I missed exactly what this number is supposed to provide, but I tried it from my phone (213-740) and I got a modem to answer... Unfortunately, my office line is digital so I can't hook a modem up to it right now and check it out. Justin T. Leavens University of Southern California :Mail to: leavens@aludra.usc.edu Student Health and Counseling Services: leavens@spiff.usc.edu ------------------------------ From: Michael Schuster Subject: Re: 950-1288 Explained Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 12:45:11 GMT Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY In article Darren Alx Griffiths writes: > After two rings a recorded voice said "71-G > we're sorry" and it was followed immediately by a fast busy signal. > I suppose this new AT&T service could be very useful if you're having > a bad day, your SO just dumped you or your boss decided to cut your > pay, simple call the above number and a pleasant female voice will say > that someone cares. In New York City it produces "I'm sorry, all circuits are busy". 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 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: NY Tel Ringmate Problems Update From: Tad Cook Date: 30 Aug 91 20:22:42 GMT Michael Brown writes: > NY Telephone's latest pronouncement on my Ringmate service problem is > that when the replacement number was assigned, it was done so at the > CO level, but not at the local switch. Huh? I thought the local switch WAS the CO. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP or, kt7h@polari.uucp or, 3288544@mcimail.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #687 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01437; 31 Aug 91 14:41 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21704; 31 Aug 91 13:00 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01467; 31 Aug 91 11:53 CDT Date: Sat, 31 Aug 91 11:06:20 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #686 BCC: Message-ID: <9108311106.ab19222@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 31 Aug 91 11:05:58 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 686 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Baudot Related Information Wanted [John Nagle] Re: Baudot Related Information Wanted [Bob Clements] Re: Baudot Related Information Wanted [Dipto Chakravarty] Re: TDD/TTY Devices [Dave Niebuhr] Re: Coresident Area Codes [Carl Moore] Re: Coresident Area Codes [John R. Levine] Re: GTE Switches [Jefferson George] Re: More on US West and 976 IPs [Jayson Raymond] Re: 900 'Lawyer' Number Comments [Brett G. Person] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Nagle Subject: Re: Baudot Related Information Wanted Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 06:32:20 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) umbc3!umbc3.umbc.edu!dipto@uunet.uu.net (Dipto Chakravarty) writes: > I am trying to locate some info on one of U.S Army's character sets, > called BAUDOT, a five-bit character set that used be used in the army > for teletype devices. > We plan to use 'stty cs5' setting on a UNIX machine so that the bits > can be mapped to the Baudot character set. I need to know where can I > find out a Character Set Conversion Chart that lists the "Baudot" > codes and relate them to Unix's 'stty' setting "cs5". A detailed discussion of conversion between ASCII and Baudot can be found in "The 1988 ARRL Handbook", pages 19-18 through 19-23. The governing international standard for this conversion is ISO/DIS 6936, along with CCITT Recommendation S.18. The character sets don't match well, and conversion is messy. Some characters are not the same on all Baudot machines. Baudot (not an acronym, but the name of the inventor) is used today in two main applications. Older radioteletype systems, including ship-to shore systems, still use Baudot. If you're working with RTTY, the ARRL handbook cited above will give a good overview of the subject. The other remaining application involves the Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD). Old teletype machines used to be used for this purpose, so the TDD is a Baudot device. The usual baud rates for Baudot teletype machines are 45.45 baud (called "60 speed") and 56.92 baud (called "75 speed"). Most Baudot teletypes can be geared for either speed, and some can also be geared for 74.20 baud ("100 speed"). You may have trouble finding UARTs that support these speeds; older ones do, but many newer ones don't. Baudot is always sent with 5 data bits, no parity, 2 stop bits ("5N2" mode). Baudot mechanical teletypes are not RS-232 compatible. They normally use a 60 mA current loop connection. Since they are low-resistance devices, 100 to 300 ohms, loop voltages as high as 300 volts may be required. This requires special interfacing circuitry. Are you sure you want to bother with those antiques? John Nagle ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Baudot Related Information Wanted Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 10:44:10 -0400 From: clements@bbn.com X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 680, Message 4 of 11 dipto@umbc4.umbc.edu Dipto Chakravarty CMSC, U. of MD writes: > I am trying to locate some info on one of U.S Army's character sets, > called BAUDOT, a five-bit character set that used be used in the army > for teletype devices. [And asks for the character set info.] A lot more people than the Army used (and still use) Baudot coded TTY machines. The entire worldwide TELEX network still uses it. Lots of shortwave transmissions use it rather than (e.g.) ASCII, for good technical reasons. I was tempted to write a LONG article expounding on ancient Model 26, 12 and 15 TTY's, including notes about use in radio, stock exchanges, Western Union/RCA/etc.; the wondrous(!) design of the mechanical predecessor of a UART; the first time I saw a prototype of a Model 28 TTY at the AT&T building in Manhattan; the fact that I wrote the TELEX interface for MCI Mail (through which all MCI-mail customers can get and send Telexes); the time that I as a 12-year-old was pictured on the cover of a magazine sitting in front of my trusty Model 26 TTY; the time we disconnected the UPI press machine at MIT to move it into another room and thereby cut off Harvard's news feed which was in series with us. But I won't do that. I'll just give some info on the various Baudot codes. (There are those who insist on calling it Moore code, since Baudot's code didn't look like today's versions any more than Morse's original code looks like today's Morse.) The Baudot code is really a family of codes. There are two "cases", called "LTRS" and "FIGS". The data is five bits, usually with one start bit and 1 or 1.42 or 1.5 or 2 stop bits. This allows for 32 code combinations, obviously too few to be useful. So the two cases were invented, one for the letters and one for the digits and punctuations. Two characters are used to shift between the two cases. On many machines, the "SPACE" character also causes a shift back to the LTRS case, but this is not universal. The LTRS case is standard. The FIGS case comes in many varieties, depending on the intended uses. The ten digits are pretty standard, being the shifted version of the top row of the keyboard [QWERTYUIOP]. But beyond that there are many variations, such as weather symbols (clear, cloudy, etc.) and more ordinary text. The currency symbols vary from country to country, and the position of the "BELL" has two common variations. Note that the most common letters have the fewest "one" bits in their codes, meaning the fewest holes in the paper tape. This is to minimize wear on the paper tape punches. Here's a common version of the code (Yes, I DO know this pretty much by heart, but I did check a listing. :-) [The bar in the "Holes" pattern is where the feed hole goes.] Holes Hex LTRS FIGS ...|.. 00 [blank] [blank] Idle, blank tape. ...|.O 01 E 3 ...|O. 02 LF LF Linefeed ...|OO 03 A - ..O|.. 04 SPACE SPACE ..O|.O 05 S BELL BELL = ' on some TTYs ..O|O. 06 I 8 ..O|OO 07 U 7 .O.|.. 08 CR CR Carriage Return .O.|.O 09 D WRU Who Are You, causes answerback .O.|O. 0A R R .O.|OO 0B J ' ' = BELL on some TTYs .OO|.. 0C N , .OO|.O 0D F $ .OO|O. 0E C C .OO|OO 0F K ( O..|.. 10 T 5 O..|.O 11 Z + O..|O. 12 L ) O..|OO 13 W 2 O.O|.. 14 H # # = Motor Off on some TTYs O.O|.O 15 Y 6 O.O|O. 16 P 0 O.O|OO 17 Q 1 OO.|.. 18 O 9 OO.|.O 19 B ? OO.|O. 1A G & OO.|OO 1B FIGS FIGS Shift into Figures case OOO|.. 1C M . OOO|.O 1D X / OOO|O. 1E V = OOO|OO 1F LTRS LTRS Shift into Letters case BS also called RUBOUT, used to overpunch errors Bob Clements, K1BC, clements@bbn.com ------------------------------ From: Dipto Chakravarty Subject: Re: Baudot Related Information Wanted Organization: Univ. of Maryland Baltimore County, Academic Computing Services Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1991 23:03:40 GMT Many thanks to all of you who sent me a lot of valuable info on Baudot. Dipto dipto@ats.com uunet!ats!dipto dipto@umbc.BITNET ------> In-real-life: <------ +1 301 384 1425 dipto@umbc4.umbc.edu -----/ Dipto Chakravarty \----- CMSC, U. of MD. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1991 15:58:35 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" Subject: Re: TDD/TTY Devices In Message-ID: joshm@kgnvmy.vnet.ibm. com (Joshua E. Muskovitz) writes: > I'm not that familiar with TDDs. Does anyone have any suggestions, > comments, or observations about what would be helpful, useful, or > relevant? Sorry to be wordy, verbose, and obfuscating ... > Also, are there any readers who are members of the deaf community who > would be interested in working on this with me? Responder on: I think a TDD would be useless if the person accessing the BBS has a regular type of screen such as found on a PC or some such animal. Two lines at a time will turn a person off quite fast if they have to keep forcing line feeds or pages after a little bit of information. We have a TDD in our shop and it is used for phone calls to/from our hearing-impared staff (longest running started here in '78 and we had temps before that). These people are screen oriented just like a non-hearing-impared person. I can't put myself directly in their situation but I know that I'd be insulted if the rest of my colleagues had access to full screens and I had to use a two-liner to obtain information. These things have almost no speed at all unless you call 110 baud lightning. Even a TTY based system would be almost useless since it's speed is ridiculously low. So, please don't go the TDD/TTY route. I'll forward your request to our hearing-impared operators and solicit their opinions for you. Dave Niebuhr Brookhaven National Laboratory Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 10:42:42 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Coresident Area Codes Yes, there are L.A. foreign exchanges serving points (such as Pasadena) which are now in 818, with those L.A. foreign exchanges staying in 213 when 818 was formed. The same thing is to happen with L.A. foreign exchanges in Inglewood etc. when 310 is formed. (Only the L.A. exchange, including these "foreign" exchanges, and the Montebello exchange will stay in 213.) In this Digest, I also heard that a few Chicago exchanges, staying in 312 when 708 was formed, actually serve points now in 708. And in Maryland near Baltimore and Washington, you have a similar thing happening; some areas such as Laurel and Annapolis have special prefixes available for both Washington metro service and Baltimore metro service, in addition to the "default" prefixes (to be found on pay phones). When 410 is formed, it will pick up prefixes local to Baltimore, with prefixes local to Washington staying in 301. I don't think any of the above is quite the same as what is proposed for area code 917 in New York City. When I review zip-area notes (directory published by Pilot Books), I ignore such "foreign" prefixes. The best indicator of what area code or exchange you are in is the exchange on the pay phone; the only foreign exchange I know of on a pay phone would be 301-621, provided on some pay phones at Baltimore-Washington International Airport so that the Washington metro area is a local call. (The "default" exchange at BWI is Glen Burnie/Friendship 859 etc., part of the Baltimore metro exchanges.) [Moderator's Note: There are a few oddities such as you describe here. I know Cell One has 312-504 and Ameritech Mobile has 312-415 wired from the Chicago-Congress CO downtown, although both cell companies are out in the Oak Brook area. David Tamkin knows a little more about such cases. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Coresident Area Codes Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 30 Aug 91 09:10:44 EDT (Fri) From: "John R. Levine" When Maryland splits into two area codes I'd expect to find 410 and 301 numbers all intermixed in central Maryland. In many areas, subscribers have a choice of a number that is local to Washington or a number that is local to Baltimore. This among other things means that it can be an inter-lata toll call to your next-door neighbor, even though you're on the same switch. (There was some argument about whether such calls had to be sent out to an LD carrier, I think the judge agreed they didn't.) Baltimore numbers will be in 410 while Washington-local numbers will stay in 301, so 11-digit dialing will presumably be the norm all over the place. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: Jefferson George Subject: Re: GTE Switches Organization: AG Communication Systems Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 19:50:49 GMT In article , hsilbiger@attmail.att.com (Herman R Silbiger) writes: > About three years ago GTE sold their switch business to AT&T, since > GTE did not want to invest in developing ISDN capability. Initially, > AT&T had a 50% interest, which would increase to 100% over five years. > The company is still operated independently, but this will probably > change in the long run. I think it is called ATG. The company's name is AG Communications ( A = AT&T and G = GTE) GTE still has a controlling interest of 51% till 1994. After that AT&T will have the controlling interest of 80% till 1999, when it will own AG. Jefferson George AG Communication System, Phoenix, Arizona Inet: gtephx!georgej@asuvax.eas.asu.edu UUCP: {ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!hrc | att}!gtephx!georgej ------------------------------ From: Jayson Raymond Subject: Re: More on US West and 976 IPs Date: Thu, 29 Aug 91 13:55:54 PDT Eric Smith writes: > What, now everyone has a right to have US West do their billing for > them? They can just get a 800 line or even a normal line and bill via > credit card. If they do it right it might even make them more money > than they get now. If only it were as easy as that. Getting a credit card merchant account for telephone ordered services is quite difficult. Most banks simply refuse, and those that are "generous" enough to grant you one, require a signficant (read: > $100k) bond. This simply puts a typical credit card as a means of collections out of reach for most small businesses. This leaves very few avenues available for collections for an information provider (IP) service. The 900 and 976 services are of little value in any case, due to the exorbitant price an IP _must_ charge to recover the cost the carrier charges the IP for the service. There are damn few services that I as a consumer would pay for, even if the IP merely passed on the carriers fee, and absorbed the rest. Tad Cook points out the truely scary part ... the minute U.S. West could enter the IP industry, they, in a fell swoop, eliminated _all_ competition by discontinuing the service (and it's quite unfortunate the {Seattle Times} didn't point this out). Now, while their business decision may indeed have been sound (perhaps it is, in light of Telespheres troubles, but I doubt it), the real problem as Mr. Higdon has so poignantly brought to light, is that when the medium and the message are controlled by the same group, a _natural_ conflict with the publics best interest immediately arises. From a business stand point, the RBOC's and their managers would be fools _not_ to make decisions that would increase their competitiveness in the "message", via their influence upon the medium. The system needs natural checks and balances, not regulation for pseudo-checks that are ineffective and cost the taxpayers for their inefficiency. Jayson Raymond jraymond@bbn.com ------------------------------ From: Brett G Person Subject: Re: 900 'Lawyer' Number Comments Date: 30 Aug 91 07:21:51 GMT Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND In article rescon!bfalcon@gvlv2.gvl. unisys.com (Bob Falcon) writes: > 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. Ye gad's! It'd be cheapper to go see a real lawyer! What can you tell someone in a minute? How short of an answer can they give you in another minute that would impart some usefull advice or information? Brett G. Person North Dakota State University uunet!plains!person | person@plains.bitnet | person@plains.nodak.edu [Moderator's Note: I think the rate is $39.50 per *call*, but I am not positive. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #686 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21725; 1 Sep 91 4:59 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26734; 1 Sep 91 3:15 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23051; 1 Sep 91 2:09 CDT Date: Sun, 1 Sep 91 1:18:11 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #688 BCC: Message-ID: <9109010118.ac02549@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 1 Sep 91 01:18:07 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 688 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Need Help Identifying Mystery 900 Call [Ken Abrams] Re: Need Help Identifying Mystery 900 Call [Al Stangenberger] Re: Telephone Line Status Indicator Box [Barton F. Bruce] Re: 950 Data Access, was AT&T Data Network [Barton F. Bruce] Re: What is Illegal About Butt Sets? [Eric Lee Green] Re: FAX Machine Message [Gordon Burditt] Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls [Roger B.A. Klorese] Re: Billing responsibility and 900 Calls [Charlie Mingo] Re: AT&T ACUS System Just Installed Here [2358michellp@vmsf.csd.mu.edu] Re: MCI Friends and Family [David Lemson] Re: Wireless Headset Phone Wanted [Tad Cook] MCI Mail Personal Network Promo Until Dec 31 [Paul Wilczynski] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: Need Help Identifying Mystery 900 Call Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1991 14:00:12 GMT In article forags@nature.Berkeley.EDU writes: > Third-party billing will sometimes work. I just had PacBell remove a > charge for a 900-call which somebody had made from another phone and > charged to my number (I've since had third-party billing turned off ... ) > [Moderator's Note: I was not aware that calls to a 900 number could > ever be operator-assisted. The only tariff I knew existed was for > direct dial rates. And coin phones in Chicago may *not* call 900. PAT] You are quite correct. In Illinois, we do not allow 0+900 from any class of service and do not allow 900 from coin. This is apparently not true in some other states and may not remain true in Illinois for very long. It seems that some carriers are dismayed that people cannot call their 900 lines by using a credit card. Some LECs have already capitulated to a request to open up 0+900 on a selective basis (ie available to some 900 numbers but not to others). Ken Abrams nstar!pallas!kabra437 Springfield, IL kabra437@athenanet.com (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ From: Subject: Re: Need Help Identifying Mystery 900 Call Organization: University of California Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1991 20:40:14 GMT In article Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) writes: > You mean someone called 0-900-xxx-xxxx? How would the call have been > dialed? Apparently so - it just showed up on my bill as a 900-call made from a phone in Berkeley and billed to my number. > The operator didn't try to verify the charge being authorized by the > third party before putting the call through? What did you do to > turn the third party billing off? The call was never verified (it occurred while I was at work). Maybe the caller told the operator that verification was impossible since the only thing that would answer my phone was the answering machine. In California (and probably other states), third party billing can be blocked by a simple request to the telco. My service rep said, however, that this may not be totally effective since some other carriers are not linked into PacBel's computer and cannot check that third party billing is blocked. 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 (510) 642-4424 FAX: (510) 643-5438 [Moderator's Note: However, when 'other carriers' stick you with a third party billing, you would just automatically refuse it when you were paying your telco bill. Or if the bill for the third party call came direct from the 'other carrier', just toss it in the wastebasket and forget it. Maybe as a courtesy -- just once -- send it back to them with a note explaining they defrauded you and not to push the matter further. I have all my lines auto-blocked from collect and third party billing by IBT. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Telephone Line Status Indicator Box Date: 31 Aug 91 01:34:10 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , SCOHEN@wvnvm.wvnet.edu writes: > I am sharing a telephone line with several other individuals that we > use in an async dial-up situation with a separate modem on each PC. > ... or any suggestions you have for our situation. If you got the little Proctor exclusion jobbies that only let one phone have the line at a time you would be all set. Try 800 info. Failing that, Proctor (and?) Associates is in Redmond WA. There is sometimes a Proctor guy that posts here, maybe he can supply a phone number and part model number. Whoever picks up first gets a line, others get dead air. Proctor ALSO makes a module to give you "A" lead contact closure when anything goes off hook on a line. That could run indicator lites, but all would need to be wired up. ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: 950 Data Access, was AT&T Data Network Date: 31 Aug 91 01:40:55 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. Another cute user of 950-xxxx feature group B is CitiBank using 950-1492. I bet they are getting all their calls at a LOT less than the best 800 deal available. Which carrier's POP does 1492 go to? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 21:26:47 CDT From: elg@elgamy.raidernet.com Subject: Re: What is Illegal About Butt Sets? covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert 28-Aug-1991 2049): >> In about 1972 a good friend of mine (since 1975) was arrested in a >> phone closet at SUNY Stoneybrook. >> He was charged and convicted of "possession of burglar's tools" -- the >> butt set. Around 1984, I worked for a small oilfield electrical contractor. One of the things I did was wire up a new toll-booth type hut at an oil refinery (the hut was to be occupied by the guy who oversaw filling the tank trucks). We trenched from the main building to the hut, laid conduit and shoveled in concrete then re-filled the trench, pulled some twisted-pair through the conduit for the phone and the various instruments, and one last test -- using the butt-set to make sure we were hooking up correctly up at their PBX. Somehow, I suspect that we weren't in any danger of being arrested for possession of burglar tools. Totally private contractor. No connection to the phone company. In fact, our main orientation was installing automation and instrumentation, and the phone end of it came about simply because we already had to pull all that twisted-pair through for the instrumentation. Eric Lee Green (318) 984-1820 P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM uunet!mjbtn!raider!elgamy!elg ------------------------------ From: Gordon Burditt Subject: Re: FAX Machine Message Date: 31 Aug 91 03:34:18 GMT Organization: Gordon Burditt > I've had the opposite class of problems -- my computer, acting as a > FAX sender, calling a FAX number and never getting through. I > eventually called from a voice line and got that same message. Since > my system was never convinced that a FAX had answered, it never sent > tones. A mixed blessing, at best, that device would seem to be. A better device for this purpose is the "Fax/Phone Switch II" from Electronic Speech Systems. One of the critical requirements for a particular installation (which I call a lot) is that the associated phone must ring ONLY when there is an actual incoming voice call (it's sitting next to a sleeping person), not when there is a fax coming in (the fax machine is out of hearing range). Their device answers the phone with (approximately) "to reach our fax, please remain silent. To reach a telephone, please say "telephone" at the tone. ". Then it generates ringing (and ringback) to either the phone or the fax machine, whichever was selected. The device also provides lockout for outgoing call collision between fax and voice calls. If you've got a fax that sends out tones when it's doing the calling, it's supposed to recognize those, also. There has been some trouble attempting to use the device's power connection as an enable/disable control. It's only supposed to be active at night, to receive incoming faxes but also allow emergency calls to get through. If the power fails, it's supposed to let the phone have the line (and it does). A timer controlling the box power and a couple of relays does automatic switching (this is not part of the box), but there is some evidence that the box may not answer the phone properly after power-up until the associated phone is taken off-hook and back on. Then again, it might be wrong-number calls or phone company tests causing inappropriate ringing at certain times, or it might be a broken alarm clock instead of the phone, or it might be a dream. Anyway, after getting procedures established, it's been working well. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon ------------------------------ From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Subject: Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls Reply-To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Organization: QueerNet Date: Sat, 31 Aug 91 12:55:42 GMT In article 0003829147@mcimail.com (Sander J. Rabinowitz) writes: > JH> John Higdon (on 29 Aug 91), responding to: > MC> "Michael A. Covington" ... > MC> * Telephone accounts normally have no credit limits. This is > MC> the root of the problem in numerous widely publicized bil- > MC> ling disputes. > JH> This is absolutely not true. Most telcos (including Pac*Bell) have > JH> some very definite limits on telephone credit. > If that's the case, shouldn't the credit limit be revealed to the > customer? Should they? Probably. Will they be? I doubt it. And there's precedent. Do you have an American Express or Diner's Club card? You know how they keep saying you have no credit limit? Look again: they actually usually say no "fixed" or "pre-determined" credit unit. In fact, they set it, and ratchet it up or down depending on your history, without ever telling you what it is. The telcos behave the same way. ROGER B.A. KLORESE +1 415 ALL-ARFF rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk ------------------------------ From: Charlie Mingo Date: 31 Aug 91 17:07:59 Subject: Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls In the TELECOM Digest, Sander J. Rabinowitz writes: > JH> This is absolutely not true. Most telcos (including Pac*Bell) have > JH> some very definite limits on telephone credit. > If that's the case, shouldn't the credit limit be revealed to the > customer? With my bank cards, I know *exactly* what my credit limit > is even before I make my very first purchase on the card. But with > the telco, I haven't the slightest idea what the credit limit is. > [One exception: I have a $100 credit limit on my old AT&T card from > college, which I still use.] Telephone billing is more akin to "charge cards" (where you have to pay the bill in full each month), than "credit cards" (where you have a revolving line of credit). Charge cards, where you have to pay in full with 30 days, usually don't tell you how much you can charge. In fact, American Express' Green Card even boasts of "no pre-set spending limit." Nevertheless, there is a limit to what Amex will accept, as you will discover if you try to put a yacht on your Amex. > JH> If those limits are exceeded, an immediate effort is made > JH> to contact the customer and make special payment arrangements, > JH> which usually means an immediate payment for the charges > JH> currently owed. > In that case, shouldn't the customer have the right to voluntarily > lower the threshold when this is done? For example, I have never > exceeded $200 on any single phone bill. If the calls suddenly went > over, say, $300, I'd rather be advised of that right then and there > then have the telco wait some higher threshold is reached. [Note: I'm > not saying this should be mandated, but it strikes me as being a good > business practice.] I once had American Express call me to the phone, tell me the outstanding balance this month, and ask me "do you intend to pay this bill?" (Some kind of trick question?) This was when I was in college and shared a card with my father, who was vacationing in Europe at the time. I said "yes", and there was no problem. ------------------------------ From: 2358michellp@vmsf.csd.mu.edu Subject: Re: AT&T ACUS System Just Installed Here Date: 31 Aug 91 21:10:26 GMT Reply-To: 2358michellp@vmsf.csd.mu.edu Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services We have the ACUS system here at Marquette University (Milwaukee) as well. However, ACUS does not serve as a Bell "substitute". As far as I know they only handle our long distance service. We have never been billed for local service, only long distance. The ACUS service was instituted this year to keep roommate arguments over who pays what on a long distance bill to a minimum. Since every student has their own code it is pretty nice. I am insterested as to how ACUS can also serve as your local service provider as well. I would think that Illinois Bell would be a bit miffed at this. ------------------------------ From: David Lemson Subject: Re: MCI Friends and Family Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1991 19:37:26 GMT graff@mlpvm2.vnet.ibm.com (Michael Graff) writes: > In TELECOM Digest V11 #683, John Higdon writes: >> an elderly woman ... claimed a projected savings of $300 per year. > $300! Let's see, suppose she's saving 20% off AT&T, that means her > annual phone bill was $1500. That's $125 per month. Isn't that a bit > much for Grandma? Somehow, I don't think this is a typical calling > pattern for an elderly woman. Well, worst-case for AT&T and best case for MCI, I'm sure she could save a lot more than 20%. Compare MCI's PrimeTime plus Friends and Family vs. AT&T plain old evening rates, and I'm sure the figures come out much more reasonable. David Lemson University of Illinois CSO NeXT Lab System Administrator Internet : lemson@uiuc.edu UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson NeXTMail : lemson@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu BITNET : LEMSON@UIUCVMD ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Wireless Headset Phone Wanted From: Tad Cook Date: 30 Aug 91 20:26:29 GMT mcnally@wsl.dec.com (Mike McNally) writes: > I'd like to buy a wireless phone, and I'd be happiest if it had a > headset option for hands-free use. Does such a thing exist, and if > so is it priced within reason? > Note that I don't mean a cellular phone; I want a typical domestic > cheap-o cordless. I use one that was made by Plantronics, discontinued, and then sold real cheap in the DAK catalog. I am sure that DAK is out of these. I have heard that the neatest one on the market is the Wicom Walk 'n Talk. It has a Walkman-style binaural headset with a little boom mike, and the deluxe version has an FM stereo radio. You can listen to music between calls! Wicom is at: WICOM 6758 Eton Canoga Park, CA 91303 or: P.O. Box 1305 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 phone: 818-715-9096 800-942-6601 Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP or, kt7h@polari.uucp or, 3288544@mcimail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 19:17 GMT From: Krislyn Companies <0002293637@mcimail.com> Subject: MCI Mail Personal Network Promo Until Dec 31 MCI Mail is currently offering a Personal Network promotion. Current subscribers who refer friends and associates will get a $10 usage credit for each referral who becomes a subscriber. Additionally, the new subscriber will receive a $20 discount on the $35 registration fee. Paul Wilczynski Krislyn Computer Services Authorized MCI Mail Agency ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #688 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24225; 1 Sep 91 5:55 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19351; 1 Sep 91 4:21 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26734; 1 Sep 91 3:15 CDT Date: Sun, 1 Sep 91 2:46:01 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #689 BCC: Message-ID: <9109010246.ab20073@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 1 Sep 91 02:45:44 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 689 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Phone Gall [John Higdon] Re: Baudot Related Information Wanted [Dik T. Winter] Re: Information Wanted on Demon Dialer Model 176T [Tad Cook] Re: Swinging Grounds? [Tad Cook] Re: VISA/Mastercard Automated Authorization [John R. Levine] Re: For Emergency, Dial 1-900-911 [Lauren Weinstein] Credit Card Blocking (was Billing Responsibility and 900) [Bob Frankston] How Billing Works (was Billing Responsibility and 900) [John R. Levine] New Archives File: USA Direct Phone Numbers [Bill Huttig] Re: Ten Years of It: Starting Year Eleven [Roger B.A. Klorese] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 31 Aug 91 12:44 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Phone Gall Justin Leavens writes: > I agree with most of what you say, but part of the point of this > article is that these organizations are dealing with telecom equipment > that they obviously don't know how to use efficiently enough to plug > up the all the cracks. Whether this is a fault on the part of the > businesses or the equipment dealers there's debate. But the companies > argue that AT&T, who has the technological resources to keep hacker > problems low, seem more interested in finding hacker problems and > billing the companies anyways rather than work for solutions to plug > the leaks in the first place. Whose responsibility is it to know how to effectively use one's own equipment if it is not one's own self? Why is it AT&T's (or Sprint's or MCI's) responsibility to become some company's equipment mentor? If you read your contract with virtually any carrier you will find that YOU, not the carrier, are responsible for the calls made on your account. AT&T can institute all of the anti-hacking procedures it likes, but if calls come through your equipment and appear to be fully authorized, what can AT&T do about it except carry the call and charge you for it? Any debate over responsibility here is bovine excretion. It is the vendor's responsibility to the customer to make sure he knows about his equipment. It is the customer's responsibility to make sure he knows about his equipment. It is AT&T's responsibility to carry any calls presented to it by the customer. And it is the customer's sole responsibility to pay for them. I have several clients who have telephone switches that can be accessed from the outside world. Even I have such a switch. The last place I would go for relief from unauthorized calls made through this connection would be to AT&T. It is not any decision on the part of AT&T that my (or my clients') systems have "back doors" that allow access to the AT&T network, so why does AT&T share any risk relating to such access? This is a non-issue. The fact that it was brought up in some popular press article is just another nail in the coffin of the popular press concerning telecom matters, IMHO. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: "Dik T. Winter" Subject: Re: Baudot Related Information Wanted Date: 31 Aug 91 23:27:44 GMT Organization: CWI, Amsterdam In article clements@bbn.com writes: > But I won't do that. I'll just give some info on the various Baudot > codes. (There are those who insist on calling it Moore code, since > Baudot's code didn't look like today's versions any more than Morse's > original code looks like today's Morse.) Sorry, not Moore but Murray. > Two characters are used to shift between the two cases. On many > machines, the "SPACE" character also causes a shift back to the LTRS > case, but this is not universal. No, certainly not! Some equipment may have used it; it was part of original Baudot (all letter shifts and figure shifts were spacing, so generally a letter shift was used as space). Other related codes I have (were the given codes indeed correct?), and to show how different Baudot and Murray are: CCITT#1 CCITT#2 Teletype AT&T Baudot Murray (Only shown where different) Holes LET FIG LET FIG FIG FIG ...|.. [blank] [blank] ...|.O LTRS E 3 ...|O. FIGS LF ...|OO ERASE A - ..O|.. A 1 SPACE ..O|.O - . S ' BELL ..O|O. J 6 I 8 ..O|OO K ( U 7 .O.|.. E 2 CR .O.|.O X 9/ * D WRU $ $ .O.|O. G 7 R 4 .O.|OO M ) J BELL , .OO|.. / 1/ * N , 7/8 **** .OO|.O Z : F *** ! 1/4 **** .OO|O. H 4/ * C : 1/8 **** .OO|OO L = K ( 1/2 **** O..|.. Y 3 T 5 O..|.O S 7/ * Z " O..|O. B 8 L ) 3/4 **** O..|OO R - W 2 O.O|.. U 4 H *** # # O.O|.O T 2/ * Y 6 O.O|O. C 9 P 0 O.O|OO Q / Q 1 OO.|.. I 3/ * O 9 OO.|.O W ? B ? 5/8 **** OO.|O. F 5/ * G *** & & OO.|OO N ** FIGS OOO|.. O 5 M . OOO|.O V ' X / OOO|O. D 0 V ; 3/8 **** OOO|OO P + LTRS * Digit followed by fraction bar ** Pound symbol (UK pounds that is) *** Reserved for national use (where have I seen that also, think 5) **** A fraction I have also CCITT#3 (a three out of seven code) and CCITT#5 (who doesn't know that, aka ISO 646). I still have not found CCITT#4, is there someone who knows about that? dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland dik@cwi.nl ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Demon Dialer Model 176T From: Tad Cook Date: 30 Aug 91 20:24:03 GMT Scott Keller, sekell@monsanto.com writes: > A friend recently picked up a "Demon Dialer" at a hamfest. He was > told that the manual with it does not apply to this particular > model. After trying it out, it looks like it really doesn't. I would > appreciate hearing from anyone having a manual for this device that > they would be willing to sell or copy. Or perhaps just an address or > phone for Zoom Telephonics, Inc. Here it is: Zoom Telephonics 207 South Street Boston, MA 02111 800-631-3116 617-423-1072 They make a nice modem. They are no longer making Demon Dialers. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP or, kt7h@polari.uucp or, 3288544@mcimail.com [Moderator's Note: Thanks also go to Donald Ekman of Palo Alto, CA who supplied the above information in a message to the Digest. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Swinging Grounds? From: Tad Cook Date: 30 Aug 91 20:25:15 GMT Robert Wier writes: > The TT to pulse converter was intercepting my TT signals even after I > was connected to the bank, and sending pulses. This of course > totally zonked the bank's response system. I had asked them how to > get the TT signals thru without the converter kicking in once the > connection was established. The suggestion is to hit the # key after > the connection is established. I havn't tried this yet (I've been > away from home since the fall semester started here). Anyone know > anything about a solution to this? Hitting the pound key to disable tone-to-pulse conversion is standard on many of the Teltone tone-to-pulse converters. Another method involves the converter sensing reverse loop polarity when the calling party answers. Sounds like you already have the solution. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP or, kt7h@polari.uucp or, 3288544@mcimail.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: VISA/Mastercard Automated Authorization Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 30 Aug 91 10:50:02 EDT (Fri) From: "John R. Levine" In article is written: > Basically, what will be needed is a means by which a user at the > computer will be able to enter his/her credit card number and > expiration date, and while online, have the card checked for validity. > If so, the user will be able to proceed. Upon termination of the > session, the computer will then bill the card for the amount of time used. The little credit card verification terminals found next to every cash register in the U.S. contain a vanilla 300 baud modem and use a simple ASCII protocol. A few years ago, I programmed an old IBM PC on our LAN in an afternoon to be such a terminal to process phone order charges. The terminal calls the verification computer, and when it answers sends a record consisting of the store's merchant number, the card number, the expiration date, the amount of the charge, and a two-digit code identifying the transaction type, followed by a one-byte checksum. The computer responds with the message to be displayed, typically something like "APPROVED: 123456". The format is fixed and trivially decoded. Although the terminals usually do one transaction at a time, once you're on the phone you can do as many transactions in a row as you want. The transactions are authorize (validate a charge), post (actually put a previously validated charge on the customer's bill), auth/post (both at once), and refund. Any charge posted by 1800 central time is in the merchant's bank account the next day. The precise format, e.g. the order of the fields and the type codes, seems to vary from bank to bank, but it's always plain old ASCII. American Express will allow validation this way, but the last time I checked a few years ago, still insisted on paper charge slips from small merchants. I found continuous pin feed charge forms to print for Amex. Technically, this turns out to be amazingly easy. The hardest part is probably to find someone at the bank who understands what you want well enough to get you the documentation you need. Since all charges are authorized and you do all of the data entry, the bank should give you a very favorable rate. They charged us under 2%. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Aug 91 13:08:05 PDT From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: Re: For Emergency, Dial 1-900-911 The last I heard about this, the emergency services were *considering* charging for paramedic dispatches in the L.A. area -- I don't believe it has passed through the entire enabling process at this time. I don't remember the proposed fee, though it wasn't totally outrageous. It is worth noting that there has always been a charge for any use of medicine or other "expendables" by the paramedics in the course of treatment in the L.A. area (and in most other municipalities, I would assume). An interesting question might arise if someone is presented with a bill for a paramedic dispatch triggered by *someone else* calling 911 (perhaps overreacting to an observed fender-bender). If that person did not call for help and refuses treatment by the paramedics, it would be interesting to see how the bill would be handled. One could imagine situations where a person might hesitate to risk calling 911 for another person in "questionable" situations for fear of getting stuck with the bill. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ From: frankston!Bob_Frankston@world.std.com Subject: Credit Card Blocking (was Billing Responsibility and 900) Date: 31 Aug 1991 10:37 -0400 In the spirit of 900, 976, 540 blocking, I propose that anyone who has ever gotten an invalid credit card charge try credit card blocking. There is no need for fraud handling in the credit card system, just don't use any. Also, stop using checks. You can also protect yourself from counterfeit money by just not using any. And get 911 blocking so you can be sure it doesn't get abused from your phone. And 411 blocking. Isn't life simple? ------------------------------ Subject: How Billing Works (was Billing Responsibility and 900) Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 31 Aug 91 12:21:34 EDT (Sat) From: "John R. Levine" In article is written: > I realize that the local telco could keep tabs on a customer's LD > bill, but isn't there a considerable delay while the IP and the > billing telco exchange billing tapes? In the good olde days, all billing information was captured at the originating CO on paper tape or something and all phone bills were computed from that. With the advent of equal access, it would be technically possible for LD companies to do it either that way or by capturing the ANI information themselves as each call is passed from the local telco to the LD carrier at the POP. (Love these acronyms.) It is my impression that Sprint captures the information themselves, since my bills always contain all of the calls up to the day before the bill was printed. Does AT&T still do it the old way? I presume they do for the bills still computed by the local telcos. For that matter, what is the schedule for AT&T to compute and/or mail their own bills? Also, are calling card billing records exchanged in real time or in batches? I use my RBOC calling card so infrequently that I can't tell whether there's still a billing delay or not. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 09:55:50 -0400 From: Bill Huttig Subject: New Archives File: USA Direct Phone Numbers A new file for the Telecom Archives lists USA Direct phone numbers from all over the world. Bill [Moderator's Note: The file will be available after September 3 and will be filed as 'usa.direct.numbers'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Subject: Re: Ten Years of It: Starting Year Eleven Reply-To: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Organization: QueerNet Date: Sat, 31 Aug 91 12:59:51 GMT In article jpistrit@us.oracle.com (Joe Pistritto) writes: > Well, thanks Pat, for all the effort you've put into this thing. I > know I've been reading it off and on (mostly on) since 1982, and > contributing occasionally, and know how much of your time it must take > to make this thing work. And to keep it in perspective, not to diminish Pat's work, I'd like to thank jsol for getting it going and all his efforts. ROGER B.A. KLORESE +1 415 ALL-ARFF rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk [Moderator's Note: Indeed, without Jon Solomon getting the Digest started and tending to it for several years, it would not be around today. I certainly would not have had the ability to start it on my own. The problems jsol faced with the Digest in the early days were things that are handled very easily now. The software used for mail has been greatly improved in the past few years. Jsol told me that early on, he was almost constantly plagued with poor connectivity, poor or non-existent delivery of the Digest at times, and multiple copy delivery (due to net connections timing out, etc) at other times. Getting each issue to the readers -- once, once only, and in numerical order -- was a hassle, as those of you who have scanned through the old archives can attest. And jsol's personal life never did leave as much time for the Digest as he wanted. He told me there were times he had to be away from home for a period of several days, only to be home for a day before leaving again. While at home, his main concern would be to 'get out the Digest'. He had the luxury of going for a few days between issues with only a small backlog of stuff waiting, but even so that made him nervous. He called me in a panic one day in the summer of 1988 to help get an issue printed when there were all of 20 messages (about 40 K of text) waiting in the hopper! These days I always have 30-40 messages carried over from one day to the next ... and if I skip a day, the backlog takes most of the week to get under control. In the early days, 200 issues per year was considered a lot ... this year we will have a thousand issues. So although I take credit for making TELECOM Digest what it is today, (good or bad, you be the judge), Jon Solomon is the person who made it happen to begin with. I wish he was still around to join us. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #689 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01183; 1 Sep 91 8:08 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09477; 1 Sep 91 6:27 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27830; 1 Sep 91 5:21 CDT Date: Sun, 1 Sep 91 4:58:46 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #690 BCC: Message-ID: <9109010458.ab22683@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 1 Sep 91 04:58:39 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 690 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors? [Toby Nixon] Cellular Phones and Scanner Radios Legislation [Sander J. Rabinowitz] CLASS in California Delayed? [John Higdon] Moderator's Comments on Telesphere [Steve W. York] ARI in the USA [Dave Levenson] Phone Rental Rates at Schools / Corporations [Jeff Wasilko] How Phone Bills Compare Around the USA [Dave Niebuhr] AT&T Tip When Calling From a COCOT [John Higdon] Questions About CO Switches and UNIX [Brian Crowley] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Toby Nixon Subject: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors? Date: 30 Aug 91 13:42:43 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA Pactel Cellular is proposing to construct a cellular tower (150-200 feet tall) on top of a hill adjacent to our subdivision. It would be within 300-500 feet of some of the homes. Since I'm the president of the homeowners association, several residents are looking to me for guidance on what, if anything, we should do about it. There is some concern about the visual impact, but I've checked with real estate agents and the unanimous opinion is that there would be no negative impact on property values being that far away (it would be different if it was right in one's back yard). But some folks are concerned about the site interfering with radio, television, phones (hardwired, cordless, cellular), wireless baby monitors, garage door openers, and even their health (although I think they're confusing this with the reports of problems with extremely low frequency emissions from high-voltage power lines). I can't imagine that the FCC would permit towers in residential areas if any of these problems would result, but then I have a basic distrust of government regulators anyway, so ... What can y'all tell me about this? Any truth to the assertions of interference? Or would objections be based solely on esthetics? Anybody out there have one of these towers close-by now that cares to comment on how they are as neighbors? 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: Sat, 31 Aug 91 02:06 GMT From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <0003829147@mcimail.com> Subject: Cellular Phones and Scanner Radios Legislation As an FYI, I wish to announce that a bill will be up before the entire House of Represenatives sometime in September. Known as H.R. 1674, it is as I understand it an FCC funding bill with a specific provision which directly affects the manufacturers of scanner radios. The text of that portion of the legislation now follows: "...SEC. 8...(d)(1) INTERCEPTION OF CELLULAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS Within 180 days after the date of enactment of the Federal Communications Commission Authorization Act of 1991, the Commission shall prescribe and make effective regulations denying equipment authorization ... for any scanning receiver that is capable of -- (A) receiving transmissions in the frequencies allocated to the domestic cellular radio telecommunications service, (B) readily being altered by the user to receive transmissions in such frequencies, or (C) being equipped with decoders that convert digital cellular transmissions to analog voice audio. (2) MANUFACTURE OF NONCOMPLYING EQUIPMENT. -- Beginning one year after the effective date of the regulations adopted ..., no receiver having the capabilities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) shall be manufactured that does not comply with the requirements set forth in paragraph (1)." --------- My thanks to Robert Horvitz for posting the original announcement to Usenet. I am posting the above without comment. I do have strong opinions about this legislation, but I suspect the more appropriate forum is the Telecom Privacy Group (which, unfortunately, I don't subscribe to). Sander J. Rabinowitz | sjr@mcimail.com +1 615 661 4645 | 1981 - 1991 Brentwood, Tenn. | Celebrating 10 years of TELECOM Digest | 8-) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 00:17 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: CLASS in California Delayed? Announcements, public and private, have indicated that CLASS features were to begin in California (at least in LATA 5 and LATA 1) in October of this year. However, a very knowledgeable source has indicated that the CLASS offerings may be delayed for another year. Does anyone know of this? Is it technical or political? Is it real? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Steve_W_York@cup.portal.com Subject: Moderator's Comments on Telesphere Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 01:06:20 PDT Several days ago, Chris Dinkel clarified some points which the Moderator drew from an apparantly inaccurate wire service story. Due to Telesphere's poor cash situation, a group of information providers (900 number people) are settling for a lot less than they are due. Our Moderator used her message as an opportunity to editorialize and in the process maligned the Dinkels. They don't offer $50 for the first minute rip offs. They do have several voice mail systems where people meet each other. They have good reason to do this legitimately and honestly. They met and got to know each other on such a system. Eventually they married. They also have other 900 services such as classic car infomation. Tony Dinkel is a friend, and I feel obliged to respond on his behalf, as he is out of the country at the moment. He is a well regarded RF engineer and friends with a number of well regarded folks here at the Digest. Indeed it's through him that I met such celebrities as John Higdon and Julian Macassey. When our Moderator asks "How does it feel being the one *getting* ripped off for a change?" and then wishes a plague on both your houses, he has clearly overstepped the bounds of good taste and politeness I normally associate with the Digest. Frankly, I would never wish plague on anyone. I've never seen a case of it, but when I was in medical school, the books made it seem pretty dreadful. It's comparable to wishing cancer or AIDS on someone. No rational person would argue that all 900 "services" are a good deal. But no one has had a gun held to their head and been forced to squander their money on a poor telephone investment. If this sort of thinking were to prevail we could outlaw women's magazines because they have ads for breast enlarging cream or magazines and newspapers with a large number of personal ads, some of which are questionable. How about eliminating all videos because some are pornographic? I ask that our Moderator not tar all individuals of a group with the same brush. Just because some of the "information providers" are sleeze doesn't mean that they all are. This forum has always been a place for considered discussion, rather than predjudice. Lets keep it that way. Thanks, Pat. Steve York ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: ARI in the USA Date: 30 Aug 91 12:35:13 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA There is an obvious reason why ARI won't work in the US. While lots of radio stations broadcast road advisory messages, they do it to attract an audience for their advertisers. (That is generally true of anything they broadcast.) ARI allows a motorist to drive along listening to a tape, or to nothing at all, and only hear the traffic advisory. The advertisers would never go along with that. And it's the advertisers who pay, isn't it? Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 [Moderator's Note: Well we do get something like this here in the Chicago area by tuning our car radios to 1610 kc on the AM dial. The Illinois Department of Transportation operates a low power (one watt) radio station with repeaters every mile or so along all the expressways. This station plays a mobious (endless loop) tape which discusses road conditions, accidents, traffic congestion and emergency situations for motorists. The message repeats about every three minutes, and is updated three or four times an hour. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jeff Wasilko Subject: Phone Rental Rates at Schools / Corporations Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 12:17:36 EDT Organization: RIT Communications, Rochester, NY I just had my phone upgraded from 7403 (on a System 85 PBX) to a 7406 so I could have a speakerphone in addition to multiple lines. I was amazed to see that our Telecom department is charging $55/month rental for the 7406. The 7403 that I had previously was $35/month (!!), while a standard 2500 desk set is $4/month. A 7405 with a display is $75/month. This leads me to ask what other school and corporate telecom departments are charging their users? In a previous issue of the Digest, a student mentioned that they had to make arrangements with AT&T for local service. Students here at RIT are not charged for local service (or for rental of a wall-mounted phone), but they must make their own arrangements (calling card) for long distance calls. Jeff (jjwcmp@ultb.isc.rit.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1991 12:41:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Dave Niebuhr Subject: How Phone Bills Compare Around the USA I'm curious as to how my basic phone bill stacks up against those of others around the country. I keep hearing and reading how NYTel has some of the highest rates in the country. First of all there are the various basic packages: Flat Rate (all the calls you want to make in your primary area and adjacent areas). Primary area is your exchange and all other exchanges in handled by your CO. Because of this, some exchanges can reach many others due to the number of the exchanges in their CO and the number in adjacent COs. This can add quite a distance for some depending on the location of the COs and just how far from the CO the exchanges abut or could overlap. Seems confusing, but it's not. I know that this is quite possible the norm for the rest of the country but I want to make clear where I stand. There are other packages but I have Flat Rate. Now for the goodies. It costs .106 for each call outside of the above but within my region for the first minute with each additional minute at .022. Big difference for me: I'm at the western edge of my region so I get local calling in two other exchanges but can't for those exchanges that are more than 'one' exchange away. Calls to two nearby regions (one adjacent and the other just beyond that) are at the going rates of .133/.042 and .191/.064. Discounts are given to all by time of day and day of week (certain holidays included). Since this particular area fluctuates monthly, I'm going to eliminate it from the below. From my last itemized statement (two phones) FCC Line Charge $3.50 Exchange Access Line 6.60 Flat Rate Usage 9.36 Non-Published Svc 1.95 * Touch-Tone Svc 1.53 * $22.94 + whatever else is added for the other usage. * optional For the second line in my home, I pay for all but the non-published service even though I didn't specifically request it (long story -- not germaine to this). NY tariffs state that if one phone is non-published and paid for, all others at the same location and in the same name must follow that regardless of what was wanted (main - unlisted, data - listed). Both numbers are on one bill as requested; in fact the telephone company rep suggested it for my simplicity. The turn-on fee for the second number is $55 and can be paid for monthly for up to 12 months with no interest charged. The overall bill, naturally, fluctuates monthly as the number and length of the toll calls increase or decrease (I'm including credit card, 411, collect (from the kids if they don't have a quarter - rare), etc.). Dave Niebuhr Brookhaven National Laboratory Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov [Moderator's Note: Here is what Illinois Bell charges me each month for what is termed 'monthly service': 1 non-pub directory service @ 1.45 1.45 covers both lines 2 automatic callback @ 3.50 ea. 7.00 on both lines 2 repeat dialing @ 3.50 ea. 7.00 on both lines 1 call screening @ 5.50 5.50 only on line 1 1 three way calling @ 2.50 ea. 2.50 only on line 1 2 call forwarding @ 2.50 ea. 5.00 on both lines 1 call waiting @ 2.50 2.50 only line 1 2 speed calling (8 number) @ 2.50 ea. 5.00 different list each number 11 feature discount @ 7.50 (cr) 7.50 (cr) 2 touchtone service @ .73 ea. 1.46 on both lines 2 line access charges @ 5.56 ea 11.12 network connection charges 1 multi-ring first line @ 4.95 4.95 2 numbers on first line Supplemental Line Charges @ 3.48 ea. 6.96 FCC mandated surcharge Total Monthly Service 52.94 My local usage for last month was about $23, which included 1.20 for calls to directory assistance (4 @ .30). 'Local government surcharges' for 911, city tax, etc plus state and federal tax added another $10.15. Total $85.43, not including long distance, of course. They get 95 cents per line for the 911 surcharge here. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Aug 91 14:20 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: AT&T Tip When Calling From a COCOT For those of you stuck at a COCOT that will not allow AT&T access via normal channels, I am told of a workaround: Call 800-661-0661. Explain that you are at a COCOT (or hotel or whatever) that will not allow 10288 access. Ask to be connected with an AT&T operator (you will then be connected). Explain to the AT&T operator that you cannot use the normal calling card procedure from the telephone you are using. Your calling card call will be completed at the normal rates. The source is good on this one. I will try it when I get a chance. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: I tried it ... I got some customer service office of AT&T, however I waited on hold for about five minutes while 'all representatives are busy', albiet some delicious Vivaldi was the music-on-hold selection. Some sales pitches for AT&T long distance were tossed in. I finally got someone who did confirm what you say; however a five minute wait on hold at 4:50 AM Sunday morning would make me *almost* willing to go ahead and pay the COCOT/AOS price! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Aug 91 14:11:43 PDT From: Brian Crowley Subject: Questions About CO Switches and UNIX Thanks to all who replied to my recent questions regarding the GTD5 switch. If Pat will indulge me, I have another question concerning modern CO switches in general. I understand that modern CO switches run a software program called a generic which is based on the UNIX system. Just how different is the kernel the switch runs from the kernel which is running my workstation? What sort of interface does the CO technician have to the switch (dumb terminal, graphics terminal, etc.)? Is it possible to bring up a shell on a CO switch? What type of filesystem is typically used? How are the subscriber line cards interfaced to the kernel (/dev/555-1212 :-])? Maybe somebody "in the know" could post a short discussion. My interest is strictly personal, I am an EE, but I am not a telecom professional. Like most EE's, I have had a telephone fascination since I was a kid (fortunately, or unfortunately, when I got into college, I developed a larger fascination for computers:-]). Brian Crowley DNS: brian@amc.com Applied Microsystems Corp. UUCP: uunet!amc-gw!brian Redmond, WA ATT: 206-882-2000 Ext. 328 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #690 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04885; 1 Sep 91 9:21 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07716; 1 Sep 91 7:34 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09477; 1 Sep 91 6:27 CDT Date: Sun, 1 Sep 91 5:23:54 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs Subject: FAQ - Frequently Asked Telecom Questions BCC: Message-ID: <9109010523.ab25372@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Here it is! The long-awaited Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) file for telecom. This file will be going out to new subscribers to TELECOM Digest beginning today, and will be available in the Telecom Archives under the file name 'frequently.asked.questions'. If you like this file, and find it useful, please send thanks to the author. PAT From: DLEIBOLD@vm1.yorku.ca Subject: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for TELECOM TELECOM Digest - Frequently Asked Questions - 28 August 1991 This is a list of frequently asked questions made in the TELECOM Digest. As this list is rather new, some topics and questions will no doubt be updated and added as time goes on. Much of the telecom information that is requested can be found in the TELECOM Digest Archives, which is a collection of text files on telecom topics. These archives are available for access through the FTP protocol at lcs.mit.edu, or through another Archive site that has been set up at letni.lonestar.org. The monthly posting of the description of TELECOM Digest should contain more details on how to access these Archives. Direct netmail requests to persons posting on topics of interest to you may also be helpful. Future editions of this list could include netmail addresses of contacts for certain topics (say for ISDN, cellular, area codes/numbering plan, consumer protection matters, etc). The index to the Archives should be obtained and kept for reference. This index has also occasionally appeared as a posting in the Digest. You may also read the file intro.to.archives in the Archives to get a better understanding of the Archives. A list of terms commonly used in TELECOM Digest may be obtained from the Archives under the file names glossary.acronyms, glossary.txt and glossary.phrack.acronyms. Suggestions for other common questions, or corrections or other amendments to this file may be made to djcl@bnw.debe.fl.us, dleibold@attmail.com or Dave.Leibold@f135.n82.z89.imex.org. This file will be updated as necessary and all information herein should be considered subject to change. Thanks to Nathan Glasser, Dan Boehlke and Maurice E. DeVidts and those other inquiring TELECOM Digest minds for their frequent questions. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q: How do phones work? A: A file in the TELECOM Digest archives under the name "how.phones.work" is available and should explain some details of the workings of the common telephone. Q: What is a COCOT? A: Customer-Owned Coin-Operated Telephone, or perhaps Coin-Operated Customer-Owned Telephone. Essentially, this is a privately-owned public telephone as opposed to the traditional payphone that is owned and operated by the local telephone company. The COCOT is the target of much scorn, as it often delivers less than what one would hope for in competition. Cited deficiencies of many of these units include lack of access to carriers like AT&T, default "carriers" that charge exorbitant rates for long distance calls, etc. Some of them don't even understand the new 908 area code that is now officially in service in New Jersey. Q: What does NPA, NNX, or NXX mean? A: NPA means Numbering Plan Area, a formal term meaning the common North American area code (like New York 212, Chicago 312, Toronto 416 etc). NNX refers to the format of the telephone number's prefix; (the first three digits of a phone number). The N represents a digit from 2 to 9; an X represents any digit 0 to 9. Thus, NNX prefixes can number from 220 to 999, as long as they do not have a 0 or 1 as the middle digit. NXX means any prefix from 200 to 999 could be represented, allowing for any value in the middle digit. Obvious special exceptions include 411 (directory assistance) and 911 (emergency). Q: What happens when all the telephone numbers run out? A: Within an area code, there are a maximum number of prefixes (ie. first three digits of a phone number) that can be assigned. In the original telephone "numbering plan", up to 640 prefixes could be assigned per area code (of the NNX format, 8 * 8 * 10). Yet, prefixes get used up due to growth and demand for new numbers (accelerated by popularity of separate fax or modem lines, or by new services such as the distinctive ringing numbers that ring a single line differently depending on which phone number was dialed). When the prefixes of NNX format run out, there are two options in order to allow for more prefixes, and in turn more numbers: 1) "splitting" the area code so that a new area code can accomodate new prefixes, or 2) allowing extra prefixes to be assigned by changing from NNX format to NXX format. The preferred option is to go with 2) first, in order to avoid having a new area code assignment. Yet, this gives the area code a maximum of 160 new prefixes, or 8 * 10 * 10 = 800. When the NXX format prefixes are used up, then 1) is not optional. New York and Los Angeles are two regions that have gone from NNX to NXX format prefixes first, then their area codes were split. Interestingly enough, some area codes have split even though there was no change from NNX format prefixes to NXX. Such splits have occurred in Florida (305/407) and Colorado (303/719). The precise reasons why a change to NXX-style prefixes was not done in those cases is unknown to this author, but switching requirements in those areas, plus telephone company expenses in changing from NNX to NXX format (and the likelihood of an eventual area code split) are likely factors in these decisions. Note that it is prefixes, and not necessarily the number of telephones, that determines how crowded an area code is. Small exchanges could use a whole prefix for only a few phones, while an urban exchange uses most of the 10 000 possible numbers per prefix. Companies, paging, test numbers and special services can be assigned their own prefixes as well, such as the 555 directory assistance prefix (555.1212). Q: Why does the long distance dialing within an area code often change so that 1 + home area code + number has to be dialed, or changed to just seven digits (like a local call)? A: When prefixes change to NXX, that means that the prefix numbers can be identical to area codes. The phone equipment is no longer able to make an easy distinction between what is an area code and what is a prefix within the home area code, based on the first three digits. For instance, it is hard for central offices to tell the difference between 1+210 555.2368 and 1+210.5552 Thus, 1 + area code + number for all calls is used in many area codes. Or ... just dialing seven digits within the area code for all calls, local or long distance (thus risking complaints from customers who thought they were making a local call when in fact the call was to a long distance exchange). It is up to each phone company to decide on how to handle prefix and dialing changes. The rules can change from place to place. Q: Are we really running out of area codes? A: Indeed, there are only a few possible area codes that can be assigned from the existing format. At present, all area codes have a 0 or 1 as the middle digit (212, 907, 416, 708, etc). However, the only standard area codes left to be assigned in that format would be 210, 810 and 910. It may be possible to free 610 from its usage in Canadian TWX service, and 710 from what is apparently reserved for government services. These exclude special cases such as area codes ending in -00 for special services like 800 or 900. Also, -11 area codes could be confused with services like 411 (directory assistance) or 911 (emergency); indeed, a few places require 1+411 for directory assistance. Q: How will we make room if the area codes are running out? A: Bellcore, which oversees the assignment of area codes and the North American Numbering Plan in general, has made a recommendation that "interchangeable" area codes be allowed as of July 1995. That means that there no longer need to be a 0 or 1 as the middle digit of an area code, and in fact the area code will become NXX format. While some suggest that eight-digit local numbers or four-digit area codes be established, the interchangeable area code plan has been on the books for many years. One aspect of the plan is that, initially, the new area codes will end in 0 (such as 220, 650, etc). This would make it easier on a few area codes so that they could conceivably retain the ability to dial 1+number (without dialing the home area code) for long distance calls within the area code, provided that they have not assigned prefixes ending in zero that would conflict with new area codes. That option is not possible for many area codes that have already assigned some prefixes of "NN0" format, however. Eventualy, the distinction between area code and prefix formats would be completely lost. It is conceivable that the date for changing North America over to interchangeable area codes (yes, this change will be felt throughout the U.S. and Canada) could be moved to an earlier date, or that the existing area codes plus the few waiting to be assigned will have to make do until 1995, causing some service shortages in some areas. Another possibility includes using some of the special -00 or -11 codes (like 200 or 311) as area codes as a last resort. Q: What are touch tones made of? A: The touch tone system uses pairs of tones to represent the various keys. There is a "low tone" and a "high tone" associated with each button (0 through 9, plus * (star) and # (octothorpe or pound symbol). The low tones vary according to what horizontal row the tone button is in, while the high tones correspond to the vertical column of the tone button. The tones and assignments are as follows: 1 2 3 A : 697 Hz 4 5 6 B : 770 Hz (low tones) 7 8 9 C : 825 Hz * 0 # D : 941 Hz ---- ---- ---- ---- 1209 1336 1477 1633 Hz (high tones) When the 4 button is pressed, the 770 Hz and 1209 Hz tones are sent together. The telephone central office will then decode the number from this pair of tones. The tone frequencies were designed to avoid harmonics and other problems that could arise when two tones are sent and received. Accurate transmission from the phone and accurate decoding on the telephone company end are important. They may sound rather musical when dialed (and representations of many popular tunes are possible), but they are not intended to be so. Q: Why is a touch tone line more expensive than a rotary dial line (in many places)? A: This has been an occasional debate topic in the Digest. Indeed, there can be a surcharge from $1 to $3 per month to have the ability to dial using touch tone. In modern equipment, touch tone is actually better and cheaper for the phone company to administer that the old pulse/rotary dialing system. The tone dialing charge can be attributed to the value of a demanded service; tone is better, thus a premium can be applied for this privilege. Also, it is something of a holdover from the days when tone service required extra expense to decode with the circuitry originally available. This is especially true on crossbar exchanges, or where tone would have to be converted to dial pulses as is the case with step-by-step. Today, integrated circuits are readily available for decoding the tones used in dialing, and are a standard part of electronic switching systems. Some telephone companies have abandoned a premium charge for tone dialing by including this in local service. Others still hold to some form of tone surcharge. Q: What's this about the FCC starting a modem tax for those using modems on phone lines? A: This is one of those tall urban legends, on the order of the Craig Shergold story (yes, folks, he's doing okay as of last report). This is an unsubstantiated rumour and as such should not be acted on. Official information from the FCC would come forth were such a proposal to occur. Reading up on regulators' announcements is a good pastime in any case, just to get the information from the source rather than from some dubious posting on a network. Q: How can I prevent the call waiting tone from beeping in mid-conversation? A: If you place the call, and don't want to get interrupted, a call waiting suppression code is dialed before dialing the call itself. The most common code for this is *70 or 1170 (on rotary dial phone lines). 70# (or 70 and wait on rotary phone) could also be used in some areas. Thus, to call 555.0000 so that call waiting is disabled, dial *70 (or whatever the correct code is for your area), wait for another dial tone, then dial 555.0000 as usual. Suppressing call waiting tone on an *incoming* call may be possible depending on how your phone company has set the central office. One possible way of doing this is to flash your switch-hook briefly, see if a dial tone comes on, then try dialing the call waiting suppress code (*70 or whatever). This method is not guaranteed, however; your phone company might be able to give a better answer if the preceding doesn't work. The following questions were suggested by Nathan Glasser (nathan@brokaw.lcs.mit.edu): Q: What are the A, B, C and D touch tone keys used for? Why are they not found on touch tone phone sets? A: These are extensions to the standard touch-tones (0-9, *, #) that had their origins in the miltary's phone network. The original names of these keys were FO (Flash Override), F (Flash), I (Immediate), and P (Priority) which represented priority levels that could establish a phone connection with varying degrees of immediacy, killing other conversations on the network if necessary with FO being the greatest priority, down to P being of lesser priority. The tones are more commonly referred to as the A, B, C and D tones respectively, and all use a 1633 Hz as their high tone. Nowadays, these keys/tones are mainly used in special applications such as amateur radio repeaters for their signalling/control. Modems and touch tone circuits tend to include the A, B, C and D tones as well. These tones have not been used for general public service, and it would take years before these tones could be used in such things as customer information lines; such services would have to be compatibile with the existing 12-button touch tone sets in any case. Q: Where can I find a list of equal access (10XXX) codes? A: The TELECOM Digest Archives has lists of these codes. They are contained in the files occ.10xxx.access.codes and occ.10xxx.list.updated in the Archives at lcs.mit.edu or letni.lonestar.org. New information on these codes, or other access codes, appears in TELECOM Digest on occasion as well. Q: How can I tell who my default carrier is (or that of a 10XXX+ carrier)? A: Dial 1 700 555.4141, and that should get a recording indicating the default carrier. This should be a free call. From regular lines, dialing 10XXX + 1 700 555.4141 can yield the identifying recordings of other carriers. On payphones, AT&T is always a "default" carrier for coin calls (not for calls placed on other carriers cards, though), thus their recording is heard whatever carrier access codes are used. FAQ submission from Dan Boehlke (with formatting and some proofreading thrown in): Q: What is the best way to busy a phone line? I have a bank of modems which are set up as a hunt group. When a modem dies I would like to be able to busy out the line that is disconnected, so that one of the other modems in the hunt group will take the call. A: Our modem lines all enter on RJ21 "punchblocks" so I've got some rather nice clips that can be pushed over the terminals on the blocks and make contact with the pair that I want to busy out. Between the two terminals on the clip I have a red LED and a 270 ohm 1/2w resistor in series. As long as I get the clip on the right way, it busies out the line and lights up so I can see that I've got one of the lines busied out. Since most of our modems have error correction, I've even gotten away with putting one of these on a line that's in use -- when the user disconnects, the line remains busy and I can then pull the modem at my leisure. The modem's error correction fixes the blast of noise from the clip as I slip it in. Brian [Further notes: A setup like this is not necessary. For most systems simply shorting tip and ring together will busy out the phone line. Some older systems, and lines that do not have much wire between the switch and the point at which it terminates will need a 270 ohm 1/2 watt resistor. The resistor is necessary because on a short line will not have enough resistance to make up for the lack of a load. Most modern systems have a current limiter that will prevent problems. Older system may not have a current limiter and may supply more current than modern systems do. In the followup discussion, we learned that we should not do this to incoming WATS lines and other lines that will cause the phone companie's diagnostics centers to get excited. A particular example was an incomming 800 number that was not needed for a few days. The new 800 number was subscribed to one of those plans that let you move it to another location in the event of a problem. Well the AT&T diagnostic center saw the busy'ed out line as a problem and promptly called the owner. -dan] From Maurice E. DeVidts (ceham@wam.umd.edu): Q: How can I get specifications on how Caller ID service works? A: The official documentation on how the Caller ID or calling line ID works is available for purchase from Bellcore. A description of what those documents are and how to get them is available in the TELECOM Digest Archives file caller-id-specs.bellcore. In general, the Caller ID information is passed to the set in ASCII using a 1200 baud modem signal (FSK) sent between the first and second rings. ( end of list ) --------- Thanks! Send future Frequently Asked Questions direct to the author at the address shown at the top of this file ... NOT to Telecom!   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01407; 2 Sep 91 1:08 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00758; 1 Sep 91 15:41 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21113; 1 Sep 91 14:34 CDT Date: Sun, 1 Sep 91 14:16:41 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #691 BCC: Message-ID: <9109011416.ab29746@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 1 Sep 91 14:16:32 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 691 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: FAQ List [Alan Barclay] Re: "Swinging Grounds" [Niall Gallagher] Wiring Questions For New Home [Dennis G. Rears] Re: Phone Gall [Bob Izenberg] Visa / MC Verification with PC and Modem [Greg Broiles] Re: Disconnect Timing (Telephone Line Status Lights) [Al L. Varney] Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls [Sander J. Rabinowitz] Re: AT&T Data Network [Bill Mayhew] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Barclay Subject: Re: FAQ List Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 14:51:30 bst I noticed that you are building a FAQ list for the list/group, and thought I'd put in my 0.02$ worth in. One common question is can my US modem or phone work in the UK, or some other European country, the answer to this is usually yes, provided that the AC Voltage and the physical jack are compatable or converted, and it can generate pulse dialing, as many exchanges are not equipped for touch tone. But I think there should be a disclaimer put in, as in most European countries it is illegal to fit non-approved equipment. In the UK approving equipment is the reponsability of BABT, and the penelty is confiscation of the equipment plus a fine of up to 2000 pounds sterling. Approved equipment has a mark, usually a sticker, of a green circle with the words "APPROVED for connection to the telecommunication system specified in the instructions subject to the condition set out in them" and the number of the BABT certificate. Non-approved items if they are sold in the UK must have a sticker with a red triangle with similar wording execpt that it's saying the exact opposite. It's perfectly legal to sell non-approved equipment subject to the above, as there may be a valid reason for using it, just not on the UK network. Alan Barclay, iT, Barker Lane, CHESTERFIELD, S40 1DY, Derbys, England alan@ukpoit.uucp, ..!ukc!ukpoit!alan, FAX:+44 246 214353, VOICE:+44 246 214241 iT - The Information Technology Business | Presume the std disclaimer here Of The Post Office : In Tune With Technology | as I never said this! ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 91 14:12:00 EDT From: Niall (N.)Gallagher Subject: Re: "Swinging Grounds" Bob Wier [Telecom #682] asks what the phone company was measuring in his inside wiring. > Now, this was an *OLD* instrument, bakelite case, probably 50's or > early 60's. And sure enough the needle (digital, we don't need no > stinkin' digital!) swung up and down in a somewhat random manner. I > asked he was he was measuring ... What the phone company technician checked at Bob Wier's house was probably Earth Impedance Balance. This is a measurement of how balanced the two impedances Tip-GND and Ring-GND are. If there is imbalance then transmission suffers, typically with increased sidetone and transhybrid reflection. You can't measure the Earth Impedance Balance with a DC voltmeter; it's an audio frequency measurement and requires an AC signal source and special measurement bridge. The needle swung up and down with frequency. The problem is frequently caused by water breaking down cable insulation. It must have pretty bad for the phone company to check your inside wiring ... Regarding your problem with DTMF tones causing your CO to convert bank PINs etc. into dialpulse, the advice to use "#" is sound. The # digit (or octothorpe) is normally used as the end-of-dialling signal and should cause the DTMF to DP convertor to ignore further DTMF digits on a given call. Try it, it should work. Niall Gallagher Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada NIALL@BNR.CA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Aug 91 22:04:06 EDT From: Dennis G. Rears Subject: Wiring Questions For New Home I will be buying and moving into a new condo in April, 1992. The unit will be constructed in about three months. I am wondering about the wiring. The standard wiring is normal electrical, cable, and three pair telepohne wiring. I will be living there for at least four years. I forsee a need for at least six phone lines, additional wiring for computer networking, stuff for audio/visual. I am not an engineer, but a computer scientist. What type of additional wiring should I request: o 2 three pair telephone wiring + another coax (audio/visual) o 25 pair telephone wiring. If I get 25 pair telephone wiring could it present problems to the telephone company? Dennis ------------------------------ From: Bob Izenberg Subject: Re: Phone Gall Date: Sun, 1 Sep 91 4:59:19 CDT Reply-To: bei@dogface.austin.tx.us On Sat, 31 Aug 91 12:44 PDT, John Higdon wrote, answering Justin Leavens message saying that AT&T should eat the cost of hacked phone service made possible by customer unfamiliarity with their hardware: > Any debate over responsibility here is bovine excretion. It is the > vendor's responsibility to the customer to make sure he knows about > his equipment. It is the customer's responsibility to make sure he > knows about his equipment. It is AT&T's responsibility to carry any > calls presented to it by the customer. And it is the customer's sole > responsibility to pay for them. A different standard of care exists amongst some computer manufacturers. Picking Sun Microsystems as an example, they take pains to make security fixes for SunOS available to registered customers. They make them ftpable on CERT's machine (and others.) While a company may not be legally liable for a security breach made possible by its product, it isn't good business sense to just do nothing (or, nothing but present a bill for the unauthorized services used during the breach.) It can be a PR liability ... but some companies are decades and thousands of lobbyists beyond having to worry about what they do looking bad. Are computer manufacturers that different from telephone equipment makers? Bob ------------------------------ From: Greg Broiles Subject: Visa / MC Verification With PC and Modem Organization: Open Communications Forum Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1991 10:53:43 GMT The August, 1991 issue of {Boardwatch Magazine} (a magazine which seems to be about BBS's and modem use in general) has a short article discussing the use of PC's and modems for posting/verifying Mastercard and Visa transactions. Apparently, the lion's share of online validation is done through either of two large clearinghouses -- Visanet or First Data Resources. The article also reviews each clearinghouse's software. It says that FDR's program, First Data Resources Personal Ticket Capture, has "quite poor" documentation, and suggests that "... the program itself is only marginally better." FDR-PTC costs $250 and "... does not allow interface to other databases or programs"; it is based on a batch- processing model, though one could, perhaps, run single-transaction batches. The other product, SOFT*DEPOSIT, met with more favor. SOFT*DEPOSIT files are apparently all-text and readable/writable by other software. S*D will process transactions individually or in batches. SOFT*DEPOSIT costs $289; contact information is listed as: David Carter American Digital Corporation 8585 SW Fir Lane Terrace Portland, OR 97223 (503) 293-3853 Contact information is not listed for the perpetrators of FDR-PTC. I have no connection to {Boardwatch}, FDR, or ADC, and have never used any of these products. Heck, I don't even subscribe to the magazine. Greg Broiles CI$: 74017,3623 greg@agora.rain.com PO Box 8988, Portland, OR 97207-8988 MCIMail: gbroiles ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Sep 91 09:01:24 CDT From: Al L Varney Subject: Disconnect Timing (was Telephone Line Status Lights) Organization: AT&T Network Systems In article rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) writes: [ regarding techniques for using 'phone exclusion' devices ] > Another way to do this is leave the VoiceGuard downstairs. Then when > you're upstairs and get a call for your roommate, tell the other party > to hold, and hang up the phone. Then tell your roommate to pick up > the phone. Every CO I've used will keep the connection up for a > minute or two on incoming calls. This is by design, so that you can > hang up and then pick up a different phone. Is this universal or have > I just been lucky? Ah, yes, one of my favorite LSSGR (CO requirements from Bellcore) issues is the required 10-12 second "disconnect timing" for POTS calls. But it's not 1 minute in any Switch I've supported. Any way, it is by design. Many elements in the existing switching and transmission plant still present brief (.5 to 2 seconds) off-hook indications in the backward call direction before answer occurs. Similar conditions exist after answer (only then it's a brief on-hook) for calls using certain features such as call waiting, etc. These brief signals have caused many problems over the years, but backwards compatibility doesn't come without costs. The problems with brief false answer are probably obvious -- the call is billed but no one really answered. The problems with an early (false) disconnect are also pretty obvious. However, the disconnect timing "solution" has it's drawbacks as well. Briefly, the 10 - 12 second timing should occur in the Originating CO when the Called Party goes on-hook. The Terminating CO should also start a "disconnect guard" timer of about 15 seconds. Originating CO [Call in progress..] Terminating CO -------------- -------------- Caller Off-hook (C.off), Called Off-hook (D.off), trunk off-hook (T.off) -----> <------- trunk off-hook (T.off) [Called goes on-hook, signal on-hook via trunk] C.off, T.off ---------------> <------- D.on, T.on [start 10-12 second timing] [start 15 second timing] At this point, three events could occur. Caller goes on-hook, and the call terminates. Or Called goes back off-hook, and the call continues. Or one of the timers fires and the call terminates, with the off-hook Caller getting either dial tone or re-order. Tandem switches in between usually just pass the signals. The problem with this solution to false disconnect signals is that, so long as the Caller stays off-hook, the Called line is tied up for ten seconds or so. Many business-folk find this to be a problem -- they want dial tone right after hanging up on incoming calls. This is what PBXs do, and folks want Centrex and business lines to do the same. So most Switches offer a line option that might be called Prohibit Terminating Disconnect Timing (PTDT). (Quick, find the 5ESS(tm) Switch Features Handbook!) This option in the Terminating CO will disconnect the line from the trunk after about .8 seconds, after "flash" timing. But the incoming trunk cannot do more than signal on-hook to the Originating CO, where the 10 - 12 second timer is still running. So the Caller could still hold the trunk(s) for up to ten seconds, even though a re-connect is not possible. With SS7, the Terminating CO can send a RELease message when PTDT applies, otherwise a SUSpend message is sent. So SS7 will idle all the trunk(s) involved right away for PTDT terminating lines. Note that there is no option in the Originating CO to ignore the 10-12 second requirement, since the expectations (and equipment) at the Terminating line are unknown. Even ISDN terminals must implement the timer at the originating end, if the call is not to another ISDN terminal (with SS7 signaling for inter-office cases). Unfortunately, there are some CO vendors using PBX logic (for business services, anyway) that fail to implement the LSSGR, so their customers may find the required timing fails (either at the originating or terminating end). A PBX is usually insulated from all these backward compatibility issues by the connecting CO; in that case, the on-hook from the Terminating office will still have the timing performed at the Originating CO. NOTE: Disconnect timing applies to lines (not trunks). And multiple-connection (three-party, conference, etc.) calls have their own set of rules. > [Moderator's Note: In crossbar and other older offices, you can do > what you say. In newer ESS offices, you take your chances. PAT] Since ESS(tm) is a trademark of AT&T, I would take issue with your literal remark. Every ESS product does disconnect timing! As for other switch vendors, well .... If your CO doesn't allow you to call someone on a non-PTDT line and have them hang up for five seconds and re-connect, or if your own non-PTDT line doesn't allow this for incoming calls, you could certainly complain to your Telephone Company. The capability may not be noted under tariff, but it's certainly a CO requirement. Al Varney, Network Services Customer Support, AT&T-NS, Lisle, IL [Moderator's Note: Five seconds! Well I suppose I get that long ... but under the old system I could hang up the phone in my bathroom, walk to my bedroom, sit down and pick up the phone there, etc. No longer. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Sep 91 16:42 GMT From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <0003829147@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls John Higdon (on 29 Aug 91): > This is absolutely not true. Most telcos (including Pac*Bell) have > some very definite limits on telephone credit. Me (in a previous edition of TELECOM Digest, responding to John Higdon): > If that's the case, shouldn't the credit limit be revealed to the > customer? With my bank cards, I know *exactly* what my credit limit > is even before I make my very first purchase on the card. Charlie Mingo replied: > Telephone billing is more akin to "charge cards" (where you have to > pay the bill in full each month), than "credit cards" (where you have > a revolving line of credit). "Roger B.A. Klorese" added: > Do you have an American Express or Diner's Club card? You know how > they keep saying you have no credit limit? Look again: they actually > usually say no "fixed" or "pre-determined" credit unit. In fact, they > set it, and ratchet it up or down depending on your history, without > ever telling you what it is. The telcos behave the same way. I guess what sets a telephone bill apart from, say, American Express or Diners Club, is that the telephone bill is linked to an essential utility (namely, your telephone service). The charge cards aren't. That's why I think it is more critical that a customer be made aware of his/her credit limit with respect to the use of a telephone in general, and with 900/976 services in particular. Hey ... I just thought of another possible solution! Have two seperate credit limits -- one for 900/976 services (like $100/month), and another for everything else! Then the customer could still change some toll services direct to his phone bill, keep the convenience of this billing method (as John Higdon points out, some people don't have credit cards), yet prevent 900/976 charges from getting out of hand! Does this sound plausible? Sander J. Rabinowitz | sjr@mcimail.com -or- | +1 615 661 4645 Brentwood, Tenn. | 0003829147@mcimail.com | 8-) ------------------------------ From: Bill Mayhew Subject: Re: AT&T Data Network Organization: Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine Date: Sun, 01 Sep 91 17:11:09 GMT Here in Akron, Ohio, dialing 950-1288 results in connecting to an intercept recording that says (to my best approximation), "We are sorry. The number you have dialed can not be completed using your carrier access code. Please check the number and dial again...." As usual, a call to 1-700-555-4141 shows that AT&T is still my LD carrier. Interesting. Bill Mayhew NEOUCOM Computer Services Department Rootstown, OH 44272-9995 USA phone: 216-325-2511 wtm@uhura.neoucom.edu ....!uunet!aablue!neoucom!wtm via internet: (140.220.001.001) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #691 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02829; 2 Sep 91 3:15 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15942; 1 Sep 91 19:48 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04060; 1 Sep 91 18:41 CDT Date: Sun, 1 Sep 91 18:27:14 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #692 BCC: Message-ID: <9109011827.ab26460@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 1 Sep 91 18:27:10 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 692 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors? [John Nagle] Re: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors? [H. Peter Anvin] Re: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors? [Michael A. Covington] Re: Cellular Phones and Scanner Radios Legislation [Jordan M. Kossack] Re: Need Help Identifying Mystery 900 Call [Bill Huttig] Re: Credit Card Blocking (was Billing Responsibility and 900) [John Higdon] Re: MCI Mail Personal Network Promo Until Dec 31 [Bill Huttig] Re: AT&T ACUS System Just Installed Here [Gabe M. Wiener] Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers [H. Hallikainen] Re: Underground Cable (was Himicane Bob) [Harold Hallikainen] Re: Caller ID Program For PC Hits The Street [Harold Hallikainen] Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls [Doug Conrad] Phone Color Boxes [Nathan Friedman] Specs Wanted on Telco Provided Lines [Harold Hallikainen] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Nagle Subject: Re: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors? Date: Sun, 01 Sep 91 18:16:00 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Cellular phone is in the high UHF band, so you can receive cellular transmissions on some old TV sets that tune channels 63-82. (The bandwidth for cellular phone systems was obtained by taking those channels out of the TV band). It's barely possible that some old TV set with a cheap RF section might get some interference from a harmonic. But I've never heard of this happening. You could contact the FCC field engineer in San Francisco for information. But I wouldn't expect interference problems. Cellular towers transmit at very low power levels. That's the whole point of cellular systems; to use just enough power to cover the small areas assigned to each tower. There are many transmitters on the tower (in theory, up to 800, but few have that many installed), each transmitting at a few watts if that channel is in use. Cellular towers transmit at about the same power level as cellular phones. In comparison, a police radio might transmit at 30 watts, an AM broadcast station at 10,000 to 50,000 watts, and some TV stations transmit more than a million watts. There are houses within a few hundred feet of the Twin Peaks broadcast tower in San Francisco; you might ask if they have any problems. Cellular towers may be ugly, but their power output is low. John Nagle ------------------------------ From: "H. Peter Anvin, N9ITP" Subject: Re: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors? Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1991 21:19:04 GMT In article of comp.dcom.telecom, Toby Nixon writes: > Pactel Cellular is proposing to construct a cellular tower (150-200 > feet tall) on top of a hill adjacent to our subdivision. It would be [...] > different if it was right in one's back yard). But some folks are > concerned about the site interfering with radio, television, phones > (hardwired, cordless, cellular), wireless baby monitors, garage door > openers, and even their health Cordless phones, wireless baby monitors and garage door openers are authorized under 47 CFR part 15, which specifically state that: a) Use of these devices must not interfere with licensed radio services b) Users of these devices must accept any interference from loicensed radio services Translation: if you get problems with interference of the above devices, it is your tough luck. You have *no* say against it. Radio and television should not be affected, unless you have a bad (usually = old) instrument. If your radio/TV is of recent age, it should not interfere; if it does, complain. The solution may involve modifying your own equipment, installing traps on the antenna wire etc. Cellular phones should work better than ever! Health effects should be minimal, although exposure to high doses of microwave radiation is potentially dangerous, the dose of a cell phone tower should be negible. 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: "Michael A. Covington" Subject: Re: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors? Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Date: Sun, 1 Sep 91 22:04:33 GMT I would think the risk of radio or TV interference from a cellular tower is minimal. Interference is almost always on frequencies *higher* than that of the transmitter. This means that, for instance, a CB on 27 MHz might interfere with TV reception in the 50-88 MHz range, but a cellular transmitter on 850 MHz is very unlikely to interfere with anything below 850 MHz. This puts it well above all radio and TV broadcasts. The radiation hazard is also minimal because cellular towers use quite low power. (I don't know exactly, but based on my ham radio experience I'd think a cellular tower would work fine emitting five watts.) That's the same as a CB radio or a police walkie-talkie, but of course the cellular tower is much farther from human beings. This is just some (partly) educated guessing. Maybe someone will give us actual experiences. Michael A. Covington, Ph.D. | mcovingt@uga.cc.uga.edu | N4TMI Assistant to the Director, Artificial Intelligence Programs The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, U.S.A. ------------------------------ From: "Jordan M. Kossack" Subject: Re: Cellular Phones and Scanner Radios Legislation Organization: Taronga Park BBS Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1991 15:09:28 GMT In article 0003829147@mcimail.com (Sander J. Rabinowitz) writes: > Within 180 days after the date of enactment of the Federal > Communications Commission Authorization Act of 1991, the Commission > shall prescribe and make effective regulations denying equipment > authorization ... for any scanning receiver that is capable of -- > (A) receiving transmissions in the frequencies allocated > to the domestic cellular radio telecommunications service, If this passes as written, I hope the companies that manufacture celtels will be required to comply with this legislation. :-) kossack@taronga.hackercorp.com Jordan Kossack (713) 270-9056 ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: Need Help Identifying Mystery 900 Call Date: 1 Sep 91 17:21:55 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL At the local 7-11 they advertise a 900 number (well, really two of them). I forgot exactly what they are but I think they were some kind of game. Anyway, when you dial the number it translates into something else and you end up getting a tone for a BOC calling card. I think Visa / Mastercard might work. On the very bottom of the poster in tiny letters it says that the call might show up as a '700' call. I guess that the LEC's allow 700 calls to be billed to them while not allowing the 900 ones. I remember about five years ago a TV comercial that said to dial 10441 (I think not sure) 1-700-xxx-xxxx. I assume thats how they get around the 900 number blocking. Bill [Moderator's Note: More information on these numbers please. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Sep 91 09:58 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Credit Card Blocking (was Billing Responsibility and 900) frankston!Bob_Frankston@world.std.com writes: > In the spirit of 900, 976, 540 blocking, I propose that anyone who has > ever gotten an invalid credit card charge try credit card blocking. > There is no need for fraud handling in the credit card system, just > don't use any. Also, stop using checks. You can also protect > yourself from counterfeit money by just not using any. And get 911 > blocking so you can be sure it doesn't get abused from your phone. And > 411 blocking. Nice little bit of witty sarcasm, but it misses the mark completely. Go back and look at those who seem to overlook blocking as an alternative (and even some who don't). The arguments are that 900/976 serves no purpose. Are you saying that some 900/976 services are OK and that blocking would deprive you of them? If so, then congratulations, we are in perfect agreement. There is nothing most IPs would like better than to see the slime go away. One other point of note: Pac*Bell offers "selective" 900 blocking. Supposedly, you can block "sleaze" calls while allowing calls to "family" operations. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: MCI Mail Personal Network Promo Until Dec 31 Date: 1 Sep 91 17:30:22 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article 0002293637@mcimail.com (Krislyn Companies) writes: > Additionally, the new subscriber will receive a $20 discount on the > $35 registration fee. I can see it now: they add a Business and Associate program to MCI mail where you get a 20% discount to those most frequently MCI mailed people. ;-} Bill ------------------------------ From: Gabe M Wiener Subject: Re: AT&T ACUS System Just Installed Here Reply-To: Gabe M Wiener Organization: Columbia University Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1991 22:01:23 GMT In article 2358michellp@vmsf.csd.mu.edu writes: > We have the ACUS system here at Marquette University (Milwaukee) as > well. However, ACUS does not serve as a Bell "substitute". As far as > I know they only handle our long distance service. We have never been > billed for local service, only long distance. The ACUS service was > instituted this year to keep roommate arguments over who pays what on > a long distance bill to a minimum. Since every student has their own > code it is pretty nice. > I am insterested as to how ACUS can also serve as your local service > provider as well. I would think that Illinois Bell would be a bit > miffed at this. We have ACUS here at Columbia in connection with the ROLM 9751 PBX that serves about 95% of the CU campus. All billing, local or LD, comes on the ACUS bill. Local service is provided by NYTEL, and long distance by AT&T. I think the ACUS setup is just for accounting purposes, as I'm sure that Columbia itself pays NYTEL for local usage. Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ. gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu N2GPZ in ham radio circles 72355,1226 on CI$ ------------------------------ From: Harold Hallikainen Subject: Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1991 18:51:06 GMT Regarding running out of phone numbers, is there any reason to assign multiple numbers to multiple lines that go to the same place just to get "rotary" or "hunting" or whatever it's called when my second line rings when the first line is busy? Seems like a lot of numbers could be freed up by assigning these numbers that are rarely called. Harold [Moderator's Note: Perhaps what you are suggesting is telco should make more use of circuits without dialable numbers assigned to them. We have quite a few of those in Chicago. A business has X incoming lines, but only one actual number. It is impossible to dial direct into any of the back lines. You dial the listed number; telco gets the call and hunts around for a circuit in your group which is free and sends the call on it. Something like that would free up a lot of numbers which are essentially irrelevant to the subscriber. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Harold Hallikainen Subject: Re: Underground Cable (was Himicane Bob) Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1991 19:53:14 GMT Underground cables should also bring a lot less lightning into the building to destroy our equipment. Harold Hallikainen ap621@Cleveland.Freenet.edu Hallikainen & Friends, Inc. hhallika@pan.calpoly.edu 141 Suburban Road, Bldg E4 phone 805 541 0200 fax 544 6715 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7590 telex 4932775 HFI UI [Moderator's Note: Maybe or maybe not. I wouldn't count on it and remove all my lightning protection as being unneeded. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Harold Hallikainen Subject: Re: Caller ID Program For PC Hits The Street Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1991 19:44:10 GMT Can someone provide the data format for caller ID? What is sent down the line when? Harold ------------------------------ From: Doug Konrad Subject: Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls Organization: Univ. of Alberta Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1991 16:07:40 -0600 In 0003829147@mcimail.com (Sander J. Rabinowitz) writes: > Hey ... I just thought of another possible solution! Have two > seperate credit limits -- one for 900/976 services (like $100/month), > and another for everything else! Then the customer could still change > some toll services direct to his phone bill, keep the convenience of > this billing method (as John Higdon points out, some people don't have > credit cards), yet prevent 900/976 charges from getting out of hand! When this heated up a few days ago, I came to the identical conclusion that Mr. Rabinowitz did. Other that making a few programmers rich at the phone company's expense, I think it meets the needs (through compromise) of all parties. Doug Konrad doug@ee.ualberta.ca ------------------------------ From: nathanf@cup.portal.com Subject: Phone Color Boxes Date: Sun, 1 Sep 91 08:14:32 PDT Recently, I have seen plans and kits advertised for telephone color boxes (blue boxes, silver boxes, etc.). I was wondering the legality of them. I am fairly confident that it is illegal to use them, but what about making them or selling them? Would it be legal to sell them in kit form, but not as a completed unit? What about possession? Also, I would like to know who is responsible for the prosecution? The FCC? Thank you, Nathan Friedman [Moderator's Note: Indeed, those boxes are all highly illegal to use, and of marginal legality at best to sell or construct in kit form (where usually the leit motif is 'for educational purposes only'). The FCC, like all federal agencies with a beef, refers the matter to the Justice Department ... and a finer bunch of people you won't meet in your life when it comes to their technical knowledge of hacking and phreaking; and their desire to exhibit courtesy and respect the private property rights of hackers and phreakers they, uh, 'visit' in their homes and offices. :) Just get caught with a 'colored box' sir; we'll be discussing your case here in the Digest also. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Harold Hallikainen Subject: Specs Wanted on Telco Provided Lines Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1991 21:34:29 GMT Is there somewhere archived a list of specs on various types of switched and nonswitched lines that can be ordered from a local telco? I have an old book on 3002 circuits, but wonder what the current specs and names are for Local Area Data lines, other analog and digital dedicated circuits, etc. Also, how does switched 56 kbps service work? If I want to send only a few bits per second across the country, but want to keep the "virtual circuit" continuously up (so I can detect loss of the circuit), are there any dedicated low speed data circuits available (probably thru a packet network)? I've been told the most economical way to do this is using VSAT. True? Harold ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #692 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03684; 2 Sep 91 4:32 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00087; 2 Sep 91 2:56 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad09492; 2 Sep 91 1:50 CDT Date: Mon, 2 Sep 91 1:34:13 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #693 BCC: Message-ID: <9109020134.ab21266@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 2 Sep 91 01:34:00 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 693 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Labor Day, 1991 [TELECOM Moderator] Antenna Power (was: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors?) [Neil Rickert] LA's 213/310 Area Code Split [Robert L. McMillin] Re: Phone Rates Across the USA [Robert L. McMillin] Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls [John Higdon] Re: Phone Color Boxes [John Higdon] Re: Wiring Questions For New Home [Patton M. Turner] Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers [Bill Huttig] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 1 Sep 91 18:53:26 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Labor Day, 1991 I'd like to make a suggestion that each of you pause for a few minutes and reflect on the role of the working people in America who have over the years created our telecommunications networks. Sadly, Labor Day has become a holiday just to mark the end of the summer and the approach of fall and winter ... a chance for one last fling in the sun as it were. But the origin of Labor Day in the late nineteenth century was intended as a lot more than just another three day weekend. It was intended to celebrate the labor of the working men and women in the United States, and to honor them for their contributions to society. Perhaps if you get a little time free today between stuffing yourselves with hotdogs, closing up the summer house and visiting the fantastic holiday sales at the malls, you might ask yourself where would we be today without them ... the working men and women of our past who brought us to where we are today. And don't forget also that our own labor is a heritage we leave for future generations. Remember how 'they' used to build things? Why don't we begin to build things that way again, with the dedication and craftsmanship which our grandparents and great-grandparents had? Let's take pride in our own work, turning out products of which we have nothing to be ashamed, remembering that 'made in the USA' used to mean the best money could buy. And it can mean that again, if we all do the very best we can at our chosen labors. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Neil Rickert Subject: Antenna Power (was: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors?) Organization: Northern Illinois University Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1991 00:47:35 GMT In article nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes: > In comparison, a police radio might transmit at 30 watts, an AM > broadcast station at 10,000 to 50,000 watts, and some TV stations > transmit more than a million watts. There are houses within a few I would be interested to hear if there are really any TV stations which transmit more than a million watts. The advertized power is usually the "Effective Radiation Power", which is the actual power multiplied by the antenna gain. The actual power is much less than the ERP. Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science Northern Illinois Univ. DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Sep 91 18:46:57 PDT From: "Robert L. McMillin" Subject: LA's 213/310 Area Code Split On November 2, 1991, Los Angeles' 213 area code will split in two, forming a new 310 code along the coast and in the northern, western, and southern parts of the County. The question I have is this: currently, the 310 prefix is already assigned as a Santa Monica exchange. I have read of no plans to eliminate this prefix, since no Los Angeles phone prefix begins with 213, 818, 714, 805, or, for that matter, 415. Since Santa Monica in its entirety (I would assume) is to switch to the 310 area code, has anyone heard of the fate of this prefix? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Sep 91 18:37:51 PDT From: "Robert L. McMillin" Subject: Re: Phone Rates Across the USA Dave Niebuhr requests info on how basic phone bills stack up across the country. Things aren't that different in Los Angeles. I get GTE service, as do most people near the beach, San Pedro and the harbor area being a notable exception. One problem with LA -- it's spread out. Since distance is a primary meter for phone calls, we get reamed here. I remember the day I got my phone bill after I first started dating a girl who lived in Pasadena -- yikes! The first minute was .25 and .16 thereafter, with the usual rate reductions during evening and night hours. (Fortunately, that relationship didn't last long... talk about geographic undesirability!) Because everyone has a car, and friends tend to scatter, you can run up some ungodly phone bills quickly. My average GTE phone bill runs around $80, although it will rarely exceed $100. Since our fearless Moderator published the miscellaneous expenses on his phone bill, here are mine for a recent month: Basic service $16.75 Inside wire maintenance contract $0.95 Interstate subscriber line charge $3.50 GTE communications devices fund for the deaf $0.20 Funding to support the PUC $0.07 Universal lifeline telephone surcharge $1.38 Temporary surcharge as allowed by the PUC $3.72 FET $2.18 911 tax $0.50 Torrance City Tax (I don't live in LA proper) $4.35 GTE recently stopped charging for touch-tone service. The $16.75 figure includes frequent caller plans to two long-distance areas that I call frequently, and a general circle-calling arrangement, the basic service fee, and their "Smartest Call" package, which includes call waiting, last number redial, and call waiting shutoff (yes, they make you upgrade your calling package to shut it off, and at $15 a change, too!). The PUC recently forced some Zone Unit Measurement calls, what were called "Zone 2", to be folded into the non-toll call area. These were those calls through exchanges 8 to 12 miles away. This did me little good, as my phone service goes through an exchange that is in a beach community. In other words, I got "free" service calling to certain Los Angeles exchanges, parts of Santa Monica, Marina Del Rey, and ... Compton. Whee! Had I the foresight to live further inland, as do my parents, I would probably have seen a substantially greater increase in my non-toll area, and in areas that I could use, as well. A general question to those more knowledgable than myself: Why haven't the various PUC's considered a more equal-area approach? It seems as though getting phone service from a beach exchange leaves you a bit screwed. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Sep 91 18:27 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Billing Responsibility and 900 Calls "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <0003829147@mcimail.com> writes: > Hey ... I just thought of another possible solution! Have two > seperate credit limits -- one for 900/976 services (like $100/month), > and another for everything else! Then the customer could still change > some toll services direct to his phone bill, keep the convenience of > this billing method (as John Higdon points out, some people don't have > credit cards), yet prevent 900/976 charges from getting out of hand! Some of the more progressive and responsible 900 IPs have stolen your thunder. Many (but by no means all or even most) IPs capture ANI on calls to their service. Each number is recorded and an "account" is set up internally in the answering equipment. As the customer uses the service the "account" accumulates charges. At some preset point, determined by the IP, the service is "turned off" for that customer and a recorded annoucement tells him of his "over limit" condition. He can then make various arrangements to turn the service back on again. Some of the calls to the "business office" are most entertaining. Such as, "I only called a couple of times", or "I've never called your service before and I'm certainly never calling it again." But the majority willingly set up credit arrangements and go on their merry way using the 900 program. Again, this is how SOME of the IPs handle their shop. It requires cooperation from the carrier (real-time ANI) and sufficient hardware sohpisication on the part of the IP. And, please, think about this the next time you have the inclination to complain about the 900 providers getting ANI. And also remember that there are some IPs out there who would rather NOT kill the goose that is laying the golden eggs. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Sep 91 20:19 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Phone Color Boxes On Sep 1 at 18:27, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: Indeed, those boxes are all highly illegal to use, > and of marginal legality at best to sell or construct in kit form > (where usually the leit motif is 'for educational purposes only'). > Just get caught with a 'colored box' sir; > we'll be discussing your case here in the Digest also. :) PAT] But Pat, you just said in no uncertain terms that the possession of test equipment is PERFECTLY legal with regard to butt sets. Is there a different set of regulations that apply to other types of equipment? In front of me is a 314A Trunk Test Set, manufactured by Berry Electronics, serial number 1272. It transmits and receives DTMF and MF tones. It can send a burst, a tone at a time, the ABCD keys, the various 'KP's, the dreaded 2600, in fact any tone used in the known world for telephone signaling purposes. Although it is no one's business but my own, I use the unit regularly for setting up and testing four-wire interswitch connections, ANI, and FX circuits. This would have been a phone phreak's wet dream come true back in the hey day of such things. While this unit COULD be used for fraud, to my knowledge this unit has never been put to any such use. The color of the box is, incidently, blue. So what about it, Pat? Is it legal to own and use Harris/Dracon butt sets but illegal or at least questionable to use BE 314A Trunk Test Sets? Where do we find all of this information so we can all sort out our equipment into two piles: legal and illegal. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Put everything in the proper context, John. There is nothing illegal about your device **when it is not being used to effect theft of service or other fraud** nor is there anything illegal about butt sets under the same conditions. And the fact that your device 'would have been a phreaker's delight ....' does not mean that it was being used by phreaks to steal service. You referred to your device by its correct name ... not a 'blue box'. Somehow I did not read the original correspondent's message as saying he was involved in the testing and repair of telephone networks, lines and equipment. If he sells his device to persons with bonafide uses for same -- but I did not get the feeling he had that in mind -- then there would be no need to sell it in 'kit form' as he suggested. The Heath Company concept has largely been out of style for a few years now. He was asking for suggestions to skirt around the law. Those questions do not come to mind with you in your use of the device, or at least I don't think they do. So someone caught burglarizing a phone closet who has a butt set in their possession has a burglar's tool in their possession. Otherwise they have bonafide equipment. And if you use your device to steal phone service, then you have what in common parlance is called a 'blue box'. If not, then you have a valid and legal instrument. Same equipment in both cases: your intended and actual use detirmines what we call it and what response the authorities choose to give. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Sep 91 22:37:03 CDT From: "Patton M. Turner" Subject: Re: Wiring Questions For New Home Dennis G. Rears writes: > I will be buying and moving into a new condo in April, 1992. The > unit will be constructed in about three months. I am wondering about > the wiring. The standard wiring is normal electrical, cable, and > three pair telephone wiring. I will be living there for at least four > years. I forsee a need for at least six phone lines, additional > wiring for computer networking, stuff for audio/visual. I am not an > engineer, but a computer scientist. > What type of additional wiring should I request: > o 2 three pair telephone wiring + another coax (audio/visual) > o 25 pair telephone wiring. Unless you are planing on installing a 1A2 type key system, I would forget about the 50 conductor cable. Instead I would run four pair cable to each telephone jack. If you use RJ-14 jacks the cabling can be used for single line phones or a electronic key system, with out changing any thing. The RJ-14 jack can be later replaced with a RJ-45 jack if you install a Merlin (tm of AT&T) or need the extra two conductors for data. The ideal way to handle the other end of the cable is to punch it down on 66 blocks. Try to get the phone company to supply your incoming lines on a RJ-21X. This can be plugged directly into a 66 block or a key system. BTW, for ease of expansion, mount all these 66 blocks on a plywood backboard, rather than directly on the wall. Might as well buy a good (impact) punch down tool so jumpers can be changed latter. As far as data, you need to decide what kind of LAN you want before installing cable. Coax is a lot more expensive than twisted pair, so you don't want to waste it. For CATV, install a good grade of RG-59U coax. You might as well run the coax into the same room as the phone lines. Ethernet can be run over 75 ohm cable so this might make a good choice to reduce the total amount of wiring needed. F to BNC adaptors are available for ease of cabling. For audio you want shielded cable to reduce crosstalk because of the higher power levels (assuming its run near phone lines, or subject to EMI). > If I get 25 pair telephone wiring could it present problems to the > telephone company? As far as CPE equipiment is concerned, 50 conductor cable is for 1A2 key systems. The cable connects to KSU (I think a different term is used when refering to 1A2 equipiment) to the phones sets. The incoming lines are connected to the cable through the KSU. The cable is invisable to the phone company. You can do anything you want on your side of the demark, as long as it complies with Part 68 of the FCC regs. This was not always the case as John Higdon and others have attested to. The 50 conductor cable used for 1A2 isn't twisted pair cable, although the color codes do pair certain wire together. This is just my humble opinion, there are other ways to handle the problem. Pat Turner KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA.NOAM pturner@eng.auburn.edu ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers Date: 2 Sep 91 03:53:04 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: In the Moderator's Note: > You dial the listed number; telco gets the call and hunts around for > a circuit in your group which is free and sends the call on it. The problem with this is that there is no way to test each line in the hunt group to make sure it works. Bill [Moderator's Note: Sure you can test them. Busy out all but the last one, and dial the main (only!) number. Did the call find its way down the line to the last circuit? Good ... now busy the last one and release the one before it and repeat the test. By keeping all the lines busy except one and dialing the number, you should be able to force the call to go on whatever line you want it, and if you see along the way that the one trunk open to receive your forced call does not light up, ring or otherwise accept the call, then that trunk is in trouble. Of course the CO technicians can force their way onto any of the circuits for testing also. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #693 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06570; 2 Sep 91 23:34 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24684; 2 Sep 91 22:10 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20486; 2 Sep 91 21:04 CDT Date: Mon, 2 Sep 91 20:32:53 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs Subject: Adminstrivia: Misnumbered issue BCC: Message-ID: <9109022032.ab17143@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Issue 691 got referred to as such at the start, but the end of the issue referred to 692 ... please make that correction on your copy of 691, making it read that way at the end of the issue also. Issue 692 was correctly numbered at the start and end of the Digest. On Sunday and Monday we had (among others) issues 690, 691, 692 and 693. In addition, there was a special mailing of the FAQ list. If you did not receive any of those please let me know. Patrick Townson   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08815; 3 Sep 91 1:39 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12550; 3 Sep 91 0:18 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01630; 2 Sep 91 23:11 CDT Date: Mon, 2 Sep 91 22:20:32 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #694 BCC: Message-ID: <9109022220.ab25656@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 2 Sep 91 22:20:24 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 694 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Need Help Identifying Mystery 900 Call [William Degnan] Re: Need Help Identifying Mystery 900 Call [Bill Huttig] Re: MCI Friends and Family [Stan Brown] Re: How Phone Bills Compare Around the USA [acct069@carroll1.cc.edu] Re: LA's 213/310 Area Code Split [Lauren Weinstein] Re: More TCIA: Telecom and Computer Industry Acronyms [William Degnan] Re: What is Illegal About Butt Sets? [David B. Whiteman] Re: 800 Number Abuse (was AT&T Blocks Calls From Arkansas) [William Degnan] Re: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors [Mark Earle] Area Code 510 Works on Calls From UK [Clive Feather] Area Code 510 (Better Early Than Late) [Darren Alex Griffiths] Pac*Bell Inside Wiring Plan [Ole J. Jacobsen] ATT and Soviet Birds [Steve W.York] 800 vs 900 -- a Proposal [Bob Frankston] Chronicle Reports on NASA and EMail [Ee Hopper] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: William Degnan Date: 01 Sep 91 12:16:26 Subject: Re: Need Help Identifying Mystery 900 Call On our esteemed Moderator Notes: > [Moderator's Note: However, when 'other carriers' stick you with a > third party billing, you would just automatically refuse it when > you were paying your telco bill. Or if the bill for the third party > call came direct from the 'other carrier', just toss it in the > wastebasket and forget it. Maybe as a courtesy -- just once -- send it back > to them with a note explaining they defrauded you and not to push > the matter further. Disclaimer: I cannot advise as an attorney. However, as a telecommunications professional experienced in billing matters ... I think it would be more appropriate to advise the "other carrier" that "someone" had defrauded _them_. You see the difference? Otherwise their argument is that it is between you and the persons unknown. This lets _you_ counter with that argument. If necessary you can advise them that unless they would like to defend fraud charges themselves they should see that you are not further troubled by it. I wonder if anyone can guess the magic words that strike fear in the hearts of telco attornies? No. It is not, "You've been transferred to Brownsville." That comes after. * 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 ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: Need Help Identifying Mystery 900 Call Date: 2 Sep 91 03:47:52 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL One of the 7-11 pomotional/context numbers referred to earlier is 1-900-737-7777. It says it maybe billed by the LEC as 700-737-7777. The 737 exchange for 900 shows as belonging to AT&T. Cost is .95 a minute. I wonder how they can bill it as a 700 call? Dialing 1-700-737-7777 results in a recording saying call can not be completed as dialed. Bill ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Sep 91 11:27:00 -0400 From: Stan Brown Subject: Re: MCI Friends and Family Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast) In article John Higdon writes: > I have been watching the MCI spots for "Friends and Family". Various > "users" give their stories, which generally include and statement of > how much they save per year over AT&T. The one I saw moments ago > featured an elderly woman who claimed a projected savings of $300 per > year. Let's see -- Friends and Family claims to be 20% reduced. $300 a year is 20% of $1500 a year, or $125 a month. I find it hard to believe anybody spends that on non-business long distance, month after month. Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA +1 216 371 0043 email: brown@ncoast.org -or- ap285@cleveland.freenet.edu ------------------------------ From: Ron Subject: Re: How Phone Bills Compare Around the USA Date: 2 Sep 91 17:13:27 GMT Organization: Lightning Systems, Inc. In article NIEBUHR@bnlcl6.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) writes: > I'm curious as to how my basic phone bill stacks up against those of > others around the country. I keep hearing and reading how NYTel has > some of the highest rates in the country. Here's my monthly phone bill for you. Residence One-Party Line $15.14 Subscriber Access Line - Interstate Residence 3.50 Non-Published Number .50 Tone Dial Residence Line .00 * Emergency Service Number 911 .25 Metro Residence SVC 20.00 ** ------ $39.39 * - Tone-Dial service charge eliminated starting this month. Had been $1.00 per month. ** - Metro service is a one-way calling plan. I live on the western fringe of the Milwaukee Metro Area, and this plan enables unlimited calling to all of the Milwaukee Metro area. I can call them, but they pay LD charges to call me. Ron | Lightning Systems, INC. acct069@carroll1.cc.edu | (414) 363-4282 60megs carroll1!acct069@uwm.edu | 14.4k HST/V.32bis ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Sep 91 10:47:16 PDT From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: Re: LA's 213/310 Area Code Split The 213-310 Santa Monica prefix was never assigned to "real" subscribers; it was used for GTE billing/service offices. Those users were moved off to 213-350 (which will become 310-350). There will not be a 310-310 prefix. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ From: William Degnan Date: 01 Sep 91 12:01:44 Subject: Re: More TCIA: Telecom and Computer Industry Acronyms On Robert E. Zabloudil (nol2105%dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil@ dsac.dla.mil ) wrote: > AOS Alternative Operator Service But, the folks who are AOSes want to be called OSPs (Operator Service Providers), but they are such neophytes that the don't know that there is already an OSP (OutSide Plant). The "Service" part remains a matter of opinion. > From what I remember, when you pick up a COCOT, often designed > to look like a common payphone, you get connected to an AOS. COCOT - Customer-Owned Coin-Operated Telephone. You can have one without having an AOS. You can reach an AOS without a COCOT. I'm resisting writing a few thousand words on this. I fear that every word I would use requires a paragraph to explain it. * 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 ------------------------------ From: dbw@crash.cts.com (David B. Whiteman) Subject: Re: What is Illegal About Butt Sets? Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1991 10:26:03 GMT While in a shopping center in West Hills, a suburb of Los Angeles, I found a store selling telephones and other communication equipment. They had three butt sets on display and for sale. ------------------------------ From: William Degnan Date: 01 Sep 91 12:14:04 Subject: Re: 800 Number Abuse (was AT&T Blocks Calls From Arkansas) On Mikel Manitius (mikel@aaahq04.aaa.com ) wrote: > There is one guy in particular that keeps calling from the San > Fransisco Bay Area, he calls about ten times a day and rambles on > about various obscenities. > They've contacted the local police department, but apparently > there is little that can be done. There is a _lot_ that can be done. It is a case of saying the right words to the right people at the right moment. The real problem is the people who should be helping you have a conflict of interest. If you continue to pay for the calls there is no incentive to help you make it stop. Regards, * 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: Mon, 2 Sep 91 15:21:56 CDT From: Mark Earle Subject: Re: Are Cellular Towers Good Neighbors Recently, Cellular One put a 180' tower 1/4 mile from our apartment complex. So far other than having to look at it no major ill effects. Note, I do now receive CMT calls on my scanners (various brands) and some UHF business hand held radios! Technically this is just overload/intermod I guess. It has not affected any consumer level stuff. Note, the scanners here do not have explicit 800 Mhz frequency coverage (CMT's are 870-890 Mhz approximately). And it doesn't happen all the time. mearle@pro-party.cts.com (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5] My BBS: (512)-855-7564 Opus 1:160/50.0 CI$ 73117,351 Packet: WA2MCT @ KA5LZG.TX.NA.USA ------------------------------ From: Clive Feather Subject: Area Code 510 Works On Calls From UK Date: Mon, 2 Sep 91 9:46:06 BST Calling from the UK, +1 510 275 XXXX worked at 0945 BST (0145 PDT). It seems the cutover worked. (This number was *not* working on Friday). Clive D.W. Feather | IXI Limited clive@x.co.uk | 62-74 Burleigh St. Phone: +44 223 462 131 | Cambridge CB1 1OJ (USA: 1 800 XDESK 57) | United Kingdom ------------------------------ From: Darren Alx Griffiths Subject: Area Code 510 (Better Early Than Late) Date: 2 Sep 91 22:20:21 GMT Reply-To: Darren Alex Griffiths Organization: Open Systems Solutions, Inc. -- UNIX R Us. I was just sitting around, reading news and waiting for the 49ers to beat the Giants tonight and decided to try calling my office just outside of Berkeley to check on any messages I might have gotten. Of course our voice mail system is down (it never seems to work, that's what you get when you use PCs for anything more useful than flight simulator games) and decided to try out the new area-code. Sure, I know it's not 12:01am yet, but I'm the curious sort and I also wondered whether some poor senior tech at the CO was actually going to go in at midnight to make the change. I wasn't too surprised to find that it does work, at least from San Francisco where I live (415-647). Did anyone else try to make calls earlier than me or from different areas, it would be somewhat interesting to find out when Pac-Tel actually made the switch. Darren Alex Griffiths dag@unisoft.com (for now) dag@ossi.com (RSN) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Sep 91 16:46:48 PDT From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" Subject: Pac*Bell Inside Wiring Plan Pac*Bell has filed with the PUC for an increase in the cost of "Inside Wire Repair Services." The changes are to take effect on March 1, 1992 if approved. I've always found that the inside wire plan was a rip-off. Unless you own rabbits your inside wire is likely to survive for *many* years. Paying $.50 per month for the peace of mind seems silly. I also note with great displeasure that the Pac*Bell service techs are less than cooperative when it comes to *preventing* service calls. They would rather add another demark box to an existing rats nest than clean it all up and get you a nice new multiline demark box. (They did actually give me such a beast after I begged, but explained that they don't like to do it since it reduces service calls!) [Your phone dollars at work]. One day, I noticed a "sardine can" up a pole with its lid blowing in the wind, exposing all the junctions. I happened to know that *my* lines go through this particular can, and since this is fog city, I asked a tech replace the cover when he was in the area. He explained that I should call 611 so that he could get credit for the work. Lucky for me he had to climb the pole anyway and did eventually replace the lid. Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report Interop, Inc., 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View, CA 94040, Phone: (415) 962-2515 FAX: (415) 949-1779 Email: ole@csli.stanford.edu ------------------------------ From: Steve_W_York@cup.portal.com Subject: ATT and Soviet Birds Date: Sun, 1 Sep 91 23:50:42 PDT Tonight I heard on the radio that AT&T had started using some Soviet Satel for international calls to the USSR. Does anyone have any further information on this? Is this the first time that a private company has contracted with a communist launched and owned satelite? Steve York steve_w_york@cup.portal.com or (if you must) CIS 72617,503 ------------------------------ From: frankston!Bob_Frankston@world.std.com Subject: 800 vs 900 -- a Proposal Date: 2 Sep 1991 10:36 -0400 If an 800 number can reliably capture ANI, then the only difference between 800 and 900 numbers is whether your local telco serves as the collection service or whether the provider does it directly. If we continue this logic on step further, one wonders how anyone let them get into the third party collection business anyway. Yes, I know that all 800 numbers are **FREE** and polluting the 800 number space with charges would confuse users. But we can simply reconstitute 900 numbers as identical to 800 numbers in that the telco gets paid for each call at a fixed rate and the IP can then bill as they wish but without getting telco involved in the process. Obviously, there is still a value in common IP billing services, but there would be plenty of takers ranging from the IP resellers to credit card services. The 800 number model could even allow for an override by specifying a credit card number. If the Baby Bells want to get into the billing services, they can ascertain whether they are permitted to act as collection agents for non-telco services. If so, they can get into the business but would not be permitted to intermix billing of IP services with their other charges. An aside, is the current 900 service related to the original use of 900 service for Jimmy Carter's national call-in show? The idea there was to reduce system congestion by blocking at the regional level instead of the national. I presume the software is related but that original use was more like a distributed 800 service than a 900 service. As to 876, 540 etc -- those are equivalent to local 800 number service and thus local 900 number service. ------------------------------ Subject: Chronicle Reports on NASA and EMail From: ED HOPPER Date: Mon 02 Sep 91 10:01:47 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, TX - 713-997-7575 Joe Abernathy had a piece in today's (9/2/91) {Houston Chronicle} discussing NASA's decision to sever it's link to Applelink from the shuttle. He quotes NASA experiment manager Debra Muratore as saying: "As a result of this whole experience (the 'leaking' of the shuttle's email address) at least my project plans never to use a public (electronic) mail system again." He also quotes Peter G. Neumann (Moderator of Risks Digest) regarding NASA's reported receipt of 80 "unauthorized" email messages: "Threatened by 'unauthorized email', eh? Sending email to someone *requires no authorization*." All in all, an interesting article. I hope Joe forwards full text here. NASA's view on email is rather silly. If you plug into a public network, you should expect to get mail from the public. I guess it shows the rather massive gap in understanding that the typical government|corporate manager has of technology in general and data communications in general. They fear what they do not understand. One last point, Abernathy did not report on whether or not the shuttle astronauts received alt.sex.pictures. I'm sure that's planned for a later expose. Ed Hopper ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #694 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10363; 3 Sep 91 2:53 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21372; 3 Sep 91 1:23 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12550; 3 Sep 91 0:18 CDT Date: Tue, 3 Sep 91 0:01:56 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #695 BCC: Message-ID: <9109030001.ab19214@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Sep 91 00:01:34 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 695 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T's Hopelessly Confused Marketing Department [TELECOM Moderator] Calendar Notice: Tele-Solutions Forum and Trade Show [TELECOM Moderator] Ten Years Ago in TELECOM Digest #2 [Bill Huttig] Baudot?? I'll Ask My Mom [Marty Brenneis] Re: What is Illegal About Butt Sets? [Perry Martin] Some Confusion About Moderator's Gender [J. Philip Miller] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 2 Sep 91 22:47:24 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: AT&T's Hopelessly Confused Marketing Department Two letters arrived for me *in the same day's mail* from AT&T last week. How could they possibly be so mixed up? Letter # 1: It said how much they missed me since I was no longer a customer of AT&T. They wanted me to know if I were to subscribe once again to Reach Out America or one of their other long distance programs I'd be able to save BIG $$ on my calls to Toledo. Toledo? Holy Toledo! The fact is, I still am and always was an AT&T subscriber. I must be a pretty good customer, since in Letter # 2 of the same date I got my regular mailing from the {AT&T Caller's Club}, with this month's gift for members of the club: a coupon for $2.50 payable to the order of the Telephone Company which can be used to pay for that much telephone service. The {AT&T Caller's Club} is a relatively unknown offering from the company for those folks they perceive to be their better customers. I guess my international calls each month (about $100 per month which my employer reimburses me for) made me a candidate for membership in the Club. When they invited me to join at no expense or obligation to myself, I took them up on the offer. In addition to little special gifts and things from time to time, we also get a different number to call for customer service. Maybe I should send a copy of each letter (one and two) to Mr. Robert Allen and ask if he can figure it out. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Sep 91 23:04:49 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Calendar Notice: Tele-Solutions Forum and Trade Show The second annual educational forum and trade show on delivering quality customer service via the telephone will be held on Ottawa, Ontario on October 16-17, 1991. There will be two tracks of seminars on managerial and technical issues in telephone customer service. The trade show will offer telecommunications equipment, database and customer service software, voice processing technology, list sources, trainers, service bureaus and more. John Goodman, President of the TARP Institute will be the keynote speaker at the forum. In his address on Wednesday, October 16 entitled "The Customer Service Revolution" he will discuss his belief that "It is cheaper to give great service than mediocre service ..." One of the several forums planned will deal with 800 Line Management. Tele-Solutions is sponsored by Phone Power-Telecom Canada. For more information and reservations, call 800-267-4529 from anywhere in North America. Or from outside the continent, 1-416-691-6526. If you prefer to FAX, send to: 1-416-691-6928. The forum and trade show will be October 16-17, 1991 at the Ottawa Congress Center, Ottawa, Ontario. Fees for participation were not mentioned in the announcement which was sent to me. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Ten Years Ago in TELECOM Digest #2 Date: 3 Sep 91 03:45:06 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL Ten Years ago in Telecom-Digest Number: 2 Bill paying by telephone - a demo. Has anyone else heard anything about the Hart Line? A bit more info on Hart Line "Foreign exchanges" Foreign Exchange Service, Vs. Selective Calling Los-Angeles Earthquake & Telephones ### Date: 29 Aug 1981 0933-PDT From: Bob Knight Subject: Bill paying by telephone - a demo. First Interstate Bank out here has introduced a service of bill paying by telephone. A demo is available, to wit (gotta have a touch-tone): 1) Dial (800) 252-2100 2) CUSTOMER NUMBER: push 123456789#. 3) SECURITY CODE: push 1234#. 4) PAYEE NUMBER: push 12#. 5) AMOUNT: Anything followed by # (3250#==$32.50, of course). 6) You'll be asked for # or month and day. Terminate month/day with # (form mmdd#). Default if no month/day entered is day you're making transaction. 7) You can go back to 4 or stop by pushing *2#. The capitalized stuff above is what the computer will be asking you. They have a voice synthesizer of some kind handling the questions. [stuff deleted - It still works!] Bob ### Date: 27 Aug 1981 2022-PDT From: Lynn Gold Subject: Has anyone else heard anything about the Hart Line? It's a new phone service which has been out for a few weeks. How it works: 1) You call up toll-free (800) number (a list is given to all members; numbers vary from state to state). 2) After hearing a beep, you enter your 7-digit code 3) After hearing another beep, you then enter 1 + area code and number you want to dial My father got such a number, and after checking it out myself, I would like to share my findings: Advantages: 1) You pay a flat fee of $65. per month. There are no connect charges. 2) The service is new enough to not have hackers (yet). Even if someone DOES find out your number, you don't get billed for it. 3) You can use it anywhere in the continental United States. 4) You can use your Hart Line number 24 hours a day. 5) You can use your Hart Line number as frequently as you like. Disadvantages: 1) It is only supposed to be used by its owner and not family members of the owner, as is permitted by several other systems. [Note: I don't know if they actually can catch anyone who violates this without a great deal of difficulty, since it IS allowable for someone to use it from anywhere...] 2) Once phone hackers DO figure out how to crack this one, they probably will. 3) The quality of the connection provided is poor. Voices are sometimes barely audible. Data transmission would be impossible. 4) The connections only last 15 minutes, after which you and other party are suddenly disconnected with no warning. (Of course, as mentioned above, you CAN call again right away and resume your conversation...) 5) It is difficult to get onto the line. It seems to take anywhere from five to ten minutes just to get to the first tone, and sometimes there is a wait of over a minute after the second tone has been punched in. (Either they are inadequately set up or they are unusually popular.) The people I know who are using it are satisfied with it, since they tend to ring up huge long distance bills, rarely spend more than 15 minutes on the phone to anyone, and aren't interested in data trans- mission. --Lynn ### Date: 3 Sep 1981 1039-PDT Subject: A bit more info on Hart Line From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) [stuff deleted] "A tip that Hart Industries offers a computer-controlled pooled WATS line service w/unlimited calling continental US from any phone for $100 fee + $65/month. Call (305)561-xxxx, check it out to see." Will Martin ### Date: 4 Sep 81 15:42:50-EDT (Fri) From: Jcp.bmd70 at BRL Subject: "Foreign exchanges" In my area (Maryland), the telco offers a service called "foreign exchange connection", whereby you can have a phone in one area act as a phone on a non-local exchange. (Very popular for people living between Baltimore and DC, and wanting to call locally in both cities, etc). This isn't available from all CO's, just the newer ones (ESS, I think). They charge a fee per mile of distance from the foreign exchange per month. Could anyone tell me how this is done, and is the cost to the telco related to the distance involved? Also, is there a better way to do this? -Joe Pistritto- jcp.bmd70@brl ### Date: 6 September 1981 01:42-EDT From: Jonathan Alan Solomon Subject: Foreign Exchange Service, Vs. Selective Calling There seems to be a bit of confusion over terms here. Foreign Exchange service is specifically service which originates in the city or town you wish your local calling area to be. Usually these lines travel over reserved Toll lines (2 pair separated transmit and receive), and special arrangements are made to allow you to dial (if you use a dial phone) calls from here over that line. Selective calling, on the other hand, is the ability for a customer to select his local calling area range (given usually in "zones"), with the cheapest service having the smallest calling area. Normally this service is made available to suburban areas who desire access to their city on a local basis. The Boston area has this service (called "Metropolitan" service) which allows the surrounding areas to call Boston as a local call. With ESS this is a simple twiddling of bits in your "phone line status word" (similar to the priviledge word for an account on many computers), Crossbar and Step Switching usually requires some mechanical set of jumpers which permits you to dial these calls as a local call (i.e. without prefixing it with a "1"). Sometimes Phone Companies simply tell you to place the call as if it was a toll call, and then they will bill you at some smaller rate or at flat rate, in which case you only need to tell the local final billing computer not to include these calls on your bill. /Jsol ### Date: Saturday, 5 Sep 1981 10:03-PDT Subject: Los-Angeles Earthquake & Telephones From: nomdenet at RAND-UNIX The Southern California earthquake, Friday (9/4) at 8:51 a.m., disrupted the telephone system somewhat. Home at the time and not worried because the quake seemed minor, 5-10 minutes later I picked up my telephone to make a data connection to work -- but no dial tone. Finally, after 5-10 seconds, I got a dial tone. Intrigued, I tried taking the receiver off hook a few times, and encountered delays in this same 5-10 second neighborhood. Once I got tone, my call went through with no further problems. The February, 1971, earthquake also affected the telephone system. (Lauren, didn't you write in Human-Nets that TPC had to "turn off" the 213 area to incoming calls?) [stuff deleted] A. R. White Nomdenet @ Rand-UNIX ### End of Ten Years ago in Telecom-Digest ### [Moderator's Note: Bill Huttig supplies this feature to us about once a week. He gathers his material from the Telecom Archives. Please let him know if you enjoy this feature. Needless to say, net.addresses and data given in these old stories should NOT be relied upon today as accurate or representative of present circumstances. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Sep 91 09:30:54 PDT From: Marty the Droid Subject: Baudot?? I'll Ask My Mom In my early days of computing we used a model 33 teletype to communicate with an HP2000B machine. One day when I got home from school and left my books on the table, I left a paper tape with a program on it. When I returned to the kitched my mom had unrolled part of the tape. She then proceeded to read my program to me. I was a little suprised to find that my mom could read 5 level Baudot. She then told me about working for the Blue network as a wire operator. Talk about the early days of email, she had 8 friends around the country she communicated with by teletype daily. :-) The blue network is now known as ABC. Keep smiling ... they'll wonder what you're up to. Marty 'The Droid' Brenneis ...!uupsi!kerner!droid Industrial Magician droid@kerner.sf.ca.us (415)258-2105 ~~~ KAE7616 - 462.700 - 162.2 ~~~ KC6YYP [Moderator's Note: And of course our astute readers also know what the Red Network is now called. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Perry Martin Subject: Re: What is Illegal About Butt Sets? Date: Mon, 2 Sep 91 20:16:27 CDT Reply-To: martin@iadpsa.safe.ia.gov In article W. H. Sohl writes: > Now before anyone jumps on me with the argument that states can't > regulate telephone stuff (ie, only the FCC can), rest assured that > such situations have not prevented states in the past from attempting > to exert control on state levels. Case in point, at least seven > states have laws which make it illegal to have a radio receiver in an > automobile that is capable of receiving police radio transmissions. > While there is currently an FCC docket that is addressing this with a > possible end result being a stated federal preemption, no such > explicit federal preemption exists now, so people (usually with a > radio scanner) that are stopped in those states can and are prosecuted > for violation of those laws. As I understand it, states justify these laws by claiming to regulate automobile safety, not radio communications. States don't (and can't) regulate the ownership of equipment that can receive particular radio frequencies. Instead, they prohibit the installation and use of such equipment in motor vehicles, claiming it interferes with the safe operation of the vehicle. The same rationale has also been used to ban microwave radio receivers (i.e. radar detectors). They're legal to own and use, you just can't put them in your car. I haven't heard whether the constitutionality of this has ever been tested. I've also never heard an explanation of how these specific frequencies cause safety problems, but others like amateur radio and regular commercial AM/FM don't. To tie this back to telecom, this same approach has been suggested to restrict or prohibit the use of cellular phones in automobiles. It's hard to imagine such legislation making it very far since legislators are often heavy users of mobile phones, but I'm curious: do any states have laws restricting automotive use of cellular phones? (To keep my bosses from going ballistic, I want to explicitly note that if the Iowa Department of Public Safety even has an official position on any of these issues, I'm not aware of it -- standard disclaimers, etc. The last I knew, Iowa has no laws regulating the use of scanners, radar detectors, or cellular phones.) Perry Martin martin@iadpsa.safe.ia.gov Iowa Department of Public Safety ...!uunet!iadpsa!martin ------------------------------ From: "J. Philip Miller" Subject: Some Confusion About Moderator's Gender Date: Mon, 2 Sep 91 21:11:36 CDT Steve_W_York@cup.portal.com writes: > Our Moderator used her message as an opportunity to editorialize and *** I have to admit to having always asumed that the gender of our Moderator was male, but perhaps this is a sexist assumption :-* In the spirit of all of the other personal information which you have revealed over the years, would you like to establish your gender for the list? 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 Sassy Reply: Hey, as a privacy activist, I do not give out personal information about myself like that! Why, first thing you know, with the conspiracy between IBT and Radio Shack, some strange man would have my number and call to sell me some gender-changing adapters for my ... uh, my ... uh ... well, you know. Don't say it! Yes, I know some people already have my number, ha ha. Anyway, the 'her' referred to the *writer of the original message to which I was replying*, not to myself! 'Her' was Chris Dinkle; ie. "The Moderator used Chris Dinkle's message as a chance to editorialize ..." Moderator's Humble Note: To Chris Dinkle, my apology. I've received a few notes saying you and your husband are definitly among the good guys in the industry, and were hurt badly by Telesphere. Sorry. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #695 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11600; 3 Sep 91 3:57 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06150; 3 Sep 91 2:28 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab21372; 3 Sep 91 1:23 CDT Date: Tue, 3 Sep 91 0:54:17 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #696 BCC: Message-ID: <9109030054.ab17800@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Sep 91 00:54:10 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 696 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Phone Fraud Articles From comp.risks [NY Times, PGN via Jody Kravitz] Magic Date For 510 Passes [Phydeaux] Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers [Roger Fajman] Re: How Phone Bills Compare Around the USA [Sean Williams] Re: TDD/TTY Devices [Dick Barth] Re: Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Speakerphone [Jack Winslade] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 2 Sep 91 14:07:25 PDT From: Jody Kravitz Subject: Phone Fraud Articles From comp.risks > Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 10:27:41 PDT > From: "Peter G. Neumann" > Subject: Phone Fraud Abstracted by PGN from an excellent article in the {New York Times} (28Aug91), Theft of Telephone Service from Corporations is Surging, by Edmund L. Andrews Telephone fraud is reaching epidemic proportions, with some companies getting billed for hundreds of thousands of dollars in bogus calls. Stolen credit cards and line tapping are old techniques. The new craze involves cracking into switches and PBXs (private branch exchanges). "It is by far the largest segment of communications fraud," said Rami Abuhamdeh, an independent consultant and until recently executive director of the Communications Fraud Control Association in McLean, Va. "You have all this equipment just waiting to answer your calls, and it is being run by people who are not in the business of securing telecommunications." Mitsubishi International Corp. reported losing $430,000 last summer, mostly from calls to Egypt and Pakistan. Procter & Gamble Co. lost $300,000 in l988. The New York City Human Resources Administration lost $529,000 in l987. And the Secret Service, which investigates such telephone crime, says it is now receiving three to four formal complaints every week, and is adding more telephone specialists. In its only ruling on the issue thus far, the Federal Communications Commission decided in May that the long-distance carrier was entitled to collect the bill for illegal calls from the company that was victimized. In the closely watched Mitsubishi case filed in June, the company sued AT&T for $10 million in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, arguing that not only had it made the equipment through which outsiders entered Mitsubishi's phone system, but that AT&T, the maker of the switching equipment, had also been paid to maintain the equipment. For smaller companies, with fewer resources than Mitsubishi, the problems can be financially overwhelming. For example, WRL Group, a small software development company in Arlington, Va., found itself charged for 5,470 calls it did not make this spring after it installed a toll-free ``800'' telephone number and a voice mail recording system machine to receive incoming calls. Within three weeks, the intruders had run up a bill of $106,776. to US Sprint, a United Telecommunications unit. The article goes on to document the experiences of WRL, pirate call-sell phone operations, voice-mail cracking, etc., familiar to RISKS readers, and discusses the possibilities of blocking calls by area, shutting down out of hours, verifying callers (!), monitoring for unusual traffic, etc. In the past, long-distance carriers bore most of the cost, since the thefts were attributed to weaknesses in their networks. But now, the phone companies are arguing that the customers should be liable for the cost of the calls, because they failed to take proper security precautions on their equipment. [...] Consumertronics, a mail order company in Alamogordo, N.M., sells brochures for $29 that describe the general principles of voice mail hacking and the particular weaknesses of different models. Included in the brochure is a list of "800" numbers along with the kind of voice mail systems to which they are connected. "It's for educational purposes," said the company's owner, John Williams, adding that he accepts Mastercard and Visa. Similar insights can be obtained from {2600 Magazine}, a quarterly publication devoted to telephone hacking that is published in Middle Island, N.Y. It's a good article for those of you whose telephone systems are being cracked (but good for crackers as well!)... > Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1991 09:46:29 -0500 > From: mbarnett@cs.utexas.edu (Michael Barnett) > Subject: Phone Fraud Story a Fraud? (Re: Phone Fraud, RISKS-12.19) Missing from the quotes about the problems WRL has experienced is the following: Even more suprising to experts, they [the theives] had managed to log 129,315 minutes of talking time over one line -- a seemingly impossible feat, because it equaled an average of roughly three calls going out simultaneously every minute of the day ... Later in the article a spokesman for Bell Atlantic is quoted as saying, "There simply cannot be a single outgoing line that routes multiple calls at once". Perhaps the problems were not caused by malicious persons at all, but problems in the billing system. How much easier to blame "low-income immigrants" and "drug dealers"! (Anonymous "authorities" claim these are the culprits.) What ever happened to the reports that hackers were responsible for the breakdowns of the AT&T switches? That made headlines until the true causes were discovered. The real story, I think, which was buried in the article: In the past, long-distance carriers bore most of the cost [of phone theft], since the thefts were attributed to weaknesses in their networks. But now, the phone companies are arguing that the customers should be liable for the cost of the calls, because they failed to take proper security precautions on their equipment. Michael Barnett (mbarnett@cs.utexas.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Sep 91 12:49:25 PDT From: Phydeaux Subject: Magic Date For 510 Passes Well, it's now September 2nd and 510 now works from 312/708... And I'd thought I'd lost faith in Sillynoise Bell... reb *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* reb@ingres.com or reb%ingres.com@lll-winken.llnl.GOV ICBM: 41.55N 87.40W h:558 West Wellington #3R Chicago, IL 60657 312-549-8365 w:reb ASK/Ingres 10255 West Higgins Suite 500 Rosemont, IL 60018 708-803-9500 ------------------------------ From: Roger Fajman Date: Mon, 02 Sep 91 22:48:32 EDT Subject: Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers > [Moderator's Note: Sure you can test them. Busy out all but the last > one, and dial the main (only!) number. Did the call find its way down > the line to the last circuit? Good ... now busy the last one and > release the one before it and repeat the test. By keeping all the True, but this method disrupts service. It's also awkward with a large rotary, especially if you want to test one one or two lines. There are at least two other circumstances in which this method does not work: (1) testing is being done by an automated device (perhaps a PC with a modem and suitable software, as we use), or (2) the person doing the testing is not at the location of the lines. Roger Fajman Telephone: +1 301 402 1246 National Institutes of Health BITNET: RAF@NIHCU Bethesda, Maryland, USA Internet: RAF@CU.NIH.GOV [Moderator's Note: My suggestion would work when testing was done during off hours, or when the number of circuits was small enough to enable someone to sit there with the line terminations all within arm's reach. This would cover quite a few scenarios. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "WILLIAMS, SX" Subject: Re: How Phone Bills Compare Around the USA Reply-To: sxw7490@ritvax.isc.rit.edu Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology Date: 2 SEP 91 23:04:46 In article , NIEBUHR@bnlcl6.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) writes... > I'm curious as to how my basic phone bill stacks up against those of > others around the country. I keep hearing and reading how NYTel has > some of the highest rates in the country. And Pat added: > [Moderator's Note: Here is what Illinois Bell charges me each month > for what is termed 'monthly service': [Stuff from Pat's bill deleted...] Pat, what does IBT charge you for voicemail? You didn't list that. Sean E. Williams Rochester Institute of Telcnology sxw7490@ritvax.rit.edu [Moderator's Note: That's because I don't get voicemail from IBT. I get it from the 'other phone company' here, Centel. IBT does not yet have it available here except on an experimental basis in a single CO. Centel charges $4.95 per box/month for standard service, but you can get a lot of bells and whistles for a few dollars more. I have what they call a 'front end' box with two internal boxes behind it. ("Press one for Pat, two for Dan or Tina"). I pay about $10 per month for the whole thing. I also have voicemail on my Ameritech cellular phone (from Ameritech); it costs $4.50 per month. I have voicemail on an 800 number which I rarely use; it costs 29 cents per minute both to leave or retrieve messages. How big is your bill each month? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dick Barth Subject: Re: TDD/TTY Devices Reply-To: rbarth@ka3ovk.UUCP (Dick Barth) Organization: Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC Date: Tue, 03 Sep 91 04:28:40 GMT In article NIEBUHR@bnlcl6.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) writes: > In Message-ID: joshm@kgnvmy.vnet.ibm. > com (Joshua E. Muskovitz) writes: >> I'm not that familiar with TDDs. Does anyone have any suggestions, >> comments, or observations about what would be helpful, useful, or >> relevant? Sorry to be wordy, verbose, and obfuscating ... >> Also, are there any readers who are members of the deaf community who >> would be interested in working on this with me? > I think a TDD would be useless if the person accessing the BBS has a > regular type of screen such as found on a PC or some such animal. However, there's no reason why a person using a TDD and someone calling on a computer should be treated the same by the BBS software. There is also no reason why a TDD caller should get only two lines at time. The TDD operates at 45.45 baud (60 wpm), and anyone with normal vision and reading ability can follow non-stop output at that rate. > Two lines at a time will turn a person off quite fast if they have to > keep forcing line feeds or pages after a little bit of information. They don't have to. Most BBSes allow a caller to select a page length: two lines or 24 is all the same to the software. > We have a TDD in our shop and it is used for phone calls to/from our > hearing-impared staff (longest running started here in '78 and we had > temps before that). These people are screen oriented just like a > non-hearing-impared person. If they're used to computers they are; many aren't. > These things have almost no speed at all unless you call 110 baud > lightning. Even a TTY based system would be almost useless since it's > speed is ridiculously low. 110 baud is an ASCII speed; TDDs don't use it unless thay have a built-in ASCII capability. Many don't, and operate only at 45.45 baud. > So, please don't go the TDD/TTY route. You haven't given a good reason not to. > I'll forward your request to our hearing-impared operators and solicit > their opinions for you. Your hearing-impaired *computer* operators do not represent a good sample of the hearing impaired community. In article joshm@kgnvmy.vnet.ibm.com (Joshua E. Muskovitz) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 680, Message 3 of 11 > A few questions: > 1. Is TDD and TTY the same? The terms are basically interchangeable. They both refer to devices that send text over the phone line using the Baudot code and a unique modem, and display it in visible form. They're used by the deaf and speech-impaired. You will have some people tell you that the term "TTY" refers to mechanical teleprinters ("Teletype" machines) and TDD (Telecommunications Device for the Deaf) refers to the more modern electronic replacement. > 2. I know that TDD is not compatible with "normal" modem traffic. > Is there a "hayes-compatible" TDD-type device available anywhere? What do you mean by a "Hayes-compatible" TDD-type device? The TDD uses a modem that is not compatible with any ASCII modem. There are TDDs in the upper price range that have ASCII capability as an added (at extra price) feature; this is in addition to, and not part of, their being a TDD. "Vanilla" TDDs do not talk to Hayes-type modems. There are also modems available that will talk to a TDD. Both external and internals are around. Internals are for the IBM-PC bus. There used to be one (the Novation Apple-Cat) for the Apple bus but so far as I know it's no longer made. If I'm wrong, somebody yell. Some of these commercial modems claim to be "Hayes compatible". They necessarily use an expanded version of the Hayes command set, since they have to change to non-ASCII baud rates, tone sets, etc. If you're interested in sources, call the Handicapped Educational Exchange BBS (see .sig) and download a copy of COMPARE.TTY from file area two. For a description of the TDD modem, check INFO file 'T'. > I'm interested in (possibly -- for now I'm just getting feelers) > setting up a TDD-based BBS. It would have to be specially designed > for the limitations of TDDs (like one/two line screens, etc.) Welcome to the club. I've been running a TDD-compatible BBS for about twelve years, and I'd love to have company. > I'm not that familiar with TDDs. Does anyone have any suggestions, > comments, or observations about what would be helpful, useful, or > relevant? Sorry to be wordy, verbose, and obfuscating ... No problem. I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. Unless a whole lot of people express sudden interest in the subject, though, we might be better off using email rather than the news. Richard Barth, W3HWN **** HEX, the Handicapped Educational Exchange BBS (301) 593-7033 (TDD and 300 baud) | Domain: rbarth%ka3ovk.uucp@uunet.uu.net (301) 593-7357 (300/1200 ASCII) | UUCP: uunet!media!ka3ovk!rbarth ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Sep 91 11:34:40 cst From: Jack Winslade Subject: Re: Half Duplex Phone Conversations via Speakerphone Reply-To: ivgate!drbbs!jack.winslade@uunet.uu.net Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha I have a solution that seems to work when someone who calls me (or someone I call) insists on using a speakerphone, at least one of those that sounds like I am listening to someone speaking into an ash can. I innocently and frequently ask the other person to repeat what he/she just said (what ?? huh ?? eh ???) and in about 90% of the times the caller will pick up the handset and continue the conversation. For someone who simply speaks louder into the tin can, I ask the caller to please call back, stating that we must have an awful connection and that I can barely hear him/her. When I got the cellular, the installer insisted upon installing the 'hands free' microphone despite my telling him not to worry about it. I used it once. My wife told me it sounded like I was calling from the moon. Until they (the ubiquitous 'they') can make a hands free phone that sounds halfway decent, I won't attempt to inflict one on those I want to speak with. (Idea: If I use a tinny speakerphone when those obnoxious teleslime people call, would they give up more easily ??) Good day JSW Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5 DRBBS, Keep On WOC'n in the Free World (200:5010/666.0) [Moderator's Note: One problem, JSW -- how can *anyone* be expected to have a good day when they return to the office after a three day holiday weekend? I hope you had a pleasant holiday, and the same to all our USA readers who got Monday off. Back to work, slaves! See you tomorrow night, goddess willing and the creek don't rise! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #696 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17127; 4 Sep 91 1:31 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30773; 4 Sep 91 0:04 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29483; 3 Sep 91 22:55 CDT Date: Tue, 3 Sep 91 22:49:52 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #697 BCC: Message-ID: <9109032249.ab25763@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Sep 91 22:49:45 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 697 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Baudot?? I'll Ask My Mom [Bob Frankston] Re: Baudot?? I'll Ask My Mom [haynes@cats.ucsc.edu] Re: Baudot?? I'll Ask My Mom [Ed Greenberg] Re: Need Help Identifying Mystery 900 Call [Carl Moore] Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers [William Soley] Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers [Justin Leavens] Re: "Swinging Grounds?" [Ken Abrams] Re: AT&T ACUS System Just Installed Here [Kevin Kadow] Re: HAW-4 Repeater Failure [Tony Harminc] ATT Mail - Internet Gateway Status? [Fred Linton] Dialing 844 and 936 From Laurel, MD [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: frankston!Bob_Frankston@world.std.com Subject: Re: Baudot?? I'll Ask My Mom Date: 3 Sep 1991 09:26 -0400 Model 33 (ASR) teletype?? That's 8 level ASCII (yeah, the same ASCII 'cept, on some editions, for a few quibble over glyphs and the assignment of ESC). I think a model 32 teletype would have been 5 level (or 3 row). A model 15 was more common from the old days. Of course, 8 level Ascii tapes are still readable. ------------------------------ From: 99700000 Subject: Re: Baudot?? I'll Ask My Mom Date: 3 Sep 91 16:35:44 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Open Access Computing In article droid@kerner.sf.ca.us (Marty the Droid) writes: > In my early days of computing we used a model 33 teletype to > communicate with an HP2000B machine. > One day when I got home from school and left my books on the table, I > left a paper tape with a program on it. When I returned to the kitched > my mom had unrolled part of the tape. She then proceeded to read my > program to me. I was a little suprised to find that my mom could read > 5 level Baudot. Something's fishy here. The Model 33 Teletype uses 7-bit ASCII (punched into 8-bit tape) not Baudot. haynes@cats.ucsc.edu haynes@ucsccats.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Sep 91 09:49 PDT From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Re: Baudot?? I'll Ask My Mom Marty the Droid writes: > In my early days of computing we used a model 33 teletype to > communicate with an HP2000B machine. > One day when I got home from school and left my books on the table, I > left a paper tape with a program on it. When I returned to the kitched > my mom had unrolled part of the tape. She then proceeded to read my > program to me. I was a little suprised to find that my mom could read > 5 level Baudot. She then told me about working for the Blue network > as a wire operator. [rest deleted] Now wait a minute ... I expect that we have some facts crossed. Model 33's were ASCII devices. Model 28's and 32's were Baudot. The 32 was made in the same case as the model 33. OK, so a model number was confused, that's not a big deal. What surprises me is that the HP used a Baudot terminal. I would expect you would have had a hard time programming with the limited Baudot character set. Certainly the program couldn't be stored in Baudot. Are you aware of any character conversion hardware? Marty, perhaps you can shed some light in a followup posting. I'm interested in how this worked. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Sep 91 14:48:26 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Need Help Identifying Mystery 900 Call Moderator: What do you mean "auto-blocked"? (You said you had your lines auto-blocked from collect and third party billing by IBT. I recently noticed automation when I called collect within the Baltimore LATA.) [Moderator's Note: By 'auto-blocked' I mean that if someone attempts to call me collect or if someone attempts to bill a call third-number to me (and provided the operator bothers to check) the operator will get a message from the network saying I automatically refuse to accept the billing on these calls. This works if the caller is on any Bell, GTE or Centel switch, or using AT&T, Sprint, MCI or Telecom-USA as the LD carrier. It probably works on other carriers also. Any carrier who accesses 'the' database gets told "that number refuses to accept collect or third-party billing"; thus I don't have to even bother with telling the operator myself. I have tested it myself from various points around the USA using our office tie-lines to the New York and Los Angeles offices, for example; then dialing 9 to jump off the distant PBX and into the public network in that city. In every case when I have tried to call my home number(s) collect or bill third-number to them, the operator immediatly announces it can't be done. Illinois Bell was glad to set it up for me at no charge. PAT] ------------------------------ From: William Soley Subject: Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers Date: 3 Sep 91 19:37:07 GMT Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA. In article , hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: > Regarding running out of phone numbers, is there any reason to > assign multiple numbers to multiple lines that go to the same place ... > [Moderator's Note: ... > We have quite a few of those in Chicago. A business has X incoming > lines, but only one actual number. ... Yes! There is another good reason to do it this way. I have three lines in my residence and I get more than three times the normal wrong numbers. I also tend to get three calls each whenever anyone does "number block" style telemarketing. I tried and tried to get Pacific Bell to give me unnumbered service on the last two lines but they said it couldn't be done on "normal lines". Maybe I didn't use the right magic words. Does anyone know of this service actually being available to POTS customers? If so, what is it called? Bill [Moderator's Note: *Of course* it can be done on 'normal' lines, whatever those are. You can have them for incoming calls only (when picking up one of the incoming only circuits and listening on the line when no call is coming in you will only hear the battery, or side- tone); outgoing calls only or both. For years in Chicago, even back in the old 5-xbar days we had a class of service known as 'family plan', complete with a two-line phone with a turn button to select the desired line. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Justin Leavens Subject: Re: We're Sorry, But the Country is Low on Phone Numbers Date: 4 Sep 91 00:25:31 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA In article hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: > Regarding running out of phone numbers, is there any reason to > assign multiple numbers to multiple lines that go to the same place > just to get "rotary" or "hunting" or whatever it's called when my > second line rings when the first line is busy? Seems like a lot of > numbers could be freed up by assigning these numbers that are rarely > called. Our phone system here at USC works like that: We have a department phone number which has a certain number of "occurences" on the phone (a AT&T ISDN 7505). So there can be as many lines as we need with just one number used. We've also got our own 5ESS switch for our campus, so maybe that makes a difference. It's a nice step up from the Pac*Bell Centrex service we used to use. Now if only they'd put the voicemail in ... Justin T. Leavens University of Southern California :Mail to: leavens@aludra.usc.edu Student Health and Counseling Services: leavens@spiff.usc.edu [Moderator's Note: Really the only thing you lose with this set-up is the ability to direct incoming calls to any specific trunk, but if that is not important, then who cares? In fact, Illinois Bell took many customers who had phones with one-way outgoing service on them only (such as telemarketers) and pulled back the number entirely, giving them instead 'numbers' such as 073-9920 for the purpose of reference when needed. All those phunny-numbers then got billed under a single regular number. And they have always numbered outgoing WATS lines here in that fashion. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: "Swinging Grounds?" Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1991 22:52:16 GMT In article rrw@naucse.cse.nau.edu (Robert Wier) writes: > suggestion is to hit the # key after the connection is established. I > haven't tried this yet (I've been away from home since the fall > semester started here). Anyone know anything about a solution to > this? For certain types of touchtone converters, the # key is the ONLY solution. Some timed out and released after about 45 seconds but others stayed with the call forever unless you flagged them off with #. > I cut off that branch of the wiring, called the guy in the CO back, > and he said the diagnostic now looked fine. My question is, what were > they measuring and how can I do the same to check to see if I have > cured the condition? Alas, a general purpose VOM won't always show the same faults as a telco test meter. Your VOM probably uses no more than 4.5 volts when making resistance measurements; the telco meter uses 90 volts that is severly current limited. This 90 V will sometimes arc across or break down a high resistance short that is "damp". This action is similar to what might happen when your phone rings: 88 VAC super-imposed on 45 V dc. It is tough to duplicate this high-voltage test meter but with the instrument disconnected (wire open at both ends), you should measure infinity between the conductors and from each to ground. If you find the source of the high-Z leakage you measured and fix it, the path to ground will probably get fixed in the process (nail or staple through the wire breaking the insulation and letting moisture in to corrode the wires is the most likely cause). Probably the best solution is a new piece of wire. Ken Abrams nstar!pallas!kabra437 Springfield, IL kabra437@athenanet.com (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ From: Kevin Kadow Subject: Re: AT&T ACUS System Just Installed Here Reply-To: technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Kevin Kadow) Organization: Technology News, IIT, Chicago, IL Date: Tue, 3 Sep 91 06:52:36 GMT In article 2358michellp@vmsf.csd.mu.edu writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 688, Message 9 of 12 > We have the ACUS system here at Marquette University (Milwaukee) as > well. However, ACUS does not serve as a Bell "substitute". As far as > I know they only handle our long distance service. We have never been > billed for local service, only long distance. The ACUS service was > instituted this year to keep roommate arguments over who pays what on > a long distance bill to a minimum. Since every student has their own > code it is pretty nice. > I am insterested as to how ACUS can also serve as your local service > provider as well. I would think that Illinois Bell would be a bit > miffed at this. According to the limited information they`ve provided, room-to-room calls are provided free, automatically. For ANY outgoing service, you must pay $11.00/month for your seven digit code, which is used to dial ANY outgoing calls, local or long distance. How can AT&T charge to provide local calls? What would I do if I wanted to use MCI as my long distance company? technews@iitmax.iit.edu kadokev@iitvax (bitnet) My Employer Disagrees. [Moderator's Note: I don't think AT&T is providing local calls. I think the local telco is still providing those and using AT&T as their billing/collection agent. Through some inter-company accounting, part of the $11 goes to your local telco. Have you tried prefacing your long distance calls with 10222+ routing them via MCI to see what happens? The $11 you pay the telco (via AT&T) could probably be considered a line access charge similar to what anyone else pays in addition to whatever service they use and features they have on the phone. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Aug 91 19:04:51 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: HAW-4 Repeater Failure Steve_W_York@cup.portal.com wrote: > Two days later I was looking at a copy of the {Honolulu Advertiser} > and found a story buried on page 15. The failure occured at about 1 > AM on Sunday, 8/18. The undersea cable in question is three years old > and runs between Makaha and Point Arena in Northern CA. It is part of > a connection that actually runs from California to Hawaii to Guam and > on to Japan. The article also pointed out that the cable is fiber and > has the capacity to carry 30,000 simultaneous conversations. Well isn't *that* interesting -- it answers a question that's been bothering me for almost a year! Last September while on vacation, my wife and I drove from Gualala, California (just south of Point Arena) to Ukiah (about 40 miles inland). As usual, we looked for a small and twisty looking road off the main highways, and found Fish Rock Road from the coast south of Point Arena to state highway 128. It started out paved, but quickly gave way to gravel. The weather started out chilly and foggy by the coast, but quickly turned scorching. About two thirds of the way to highway 128, the paving restarted accompanied by orange marker poles with some sort of signs in fine print. I got out to have a look, and read AT&T Transcontinental Telephone Cable and a warning about digging and so on and an 800 number to call in case of trouble. The asphalt was very fresh looking - in many places the cable cut and cover was clearly visible in the road pavement. I thought at the time: "why on earth is there a transcontinental cable here in the middle of nowhere ?" Now, thanks to TELECOM Digest, I know -- obviously the land continuation of HAW-4. And to think of all that Internet and voice traffic zooming along beneath us as we drove! Some of the ranches didn't even seem to have local phone service, but there was multi megabits/sec going by the front door. Tony H. ------------------------------ Date: 3-SEP-1991 14:13:42.00 From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: ATT Mail - Internet Gateway Status? The Internet to AT&T Mail gateway was working for me in late June, but has failed to work for me late in August. Can anyone shed more light on this problem, its history, its eventual resolution? Reply rather than post, so as not to offend others. Thanks. Fred <4142427@mcimail.com> [Moderator's Note: Actually, it has been down for quite awhile now. Mail comes out, but none gets in from the internet. I don't know if they planned it that way, or are just refusing to fix whatever broke down. Several Digest readers there have written to complain they are not getting the Digest; I have no way to even respond to them, but when I can reach them otherwise (they give some other email address) all I have been able to suggest is they migrate to some other email service until further notice. Some have gone to MCI Mail and restarted their subscriptions from there. Sorry, I have no other solutions, until ATT Mail gets reconnected to the internet. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Sep 91 17:01:22 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Dialing 844 and 936 From Laurel, MD I tried reaching time and weather services in Washington from the Laurel, Md. exchange (pay phone and a hotel room phone, both being local to DC but not to all of DC metro area). Believe it or not, I had only to dial the seven digit number. Dialing 202 + 7D produced a fast busy signal. (844 is time of day service; 936 is weather.) By the way, I found that the Laurel prefix is in parts of three counties: Prince Georges, Anne Arundel, and Howard. Proceeding east on Maryland 198 out of Laurel and into Anne Arundel County, I remained in the Laurel exchange until I reached Fort Meade, apparently in the Odenton exchange (which will go into 410 area while Laurel, except for the Baltimore-metro prefixes, stays in 301). ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #697 ****************************** ^A^A^A^A   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19189; 5 Sep 91 1:26 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29484; 4 Sep 91 23:55 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16804; 4 Sep 91 22:48 CDT Date: Wed, 4 Sep 91 22:15:52 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #700 BCC: Message-ID: <9109042215.ab15819@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 4 Sep 91 22:15:05 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 700 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson NASA Severs Connection on Email Linkup [Houston Chronical via J. Abernathy] Rotary Phones Just Won't Go Away [Network World via Mark Lottor] ATC Caught Padding Bills [Communications Week via Ken Jongsma] COCOTs Lose Another Round [Communications Week via Ken Jongsma] Voicemail Charges [David W. Barts] PC Based Answering Machine Cards - Opinions Wanted [Cliff Yamamoto] Looking For Company That Provides PACBELL Billing Software [Kenneth Kron] Prefixes Combined in Maryland [Carl Moore] Problem Reaching AT&T Mail [Mark Horton] Japan Note From 1953 [Carl Moore] Re: HAW-4 Repeater Failure [Harold Hallikainen] Re: Bad Fact in FAQ List: Touchtones [Harold Hallikainen] 900 Scam: Money Making Ideas [Mark Sandeen via guy@odi.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 3 Sep 91 17:05:01 CDT From: Joe Abernathy Subject: NASA Severs Connection on Email Linkup [This story appeared on Page 1A of the {Houston Chronicle} on Monday, Sept. 2, 1991. Permission is granted for redistribution in the ACM Risks Digest; Patrick Townson's TELECOM Digest and associated mailing lists; the newsgroup sci.space.shuttle, Computer Underground Digest, and the interesting_people mailing list. Our thanks to these groups for their ongoing contributions to the online community and our coverage of it. Please send comments and suggestions to edtjda@chron.com.] NASA Severs Connection on Electronic Mail Linkup By JOE ABERNATHY Copyright 1991, Houston Chronicle Although declaring the experiment a success, NASA has called a halt to a project by which space shuttle astronauts briefly were linked with the nation's computer networks through electronic mail. The e-mail experiment, conducted during the recent flight of Atlantis, was part of a larger effort to develop computer and communications systems for the space station Freedom, which is to be assembled during the late 1990s. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration cited unauthorized access as the reason for severing the network connection, but NASA officials did not provide details. The space agency initially attempted to carry out the project in secrecy, but word leaked out on the nation's computer networks. Details were closely guarded because of concerns over malicious computer hacking and astronauts' privacy. "Hello, Earth! Greetings from the STS-43 Crew! This is the first Applelink from space. Having a GREAT time, wish you were here!" read the first message home. It went from Atlantis astronauts Shannon Lucid and James Adamson to Marcia Ivins, a shuttle communicator at Johnson Space Center. It was the use of AppleLink -- a commercial electronic mail network connected to the global computer matrix -- that apparently contained the seeds of trouble. When an AppleLink electronic mail address for the shuttle was distributed online and then published in the {Houston Chronicle}, it generated about 80 responses from well-wishers. Although the address was created just for this purpose, the flight director nearly pulled the plug on the project, according to Debra Muratore, the NASA experiment manager. The project was concluded as scheduled and declared a success. But ultimately, it was decided, at least for now, to cease all interaction with public computer networks. The decision eventually could mean that NASA's premier research facility, the space station, may not have access to its premier research communications tool, the NASA Science Internet -- the space agency's portion of the vast Internet global computer network. Electronic 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 for a short time, could send them to space. "The problem was that the information had gotten leaked prematurely. There was no problem with security," Muratore said. Even previous to the leak of the addresss, however, the experiment was structured in such a way that it was vulnerable to hackers, she acknowledged. "As a result of this whole experience, at least my project plans never to use a public (electronic) mail system again," she said. Muratore indicated that the space agency may explore other ways of providing "connectivity" -- communication between orbiting astronauts and NASA's broader collection of computerized resources -- which will become increasingly important as the use of computerized information grows. The decision to sever the short-lived e-mail connection has drawn strong criticism among computer security experts and other scientists, who charge that NASA was attempting to design "security through obscurity." "This is another example of an ostrich-oriented protection policy -- stick your head in the sand and pretend no one will find out what you know," wrote Peter G. Neumann, moderator of the Association for Computing Machinery's RISKS Digest, a respected online publication that assesses the risks posed by technology. "Things like that don't stay 'secret' for very long." NASA told Newsday, but would not confirm for the Chronicle, that more than 80 "unauthorized" messages from around the world were sent to the Atlantis address -- which a source told the Chronicle was set up explicitly to handle public requests for a shuttle e-mail address. Private addresses were used for the actual experiments. "The old 'authorization' paradox has reared its ugly head again," wrote Neumann, who prepared a study for NASA on the security requirements of the space station. " 'Threatened by unauthorized e-mail,' eh? Sending e-mail to someone REQUIRES NO AUTHORIZATION." Muratore defended the use of secrecy as a security tool. "I feel that that was a viable option," she said. She said operators of AppleLink told NASA that it was impossible to keep public e-mail from being sent to the on-orbit address, so the only option was to try to keep it secret. But network users questioned this viewpoint. "Why is an e-mail system 'in jeapordy' when it receives 80 messages? And what is an 'unauthorized user?' " asked Daniel Fischer of the Max-Planck-Institut feur Radioastronomie, in Bonn, Germany. "Once the system is linked up to the real world, it should expect to receive real mail from everyone. "If NASA can't handle that, it really shouldn't get into e-mail at all," added Fischer, writing in an online discussion group composed of scientists involved with the space program. "Consider that (heavy response) a success, NASA!" The disposition of the electronic mail sent to Atlantis is still up in the air. A Chronicle message was not acknowledged, and no one has reported receiving a response. ----------- Chronicle reporter Mark Carreau contributed to this report. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1991 16:41:49 PST From: Mark Lottor Subject: Rotary Phones Just Won't go Away The following blurb was in the September 2 {Network World}. The percentages are certainly higher than I would have guessed. Of course, we don't know how they got their data. Maybe they just asked the telcos what percentage of residences weren't PAYING for touch tone service? RHBC Percentage of residences with rotary phones Ameritech 44.3% Bell Atlantic 37.1% BellSouth 38.3% Nynex 41.5% Pacific Telesis 27.3% Southwestern Bell 41.3% US West 38.3% Average 38.5% source: Advanced Telecom Services Corp, Wayne, PA ------------------------------ Subject: ATC Caught Padding Bills Date: Tue, 3 Sep 91 19:58:43 EDT From: Ken Jongsma There is an interesting news comment regarding Advanced Telecommunications Corporation (ATC) of Florida in the September 2 issue of {Communications Week}. It appears that ATC was billing for call setup time in addition to the actual call. A cost recovery firm caught them at it and sued them for damages. ATC settled with the company blaming it on old billing software, but claimed that their tariffs allowed them to bill setup times. The Florida PUC is now investigating how widespread the practice is and what should be done. The Florida Attorney General says that thousands of customers, including the State of Florida were misbilled. Sort of reminds you of that bank programmer (Rifkin?) that shaved all those fractions of a cent interest and deposited them in his own account. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ...sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ Subject: COCOTs Lose Another Round Date: Tue, 3 Sep 91 19:59:44 EDT From: Ken Jongsma According to the September 2 issue of {Communications Week}, Southland Corp, owner of the 7-11 stores, has signed a two year contract with AT&T to allow AT&T to provide operator services at more than 3000 stores nationwide. Weren't they the ones that had a large contract with ITI? Another AOS bites the dust as corporate America realizes their customers don't like being ripped off. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ...sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Sep 91 18:29:14 -0700 From: "David W. Barts" Subject: Voicemail Charges The Moderator writes: > . . . [regarding Centel VM] I pay about $10 per month for the > whole thing. I also have voicemail on my Ameritech cellular phone > (from Ameritech); it costs $4.50 per month. I have voicemail on an 800 > number which I rarely use; it costs 29 cents per minute both to leave > or retrieve messages. How big is your bill each month? PAT] I have US West Voice Messaging on my single residential line; it costs $6.95/mo (flat rate, no per-minute charge). David Barts N5JRN UW Civil Engineering, FX-10 davidb@zeus.ce.washington.edu Seattle, WA 98195 ... Back on the Digest at my new job. [Moderator's Note: My service from Centel and Ameritech is flat rate per month. It is only the 800 voicemail service which bills by the minute. PAT] ------------------------------ From: cyamamot@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Cliff Yamamoto) Subject: PC Based Answering Machine Cards - Opinions Wanted Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA Date: Wed, 4 Sep 91 01:49:30 GMT Greetings, I was wondering if I could solicit some opinions on these PC based answering machines? I've included Sci.electronics because I was possibly going to build my own to save $$$ (maybe?). I've seen two cards so far, the "Big Mouth" from JDR and "The Complete Answering Machine" from Complete PC in the Softwarehouse catalog. Does anybody have any experience with these cards or any other cards? I'd basically like to know how good is the audio digitization, how long can it digitize and does it have multi-digit DTMF decoding. Also can I write my own software for these? (meaning is any programming info provided or obtainable?) They're both over $250 and if I could make a cheapo one with an ADC/DAC board, I'd like to. Of course after putting a DTMF decode, phone line interface, etc. I may spend $250 anyway. :-( Any comments or opinions welcomed. Thanks, Cliff Email: cyamamot@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov cyamamot@grissom.jpl.nasa.gov cyamamot@jato.jpl.nasa.gov cky@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov cky@hydra.jpl.nasa.gov MaBell: (818) 354-1242 - off. (818) 354-6042 - alt. (818) 354-6426 - lab. ------------------------------ From: Kenneth Kron Subject: Looking For Company That Provides PACBELL Billing Software Date: Wed, 04 Sep 91 23:43:59 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) I interviewed with a small Bay Area company some time ago that writes billing software for PAC BELL. I am trying to get in touch with them I thought and I can't remember the name of the company. I tried PAC BELL but I they haven't been very helpful. Anybody out there work for them? Anybody out there know the name or how I could get it? Kenneth Kron -- Bit Whys Software & Technology Consulting 293 Sleeper Ave Mountain View, CA 94040-3818 email: (usenet) kron@netcom.COM (compuserve) 76040,1756 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Sep 91 9:22:55 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Prefixes Combined in Maryland Recently, I have come across three cases of Maryland prefixes apparently being closed down and subscribers being put on a neighboring prefix. You have already heard of 301-826 Accident being merged into 301-746 Friendsville. Since then, I have come across: 301-395 Oldtown apparently merged into 301-478 Flintstone. In what will become 410: 301-847 apparently merged into 301-397 (Wingate). ------------------------------ From: mark@cbcc.att.com Date: Wed, 4 Sep 91 15:41:07 EDT Subject: Problem Reaching AT&T Mail The problem with incoming mail to AT&T Mail from the Internet has been found and fixed this afternoon. Please report problems to postmaster@att.com and we will look into them. We heard about the mail to TELECOM from an AT&T employee who reads it. We apologize for any inconvenience during the service interruption. Mark Horton AT&T Gateway Team [Moderator's Note: Thanks for your help with this. The only thing is, mail to attmail.com was falling in a hole somewhere. If other users were receiving nothing how would the postmaster have gotten mail? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Sep 91 11:21:40 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Japan Note From 1953 Eight years after World War II ended, the Unicorn Book of 1953, page 442, had this among items for September of that year: "The Tokyo Telephone Company began to do something about a backlog of applications for phone service, some dating back to 1906." [Moderator's Note: Does that sound like a typical delay on an open trouble ticket for *some* OCC's I could name, but won't? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Harold Hallikainen Subject: Re: HAW-4 Repeater Failure Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1991 06:19:02 GMT A previous article on this subject mentioned that HAW-4 was a fiber from Point Arena to Hawaii. I think it's a fairly new installation. We have at least one (I think two) undersea coaxes going from here in SLO to Hawaii. At least one of these has vacuum tube amps sitting on the ocean floor. I believe they originally ran SSB frequency division mux down the cable. I think they've now put some "real fast" modems on each end and just send everything as a digital stream. I seem to recall that another fiber is on its way here from Hawaii. All of this info is from a tour I had of the facility a year or two ago. Years and years ago on another tour, they gave us a brochure titled "San Luis Obispo, Communications Center of the World" or something like that. It was all pretty amazing stuff! Harold ------------------------------ From: Harold Hallikainen Subject: Re: Bad Fact in FAQ List: Touchtones Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1991 06:26:47 GMT Touch tones and twist reminds me of an idea I never followed up on. Has anyone tried putting a band split filter and a couple comparators or schmitt triggers in front of a single chip microcontroller and then done touch tone detection in software? In some simple control applications, it seems the whole product could be a quad op amp and a microcontroller. By the way, I believe the ideal design has zero parts. I try to have my designs approach the ideal... Harold ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Sep 91 18:13:19 EDT From: guy@odi.com Subject: 900 Scam! Money Making Ideas Forwarded for your amusement. From: Mark Sandeen Subject: 900 Money making ideas A classified ad in the current {L.A. Weekly}, a weekly free paper: CALL THIS NUMBER BEFORE YOU DIAL 1-900-ANYTHING Learn to avoid 900 _Hucksters_, scams & rip-offs. Dial 1-900-737-1737 24.95 per call Must be over 18 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #700 ******************************