Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id ab23309; 8 Nov 91 9:54 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01254 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 8 Nov 1991 08:04:18 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18023 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 8 Nov 1991 08:04:08 -0600 Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 08:04:08 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111081404.AA18023@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #901 TELECOM Digest Fri, 8 Nov 91 08:03:22 CST Volume 11 : Issue 901 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Alliance Signal Quality (Jim Hickstein) Cell Service in Franklin Co, Mass. (Scott Reuben) AT&T is Just Like All the Rest (Rob Knauerhase) Electrical Specs Needed on WE Princess Rotary Phone (Ralph W. Hyre) Looking for BISYNC Source Code on PC's (Parag Rastogi) Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? (Les Mikesell) Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? (Sean Williams) Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done (Jack Decker) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 22:27:19 PST From: jxh@attain.ICD.Teradyne.COM (Jim Hickstein) Subject: AT&T Alliance Signal Quality I recently used AT&T's Alliance conferencing facility to make a call that connected points in Massachusetts, California (me), and Tokyo. I was very disappointed with the result. The trunk to Tokyo seemed not to go over the usual, high-quality path, and there was a very high level of background noise when someone in Tokyo talked (accents are bad enough in person ...). This could have been due to ambient noise in the room with a speakerphone on their end (the rest of us were using handsets), but it was still very distressing. Also, the "negotiation" involved, when changing the party doing the speaking, took a long time and seemed to get confused. Is this TASI trying too hard to reduce bandwidth? It seemed to switch rapidly between the two talkers for a while, like on the order of 20Hz, until one of them stopped talking. I called their customer service number and asked the simple question: Did this call use AT&T facilities, specifically the crystal-clear transPac fiber trunks, to Tokyo? The answer was Yes, but I somehow doubt it. Is Alliance an integral part of an AT&T tandem somewhere (it said it was in Reno), or is it a "service" that AT&T resells on behalf of a "provider" who may very well use other carriers. (This is ridiculous on the face of it, but at this stage I'm ready to disbelieve anything.) Could I have forced AT&T with an equal-access code (10288) in front of the 011+81 ...? What other, competing conferencing services do better in this regard? Does my use of Alliance count against our SDN volume? If so, it may be harder to go with someone else, but quality is my first consideration. Really, it was almost totally useless. Should I just bridge three calls into my PBX next time, or would that entail too much loss from one end to the other? I am originating the call from San Jose, the midpoint geographically, so maybe this wouldn't be too bad. Honestly, this can't be *that* hard! Haven't they been doing it for a hundred years? A Disgruntled Customer. P.S. To its credit, it did recognize that one of my parties didn't supervise, and it did the right thing (it said it didn't work, and that I should try again), so it can't be totally fly-by-night. Jim Hickstein, Teradyne/Attain, San Jose CA, (408) 434-0822 FAX -0252 jxh@attain.teradyne.com ...!{decwrl!teda,apple}!attain!jxh ------------------------------ Date: 8-NOV-1991 05:38:54.24 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Cell Service in Franklin Co, Mass For those driving on I-91: This past Monday, Franklin County (Mass) Cellular turned "on" their tower(s?), so that coverage on the "A" side in Western Mass on I-91 is now complete. (Although the rest of the county doesn't have service -- yet). You can drive from New Haven, CT, all the way to the Mass/VT border, and be continuously covered. Franklin Co. Cellular basically resells to Metro Mobile, and has the same SID (00119), so you don't really know you are not technically using Metro Mobile. All your features work, you can get calls, *711 yields a Metro Mobile roaming recording, *611 gets Metro Mobile custuner service, so that fact that the towers are owned by Franklin County Cellular is more or less academic. (Let's just hope they get the billing correct!) Also, Cell One/VT presently has service to just north of Brattleboro (about 15 miles north of the border), and by January should cover all the way down to Mass. Cell One/VT offers an economical $3/month plan ($.75 airtime) which is basically aimed at light callers who want to avoid roam charges. If you make calls on more than one day in VT, you will save money with this plan. (Barring special roam plans like SNET/CT's 60-cent-per-day-no-roam0-charge plan ... I think Rochester Tel offers something like this as well (?) ) Since both systems are run on Motorola EMXs, it shouldn't be any problem to have through-paging between Metro Mobile/CT-RI-Western Mass and Cell One/VT. This would be an impressive coverage area indeed! The "B" side is also making progress. SNET also seems to have service in Franklin County now (but not as clear in all places as Metro Mobile/Franklin County Cellular), and US Cellular in Keene, NH, is expanding to the Hanover area this winter. (Presently, they resell Cell One/VT, which covers White River Jct/Hanvover, while Cell One/VT resells US Cell for its customers who wish to roam into the Keene area.) Finally, in July I mentioned that all the switches in the Northeast that run on Motorollas will allow you to use your call-forwarding features in any other Motorola based system. A few new systems were "added" (software upgrades?), so here is the complete list: Cell One/Boston (00007) Metro Mobile/CT-RI-Western Mass-New Bedford Mass (00119) Cell One/South Jersey (00173/00575/01487) Metrophone/Philly (00029) Cell One/Wilmington (00123) Cell One/Atlantic City (forgot the SID) (note the absence of NY after the July switch change) There is also a new system is Jersey somewhere (not Ocean County Cellular), which is supposed to connect to Cell One (aka Metro One)/NY. I dunno if it is Ericsson or Motorola, so can't tell how it will be integrated (if it will) into the Northeast EMX system. They only have 54 customers, so they will be depending on a good deal of roamer traffic! :) Anyone know about this system? What's the SID? Is Cell One/DC Motorola based? If so, odd how Cell One/Wilmington doesn't link up with the DC-Baltimore system -- it seems to me like there would be a lot of cross-traffic, even though one STILL gets cut off crossing the river near Havre de Grace (sp?). Happy Roaming! Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 23:05:58 -0600 From: Rob Knauerhase Subject: AT&T is Just Like All the Rest This evening I got a bright yellow glossy envelope, emblazoned with: "We really meant it when we said your check was in the mail." I was somewhat suspicious, especially since all the identification was a small mention of a PO Box in Roseland, NJ on the back of the envelope. There was even a _real_ (not pre-printed) 10-cent stamp on it. Imagine my surprise to see that inside was a $20 check from AT&T -- all I have to do to get the cash is switch to AT&T. So it seems the "big guys" aren't all that far ahead of the upstarts in marketing tactics. This offer is very similar to the MCI deal mentioned here before, except this check states on front and back that signing it means they can switch you, and it clearly states "Check void if altered." Unlike MCI, however, they don't promise to pay any local switchover fee. Is there a marketing school somewhere that's producing the people who think this up? MCI mails out checks if you switch, Sprint mailed me a $10 check in June that's only good after October 1, and now AT&T is in on the game. [Now off to the archives to see if anyone figured out a legal way to get the money without switching ... :-> Not really.] Rob Knauerhase University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign knauer@cs.uiuc.edu Dept. of Computer Science, Gigabit Study Group ------------------------------ From: rhyre@cinoss1.ATT.COM (Ralph W. Hyre) Subject: Electrical Specs Needed on WE Princess Rotary Phone Date: 7 Nov 91 23:00:06 GMT Reply-To: rhyre@cinoss1.ATT.COM (Ralph W. Hyre) Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati Our local (CBT) phone center is selling the handset only for Princess phones with a rotary dial and switchook in the handset. Can anyone briefly explain the handset-base circuitry so I can asses whether to buy one to experiment with? (I have several applications where I can use a 500-style handset, but I'm worried the dial circuitry might interfere with the audio. This is for my old hobby of abusing communications and computer equipment.) My guess is that the handset has a hybrid circuit (2-4 wire converter), using the other two wires for the switchhook. Is this right? Does the device resemble a butt set, electrically? Mic == + 2-4 wire converter == Spkr == 4 wires from handset to base [base] phone line += Pulse Dialer/Swithhook ===+ Please reply by mail if you: 1) know the answer to the question or 2) have a trimline base you'd like a used handset for ($9.80) [There are two black ones and one red one left.] Thanks, - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. E-mail: rhyre@cinoss1.att.com Snail: Box 85, Milford OH 45150-0085 Phone: +1 513 629 7288 Radio: N3FGW ------------------------------ From: parag@cup.portal.com Subject: Looking for BISYNC Source Code on PC's Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 14:07:01 PST I am looking for bisync code. I am wondering if someone knows whether any public-domain source code for bisync protocol on PC's exist. I can modify it to run for my application. Any pointers in this regard are requested. Thanks. Parag Rastogi parag@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ From: les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) Subject: Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 19:00:26 GMT In article hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes: > Like yourself, I have yet to get anything from AT&T Mail on this, in > the mail or otherwise. I haven't seen anything other than the article here either, but I had been expecting some sort of rate structure change after the internet link became official. They only charge for messages sent, so for messages coming from the internet, they not only don't get paid but they lose mony on your 800-number call to pick them up. If you are on some internet mailing lists, there could be substantial traffic. I didn't expect the low-usage accounts to pick up the tab in the form of minimum monthy charges as the other message implied, though. Les Mikesell les@chinet.chi.il.us ------------------------------ From: sew7490@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.E. Williams ) Subject: Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 23:18:31 GMT In article hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes: > I have posted a message to !atthelp on AT&T Mail, scanned through all > of the !atthelp:news shared folder, asked several of my friends and > business associates who have AT&T Mail accounts, and in NONE of this > have I found even the remotest reference to a rate increase or > imposition of a monthly minimum. Is this just an unsubstantiated I wrote a note to AT&T Mail's Customer Service regarding the same thing, and here's what I got back in the mail (Captured directly from my buffer): >From atthelp@attmail.com Thu Nov 7 04:38:45 1991 Received: by ultb.isc.rit.edu (5.57/5.3 (Postmaster DPMSYS)) id AA19105; Thu, 7 Nov 91 04:38:43 -0500 Date: Thu Nov 7 04:37:58 EST 1991 Original-From: attmail!atthelp (Customer Assistance ) Phone: +1 800 624 5672 Subject: Help Ticket ID: 16594 To: internet!ultb.isc.rit.edu!sew7490@attmail.UUCP Your original message was: Dear AT&T, I just received your letter regarding the new billing structure in the mail today. Am I correct in assuming that AT&T mail now has a minimum monthly usage of $20.00? (or was that $25.00) If so, is AT&T doing this to get rid of its "little" customers? I can see no reason for staying with AT&T mail, since MCI mail has no such monthly fee. Regards, Sean E. Williams Telecommunications Technology Program Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY In Response: Sean, You may call 1-800-242-6005 regarding the new billing structure. Thank You, Tom !atthelp ---------- Well, that's it! I guess we'll have to call the number to find out. By the way, AT&T did return my original letter, and put in the "Your original message was:" and "In Response:" lines. I have not edited the letter. Regards, Sean E. Williams (sew7490@ultb.isc.rit.edu) Rochester Institute of Technology - Telecommunications Technology (ITFT) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 17:28:34 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done; Here's How In a message dated 1 Nov 91 19:16:11 GMT, the Moderator interjects: > [Moderator's Note: Security wise, what solutions are there against > people who program their telephone number to one of the demo numbers > every carrier hands out to their dealers for testing and sales use? > For example, the RS dealer here has a number on which every cell phone > in his display case will function. On that particular phone number, > the cell carrier does not bother to check the ESN -- how could they > while still letting the dealer demo all his phones? Likewise, the > internal phone numbers used by the cell carrier are not ESN validated. > What prevents a typical user from programming his stolen phone to one > of those numbers so the ESN is no longer a concern? PAT] That is a REAL good question, Pat. I know that in the early days of Compu$erve (circa 1984-85 or thereabouts) they used to give demo accounts to Radio Shack stores. Of course, the employees soon found out about them and then friends of employees found out and pretty soon they were all over. I *THINK* that perhaps Compu$erve may have started restricting access for these accounts, so they would only be honored if the call came in from a certain node and then only during business hours. I suppose that a cellular operator COULD restrict access for a certain account to only one cell site (the one nearest the store) but for some reason, that's NOT the way I'd bet! But we don't even HAVE cellular service up here in the North Woods yet ... in fact, I live only about 40 miles from a place that has no telephone service at all, except that one resident purportedly has a cellular phone and is receiving service from Traverse City, which (even though most of the hop is over Lake Michigan) must set some sort of record for service distance ... it's almost exactly 100 miles from Traverse City to this location (East Lake in Mackinac County, about 10 to 15 miles east-southeast of Trout Lake, if anyone wants to look it up on a map). Does cellular service really "reach out" that far? Jack Decker : jack@myamiga.mixcom.com : FidoNet 1:154/8 [Moderator's Note: Two points: The *really* early days of Compuserve came in the period 1980-82, and yes, they were eaten alive by fraud, hackerphreak style, during that period. I think the CB Simulator program started around 1981-82, and some of those guys would go to the local RS store, buy a Compuserve 'starter kit' which came with a $200 credit limit automatically in those days no questions asked, then stay online all all day and night until the system went down at 5 AM local time next morning. Phalse names and billing addresses provided for the signup information, of course. After polluting the account with a few days of being continuously online CB'ing, they'd ditch the account and go get a new starter kit the next weekend for more fun. The starter kits cost $20 as I recall, and could be milked for several hundred dollars in charges before CIS would cut them off. Regards cell service 'going the extra mile', I've found the service from Tulsa, OK can be used 50-60 miles away in southeastern Kansas with no hassle. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #901 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05375; 9 Nov 91 18:55 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31644 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 16:47:41 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30852 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 16:47:30 -0600 Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 16:47:30 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111092247.AA30852@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #902 TELECOM Digest Sat, 9 Nov 91 16:47:24 CST Volume 11 : Issue 902 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T is Just Like All the Rest (Mikel Manitius) Re: Audio Quality: US-US Versus US-Elsewhere (Rolf Meier) Re: Costs of Phreaking (Andy Sherman) Re: Early Switches Permitting Touch-Tone (Paul Cook) Re: Telephone Registration to be Used at Umass/Amherst (Marcus Adams) Re: Economics of Dial-Out Only Lines (Andrew Klossner) Re: Question on Easments (Rich Greenberg) Re: CA Rate Increases and GTE Notifications (John Higdon) Security Failure: Recycled "Unlisted" Phone Number (Steven J. Edwards) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 15:25:35 EST From: mikel@aaahq05.aaa.com (Mikel Manitius) Subject: Re: AT&T is Just Like All the Rest > [ ... ] There was even a _real_ (not pre-printed) 10-cent stamp on > it. Imagine my surprise to see that inside was a $20 check from AT&T > -- all I have to do to get the cash is switch to AT&T. I really thought it was funny when my friend received such a $20 check from MCI to switch -- she was already an MCI "Dial 1" customer! Are these things legally binding? I've often managed to desposit checks into my account without signing them by using an ATM. The problem is they'll probably switch you anyway, and the trouble of getting it fixed isn't worth the $20. Mikel Manitius mikel@aaa.com [Moderator's Note: We've covered this before here. The intent of the check is clear. When you deposit it, you agree to the terms involved. Alterations usually make the check void. PAT] ------------------------------ From: meier@SOFTWARE.MITEL.COM (Rolf Meier) Subject: Re: Audio Quality: US-US Versus US-Elsewhere Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 15:32:35 -0500 Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article S_ZIEGLER@iravcl.ira.uka.de (|S| Juergen Ziegler) writes: > While watching the program I was quite stunned by poor audio quality > from most callers within the US as compared to a phone call from a > correspondent who was calling from Madrid, Spain. > What was the reason for this odd thing? You have several problems when talking between Europe and America. First, the digital encoding standards are different, and a conversion must be made. The American standard is called mu-law and the European is A-law. Not doing the conversion can certainly account for reduced speech quality, but even if it is done there will be some impairment. Second, there will be echo cancellation required due to the distance. This can result in some degradation as well because these circuits are not perfect. Third, the voices you heard may have been put on a speakerphone, which causes a "rain-barrel" effect. The combination of at least these three impairments (there may be others, such as impedance mismatches) account for what you heard. Each one will only make the other impairments sound that much worse. For example, a speakerphone might sound ok when everything else is perfect, but add some imperfect echo cancellation, and the effect is pretty bad. Rolf Meier Mitel Corporation ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 17:34:15 EST Subject: Re: Costs of Phreaking Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ In article you write: > I run into this line of argument over and over again, in discussions > of both telephone phraud and software piracy. Some Three Letter > Acronym (TLA) is said to have lost 7.4 jillion dollars in revenue and > therefore must pass this cost on to honest, hard-working, God-fearing, > apple-pie eating American customers. [ goes on to argue that phreakers didn't come close to using up the network, so there is no cost.] Toll fraud has become a major industry involving your "jillions" of dollars of lost revenue and expended costs by all of the major carriers, TLA or otherwise. This is not some "innocent" student fiddling with DTMF boxes. This is folks who found an easier bet than dealing drugs -- selling calling card numbers in the Port Authority bus terminal. There are very real costs associated with toll fraud. The calls generally get billed, and then get written off. There is a cost associated with that process. Also, a whole lot of the toll fraud industry centers around international calling. Something like half the price of an international call is paid out directly to the foreign PTT (usually == foreign treasury). That is a lot of money for even a TLA to have to eat. Half of a large fraction of the "jillions". If you think is is pocket change, I invite you to cover it. I could use a better raise this year. :^) Also, I find it very disturbing that your discussion of phreaking and software piracy is cast solely in terms of whether or not the victims can afford it. Does nobody think about simple honesty anymore? I must be naive. I actually have reported and paid tax on income that appeared on no W2 and no 1099, because it was the right thing to do. Paying for your phone calls and paying for your software is the right thing to do. Anything else is stealing. Stealing is wrong. Is that such a complicated concept? Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 22:13 GMT From: Proctor & Associates <0003991080@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Early Switches Permitting Touch-Tone "Ken J. Clark" writes: > I'm not sure when AT&T introduced Touchtone(R) to the market place. They came up with the scheme in the 1950s, but it wasn't brought to market until the mid-1960s. > Do they still hold it as a registered trade mark? Anyone? No. > However, I remember seeing a 1930s experimental phone in the > Smithsonian about five years ago. It had the ten numeric keys in one > row (like the number keys along the top of a typewrite keyboard) on a > very wide-based phone. I don't know what frequencies were used for > the signaling and I doubt that what has become the CCITT Q23 > allocation for the frequencies was used. I'm assuming that the 10 > linear keys implies 10 discrete tones, unlike the 4 X 4 combination > defined in Q23. I don't think this used tone signalling. I believe it was a mechanical device that put out rotary dial pulses. Back in the 1930s one would have to use vacuum tubes or vibrating reeds to generate tone signals. Paul Cook Proctor & Associates 3991080@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: madams@aludra.usc.edu (Marcus Adams) Subject: Re: Telephone Registration to be Used at Umass/Amherst Date: 8 Nov 91 23:12:51 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA It's interesting that they are issuing PINs to the students for the touchtone registration system. Here at USC, they use your student ID # (your social security number if you have one) and your birthdate for access. I'm amazed that no one has complained about the obvious lack of security in this system around here. I guess people here are so happy not to have to wait in four hour lines to get their classes. I do know a guy who, in order to get even with an ex-girlfriend, called up the touchtone registration on the last day of drop/add (last day to make changes in your schedule without getting charged for it) and added 16 classes to her schedule for a total of 44 credit hours. She got a bill for it a couple weeks later, at $475 a credit hour, for over $20,000 over her normal tuition. [Moderator's Note: Gee, what a witty, brilliant and funny thing to do to someone. He must have been rolling on the floor with laughter after doing that, the same as I am now reading about it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) Subject: Re: Economics of Dial-Out Only Lines Date: 8 Nov 91 23:19:51 GMT Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon TELECOM Moderator noted: > Specially treated lines of this nature which restrict one or > more types of calls from taking place are intended as a > security precaution, where you have people around who can't > keep their hands off the phone, ie, jail inmates or delinquent > children." They're also great for modem dial-out lines when you want to be sure that, when the modem goes off-hook, it isn't accidentally answering an incoming call from a cracker who is going to mimic the CO and collect a password. Andrew Klossner (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com) (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew) [Moderator's Note: But I covered this category in "people who can't keep their hands off the phone" :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 14:07:57 -0800 From: Rich Greenberg From: richg@locus.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: Question on Easements Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1991 22:05:56 GMT In article KRUSE_NEIL@tandem.com writes: > I have a question as to how does LEC determine what a easment is > worth? [ LEC snuck in some cables] > tractors ripping up the ground to install a new fiber optic cable. We > say, "stop!" They say they now have a "perscriptive easement" for this > half mile strip down our property. We settle for about $3,500 dollars > in paving work done by one of their contractors. > My question is, since they intalled the cable without our permission > (we didn't even know it was there) and, then went to install new > cable, did they have a right "with the perscriptive easement" to do > that? And, were we suckered on what a half mile long easement is > worth? Any ideas? You have most likely gotten as much as you can expect out of them. They are wrong about the "perscriptive easement" provided that you truly didn't know about it. They get this easement only if you knew and didn't protest for some specfic length of time (may vary state-state). Keep in mind that they are "TPC", and they don't have to care. (And they have lots of lawyers on staff.) Disclaimer: The above writings are the ramblings of one human being and have nothing what-so-ever to do with Locus Computing Corp. ---> Rich Greenberg, richg@locus.com TinsleTown, USA 310-337-5904 Located in Inglewood, Ca, a small city completely contained within Los Angeles ------------------------------ Subject: Re: CA Rate Increases and GTE Notifications Date: 7 Nov 91 01:23:12 PST (Thu) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) singer@almaden.ibm.com (David Singer) writes: > Oh yes...there will be a new discount plan offering 9 cent/minute long > distance calling anywhere in the LATA for a mere $200/month fee. Aunt > Minnie should jump at that one! You can practically get that now. Simply order direct WATS (delivered on T1) from almost any major carrier and you will get a rate around $0.09/min. The monthly will be slightly more than $200/month, but then you can have up to twenty-four outbound circuits for your calls as a bonus. Then call to your heart's content anywhere in the country (including within the LATA) for about $0.09/minute, day and night. California regulations may prohibit carriers from claiming that they can carry intraLATA calls, but I can tell you that they can and do for many enlightened companies. GTE may be able to stop MCI, Sprint, et al from telling you how to save big time on your intraLATA calling, but they cannot stop me from giving you that information. And I will be more than happy to tell you all about it. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 15:38:39 EST From: sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com (Steven J. Edwards) Subject: Security Failure: Recycled "Unlisted" Phone Number Reply-To: sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com Four months ago I obtained an unlisted telephone number by New England Telephone as part of the service for a new residence. I was told at the time that this number had not seen recent use and was not assigned to anyone else, nor was it present in the NET telephone directories or from NET directory assistance (555-1212). There was a fairly hefty tariff associated with installation (about US$50, just for a software entry; all hardware was in place). There was also a cost of about US$25 for a service request for getting an unpublished and unlisted number, along with a monthly tariff of about US$4 for the same. These expenses were justified at the time by an NET service representative as being necessary for "the high level of service traditionally supplied by New England Telephone". The number was to be used mostly for automated computer telecommunications, so I had no desire for unwanted incoming voice calls. After noting some problems with the computer connection over the first three months' usage, I installed a voice answering machine and recorder on the line. I set the outgoing tape to answer with the complete telephone number dialed so wrong number dialers would realize their mistake. Much to my surprise, I would come home after work and find a number of calls for people I did not know from people I did not know. Furthermore, a number of these calls surprisingly contained rather intimate details of people's business and private lives. The callers obviously thought they were dealing the correct number because of the outgoing message. I had been unable to track the origin of these calls until yesterday evening, as most of the callers thought that the party they were trying to call knew their return phone number. Finally, one caller did leave her return number (she was not at her regular number, I suppose). I contacted her and was able to get the correct spelling of the name of whom she thought she called. I was also told that she had gotten the number from NET directory assistance. A quick check of the new 1991-1992 Nynex White Pages phone book for my area found my "unlisted" number listed on page 164 under another person's name! Another entry with the same last name, but different first name, was located. Furthermore, a call to directory assistance proved that their computer was still supplying this false information. It took a nearly thirty minute long conversation with three different people at NET directory assistance to convince them that they were giving out false information. Because of my knowledge of the first names referenced in messages left on my recorder (along with other information inadvertently recorded), I correctly guessed that this was a husband and wife living at different addresses and they had recently moved into a single residence. I called the other (correct) number and confirmed that this was all a result of a big screw-up by NET. I also took the opportunity to relate several of the topics referenced in the supposed confidential calls. The intended recipients were quite surprised, to say the least. Fortunately for them, I am not a crook; however, if it had been a crook that had their old phone number, the opportunities for fraud may have been too tempting to resist. First moral of the story: if you ask for an unlisted number, don't assume that you'll get one that was not very recently in use by another party. Second moral of the story: if you change residences, make sure that your old listing is deleted by the directory provider and is correctly handled by directory assistance. Third moral of the story: never leave personal or otherwise confidential information on a recording answering machine unless you are absolutely certain that only the intended receiver will replay such recordings. [The above opinions expressed are my own; not necessarily held by others.] == Steven J. Edwards Bull HN Information Systems Inc. == == (508) 294-3484 300 Concord Road MS 820A == == sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com Billerica, MA 01821 USA == ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #902 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06807; 9 Nov 91 19:43 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01763 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 18:04:27 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01523 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 18:04:18 -0600 Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 18:04:18 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111100004.AA01523@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #903 TELECOM Digest Sat, 9 Nov 91 18:04:12 CST Volume 11 : Issue 903 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Subject Index Updated Through Issue 900 (TELECOM Moderator) The Information Wars (John Higdon) Estonian Phone Net (Lars Aronsson) New Zealand Toll Price War (Pat Cain) Centrex Multiline Station Sets (Jeff Sicherman) Cellular Phone Rates (Popular Commuications via Steven M. Palm) Digital PABXs Vs BISDN Switches (Basic Question) (Krishnan Sakotai) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 15:57:32 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Subject Index Updated Through Issue 900 The TELECOM Digest subject index for volumes 9-10-11 in the archives has been updated to include subject lines through issue 900 of volume 11. At the end of the year, I will update it again to include the final issues for this year. The file 'index-vol.9-10-11.subj.Z' is compressed, and you will need to take it back to your site using ftp, and THEN uncompress it to use it. As before, I recommend you use grep -i for the best results in searching for subjects, author names, or file locations. The file is is strict alphabetical order, ignoring the 'Re:' which appears at the start of some messages. Within each subject, author names are in order by the *full* name, ie Fred Smith comes before John Higdon. The series of numbers at the left reference the volume and block of issues in the archives where the subject will be found. After locating which volume and block of issues is desired, you would then pull that file and again grep for the subject within that block. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 13:24 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: The Information Wars Tom Lantos, a VERY consumer-oriented (overly so, in my opinion) congressman from the Bay Area has come down four-square against the entry into the information business by the RBOCs. He succinctly stated his reasoning in an article written for the {San Francisco Chronicle} that appeared in today's paper and which I faxed to the EFF earlier today. Pacific Telesis' response has been a radio commercial which I just heard aired over a San Francisco classical radio station. Later today I will transcribe the spot, but for now let me tell you that it is typical of the underhanded tactics PacTel uses to ruthlessly get its own way. It attacks Lantos by name, accusing him of "siding with the newspaper interests" in "blocking your right to the free access of information". It goes on to claim that senior citizens and students will be particularly hurt by not allowing PacTel to enter into the information business. So here you have a government legislator actually looking out for his constituency for a change and he gets attacked by an expensive (this was a highly-produced spot) ad campaign. The advertisement concludes by saying that it was paid for by Pacific Telesis and not paid for by telephone customers. Oh, really? And where DOES Pacific Telesis get its money? Off of spaghetti trees? I will believe that line when I can examine a complete, certified audit of Pacific Telesis (in other words, never). This matter is even more serious than Pac*Bell's confiscatory ratepayer money-grab. Pacific Telesis' entry into the information providing business will give new meaning to the term "Orwellian". Some organizations, such as the EFF, seem to feel that letting the RBOCs get a foot in the door is essential to the emergence of the necessary technology to get a "universal", national data network launched. This is dangerous naivete, in that, as demonstrated by history, the telcos only offer that technology that serves their own immediate marketing benefits. For instance, Pacific Bell only offers a form of ISDN that is useful in the marketing of Centrex, its own counter-product to the vendor-provided PBX. Since the gains of offering general purpose ISDN are not immediately apparent, it is not available. Indeed, I asked a Pac*Bell spokesman about Pac*Bell's timetable in offering a residential ISDN and he responded with a sneer and told me that there was really no demand and that "there were no plans or timetables yet." If Pacific Telesis is allowed into the information business AND ISDN fits into those plans, then, yes, you will see an offering. But you can rest assured that the offering will only benefit Pac*Bell's marketing strategy and will not conform to the idyllic visions expressed in a recent newsletter from the EFF. Our pulp media is having difficulty staying awake through all of this. To most, this is a non-issue that deserves, if anything, space on page sixty-seven. However, PacTel has taken the gloves off with its political radio spots. Yes, you read that correctly, these are political spots and I am going to investigate the matter of "equal time". If PacTel wants to come out of the closet with its media attack on Tom Lantos, I will be very happy to join the fray. I may not have the financial resources commanded by Pacific Telesis (courtesy of millions of Pac*Bell ratepayers), but I have some history and some facts on my side. Shall we see what the people think? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: When telco says they (and not their rate payers) are paying for something, they mean the costs are being charged against profits paid to their stockholders. PAT] ------------------------------ From: aronsson@lysator.liu.se (Lars Aronsson) Subject: Estonian Phone Net Organization: Lysator Computer Club, Linkoping University, Sweden Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 17:23:28 GMT Sweden's Televerket Invests Billions in Estonia's Telephone Network The following is my translation of an article in ELTEKNIK, a Swedish magazine for electrical engineers. To reprint this further, you should obtain permission from ELTEKNIK's office in Stockholm, Sweden. I have translated to the best of my knowledge and any factual errors might very well be mine. Ref: Gote Andersson: "Televerket satsar miljarder i Estland", ELTEKNIK Aktuell Elektronik, No 19/1991, 31 Oct 1991, pp. 7-8, Copyright (C) ELTEKNIK Aktuell Elektronik, Published by Ekonomi och Teknik Forlag AB, Stockholm, Sweden, ISSN 1101-6965. For reprints and copyright information, contact Marianne Janskog, international phone no. +46-8-796-6660, postal address ELTEKNIK, 106 12 Stockholm, Sweden. First some explanations that might be useful. TELEVERKET is Sweden's governmental telephone company. Until recently it had a total monopoly on all kinds of telecommunication services, but in the last five or ten years that has started to change. Today, Televerket operates almost like a private company, although still whole-owned by the Swedish government. When Televerket makes investments like the one described below, it is done with money earned from selling services and not with taxpayers' money. Telefon AB L M ERICSSON is a Swedish telephone equipment manufacturing corporation since more than 100 years, and AXE is the name of Ericsson's family of automatic digital telephone exchanges. GOTLAND is the largest Swedish island in the Baltic Sea. The Swedish currency is KRONOR, and there are approximately 6 kronor to one US dollar. The abbrevation AB in Swedish company names means the same as British Ltd and US Inc. TELI is Televerket's whole-owned telephone equipment manufacturing company. One important part of Teli's operation is licensed assembly of Ericsson's AXE exchanges. As to my knowledge, Ericsson's factories only assemble for export. Now to the article: TELEVERKET TO INVEST BILLIONS IN ESTONIA Becomes part owners of the Baltic nation's telephone network. by Gote Andersson Televerket is now getting involved in our eastern neighbor Estonia, where the telephone network is to be modernized. When Televerket enters as a part-owner of its Estonian counterpart, this is the first deal of its kind in Europe. The Estonian telephone network will in the next few years be extended using AXE technology. A fiber optical cable is planned from Gotland to Estonia's capital Tallinn. Preliminary, half a billion Swedish kronor [500 thousand million, almost 100 million US dollars] will be invested each year. The modernization of Estonia's telecommunications network up to West European standards is expected to total between five and six billion Swedish kronor [about 1000 million US dollars]. - This is a long term investment. Only in ten years time can we see any profit. During the first period, all profits will be reinvested in Estonia, says Viesturs Vucins, CEO of Televerket's whole-owned corporation Swedish Telecom International AB (STI). A kind of agreement, a so called Memorandum of Understanding, has been signed by Televerket's head Tony Hagstrom and his Estonian counterpart Toomas Somera. Televerket got this agreement in tough competition with the US company AT&T. Right now, the Estonian telecommunication administration is negotiating with Televerket about the contents of the contract to be signed by the two. A joint-owned corporation will be founded and the Estonian government will keep at least 51 per cent of its shares. Estonia will [thus] get an all-new telephone company, preliminary called ESTELCOM. This company will own and operate Estonia's telephone network. The Estonian government will transfer its ownership of the nation's telephone network to Estelcom, while Televerket will add know-how and hard currency for the investments during the first years. STI will act as the Swedish part-owner of Estelcom. Estonia already today has a relatively widespread telephone network compared with other Soviet and East European areas. The nation has 1.6 million inhabitants and approximately 300 000 telephone subscribers. This corresponds to 20 per cent of the population, compared to the whole of the Soviet Union (14 per cent), Poland (8 per cent), and Hungaria (9 per cent). The modernization of the national telephone network among other things means that a digital network will be built in parallel with the existing analog network. Telephone traffic will then be moved part by part from the old analog network to the new digital one. Apart from a modernization of the domestic network, Estonia also needs more network capacity for international calls. This will be solved by the planned under-sea fiber optical cable to Gotland. The idea is that Estelcom will buy equipment from Televerket's traditional sources on an open market. This will benefit Ericsson and Teli, among other companies. Televerket's engineers will assist as experts in the modernization of Estonia's telephone network. The agreement between STI and the Estonian telecommunication administration is the first of its kind in Europe. But it is not unique in the world. Argentina, Chile, and New Zealand have already sold their governmental telecommunication administrations to foreign corporations. In Europe, private corporations have started new telecommunication operations like cellular (mobile) telephone networks. Televerket is presently discussing also with Latvia and hope to reach a similar agreement there, says Viesturs Vucins of STI to ELTEKNIK. End of translated article. Lars Aronsson, Lysator computer club, Linkoping University, Sweden Aronsson@Lysator.LiU.SE Voice phone at home +46-13-17 2143 ------------------------------ Subject: New Zealand Toll Price War From: Pat Cain Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 01:38:44 Y Organization: The Sideways Machine, Lower Hutt, New Zealand This weekend the two major New Zealand phone companies (which are primarily American owned) are having a price war. Telecom (Ameritech and Bell Atlantic), the ex-state owned company, 'own' the domestic and business market. Telecom also owns the cellular network. Clear Communications (MCI and Bell Canada), the new player on the scene, provide an alternative tolls service (by dialling 050). They offer slightly cheaper rates than Telecom, have discounts for prompt payment, and round calls to the nearest six seconds (Telecom round to 60 seconds). Recently Clear announced a move to attract new subscribers. A 'special weekend' with a maximum rate of 19c per minute for toll calls anywhere in the country. Normal rates are between two cents and $1.40 per minute. A couple of days after the Clear announcement, Telecom announced their maximum rate would be only 15c per minute. And Clear countered this by reducing their rate to 15c per minute also. Telecom are spending vast amounts on advertising, we see new TV adverts from them almost each night. It must be pretty hard for a new player like Clear to compete with them. Still, It's nice to see some competition like this that actually benefits the consumer. The Telecom chief, Peter Troughton, said that most toll rates were artificially high and that toll calls between most main centres could easily be halved. Though it remains to be seen whether this will happen. Pat Cain PO Box 2060, Wellington, NZ. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 16:34:56 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Centrex Multiline Station Sets Organization: Cal State Long Beach I would appreciate recommendations (brands, models, vendors, distributors) for Centrex compatible Multiline Station Sets - i.e. sets that allow you to see the status of lines (<5) on a Centrex system and access lines and features with one-touch controls. Speakerphone would also be nice. In general, would like it 'look and feel' similar to a key system from the users' point-of-view. Please no flames about the superiority of key systems in general or how bad centrex is. Email would probably be best as I doubt this has general interest. Thanks. Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 19:19:32 CST From: "Steven M. Palm" Subject: Cellular Phone Rates I saw a reader's letter in a recent issue of {Popular Communications}, and it so piqued my interest that I just had to post it here to get some feedback on it. -------------- text of letter -------------- I found it fascinating to learn about the cost of cellular phone calls in your informative April issue. I'm in the U.S. Navy and after a recent trip to several nations in Asia, I have some information on the cost of using a cellular overseas. In Hong Kong, the monthly charge for having a cellular equals a few cents over US$6. Only international calls are billed. Why are cellulars in the U.S. so expensive? I could see why hardwire phones are expensive because of the costs of constantly maintaining and repairing the lines. But cellulars use radio frequencies, so there aren't any lines to maintain. Should be much cheaper. Why do people put up with such a ripoff? Troy L. Faulkner, KB9AZZ/NNN0FIC FP, San Fransisco, CA ---------------- smp@myamiga.mixcom.com Steven M. Palm ------------------------------ From: ksakotai@cs.ulowell.edu (Krishnan Sakotai ) Subject: Digital PABXs Vs BISDN Switches (Basic Question) Organization: University of Lowell Computer Science, Lowell MA Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 00:41:29 GMT I am trying to keep pace with the fascinating developments in the ISDN technology and have a few basic questions: 1. What are the exact differences between a Digital PABX and a "so called" BISDN switch? 2. If a company wants to have ISDN capability within its geographical boundaries can the Digital PABX be used as the central switch (with necessary s/w modifications) or should it install a special ISDN switch? We are talking of Video/voice/Data transfer. 3. With the advances in ATM technology and the like can we see the conventional PABX market dying a quick death? This is of course based on ** my understanding** that the ISDN switch technology is a superset of the Digital PABX. Is there anything wrong with my assumption? Thanks, Krishnan ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #903 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09091; 9 Nov 91 21:08 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05397 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 19:34:57 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03178 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 19:34:47 -0600 Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 19:34:47 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111100134.AA03178@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #904 TELECOM Digest Sat, 9 Nov 91 19:34:32 CST Volume 11 : Issue 904 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson VarTec Offers Long Distance Calls For One Cent! (James E. Hartman) Did I (Hopefully) Cause Trouble For a Telemarketer? (Felix Finch) Pacific Telesis' Radio Ad Attacks Congressman (John Higdon) Who is U. S. Long Distance? (John R. Levine) New Zealand Man Convicted in Coca Cola Phone Threat Case (Pat Cain) Information Needed on Bypass (Neil Kruse) Crank Call Traced to County Office (Jack Winslade) Books Wanted on Cellular Phones (Gary Deol) Re: Touch Tone on Old Switches (James Parkyn) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: VarTec Offers Long Distance Calls For One Cent! From: unkaphaed!phaedrus@cs.utexas.edu (James E. Hartman) Date: Sat, 09 Nov 91 19:23:06 GMT Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy On Friday, 8 November, I received a letter from VarTec Telecom, partially quoted below: RECEIVE 1 CENT LONG DISTANCE CALLS WITHOUT CANCELLING YOUR EXISTING LONG DISTANCE SERVICE! Dear Southwestern Bell Customer: We have some great news for you. Effective immediately, anyone within your Southwestern Bell service area is eligible to receive 1 cent long distance calls with the new FREQUENT CALLER program from VarTec Telecom(sm)! Simply use the new VarTec Telecom Toll-Saver(sm) number when you make long distance calls, and you will automatically be enrolled in the 1 cent FREQUENT CALLER program, the first of its kind anywhere. By using our Toll-Saver number, you'll save 15% to 21% on nearby Texas calls and up to 36% for other Texas calls. Interstate Toll-Saver rates are [bold on] GUARANTEED to be lower at all times than the lowest comparable 1+ rate [bold off] for either US Sprint, MCI, or AT&T. Plus, when you use our Toll-Saver number, you'll begin receiving long distance calls for just 1 cent!* [Paragraph stating there is no sign-up requirement and no minimum usage or service charge deleted.] HERE'S HOW IT WORKS: Simply use the VarTec Telecom Toll-Saver number when you make long distance calls by dialing [bold on] 10811 plus 1 and the area code (if required) and the number of the person you are calling. [bold off] For every ten U.S. long distance calls you make, you will receive another long distance call for only 1 cent! Your 1 cent calls can be up to 10 minutes in duration and can be made to anywhere within the continental U.S. (excluding Alaska). [Paragraphs stating calls over 34 miles are automatically discounted, calls will be billed on the SWB bill, and generic sales pitch deleted.] Yours sincerely, A. Joe Mitchell, Jr. President P.S. Be sure to put the enclosed Toll-Saver stickers on your telephone book cover and telephone(s) for handy reference! Please call us toll-free at 1 (800) 583-XXXX if you need additional Toll-Saver stickers or have any questions regarding this service or other VarTec Telecom long distance services. * The FREQUENT CALLER program is subject to certain rules and restrictions. Please call VarTec Telecom for details. Savings comparisons are based upon AT&T, MCI, and US Sprint intrastate/ interlata as well as Southwestern Bell intralata basic 1+ direct distance dialing tariffs in effect as of 7/1/91. International calls are billed at basic AT&T international direct distance dialing rates. (sm) VarTec Telecom and Toll-Saver are service marks of VarTec National, Inc. ----------------- A number of stickers were enclosed with the 10811 number printed on them. I tried calling 10811 1 700 555 1212, and I got a very bored male voice stating: Message 13, Dallas, Welcome to the VarTec Long Distance Network. Thank you for allowing us to be of service. Since my roommates and I make a considerable amount of in-state calls, and the propaganda suggests that I will have my calls "discounted, including all those expensive nearby Texas calls!", I figure I'll try a test -- calling a friend both on 1+ (routed through SWB) and through these guys and see. More info to come ... phaedrus@unkaphaed.UUCP (James E. Hartman) Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, (713) 943-2728 ------------------------------ From: crowfix.crowfix!felix@uunet.uu.net (Felix Finch) Subject: Did I (Hopefully) Cause Trouble For a Telemarketer? Organization: Scarecrow Repair, Dutch Flat. Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 03:50:12 GMT Last week I answered the phone to hear a recorded pitch for home equity loans. I swallowed my bile, kept my temper, and waited to give my name and phone number. Two days later, someone called back. I said it was a bad time to call, could I call him back later. After several rounds of No, I won't be in tomorrow night, or Saturday, It's hard to catch me at work, etc, he finally gave me one name (first or last? I don't know) and a phone number. No company name. I called Pac*Bell, and the rep was too new to really know what to do (I think). Rather than ask for a supervisor, I called the PUC. Amazement of all amazements, I got a live operator on the second ring, who transferred me directly to a very helpful live person. I told her about the call: no human at first, just the recording ("That's illegal!" she said gleefully), and when I hung up and waited ten seconds before lifting the receiver, the recording was still rattling away ("That's illegal too!" She sounded positively happy!). The telemarkedroid called back a day or two later, so I said I had turned him in to the PUC (wished I could have turned him into a frog :-). "Oh you did?" "Yes, you started with a recording, not a human ..." and he hung up before I could finish. Well, did I do good, huh? Did I, Huh? Aside from amazement at how simple everything was (two minutes total), what exactly happens in cases like this? Have I actually done him any harm, or will he just slip out of town, or what? Felix Finch, scarecrow repairer / uunet!crowfix!felix [Moderator's Note: *If* the PUC bothers to contact him (doubtful, since they act on a large number of complaints; not the complaint of any one individual), they will tell him of your complaint that the call began with a recorded message. He'll say there must have been some error in his call processing and that he is sorry for any inconvenience caused. They'll tell him not to do it again, and that, as they say, will be that. Then he'll continue on as always. If there are sufficient (several hundred ?) complaints, they may take further action against him. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 14:55 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Pacific Telesis' Radio Ad Attacks Congressman Here is a transcript of Pacific Telesis' radio message to the people. As an exercise, see if you can find anything misleading about it: (Hints follow quote) Sound Effects: Crowded courtroom and gavel striking. "Order, order" Announcer: On October 7th, 1991, The United States Court of Appeals issued an historic opinion. It granted Americans the right to receive a sweeping array of information services through the universal public telephone network. Sound Effects: "We Object -- We Object" Announcer: And yet some congressmen have joined America's largest newspapers and cable conglomerates in pushing special interest legislation that would take these rights away from the American public. Why is a pro-consumer congressman like Tom Lantos protecting the newspaper industry from full and fair competition, and at the expense of all consumers, including senior citizens, and students? If you agree that your rights to information should be protected, tell Tom Lantos. Tell him America's future is too important to leave on hold. This advertisement is brought to you by the people of Pacific Telesis and is not paid for by telephone customers. [End of Spot] For those of you who just tuned in, notice the first paragraph. The court did not grant any right to the American people. "The People" have always had this right. What it granted was the legality of RBOC conglomerates to barge their way into this already booming industry. I am unaware that keeping the medium out of the message business is taking "rights away from the American public". Pro-consumer Tom Lantos is not protecting anyone other than the consumer by opposing Pacific Telesis' entry into the information game. And of course, if you have no case, just bring up old people and students (whatever they may have to do with the issue). I don't think that keeping the RBOCs from monopolizing the information industry is exactly putting "America's future on hold". As for that final affront, again, let me see the audited figures. An awful lot of money mingles in that pocket. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: Who is U. S. Long Distance? Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 18:31:20 EST From: John R. Levine A legal notice in the {Boston Globe} yesterday reports that an outfit from Texas called U.S. Long Distance is filing to do business as an interexchange carrier "including operator services." Are they a real long distance company or just an AOS? Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us or {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Subject: New Zealand Man Convicted in Coca Cola Phone Threat Case From: Pat Cain Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 01:38:44 Y Organization: The Sideways Machine, Lower Hutt, New Zealand Recently a man in Auckland was convicted for threatening Coca Cola NZ Limited. He threatened to poison Coke unless he was paid a large amount of gold. He managed to put a rust removal substance in bottles of coke 'further up in the supply chain'. Details of exactly how he did this were supressed by the court in order to stop others doing the same. Anyway, the first threat he made was from his own telephone. Although his phone was not being traced at the time, police were quickly able to find him by searching the call logs at the exchange. They monitored the man for several weeks and arrested him when he attempted to pick up the gold from the edge of a road. The 'Coca Cola crisis team' who flew out from the States to deal with the threat praised Telecom and the police for dealing with the matter so well. Apparently the police are solving more crimes and catching more nuisance callers by searching the call logs. I guess this will just force criminals to use payphones! Pat Cain PO Box 2060, Wellington, NZ. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Nov 91 12:45:00 -0800 From: KRUSE_NEIL@tandem.com Subject: Information Needed on Bypass I am a graduate student majoring in Telecommunications Management. I am writing a paper on Bypass and in need information that you just can't find in books. I know about the various bypass technologies, what I need to know is why did you choose to implement bypass? Was the major reason cost? How was the LEC unable to accomodate your needs? Why did you choose a specific hardware vendor? Why did you choose a specific long distance carrier, or did you choose to bypass all common carriers? What I am really looking for is a "case study" on what factors played a role in your decision to bypass the LEC. I'll welcome any replies on the subject. (I have a SMTP interface to the network so I am unable to access any archives) Thanks in advance. Neil Kruse KRUSE_NEIL@tandem.com Tandem Computers 10501 N Tantau Ave. (loc 201-02) Cupertino CA 95014 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Nov 91 22:35:54 cst From: Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org (Jack Winslade) Subject: Crank Call Traced to County Office Reply-To: jsw@drbbs.omahug.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha And now another Telecom Tidbit from Omaha, nestled on the bank of the great gray-green greasy Missouri River, all sought about with fever trees, home of Ma Bell's first panel office, and currently the junk phone call capital of the world ... :-( (Quoted and paraphrased [they talk faster than I can type] from television station WOWT.) 'If an obscene call was made from a private phone in the Douglas County Court House, who made it? It appears that question will never be answered, at least not enough to file any charges. A victim of an obscene phone call recorded the number on his call identifier. It was a private line in the office of an appointed public servant at the Court House, but after a police officer called that number and identified himself, the alleged obscene calls stopped. An official trace could not be made.' (A previous report stated that the officer responded to the initial complaint and did not recognize the number as one originating from the city-county office complex, a Centrex-CO installation.) 'Omaha Police say that the initial officer could have handled the case better. Still, detectives opened an investigation into the alleged call, but after two days they could not find sufficient evidence to prosecute anyone for harassing calls. Police interviewed the public official who denied any involvement.' JSW note (and opinion): It would have been much easier to key this in from a newspaper article, and I have been searching for one, but after three days now, our single remaining local paper hasn't taken the effort to run one. I find this strange, because when SOME officials misbehave, they are quick to jump. I guess they are too busy trying to decide whether to censor 'Doonesbury', as they did once with 'Cathy'. Good day! JSW ------------------------------ Subject: Books About Cellular Phones Wanted From: garyd@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Gary Deol) Date: Fri, 08 Nov 91 12:21:19 MST Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems, Edmonton, AB, Canada I was looking for some books on cellular phones (technical manuals etc). I was wondering if anyone could recommend some books, and places where I can purchase them (mail order). GaryD (My first Usenet msg (snif..snif) :^) Gary Deol garyd@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca Edmonton Remote Systems: Serving Northern Alberta since 1982 [Moderator' Note: Your first message? Welcome to the zoo. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: jparkyn@kilroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (James Parkyn) Subject: Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 21:18:28 GMT I had a friend who was served by a rotary dial crossbar office in Santa Ana California that he knew would soon be updated to include T-T service that would be hardwired into every phone in the CO. He acquired a non-Bell System T-T phone and checked the line until his tones could break dial tone and then never used his rotary dial phone again. Not long after he received a call from a PacTel representative DEMANDING (emphasis meant to highlight PacTel's heavyhanded approach) that he pay for the service or she would disconnect him from the T-T service. He simply laughed at her and said "Go ahead and try!" and then hung up on her to really get her upset. They never did bill him. [Moderator's Note: Isn't this a little like saying that since every home is equipped with water faucets, you are entitled to use the water supply without paying ... and if they don't want you to use the water they can simply come out and dig up the pipes where they connect to your home or otherwise lock off the supply? They detected use of the touch tone service (like a water meter detects use of the water supply) and they asked your friend to pay for the service he was using. It is instances like this which make me wish I was a telco service rep. I would have called your friend back; apologized for us 'accidentally getting cut off'; reminded him that he had no property rights in his telephone number and that his number could be changed at anytime the Company found it expedient to do so in the conduct of its business; and that he was being moved to an exchange where the Company found it expedient to place his service: one on which his use of touch tone *could* be controlled; ie, an ESS. Almost as an afterthought I would ask if he had reconsidered his earlier position and was willing to either (a) use it and pay for it, or (b) refrain from using it. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #904 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11968; 9 Nov 91 22:18 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03847 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 20:39:32 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08161 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 20:39:20 -0600 Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 20:39:20 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111100239.AA08161@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #905 TELECOM Digest Sat, 9 Nov 91 20:39:17 CST Volume 11 : Issue 905 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (Ethan Miller) Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (Linc Madison) Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (Charlie Mingo) Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (Eric Gasior) Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (John R. Levine) Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (Gary Segal) Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (709 is a Bad Idea) (Dave Leibold) Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (Bill Martens) Re: Largest North-South Spanning Area Code (Bill Huttig) Re: Largest North-South Spanning Area Code (ANSWER) (Carl Moore) Re: Largest North-South Spanning Area Code (Tony Olekshy) Re: 512 Area Code Split Announced (Joe Isham) NYC Area Code Split (Was Area Code on Jeopardy) (Dave Niebuhr) Re: Why Not Use 300-600 as Area Codes? (Joe Isham) Re: Why Not Use 300-600 as Area Codes? (Dave Leibold) Area Code Postings Should Stop Now! (Rolf Meier) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: elm@cs.berkeley.edu (ethan miller) Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Date: 6 Nov 91 22:05:15 In article DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA writes: > Then again, with all > these area code splits, the area codes are getting very small land > areas. Metro Toronto, which will have 416 all to itself in 1994, > might win the geographically smallest area code award. Not likely. 202 (Washington DC) covers 63 square miles, and 212 (Bronx & Manhattan) covers 64 square miles. I'd guess those are the two smallest area codes in land area. If 212 splits and covers only Manhattan, it will cover just 22 square miles. Until then, I'd say 202 is the geographically smallest area code. ethan miller elm@cs.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 04:08:43 PST From: linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article Stewart M. Clamen (clamen@cs.cum.edu) writes: > In article KATH MULLHOLAND writes: >> This area code is bordered by only one other, whether N/S/E/W > I believe 418 (Quebec City and environs) is totally surrounded by 819. Nope, 418 borders 819, 207, 506, and possibly 709 (Sherbrooke PQ, Maine, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland (Labrador), respectively). Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: Charlie.Mingo@p0.f716.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) Date: 07 Nov 91 07:54:29 Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy NETWRK@HARVARDA.HARVARD.EDU (Steve Thornton) writes: > Then there are 808, Hawaii, and 902, Nova Scotia/P.E.I., > which border nothing. I don't know about Hawaii, but Nova Scotia shares a sixty-mile border with New Brunswick (506). Perhaps you had New Brunswick in mind when you were typing "nothing"? ------------------------------ From: gasior@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Eric Gasior) Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 14:35:22 GMT In article deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) writes: > New York Metro Area Codes: > 212: Manhattan and Bronx > 718: Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island > 516: Long Island (e.g. Nassau, Suffolk Co.) > 914: Upstate (e.g. Westchester Co.) > 917: New area code for NYC. My first information was that 212 would And don't forget: 201: Northern New Jersey 908: Most of Central Jersey (Part of it even borders on NYC (Staten Island) ???: Southwestern Connecticut (is it Fairfield Co.?) (Does Allentown, Pa. count as part of the NY Metropolitan area yet?) Eric Gasior ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 7 Nov 91 12:29:47 EST (Thu) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) In article is written: > Then there are 808, Hawaii, and 902, Nova Scotia/P.E.I., > which border nothing. Don't forget 709 Newfoundland ... Hmmn, I am dismayed to find that Canadians don't know their geography any better than Americans do. Residents of Nova Scotia will be surprised to learn that they live on an island, particularly considering how many of them drive across the border into 506, a/k/a New Brunswick, every day. Newfoundland is indeed an island, but Labrador isn't, and has a long border with Quebec, probably touching both 418 and 819, the World's Largest Area Code. The exact location of that border is the subject of a long running desultory argument between the Newfoundland and Quebec governments, but they both agree that there's definitely a border there somewhere. I cheerfully agree that Hawaii is surrounded by water. How about some suggestions for the geographically smallest area code? Will the 212/917 and 213/310 splits change your answer? Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: motcid!segal@uunet.uu.net (Gary Segal) Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Date: 7 Nov 91 19:18:08 GMT Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division Answer: This area code is home to the first ringer of freedom. Gary Segal Motorola Inc. segal@oscar.rtsg.mot.com Cellular Infrastructure Division ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Nov 91 21:42:23 EST From: DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (actually, 709 is a bad idea) Well, it looks like I had a few too many cold ones ... winter days that is ... 709 is not an island unto itself as it would include the Labrador area which in turn borders on Quebec (stuff like 418 and 819) ... so forget that after all. However, 800 and 900 don't seem to be surrounded by too many North American area codes :-) dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ From: billm@fujisan.info.com (Bill Martens) Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Date: 9 Nov 91 02:10:49 GMT Reply-To: billm@fujisan.info.com (Bill Martens) Organization: Info Connections @ Mt. Fuji Well, having read ten of these messages so far, I am quite disturbed. I and others pay good money for these news groups to be transfered to us and yet when we start to read, expecting questions and answers to be technically oriented and informative, we find a bunch of moronic idiots playing games! (Nice job of moderation PAT!@!!@!!) Kill the riddle and let's get on to something a bit more useful to the rest of us who pay to have this stuff transfered around the world. [Moronic Idiot's Note: I'm sure the other moronic idiots here enjoyed reading your message as much as I enjoyed presenting it. Seriously, since the cost of moving the news around is a financial burden for you, let me know where to send payment so you can be compensated. I assume you have change for a dime? PAT] ------------------------------ From: wah@zach.fit.edu (Bill Huttig) Subject: Re: Largest North-South Spanning Area Code Date: 7 Nov 91 14:13:44 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA writes: > Of course, if you think about it, the clear winners in the largest > area code sweepstakes have to be 800 and 900! :-) If I remember correctly from one of the files in the Digest archives it says that 700, 800 and 900 are not area codes but SAC's Specail Access Codes or somthing like that. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 9:31:00 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Largest North-South Spanning Area Code (ANSWER) NO, Alaska is 907, not 908! 908 was implemented only this year, by splitting 201 in New Jersey. ------------------------------ From: tony@oha.UUCP (Tony Olekshy) Subject: Re: Largest North-South Area Code Date: 8 Nov 91 05:11:10 GMT Organization: Olekshy Hoover & Associates Ltd., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. The problem is that 819 ends part-way up Quebec, then restarts at the North West Territories. Since the intermediate space can hardly be counted as part of the run ;-), 403 still wins. Furthermore, 403 is clearly the largest area code in terms of land surface area (even though that wasn't original question). Finally first at something, writing happily from 403-land, now part of the world's largest country, by some accounts. Yours etc, Tony Olekshy. Internet: tony%oha@CS.UAlberta.CA BITNET: tony%oha.uucp@UALTAMTS.BITNET uucp: alberta!oha!tony or tony@oha.uucp ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 19:31 CST From: joeisham@chinet.chi.il.us (Joe Isham) Subject: Re: 512 Area Code Split Announced Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX In article is written: > In article I wrote: >> 512 will remain in use in an area stretching from Lampasas >> through Austin, San Marcos, Victoria and Corpus Christi to south of >> Kingsville. Cities to be switched to 210 include San Antonio, New >> Braunfels, Seguin, Eagle Pass, Laredo, Zapata, McAllen, Harlingen and >> Brownsville. > Anyhoo, that's a pretty convoluted boundary, leaving 512 as a narrow > stripe about 75 miles wide and about 300 miles long, kind of like 908 > only bigger. From my limited knowledge of the subject, though, it > does sound like they kept to LATA lines pretty closely -- is that the > case? It looks like the Corpus Christi LATA was split, with most of the area switching to 210; there's a small area along the Rio Grande north of Zapata that's in the Corpus Christi LATA which appears to stay in 512. Here's a crude approximation, as best I can gather from the news release. Map is *not* to scale: ---- | * \ <-- Lampasas | \ | \_____ _________----------+ \ | \ * Austin \ | \* San Marcos \__ | New Bruanfels *\ \ | \_____ \ | San Antonio * * Seguin\ [ 512 ] \ | \ \ |_ / | \ * Del Rio / Victoria / \ / * / \ [ 210 ] / / \ | / \ | * / Corpus Christi \ / / \ | / \ | * / Kingsville \ | / \ * Seguin \____/ \ | \ | \____________*| Brownsville > I'm just a bit surprised that they split it in the direction they did > -- I would've expected San Antonio to keep 512 and Austin and/or > Corpus to get the new area code. My mother's home town of Goliad > won't have to change after all! I suppose they split the NPA the way they did to keep the number of exchanges in each new area more or less the same. Austin is growing a lot faster than San Antonio, though, so it'd make sense for the new 210 to start off with fewer exchanges. Joe Isham - joeisham@montagar.lonestar.org, joeisham@chinet.chi.il.us ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 7:26:47 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: NYC Area Code Split (Was Area Code on Jeopardy) In article kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov (Scott Dorsey) writes: > 917: New area code for NYC. My first information was that 212 would > be split, with the Bronx going into 917, and with new exchange codes > added in Manhattan for other than standard lines (e.g. for pager > company, cellular, and possibly DID trunks?) going into 917. I've > since heard that 917 will be an overlay on 212, not a split. I don't > know which is correct. Hello Bellcore? From what I understand, AC 212 will be Manhattan only, Bronx going to 718 and 917 will be for cellular and pager service. This was noted in the newspapers a few months ago, and the Telco could change this. It appears that 917 will overlay the whole city but I don't want to be held to that. I don't have my phone book handy but I seem to remember seeing something about the split mentioned (if my little grey cells are working correctly, I'm still not fully awake). Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 19:37 CST From: joeisham@chinet.chi.il.us (Joe Isham) Subject: Re: Why Not Use 300-600 as Area Codes? Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX In article martin@cod.nosc.mil wrote: > Also, I hope someone will explain 710 (Government Special > Services), else explain why no information is forthcoming regarding > 710. Is it classified information or something? I've tried dialing > many numbers in 710, and I always get the intercept: "Your call cannot > be completed as dialed." and the Moderator noted: > I've been asking for a couple years for someone to explain 710. No > information has ever been given out. Hmmm ... If the government were to go public with this information, it might provide a valuable public service: unified phone numbers for all government agencies around the country. Social Security might be assigned the phone number 710-SSA-1000 (772-1000), and a customer dialing that number would be connected to the nearest Social Security office. Well, it makes sense so the government probably won't do it. :) Joe Isham - joeisham@montagar.lonestar.org, joeisham@chinet.chi.il.us ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Nov 91 15:23:38 EST From: DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA Subject: Re: Why Not Use 300-600 as Area Codes? From my previous readings on the "Notes on the Network" publications, it seems that Bellcore (and its predecessor(s)) considers the N00 codes to be Special Area Codes, or SAC's, which they do not want to give out for normal telephone service. SAC's are intended for such things as 800 (toll-free), 900 (tolled/premium) and 700 (special long distance carrier uses). 200 as you mention is used for testing in many places, but this is up to individual telephone companies to set up and does not seem to be an officially-assigned code as such. > Also, I hope someone will explain 710 (Government Special > Services). All I can think of are the Autovon or FTS services, but Autovon actually used its own set of area codes like 312, 313 (or 712, 713 for data). Others in the N10 series (810, 910) were used as TWX teletypewriter codes, and it could be that Canadian TWX operations are holdouts on the 610 code (which could really be better transferred to the regular telephone system or made obsolete by faster data services). But there are a number of area code issues that have been bugging the Digest and are FAQs for which I have no easy FGAs (Frequently Given Answers). Perhaps someone should get the address of Bellcore's NPA Assignment person (I don't have the information handy, and the nearest copy of "Notes on the Network" I can find is several hundred km away from me). Perhaps the NPA Assignment person should be formally asked (by the Moderator, or someone on the Digest with formal telecom ties, etc) about what 710 is, and perhaps deal with some other questions such as how the original set of area codes was assigned (ie. the rhyme and reasons). As a start, could someone with access to the "Notes" please find an address for the appropriate contact? Then, things can be taken from there. dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ From: meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier) Subject: Area Code Postings Should Stop Now! Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 10:08:07 -0500 Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. These endless area code postings should be reduced. This information is available in any phonebook or even in some desktop diaries. The moderator reduces signatures to a single line in order to save bandwidth, and yet posts arguments about which area code belongs in which city. Rolf Meier Mitel Corporation [Moronic Idiot's Rambling: We are getting carried away with this! One last riddle, then we will stop. Which area code is the most underused of all? Only a small percentage of available prefixes in it are used, yet the others aren't likely to be assigned elsewhere. Geographically, it is pretty tiny also. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #905 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13246; 9 Nov 91 23:09 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09261 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 21:32:43 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09754 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 21:32:31 -0600 Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 21:32:31 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111100332.AA09754@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #906 TELECOM Digest Sat, 9 Nov 91 21:32:24 CST Volume 11 : Issue 906 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Unreasonable New Line Install Requirements (John Higdon) Re: Unreasonable New Line Install Requirements (Patton M. Turner) Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea (Robert J. Stratton III) More on LEC Competition (David W. Barts) Re: British Telecom Figures (Steve Thornton) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Unreasonable New Line Install Requirements Date: 7 Nov 91 01:05:14 PST (Thu) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) kirkd@ism.isc.com (kirk davis) writes: > Considering the fact that Pacbell didn't run conduit in the first > place, I feel it's unreasonable for me to have to pay to have it done > correctly now. Any one ran across this before? Any suggestions on how > to pursue getting them to do it? Pac*Bell's only responsibility was to drop direct-bury cable into a trench that was open during the initial construction. Pac*Bell does not trench on private property for drop purposes, period. Pac*Bell DID do it correctly in the first place. Sorry, but this IS the drill. Just recently, an associate had to provide a trench to the edge of his property so that a 25 pair cable could be dropped by Pac*Bell. BTW, drop cable is almost never put in conduit. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 11:14:27 CST From: Patton M. Turner Subject: Re: Unreasonable New Line Install Requirements kirkd@ism.isc.com (kirk davis) writes about Pacbell wiring a house for six pair, but only installing a two pair buried drop. Now he wants a third line. > Considering the fact that Pacbell didn't run conduit in the first > place, I feel it's unreasonable for me to have to pay to have it done > correctly now. Any one ran across this before? Any suggestions on how > to pursue getting them to do it? Most likely they didn't run conduit because there was never a trench; instead they installed the cable with a vibratory lawn plow. This uses a vibrating ripper to burry the cable with minimal surface degradation, and at a lower cost than trenching. Even fiber is now often installed in rural areas with vibe plows pulled by D6's and the like. Around here (South Central Bell), you pay for most any drop. It might not be as expensive as you think, though. Vibe plows are relatively fast, clean, and your roots will not be a problem. Last year I got 600 feet of C wire plowed in for about $150 including the network interface and a phone jack (free), and this was about 15 miles from the CO. What ever you do be sure to have enough pairs run for future use. Pat Turner pturner@eng.auburn.edu KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA ------------------------------ From: "Robert J. Stratton III" Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea Organization: Express Access, Greenbelt, Maryland USA Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 13:37:17 GMT In article davidb@zeus.ce.washington. edu (David W. Barts) writes: > Like it or not, local telephone service is, has always been, and > probably always will be a natural monopoly. This is a result of the > high cost of stringing (or burying) cable through an area, and also of > the fact that one properly-maintained cable system can serve an area > as well (actually better than, since there are less connectivity > problems) as two or three, but without the added labor and > inconvenience of the extra systems. I question your use of the term "natural monopoly". By definition, any monopoly created through government fiat is NOT a natural monopoly. I strongly suggest that you take a look at larger cities where LEC bypass is beginning to thrive (Metropolitan Fiber in NYC might be a good example), and tell the LEC bypass customers that they would be served better by waiting significantly longer for orders, and having service delivered by copper rather than fiber. Your conjectures about cabling costs apply pretty well to CATV as well as telephone service, and I would direct you to look at the (regrettably) few municipalities which have allowed competition between CATV systems. The consistent result has been better service and cheaper rates for subscribers. When one or another of the competitors has died in these circumstances, it was because they didn't serve the consumers' needs. The resulting situation is a natural monopoly. The important factor to consider is that the field is always open to a young upstart coming in to do battle again, usually to customers' benefit. [long explanation of the "impracticality" of RF-delivered telephone service deleted -- I'm inclined to agree in part ...] > Then, of course, there's the problem of ensuring that the networks > be well-interconnected. Do _you_ want to pay long-distance changes to > call your neighbor across the street, just because they use TCI Cable > phone service and you use US West? Do small businessmen, already > operating at a meager profit margin, want to be forced to pay for > _two_ phone lines, not for any additional service, but just to > maintain the customer contact they already have? Do you want your > call to 911 be answered by a fast busy because your telco pulled the > plug on the telco serving 911 because of a billing dispute? Or will > the 911 call be answered with "Do-da-deeeee, The number you have > dialed, 9 1 1, is incorrect. The correct number is 9 9 9. Please > hang up and try your call again." With all due respect, this is a complete canard. The idea of competition is that customers have a CHOICE. They should be able to select the company that best fills their need from a variety of providers, and those companies which disregard the customers' needs will die off. I know we've suffered under government-mandated monopolies for a long time, but I had no idea people had been so conditioned to forget what competition is. Any provider expecting to gain any subscribers would have to have gateways to the other companies. The company with the best rates/connectivity would undoubtedly gain the lion's share of the market. As regards your emotional conjecture involving denials of 911 service -- Nice try. It didn't work when the government tried it with Craig Neidorf's trial, and I suspect it won't work here either. > If the answer to any of the above questions is "no", then clearly some > form of regulation is required to ensure some standards of > connectivity (and sanity at the user interface level). Those standards do not have to be promulgated by governmental bodies. Technical fora have proven time and time again to be superior in this regard. > Now,as numerous posters have detailed over and over in this forum, state > PUC's have enough trouble keeping one big telco and many small ones > in line. [M-x sarcasm-mode-on] WHY do you think this is?? Could it perhaps be that customers can't use their dollars to vote for the people who best serve their needs?? [M-x sarcasm-mode-off] > With several big telcos, and oodles of tiny ones, there will be > even more firms to police, so even more regulators will be hired. The > end result: more bureaucracy, higher taxes, and telephone service > won't improve much (and it may even get worse). The major obstacle to be overcome is not in the companies, but in the lazy consumers who are unwilling to take any responsibility for choosing products and services appropriate to them, as opposed to begging for Uncle Sam to make their decisions for them. I, for one am willing to take that responsibility, and view those who won't with contempt. > Local dialtone competition just doesn't make sense to me. You're welcome to keep whichever provider you want, but don't force your choice on those of us who'd like to receive services that fill our needs. [Author's note: I'll be surprised if PAT publishes this, knowing his love of Mother, and his contempt of Judge Greene. C'mon PAT, prove me wrong!] Bob Stratton | SMTP: strat@ai.mit.edu, strat@access.digex.com Express Access | PSTN: +1 301 409 2703 Greenbelt, Maryland | For info on Express Access, write "info@digex.com". [Moderator's Note: You obviously do not read the Digest very well or you would realize I rarely reject articles simply because I do not agree with them. I think you have me confused with my competitor, {The Washington Post}. Display any *real* disagreement with Kay Graham and see how often she lets you say anything in her publication, or its companion rag, {News Weak} magazine. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 23:57:35 -0800 From: David W. Barts Subject: More on LEC Competition My! I certainly stirred up a hornet's nest, didn't I? So far, I have read about a dozen replies to my initial posting on this subject, plus another one or two that touch on it tangentially. There are doubtless others sitting in PAT's mailbox being considered for posting as I write this; my decision to reply at this time is is a compromise between my desire to respond to as many postings as possible at a single time, and the desire to respond in a timely fashion. First off, a number of respondents posted that a fiber optic cable plant, owned by a third party (the LEC and the customer being the first two parties), could be used to implement LEC competition. This is an interesting possibility I hadn't thought of (though I should have as US West is busy stringing fiber in my neighborhood). But the possibility of LEC competition and its desirability are two different things, as we shall see later. There is evidentially some confusion over the term "natural monopoly" in some responses to my posting. This is understandable, as the term is used to signify two different things. One is where a single supplier controls virtually all of a resource or good in a given market for that good (e.g. De Beers and gem-quality diamonds). The other is where one supplier can supply a good or service better or at less cost than multiple suppliers. It is this second sense of the term that I am referring to. Notice that this definition does not preclude competition in a natural monopoly; it simply states that a competitive market will supply a more costly or less superior good than a single supplier will (and this will be the case no matter which supplier you pick in the competitive market). On the subject of competitive markets, at least one contributor (Hi, John!) has stated that the marketplace is "the most effective regulator of them all." Markets do indeed propel society towards a goal, but this goal is the profit maximization of individual firms, which, alas, does not always mean what is best for society as a whole. To take an example from this Digest, when pay phone customers began to recognize most COCOTS for the rip-offs that they are, the market responded. But it did not respond by directing resources into ensuring properly-operating pay phones charging fair prices. It responded instead by channeling resources into developing the closest possible legal mimicry of a legitimate pay phone. Why? Because the latter realizes higher short-term profits for the COCOT owners than the former. Another interesting fact about markets and competition is that they are not free. They incur costs. Yes, they also incur benefits. I agree that in many cases, the benefits exceed the costs, but in this respect the telephone network presents a special case. This is because size, _in and of itself_, is a desirable attribute in a telephone network. The more people I can talk to with my phone, the more useful it is to me. There are not many industries in which this can be said -- usually size affects efficiency of production in some indirect manner (usually related to management structures or local availability of a raw material). The fact that I am wearing shoes made in a big factory does not in and of itself make them better than ones made in a small or medium-sized one. Sure, steps can be taken to ensure connectivity between systems. But now what we're doing is: 1) spending much effort breaking the whole into pieces, then 2) spending more effort and resources to make the system that resulted from (1) look essentially the same as before (1) was applied. And this is supposed to be better and more efficient. I now propose a humble solution to the traffic problem in our cities: Build walls across the streets. Then, establish a Bureau of Gates and Overpasses to ensure people can get across these walls. The street system is now much improved. Is it just me or does this logic sound a little silly? Several posters have mentioned the undesirability of subsidies for various components of the telephone network. But such revenue transfers are a fact of life no matter what we do. Right now, if I decide to purchase a Sony TV, Sony can use the profit it earned from this sale to support research and development of a new line of computers. Revenue has been transferred from the TV sector to the computer research sector. Or perhaps Sony deposits the money in a bank that lends the money to a factory in Hong Kong that makes dolls. Now the revenue hasn't even stayed within the same company. The real issue is not: "do we have revenue transfers or don't we," but "will all revenue transfers be directed by market forces (maximization of private profits) or won't they?" And as we have seen earlier, market forces do not always act in the best social interest. But I digress. Returning to the subject at hand, the issue has been raised that sure, the idea of "cream-skimming" is a bad scenario, but, the fact that it is occurring at the present time shows that regulated monopoly does not prevent it, and therefore the argument that competition would cause cream-skimming is invalid. Sure, there's cream-skimming going on right now, and it disgusts me. But LEC competition would just create more cream skimming. The solution to some of a bad thing is to have _more_ of it? Somehow this doesn't make sense to me. Cream-skimming, of course, is but one of the plethora of assorted little nasties that regulated LEC's subject their customers to, and a number of respondents have asked (or implied) "Why do you want _this_." I don't. I can't step inside John Higdon's head and precisely measure his level of disgust, but I suspect mine is about the same as his. Just last spring, US West decided it was in my best interest to spend some of the revenue it had earned from my phone bill and spend it in a lobbying effort sneaking a bill I didn't want through the state legislature. The old "We're The Phone Company(R), and we know what's Best for You(TM), so shut up and obey" attitude. But it is nothing new that under the present system, monied interests can use their influence to corrupt the legislative process in order to warp the laws to their own benefit. However, discussions on how to deal with this problem are probably more appropriate subjects for another newsgroup. David Barts N5JRN UW Civil Engineering, FX-10 davidb@zeus.ce.washington.edu Seattle, WA 98195 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Nov 91 00:32:14 EST From: Steve Thornton Subject: Re: British Telecom Figures Adam Ashby wrote: > British Telecom released its half-yearly figures recently and > announced a profit of L1.7 billion (1.7 billion pounds) for the six > month period, that comes out to about L100 every second. Nearly US$ 3 billion. Seems like rather a lot, wouldn't you say? Not bad for a company that was described in a recent issue of {The Economist} as "the least efficient large corporation in the world". I can't find the article but I recall they were referring to the fact that BT has over ten times as many employees per line as any other Western telecom outfit. This suggests that our poor English friends must be paying some kind of rates. Steve Thornton / Harvard University Library / +1 617 netwrk@harvarda.bitnet / netwrk@harvarda.harvard.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #906 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16648; 10 Nov 91 1:19 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12118 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 23:17:50 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08912 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 9 Nov 1991 23:17:38 -0600 Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 23:17:38 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111100517.AA08912@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #907 TELECOM Digest Sat, 9 Nov 91 23:17:35 CST Volume 11 : Issue 907 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? (Dave Levenson) Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? (Steve M. Kile) Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? (Fred Linton) Re: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption (Seth Breidbart) Re: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption (Jay Ashworth) Re: ATT Outage in Massachusetts 11/5 (Bob Frankston) Re: ATT Outage in Massachusetts 11/5 (Steve Elias) Re: ATT Outage in Massachusetts 11/5 (Barton F. Bruce) Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Thing (Tim Gorman) Re: MCI and FAX Detection (John Higdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dave@westmark.WESTMARK.COM (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? Date: 8 Nov 91 15:30:35 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes: > ... Is this just an unsubstantiated > rumor, speculation based upon the integration of EasyLink? > [Moderator's Note: Thus far we have only the original note posted here > in the Digest (Issue 866) by Fred Linton > on October 29... We received a one-page paper letter from AT&T EasyLink Services/AT&T Mail. It was sent first class mail, and it was received on or about October 28. It contained a list of rate adjustments for a variety of services. Buried in the third or fourth paragraph was the notice of the minimum monthly billing amount of $25, applicable to all user accounts. It was worded so as to suggest that we were somehow getting 'even more' for our money. I called AT&T Mail on Friday, November 1, and asked if our monthly billing for the UUCP connection would now be subject to a $25 minimum. I was told that it would. I then audited our usage and billing for the last 12 months, and made a business decision -- I called again, and canceled the service effective Nov 1 (probably subjecting this company to a $25 bill for November for nothing!). If anybody cares, I'll type in the text of the letter. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 [Moderator's Note: Why don't you do that ... it appears many people have not yet received the formal notice. I know it has not showed up in my mailbox yet. The many small users of the service need to be notified in time to cancel their accounts if they wish to do so. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steve_M_Kile@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 15:00:46 PST Several weeks ago I received a letter and AT&T Mail Rate Summary sheet in the U.S. Mail. The letter announced "several important changes to the rate structure for the AT&T EasyLink Services product suite will take effect on December 1, 1991 ..." In the section "Core Services" two items caught my interest. Monthly Usage minimum $25.00 and Monthly Service Fee $3.00 per user ID. The letter further advises "if you have any questions, please contact your Account Representative or a Customer Service Representative on 1-800-242-6005. steve_m_kile@cup.portal.com stevek@netcom.com steve@biomed.vware.mn.org ------------------------------ From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? Date: 8-NOV-1991 12:40:13 Toby (and other TELECOM readers), The "rumor" of an impending AT&T Mail rate change came to me in the form of a mailing from AT&T Easylink in Georgia, posted late in October, and arriving at the end of October, containing one sheet entitled (approximately) "New rates beginning December 1, 1991" (sorry, I'm at work and that sheet's at home). Towards the middle of that sheet, under the rubric "Core Services", is listed the $25 per month service minimum. Not quite certain whether that was a charge to be applied to my attmail account, or perhaps only to EasyLink accounts, I checked (several times) with the AT&T Mail CAC and with the EasyLink billing folks to whom the attmail CAC referred me, and was on every occasion assured that, yes indeed, in the consolidation of AT&T Mail with EasyLink (which, you will recall, AT&T had acquired from Western Union), a unification of billing rates and procedures was going to be undertaken, in the course of which that monthly minimum requirement would be imposed beginning December 1 (but read on, for a bit of a reprieve on that). I posted, after at least three such confirmations, what I had thus learned. Since then, in the course of attempting to learn whether AT&T might perhaps exempt participants in their Moving Ahead Program from that (rather hefty) new-to-attmail minimum usage requirement, I was urged to phone the toll free EasyLink numbers 1 800 242 6005 and 1 800 328 8268 for more uptodate information, as the AT&T Moving Ahead agent I spoke with claimed total ignorance of both AT&T Mail and EasyLink. From the first of these numbers, I learned that quite a few attmail subscribers were so upset by the new rates that they had already cancelled their service, and that "upper management" was now collecting the names, phone numbers, and attmail ID's of all callers (to that first phone number) who wished to register their disapproval of the new rates in general, and of the new monthly minimum in particular. From the second of these numbers (which had been given me by the voice I had spoken with at the first), I learned that: 1 (Here's that reprieve): Under current plans, the new rates will only go into effect for any given attmail user with the month in which attmail used to bill the former Annual Fee, and in no event before December 1991; 2: Communication of customer concern direct to EasyLink "upper management" might prove fruitful in aborting the new-to-attmail (but old-to-EasyLink) monthly minimum -- the following addresses (and addressees) were suggested (and I sought and received assurance over the phone that my making these names available to TELECOM's readers would not be frowned upon): Mr. Terry Miller 56 Marietta Street Atlanta, GA 30335 FAXno: 1 404 653 8200 ...!attmail!helpbilling Steve Graham Phone: 1 800 242 6005 3: distinctly to be DISCOURAGED -- any mass communication of customer concern either to the AT&T CEO (whom I therefore won't name here) or to the EasyLink CEO (whom I will likewise not name here). Toby, if you haven't received such a "Rate Changes Effective Dec. 1 1991" sheet from AT&T Mail yet, I'll be glad to send you a photocopy of mine. Fortunately, my attmail "billing aniversary month" is February, so there's still a few months in which AT&T may decide to waive that minimum billing component, if they discover that it is driving enough "little users" like me reluctantly away from their service. Fred E.J. Linton Wesleyan U. Math. Dept. 649 Sci. Tower Middletown, CT 06459 E-mail: ( or ) Tel.: + 1 203 776 2210 (home) or + 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work) [Moderator's Note: For $25 a month, subscribers have to fax each other copies of the letter? Call and have them send you your own copy. And answer this for me, Fred: *Who* told you correspondence with the Chairman's office was to be discouraged? One of those two people you mentioned above? They are to function as /dev/null to keep the Chairman from having to view uncomplimentary comments about the new rates, is that it? His duties are far too important to include reading mail or having actual contact with customers, eh? I think not. If Robert Allen (who is by the way listed in the AT&T Mail online directory) can't deal with email from his customers, that's his problem; but honestly I don't think he has any problem with email at all. I think it is the little Napoleans under him who get their underwear in knots when customers ignore them and go to the top decision maker. PAT] ------------------------------ From: sethb@fid.Morgan.COM (Seth Breidbart) Subject: Re: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 21:41:39 GMT In article jeff@bradley.bradley.edu (Jeff Hibbard) writes: > Illinois Bell encodes the MICR dollar > amount on checks themselves, and has a tendency to encode it for the > amount shown on the bill, rather than the amount the check is actually > written for. Once encoded, no bank handling the check looks at the > hand-written written amount, so Illinois Bell gets whatever amount of > money they feel like taking from you, and you end up wondering why all > your other checks are bouncing. Some years ago, when I lived in New Haven, a local utility (I don't remember exactly which one) got into serious trouble for altering the amounts on checks when people underpaid their bills. I believe the technical name for this is fraud. In my opinion, the situation here is the same. Seth ------------------------------ From: Jay.Ashworth@psycho.fidonet.org (Jay Ashworth) Subject: Re: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption Date: Fri, 08 Nov 91 23:05:55 PDT Organization: Psycho: The Usenet<->Fidonet Gateway of St. Pete Florida If they really mis-encode your bill, I expect you can sue them. If they do it to enough people, (and get caught enough times), perhaps their bank will yell at them for you. Cheers, Internet: Jay.Ashworth@psycho.fidonet.org UUCP: ...!uunet!ndcc!tct!psycho!Jay.Ashworth Note:psycho is a free gateway between Usenet & Fidonet. For info write root. ------------------------------ From: Subject: Re: ATT Outage in Massachusetts 11/5 Date: 8 Nov 1991 09:54 -0500 No new details on the outage except to note that I did get a good view of New York. And another one. And another one. Seems to plane was circling over NY/NJ instead of closer to Logan. I suspected something unusual when circling that far away. It was a Tuesday night and that was no reason for really massive congestion. Is it just that they couldn't talk beyond NY so stayed there until they were in contact with Logan? The flight attendant said that there was a power outage but the captain's announcement was simply that there was congestion. At least it was a clear night with a great view, especially the final time we flow right over the city at a relatively low altitude. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: ATT Outage in Massachusetts 11/5 Date: Fri, 08 Nov 91 12:03:06 PST From: eli@cisco.com This ATT outage write-up was in the {Wall Street Journal}. A transmission system was being fitted with new hardware "to correct a potential problem with overheating," an ATT spokesman said. However, an investigation showed that the technicians "missed a step" in the maintenance procedure, causing the system to fail, he said. eli ------------------------------ From: bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) Subject: Re: ATT Outage in Massachusetts 11/5 Date: 9 Nov 91 07:14:58 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , eli@cisco.com (Steve Elias) writes: > CBS radio news reported another ATT outage in the New England area > some time on 11/5. Does anyone have more info on this outage? CBS We lost the data line to our NY office, and so I called it in and got a ticket number. She said it probably was due to the 360 T3s that were out due to a DACS failure in Blackstone MA. She also said something like the following as she read from a status report: "Two disk drives are on site to be replaced but that may not solve the problem. A team from Bell Labs is enroute". There was also something about: "patched overhead to bypass problem for some circuits". I called somewhat later for status and was told everything was restored. I informed them that OUR line was not. 1/2 hour later it came back up and I called in to cancel the trouble ticket so they wouldn't kill the circuit again. It had been out for about four hours. ------------------------------ Date: 07 Nov 91 10:05:32 EST From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Thing roeber@vxcrna.cern.ch (Frederick G.M. Roeber) writes in TELECOM Digest V11 #894: > In short: living in the boonies has costs. > But why should someone who is willing to live in the middle of a city > subsidize someone who would rather incur the cost of a country life? From a macro viewpoint, one of the major values of the phone is being able to call people. Anything which decreases the number of subscribers on the network decreases the value of the phone to everyone. If urban subscribers never called suburban or rural customers (or vice versa), this would make sense. That is not a valid assumption, however. From a practical viewpoint, agriculture (in other words rural subscribers) has gone very high tech in the past several years. Those farms who want to maximize revenue depend heavily on telephone access to market data as well as to market buyers/sellers. This includes telecommunications options such as modem and fax usage. Since these high tech operations are also the ones that provide most of the food for the world, anything that increases their costs also increases the cost of food to everyone. It is, therefore, quite practical from my viewpoint to keep their costs as low as possible. Now, again from a practical viewpoint, how do you differentiate between rural subscribers who are involved in agriculture and those who are not? Will we put in place acreage ownership restrictions in order to obtain subsidized telephone service? Will it have to be full ownership or will participation in a partnership suffice? What impacts will this have on the plight of the family farm in todays society? Tim Gorman - SWBT * opinions are my own, any resemblence to official policy is coincidence* ------------------------------ Subject: Re: MCI and FAX Detection Date: 7 Nov 91 01:44:38 PST (Thu) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> writes: > Brian Crawford writes in TELECOM Digest > V11 #889: >> I have just received what appears to be quite a juicy offer from MCI- >> sign up for their MCI fax service and receive $100 worth of free fax the >> first full billing period in effect. > I also have my doubts that they are monitoring every call handled by > their switching network for fax carrier tone. Not that it isn't > possible, but it would probably take a significant investment to > perform this task. Be very wary of the MCI "fax service". Clients are coming out of the woodwork lately complaining about a sharp increase in fax transmission failures, overly long transmission times, etc., etc. and a resultant increase in overall costs of fax usage as a result. Upon investigation, I have, in an overwhelmingly high percentage of cases, found that the customer was previously sold on "MCI Fax Service", which is nothing more than establishing MCI as the PIC on the fax machine line. For some reason, yet to be determined, MCI seems incapable of delivering fax data properly. I am aware of no particular problems in transmitting fax over normal MCI connections, however this "fax service" seems particularly troublesome. What I generally recommend to a sizable customer is to put the fax machine on a PBX extension (as I do at home) and allow the fax to use whatever routing is used by the voice callers. If there is DID, it even saves the cost of a separate outside line! John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #907 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08193; 10 Nov 91 10:01 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23854 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 08:23:08 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24582 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 08:22:59 -0600 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 08:22:59 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111101422.AA24582@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #908 TELECOM Digest Sun, 10 Nov 91 08:22:47 CST Volume 11 : Issue 908 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Faircharge: Answer to VAN Surcharge? (David G. Lewis) Re: Radio Station Makes Dumb Change on Request Line Numbers (Bob Clements) Re: Radio Station Makes Dumb Change on Request Line Numbers (John Higdon) Re: 5ESS Audio Quality (Andy Sherman) Re: 5ESS Audio Quality (Martin McCormick) Re: Genie vs. FCC -- Tempest in a Teapot? (Jack Decker) Re: Maximum Output for Canadian Handheld Phones? (John R. Covert) Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls (Greg Porter) Re: PacBell Proposed Increases (Ethan Miller) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: Faircharge: Answer to VAN Surcharge? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 18:04:11 GMT In article powers@almaden.ibm.com writes: > However, > the amount of the surcharge should be based on the bandwidth actually > used, and even *very conservative* estimates of that yield much lower > surcharges than those for voice calls. For example, assuming the > connection were 100% busy in both directions, a 1200 bps data call > should only bear 1.5% of the surcharge imposed on a voice call. > Higher rates would pay in proportion. It all depends on the method used to get access to the VAN provider. If you're talking about a subrate DDS line (and I don't even know if switched subrate DDS exists ...) or a packet switched access connection to the VAN, I agree. However, if you're talking about putting a modem on your voice line and dialing up a VAN, which provides a modem on the far end and handles the PAD function internally, I disagree. In this case, your modem is using the same 64kbps (if the call is carried digitally by the network) as is a voice call. You're modulating (say) 2400 bps data onto an analog access line. The local switch samples this analog signal and digitizes it at a rate of 64kbps. The fact that the "capacity" as *you* see it is 2400 bps is irrelevant to the network -- the analog signal you send is digitized into 64kbps. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Radio Station Makes Dumb Change on Request Line Numbers Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 14:04:59 EST From: clements@BBN.COM In article linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU writes: > The radio station is > paying loads of money for their 800 number, which only marginally > improves service for some listeners and makes things worse for many > others. Just not real bright, if you ask me. But what else do they get by switching to an 800 number? They get the phone numbers of all the people who call them. Then a quick pass through a database gets them the names and addresses. That's ready-made, salable marketing information, keyed by interests (by the type of program that was on when the call was made or the product being advertised). This probably pays for the added cost of the 800 number. Of course, they never mention that calling them will give them your number ... Readers (and, I believe, the Moderator) of this list have stated that the provision of caller billing number data is one of the important reasons they have 800 service. [Disclaimer: Of course, I don't KNOW for a fact that your particular radio station is doing this.] Bob Clements, K1BC, clements@bbn.com [Moderator's Note: With or without the availability of billing number data I would still want to have my 800 lines. But having the ID of the caller available to me is an added plus. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 00:29 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Radio Station Makes Dumb Change on Request Line Numbers linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) writes: > but has always had a separate number for San Jose area > listeners to call for requests, contest entries, etc. The two numbers > are in the 415-478 and 408-986 exchanges, both of which I believe are > choke exchanges. So far so good. 408/986 is not a choke exchange (I ought to know; I have some numbers in that prefix), but it was an RCF to the San Francisco number. I'm also glad they got rid of it; it was close to my DISA number and I think it caused me some headaches! But anyway ... > Just a couple of weeks ago, they eliminated the South Bay 408-986 > number and replaced it with an 800-696 number, dialable (at least > according to their ads) only from the 408 area. They probably got tired of paying international-sized rates for each and every call that was forwarded to the city. They might have done one of two things here. Either they got a "Pacific Bell Custom 800 Number" (dumb move) or they got an MCI (or other carrier's) 800 number and are using it for intraLATA traffic (very smart move). I know of another station in the state that did the latter and has saved beaucoup bucks on listener calls. Either way, it is possible to limit the area code accessability. > The radio station is paying loads of money for their 800 number, > which only marginally improves service for some listeners and makes > things worse for many others. Not if it is from an OCC. If it is bundled in a T1 package with other WATS trunks, then it basically costs them nothing except for about $0.10 per minute usage (billed in six-second increments, no less). This is one hell of a lot cheaper than what they were paying for that RCF from Santa Clara, which forwarded calls at the full-screw-um dial rate. Even if they fell for the PBC800 number, they are still paying less -- less per month and less per call. Frankly, I always thought the station was very dumb for having that 986 RCF. It really wasn't very creative (or cheap). And as I said, it was very close to one of my numbers. Good riddance :-) John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 10:12:56 EST Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ In article Floyd Davidson writes: > Clock slips. Actually poor syncronization between the transmit end > and the receive end of any T1 digital path, even if it is not a > switch, will cause the problem. The receive end will either skip a > byte of data or repeat the last byte of data, depending on whether it > needs to catch up or slow down, and that results in a phase jump that > a modem will detect. It usually will not bother 1200 bps or slower > modems, but will produce the classic '{{{{{{{' pattern at 2400 bps > with modems that do not do error correction. I've heard tell that this is a common problem with new T1 facilities or T1 facilities into new switches (such as Higdon's problem). The way I've heard it told is that a common problem is human error: the switch is tested with the trunk cards supplying their own timing and that people forget to reset them to synchronize to the network when the trunk is put into service. Floyd, you're on the operational side of this business -- any truth to this? Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 10:24:04 CST From: u1906ad@UNX.UCC.OKSTATE.EDU Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality I am sure glad to hear several people mentioning the problem of clock synchronization when talking about line noise. We have an Ericssen MD110 PBX connected to trunks leading to a DMS100 Southwestern Bell switch via a digital interface of which I have no practical working knowledge. We do, however have the strangest problem. Sometimes, when calling in on any data line using 1200 or 2400 baud, we get a connection which sounds perfectly normal to the ear, but produces a rhythmic pattern of garbage characters which march across the screen. The pattern frequently looks like {i{i{i and occurs every two to five seconds. If data are being received when this happens, the whole line is garbage. When speaking with our Telephone Services Department, they are quite eager to solve the problem but say that they can't find anything wrong. They usually will take the offending modem out of service and everything appears OK. I have suspected for a long time that this was some kind of sync problem because of the rhythmic nature of the trash. Another interesting fact is that it is always worse on the originating end of the connection. This would make since because the higher frequency carrier would be disrupted more by the phase shift than a lower frequency carrier. What really makes the problem tough is that the act of breaking the connection frees that particular modem and that particular trunk, making it all but impossible to truly recreate the situation for testing. Next time we have a rash of these problems, I'll forward some of these messages to our Telephone folks and at least alert them to something to look for. The sound quality of the Ericssen switch for digital calls on campus is supurb and the sound quality of the DMS100 is pretty good. Martin McCormick Amateur Radio WB5AGZ Data Communications Group Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 17:29:32 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Genie vs. FCC -- Tempest in a Teapot? In a message dated 1 Nov 91 17:09:42 GMT, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: > The FCC considers packet networks to be similar to voice networks, and > all things being equal they should be connected to the phone network > the same way, e.g. 950 and 10XXX. But all things are not equal, and > the FCC has given packet carriers an exemption so that they connect to > the phone network like business customers, not like long distance > customers. There is an important financial difference, since long > distance carriers pay per-minute rates for incoming calls, but > business customers don't. That's why per-hour rates for packet > carriers are much lower than for voice carriers, e.g. $10/hr is cheap > for voice, but expensive for data. I'm not saying at this point > whether this is good or bad, but it's how things are. I think it's bad for the simple reason that it encourages packet networks to "cherry pick" the major population centers and ignore the rural areas. If they had to use 950 or 10XXX access just like any other OCC, we'd probably have access to at least one of them here in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Look at the phone number access list for SprintNet (as just one example) ... they have virtually stopped adding new indial cities (even though we were promised an access node here about two or three years ago), and there are an awful lot of towns with under 50,000 population that don't have any access yet. SprintNet has broken so many promises (especially to users of its PC Pursuit service) that I dobut they will be able to mobilize another massive letter-writing campaign like they did the first time around (when the FCC wanted to charge them just like any other OCC). Now, perhaps packet networks SHOULD be treated differently, but on the other hand, I can see the distinctions between voice and data starting to blur already (as there is more and more talk about digitizing speech)... suppose a packet network starts offering, say, 19.2K throughput and people start hooking up voice-to-data converters and sending voice conversations digitally... should the packet network providers still be treated differently? Where do you draw the line? > In a perfect world one might dial 950-DATA to be connected to > a local packet switch which would take your data off the voice net at > your local switch, then connect you via efficient packet switching to > your packet net. I've been hoping for something like this for a long time, but it will never happen as long as the packet network providers find it cheaper to run FX and private lines to the major cities. I really galls me every time I call up SprintNet's PHONES list and see that people in Moscow (no, I don't mean Idaho!) can get into SprintNet for the price of a local call, but many people in our own country cannot. Why do our regulators allow this? Jack Decker : jack@myamiga.mixcom.com : FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 08:32:09 PST From: John R. Covert 07-Nov-1991 1134 Subject: Re: Maximum Output for Canadian Handheld Phones? > Is there a different maximum output for Canadian handheld cellular > phones? In the U.S., the maximum output is 0.6 watts I believe. Correct. I doubt that it is different in Canada, since the station class bits in the AMPS protocol are specifically allocated to 0.6 watts, 1.6 watts and 3.0 watts. > Since Canadian full-powered cell phones can put out four watts instead > of three as is the limit in the US... Where did you get this information? > You can bring any Canadian cell phone into the US, but the US tower > will order the phone to power down to three watts (or less) Can't be. There are exactly eight power levels defined in the protocol (three bits are used), and the highest one is 3 watts. 0 is off, 1-5 are the power levels up to 0.6 watts, 6 is 1.6 watts and 7 is 3.0 watts. For this reason, I think your information about Canadian phones being allowed to transmit four watts is incorrect. john ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 10:51:43 PST From: porterg@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (greg porter) Subject: Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls The Pacific Bell White Pages on page A46 state that: "Federal and State tariffs state that for a telephone conversation to be recorded, on of the following conditions must be met: 1. All parties being recorded must give their prior consent to being recorded; or, 2. All parties being recored must hear a "beep" tone approximately every 15 seconds. Exemptions to these provisions apply to commercial broadcasting purposes when the person being recorded has been informed." ----------- This is how it is in California. I'm sure a call to your local telephone provider would be able to answer your questions. Being able to record a conversation can be handy, especially when it comes to legal matters. My fiance got hit by a drunk driver and his insurance company refused to pay up or take any action for over a year. So her parents bought a recorder that gave the legal tones ... and wa la ... they had results with in two weeks. Greg Porter INTERNET: gporter@csus.edu UUCP: ucdavis!csusac!porterg All the standard disclaimers apply ------------------------------ From: elm@cs.berkeley.edu (ethan miller) Subject: PacBell proposed increases Date: 7 Nov 91 11:52:02 In article Scott Fybush writes: > Although NETel claims that the rate change will be revenue-neutral, I > have a feeling it will end up costing me more. Currently, calls to > the Boston Central exchange are two message units for me. That means > about 18 cents for a five-minute call. At the new rates, that call > will cost me 33.5 cents. PacBell is trying to do the same thing. Although their pamphlet states "the average residence customer's monthly phone bill will decrease by $0.11 (0.3 percent)," I don't believe it. For that to happen, the average customer will have to spend $36.66 on local calls. Since local flat rate (in Berkeley) is about $13/month, that's almost $25/month on "long-distance" calls. At current evening rates, that would be about three hours of long-distance per month. Remember, this is PacBell long-distance, not inter-LATA long-distance. I find it hard to believe that most people spend that much. In addition, PacBell now wants to charge for directory assistance outside a caller's area code. So much for the "415/510 split will *not* affect your rates" claim. They also want to phase in, over a two year period, 16% increases for Basic Exchange Services and 40% increases for Private Line Services. To offset the increase, they'll chop rates on Toll Services and Switched Access Services. Am I the only one who thinks PacBell wants to compete in other markets and is trying to charge its customers (who have no choice) so it is able to? ethan miller elm@cs.berkeley.edu include ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #908 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09219; 10 Nov 91 10:52 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24102 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 09:10:17 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23043 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 09:10:07 -0600 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 09:10:07 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111101510.AA23043@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #909 TELECOM Digest Sun, 10 Nov 91 09:10:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 909 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card (Jack Decker) Re: Information on CCITT Red & Blue Book on Internet (Wade Rogers) Re: PUC Absent at PUC Hearings and Transcript Inaccuracies (David Lewis) Re: Who Benefits From Local Competition? (David G. Lewis) Re: Administrivia: Feedback Wanted on Subject Index (Dave Niebuhr) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 17:27:25 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Sprint FONCARD vs. AT&T Calling Card In a message dated 31 Oct 91 19:18:36 GMT, john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Jack Decker writes: >> John ... the offices I am talking about are STEP-BY-STEP offices >> operated by independent telephone companies. I don't know why you >> seem to think that you are always right and everyone else is wrong, >> but I don't need a switchman to tell me that a step-by-step office on >> a little independent phone company that is barely capable (some would >> say "incapable") of providing reliable local exchange service is NOT >> FGD capable. > Jack ... facts are facts. There is no right or wrong about it. Facts > are verifiable and confirmable. I am not always right, but in this > case my facts happen to be correct. > Why? Any office, including the most vile, disgusting, incapable, > primative, rural, backwoods XY can hand ANY (and I mean ANY) call off > to a FGD-capable tandem. And this is precisely how any call you make > to an OCC 800 number would have to be completed. This also applies to > 950. The original message has scrolled off my system, but as I recall your assertion was that the END OFFICE had to be FGD capable in order to reach Sprint's 800 number. > Now if the office can hand those calls off, please explain to me why > it cannot hand off 10XXX calls, etc., to that same tandem? I can't answer this directly (maybe someone else can help out here) but I do know this: In many smaller central offices, especially those operated by independent telephone companies in rural areas, the switch doesn't know about "Feature Groups." All it knows is that IF the first digit dialed is NOT a "1" or a "0", you're making a local call, otherwise you're making a toll call. When you dial a "1" or a "0" it seizes a toll trunk or operator service trunk (usually provided by the Bell company serving the area) and all additional digits you dial are simply "passed through". After you've dialed ten more digits (or you "time out" on a 0+ call), the ANI equipment (which is probably the most modern piece of equipment in the office!) fires off a set of in-band signaling tones that communicate your phone number to the toll equipment at the other end. Now, please note that the "1" or "0" is NOT sent out on the toll trunk. Thus, if you dial "10222" the fist digit that goes out on the toll trunk is the "0". The problem, as I see it, is that if you tried to dial a "10XXX +0 +" call (operator assisted) the intital "1" would cause the call to go out on a DDD trunk, not an operator service trunk. Also, I'm not sure that the ANI equipment could cope with the extra digits. And, many small independents really don't care much about offering Equal Access (though that attitude is thankfully changing). If they can get a call out of the local CO, that is all they care about. Some even go so far as to let the Bell company do their billing for them (one Michigan company I know of used to have bills that looked EXACTLY like Michigan Bell bills, except that the Bell logo was absent from the computer-printed bill pages). So I think that there are technical reasons that 10XXX calls aren't handed off, and the primary one that I can think of is the use of the leading "1" or "0" to indicate whether the call should go out via a DDD or operator trunk (which ARE technically different ... for example, operator trunks can "hold" a connection path after the caller hangs up in many CO's). On a 10XXX call you don't know whether the call will be DDD or Operator-assisted until the SIXTH digit, and most older Step-by-Step offices have no facilities to store and forward digits ... as I noted, once you dial the initial "1" or "0", you are essentially gone as far as the local CO is concerned. Now, I am talking Step-by-Step here, which is what the offices I was referring to have. You are talking XY which as I understand it, is still a common control switch with some limited digit storage and translation capabilities ... if so then your question might be more valid for that kind of switch. But I SPECIFICALLY mentioned a Step-by-Step switch in my post. >> There are lots of us who never make international calls, or who don't >> mind a small amount of added noise to save up to 30% on an >> international call. Granted that if you're pushing data across >> international boundaries to some remote country, this might be a major >> consideration, but relatively few of us are in that situation. > Let me turn this around. You have repeatedly accused me of > parochialism in my Pac*Bell orientation, so what makes you think that > just because YOU have no need for decent international service (and > yes, I do push high speed data to Japan) that some of the rest of us > might not be so small-time? Some of us do more than call Aunt Edna > every week. Well, again, I'm speaking from my perspective in the North Woods of Michigan. People up here are just now discovering FAX machines, and computer modems are mostly still a mysterious device used by people in Big Cities. Even the local State University (smallest in the state) has not fully entered the computer age (they are one of only two or three state U's that are NOT connected to MichNet). Believe it or not, most people, and even most business owners up here almost never have the need to make an international voice call, let alone an international data call. >>> 2. Reliably connect you with virtually any internal technical >>> department in almost any telco in the nation; >> Why do you need this capability? YOU might, but again, this just >> isn't a major consideration for MOST folks. > In any situation where one has multiple offices around the country, or > is involved with WANs, or has a multipoint distribution requirement, > the ability to reach distant repair services is a gawdsend. Once > again, I turn it around: just because your requirements are so light > that you have never found this necessary is no reason to decree that > it does not constitute a valid benchmark for carrier satisfaction. I'm not saying it isn't a valid benchmark FOR YOU. What I'm saying is that you make the all too common mistake that we all make at times, which is one of thinking that our view of the world is one that is shared by the majority of people (after all, to admit otherwise would be to admit that one is sort of an oddball, and who wants to admit THAT?!?) :-) > And I have a problem with your term "MOST folks". One of the major > causes for the decline of goods and services in this country is the > concept of marketing to the lowest common denominator. If it is > mass-marketable, then fine. If it is vertical, then scrap it. AT&T is > the ONLY FULL-SERVICE long distance company in the country. Yes, the > OCCs can fill the needs of MOST of the people MOST of the time. So > does Chevrolet. But do you fault Mercedes for selling expensive cars > just because YOU find no need for one? No, I don't. But I would fault a Mercedes owner for constantly trying to tell everyone else that the only respectable thing to do is buy a Mercedes (even those whose needs would be satisfied by a Volkswagen), and for constantly making disparaging remarks about all other cars. John, you do tend to take occasional swipes at the OCC's without realizing that some people may have valid reasons for choosing an OCC over your beloved AT&T. > If your requirements are thin enough, then use the weeniest carrier > that can fulfill them. You MIGHT even save some money (if your time is > not worth anything). But please do not fault AT&T for continuing to > provide its vast assortment of excellent services just because you do > not need any of them. Some of us are willing to pay a little more to > get a lot more. Okay, I won't fault them for providing (usually) excellent service (we'll just forget about some of their recent outages ). And, hey, we won't talk about the following item that appeared in this Sunday's "Business Briefs" section of the local newspaper: "AT&T admits charge lag" "NEW YORK (AP) - American Telephone & Telegraph Co. said it has continued to charge some former customerts for a discount calling plan for months after they switched long-distance phone companies. "The charges involve AT&T's Reach Out America, Reach Out State, and Reach Out World calling plans, which allow customers to buy an hour or half-hour of long-distance calling per month at a reduced rate. "AT&T said Tuesday it has continued to charge the monthly fee for the Reach Out plans to some customers even after they switched to MCI Communications Corp., Sprint or another phone company." Point is, even AT&T can screw up, yet they are very quick to point out the faults of their competitors. I wish MCI or Sprint would run an ad that says something like "Subscribe to an AT&T Reach Out plan, and you may continue to be billed for the service for months after you try to cancel ... or subscribe to [MCI PrimeTime|Sprint Plus] and you'll save more money and if your calling patterns ever change, WE'LL let you cancel with just one phone call!" You just KNOW that AT&T would not be above running that sort of ad if it had been MCI or Sprint that had screwed up! Jack Decker : jack@myamiga.mixcom.com : FidoNet 1:154/8 [Moderator's Note: This has been an interesting thread, but since it is now just Mssrs. Decker and Higdon arguing between themselves, perhaps they will continue it in private email, space and time being at a premium here this weekend. PAT] ------------------------------ From: eplrx7!rogers@uunet.uu.net (Wade Rogers) Subject: Re: Information on CCITT Red & Blue Book on Internet Organization: DuPont Engineering Physics Laboratory Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 19:28:31 GMT ksakotai@cs.ulowell.edu (Krishnan "krish" Sakotai ) writes: > In a similar vein, does anybody know if there is an anonymous FTP > source for the ADPCM test sequences described in CCITT G.721 and > G.722? And in yet another similar vein, is there such for the CCITT H.261 compression standard? Wade T. Rogers | E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. eplrx7!rogers@uunet.uu.net | Engineering Physics Laboratory uunet!eplrx7!rogers | P.O. Box 80357 (302) 695-7945 | Wilmington, Delaware 19880-0357 ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: PUC Absent at PUC Hearings and Transcript Inaccuracies Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 21:21:30 GMT In article nelson@bolyard.wpd.sgi.com (Nelson Bolyard) writes: [description of inaccuracies in transcriptions deleted] > I already thought of presenting a written copy of > your remarks to the transcriptionist in advance of making them orally > to the hearing. I don't know if the transcriptionist will use them or > not, and I wouldn't want the transcriptionist to be insulted (whether > or not such insult was deserved). This is getting a little off telecom, but ... If the meeting was recorded by a CSR (Certified Shorthand Reporter) and then transcribed, chances are the reporter would be very willing to take a written copy of your remarks. Just be reasonable in the way you go about it -- saying something like "my remarks have a lot of technical terms and I wanted to provide you a copy as a reference." The reporter will not copy your written remarks verbatim, but will use it as a reference for any unintelligible comments or confusing terms. (My fiance' is a CSR and does a fair number of depositions for malpractice cases -- and if you think *telecom* has some difficult terminology ...) Of course, if the reporter is so bad that he/she's making the mistakes you mentioned, there's no guarantee about what will happen ... and if the remarks are recorded on tape and transcribed from the tape, all bets are off. A CSR affirms that the transcript is an accurate representation of the notes and seals the transcript to that effect. A transcription from tape isn't affirmed or sealed, generally. A non-certified reporter will fall somewhere in the middle -- better than a tape, because the reporter will at least have been there, but not as good as a CSR. (Of course, I admit to being prejudiced in favor of CSRs ...) David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: Who Benefits From Local Competition? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 21:31:55 GMT In article lauren@vortex.COM (Lauren Weinstein) writes: > You can bet potential competitors aren't going to be lining up to > serve suburban or rural areas, or residence or small business > customers. Those will be left to the original telco, who will > continue to go screaming back to the PUCs demanding ever more basic > service increases to make up for the lost revenue. Chuck Buckman, General Manager of Teleport Communications Chicago, has proposed a "Universal Service Tax" -- a percentage of revenues to be paid by all telcos to the local (presumably state) government, which would turn around and pay it to telcos serving these "underpriviledged" areas. I'm not saying that's the only (or even best) solution, but again, let's not climb back inside the Natural Monopoly shell when alternate, creative solutions have potential. > Such revenue requirements could be at least partially controlled if it > were mandated that the telcos must concentrate on their core > businesses as regulated utilities -- and not keep trying to venture > off into speculative sidelines and enhanced services that usually > don't benefit the average customer in any significant way and would be > best provided by outside entities in any case. Can you say "Divestiture", boys and girls? Let's see -- AT&T divested itself of the local Bell operating companies largely so it could enter into the unregulated computer business. Next, the seven RBOCs will divest themselves of the local Bell operating companies so they can enter the unregulated information services, long distance, manufacturing, real estate, financial, etc. businesses. Then, I guess the local Bell operating companies will themselves divest themselves of the local telephone operations so they can enter some other new unregulated business. The poor guys in the BOCs are going to start feeling like unwanted relatives. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 17:16:12 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: Re: Administrivia: Feedback Wanted on Subject Index In PAT writes: > If any of you have had a chance to get the Volume 9-10-11 Subject > Index from the archives (ftp lcs.mit.edu) and play around with it ... I like it but found it more workable if I sorted it by Issue/Group, e.g. 9/701-750 9/751-800 This was a very trivial operation and was more convenient for me. However, as another poster mentioned, it is a useful tool when researching previous articles concerning a specific topic or topics. Good Work. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 [Moderator's Note: My intent in gathering up all those subject lines in alphabetical order was to provide a tool for people searching through back issues by whatever search key. Whether you grep for author names, titles, or file name (and all articles in that volume by alpha order for example), the index should help you locate what you want. You still have to then go back to the archives and pull the file with the collection of issues desired, but at least with the index you now know where to begin looking. I've updated it through issue 900, and it can be obtained in compressed form from the Telecom Archives using anonymous ftp at lcs.mit.edu. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #909 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10395; 10 Nov 91 11:41 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16061 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 10:05:33 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27972 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 10:05:24 -0600 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 10:05:24 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111101605.AA27972@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #910 TELECOM Digest Sun, 10 Nov 91 10:05:17 CST Volume 11 : Issue 910 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Information Wars (Mike Godwin) Re: The Information Wars (John Higdon) Re: The Information Wars (Peng H. Ang) Re: The Information Wars (Mitch Kapor) Re: Video Dialtone vrs. Info Services (Marvin Sirbu) Re: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires (David Cornutt) Re: Question on Easements (Marc T. Kaufman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Godwin Subject: Re: The Information Wars Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 20:06:28 EST John Higdon writes: > This matter is even more serious than Pac*Bell's confiscatory ratepayer > money-grab. Pacific Telesis' entry into the information providing > business will give new meaning to the term "Orwellian". Some > organizations, such as the EFF, seem to feel that letting the RBOCs get > a foot in the door is essential to the emergence of the necessary > technology to get a "universal", national data network launched. This is not really our position. Instead, we have argued that since the RBOCs are likely very soon to enter this arena, their entry be conditioned upon, among other things, investment in technology that facilitates more high-bandwidth connectivity to the home -- available to *all* would-be information-service providers. Mike ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 17:44 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: The Information Wars In the previous message in this issue Mike Godwin writes: > This is not really our position. Instead, we have argued that since > the RBOCs are likely very soon to enter this arena, their entry be > conditioned upon, among other things, investment in technology that > facilitates more high-bandwidth connectivity to the home -- available > to *all* would-be information-service providers. A laudable goal to be sure. But as in the case of, for instance, voicemail providing the telco makes that technology available to competitors at a ridiculous price. No one can pay that price and still be competitive with the telco. The telco claims that the charge represents the "true cost of providing the service", and has to offer absolutely no substantiation for that claim. My fear, backed by history and current practices, is that the telcos will engineer any technology to their own exclusive advantage. Yes, we may eventually get high-bandwidth connectivity to our homes, but only the telcos will be able to afford to send anything on it. Competition is a dirty word to the RBOCs. The only way they want to play is to have some overriding advantage that will guarantee a "win". A "win" to a telco is not the providing of advanced services or filling customer needs but the making of a LOT of money. Ask anyone now currently in competition with a telco with a product that depends on the local exchange network and find out how Baby Bell plays. Go to voicemail providers and discover how much each pays for FX circuits to the offices they wish to serve; or ask about mysterious problems on PBX trunks when the local telco is actively pushing Centrex on the vendor's customer. Then discover how low the price is for voicemail from the telco -- it makes you wonder how they can do it so cheap. The answer, of course, is that pot of gold called the "regulated ratepayer". And the price will be low until all those other folks disappear. But then ... No Mike, this has got to happen either via regulatory strangle-hold mandates and edicts to the LECs, or through some other means entirely. If you think that anyone can "play house" with Baby Bell and come out ahead, then we have not talked enough. And remember, the Bells write the tariffs for the PUCs, not the other way around. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Nov 91 21:54 EST From: "Peng_H.Ang" <20017ANG@msu.edu> Subject: Re: The Information Wars > typical of the underhanded tactics PacTel uses to ruthlessly get its > own way. It attacks Lantos by name, accusing him of "siding with the > newspaper interests" in "blocking your right to free access of > information". I would have thought that the correct attribution tag would be a form of "said" rather than "accuse." PacTel on this point is correct. Lantos, bless his heart tho' I don't know him, is siding with newspaper interests and, on the face of it, blocking access to information. May I offer a counterpoint that I do not seem to have encountered in this debate about telcos and info services. The info services market, particularly at the consumer level that the telcos are interested in, is heavily concentrated. The mass market consumer videotex has just five key players, starting with CompuServe and Prodigy. I think CompuServe is wonderful but its prices are a different matter. Well, recently, with Prodigy gaining market share, CompuServe introduced a "basic" service where for $7.95 a month you get several "popular" services plus 30 email messages. (Sounds familiar?) I'm sure that CompuServe would that have done that without the qualified success of Prodigy. Of course CompuServe could also be pre-empting the telcos' move -- by lowering prices it is erecting a barrier to entry. I look forward to the telcos' entry in shaking up the consumer information services market. Yes, the FCC and PUCs will have to watch them closer. But aren't we all technological optimists in believing that the greater the access to information techology and services, the better the country will be? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 08:44:18 -0500 From: mkapor@eff.org (Mitch Kapor) Subject: Re: The Information Wars John Higdon says: > Some organizations, such as the EFF, seem to feel that letting the > RBOCs get a foot in the door is essential to the emergence of the > necessary technology to get a "universal", national data network > launched ... This mis-states our position. We believe that the deployment of a ubiquitous, affordable platform based on ISDN is the sine qua on for the emergence of innovative information services. These services would practically all be created by entrepreneurs and new entrants into the field. If such a platform were created, which would be a historically unprecedented event, and assuming other developments such as the emergence of competition in the local loop and other safeguards, then we believe it would not be inappropriate for RBOC's to provide content as well as conduit. For more information on our ISDN platform proposal, send mail to eff@eff.org. Mitch Kapor mkapor@eff.org Electronic Frontier Foundation ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 11:33:18 -0500 (EST) From: Marvin Sirbu Subject: Re: Video Dialtone vrs. Info Services > If I understand recent FCC rulings correctly, both local and long > distance phone service providers are now allowed to provide a pathway > into the home for full-motion video provided they do not have a > financial interest in the production of that video (the so-called > 'video dialtone'). Phone companies are also allowed to provide > information services within their own service areas. My question is > this: is there a provision in all of this which prevents the > information services from providing full-motion video? I use the > phrase 'full-motion video' to signify what we typically call > 'television programs.' How are we to discriminate between the types > of messages which are and are not allowed? That someone might be confused by regulations in this areas is not at all surprising -- they ARE confusing! Perhaps I can straighten things out a bit. In the U.S. political system, there are many independent sources of political power and regulation. Rules may be issued as laws by the Congress; as regulations by quasi-independent regulatory commissions such as the FCC; or by the courts as judicial decrees. Moreover, because we are a federal republic, there may be State as well as National rules from each of these three types of agencies. When you have several rules regarding the same thing, it is the _most binding_ rule which is important. With respect to video and information services, there have been three major sources of limitation. 1. The MFJ, which prohibited the Regional Holding Companies (RHCs) (but not other local exchange carriers) from providing information services -- whether data or video, and whether in their service area or outside of it. 2. The Cable Act of 1984, Congressional legislation, which bans the provision by any local exchange carrier of "video programming" within their local exchange area. Video Programming is ambiguously defined in the act, but it generally refers to cable-like service: provision of a limited number of one-way video channels. The Cable Act also specifies that providers of "video services" need to secure a municipal franchise. 3. FCC rules. There are two main sets. 1) Computer Inquiry 3, which establishes the rules for participation by any "dominant" LEC (i.e. the RBOCs) in the provision of "enhanced communications services"; and 2) the FCC's own rules banning provision by LECs of video programming, which were written into the Cable Act of 1984. There have been several recent changes in these rules, which I will describe, and then I will try to explain which remaining rules are binding. One. Judge Greene, at the direction of the Appellate Court, has removed all restrictions on the provision by the information services by the RHCs. Thus, the court is no longer a limiting factor. Two. The Cable Act of 1984 remains in place. Three. The FCC CI3 rules say that the RHCs can provide enhanced services, including information content, through a separate subsidiary, and subject to open standard interfaces for other enhanced service providers (Open Network Architecture). This separate subsidiary need not be completely at arms length, however. It can share equipment with the parent, for example; accounting rules are to be relied upon to allocate the cost of the equipment properly between the two. The FCC has recently asked for comment in a Notice of Proposed Rule Making on the idea of Video Dial Tone; the decision is so recent, hoever, that the text of it has still not been made available to the public. Like 976 services, Video Dial Tone would provide switched transport on a common carrier basis to video information sources. A result of this process may be a recommendation to Congress to amend the Cable Act of 1984. Implications. 1. Since the MFJ was the only rule which applied to LEC provision of information OUTSIDE of its service area, the RHCs are free to buy up cable companies outside their service area (as Pac Bell has already done with a special waiver from the court prior to the general decision). 2. Under CI3 rules, the RHCs are free to provide any other kind of non-video information inside their service areas. As a result of the MFJ changes, they are also now free to provide information *content* as part of an enhanced service: e.g. instead of just providing electronic mail, where they don't provide any of the content, they can provide an electronic white pages and yellow pages as well. 3. With respect to video information, the situation is still not settled. At the moment, the Cable Act of 1984, and the lack of official adoption, _yet_, by the FCC of its Proposed Video Dial Tone rules means that the RHCs may not provide video information within their service areas. As the FCC Video Dial Tone docket proceeds, we will see if legislative change by the Congress to the Cable Act is needed, or whether Video Dial tone, as a *switched* service, falls outside the prohibitions of the Cable Act, and can be authorized by the FCC unilaterally. In the latter case, the RHCs will be able to offer video information content, subject to the combined rules of the Video Dial Tone proceeding and CI3. The FCC has also made the claim that information providers who make use of a Video Dial Tone service do not need to secure a municipal franchise; a claim which we can expect municipalities to contest in the courts. Lastly, some States may attempt to put in their two cents worth as well. For example, by demanding more severe structural separation restrictions -- as opposed to mere accounting rules -- for the RHCs enhanced services subsidiary. The District of Columbia has already proposed such rules. For a detailed treatment of these issues see the forthcoming book on Fiber to the Home by David Reed from Artech House publishers. ------------------------------ From: cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov (David Cornutt) Subject: Re: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires Organization: NASA/MSFC Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 03:06:08 GMT Thanks for an interesting article, Al. Now let me ask you a question about cutover. I'm looking at a flyer from Tekelec (I called them about info on their FDDI analyzer; now they're sending me all kinds of neat stuff). Among the goodies that they sell to folks who are in the business of implementing telecom systems is something they call simply the Cutover Device. From the description of it, and my limited knowledge, I take it that it's intended for cutting over toll switches. It appears to be a device with which two switches can be connected to an SS7 net so that they appear to be one device. On command, apparently it starts routing call setup requests to the new switch, while still handling messages concerning existing traffic to/from the switch which is being cut over. I assume that it keeps track of remaining calls on the old switch and notifies the operator when all traffic has been cut over. Is this an accurate summary? Am I correct in the assumption that it is only for toll switches, or can it be used for COs too? (And if so, how are the individual pairs cut over? Come to think of it, when all the analog systems are gone, presumably there won't be any pairs coming directly to the switch, just trunks. At that point, will you even need a device like this any more?) David Cornutt, New Technology Inc., Huntsville, AL (205) 461-6457 (cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov; some insane route applies) "The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer, not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary." ------------------------------ From: kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) Subject: Re: Question on Easements Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA Date: 8 Nov 91 17:08:58 GMT KRUSE_NEIL@tandem.com writes: > My family has some land, and 20 years ago we gave the Public Works > Dept. in our town a easement for sewer and water ONLY. Then, the LEC > "snuck" in some buried lines without a easment or permission. Ten > years later the LEC's contractor drives onto our property with their > tractors ripping up the ground to install a new fiber optic cable. We > say, "stop!" They say they now have a "perscriptive easement" for this > half mile strip down our property. We settle for about $3,500 dollars > in paving work done by one of their contractors. > My question is, since they intalled the cable without our permission > (we didn't even know it was there) and, then went to install new > cable, did they have a right "with the perscriptive eaesment" to do > that? And, were we suckered on what a half mile long easement is > worth? Any ideas? Well, as to what it's worth: it depends on how much you value water and sewer service ... It's not unheard of for utilities not specifically named in the easement to use right-of-way granted to other utilities (sort of like sub-contracting to provide telephone lines alongside the water pipes). The requirement on your side is that you not build any structures (or plant large trees) over the lines, because the utility has the right of access, and can remove them if needed. On their side, I think they have to restore the land to a "reasonable" state; which does NOT include replanting specimen trees or reinstalling fences. The bottom line is that if you take them to court to make them stop, the local governing body will probably take the easement by emminent domain. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) [Moderator's Note: Does anyone remember the story in the Digest a couple years ago where IBT claimed easement rights in this lady's home -- in her bedroom, mind you -- because the former occupant had been an answering service, and pairs multipled from all over the neighborhood were connected in a huge terminal box in her bedroom? Maybe I should run that story again. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #910 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12040; 10 Nov 91 12:48 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24628 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 11:09:11 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19955 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 11:09:02 -0600 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 11:09:02 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111101709.AA19955@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #911 TELECOM Digest Sun, 10 Nov 91 11:08:56 CST Volume 11 : Issue 911 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" (Eric Skinner) Re: Bell of PA *Offers* CallerID Blocking (Craig R. Watkins) Re: AT&T Alliance Signal Quality (Bryan Richardson) Re: New NETel Rates For Metro Boston Customers (John Higdon) Re: Desperately Need Telco Line ... Concluded (Joe McGuckin) Re: Early Switches Permitting Touch Tone (Bud Couch) Re: British Telecom Figures (Peng H. Ang) Re: Touch Tone on Old Switches (Bud Couch) Re: AT&T Online Translation Service (David McKellar) Re: Controlling LD Access (Barton F. Bruce) 10xxx Compliance Update (Barton F. Bruce) Books on LANS and Communications (Mark Allyn) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 07 Nov 91 13:45:21 EST From: Eric Skinner <443114@acadvm1.uottawa.ca> Subject: Re: Administrivia: Today We "Fall Behind" In Digest 11/877, Albert Pang (albert@INSL.McGill.CA) writes: > While on the same subject, I have to mention this since it is > telecom related. > I am a subscriber of Call Display (caller id) from Bell > Canada. My exchange is (514)289-xxxx which is a Northern Telecom > DMS-100 switch. I have rented a much to be desired Northern Telecom > Maestro phone with has a small LCD display. It shows the time of day > and tells you if there is a new call. Montreal (or Canada) has > switched to EST last Sunday. However, as of today, the little display > on my phone still works on EDT. I don't think it is my problem since > the clock will be set by any incoming Caller-ID information. That > means the clock on the DMS switch is still working on EDT. > Pretty annoying. Anybody outside of Bell Canada area has the same > problem? (Someone else mentioned it a few issues later, too). I noticed the same thing, and called Bell repair (611) on the date of the time change to see what the story was. You won't believe the answer. Yes, the time of the call *is* delivered with the Caller ID information and if the time on the phone hasn't been set since power-on (of the phone), the phone resets the time to what it's just received with the Caller ID information. The rest of the time, the Maestro ignores the time information. This strikes me as completely ridiculous. Unless they're allowing for the case where my CO is in another time zone (which would screw up billing, no?) there is no reason for the Maestro not to ALWAYS reset the time and date. This is the story I got from 611 -- apparently they had already received a flurry of calls. They recommended I unplug the phone and let the next call set the time. I sighed and set the clock manually (through what I might add has got to be one of the worst menu interfaces I've ever seen). Eric R. Skinner 443114@acadvm1.uottawa.ca ers@xgml.com ------------------------------ From: "Craig R. Watkins" Subject: Re: Bell of PA *Offers* CallerID Blocking Date: 8 Nov 91 10:32:59 EST Organization: HRB Systems "Scott D. Green" writes: > D. Michael Stroud, Bell's VP and general counsel, said that callers > could press *67 to make a call untraceable. "I think that would cure > every issue raised by every oponent," he said. I just tried *67 here in Bell of PA land (814.238) to see if it would defeat "Return Call" (*69). I got "... your call cannot be completed as dialed ..." when I tried *67. Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw ------------------------------ From: richard@cs.purdue.edu (Bryan Richardson) Subject: Re: AT&T Alliance Signal Quality Date: 8 Nov 91 17:31:21 GMT Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University In article jxh@attain.ICD.Teradyne.COM (Jim Hickstein) writes: > I recently used AT&T's Alliance conferencing facility to make a call > that connected points in Massachusetts, California (me), and Tokyo. I > was very disappointed with the result. The trunk to Tokyo seemed not > to go over the usual, high-quality path, and there was a very high > level of background noise when someone in Tokyo talked (accents are > bad enough in person ...). This could have been due to ambient noise > in the room with a speakerphone on their end (the rest of us were > using handsets), but it was still very distressing. While not an expert in transmission, I would guess that was the quality of the speakerphone at the remote end (and any ambient noise) was what made the connection sound so bad. A simple test would have been to have someone on the far end pick up the handset -- the noise is likely to disappear. This has been my overwhelming experience with speaker-phones in general and on teleconferences in particular. > I called their customer service number and asked the simple question: > Did this call use AT&T facilities, specifically the crystal-clear > transPac fiber trunks, to Tokyo? The answer was Yes, but I somehow > doubt it. Is Alliance an integral part of an AT&T tandem somewhere > (it said it was in Reno), or is it a "service" that AT&T resells on > behalf of a "provider" who may very well use other carriers. (This is > ridiculous on the face of it, but at this stage I'm ready to > disbelieve anything.) Most definitely you were using AT&T facilities throughout the call. I don't know if it is possible to guarantee what transmission capabilities were used to route the call (I don't even know what the choices are), but if there was more than one choice, then the choice is made when the call is routed based on current traffic, etc ... The Alliance bridges are AT&T's, and service is NOT provided by another company. In fact, some SDN customers purchase or lease their own private Alliance bridges for their private networks. If I remember exactly, the four public bridges are in Reno, Chicago, Dallas, and White Plains, connected to respective 4 ESS switches in those cities. Calls are routed from the 4E to the bridge, and outbound traffic from the bridge is handled like any other AT&T call. Most certainly, prefixing 10288 (or anything else) would have yielded an announcement along the lines, "Your call cannot be completed as dialed ..." [stuff deleted] >Does my use of Alliance count against our SDN volume? I don't know for sure, but it depends upon your particular contract and how your PBX is set up to handle 0 + 700 traffic. > A Disgruntled Customer. Sorry you were dissatisfied. To truly determine if the bridge is at fault, try calling only domestic locations (and no speakerphones). If the problems still result, call AT&T Repair (whose 800 number escapes me at the moment). Bryan Richardson richard@cs.purdue.edu AT&T Bell Laboratories and, for 1991, Purdue University ------------------------------ Subject: Re: New NETel Rates For Metro Boston Customers Date: 7 Nov 91 14:38:51 PST (Thu) From: john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) Scott Fybush writes: > No matter what, it's still embarrassing that I can call downtown > Boston, 24 miles away, for half of what it costs to call the West > Coast. There's still an inequity afoot. Sinner, get down on your knees and thank your personal diety for small favors. A twenty-four mile call within a California LATA costs about THE SAME as a call to the east coast. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ From: oilean.oilean!joe@uunet.uu.net (Joe McGuckin) Subject: Re: Desperately Need Telco Line ... Concluded Organization: Island Software Date: 8 Nov 91 00:33:56 Well, a minor net-miracle happened and I was able to contact the person who I had been looking for. I'd also like to thank those people who offered me their help in designing my project. Joe McGuckin oilean!joe@sgi.com Island Software (415) 969-5453 ------------------------------ From: kentrox!bud@uunet.uu.net (Bud Couch) Subject: Re: Early Switches Permitting Touch Tone Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 18:59:10 GMT In article NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) writes: > In 1965, my wife and I were on one of the earliest exchanges (516-325) > that permitted touch-tone dialing (this was a very small community on > Long Island, and still is for that matter). > We subscribed to the service and enjoyed it and now I am curious as to > what type of switch allowed touch-tone. My guess is that it might have > been a 1ESS some early animal. I seriously doubt that you were on one of the earliest DTMF exchanges in 1965. When I went to work for North Electric in 1966, they had had DTMF receivers designed and in place on both the NX-1D and NX-2 switches. I think that their trademark name for it was "Key Call". Given the fact that they were certainly not Bell Labs, I would guess that the technology had been around for at least three or four years by then. The typical design cycle for a trunk modification was on the order of eight months. From this, it is also obvious that an electronic exchange is not required for DTMF; it makes economic sense for any common control switch, where register holding time can be decreased. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew... standard BS applies ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Nov 91 14:31 EST From: "Peng_H.Ang" <20017ANG@msu.edu> Subject: Re: British Telecom Figures I saw the British Telecom profit figure on the news wire but what really puzzles me is why the British are so upset about the L100 a second profit? Isn't this the expected result of privatization? That BT would become more profitable. I'm aware that there are some gripes about the lack of true competition. But is that a major problem in terms of level of service, price, etc? Or is it that they are ok but they could do better? ------------------------------ From: kentrox!bud@uunet.uu.net (Bud Couch) Subject: Re: Touch Tone on Old Switches Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 19:38:07 GMT In article /PN=GLORIA.C.VALLE/O=GTE/ ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com writes: > There were several adapters that could be added to Step, XY and > Crossbar switches that permitted a user to have Touch-Tone service. > These were placed on the line equipment which took the tones and > converted them to pulses so that they would continue through the > switch train. Later on at least in Step switches a conversion was done True for SXS and XY, but not correct for Crossbar. The DTMF receiver was connected to the register (the equipment that collected the dial pulses and told the switch which links would have to be made to connect the call) via a switch matrix. This gave any register access to any DTMF receiver. When the caller went off-hook, the register would be connected to that line. There were two possiblilites as to how the DTMF receiver was attached. In one, a class mark was used, and only lines so marked got the receiver. In the other, a receiver was always attached, but would be disconnected from the register if a dial pulse was received. In this manner, a limited number of DTMF receivers were necessary to serve a large office, but could be added as demand increased. Eventually, enough DTMF service was supplied that the total number of registers could be decreased, since each was used for a significantly shorter time. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew... standard BS applies ------------------------------ From: djm@dmntor.uucp (David McKellar) Subject: Re: AT&T Online Translation Service Organization: DMN Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 15:18:22 -0500 In article YSAR1111@VM1.YorkU.CA (Rick Broadhead) writes: > Speaking of translation services ... > Toronto, effective Monday, is using AT&T's online translation services > in Monterey, California. Previously, when the 911 operator could not > understand a caller, ambulance, fire, and police vehicles were all > dispatched to the scene. I wonder if they have thought about how to know which of the 140 langauges the caller is speaking? Does somebody at the translation service answer the phone, listen and think "That sounds like an oriental language ... I'll try the Chinese translator" or "That sounds Eastern European, maybe its Hungarian." etc. ? ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Controlling LD Access Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. Date: 9 Nov 91 06:14:15 EDT In article , sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: > Is there any feature or service that any of the LD carriers have > that would prevent someone in your home (temporary employee) from > using your phone to make LD calls? (of course removing a default Generally, yes. It is one of several types of screening that are available. Often it is put on a phone in a rentable ski condo. Local calls are just included in the rent, but no 'sent-paid' LD calls are possible. One can dial toll calls that are CC, third party billing, or collect. Also one generally wants yet another service they offer that adds you to the database that indicates collect into you and third party billing to you is disallowed. The operator service positions simply won't allow such calls to be billed to you! There are other variations. If you have SMDR and call accounting, you may wish to allow 1 + LD, but NOT sent-paid 0+ simply because you can't determine what the operator was asked to provide. Sadly, the names and USOC codes vary. ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: 10xxx Compliance Update Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. Date: 9 Nov 91 06:14:15 EDT Some late breaking screening news: AT&T has now written new software to support special screening needed for 10xxx service from hotels, prisons, etc. It disalloes 10xxx1+ (the site should be able to pick the carrier for calls billed to it) and allows normal 1+ and any 10xxx0+ billed elsewhere. Obviously the 011+ and 01+ situations are handled properly. These mods have cost AT&T over $7 mil and are being *GIVEN* to all operating companies using AT&T switches. AT&T is compiling lists by LEC and LATA of other 10xxx related screening codes and ordering info. AT&T is trying to get this all out to anyone that needs it as rapidly as it becomes available. They are having detailed tarriff searches being done, and will include whatever local names are used for individual features. The team responsible for all of it is still on the road doing their 10xxx seminars mostly for the consultant community. The one I was at also had folks from large companies and someone from MCI present. The 10xxx compliance is happening. The FCC *HAS* been making test calls from publicly accessible phones, and clearly will do more as the various 'must comply dates' roll by. It is quite possible that we may be able to get a lot of the AT&T info available here on C.D.T, but one major component of their session handout was FCC stuff that was simply copied and which they don't have in machine readable form. Oh, yes, another part of this is that the new laws (this is not just FCC's doing -- your letters to your elected ones occasionally do work) additionally require 950 or 800 access to ALL carriers, so AT&T *WILL* do one of them! Apparently, since not all LECs pass ANI on all FG-B trunks, AT&T will be using the 800 route for compliance. ------------------------------ From: bcsaic!allyn@cs.washington.edu (Mark Allyn) Subject: Books on LANS and Communications Date: 10 Nov 91 01:54:15 GMT Organization: Boeing Computer Services ATC, Seattle I have received flyers in the mail promoting the following two books: 1. Handbook of Communications Systems Management Auth: James W. Conard Pub: Auerbach Publishers Price $125 2. Handbook of Local Area Networks Auth: John P. Slone & Ann Drinan Pub Auerbach Publishers Price $125 I would like to know if anyone out there has used these books or others on the same topic from the Auerbach outfit. As you can see, these books seem pricy and I would like to get some idea of their usefullness before I shell out these kind of bucks. Are these folks as good as O'Reilly (who created the X books) and Addison & Wesley (who published the 4.3BSD Bible)? Thanks, Mark Allyn ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #911 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28890; 10 Nov 91 22:24 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27427 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 20:40:28 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25531 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 20:40:17 -0600 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 20:40:17 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111110240.AA25531@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #912 TELECOM Digest Sun, 10 Nov 91 20:40:16 CST Volume 11 : Issue 912 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Can Telco Provide LD Access Line Only? (Barton F. Bruce) Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done (Jay Ashworth) Re: What's AT&T's Number? (John R. Levine) Re: What Does MCI and MTI Stand For? (ACRONYMwise That is) (David Ash) Re: Security Failure: Recycled "Unlisted" Phone Number (John Higdon) Re: Cellular Phone Rates (John Higdon) Re: AT&T is Just Like All the Rest (Paul Guthrie) Re: Inpartiality and Due Process? (Dave Niebuhr) Re: New NETel Rates for Metro Boston Customers (Dave Niebuhr) Re: Audio Quality: US-US Versus US-Elsewhere (Ken Dykes) Re: British Telecom Figures (Graham Toal) Re: Last Week at the FCC (Harold Hallikainen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) Subject: Re: Can Telco Provide LD Access Line Only? Date: 9 Nov 91 06:26:12 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , brack@uoftcse.cse. utoledo.edu (Brack) writes: > I recently moved back home, and my parents are not pleased with my LD > bill. Although I pay promptly, and use Call Manager, they don't want > my calls on their bill. Calling cards are too expensive, and I don't You may find there are some LD companies that only allow calls from pre-subscribed customers and that bill directly to such customers, not via the LEC. They would have to be agreeable to having/billing you as the customer without changing your parents PIC, and you would have to use their 10xxx access code. Or if your parents don't often make LD calls, perhaps the PIC change would be tolerable to them. You would get their random LD calls on your bill, then. ------------------------------ From: Jay.Ashworth@psycho.fidonet.org (Jay Ashworth) Subject: Re: Two Cell Phones on Same Number: It Can Be Done; Here's How Date: Fri, 08 Nov 91 23:09:27 PDT Organization: Psycho: The Usenet<->Fidonet Gateway of St. Pete Florida Some references I've seen say that many cellular phones have the ESN burned into a ROM/PAL _on the CPU chip_. For obvious reasons, (if they aren't obvious, hang aroung here for awhile, you'll catch on ... :-) this would make reprogramming the ESN _quite_ infeasible. Cheers, Internet: Jay.Ashworth@psycho.fidonet.org UUCP: ...!uunet!ndcc!tct!psycho!Jay.Ashworth Note:psycho is a free gateway between Usenet & Fidonet. For info write root. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: What's AT&T's number? Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 9 Nov 91 17:20:01 EST (Sat) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) In article you write: > ... an AT&T calling card center (813-654-6000) > ... 816 - 654 - 6004 (call collect from overseas) Is their number 813 (Florida) or 816 (Missouri)? To clarify things, I called AT&T and asked them what the number is, and they said 205-470-7619. Hmmn. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (David Ash) Subject: Re: What Does MCI and MTI Stand For? (ACRONYMwise That is) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 00:19:53 GMT In article ve3pmk@student.business. uwo.ca (R. Patrick MacKinnon) writes: > [Moderator's Note: MCI = Microwave Communications, Inc. Sprint = I thought that it long ago was changed so that now it stands for Mass Communications, Inc. It was originally Microwave Communications, Inc. David W. Ash ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu HOME: (415) 497-1629 WORK: (415) 725-3859 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 17:24 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Security Failure: Recycled "Unlisted" Phone Number sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com (Steven J. Edwards) writes: > First moral of the story: if you ask for an unlisted number, > don't assume that you'll get one that was not very recently in use by > another party. And the fourth, unmentioned, moral of the story: do not ever expect that by getting an unlisted number that you will be protected in any way from junk, nuisance, or other annoying calls. After spending a quiet two weeks away from civilization I returned to my usual telephone annoyance: wrong numbers. I have essentially three incoming voice lines: a listed public line (in the .signature if you are interested), a very private line known only by a very tight handful of associates, and an even more private 800 number which has its own dedicated appearance. The public line gets almost no wrong numbers whatsoever, nor does it appear to be particularly susceptable to solicitation calls. (The {San Jose Mercury} was an exception: it went down the list in numerical order and nailed all my lines, modems, fax and all.) Whenever that line rings it is almost assuredly for me from someone with legitimate communications. And this, even though the number is published in the telephone directory, is available from directory assistance, and is appended to almost every one of the hundreds of e-mails that I send to people all over the world every week. The "private" line is a zoo. It rings at least four times a day with a call for someone I have never heard of. There is no pattern, common name, or any other thread than I can possibly follow to track down a potential source of misinformation. This line also seems to attract all the charities, insurance offers, and long distance companies with their stupid pitches. Why not change it, you ask? Simple: this is much better than the ten + calls I received a day on the previous "private" number. In other words, I have no assurance that changing the number would net any positive results; and indeed could be a lot worse. Thankfully, the 800 number also appears to be "clean". It has a double exposure: the 800 number itself and the POTS number of the physical line. Even so, about one wrong number per month is all that I experience from it. (My previous 800 number was cross between that of the Hilton hotel chain and the San Francisco-based Red and White Fleet. You have no idea how many room and tour reservations I took before getting tired of the game!) I have heard many talk about the sanctity of unlisted numbers and how necessary they are to avoid annoying calls. If this is the goal, a great deal of disappointment is likely. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 18:16 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Rates "Steven M. Palm" writes: > cellulars use radio frequencies, so there aren't any lines to > maintain. Should be much cheaper. Why do people put up with such a > ripoff? Good question. But in Hawaii, apparently they don't. I do not have the rate card in front of me, but GTE Mobilnet offers five-island coverage for about half the going rate here in California. And not only are the per-minute rates very, very low, the monthly base rates are also quite attractive. Under one plan (that also has reasonable per-minute charges) the monthly service is FREE. That's right -- if you don't use it, you don't pay. What a novel concept. I wonder how they can maintain all that ether out there without a monthly fee. Gee! No, GTE! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: pdg@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Guthrie) Subject: Re: AT&T is Just Like All the Rest Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 07:26:12 GMT In article mikel@aaahq05.aaa.com (Mikel Manitius) writes: >> [ ... ] There was even a _real_ (not pre-printed) 10-cent stamp on >> it. Imagine my surprise to see that inside was a $20 check from AT&T >> -- all I have to do to get the cash is switch to AT&T. > I really thought it was funny when my friend received such a $20 check > from MCI to switch -- she was already an MCI "Dial 1" customer! > Are these things legally binding? > I've often managed to desposit checks into my account without signing > them by using an ATM. The problem is they'll probably switch you anyway, > and the trouble of getting it fixed isn't worth the $20. This will be an interesting thing for me to try. I just hope I get one of those checks in the mail. I live in an apartment complex with it's own PBX which charges for LD service itself. I don't have a chance to switch. (At least they charge "AT&T rates", though). Paul Guthrie chinet!nsacray!paul or pdg@balr.com or attmail!balr!pdg ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 6:20:17 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: Re: Inpartiality and Due Process? In Volume 11, Issue 898, Message 1 of 6 john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > The commission will study the report and will have to option to: 1) > approve the recommendations intact; 2) make modifications and then > approve it; or 3) throw it out entirely and decree something > completely different (as Monty Python would say). What will actually > happen is that the commissioners will have lunch (and maybe dinner) > with some key Pac*Bell people and they will grind out what the people > of California will be stuck with. It will be almost exactly what > Pac*Bell originally proposed with some cosmetic changes to pacify > TURN, who will then be able to go back to its constituency (little old > ladies) and crow about how much it saved the people of the state. My > personal prediction is that even more of the burden of the increase > will be shifted to small business, a group that TURN seems to feel has > infinitely deep pockets. This is the same way that NY Tel gets its pound of flesh from its ratepayers. Instead of a Public Utility Commission, we get the Public Service Commission which is also known as the UTILITY Service Commission. The supposedly powerful State Consumer Protection Board (created during the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant fiasco) can't seem to make any reasonable headway against the PSC in keeping rates down anywhere. One answer that was suggested in New York was to make the Commissioners elected, not appointed which would give the people some form of control. That dies each time due to the intense lobbying by you-knnow-who. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 6:31:48 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: Re: New NETel Rates for Metro Boston Customers In ST901316@PIP.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (Scott Fybush) writes: > Anyone know just what NETel is up to? Is this a move towards some > sort of universal ZUM system here? Or is NETel making enough from > extended-flat-rate premium deals like Metropolitan Service that it > would want to avoid ZUM? This sounds like what NYTel did a few years ago when they went from (I think) calling areas based on mileage to regional calling. For the NY Metro area there is NYC, part of Westchester County, a very small part of Connecticut, Nassau County, and the West Suffolk and East Suffolk home regions. Calls in the primary area (my community and all adjacent exchanges including in another region) are in Flat rate pricing and calls to the rest of my region are at (currently) 10.2 cents for the first minute, 2.2 cents per minute after that. Discounts apply for certain hours. Calls to other regions incur higher rates with the exception of those exchanges that border mine. Since most of my calls are in my flat rate area, this is the best choice for me since I can call as often as I want and talk as long as I want (a wallet saver if you have kids). Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ From: thinkage!kgdykes@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ken Dykes) Subject: Re: Audio Quality: US-US Versus US-Elsewhere Organization: Thinkage Ltd. Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 11:22:41 GMT In article S_ZIEGLER@iravcl.ira.uka.de (|S| Juergen Ziegler) writes: > Hi TD-readers, > program. Last Friday I watched 'Journalist Roundtable' where they > accept phone calls. > While watching the program I was quite stunned by poor audio quality > from most callers within the US as compared to a phone call from a > correspondent who was calling from Madrid, Spain. In North America (US and Canada) the subscribers may attach/supply their own telephones. They are more often than not the cheapest piece of garbage you can possibly manufacture. Ie: toys > The audio from the intra-US callers had a 'metallic' sound. So there > was a relatively loud high-frequency spectrum compared to a virtual > not existing low-frequency spectrum. The sound reminded me of an > 'speaking' toy from Texas Instrument (I do not know the name), which Speaking toy. Yes, that's the description! :-) "Real" phones have either some sophisticated audio technology, or before modern electronics, some neat acoustical/material design features. These solutions are sadly missing on what are essentially disposable phones. Imagine magazine publishers giving away a "free phone" with every six month subscription ... the phones won't exactly be expensive to manufacture or package. I have one of these phones, and a normally annoying "bell tap" I actually use as a feature. I live on a non-electronic exchange (519-886) which, when it "connects" the line, but before the first ring is sent, will cause a brief "chirp" on the cheap phone. I pick up before the first ring and surprise the unsuspecting caller. They always say "But! It didn't even ring!" I pretend I'm psychic :-) :-) (My exchange has synchronized ringing with callers in the same local area.) 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 [Moderator's Note: You mean the News Weak Magazine and Telephone Company sells inferior instruments? You mean their phones have about as much quality inside them as their magazine has inside it? Regards advance notice of incoming calls, I used to do the same thing as yourself about twenty years ago when I had service on one of the last stepper switches in Chicago. 312-WEbster-9 phones frequently gave a little 'ding' from the bell while the caller was still riding the switch-train, crashing and banging along on the track to connection. They cut Webster and the rest of Chicago-Wabash (Cannonball) straight over to ESS in 1975. The one holdout was 312-LOngbeach-1, and it went ESS in 1977. PAT] ------------------------------ From: gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal) Subject: Re: British Telecom Figures Date: 10 Nov 91 18:56:50 GMT Reply-To: gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl Organization: MCGV Stack @ EUT, Eindhoven, the Netherlands In article 20017ANG@msu.edu (Peng_H.Ang) writes: > I saw the British Telecom profit figure on the news wire but what > really puzzles me is why the British are so upset about the L100 a > second profit? Isn't this the expected result of privatization? That > BT would become more profitable. Yes. That would indeed be the case if the majority of Britons approved of the privatisation in the first place. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 13:57:24 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Last Week at the FCC Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo This "Last Week at the FCC" posting was great! Can we see them every week! Is the actual text of each item available on line turh internet? (especially Notices of Inquiry, Notices of Proposed Rulemakings, Report and Orders, and Policy Statements). Harold ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #912 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29668; 10 Nov 91 22:53 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01440 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 21:09:36 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31453 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 21:09:25 -0600 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 21:09:25 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111110309.AA31453@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #913 TELECOM Digest Sun, 10 Nov 91 21:08:22 CST Volume 11 : Issue 913 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea (David G. Lewis) Re: More on LEC Competition (John Higdon) Re: More on LEC Competition (Norman Yarvin) Re: The Information Wars (Roy M. Silvernail) Re: The Information Wars (Harold Hallikainen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 16:59:02 GMT In article strat@access.digex.com (Robert J. Stratton III) writes: > I strongly suggest that you take a look at larger cities where LEC > bypass is beginning to thrive (Metropolitan Fiber in NYC might be a > good example), Actually, Teleport Communications in NYC might be a better example. MFS only began operations in NYC in late 1990, while Teleport Communications has been operating there since 1985 and turning a profit since 1988. [This is not meant to imply any preference on the part of AT&T towards Teleport, MFS, or NYT, or any endorsement on the part of AT&T of this "bypass" business ...] In article davidb@zeus.ce.washington. edu (David W. Barts) writes: > Another interesting fact about markets and competition is that they > are not free. They incur costs. Yes, they also incur benefits. I > agree that in many cases, the benefits exceed the costs, but in this > respect the telephone network presents a special case. This is > because size, _in and of itself_, is a desirable attribute in a > telephone network. Wrong metric. *Size* is not the desirable attribute. The number of people to which I can connect is the desirable attribute. This returns us to the interconnection argument -- if I operate a small, efficient, highly localized telephone network, and I'm interconnected with all the other local telephone networks in my LATA and with all the IXCs having presence in my LATA, my customers can reach as many people as can the customers of the large, ubiquitous Phone Company located in the same area. Size is *not* a virtue in and of itself. > The more people I can talk to with my phone, the > more useful it is to me. Exactly. Which is not the same as saying "the larger the phone network to which my phone is connected, the more useful my phone is to me." > Sure, steps can be taken to ensure connectivity between systems. But > now what we're doing is: 1) spending much effort breaking the whole > into pieces, then 2) spending more effort and resources to make the > system that resulted from (1) look essentially the same as before (1) > was applied. A) Who said anything about breaking the whole into little pieces? I don't advocate breaking up the existing local exchange carriers, be they Bell or otherwise (my humorous remarks about an ongoing chain of divestiture in a previous post notwithstanding); I merely advocate permitting other carriers to freely and fairly compete with them. B) Some would state that we already did this. Lessee, to enable the system of multiple IXCs and multiple divested BOCs to work as well as One Bell System, the industry had to invent equal access signaling, settlements and separations, subscriber line access charges, minutes of use access tariffs ... but how many people would argue that long distance service was better before divestiture? > Several posters have mentioned the undesirability of subsidies for > various components of the telephone network. But such revenue > transfers are a fact of life no matter what we do. Right now, if I > decide to purchase a Sony TV, Sony can use the profit it earned from > this sale to support research and development of a new line of > computers. Revenue has been transferred from the TV sector to the > computer research sector. Yes, but (as I'm sure John H will point out) Sony is not guaranteed by the government an 11% + profit on the sales of TVs. Sony's got to compete in the marketplace to sell those TVs, whereas LECs don't have to compete in the marketplace to sell phone service. Please, keep up the discussion. This is interesting. Note that, of course, these opinions in no way represent those of AT&T. They pay a lot of other people to have opinions about this kind of thing. They just pay me to do ISDN. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 00:11 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: More on LEC Competition David W. Barts writes: > My! I certainly stirred up a hornet's nest, didn't I? Yes, but the problem is that most of what you say, while true, misses the mark by a few degrees. You fail to address the actual reality of the situation. > To take an example from this Digest, when pay phone customers began to > recognize most COCOTS for the rip-offs that they are, the market > responded. You could not have picked a more irrelevant analogy here. The issue of COCOTs is strikingly unique. One (as a customer) does not have occasion to "shop". I cannot recall a time when I woke up one morning and said to myself, "Self, we are going to shop for COCOT service today. We are going to find the best possible service for the least cost." I also do not remember getting on my bike and going from street corner to street corner looking for the "best possible" COCOT. (I have gone looking for the worst, but that is another story.) In short, the pay telephone actually IS a natural monopoly. Or at least a business that requires a helluva lot more regulation than it has received. > The more people I can talk to with my phone, the > more useful it is to me. There are not many industries in which this > can be said -- usually size affects efficiency of production in some > indirect manner (usually related to management structures or local > availability of a raw material). But a telco IS limited in size. In case it has escaped your notice, telcos operate in a very strictly defined geographical area. Pac*Bell cannot "grow" as a telco, only as a conglomerate. AND it must interconnect with all the IECs and other surrounding telcos. This interconnection that worries you so much is the least of a telco's problems. Then you say regarding interconnection: > And this is supposed to be better and more efficient. I > now propose a humble solution to the traffic problem in our cities: > Build walls across the streets. Then, establish a Bureau of Gates and > Overpasses to ensure people can get across these walls. The street > system is now much improved. Is it just me or does this logic sound a > little silly? No, your logic sounds silly. I don't know about your city, but mine has many traffic signals and even some gated railroad crossings. Apparently, you feel that things would go a lot more smoothly if the signals and gates were all removed, right. If you manage to pull this off, give me some notice so I can get out of town. But to deny people choices because you do not feel that interconnection can be effecient is very short sighted. This whole country abounds with interconnected computers, networks, telcos, IECs, e-mail systems, etc., etc. We have become very good at interconnection. Within minutes after I finish typing this message, I know it will be available to PAT and probably yourself within minutes. It will pass through many machines, all owned by different people and companies but it will arrive bit-perfect. Likewise, the interconnection of telephone companies is not a problem. Using your logic, maybe we ought to put the Bell System back together again. That was the largest telephone company of all time. Was it effecient? Was it progressive? Was it reasonably priced? Was it responsive to customers? If your principle is sound, it should work in reverse, no? > But such revenue transfers are a fact of life no matter what we do. > Right now, if I decide to purchase a Sony TV, Sony can use the profit > it earned from this sale to support research and development of a new > line of computers. This is where you really missed the boat. What you say is true, but what you forgot to mention is that you do NOT have to buy Sony. You can buy Sanyo, Toshiba, Panasonic, or even Emerson. If you do not like the way one company distributes its money internally, buy from someone else. Currently, I am unable to do that with my dial tone supplier. > But it is nothing new that under the present system, monied interests > can use their influence to corrupt the legislative process in order to > warp the laws to their own benefit. Right-O. But when Macy's California went to the Supreme court to overturn a state tax law that had they succeeded would have put a lot of elderly people out of their homes, they got a flood of correspondence from customers including some cut-in-half charge cards. Macy's decided that customer good will was worth more than any tax savings in Concord that would have been achieved in court. It dropped the case. Do you think for one minute that Pac*Bell gives one molecule of excrement about what its customers think? Can you imagine the horse laughs when the letters pour in about taking dial tone business elsewhere? One of my little fantasies is calling Pac*Bell some day and telling the rep that I have no more use for the company's services. "They are overpriced and underfeatured. I'm going with XYZ Telecom." John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin) Subject: Re: More on LEC Competition Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 23:26:45 GMT davidb@zeus.ce.washington.edu (David W. Barts) writes: > Sure, steps can be taken to ensure connectivity between systems. But > now what we're doing is: 1) spending much effort breaking the whole > into pieces, then 2) spending more effort and resources to make the > system that resulted from (1) look essentially the same as before (1) > was applied. And this is supposed to be better and more efficient. All it takes to connect different systems is a precisely defined interface standard. Guess what? The telcos already have interface standards. Even in a monopoly situation, using standard interfaces and modular design has been found practical. So this cannot be regarded as an extra cost. There are other aspects which are slightly less clear. For instance, suppose a customer finds a problem. Whose equipment is at fault? Well, how is the problem found today? One subsystem after another is checked, until the problem is found. How would it be found under competition? The same way, except that the systems would be owned by different companies. For instance, the customer might complain to the first, which would confirm that its circuits were working properly, then pass it on to the second, which would pass it on to the third, which would find the problem. The only additional effort needed would be the handing off of problems from one company to another, but this handing off has its parallel in existing practice too, since systems of different types or in different places already use different repairmen, and problems have to be handed off between them. In fact, competition might very well improve the speed with which problems could be isolated to one particular system, because it could be observed that the problem only occurred when the call was routed through one particular company. This may be the main reason why repair coordination is not a problem in the existing competition in long distance services. As for "social good", is it not a social good of the first order to be able to walk away from a company with which one does not want to do business? ------------------------------ Subject: Re: The Information Wars From: cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 16:57:11 CST Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN 20017ANG@msu.edu (Peng_H.Ang) writes: > Lantos, bless his heart tho' I don't know him, is siding with > newspaper interests and, on the face of it, blocking access to > information. How do you come by this viewpoint? The telcos are not yet making this information available. Yet the selfsame types of information are available through current sources, from CompuServe and Prodigy down through the hobbyist BBS's. We have the access now. > The info services market, > particularly at the consumer level that the telcos are interested in, > is heavily concentrated. The mass market consumer videotex has just > five key players, starting with CompuServe and Prodigy. I don't see this concentration. The info services that most annoy the RBOCs are in the free hobbyist market, since they cannot price their yet-to-be-offered services at less than free. > I look forward to the telcos' entry in shaking up the consumer > information services market. Yes, the FCC and PUCs will have to watch > them closer. But aren't we all technological optimists in believing > that the greater the access to information techology and services, the > better the country will be? The phone companies' track record belies your optimism. I, for one, do not believe that allowing the RBOCs to become information providers will increase access to either technology or information. Allowing the network to provide the content, as well as the transport mechanism, surely means that the network will wish to transport its own products (where the profit is highest), rather than third-party products (where they can only recover for transport). And if they can only recover for transporting third-party product, does it not stand to reason that the charges for that transportation will grow? Yes, I'm a tecnological optimist, and I believe in the widest possible access to information. The telcos' bludgeoning of the info-services market isn't what I had in mind. Roy M. Silvernail roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 16:38:44 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: The Information Wars Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo > Pacific Telesis' response has been a radio commercial which I just > heard aired over a San Francisco classical radio station. Later today > I will transcribe the spot, but for now let me tell you that it is > typical of the underhanded tactics PacTel uses to ruthlessly get its > own way. > Our pulp media is having difficulty staying awake through all of this. > To most, this is a non-issue that deserves, if anything, space on page > sixty-seven. However, PacTel has taken the gloves off with its > political radio spots. Yes, you read that correctly, these are > political spots and I am going to investigate the matter of "equal > time". The "equal time" provision of which John speaks is proabaly the "Fairness Doctrine" (FCC Rule 73.1910, Federal Register volume 39, page 26372). As I recall, the FCC has removed this requirement on radio stations (though, for some reason it's still in my copy of the Rules). The Fairness Doctrine did require stations to give a reasonable opportunity for people with opposing viewpoints to present their views. This was applied here in San Luis Obispo to allow (as I recall) the Mothers For Peace and the Abalone Alliance to air announcements (at no charge) in response to paid announcements by Pacific Gas & Electric regarding the NRC licensing of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. Since then, Florida (again, as I recall) imposed a Fairness Doctrine on newspapers, requiring them to provide "equal space." A court threw that out as violating the first amendment (the government was telling a newspaper what to print). Since then, the FCC has thrown out the Fairness Doctrine, reasoning that with the large number of "voices" now present in broadcast (and competing media), that most views will probably be heard. They further reasoned that the Fairness Doctrine was an unreasonable restriction on the editorial rights of broadcasters (first amendment concerns), even though courts had previously ruled the Fairness Doctrine was ok (I think the big case was Red Lion Broadcasting, some time in the 1960s). In general, the FCC is moving toward a "print model" for broadcasting and other electronic media (for example, a court decided the FCC "must carry" rule for CATV systems interfered with the CATV operator's first amendment editorial control). So, I don't think you'll get "equal time". Harold ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #913 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00776; 10 Nov 91 23:37 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04993 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 21:52:03 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21844 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 21:51:49 -0600 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 21:51:49 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111110351.AA21844@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #914 TELECOM Digest Sun, 10 Nov 91 21:51:46 CST Volume 11 : Issue 914 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Question on Easements (David G. Cantor) Re: Question on Easements (Charles Hawkins Mingo) Re: Telephone Registration to be Used at Umass/Amherst (Marcus Adams) Re: TAT-10 and TAT-11 (Harold Hallikainen) Re: The Information Wars (John Higdon) Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches (John Higdon) Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches (Harold Hallikainen) Re: Who Benefits From Local Competition? (John Higdon) TIMELY: TV Program on Phone Phraud (Jeff Wasilko) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: dgc@math.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Question on Easements Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 10:07:53 -0800 From: David G. Cantor In TELECOM Digest, Volume 11, Issue 910, Irc Kaufman states: > It's not unheard of for utilities not specifically named in the > easement to use right-of-way granted to other utilities (sort of > like sub-contracting to provide telephone lines alongside the > water pipes). This may happen, but the owner can protest and win. Easements can only be used for the stated purpose. See below: > The bottom line is that if you take them to court to make them > stop, the local governing body will probably take the easement by > eminent domain. Exactly that happened to me. Los Angeles County already had sewer and water easements on my property. It wanted to install underground drainage facilities, etc. It filed an eminent domain suit against my wife and myself offering to pay $2,000.00. We didn't accept and, in a negotiated settlement received $16,500. This took two years, an elaborate assessment report and a three-hour deposition. The lawyer received 1/3. On the other hand, the local cable TV company happily ripped up my (private) street without an easement to install upgraded facilities. No resident on the street objected. If one had, I suspect we wouldn't have had cable TV. Our street is a dead-end and the cable was for residents of our private-street, alone. David G. Cantor Department of Mathematics University of California Los Angeles, CA 90024-1555 Internet: dgc@math.ucla.edu ------------------------------ From: well!mingo@well.sf.ca.us (Charles Hawkins Mingo) Subject: Re: Question on Easements Date: 10 Nov 91 21:20:55 GMT Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA In article KRUSE_NEIL@tandem.com writes: > My question is, since they intalled the cable without our permission > (we didn't even know it was there) and, then went to install new > cable, did they have a right "with the perscriptive easment" to do > that? And, were we suckered on what a half mile long easment is > worth? Any ideas? > [Moderator's Note: I think what they were trying to say is the law in > many or most places grants easement rights to utilities as long as > they act within reason, repairing/replacing roadways, grass, etc when > finished with their work. Comments, anyone? PAT] State law may well provide telcos with the power to obtain easements by eminent domain, but that's not what a prescriptive easement is. The statutes of limitations require aggrieved parties to sue to enforce their rights within a certain period, or lose those rights altogether. In the field of real estate, this led to the doctrine of "adverse possession," where a trespasser can obtain ownership of property by occupying it -- (i) openly and notoriously, (ii) continuously, (iii) while claiming ownership, (iv) in a manner hostile to true owner (eg, not as a tenant), and (v) for a period equal to the statute of limitations for real estate claims (usually twenty years). A prescriptive easement is a form of adverse possession. Because the LEC was able to use the easement for a long period of time, they may have acquired the right to continue to do so. "Long continued use engenders an inference that such use began lawfully." That is not to say that the LEC actually had a proscriptive easement on your land. The statute of limitations varies from state to state, but ten years sounds a little short. Some states require that claim of ownership be made in good faith. There is also the question of whether having a buried cable constitutes "open and notorious" use, and so on. As for the value of the easement, that depends on the degree of disturbance the buried cable will cause you, the value of the land, and what you were planning to do with it. In any case, it sounds as if you signed away your rights when you settled, so it's all moot now. [Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but as I don't know which state the land is in (or many other relevant facts) this is not a professional opinion.] Charlie Mingo Internet: mingo@well.sf.ca.us 2209 Washington Circle #2 mingo@cup.portal.com Washington, DC 20037 CI$: 71340,2152 AT&T: 202/785-2089 ------------------------------ From: madams@aludra.usc.edu (Marcus Adams) Subject: Re: Telephone Registration to be Used at Umass/Amherst Date: 11 Nov 91 02:01:51 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA In article madams@aludra.usc.edu I write: > I do know a guy who, in order to get even with an ex-girlfriend, > called up the touchtone registration on the last day of drop/add (last > day to make changes in your schedule without getting charged for it) > and added 16 classes to her schedule for a total of 44 credit hours. > She got a bill for it a couple weeks later, at $475 a credit hour, for > over $20,000 over her normal tuition. > [Moderator's Note: Gee, what a witty, brilliant and funny thing to do > to someone. He must have been rolling on the floor with laughter after > doing that, the same as I am now reading about it. PAT] Wasn't my point ... There were fees involved that the school was trying to force her to pay, which she claimed she wasn't responsible for because she didn't register for the classes, and it was easy for someone to register under her name with the system they had in place. This relates to the discussion regarding MCI's putting personal info on-line and making it easy to retrieve. For instance, all my personal financial info is available 24 hours a day from Bank of America with only my account number and a social security number. And only the last four digits of a SS number are needed! At what point is a company liable for the information they provide via phone? What are "minimum" security standards for touchtone systems like these? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 14:04:36 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: TAT-10 and TAT-11 Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo > AT&T sent out a press release today about the proposed new TAT-10 and > TAT-11 fiber optic transatlantic cables. Both will run from Green > Both will run at 560 megabits/sec, equivalent to 80,000 simultaneous > calls. > Green Hill currently serves TAT-6 and TAT-7, older copper cables with > capacities of only 7,000 conversations each. Are these cables running just one fiber each (or one in each direction, or several in each direction), each running 560 Mbits/sec? Are the TAT-6 and TAT-7 cables still running SSB FDM voice, or are they driven by "high speed modems" at each end, making a digital interface to the undersea coaxial cable. I understand the coax cables from Hawaii coming here in SLO have all the FDM terminal equipment replaced with a fast modem. Harold ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 13:38 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: The Information Wars "Peng_H.Ang" <20017ANG@msu.edu> writes: > The mass market consumer videotex has just > five key players, starting with CompuServe and Prodigy. I think > CompuServe is wonderful but its prices are a different matter. Well, > recently, with Prodigy gaining market share, CompuServe introduced a > "basic" service where for $7.95 a month you get several "popular" > services plus 30 email messages. (Sounds familiar?) Excuse me, but have you perhaps overlooked the literally thousands of privately owned BBS services in this country? These are the real backbone of the information age currently. And these are precisely the targets of the RBOCs. SWBT does not even mince words on the subject. It knows that it cannot compete with 'free' in terms of price competition and therefore has ALREADY mounted its war on the private BBS. Many private BBSes offer mail services and a vast array of information. Most are funded by the owner's own resources. There is even a handful of users on this site who pay nothing for news and mail access. Knowing this, the telcos are gearing up excuses to jack up the rates on any line where they hear modem tone. SWBT's lame excuse is, "How do we know it isn't a business operating behind that modem?" (The dark implication there is that they can tell if you are operating a business on a voice line because they can monitor it.) So, if the RBOCs enter into the info business the order of attack will be: 1) the private and small BBSes; and then 2) those other players you have mentioned. The RBOCs have already had a crack at them with an abortive attempt at passing an access surcharge for data networks. > I look forward to the telcos' entry in shaking up the consumer > information services market. Yes, the FCC and PUCs will have to watch > them closer. But aren't we all technological optimists in believing > that the greater the access to information techology and services, the > better the country will be? Please tell me what the telcos can bring to the party that is not already here? They have proven time and time again that they are completely devoid of creativity in virtually every venture they have tried. Pacific Telesis, for instance, failed with its computer stores, its "gab lines", and even the Message Center is in trouble. After telcos have decimated the BBSes and damaged the experienced commercial information services, we will be left with the usual stogy "phone company"-style drivel. And that will be so much for the information age. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 20:01 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches On Nov 9 at 19:34, TELECOM Moderator writes: > It is instances like this which make me wish I was a telco service > rep. I would have called your friend back; apologized for us > 'accidentally getting cut off'; reminded him that he had no property > rights in his telephone number and that his number could be changed at > anytime the Company found it expedient to do so in the conduct of its > business; and that he was being moved to an exchange where the Company > found it expedient to place his service: one on which his use of touch > tone *could* be controlled; ie, an ESS. Almost as an afterthought I > would ask if he had reconsidered his earlier position and was willing > to either (a) use it and pay for it, or (b) refrain from using it. PAT] I have several comments about this (what a surprise!) First, being Pac*Bell Land, there was, of course, no ESS to reconnect him to. So that threat is out the window. If they would have given him free foreign prefix service from another CO, I'm sure he would have gladly paid for the touch-tone. But more important was something that you obviously missed. The ENTIRE office had been converted for touch tone. This means that each and every originating register would have had a receiver. The long and the short of it is that by using TT, the customer was actually SAVING the telco money by tying up the originating register for less time. The issue of the cost of the TT receiver is moot; the office was universally equipped. I once had an identical situation with a client. The telco tried to charge my client for TT service in a crossbar office that was fully TT equipped. I told him that unless the telco could technically force him to pay for REDUCING THEIR COSTS, he should refuse to pay. I also reminded him that he was not paying any less for his inferior crossbar-provided local exchange service than customers who were served out of ESS equipment. (His crossbar was particularly vile; much worse than mine.) My customer got "free" touch tone service for years. Later, another part of the CO was upgraded to a 1AESS. I advised the client to have his number changed to get service out of the new switch. I also advised him that he would have to begin paying for TT service. "Gladly. Anything to improve the rotten service I am now getting." So you see, Pat, people are actually willing to pay for something they actually get, no? Using TT signaling on a telephone line served out of a fully-tone-equipped office is not exactly the same as stealing an exhaustable commodity such as water. Let us try to keep a perspective, please. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 16:57:11 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo In article is written: > I had a friend who was served by a rotary dial crossbar office in > Santa Ana California that he knew would soon be updated to include T-T > service that would be hardwired into every phone in the CO. He > acquired a non-Bell System T-T phone and checked the line until his > tones could break dial tone and then never used his rotary dial phone > again. Not long after he received a call from a PacTel representative > DEMANDING (emphasis meant to highlight PacTel's heavyhanded approach) > that he pay for the service or she would disconnect him from the T-T > service. He simply laughed at her and said "Go ahead and try!" and > then hung up on her to really get her upset. They never did bill him. At least here in SLO-town, Pacific Bell now gives everyone DTMF service. Those that were paying extra got a reduction in the monthly bill. I also agree with the Moderator's comment that we should pay for what we get, not just take without paying whatever we can get away with. If the DTMF surcharge were unreasonable, file a complaint with the PUC, don't steal the service. Harold ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 14:06 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Who Benefits From Local Competition? deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) writes: > Next, the seven RBOCs will > divest themselves of the local Bell operating companies so they can > enter the unregulated information services, long distance, > manufacturing, real estate, financial, etc. businesses. But this will only happen under court order. The last thing the RBOCs want to do right now is divest themselves of the geese laying golden eggs. Oh, sure, they cry and moan about how they have to labor under regulation (that they write themselves), but when push comes to shove, that regulated ratebase is risk-free, easy money. What will have to happen is a Greene-style action once again. (Hear all that shuddering in the background?) The RBOCs want it all: the might of the regulated capital supply and the ability to branch out with a mighty big footprint. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Jeff@digtype.rochester.ny.us (Jeff Wasilko) Subject: TIMELY: TV Program on Phone Phraud Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 16:49:06 EST Organization: Roslyn's Cafe on the road... Reply-To: digtype!jeff@netcom.com I just saw an annoucment for a feature program on Phone Phraud (it looked like they will concentrate on PBX-based fraud). It's Steals & Deals, which is on CNBC at 7:30 on Monday. Jeff Jeff's Oasis at Home. Jeff can also be reached at work at: jjwcmp@ultb.isc.rit.edu OR digtype!jeff@netcom.com jjwcmp@ritvax.isc.rit.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #914 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02743; 11 Nov 91 0:43 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14786 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 22:50:21 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14445 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 10 Nov 1991 22:50:05 -0600 Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 22:50:05 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111110450.AA14445@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #915 TELECOM Digest Sun, 10 Nov 91 22:50:02 CST Volume 11 : Issue 915 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea [Jack Decker] Re: Did I (Hopefully) Cause Trouble For a Telemarketer? (Steve Kass) Re: Did I (Hopefully) Cause Trouble For a Telemarketer? (H. Hallikainen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 00:13:41 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea In a message dated 5 Nov 91 07:10:10 GMT, davidb@zeus.ce.washington.edu (David W. Barts) wrote an article entitled "LEC Competition is a Bad Idea" in which he made some doom-and-gloom prediction about what might happen if competition were allowed at the local exchange service level. My first reaction was that it reminded me of the folks who said it would take five years or more to put out all the oil well fires in Kuwait following the end of the Gulf War. It my mind, I have a very difficult time imagining that the "worst-case scenario" portrayed by Mr. Barts would come to pass. However, it's a difficult thing to argue against because we have not defined exactly what we mean when we say "local competition." For example, suppose we allow "competition for the provision of local dial tone." That may sound like it pretty well defines the issue at first blush, but consider that there are many ways that this could be implemented. You could allow multiple telephone companies to operate in the same service area, each providing their own facilities (both inside and outside plant), but there are other variations that might be considered. For example: 1) Requiring existing phone companies to lease point-to-point circuits to other service providers. Let's say that your local phone service costs $15 per month and that (for the sake of argument) you either have flat rate service or you make no outgoing calls. The phone company must recover the expense of providing and maintaining the pair of wires that connects your home to the central office for some fraction of that monthly charge, correct? So you could unbundle that from provision of dial tone say that the phone company must impute to itself a certain monthly charge for providing and maintaining the lines to your home (which it would recover in your monthly bill if you're a user of the phone company) or charge to any other company that wishes to provide phone service. In other words, if I wanted service from the Fair Dinkum Phone Company rather than Ma Bell, FDPC might bill me for $15 per month and then turn around and give a certain amount back to Ma for providing the line between my home and the FDP C switch. Why would this be advantageous to the customer? Because the lines would be leased solely on the basis of time, not usage (which is as it should be ... lines do not age faster because they are used more!). Therefore, other phone companies might choose to provide certain services that Ma charges extra for free of charge. This could be done the moment the regulators allowed it, and Ma would still get at least some of her due, and all the arguments about "extra cables in the streets" would be moot. 2) Or consider an even smaller operation: Suppose the owners of housing complexes, apartment buildings, condominiums, mobile home parks, etc. had the right to purchase small PBX switches and sell local phone service to their tenants? Now, I admit that this would open the door for the same sort of sleaze that run some of the AOS and COCOT operations, but if it were done RIGHT, consider what you could offer: Free calls between neighbors (even in mandatory measured service areas), free custom calling features, perhaps direct connections to LD carriers to bypass access charge payments to the local telco, perhaps FX trunks to nearby exchanges that are toll calls (I can think of one mobile home park in particular where that would be a VERY useful feature, as it sits just on the "wrong" side of an exchange boundary where there is no EAS across the line), and of course, lower monthly rates since only a fraction of the normal amount of lines from the telco would be needed (and with DID everyone could still have an individual phone number). 3) And then there's the fear of every telco executive: That of letting the cable companies provide dial tone. But cable companies (especially the ones that use fiber) actually have capacity for MULTIPLE voice paths. If the cable companies were to simply function as a conduit (similar to the telco provision of the line between CO and the customer as mentioned in #1), they could actually provide service for MULTIPLE telephone companies on the same line. You could even have a small "channel selector" that would let you "tune into" the phone company you want to use for a given call (much as "10XXX" selects a long distance carrier). Presumably you'd subscribe to one, or at most two telcos for your dial tone (you might use two if they had different coverage areas for "local" calls), but others might allow you to place "casual calls" at a fixed rate per call or per minute, which would be billed through your cable bill. My point is that there are a lot of different things that COULD happen but it all depends on HOW competition is implemented, and we're a long way from deciding that. I believe that SOME form of competition is not only inevitable, but will save people lots of money AND (the best part) force telephone company executives to start to consider what their CUSTOMERS want, rather than what they can do to gouge more money from customers. I just think many telephone company officials don't realize what a thin line they are walking in that regard. They may think they have the regulatory process all buttoned up, but all it would take would be for ONE citizens' group to start an initiative petition going (with the backing of some influential citizens) to upset the whole applecart. In fact, voters in Maine and Oregon have already passed initiative measures that BAN mandatory measured service in those states! But on the other hand, I'd hate to see too much opportunity given to the sleaze element. One other thing Mr. Barts seems to fear is the inability to communicate with others who don't use the same phone company you use. Well, it seems to me that this is a regulatory issue. Right now I am sitting in a Michigan Bell exchange and I can dial toll-free into a GTE North exchange. The fact that they happen to serve different geographical areas now doesn't mean that it HAS to be that way. I suspect that in the current environment, those telcos that offer connections to other telcos would get more business than those that do not, so regulatory action would really only be needed to keep the current large telcos from refusing interconnections to their competitors. I do grant that in some cases it might wind up being a bit more costly (at least at first) to call someone on another telephone company but at least you'd have the choice of which company to use. Right now the local telcos in some areas are trying to push through mandatory measured service, which means you'll STILL be paying "changes to call your neighbor across the street" but as it stands now, you don't HAVE any choice in the matter if your PUC chooses to allow this. With the ability to choose, at least the calls to SOME of your neighbors will still be free! The bottom line is that the "natural monopoly" argument doesn't wash in the telephone industry. We tried it in the long distance industry, and rates were artificially high. Now that competition is allowed, long distance rates have been cut to nearly half of the former levels, despite the inflation that has caused other prices to rise (ever think you'd see the day when you could place a three-minute cross country call for about the price of a postage stamp? It wouldn't have happened without competition!). The idea of a natural monopoly is a socialist idea that sounds good in theory, but it often doesn't work as well as expected in practice. With proper legislative controls to restrict the ability to refuse interconnections to competitors, and some incentives/penalties to keep companies from "cherry picking" customers in only the most populated areas, I believe that competition at the LEC level could work very well. In a message dated 5 Nov 91 16:20:13 GMT, fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) writes: > 1) By reducing the cost of switches and trunks, modern technology has > made serving rural areas much more reasonable. Any place that has > electricity can have a trunk run in, and a switch for 50 or 100 people > is not an unreasonable proposition. A fiber-optic trunk can easily be > hung from the same poles as the electric wires. The extremely small > number of people who live in even more remote areas could use a > subsidized satellite phone service; the price of satellite antennas > has been dropping like a stone. One problem I see with the argument that LEC competition is a bad idea because the competitors might "cherry-pick" the prime areas (which could be prevented by proper regulation) is that, given a chance, the EXISTING telephone companies do exactly the same thing. Just ask the people who live in the East Lake area of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. They've been trying to get phone service for YEARS, with little success. There's roughly 20-30 potential customers in the area (that would actually subscribe to phone service) and many are elderly. Most leave the area during the coldest winter months, but have said they would even pay for sevice on an annual rate if they could get it. The area is currently considered "unassigned", but is adjacent to both Michigan Bell and GTE North exchanges (in fact, a Michigan Bell fiber optic toll cable runs right along a railroad grade that goes through the area, within a few hundred feet of some of the homes that have no phone service). The major problem is not in getting local exchange service for them, but the fact that Michigan Bell is the only toll service provider in the area and they refuse to meet any independent telephone company at the exchange boundary to provide toll service (as they normally do with existing independents) unless the independent can pay them over $100,000 up front!. Bottom line is that Michigan Bell, which for many reasons would be the company best able to serve the area, does not want to serve these people but apparently does not want any other company to serve them either. I KNOW that there are ways that very remote areas obtain toll service, but I don't know what they are. Our public service commission is looking into the matter of these unserved areas (I think there is one other in the state where a number of unserved people live) but from the comments I've heard, they don't seem to think they can force any company to serve the area, nor force Michigan Bell to provide toll service to an independent telco. For those of you who work in the telephone industry, might I suggest that this area would be a good place to test some new switching equipment to see how well it would hold up under HARSH winter weather conditions. I've always thought in the back of my mind that since CO switch makers have to test new equipment anyway, it would be nice if once in a while they'd do it in a currently unserved community and get the bugs out there, and then just sort of leave the equipment behind at the conclusion of the test. It would also, in my opinion, be a lot more public-spirited thing to do than giving monentary contributions to the United Way or some other organization that may be spending your money to support political causes you wouldn't approve of anyway. I mean, I suppose it's nice (?) that a major long distance company gives money to support the environment (so some whacko organization can spike trees, and blind or maim people who work in the logging industry?) but it would be a lot nicer, and probably a lot more cost effective to help those few people who still don't have phone service obtain it. I think that would be a real smart public relations move on the part of some firm in the industry! [I can see the TV spots now: "This lady, who lives in a remote area of Michigan's Upper Peninsula, is alive today because when she had a heart attack, she was able to call for help on her newly-installed phone service provided by the XXX Company. A year ago, she wouldn't have been able to make that call ..."] By the way, if anyone wants more information about this area, give me a call at +1-906-632-3248 and I'll explain the situation as it stands now. In a message dated 5 Nov 91 20:06:07 GMT, john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > LEC competition IS inevitable. With companies such as Pac*Bell now > wanting to rape the small subscriber, the time is coming closer, > faster. At $1.20 per hour for a call ACROSS THE STREET, Pac*Bell is > making "universal service" a bad joke. You claim that competition will > drive the cost up rather than down. I think Pac*Bell is single-handedly > proving you wrong. I fully agree with you on this point, John, but would like to toss something into this discussion that might be helpful to many of us. One on the many little items of information that I have in my notes is that the November 10, 1986 issue of {Communications Week} carried an article which stated that in the November, 1986 elections, voters in the states of Oregon and Maine backed referendums that BAN mandatory measured service! In Maine, New England Telephone and Telegraph Company spent nearly $1.2 million dollars to defeat the referendum, but it was approved by about 58 percent of the voters anyway. What's even more significant about this is that the measured service plan in Maine allowed two measured service options by which customers paid by the minute and distance of a call, and one $19 unlimited usage plan. All three plans capped the maximum monthly charge at $19, no matter the amount of usage. But supporters of the measured service ban argued that the usage-sensitive approach to rates opened the door for New England Telephone to radically increase rates. They argued that while Maine's present measured service program includes a cap, if not subject to a ban the phone company would someday be able to remove the cap and charge customers on a strict usage basis. What I would like to obtain, if anyone has it in their files, is either a copy of the {Communications Week} article cited above, or better yet, a copy of the actual legislation that was enacted by the voters in either Maine or Oregon (or both!). [If anyone has hardcopy of this and no way to scan it into the computer, please send it to me via mail at 1804 West 18th Street #155, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan 49783-1268] Since California is the land of the voter-initiated petition, you might want to try getting something like this going there. If I were doing it, I'd not only put in for a ban on mandatory measured service, but also the inclusion of all adjacent exchanges (and all non-adjacent exchanges within 20 miles) as part of a customer's "local" calling area. Seems to me that this sort of ballot initiative would pass with no problem in your neck of the woods (provided it's not worded in a "funny" way so you have to vote "no" when you mean "yes" or something). Jack Decker : jack@myamiga.mixcom.com : FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 22:24 EST From: SKASS@DREW.BITNET Subject: Re: Did I (Hopefully) Cause Trouble For a Telemarketer? In Issue #904, Felix Finch writes: > Last week I answered the phone to hear a recorded pitch for home > equity loans. I swallowed my bile, kept my temper, and waited to give > my name and phone number. Two days later, someone called back. This gives me an idea. The next time a recording asks for your number, leave the number of the PUC, perhaps with the name of someone there who might care about this kind of sleaze. Now if I had an idea for dealing with the recordings that ask you to call a number to "claim your prize" or whatever ... Steve Kass/Math & CS/Drew U/MadisonNJ07940/2014083614/skass@drew.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 16:09:58 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Telemarketing Prevented Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo By the way, totally automated telemarketing calls appear to not be legal in California (according to page A40 of the San Luis Obispo Pacific Bell directory). Has anyone been prosecuted or whatever for this? Any statistics regarding the number of complaints and what actions were taken would be interesting (at least to me!). Harold ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #915 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05033; 11 Nov 91 2:19 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26484 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 11 Nov 1991 00:26:59 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14552 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 11 Nov 1991 00:26:47 -0600 Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 00:26:47 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111110626.AA14552@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #916 TELECOM Digest Mon, 11 Nov 91 00:26:15 CST Volume 11 : Issue 916 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Report on Telecommunications (Globe and Mail via David Leibold) German AVON Book Wanted With STD Codes, etc (David Leibold) Complete Communicator Technical Information Available (Russ Nelson) MCI F&F Responds With New Privacy Safeguards (Rob Knauerhase) Step by Step Switches and 950 (Bill Huttig) Carriers Billing For Plans After Carrier Change (Bill Huttig) Customer Slammed, But Rips Off Sprint For $125 in Calls (Toby Nixon) Calling Card Wars (J. Philip Miller) Reporting Customer-Provided Equipment (Donald Ekman) The Future of Printed Books (news@unix.cis.pitt.edu) Re: Visual Message Indicator (Leroy Casterline) Re: PUC Absent at PUC Hearings and Transcript Inaccuracies [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 09 Nov 91 20:26:52 EST From: DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA Subject: Report on Telecommunications The 10 September 1991 edition of the Toronto-based {Globe and Mail} newspaper had a special "Report on Telecommunications" section. Some of the news items included: - the potential for competitive international telecommunications, as companies such as Cable & Wireless/Mercury, AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc. have the potential to offer international services to Canada. - how telecommunications equipment played a part in the failure of this summer's Soviet coup attempt. - the Alex videotext service from Bell Canada seems to be close to a shutdown according to one report; subscribers have stagnated around the 31 000 level, and of these only 10% are actually using Alex to any significant extent; problems included a consumer reluctance to per-minute charges on most of the useful services, and lack of features that would entice people to use Alex over other services such as newspaper, voice telephone, mail, etc. Comparison was made with France's Minitel which saw $2 billion used to give away terminals, plus force people to use Minitel to get to directory information. - an article on videoconferencing, plus other short articles on new technologies and cordless/cellular services. - ads from various telecom interests including Bell Canada, Unitel, AT&T Easylink (Mail, Enhanced Fax). There wasn't too much else earth-shattering, and little mention seemed to have been made about the impending decision regarding competition in domestic Canadian long distance services. dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Nov 91 14:59:24 EST From: DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA Subject: German AVON Book Wanted With STD Codes, etc In (Western portion) German phone books, reference is made to a book called AVON (presumably a German acronym) which contains STD codes and other telephone information that is missing from the phone book. Does anyone on the Digest have access to a copy of a recent AVON? Does it now contain information for the former East Germany system as well? Is it possible to get a copy if one is outside Germany? dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) Subject: Complete Communicator Technical Information Available Reply-To: nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu (aka NELSON@CLUTX.BITNET) Organization: Crynwr Software, guest account at Clarkson Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 02:26:14 GMT The Complete PC will mail you technical documentation on their products, including the Complete FAX and Complete Communicator, when you sign a nondisclosure agreement. AND you can buy product at 50% off retail price at that time. The Complete Communicator is a combination FAX, Modem, and voice mail product. To get a copy of the nondisclosure agreement, send a FAX to Bert Rankin at (408) 434-1048. russ ------------------------------ From: Rob Knauerhase Subject: MCI F&F Responds With New Privacy Safeguards Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 21:52:09 CST I was speaking with an MCI salesman this afternoon (the Friends and Family per-minute rate beats AT&T and Sprint by enough of a margin that I was almost ready to switch). First, and coincidentally, they're offering a $20 check after switching, plus $5 credit to pay for any switching charges, as a response to the current AT&T $20-check promotion. However, the good news on the privacy front came when I expressed distaste that the 1-800-FRIENDS number was open to anyone who knew your zipcode. With a second of paper shuffling, he said that many people had expressed the same concern. He found and read to me from a recent MCI memo saying that the FRIENDS number now requires information from the MCI bill and will recite names rather than numbers, since people had complained that the old number gave away even non-published numbers of people on the list. These changes took place yesterday. So I tried the number, and indeed, it now asks for the last three digits of your MCI account number. One small step for MCI, one giant step for the security of personal information. Rob Knauerhase University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign knauer@cs.uiuc.edu Dept. of Computer Science, Gigabit Study Group ------------------------------ From: wah@zach.fit.edu (Bill Huttig) Subject: Step by Step Switches and 950 Date: 10 Nov 91 20:13:07 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL Jack Decker's discussion of step by step and 10xxx numbers left out the fact that this is the reason that in many small areas you need to dial 1 before 950 numbers and you might have to dial 1 before other numbers that are not charged for (local numbers that belong to other LEC'S). Bill ------------------------------ From: wah@zach.fit.edu (Bill Huttig) Subject: Carriers Billing For Plans After Carrier Change Date: 10 Nov 91 20:09:23 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL Jack Decker wrote about billing for Reach Out Plans after switching to another carrier. What the local Southern Bell people said (North and Central FL) is that when you have you PIC on a line changed they do not notify the previous carrier of the change. Also you can have the calling plans without the need of having AT&T as your 1 + carrier. [Moderator's Note: So in other words, the continued billing from AT&T for Reach Out was legitimate if the customer himself did not specifically tell AT&T to cancel his participation. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Customer Slammed, But Rips Off Sprint For $125 in Calls Date: 10 Nov 91 18:20:14 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA The attached article appeared in today's {Atlanta Journal- Constitution}. I'm sure some of you will have comments as to whether Sprint did the right thing. My personal opinion is that they should have credited him for the $5 PIC change charge, and whatever MCI might have charged him less for the calls -- but to credit him the entire bill just invites fraud! I'm sure Sprint is cringing at the thought that a few hundred thousand people now know how to rip them off for at least $125. I also fail to understand why MCI would cancel a credit card of someone who simply changed PICs. It would seem to be in MCI's interest to leave as many of their cards as possible in the hands of past customers. You should get a chuckle out of the penultimate paragraph, too! Toby ----------- UNAUTHORIZED HOOKUP TO SPRINT RINGS WRONG NUMBER WITH MCI CUSTOMER ("Helpline" column, by Gene Tharpe, {Atlanta Journal-Constitution}, Sunday, 10 November 1991, page Q2) Donald Estep, assistant professor of methematics at Georgia Tech, knows when something doesn't add up. And he knew he had not switched his long-distance service from MCI Telecommunications to US Sprint. But US Sprint insisted he had switched service. Mr. Estep said the problem began in January when his wife tried to use their MCI phone credit card and was told it had been cancelled because their service had been switched to Sprint. "She called Sprint and was told we had signed up with it," Mr. Estep said. "She denied this and we switched back to MCI." During subsequent months, Mr. Estep talked several times with different Sprint representatives about a $125.89 bill for calls made while Sprint was handling their long distance. He wanted the bill reduced because of the unauthorized switch to Sprint and because he had to pay a hookup fee when he switched back to MCI. Eventually, Sprint sent Mr. Estep a copy of the form authorizing the switch to Sprint. He said the handwriting was neither his nor his wife's -- and refused to pay any of the bill. Sprint sent the bill to a collection agency. Helpline wrote to a Sprint service center in Dallas, but our reply came from Robin Carolson, a Sprint media representative in Washington: "Upon receipt of your letter, [Sprint] contacted Mr. Estep ... and credited $125.89 to his account, leaving him with a zero balance. We also recalled his account from the collection agency and stopped all collection activies. Mr. Estep's credit rating was not damaged in any way." She called Mr. Estep's experience "isolated and unusual" because Sprint's "strict policies" require authorized signatures and the customer's request before establishing service. "When these policies are not followed," said Ms. Carlson, "Sprint will work with the customer to ensure satisfaction." ----------- 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: phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) Subject: Calling Card Wars Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 19:21:01 CST In an ad run in the {St. Louis Post Dispatch} today, SWBT was indicating that a significant advantage of its calling card over others was that you could remember its number even if you did not have the card at hand. They also indicated that the PIN was "user selectable." Is it war or not between AT&T and the Baby Bells for credit card accounts? Are others using the same advertising strategy? J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110 phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617 uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP (314)362-2693(FAX) C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 20:23:41 PST From: ekman%wdl30@wdl1.wdl.loral.com (Donald Ekman) Subject: Reporting Customer-Provided Equipment Years ago I called my local telco to report the addition of an answering machine to my line, dutifully giving the ringer equivalence number. The rep seemed slightly amused. Does anyone still report these things, or is the requirement akin to the do-not-remove-under- penalty-of-law tags found on mattresses and pillows? Naive mind wants to know. Donald E. Ekman, Space Systems/Loral, Palo Alto, CA ekman@wdl30.wdl.loral.com [Moderator's Note: Actually, the tag on mattresses and pillows refers ONLY to the manufacturer and seller of the bedding ... not to the end user. The federal government requires those tags be available for inspection by consumers of the products, and thus warns the seller that the tags are not to be removed. What you as the end user do with the tags is your business, although I don't think I've ever seen a mattress or pillow without one, even long after purchase from a store. I once called up to report a modem I was putting on my line. That would have been about 1979 when I got my first modem, a 110/300 baud Hayes Micromodem II for my Apple II+ (actually, a Bell & Howell 'black Apple' which I still have here). I think the telco rep snickered at me also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "USENET News System" Subject: The Future of Printed Books Date: 10 Nov 91 14:24:59 GMT Organization: University of Pittsburgh In article <92466@brunix.UUCP> cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes: > infrastructure had been pretty much dead in the water; the phone > companies weren`t allowed to do it, because they would be competing > unfairly with the cable companies; the cable companies weren't allowed > to do it, for fear that they would compete unfairly with the phone > companies. Sigh. Capitalism is such a wonderful thing :-) I hope you're not implying that you think that THIS is Capitalism. Capitalism would be a great thing. If the government, bless its grasping and meddling little ways, would GET THE **** OUT OF THE WAY. When Ma Bell WAS a monopoly, I had better, cheaper service. I now have worse service. Thank you, O mighty Government, for saving me from something that was working just fine. Sea Wasp [Moderator's Note: Not everyone here would agree with you, but I do. For all that was wrong with the old Bell System, we still had the best phone system in the world, bar none. That is now very questionable. Yes, we have all kinds of new technological gimmicks on the phone we did not have years ago, but the network itself has gone to hell in a handbasket, and the old-time enthusiasm and dedication to quality of service is mostly missing. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 12:48:31 -0700 From: casterli@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Leroy Casterline) Subject: Re: Visual Message Indicator >> I'm currently using GTE's 'Personal Secretary' service (aka voice >> mail). The service notifies you of message(s) waiting by changing >> the dialtone from a constant sound to a 'stutter.' >> Does anyone know of a device that can be plugged inline with >> the phone which will illuminate a light or something to that >> effect when a message is waiting (thereby eliminating the need >> to pick up the phone to hear if there is a message). > Someone sells a little box that ... trips an indicator if your phone > has rung. My "little box" would reset the indicator when you went > off hook ... Yes, I had a chance to see such a box just the other day. The problem is that the box does NOT indicate that you have a message waiting, only that you might have one -- you still need to go off hook to check for stutter dialtone to see if there actually is a message waiting. And this system won't work unless the local phone line rings -- what if the message was left without ringing? This is possible on systems which automatically transfer incoming calls to voice mail when the target line is busy, and also on systems where the caller can call directly into your voice mail number and leave a message for you. Also, this box has no way of knowing if you called your voice mail system and retrieved the waiting messages from an outside phone. A better approach is to detect the stutter dialtone which is produced only when there is actually a message waiting. Leroy Casterline ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 14:00 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: PUC Absent at PUC Hearings and Transcript Inaccuracies deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) writes: > If the meeting was recorded by a CSR (Certified Shorthand Reporter) > and then transcribed, chances are the reporter would be very willing > to take a written copy of your remarks. Just be reasonable in the way > you go about it -- saying something like "my remarks have a lot of > technical terms and I wanted to provide you a copy as a reference." > The reporter will not copy your written remarks verbatim, but will use > it as a reference for any unintelligible comments or confusing terms. During my testimony at the hearing, even though I am experienced at public speaking and do not mumble, the reporter stopped me on numerous occasions to ask that a technical term be repeated or spelled. I had the distinct impression that he was trying his best to record the proceedings as accurately as possible. And even though he seem to require occasional clarification, I believe the gentleman was experienced in this type of proceeding to the point where he was used to transcribing a lot of jargon. 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 #916 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18182; 12 Nov 91 1:48 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06172 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 11 Nov 1991 22:14:21 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25397 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 11 Nov 1991 22:14:01 -0600 Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 22:14:01 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111120414.AA25397@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #917 TELECOM Digest Mon, 11 Nov 91 22:13:40 CST Volume 11 : Issue 917 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? (Colin Plumb) Re: Telemarketing Prevented (John Higdon) Re: AT&T Translation Service (Peter G. Capek) Re: Cellular Phone Rates (Linc Madison) Extended Antenna For Cordless Phone (Tatsuya Kawasaki) Connnection Between Digital Phone and Answering Machine (Tatsuya Kawasaki) Taping Phone Calls -- Summary and Thanks (David R. Zinkin) Re: What Does MCI and MTI Stand For? (ACRONYMwise That is) (H. Hallikainen) Re: The Information Wars (John Higdon) Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (Ethan Miller) Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy (Henry Mensch) Re: Area Code Postings Should Stop Now! (David Ash) Re: Why Not Use 300-600 as Area Codes? (Andrew M. Boardman) Re: Area Code Postings Should Stop Now! (Patrick L. Humphrey) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: colin@array.uucp (Colin Plumb) Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 03:50:29 -0500 Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA In article kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes: > So, a telemarketer who calls ten people who are not interested is > equivalent to ten calls to one person who is not interested? > [Moderator's Note: Nope, not true at all, because a telemarketer does > have a legitimate business reason for calling. The fact that you or I > or anyone else is not interested does not remove the legitimacy of the > call in the first place. The difference between them and phreaks who > war-dial an entire community is the phreak had no business calling the > number in the first place ... the telemarketer did. PAT] I'm sorry, but I fail to see the distinction between a phreak scanning an exchange for modem carrier (or some such) and a telemarketer scanning an exchange for a customer. The telemarketer may be smarter and use a list of likely clients (income bracket, neighbourhood, etc.), but phreaks have their sources, too ... Of course, the telemarketer wants to make money and the phreak is doing it for his own inscrutable reasons, but I consider that irrelevant. The main advantage to me is that while both, in accordance with Murphy's law, call while I'm in the shower, the phreak doesn't take up my time with a sales pitch. Colin [Moderator's Note: The phreak intends to steal something from you if possible; ie your computing and telecom resources. The telemarketer wishes to sell you something if possible. There is legally and otherwise a difference between selling you something and stealing from you. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 00:19 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Telemarketing Prevented hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: > By the way, totally automated telemarketing calls appear to > not be legal in California (according to page A40 of the San Luis > Obispo Pacific Bell directory). Has anyone been prosecuted or > whatever for this? Any statistics regarding the number of complaints > and what actions were taken would be interesting (at least to me!). I do not have statistics on any prosecution successes, but judging from my experience on several occasions, it is likely very low. Each time when I was called by a telemarketing machine, a note was made concerning the sponsor. And each time a complaint was made including a follow up. In every case, the telemarketer claimed that the machine making the calls was located outside the state. In more than one instance, I was completely convinced that not only was the call made from within the state but from my own CO! Crossbar has a distinct sound upon disconnect when the call is in the same switch. The corker was when the call-back number weedled out of the live person who eventually called back bore a prefix served by my switch. Even when I presented this evidence, Pac*Bell yawned in my face. I was told quite frankly that they had other things to worry about and that enforcing the telemarketing regulations was next to impossible. It is funny that Pac*Bell seems to be able to enforce tariff against competitors without difficulty. Here is a good use for Caller-ID. It would stop this nonsense forthwith. Even if the telemarketer was bright enough to block, it would show 'blocked' rather than 'out of area'. Maybe Pac*Bell people would listen to this evidence. And who said that Caller-ID would not be any defense against junk calls? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 01:38:05 EST From: "Peter G. Capek" Subject: Re: AT&T Translation Service It was mentioned here several times recently that the Translation Service is located in Monterey, California. Does anyone know whether this location was chosen because it is where the Army (DoD?) Language School is? Is there any relation between the two organizations? Peter Capek ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 00:13:20 PST From: linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Rates Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article John Higdon (john@zygot.ati.com) writes: > "Steven M. Palm" writes: >> cellulars use radio frequencies, so there aren't any lines to >> maintain. Should be much cheaper. Why do people put up with such a >> ripoff? > Good question. But in Hawaii, apparently they don't. ... > [info about GTE cellular rates in Hawai'i -- low per minute and low > per month, even a plan with ZERO monthly fee] > Gee! No, GTE! I have a friend who lives in the jungle on the Big Island of Hawaii. He spends most of his time out in the field in the middle of the island, studying birds and butterflies. Every week or two he goes into Hilo for mail and provisions, but other than that he has no contact with the outside world. Until recently, that is -- he now has a cellular phone! He's miles from the nearest land lines, but no longer incommunicado. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: tatsuya@hamblin.math.byu.edu (& Kawasaki) Subject: Extended Antenna For Cordless Phone Organization: Brigham Young University Date: 10 Nov 91 00:25:54 I understand it is illegal to sell an antenna to extend your cordless phone range, allowing it to transmit more than 1000 feet (legal limit) or whatever. But I have a question. My cordless phone is bad, and probably it is due to a small battery capacity. Anyhow, any suggestion to extend my phone range, other than buying a phone would be welcome. Thanks. Tatsuya tatsuya@hamblin.math.byu.edu EMT:901006 Ham: N7UQJ [Moderator's Note: The rule is the output (base or phone unit) cannot exceed 1/10 watt (100 milliwatts). The law is not concerned with the distance the signal travels, since no one can control that. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tatsuya@hamblin.math.byu.edu (& Kawasaki) Subject: Connection Between Digital Phone and Answering Machine Organization: Brigham Young University Date: 10 Nov 91 00:57:04 Some time ago, someone was trying sell information on how to make an interface to connect a regular answering machine to digital phone. If someone could help me on that, I would appreciate it. It should not be too hard to make it but I am not an EE. E-mail would be appreciated. Tatsuya tatsuya@hamblin.math.byu.edu EMT:901006 Ham: N7UQJ ------------------------------ From: drz@po.CWRU.Edu (David R. Zinkin) Subject: Taping Phone Calls -- Summary and Thanks Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 15:56:28 GMT Thanks to all who responded to my request for information on whether or not I can tape a phone call if only I know about the recording. Page 17 of my Ohio Bell telephone book (Cleveland, OH) states that "Recording conversations is not permitted unless all parties consent either verbally or in writing, or a distinctive tone sounds every 15 seconds during the recording, or the party intending to record the conversation notifies the other party (BOTH AT THE BEGINNING AND THE END OF THE CONVERSATION) that the call is being recorded." A few readers suggested that I send my requests via certified mail, return receipt requested. Unfortunately, I've tried this and have been told by the other party involved in that particular incident that "I lost the letter before I could read it". Another popular response was to *let them know* that the recording is in progress. The one time I tried this, the other party chose to hang up the phone. (I guess it was silly of me to think that CWRU would encourage the simple procedure of taping phone calls; after all, this is a school which defines wiring up an extension as "unaesthetically pleasing and therefore illegal".) The overwhelming response, however, was that I should skip the recording altogether and simply get a signed contract in such situations. I agree that this is probably the way to go. Once again, TELECOM comes through...thanks to all! David Zinkin (drz@po.cwru.edu) CWRU Psychology and Chemistry (WR '92) Apple Computer Student Rep & CWRU MacMUG University of Rochester Cancer Center ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 14:29:29 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: What Does MCI and MTI Stand For? (ACRONYMwise That is) Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo > [Moderator's Note: MCI = Microwave Communications, Inc. Sprint = > outhern

acific ailroad nternal etwork elecommunications. > The railroad was the original owner of Sprint, which was its internal > telecom department. I don't know about MTI. In the Telecom Archives > you will find three glossary files of interest. (ftp lcs.mit.edu). When I first heard of Southern Pacific Railroad (the local railroad here in SLO) starting SPRINT, I thought it was an excellent idea. They do have all those right of ways. I'm really surprised they sold off SPRINT. Seems those right of ways would be quite valuable, though perhaps at that time microwave was the communications conduit of choice. Since I think it is now optical fiber, the right of ways should again be quite valuable. Further, someone with such a right of way could either lease it to a telecommunications company to string fiber, or could put up its own point to point fiber, selling 150 Mbps or so links on a point to point basis. Those buying use of those links would typically be telcos. I don't see the need for every long distance carrier to market directly to the consumer. Market to the telephone companies. If the railroad can provide a high speed link from here to there for less than anyone else (including the telco, who also has to pay right of way or microwave relay site fees, and, perhaps, someday, spectrum fees), the telco should buy the use of the link from them. As an analogy, my local power company produces some of its own electricity, but, if someone has a special going on, they'll buy the power from them (perhaps a good rain year has produced excess hydro capacity in the Pacific northwest). I don't have to shop around. The power company does it for me. Harold ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 21:53 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: The Information Wars hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: > So, I don't think you'll get "equal time". Ah, but what I did not tell you was that the owner of station on which I heard the spot is a personal friend of many years. We'll see. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: elm@cs.berkeley.edu (ethan miller) Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Date: 9 Nov 91 19:14:33 > Which area code is the most underused of all? Only a small > percentage of available prefixes in it are used, yet the others aren't > likely to be assigned elsewhere. Geographically, it is pretty tiny > also. PAT] 401 (Rhode Island) uses very few prefixes. It was ranked 43rd in population in 1987, but it's geographically dense, so most prefixes are full with numbers (as opposed to states like Wyoming which may have prefixes/towns with just a few phones). The only other similar candidate would be Washington, DC, but there are so many business phones (and fax machines) that they need lots of prefixes for them. My guess for the smallest area code is either 202 (DC) or 213 (LA). Anyone know the area of 213 after the 213/310 split? ethan miller elm@cs.berkeley.edu #include ------------------------------ From: henry@ads.com (Henry Mensch) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1991 19:46:38 PST Organization: Advanced Decision Systems Reply-To: Subject: Re: Area Code Category on Jeopardy Well, since none of your answers were in question form, you're all wrong :) # Henry Mensch / Advanced Decision Systems / ------------------------------ From: ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (David Ash) Subject: Re: Area Code Postings Should Stop Now! Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 05:39:11 GMT > [Moronic Idiot's Rambling: We are getting carried away with this! One > last riddle, then we will stop. Which area code is the most underused of > all? Only a small percentage of available prefixes in it are used, yet > the others aren't likely to be assigned elsewhere. Geographically, it > is pretty tiny also. PAT] 807, where I grew up, definitely serves the lowest population of any area code. However, it's not geographically "tiny". David W. Ash ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu HOME: (415) 497-1629 WORK: (415) 725-3859 [Moderator's Note: The answer (question) I was looking for dealt with Rhode Island (401). PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 00:49:34 EST From: andrew m. boardman Subject: Re: Why Not Use 300-600 as Area Codes? > [...] perhaps deal with some other questions such as how the original > set of area codes was assigned (ie. the rhyme and reasons). This, at least, would seem to be quite obvious, in that more frequently called areas have NPAs which are shorter for both the subscriber to dial and the switching system to repeat; even at 20pps it makes a small difference, and exhaustive nitpicking detail on these sort of things was a trademark of The Phone company. This would finger NYC as the most called area, with Chicago and LA second/third, et cetera ... andrew ------------------------------ From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) Subject: Re: Area Code Postings Should Stop Now! Organization: Rice University Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1991 08:07:35 GMT In article meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier) writes: > These endless area code postings should be reduced. This information > is available in any phonebook or even in some desktop diaries. The > moderator reduces signatures to a single line in order to save > bandwidth, and yet posts arguments about which area code belongs in > which city. > [Moronic Idiot's Rambling: We are getting carried away with this! One > last riddle, then we will stop. Which area code is the most underused of > all? Only a small percentage of available prefixes in it are used, yet > the others aren't likely to be assigned elsewhere. Geographically, it > is pretty tiny also. PAT] Would it be 302 in Delaware? With an area just a little larger than Harris County (Houston) and a population of less than 700,000, it would seem like the best answer ... Patrick L. Humphrey (patrick@is.rice.edu) Rice Networking & Computing Systems +1 713 527-4989 at Rice. 713 981-5952 at home. 713 527-4056 at Willy's Pub. [Moderator's Note: But Rhode Island is smallest of all, and I think the entire population is less than a half-million people. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #917 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18978; 12 Nov 91 2:16 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09960 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 12 Nov 1991 00:22:45 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29231 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 12 Nov 1991 00:22:30 -0600 Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 00:22:30 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111120622.AA29231@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #918 TELECOM Digest Tue, 12 Nov 91 00:22:17 CST Volume 11 : Issue 918 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: British Telecom Figures (Nick Reid) Re: British Telecom Figures (Terry Rawlings) Re: British Telecom Figures (Alan Barclay) Re: Question on Easements (Dave Niebuhr) Re: Question on Easements (Andrew M. Dunn) Re: Cellular Phone Rates (Bill Berbenich) Re: Cellular Phone Rates (Ron Dippold) Re: German AVON Book Wanted With STD Codes, etc (Helmut Heller) Re: MCI F&F Responds With New Privacy Safeguards (Bill Huttig) Re: Why Not Use 300-600 as Area Codes? (Thomas J. Roberts) Re: 512 Area Code Split Announced (Lee Ziegenhals) Re: Loopback Points in ISDN Network (Gerd Lux) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nick@atlantis.cs.orst.edu (Nick Reid) Subject: Re: British Telecom Figures Organization: Computer Science Dept. Oregon State University Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 11:28:55 GMT In article 20017ANG@msu.edu (Peng_H.Ang) writes: > I'm aware that there are some gripes about the lack of true > competition. But is that a major problem in terms of level of service, > price, etc? Or is it that they are ok but they could do better? British Telecom service is truly abysmal. When I was there in July a wait of ten minutes or more for a response from directory service, over five minutes for a response from the operator, was not unusual but about average. Line quality is also bad, and from a London telephone number there were bulletin boards in London that I could not even log onto because line noise prevented completion of the login process. Individual British Telecom employees are often as helpful as they can be (when you actually manage to get through to them), and the costs of the telephone service, if it worked, are not excessive by US standards, but the overall provision of service to the average caller is almost unbelievably low. It is against that *ethos* that the complaints about the company's large profits have validity. ------------------------------ From: cstar@wanda.jcu.edu.au (Terry Rawlings) Subject: Re: British Telecom Figures Organization: James Cook University, North Queensland Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 11:31:18 GMT Adam Ashby wrote: > British Telecom released its half-yearly figures recently and > announced a profit of L1.7 billion (1.7 billion pounds) for the six > month period, that comes out to about L100 every second. Telecom Australia released its yearly profit figures last week, this is taken from a report published in the newspapers. _Australia's Telecom. So Much Better_ Corporate Results. Telecom (Australia) returned a strong financial performance for 1990-91. Though growth in some area of our business slowed down, revenue increased by AUD$652.3m to AUD$9,531.2m. We worked hard to contain the costs of running our business. These rose by AUD$317.3m: the lowest annual increase in ten years. As a result, we were able to successfully generate a pre-tax operating profit of AUD$1,625.5m; up from AUD$1,290.5m in 1989-1990. For the first time, Telecom (Australia) was subject to Income Tax: some AUD$662.8m, leaving us with an after tax operating profit of AUD$962.7m. We paid an increased dividend to the (Australian) Government of AUD$250m. [parts deleted.] Service Performance. Demand for many services slowed down during 1990-91, reflecting uncertainties in the general economic climate. Local and STD call traffic grew by 7% (compared to 8.3% in 1989-90), but demand for new service connectiosn fell by 28% from the previous year, to a little over 506,000. [rest deleted.] Today's exchange rate was AUD$1.00 = US$0.785 An after tax operating profit of more than AUD$50.00 per person in Australia is not a bad figure and it will be interesting to watch next year's figures after the privatisation of Telecom Australia is complete and competition is allowed. Terry Rawlings cstar@marlin.jcu.edu.au ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 12:01:08 GMT From: ukpoit!alan@relay.EU.net (Alan Barclay) Subject: Re: British Telecom Figures Organization: iT - The Information Technology Business Of The Post Office > Western telecom outfit. This suggests that our poor English friends > must be paying some kind of rates. British please, the English are a small part of Britain. :-) This is true. My line + local phone bill (POTS, no specials, and local calls are definatly not free!) came to about $uk 45 for the last quarter. I don't make a lot of local phone calls, but they charge aprox $uk 0.04 for a phone call unit, which lasts for 20 - 180 seconds depending on the time of day. The really annoying thing is that in April we had a tax change, and BT over charged us all by the difference between the old tax and the new tax (2.5%) for up to three months. They have just refunded it, six months later. Can you imagine what 2.5% of a billing cycle will generate in interest in six months?? Alan Barclay, iT, Barker Lane, CHESTERFIELD, S40 1DY, Derbys, England alan@ukpoit.uucp, ..!uknet!ukpoit!alan, FAX:+44 246214353, VOICE:+44 246214241 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 9:16:41 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: Re: Question on Easements richg@locus.com (Rich Greenberg) in writes: > In article KRUSE_NEIL@tandem.com > writes: >> I have a question as to how does LEC determine what a easment is >> worth? > [ LEC snuck in some cables] >> My question is, since they intalled the cable without our permission >> (we didn't even know it was there) and, then went to install new >> cable, did they have a right "with the perscriptive easement" to do >> that? And, were we suckered on what a half mile long easement is >> worth? Any ideas? > You have most likely gotten as much as you can expect out of them. > They are wrong about the "perscriptive easement" provided that you > truly didn't know about it. They get this easement only if you knew > and didn't protest for some specfic length of time (may vary > state-state). > Keep in mind that they are "TPC", and they don't have to care. > (And they have lots of lawyers on staff.) When we bought our home in 1968 the electric and phone lines were in as the place was a resale. I'm not quite sure about NY laws on easements but they were on the deed for those utilities. An easement, signed by us, was put onto our deed when we signed a contract to have public water installed. It's my opinion that once an easement goes on a deed then it caries forward to all subsequent owners of a home, with no expiration date. With electric, it is simple: no easement, no utility; no utility, no certificate of occupancy. People are not required to have a phone, public water or public sewage disposal unless mandated by a change to the building code. In my locality, if there's public water on your street you take it if you are building a new home; otherwise no C.O. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ From: mongrel!amdunn@uunet.uu.net (Andrew M. Dunn) Subject: Re: Question on Easements Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 14:40:19 GMT > [Moderator's Note: Does anyone remember the story in the Digest a > couple years ago where IBT claimed easement rights in this lady's home > -- in her bedroom, mind you -- because the former occupant had been > an answering service, and pairs multipled from all over the > neighborhood were connected in a huge terminal box in her bedroom? > Maybe I should run that story again. PAT] Please do! Andy Dunn (amdunn@mongrel.uucp) ({uunet...}!xenitec!mongrel!amdunn) [Moderator's Note: Okay, watch the next issue (819) this morning. The article appeared here in 1989. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Rates Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 23:47:57 EST From: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu John Higdon writes: > Good question. But in Hawaii, apparently they don't. I do not have the > rate card in front of me, but GTE Mobilnet offers five-island coverage > for about half the going rate here in California. And not only are the > per-minute rates very, very low, the monthly base rates are also quite > attractive. Under one plan (that also has reasonable per-minute > charges) the monthly service is FREE. That's right -- if you don't use > it, you don't pay. What a novel concept. I wonder how they can > maintain all that ether out there without a monthly fee. Gee! No, GTE! This is just a guess, mind you, but it may be that GTE Mobilnet in Hawaii makes a big pile of money off of their roamers. It wouldn't be the first instance of roamers subsidizing local subscribers! As far as the cellular companies which serve Atlanta, Bell South and PacTel, the roamer rates are not much higher than the regular airtime rates - and there's no daily roamer fee (unless it's changed in the last year, which it may have). My point being this: what's to stop an Atlanta area resident from subscribing through GTE Mobilnet in Hawaii and then using the phone as a roamer in Atlanta? My monthly base rate is $18, so I wouldn't save a whole lot, but some subscribers pay the full $35 base rate each month in addition to a higher airtime rate. They'd stand to save substantially more, depending upon their actual airtime. Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab | Telephone: +1-404-894-3134 Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 | uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Group 3 fax: +1-404-894-8363 | Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu or: +1-404-853-9171 ------------------------------ From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Rates Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 21:38:21 GMT john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > "Steven M. Palm" writes: >> cellulars use radio frequencies, so there aren't any lines to >> maintain. Should be much cheaper. Why do people put up with such a >> ripoff? > But in Hawaii, apparently they don't. I do not have the rate card in > front of me, but GTE Mobilnet offers five-island coverage for about > half the going rate here in California. And not only are the > per-minute rates very, very low, the monthly base rates are also quite > attractive. Cellular phones charges are so much in California (and NY) for two reasons. First, people are willing to pay it. I imagine most LA and Hollywood types would rather give up their office phones than their cellular phone(s). They can be connected at all times, and to many the cost is nothing. Well, if prices were lower, then even more people would be willing to use it, right? That's exactly what they don't want or need right now. As you get more people using the phones, service quality gets worse and worse, as you can't place a call when you need to or you pass from one cell to another and the phone just hands off into nothingness (or someone else's conversation, that's always a good one). Estimates are that by the end of 1992, LA will have completely exceeded its cellular phone capacity -- bad service when you can get it. Cellular phone sales are still going strong, and I bet most of those people expect to be able to use that phone. You can get more capacity by building more cells (not cheap), but due to frequency re-use, minimum signal strength, and other practical problems, there is a definite limit. Part of this is due to the fact that FM cellular phones are power pigs. Look for cellular use prices to go up (or at least not go down) until the digital cellular phone systems get here with 20x capacity. Of course, it sounds better and is more reliable, so you might get many more people using it, and you still have to support those FM phones ... ------------------------------ From: heller%lisboa@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Helmut Heller) Subject: Re: German AVON Book Wanted With STD Codes, etc Reply-To: heller@lisboa.ks.uiuc.edu Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 13:28:37 GMT In article DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA writes: > In (Western portion) German phone books, reference is made to a book > called AVON (presumably a German acronym) All I can say is that AVON stands for Amtliches Verzeichnis der Ortsnetzkennzahlen (the N comes from the Netz-part) which means "official compendium of all the area codes (pre-dial)". Unfortunately I don't have access to one right now. Servus, Helmut (W9/DH0MAD) heller@lisboa.ks.uiuc.edu u27013@ncsagate.bitnet Phone: (217)244-1586, FAX: (217)244-2909 Helmut Heller, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Beckman Institute Theoretical Biophysics Group, Transputer Lab, Room 3151, MC 251 405 N. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801, U.S.A. ------------------------------ From: wah@zach.fit.edu ( Bill Huttig) Subject: Re: MCI F&F Responds With New Privacy Safeguards Date: 11 Nov 91 15:08:05 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article knauer@cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Knauerhase) writes: > So I tried the number, and indeed, it now asks for the last three > digits of your MCI account number. One small step for MCI, one giant > step for the security of personal information. It is a little better ... but there still is the fact that if your bill is mis-delivered all the needed information is there ... I don't see why companies insist on putting all the information about you in one place. (Bank statements with SS numbers and account numbers when they require that information for phone information on your account). Hopefully they will do something about the billing inquiry number also. Bill ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 10:07:02 CST From: tjrob@ihlpl.att.com (Thomas J Roberts) Subject: Re: Why Not Use 300-600 as Area Codes? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories From article , by joeisham@chinet. chi.il.us (Joe Isham): > In article martin@cod.nosc.mil wrote: >> Also, I hope someone will explain 710 (Government Special >> Services), else explain why no information is forthcoming regarding >> 710. Is it classified information or something? I've tried dialing >> many numbers in 710, and I always get the intercept: "Your call cannot >> be completed as dialed." > and the Moderator noted: >> I've been asking for a couple years for someone to explain 710. No >> information has ever been given out. The 710 area code in the USA (and, perhaps, Canada) is indeed used for "Government Special Services". It provides Emergency Services to federal and local agencies, and is NOT intended for use by the general public. Don't bother to "hack" at these numbers - there are security features which make it unlikely for you to get anything more than some useless intercept messages. Repeated attempts which could potentially deny service to authorized users might result in a VERY unwelcome visit from the authorities. Tom Roberts att!ihlpl!tjrob TJROB@IHLPL.ATT.COM ------------------------------ From: lcz@sat.datapoint.com (Lee Ziegenhals) Subject: Re: 512 Area Code Split Announced Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 17:20:46 GMT joeisham@chinet.chi.il.us (Joe Isham) writes: > In article is written: >> I'm just a bit surprised that they split it in the direction they did >> -- I would've expected San Antonio to keep 512 and Austin and/or >> Corpus to get the new area code. My mother's home town of Goliad >> won't have to change after all! > I suppose they split the NPA the way they did to keep the number of > exchanges in each new area more or less the same. Austin is growing a > lot faster than San Antonio, though, so it'd make sense for the new > 210 to start off with fewer exchanges. A local (San Antonio) newspaper article said that the original intent was to keep S.A. in the 512 area and change Austin. One of the reasons I can recall for the new scheme was to avoid changing the telephone numbers for all of the state offices in Austin. I have no idea how accurate that information is, though I can imagine some political pressure being applied. ------------------------------ From: lux@math.fu-berlin.de (Gerd Lux) Subject: Re: Loopback Points in ISDN Network Organization: Free University of Berlin, Germany Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 18:28:24 GMT Are there any TCP/IP packet drivers on top of ISDN out there? Thanks for your time. Gerd Lux lux@math.fu-berlin.de ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #918 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23418; 12 Nov 91 21:56 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03791 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 12 Nov 1991 19:41:38 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03684 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 12 Nov 1991 19:40:59 -0600 Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 19:40:59 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111130140.AA03684@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #919 TELECOM Digest Tue, 12 Nov 91 19:40:44 CST Volume 11 : Issue 919 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson On Having Telco as a Housemate (was Easement) (TELECOM Moderator) Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea (John Higdon) Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Thing (Robert J. Woodhead) Re: AT&T is Just Like All the Rest (Yanek Martinson) Re: Pacific Telesis' Radio Ad Attacks Congressman (Dan'l DanehyOakes) Re: Telemarketing Prevented (Harold Hallikainen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 00:45:34 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: On Having Telco as a Housemate (was Question About Easement) Here is the story I promised earlier which originally appeared in TELECOM Digest on Sunday, February 26, 1989 along with a few replies which appeared in the week following. PAT ------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Feb 89 1:04:38 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: On Having Telco As a 'Housemate' I will sub-title this report 'The Case of the Box Which Won't Be Removed'. The location is Lockport, Illinois; a suburban community thirty miles or so southwest of Chicago. It is served by Illinois Bell; or should I say the lady I will tell you about serves IBT. One way or the other -- anyway -- Wanting to get out of the city, the lady bought a house in Lockport. It is an older place, but very well maintained over the years. One room would make a great den, but there was one problem that had to be taken care of first. In one corner of the room sat a box, about five feet high and four feet square. There were about 500 wires running in and out of it, all eventually finding their way through a hole in the wall. On the outside of the house at that point, the wires ran a short distance, then went down into the ground in a metal conduit like thing. Curious about it, she asked the realtor what it might be for, and was told that a former occupant of the house had operated an answering service there. The room she was planning for her den had been the switchboard area for the answering service years before. The lady called up Illinois Bell to see about having it removed. IBT agreed to do so for the mere sum of $2,400. *And they agreed the box was dead*. The lady protested; saying that $2,400 seemed a lot of money to yank out the old box, especially since nothing was going in its place provided by the phone company. After asking around, she found an independent workman willing to remove the box for $300, and was about to tell him to go ahead with the work when two people from Bell stopped by to see her, to warn that if any lines were broken or damaged, she would have to pay $70 for the repair of each. She said she thought $70 was rather outrageous for the repair of useless, dead lines, but the guys from Bell said in fact the lines were alive. They did agree to reduce their price and remove the box for 'only $1800', and completely indemnify her against damages or disruption of service which might occur in the process. Her independent workman took another look and confirmed what Bell had said: The box was in fact alive, and nearly 500 working pairs were terminated inside. Together they went back to Bell, and got the price for removal of the box negotiated down to only $1200. The lady said she had no intention of paying *anything* to take it out. And really, can you blame her? Finally with no place else to turn, she went to see the house's former owner; the fellow who had run the answering service. He said he thought Illinois Bell had been granted an easement to have the box there. And now the matter becomes even more mysterious. The lady went to the village hall and spoke to Lockport officials herself; and yes, they said, Illinois Bell *does* have an easement to that room in your house. They were unable, however, to show her a signed document from the previous owner giving easement rights to Bell. Tbe former owner insists he never signed anything; he claims they put the box in when he started the answering service back in the middle 1950's; and he claims he can't remember ever giving Bell permanent squatting rights there. After continued negotiations, IBT still insists it needs $1200 to remove its equipment and give up its easement rights. In the meantime, the lady won't budge, and she is living there with a Pandora's Box filled with legal ramifications for a 'roomate'. The search goes on for an official record of the easement with someone's signature on it. I suspect if and when it is found it will be the signature of the former owner. The contractor hired by the woman has identified a dozen businesses and several dozen residences in the vicinity which show up on terminals in the box. I think eventually if an easement record cannot be located, IBT will have to bite the dust and relocate the whole thing at thier expense. The woman has said if the easement *is* found, and it contains the signature of the former owner, she will sue him if necessary to make him pay for the removal. In the meantime if something goes wrong and Bell has to visit the box? Well, let's hope the woman isn't asleep, in the bathroom or otherwise 'indisposed' when her 'roomates' visitors show up! Patrick Townson Subject: Re: Telco As a 'Housemate' Date: Mon, 27 Feb 89 12:40:48 -0500 From: Joel B Levin If I were that lady, and IBT came to the door because they needed access to work on one of the lines that came to that box, I would give it to them -- as soon as they showed me the document granting telco the easement. Not before. Another tack-- Is there some way a noisy electrical device (an old refrigerator or something) next to the box might cause noticeable noise on the lines? That also might provide some impetus for them to move the box (or really make it dead). After all, they can't tell her what she can or can't have in some corner of her den. /JBL From: Mark Brukhartz Subject: Re: On Having Telco As a 'Housemate' Date: 1 Mar 89 19:16:45 GMT Organization: Lachman Associates, Inc., Naperville, IL This woman ought to consult a real estate attorney without delay. I believe that her seller was responsible for conveying a clear title to the property, including a written description of any easements. He (or his title insurance company) are probably responsible for Illinois Bell's claim of easement. I understand that uncontested use of a property will mature into permanent rights after some (forgotten) interval. Mark Brukhartz Lachman Associates, Inc. ..!{amdahl, masscomp, nucsrl, sun}!laidbak!mdb From: John Allred Subject: Re: On Having Telco As a 'Housemate' Date: 2 Mar 89 16:40:10 GMT Reply-To: John Allred Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA In article laidbak!mdb@buita.bu.edu (Mark Brukhartz) writes: > This woman ought to consult a real estate attorney without delay. I > believe that her seller was responsible for conveying a clear title to > the property, including a written description of any easements. He (or > his title insurance company) are probably responsible for Illinois > Bell's claim of easement. > I understand that uncontested use of a property will mature into > permanent rights after some (forgotten) interval. I think the interval is 20 years for "adverse use" of property. Your mileage may vary. John Allred BBN Systems and Technologies Corp. (jallred@bbn.com) From: Darren Griffiths Subject: Re: On Having Telco As a 'Housemate' Date: 4 Mar 89 01:13:09 GMT Reply-To: Darren Griffiths Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley It seems like it should be pretty easy to get the box removed. Simply have the lady go down to Radio Shack and buy a line kit that can be connected straight to the punch down block that's probably in the box. Whenever she has some spare time try a few of the lines, see who's talking and interrupt them. If they aren't to angry at someone listening to their phone calls then she could explain the situation and have them call IBT. If they are angry I'm sure they'll call IBT anyway. Darren Griffiths DAGG@LBL.GOV Lawrence Berkeley Labs Information and Computing Sciences Division ----------- And there you have it ... the story which appeared here over two years ago. I had forgotten one detail: The box was not in her bedroom, but actually in the room she wanted to use as a den. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 02:37 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Idea Jack Decker writes: > Since California is the land of the voter-initiated petition, you > might want to try getting something like this going there. If I were > doing it, I'd not only put in for a ban on mandatory measured service, > but also the inclusion of all adjacent exchanges (and all non-adjacent > exchanges within 20 miles) as part of a customer's "local" calling > area. Amen to the twenty-mile radius. Everywhere else that I have been in the US has a larger local calling area than the extremely weenie eight-mile radius that is standard in California. You may be interested in the Pac*Bell party line, as it were, on this topic. Mr Disher of Pac*Bell explained that what was important was not the distance but "the number of people you could reach with your phone". In other words, in metropolitan areas, you can reach literally millions of people, including your civic offices, libraries, etc., within that eight-mile radius. In other parts of the country, this is not true and wider calling radii are necessary to cover spheres of influence for the caller. (He failed to address the issue as it applies to those same areas in California -- I just spent two weeks in a house that is twenty miles from ANYWHERE.) Frankly, the only city that has anywhere near the density that validates his point in California is San Francisco. The rest of the state has cities that are sprawled out all over the countryside and the result is that it is toll from one end of Los Angeles to the other. Of course, Californians are used to these microscopic local areas. I can just imagine the telco opposition to a ballot measure at campaign time. Somehow, we would be reminded that students and senior citizens would suffer irreparable harm with expanded local calling areas. But I am dying of curiosity: how did the telcos in Oregon, etc., campaign against the measured service ban? Did they predict that people's hair would fall out with such a ban or what? The only conceivable argument that I can see would hold any water would be for those who really do make very few calls. But as you pointed out, all it takes is a foot in the door and then you can manipulate the cost of local service very easily. Case in point: Pac*Bell's proposed doubling of the additional minute charge on local calls will cause real hardship on many small businesses who are already paying hundreds of dollars a month on nothing but local usage. > Seem to me that this sort of ballot initiative would pass with > no problem in your neck of the woods (provided it's not worded in a > "funny" way so you have to vote "no" when you mean "yes" or > something). Oh, we are used to that garbage -- those of us who vote, that is. The latest figures show that 25% of those eligible to vote in California actually do. Judging from the lack of interest at the rate hearings and the recently demonstrated ability of Pacific Telesis to mount an advertising campaign full of misleading statements, I would put the odds of an initiative passing a little farther down on the scale of probability. It is an interesting idea, however. And something well worth looking into. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: LEC Competition is a Bad Thing Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 04:08:42 GMT 71336.1270@CompuServe.COM (tim gorman) writes: > From a practical viewpoint, agriculture (in other words rural > subscribers) has gone very high tech in the past several years. Those > farms who want to maximize revenue depend heavily on telephone access > to market data as well as to market buyers/sellers. This includes > telecommunications options such as modem and fax usage. Since these > high tech operations are also the ones that provide most of the food > for the world, anything that increases their costs also increases the > cost of food to everyone. It is, therefore, quite practical from my > viewpoint to keep their costs as low as possible. This is nonsense. All subsidies do is introduce distortions into the market and promote uneconomic behavior. All you are saying is that instead of paying more for food, we should pay more for our telephone bills. Why should corporations (which, last time I checked, do not eat) pay to support farmers (or for that matter, residential customers)? Regarding cheaper food for the world, why should I be forced to donate $ through higher food bills; If I care about the problem, I'll give money to OXFAM or UNICEF. Besides, cheap food exports (subsidized) only destroy local markets, making it less likely that they will become self-sufficient and more efficient. If the phone company truly believes that subsidizing farmers is a laudable goal, then they should go ahead, but out of THEIR pockets, not mine, thank you very much. Farmers, and telephone companies, for that matter, should sink or swim in the marketplace like everyone else; in large part, the farming "crisis" was created because government subsidies distorted the marketplace and sent the wrong signals to the farmers. They got a short-term gain and a long-term pain. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ From: yanek@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Yanek Martinson) Subject: Re: AT&T is Just Like All the Rest Date: 11 Nov 91 22:48:32 GMT Organization: University of Miami Department of Mathematics & Computer Science In knauer@cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Knauerhase) writes: > Imagine my surprise to see that inside was a $20 check from AT&T > -- all I have to do to get the cash is switch to AT&T. > MCI mails out checks if you switch, Sprint mailed me a $10 check > in June that's only good after October 1, and now AT&T ... > get the money without switching How about this: Switch to ATT, collect $20. Switch to Sprint, collect $10, then switch back to ATT, then back to Sprint, etc. Would this work? Would it be illegal in any way? yanek@mthvax.cs.miami.edu safe0%yanek@mthvax.cs.miami.edu ------------------------------ From: djdaneh@pbhyc.PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) Subject: Re: Pacific Telesis' Radio Ad Attacks Congressman Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 20:34:14 GMT John Higdon quoted the Pacific Telesis spot, which ended: > This advertisement is brought to you by the people of Pacific Telesis > and is not paid for by telephone customers. What this means, of course, is that it's being paid for by the salaries of the people they're laying off. :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 22:01:38 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Telemarketing Prevented Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo > Even when I presented this evidence, Pac*Bell yawned in my face. I was > told quite frankly that they had other things to worry about and that > enforcing the telemarketing regulations was next to impossible. It is > funny that Pac*Bell seems to be able to enforce tariff against > competitors without difficulty. Do we now rely on "private companies" to enforce laws or regulations? How does the PUC deal with such complaints? 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: The answer to that is very simple: They don't deal with the complaints either; not at least until there are a large number of them. Then they begin an inquiry. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #919 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29260; 13 Nov 91 1:18 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10324 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 12 Nov 1991 20:58:46 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06550 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 12 Nov 1991 20:58:16 -0600 Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 20:58:16 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111130258.AA06550@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #920 TELECOM Digest Tue, 12 Nov 91 20:58:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 920 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia: Fifty Copies -- Enough Already! (TELECOM Moderator) HDTV Regulations, Do You Know Some? (Thomas P. Imbro) SWBT Wants Information Services Monopoly (J. Brad Hicks) Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences (Jim Fenton) Current RBOC Fiber Deployment, Video Dial Tone Article (Kevin Collins) Computerized Radio Foul Weather Closing Announcements (Bill Berbenich) Just Dial One-Nine-Zero-Zero-SCREWME (Jerry Leichter) Pauses in Speed Dialing (David Schanen) Phone Gateways? (Mark McWiggins) Must New Second Line Use Same Class of Service as First? (Fred Linton) Regulations and Telco (A.E. Guadagno) Telemarketing COS (John Higdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 19:55:44 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: Fifty Copies -- Enough Already! Due to a malfunction at the Bitnet gateway site I use (nuacvm.acns. nwu.edu) on Tuesday morning, issue 918 went out to most Bitnet readers 50+ times. It seems the mailer kept stalling, then restarting itself about every ten minutes all night until about 9 AM Tuesday morning. Rather than compound the problem further, I held off mailing further issues of the Digest until the source of the problem (here, or the gateway) was found and corrected. As it is, I got numerous messages from all over the globe throughout the early morning hours Tuesday from people saying please turn it off ... we are being flooded, etc. Now I am about two issues behind, meaning another day or so delay in some messages still waiting from Sunday/Monday. As a result, I made a decision a few minutes ago to dump unused about 30 messages (mostly REplies) that I had planned to send out Tuesday morning, to get back on schedule. Sorry, and a special apology to the Bitnetters. PAT ------------------------------ From: tom@ecst.csuchico.edu (Thomas P. Imbro) Subject: HDTV Regulations, Do You Know Some? Organization: California State University, Chico Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 08:43:41 GMT In re regulations governing HDTV: I imagine most of the regulations that apply to current NTSC systems will be carried over. But are there any new regulations? How about some issues on spectrum space? There seems to be some problems allocating spectrum in large markets if a simulcast HDTV sytem is used. How about industrial standards? From what I have read, the FCC is requiring a simulcast system, but are they requiring an analog or digital system? Hopefully the latter. What I'm actually looking for is changes in current NTSC regulations because of the implementation of HDTV. This information will be helpful in writing a college report. And I wouldn't be surprised if the people required to write this same report are looking for the same information on this newsgroup because this newsgroup was mentioned in class as source of information on this topic. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 16:10 GMT From: "J. Brad Hicks" <0004073044@mcimail.com> Subject: SWBT Wants Information Services Monopoly I just got the 16-Oct-91 issue of {Electronic Messaging News} forwarded to me, and saw what has to be the most arrogant thing I've ever heard from an RBOC. Is this disgusting or what? The day after the appeals court overruled Judge Green and let the RBOCs into the information services business, Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) introduced a bill to put trivial restrictions on it, like forbidding the RBOCs from creating artificial "bottlenecks" to prevent competition. By Rep. Cooper's own admission, the total effect of his bill will be to restrict the RBOCs so they can ONLY control 90% of the market, not 100%. In other words, they're practically being handed 90% of the information services market on a silver platter, by legislative fiat. Are they elated? No, they're enraged, enraged that they have to allow any competition at all. Southwestern Bell Telephone's vice chairman Gerald Blatherwick was blunt and arrogant: "Frankly, we think it's time the competing commercial interest groups get on the train or get off the track." In other words, merge with an RBOC or die. Is there any one left who still believes that it's a coincidence that the same RBOC is busily trying to shut down free BBS systems? I'm learning to agree with Mr. Higdon; RBOCs shouldn't be allowed into ANY venture other than selling local dial tone. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 12:27:25 -0800 From: fenton@esd.ESD.WJ.COM (Jim Fenton) Subject: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences A posting of John Higdon's recently spoke of the different rate at which he receives wrong numbers on his various lines. Several years ago, when I had a phone number with a repeat digit in it (-5885), I used to get a great many wrong numbers, which if I could get the caller to tell me the number they were calling, was frequently -585x. It seems that either their pushbutton contacts were dirty, or they weren't pushing the buttons cleanly. Have others noticed this behavior, and do others avoid being assigned phone numbers with repeated digits, as I do? Jim Fenton, Watkins-Johnson Co., San Jose, CA +1 408 435-1400 fenton@wj.com ------------------------------ From: aspect!kevinc@uunet.uu.net (Kevin Collins) Subject: Current RBOC Fiber Deployment, Video Dial Tone Article Date: 11 Nov 91 20:50:05 GMT Organization: Aspect Telecommunications, San Jose, Ca The following taken from {Communications Week}, dated 11/4/91. (begin quote) BELL FIBER DEPLOYMENT STATUS REPORT (percentage of copper & fiber installed within the Bells' facilities & to-the-curb) 1989 1994* Copper Fiber Copper Fiber Ameritech Corp. 94.8 5.2 92.0 8.0 Bell Atlantic Corp. 96.9 3.1 86.6 13.4 BellSouth Corp. 95.8 4.2 85.7 14.3 Nynex Corp. 98.2 1.8 95.0 5.0 Pacific Telesis Group 99.5 0.5 91.2 8.8 Southwestern Bell Corp. 98.3 1.7 83.7 16.3 US West Inc. 98.8 1.2 95.4 4.6 * - Figures are projected (end quote) The table is contained in an article about user, telco, and cable TV provider reactions towards the FCC "Video Dial Tone" proposal. Gist of the article: users excited, telcos want to provide programming as well as transport, cable providers complaining about regulators' inability to prevent cross-subsidies, telcos ripping cable providers for gouging customers. I really like those last two -- two large monopolies accusing each other of all the things Joe Schmo has been saying for years. Maybe now that big voices are saying these things, things will actually improve in both arenas. Hope springs eternal. Kevin Collins | My opinions are mine alone. USENET: ...uunet!aspect!kevinc | GO BEARS! ------------------------------ Subject: Computerized Radio Foul Weather Closing Announcements Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 12:20:21 EST From: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Here I sit at my desk eating a bit of lunch and listening to the radio. This past weekend was kind of chilly here in the Atlanta area and there was the possibility of flurries. Naturally, since Atlanta isn't close to the snow belt, if there is any accumulation of snow or ice the city and all businesses will close down until the frozen stuff goes away. On to the point ... A local news/talk radio station here has announced a new service that they will be using this winter. I forget the catchy acronym, but it is a means whereby school administrators, corporate management, and others can disseminate foul weather closing information via a secret touch tone code entered after calling a secret telephone number. When an authorized administrator calls and enters his appropriate code it causes the appropriate information to be printed out in the station's newsroom in order that they may announce it on the air. The potential for abuse seems greater than for the old reliable method of having an individual call in by voice. An afterthought: I wonder if they are using CLID (available here) or 800 ANI (if the secret phone number is an 800 number). Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab | Telephone: +1-404-894-3134 Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 | uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill | Group 3 fax: +1-404-894-8363 Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu | or: +1-404-853-9171 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 16:41:39 EDT From: Jerry Leichter Subject: Just Dial One-Nine-Zero-Zero-SCREWME The 900 telesleazes are very much still out there. I just got a long message on my answering machine. Apparently, someone is getting clever, and has a pitch deliberately tuned for them. I don't know what I would have heard had I been in at the time, but the message starts of VERY briefly -- and just about incomprehensibly, telling me that I've won something or another and should call the "redemption center" immediately. If I call back within ten minutes, I get some sort of extra prize. The message then begins repeating the number of the center. It's "one, nine, zero zero ". Not, of course, "one, nine-hundred" -- too many people recognize that already. Always "one, nine, zero zero". The number is repeated about five times; then the voice says "one last time" and gives the number yet again. Only at this point is the cost of the call revealed. Well, kind of revealed -- it's read so fast that after repeated listening to the tape, I still can't tell you what it is. I wasn't even able to make out any of "dollars", "cents", "seconds", "minutes". Perhaps the cost is being given in rubles per micro-fortnight. After the very fast obligatory "message", the number is repeated yet again, and then the friendly voice (mild southern accent) signs off with "enjoy your vacation"! Ah, so they want to take me for a ride! Jerry ------------------------------ From: mtv@milton.u.washington.edu (David Schanen) Subject: Pauses in Speed Dialing Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 12:47:11 GMT Does anyone know if future switching systems will be able to include pauses in speed dialing? I'm working with a system now where it would be nice if the telco could provide something like NXX-XXXX..(Pause)..XXX-NXX-XXXX. Know what I mean? Cheers! Dave Inet: mtv@milton.u.washington.edu * 8kyu * UUNET: ...uunet!uw-beaver!u!mtv ------------------------------ From: esca!markmc@uunet.uu.net (Mark McWiggins) Subject: Phone Gateways? Organization: ESCA Corporation, Bellevue WA Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 23:08:46 GMT What's the hardware like on the back end of a phone "Gateway"? If I were a service provider, I'd ideally like something like an Ethernet connection that would support multiple logins, but the local US Westers weren't able to give me details. They referred me to a guy in Omaha (where the US West gateway trial was held), but I haven't gotten ahold of him yet. Can you point me to a reference on this kind of thing? Thanks in advance. Mark McWiggins markmc@esca.uucp (or uunet!esca!markmc) +1 206 822 6800 (voice) 206 889 1700 (fax) ------------------------------ Date: 11-NOV-1991 22:38:52.97 From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Must New Second Line Use Same Class of Service as First? Anticipating the need, eventually, for a second phone line to my abode, I queried my local BOC (SNET Co.) as to whether I could get "lifeline" measured service on a new line while retaining unlimited service on the old. Nope, I was told -- new line must have same class of service as old. Anyone know whether that's really so in SNET's service area? (Detailed tariff references appreciated if it's NOT really so, thanks.) Fred E.J. Linton Wesleyan U. Math. Dept. 649 Sci. Tower Middletown, CT 06459 E-mail: ( or ) Tel.: + 1 203 776 2210 (home) or + 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 20:16:58 -0500 From: aeg0933@ultb.isc.rit.edu (A.E. Guadagno) Subject: Toll Restricted Local Service Hello, c.d.t. readers, My question is a simple one, although I am not sure where else it could be asked and answered. Is it legal for a telephone service provider to refuse access to the LATA if one does not wish to have long distance service? A friend with teenage sons wishes to initiate such a service in her new apartment, and the local telco sez that she cannot; that in order for her to get service at all she has to name a 'dial-1' service provider and thanks for calling. However, if she had a large bill she could not pay and was put into arrears with this same telco, she certainly could get such a toll-restricted account. Anyone with information regarding this topic is invited, nay encouraged to reply to dave@rochgte.fidonet.org or, if that bounces, to this account (it's a loaner) with chapter and verse fashioned in such a way that the remarkable human simulators they employ at this telco are sure to agree that it would be A Good Thing. Thanks and may all your CONNECTs be error-free. Dave Stoddard Fido 1:260/246 CI$ 73717,3616 [Moderator's Note: You did not say what telco was involved, but any Bell company with an ESS switch can provide her with a local line on which all toll service (including via the operator) is denied. She will still have to pay the 'network access fee', and the line will cost the same as a normal one. Lines with special treatments like this (such as outgoing / incoming calls only) are intended for security reasons, not as a way to save money. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 01:25 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Telemarketing COS After viewing a shouting match on ABC Television's Nightline over the matter of telemarketing, I suddenly got an idea that should make any telco's mouth (do they have mouths?) drool. Why not have a "Telemarketing Class of Service"? If a firm or individual wants to conduct telemarketing, it or he is required to make the calls on "telemarketer" lines. These lines are POTS lines with a plus: any outgoing call is first checked against a national database to determine if the callee accepts junk calls. If so, the call is completed. If not, the caller gets a recording or perhaps even some machine-recognizable signal. Maintaining such a database should be trivial nowadays and the lookup should likewise be no problem. The cost of all of this would be folded into the price of the lines. People would have to put themselves in this database by indicating to local service reps the intended status of each line ordered. Anyone making telemarketing calls on other than TCOS lines would have suffer immediate disconnection. After all, 900 service providers bear the costs of their operation including blocking, charge-backs, and other "safeguards" that have evolved. And when was the last time a 900 service woke you up in the early morning when you had been up all night working? It is only fair that a positive technical solution to the telemarketing problem be financed by those profiting from the enterprize. Telco's should be all for this idea because they can then inflate (by a factor of four or five as they have done in the 900/976 business) the costs of providing these special lines and make some extra profit. The people should all be in favor since they would now have the ability to positively block all junk calls. And who cares about the telemarketers? 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 #920 ******************************  ISSUE 921 WAS DELAYED IN MAILING AND APPEARS BETWEEN ISSUE 924 - 925.  Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03179; 13 Nov 91 3:34 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09014 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 13 Nov 1991 01:54:30 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07741 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 13 Nov 1991 01:54:19 -0600 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 01:54:19 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111130754.AA07741@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #922 TELECOM Digest Wed, 13 Nov 91 01:54:10 CST Volume 11 : Issue 922 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One on Everybody [Jack Decker] Results of Question About Credit Verification Protocols (Carol F. Lerche) Paging Scam (Neil Kruse) Two Cellular Questions (Tom Lowe) AT&T EasyLink Services New Rates (Dave Levenson) Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? (Dave Leibold) Re: Pacific Telesis' Radio Ad Attacks Congressman (Dan'l DanehyOakes) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 18:14:55 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One on Everybody If you happen to live in Michigan, pay close attention to this one. I got a message from a friend in Wisconsin asking me if I had heard about a new law in Michigan "where you can only make 300 calls a month on flat rate." He had read a message in alt.sys.amiga.uucp, where the writer had stated, "Now, Michigan Bell has paid off our state legislature and they passed a law where you can only make 300 calls a month on flat rate, so I only call out a few times a day to keep the calls down, or to get ready for this when it starts Jan 1 ..." I was pretty sure that he must be mistaken, or that the writer of the original message didn't know what he was talking about. After all, I try to keep pretty close tabs on what the Michigan Public Service Commission is up to, and the last time I had heard anything from them, they were not at all inclined to allow the phone company to begin offering mandatory measured service, even with a 300 call allowance (such allowances have a way of shrinking over the course of time). One reason they were not so inclined is that in a series of public hearings held throughout the state, the public had told the MPSC that they didn't want measured service. In fact, the MPSC just recently ordered Michigan telcos to begin providing a new optional calling plan where residence customers can pay $15 a month flat rate and get unlimited calling to all exchanges adjacent to your own (within in your LATA). Michigan Bell began offering the service on November 1, though I have yet to see any formal announcement of its availability (wonder why?...). :( (By the way, any Michigan telephone customer interested in this should inquire about the Adjacent Exchange Toll Calling Plan ... it will be available in almost all Michigan telephone exchanges by January or February of 1992, and limited time blocks of 30 minutes or two hours per month are also available for both residence and business customers). But just to be on the safe side, I sent a message to the person who posted the original message (Ronald Kushner ). And his reply dumbfounded me: [Quoted text begins] [Header and quote of my message to him deleted] Well Jack, to be honest, I am very interested in politics, and if I could explain everything about the intense lobbying by MBT, you would be shocked ... This year, the bill regulating Michigan Bell expires. A new bill was drafted, and basically everything Bell has tried to get the MPSC to pass in the last three years has been drafted into law. This bill passed Thursday, and section 303 states: (7) The local exchange rate for residential customers shall be one of the following at the option of the customer: (a) A flat rate allowing personal and domestic outgoing calls up to 300 calls per month. Calls in excess of 300 per month may be charged at an incremental rate as set by the provider. A person who has reached the age of 60 years of age or more shall not be charged a rate greater than the flat rate charged other residential customers for 300 calls. Except for customers or providers with less than 250,000 access lines, the rates for persons who have reached the age of 60 years or more, shall not be increased during the period from January 1st, 1991, to December 31st, 1995. (b) A rate determined by the time duration of service usage or the distance between the points of service origination and termination. (c) A rate determined by the number of times the service is used. (d) A rate that included one or more of the rates allowed by this subsection. I hope this clears it up for you. This bill will be law once [Governor John] Engler signs it. The only way the MPSC will get involved is if they feel the set rate per call is unfair, then they can suspend the rate and hold a hearing. Otherwise in ten days the rate takes effect. Ron [End of quoted text] Whatever else you may feel about measured service, I think the thing that is most galling (and unethical!) about this is the attempt to circumvent the normal regulatory process. Normally, telephone companies in Michigan are required to go to the Michigan Public Service Commission for approval of rate increases and changes in the way that service is billed. The request is then made public, with notice of the proposed changes published in newspapers throughout the state, and customers and the general public are given an opportunity to comment upon these proposed changes. However, in this case it appears that the process is being short- circuited. Instead of government in the sunshine, we have a fundamental change in the way telephone service is offered in Michigan being passed into law without ANY public notice or opportunity to comment. And I'm sure this is exactly what the telephone companies (Michigan Bell and/or GTE North in particular) had planned all along. Do I think it's dishonest? Very much so. But is it legal? Unfortunately, it probably is. Since today is Veteran's Day, and state offices are closed, I'm unable to find out any more about this end-run maneuver until at least tomorrow. What you see above is all I know about the subject. However, if you live in Michigan and think this is really sneaky, you might want to give the MPSC a call (at 1-800-292-9555) or better yet, call or write the Governor's office and ask him to consider a veto of this legislation (on the grounds that it attempts to circumvent the regulatory process, if you can't think of anything more colorful to say about it). Jack Decker : jack@myamiga.mixcom.com : FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ From: cafl@lindy.stanford.edu (Carol Farlow Lerche) Subject: Results of Question About Credit Verification Protocols Organization: DSG, Stanford University Date: 12 Nov 91 23:50:59 GMT Here are the replies I got from my question about credit verification protocols. Thanks to all who replied. -------------- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 91 07:45:57 GMT From: kfb@melb.bull.oz.au (Kevin Barrell) Subject: credit card authroization protocols Operating in the North American market, you will probably find that the Visa "Second Generation" protocol definitions will be of value. I have seen the following standards, which include the contact point as: Visa USA Frank Fojtik 3155 Clearview Way San Mateo CA94128 (415) 570-3337 External Interface specification (EIS1051-V1.0 9/24/90) Second Gen Authorization Terminal Link Level Protocol. EIS1052-V1.2 9/20/90 Second Gen Data Capture Terminal Link Level Protocol. EIS1080-V1.3 9/24/90 Second Gen. Authorization Record Format EIS1081-V1.2 9/24/90 Second Gen Data Capture Record Format Second Gen. Authorization Equipment Specifications V1.0 May,'88 Second Gen Data Capture Equipment Specifications V1.0 May,'87 Hope this is of some use. Kevin Barrell Bull Information Systems, Melbourne Australia kfb@melb.bull.oz.au Ph: +61 3 4200943 Fax: +61 3 4200958 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 16:51:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Pat_Barron@transarc.com Subject: Re: Credit Card Verification -- Need Protocol I don't have any real info for you, but I'd like to see the summary when you get the information. My (limited) understanding is that the data goes over a 300 baud Bell 103 modem. I don't know what the actual bytes look like. Thanks, Pat Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1991 20:44:56 CDT From: SEAN@SDG.DRA.COM (Sean Donelan) Subject: Credit Card Verification -- Need Protocol There are actually several protocols used between POS verifiers. Your associate should contact the particular company that will be doing the verification (eg. the bank, etc). They will be able to get you "their" protocol, as well as the "certification" needed before you will be allowed to use your implementation of the protocol to call their system. I think they "tweak" their protocols just to be obnoxious, because they turn out to all be very similar. I actually had one company tell me that federal banking law prevented them from agreeing to a standard protocol. This is based on my experience in tracking this information down about two years ago. If you find things have changed, I would be interested in hearing about it. Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100 Subject: Re: Credit Card Verification -- Need Protocol Date: 23 Oct 91 23:10:41 EDT (Wed) From: adobe!iecc.cambridge.ma.us!johnl@labrea.Stanford.EDU (John R. Levine) The little verification terminals that sit next to the cash registers use standard 300 baud modems (they're real cheap) and exchange ASCII messages. The exact format of the message seems to vary somewhat, but it's basically that the terminal calls up, gets a proceed message, sends a message with the merchant number, card number, expiration date, transaction amount, and a two-digit transaction type code, and the central system responds with the message that appears in the window, e.g. APPROVED: 123456. A few years back I wrote a program that interfaced to a PC database and emulated such a terminal in an afternoon. Worked great. For the exact formats, you need to ask your local credit card verification service bureau. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 91 12:03:00 -0800 From: KRUSE_NEIL@tandem.com Subject: Paging Scam I have just been alerted by our corporate communications dept that there is a new scam operating on the paging network. The announcement read as follows: We have been alerted by PacTel Paging Services in Northern California to a scam that is being perpetrated on the paging network. People are being paged to a 212 area code number which generates a $55 charge when the call is returned. If you receive a page to a 212 area code number that is unfamiliar to you, you may not want to return the call. Neil Kruse KRUSE_NEIL@tandem.com [Moderator's Note: Well here we go again! This is beginning to take on the proportions of an Urban Legend. *If* the guy in New York is silly enough to be calling California numbers (I doubt it) then he is wasting his time, since 212-540 is *only* charged that much money in the New York area. Calls from other states pay only the telephone company toll charge in effect, if they can get through at all. For example MCI intercepts it saying 'at the present time, MCI does not complete calls to 976 numbers' (yes, 540 is like 976 in NYC). And even if the guy is not too bright, you'd think PacTel would know what's going on. Still, I guess a generic warning saying 'know the people who page you' isn't a bad idea. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tlowe@attmail.com Date: Mon Nov 11 23:36:26 EST 1991 Subject: Two Cellular Questions I have two questions: 1. I have a Panasonic TP500 transportable. It has a relay in it that clicks on whenever the unit is transmitting. When the phone is just sitting there, it tends to transmit for about one oe two seconds every hour or so. What is it transmitting? Is the cellular switch polling it or is the phone taking it upon itself to transmit something? 2. Is there any advantage to using twin cellular antennas on a car? Remember during the CB craze this was the case. Also, does it matter if the antenna is in the back, middle, or side of a car? Thanks. Tom Lowe ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.WESTMARK.COM (Dave Levenson) Subject: AT&T EasyLink Services New Rates Date: 12 Nov 91 01:45:00 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA This letter was received on October 28, 1991, by the U.S. Mail: AT&T EasyLink Services 400 Interpace Parkway Parsippany, NJ 07054 November 1, 1991 To Our Valued Customer: Several important changes to the rate structure for the AT&T EasyLink Services product suite will take effect on December 1, 1991. These changes will provide clearly defined, value-oriented pricing. AT&T EasyLink Services will move its pricing for electronic mail services to a worldwide kilo-character structure. This change will provide value throughout the spectrum of message sizes. This strucure is especially effective in significantly reducing the cost of sending larger files while maintaining attractive rates for shorter messages. For example, a 200,000 character spreadsheet delivered via our service within the U.S. will cost $10.70, about the same price as an overnight delivery service. For our business customer, we will reduce the magnetic tape billing fee to $75.00 per month to make it easier for your business to monitor costs. Dedicated port access charges will be reduced to $500 and shared port charges will be eliminated. In response to the rapid expansion of the use of EDI in inter-company transactions, AT&T EasyLink Services will introduce a "per character" rating method for its EDI service. This method is one of the most innovative in the industry and allows trading partners to realize the benefits of the most accurate usage-sensitive pricing. The enclosed information sheet provides a summary of all of the price changes. If you have any questions, please contact your Account Representative or a Customer Service Representative on 1-800-242-6005. We value your business and are committed to serving your global messaging needs with quality service and the most economical rates possible. Sincerely, Steven A. Graham Marketing Vice President [excerpts from enclosure follow] AT&T Mail Rate Summary Effective December 1, 1991 Electronic Mail (Within U.S.) characters rate 1-1,000 $.50 1,001-2,000 .80 2,001-3,000 .95 Each add'l. 1,000 .05 ... Core Services service rate Magnetic Tape Billing $75.00 per month Dedicated Port Access 500.00 per month Shared Port Access Eliminated Monthly Usage Minimum $25.00 Monthly Service Fee $3.00 per user ID ... [end quotation] The monthly service fee of $3.00 per user apparently replaces the former annual service fee of $30.00. The $25.00 monthly usage minimum is the item which caused this firm to discontinue its subscription to this service. Our typical monthly usage was approximately $5.00. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 20:24:33 EST From: DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA Subject: Re: What Proof is There of Alleged AT&T Mail Rate Increase? I checked with AT&T Communications on the Canadian side of things today. Generally, the AT&T Mail as sold in Canada has rates that are similarly structured to the U.S. service, but translated to something near to Canadian funds (and the GST (Grab & Steal Tax) of 7% would likely be tossed in there as well for Canadian subscribers). The AT&T folks in Canada don't seem to be aware of any impending changes to the rate structure, but someone in the Toronto-area office said they'll check further ... could be that the Canadian customers may be hit with something of a surprise, if AT&T Easylink/Mail couldn't warn the Canadian subscribers ... My account was started up in the U.S. ... This might get scary here. dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ From: djdaneh@pbhyc.PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) Subject: Re: Pacific Telesis' Radio Ad Attacks Congressman Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 20:34:14 GMT John Higdon quoted the Pacific Telesis spot, which ended: > This advertisement is brought to you by the people of Pacific Telesis > and is not paid for by telephone customers. What this means, of course, is that it's being paid for by the salaries of the people they're laying off. :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( :*( ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #922 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03848; 13 Nov 91 4:06 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29530 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 13 Nov 1991 02:28:05 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01584 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 13 Nov 1991 02:27:53 -0600 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 02:27:53 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111130827.AA01584@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #923 TELECOM Digest Wed, 13 Nov 91 02:27:49 CST Volume 11 : Issue 923 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Reporting Customer-Provided Equipment (R. Kevin Oberman) Re: Reporting Customer-Provided Equipment (Fred E.J. Linton) Re: TAT-10 and TAT-11 (John R. Levine) Re: Security Failure: Recycled "Unlisted" Phone Number (Larry Appleman) Re: 5ESS Audio Quality (Marcus Leech) WAIS Server Needs Volunteer Beta-Testers (Jeff Wasilko) A Telephone Repair Question (Kevin C. Gross) T1 Services (Jeff Sicherman) AT&T AUDIX Hard Disks (Lawrence Roney) Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches (Ed Greenberg) Forced Number Changes (Ed Greenberg) Musical Chairs in the Long Distance Business (John R. Levine) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov Subject: Re: Reporting Customer-Provided Equipment Date: 11 Nov 91 18:22:43 GMT In article , ekman%wdl30@wdl1.wdl. loral.com (Donald Ekman) writes: > I once called up to report a modem I was putting on my line. That > would have been about 1979 when I got my first modem, a 110/300 baud > Hayes Micromodem II for my Apple II+ (actually, a Bell & Howell 'black > Apple' which I still have here). I think the telco rep snickered at me > also. PAT] I called the local LEC (Pac$Bell) when I purchased my first phone and was informed that the reporting of this was no longer required and that they were not interested in any way. They DID state that I should keep the information available in the event that there was trouble and repair service asked for the information. And they did when my line died about three years later. They ran tests and asked for REN information on all of my equipment. Once they confirmed that the values the test returned did not match my equipment, they sent out a repairman (with the stern warning that if the trouble was my phone, I'd be billed). The problem was water seepage into a large mass of crimped connections in front of my neighbor's house. The repairman simply chopped off the whole mess and re-crimped all of the wires, not just mine. So, at least in Pac$Bell land, don't bother registering, just keep the information handy. Since it's usually affixed to the equipment, this is not usually a problem. R. Kevin Oberman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Internet: oberman@icaen.llnl.gov (510) 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: 11-NOV-1991 22:47:48.93 From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Re: Reporting Customer-Provided Equipment In , ekman%wdl30@wdl1.wdl.loral.com (Donald Ekman) writes: > ... The rep seemed slightly amused. Same here. But every six months, when SNET breaks out the detail on my basic monthly charges, there are two line-items, each detailing Customer-provided equipment .................... $0.00 (for the answering machine and modem I reported, on separate occasions, long ago, I suppose; I think I too remember a tone of wonderment in the voices of the reps handling my reports; I wonder when SNET will come up with a way to change those $0.00 charges to something non-zero ). Fred E.J. Linton Wesleyan U. Math. Dept. 649 Sci. Tower Middletown, CT 06459 E-mail: ( or ) Tel.: + 1 203 776 2210 (home) or + 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: TAT-10 and TAT-11 Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 12 Nov 91 17:17:41 EST (Tue) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) In article is written: > Are [TAT-10 and TAT-11] running just one fiber each (or one in each > direction, or several in each direction), each running 560 Mbits/sec? I suspect they're one working fiber in each direction plus a bunch of spares. 560MB is well within the bandwidth capacity of a single fiber -- the limit is surely the in-line repeaters. I hear that there is also copper power wiring running at 1000 volts. > Are the TAT-6 and TAT-7 cables still running SSB FDM voice, or > are they driven by "high speed modems" at each end, making a digital > interface to the undersea coaxial cable. Probably digital, since they can get a lot more capacity that way. Considering that TAT-8 and TAT-9 are already in service and providing fiber quantities of bandwidth, I wouldn't count on -6 and -7 staying in service very long after TAT-10 and TAT-11 go into service. At this point, the main reason to hold onto -6 and -7 are backup in case a hurricane disables both -8 and -9 which terminate about 10 miles apart in New Jersey. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: larry@world.std.com (Larry Appleman) Subject: Re: Security Failure: Recycled "Unlisted" Phone Number Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 20:09:13 GMT In article sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com writes: > ....A quick check of the new 1991-1992 Nynex White Pages phone > book for my area found my "unlisted" number listed on page 164 under > another person's name! Another entry with the same last name, but > different first name, was located.... NYNEX seems to have trouble deleting some numbers from its White Pages. A friend of mine is listed in the Boston central directory at a 'phone number and address he hasn't had for 12 years. (His present number and address appear correctly in his suburban directory.) Each time a new Boston directory is published, we see that he's still listed incorrectly, and he calls customer service; they invariably say they'll remove the listing from the next directory. Larry Appleman P.O. Box 214, Cambridge B, Mass. 02140 ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 91 16:59:00 EST From: Marcus (M.D.) Leech Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality In article is written: > .... What really makes the problem tough is that > the act of breaking the connection frees that particular modem and > that particular trunk, making it all but impossible to truly recreate > the situation for testing. This reminds me of a telephone-network phasing problem my roomy and I "discovered" while listening to the CBC network on both the local station and one in Montreal (about 200Kms from here). CBC uses phone-lines to distribute the audio to its various stations. Every few seconds there was an annoying phase-inversion of the signal. I suspect that the phone-network was doing dynamic trunk facilities allocation for these circuits, and one of the analog-to-digital translation points in the trunk group had a Tip-Ring inversion. The phase-inversion only seemed to happen after silent periods. Given the apparently exact 180degree phase-shift and the relative proximity of the distant (Montreal) station, this *couldn't* have been phase-distortion due to skywave propagation of the Montreal station. Marcus Leech, 4Y11 Bell-Northern Research |opinions expressed mleech@bnr.ca P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C |are my own, and not ml@ve3mdl.ampr.org Ottawa, ON, CAN K1Y 4H7 |necessarily BNRs ------------------------------ From: jjwcmp@ultb.isc.rit.edu (Jeff Wasilko) Subject: WAIS Server Needs Volunteer Beta-Testers Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 0:39:07 EST Organization: RIT Communications, Rochester, NY As Pat mentioned a while ago, we are working on indexing the Telecom Digest archives with Thinking Machine's WAIS server. At this point, the archive server is not ready for general use (or abuse), but I am looking for a few people to help test the server. I don't have time now to write up any documentation, so you'd have to be willing to figure out most of it from the provided documentation. As such, you should be comfortable compiling UNIX applications. You also need to be on the Internet. You don't need to be root to install any of the client software, but you do need a telnet that allows you to spec port numbers. For a look at WAIS in action, telnet to quake.think.com and log in as wais. For a look at the X-windows interface to WAIS, telnet to snark.lcs.mit.edu and log in as wais. You will be prompted for your display name. If you are interested in helping with the test process, drop me a line. RIT VAX/VMS Systems: | Jeff Wasilko | RIT Ultrix Systems: | ITNET: jjwcmp@ritvax +----------------------+ INET:jjwcmp@ultb.isc.rit.edu| NTERNET: jjwcmp@ritvax.rit.edu |____UUCP:jjwcmp@ultb.UUCP____| ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 05:36 GMT From: "Kevin C. Gross" <0004056890@mcimail.com> Subject: A Telephone Repair Question Hi. A friend suggested that someone on this list might be able to answer this question. One of my AT&T Trimline phones has a dead ringer in it. Do you know the spec's of the little speaker-like ringer in the base station? Radio Shack sells a "piezo-electric buzzer" which quite resembles it, peak voltage 28 or so. Would this baby do? If not, can you suggest a source? Thanks in advance for your help. Kevin Gross kcgross@mcimail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 21:04:27 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: T1 Services Organization: Cal State Long Beach I would appreciate references to introductory information on T1 connections and services. Technical details not needed at this time, just a general description, cost calculations/justifications, equipment requirements, service limitations/restrictions and possible problems and pitfalls of going this route. Thanks for any help. Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ From: lawrence@netcon.smc.edu (Lawrence Roney) Subject: AT&T AUDIX Hard Disks Organization: Santa Monica College, Santa Monica, CA Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 21:31:52 GMT We have an AT&T AUDIX voice mail system. It stores all the voice and data on a 170Mb SCSI hard disk. The the disk that is currently in the system is a CDC 94161-155. The system will support two disk drives. It has the SCSI and power cables ready to go. The manual claims that the unit will work with the below listed drives. (either 170Mb or 380Mb) AT&T wants over $6000 for a 170Mb hard disk!!! Has anyone purchased one of the disks below, put it in an AUDIX, and made it work? CDC 94161-155 CDC 94171-376 Micropolis 1375 Micropolis 1570 NEC D5862 Maxtor XT-4380S Piram 738 HP 9753XSA Lawrence Roney - Network Systems Technician, Department of Telecommunications Santa Monica Community College District, Santa Monica, CA Internet: lawrence@netcon.smc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 09:54 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches jparkyn@kilroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (James Parkyn) writes about a fellow who whose CO was hard wired to offer touch tone to everybody, and the Telco trying to get him to sign up. The friend sayd they would disconnect him and he said "Go ahead and try!" The Moderator noted: > [Moderator's Note: Isn't this a little like saying that since every > home is equipped with water faucets, you are entitled to use the water > supply without paying ... and if they don't want you to use the water > they can simply come out and dig up the pipes where they connect to > your home or otherwise lock off the supply? Nope. Water companies go to the expense of installing shut off valves. One must take positive action, breaking seals, etc., to use water for which you haven't contracted. Patrick goes on to suggest that the telco rep (without company sanction) call back and threaten to extort the cost of touch tone by threatening to change his number. Further, Patrick suggests that he, as the telco rep, would be snide and arrogant. Now, First of all, I want to go on record as being grateful in the extreme for Patrick's moderation of TELECOM Digest, for his putting up with our various problems in areas of subscription and submission, etc. Lots of times I agree with Patrick's opinions and lots of times I disagree. On this one, I disagree. Patrick compares using available touch tone service to taking positive action to connect to a disconnected utility. The telco knew they were opening this can of worms, and chose to open it anyway. They probably began the operation planning to go back and "catch" everybody who used tone signalling ... gee, they could easily sign up some new subscribers that way. My parents have not paid for touch tone yet. When I visited them a few years back, I switched their phone to tone in order to access my voicemail, and forgot to switch it back. Gee, it worked. Telco stupidity? Too damn bad. Sounds like an attractive nuisance to me. You don't want it used? Don't leave it in my house. As to Patrick's suggestion that the telco extort the charge by threatening number changes on an individual basis, this is the typical underhanded dealing that most of us don't appreciate of telcos and other large corporations. Had the telco gone to the Public Service Commission (in whatever state), and proposed to make Touch Tone charges mandatory for subscribers in the XXX exchange, they would have been shot down. Had they proposed that subscribers who would not sign up would have to have their numbers changed, they would probably have been shot down again. Besides, as I read Patrick's Moderators Note, he suggests that he, as the service rep, would take such action, probably independent of company policy. Had there been a few PSC complaints, Patrick would not have lasted long as a service rep. Rather than the water company analogy, this really compares more to unordered merchandise. Consider a newspaper thrown on your doorstep when you don't take the paper. You don't have to pay for it. You also don't have to call the paper and tell them to stop sending it. Are you allowed to read it? I'd argue yes. They also have the right to stop delivering it. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 10:02 PST From: Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.com Subject: Forced Number Changes Despite what I wrote in the message before this , the telco DOES have the right to make number changes. Typically this is done on a mass basis, although I'm sure other people here can write of retaliatory number changes. I know of one mass number change. About fifteen years ago, a windowless brick building went up at the corner of Old Country Road and Grohmans Lane in Plainview, New York (11803). When it was almost complete, a large bell in a circle was hung on the wall. A new CO was born. (No, there were no tours. :-( ) Shortly afterwards, a friend of mine, along with most every other telco subscriber in an area north of Old Country Road and east of NY 135, got a notice that their telephone number would be changing and that they would be served by a new electronic office. Lo, the people rejoiced (almost) because the service from the three crossbar offices in the area was deteriorating rapidly. The number change was upsetting, but since it was a mass change, it was accepted reasonably well. The telco said that they would try to maintain suffixes where possible, but since people were being transferred into two exchanges from six, it would not be possible. My friends two numbers were changed as follows: XXX-6061 -> AAA-0661 YYY-6435 -> AAA-7435 So they got them almost right. The result was that the people transferred OUT of the existing exchanges got ESS telephone service (with custom calling features) and the capacity was opened up on the existing exchanges for other customers located closer to the old CO's. ------------------------------ Subject: Musical Chairs in the Long Distance Business Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 23:57:25 EST From: John R. Levine {Newsbytes} reports that Williams Telecommunications, which is a large but low-profile player in the private network business, is getting into retail long distance. After Telesphere died, their assets ended up with Ronald Hahn who used to be the chairman of NTS, an AOS that Telesphere tried to buy last year. Telesphere is buying Telesphere's customer accounts from him. WilTel has been seeing a lot of competition from the big three who are offering package deals with private networks or VPNs, MTS, and 800 all at one price (boy, that's a lot of acronyms.) WilTel needs the MTS and 800 from Telesphere to be able to provide competitive packages. Williams' parent is a big rich gas pipeline company so they can put a whole lot more capital into the business than Telesphere ever could. They seem to have no interest in the 900 business, fortunately. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #923 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04112; 13 Nov 91 4:22 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18599 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 13 Nov 1991 02:48:16 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18487 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 13 Nov 1991 02:48:03 -0600 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 02:48:03 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111130848.AA18487@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #924 TELECOM Digest Wed, 13 Nov 91 02:47:59 CST Volume 11 : Issue 924 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Future of Printed Books (John Higdon) Re: The Future of Printed Books (Glenn F. Leavell) Re: Telemarketing Prevented (David E. Bernholdt) Re: Telemarketing Prevented (Marcus Adams) Re: What Does MCI and MTI Stand For? (ACRONYMwise That is) (David G. Lewis) Re: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires (Alan L. Varney) Re: Connection Between Digital Phone and Answering Machine (Paul Cook) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 00:59 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: The Future of Printed Books On Nov 11 at 0:26, TELECOM Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: Not everyone here would agree with you, but I do. > For all that was wrong with the old Bell System, we still had the best > phone system in the world, bar none. That is now very questionable. > Yes, we have all kinds of new technological gimmicks on the phone we > did not have years ago, but the network itself has gone to hell in a > handbasket, and the old-time enthusiasm and dedication to quality of > service is mostly missing. PAT] Will you give us some examples if I go first and give some evidence to the contrary? Item: Even before the crossbar was cut to 5ESS, it seemed to be generally more reliable and better maintained than anytime before divestiture. Item: Trouble calls always result in a follow up from a switchman or plant trouble desk within hours and sometimes within minutes. The people actually talk cases and technical details. Problems are fixed FAST. And the customer is not treated as though he has no business knowing the inner workings of the phone company. Item: Priority repair (something that has come about since divestiture) is truly amazing. On SUNDAY, they will fix almost any problem within an hour. Item: New service orders and additions are handled in hours, not days and weeks. Item: Ten years ago, a call to San Francisco took a few seconds to complete and sounded as though you were talking through a barrel. Today, the call is completed instanteously and sounds as though it is in the same switch. In adjusted dollars, it also costs less. Item: Calls across the continent also complete quickly, reliably, and sound local. Item: In adjusted dollars, my local service costs me less than it did in 1967. Item: In actual dollars, my long distance bill is MUCH LESS than it was for the same usage in 1967. In adjusted dollars, we are not even in the same ball park. Item: All in all, my local service (16 residential lines) is completely reliable. There has been no trouble with switch or cable in years. Oops, I take that back. A few months ago, I had a noisy pair which I reported on a Saturday. Within a couple of hours a man showed up, confirmed the bad pair. He determined that spare pairs were not plentiful but spent the entire afternoon working on it. He found a pair that had been removed from service because of a fault, but that the problem was beyond my residence. So he cut off the problem section and moved my line over to the remaining section between my house and the CO. Now what was that about old-time enthusiasm and dedication to quality of service? BTW, a similar problem that happened in the seventies took more than a week to fix. The repair person quipped that it was hardly an emergency because after all I did have three other (at that time) lines. There you are. Now perhaps you could give some example of how it has all gone to hell in a handbasket. Give me now versus then any day of the week. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Glenn F. Leavell) Subject: Re: The Future of Printed Books Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 21:29:12 GMT In article , news@unix.cis.pitt.edu (USENET News System) writes: > In article <92466@brunix.UUCP>, cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) > writes: >> infrastructure had been pretty much dead in the water; the phone >> companies weren`t allowed to do it, because they would be competing >> unfairly with the cable companies; the cable companies weren't allowed >> to do it, for fear that they would compete unfairly with the phone >> companies. Sigh. Capitalism is such a wonderful thing :-) > I hope you're not implying that you think that THIS is > Capitalism. Capitalism would be a great thing. If the government, > bless its grasping and meddling little ways, would GET THE **** OUT OF > THE WAY. > When Ma Bell WAS a monopoly, I had better, cheaper service. I > now have worse service. Thank you, O mighty Government, for saving me > from something that was working just fine. Of course, it is debatable whether or not the phone system is better or worse now than it was before the breakup. But, you seem to be arguing two different points here. On the one hand you ask the government to stay out of things, but on the other you say that things were better when the government was interfering by allowing the Bell System to remain a monopoly. Though, I guess it is also debatable whether the Bell System would have remained a monopoly without ANY government intervention. Glenn F. Leavell Systems Administrator glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu 404-542-3488 University of Georgia Economics Department. 147 Brooks Hall. Athens, GA 30602 ------------------------------ From: bernhold%blue9@bikini.cis.ufl.edu (David E. Bernholdt) Subject: Re: Telemarketing Prevented Date: 12 Nov 91 18:06:26 GMT Organization: Quantum Theory Project, University of Florida In article hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: > How does the PUC deal with such complaints? > [Moderator's Note: The answer to that is very simple: They don't deal > with the complaints either; not at least until there are a large > number of them. Then they begin an inquiry. PAT] I just made a few phone calls to Tallahasse. In Florida, such complaints are handled not by the PSC (Public Service Commission) but by the Dept. of Consumer Services. They _say_ that if I file a complaint with them (which requires the name and address of the offending firm -- not always simple to obtain) it wil be followed up by contacting the offender and informing them of the relevant laws. Then if they don't desist, Consumer Services is "legally empowered" to prosecute them. Of course they won't guarantee that they'll take legal action ... Next time I get an automated telemarketing call (and every few months I do), I may see if they're true to their word. On the other hand, I'm not sure its worth the effort. David Bernholdt bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu Quantum Theory Project bernhold@ufpine.bitnet University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 904/392 6365 ------------------------------ From: madams@aludra.usc.edu (Marcus Adams) Subject: Re: Telemarketing Prevented Date: 12 Nov 91 20:00:30 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Being unfamiliar with the entirety of these laws, is it illegal to attempt to sell something with a phone call that begins with a recording, or is it *any* phone call that begins with a recording? I get at least one phone call a week that starts off "We have an important message for you. Please hold for a customer service agent." ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: What Does MCI and MTI Stand For? (ACRONYMwise That is) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 16:15:24 GMT In article hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: > Further, someone with such a right of way [note - referring to railroad] > could either lease it to a telecommunications company to string > fiber, or could put up its own point to point fiber, selling 150 Mbps > or so links on a point to point basis. I know of at least one company that does this, although the name currently escapes me and I can't recall the details of the ownership arrangements -- a subsidiary or corporation in which Amtrak holds an interest uses the Amtrak Northeast Corridor right-of-way (Boston to Washington) to provide fiber-optic service. > Those buying use of those links would typically be telcos. I > don't see the need for every long distance carrier to market directly > to the consumer. Market to the telephone companies. If the railroad > can provide a high speed link from here to there for less than anyone > else (including the telco, who also has to pay right of way or > microwave relay site fees, and, perhaps, someday, spectrum fees), the > telco should buy the use of the link from them. Actually, there are a lot of companies that do this, but the typical consumer has (for obvious reasons) never heard of them. Williams Telecommunications (WilTel) started this way, although they're beginning to market more private line services to business users; Cable & Wireless primarily operates this way in the US; LightNet was this kind of "carrier's carrier" (although something in the back of my mind tells me that LightNet no longer exists as its own company -- bought out/merged with Sprint, I think?) There are a host of others, some regional, some national. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 11:56:15 CST From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney) Subject: Re: Oldest 1ESS in USA Retires Organization: AT&T Network Systems In article cornutt@freedom.msfc. nasa.gov (David Cornutt) writes: > Thanks for an interesting article, Al. Now let me ask you a question > about cutover. I'm looking at a flyer from Tekelec ... they call > the Cutover Device. From the description of it, and my limited > knowledge, I take it that it's intended for cutting over toll > switches. > It appears to be a device with which two switches can be connected to > an SS7 net so that they appear to be one device. On command, > apparently it starts routing call setup requests to the new switch, > while still handling messages concerning existing traffic to/from the > switch which is being cut over. I assume that it keeps track of > remaining calls on the old switch and notifies the operator when all > traffic has been cut over. Is this an accurate summary? Am I correct > in the assumption that it is only for toll switches, or can it be used > for COs too? (And if so, how are the individual pairs cut over? Come > to think of it, when all the analog systems are gone, presumably there > won't be any pairs coming directly to the switch, just trunks. At > that point, will you even need a device like this any more?) From my limited understanding of Tekelec's SS7 device, it serves as a router of incoming Trunk Signaling (actually ISUP) SS7 messages, while perhaps intercepting inappropriate outgoing messages. It plays no role in the physical cut-over of trunks, and is not involved in lines at all. To understand the need for this device, one has to understand the routing of ISUP SS7 messages to individual switches. The SS7 packet protocol essentially identifies a trunk/circuit with a far-end Point Code (PC, 24 bits) and a Circuit Identification Code (CIC, 14 bits). Since the SS7 protocol was not designed with network re-arrangements in mind, only one node (switch) can be associated with a Point Code. So now the problem with cut-over is that either the new switch has to assume the PC of the old switch (Tekelec's box supports this) or one has to "flash cut" some trunks at every connecting switch to the different PC of the new switch. The first method is much easier at cut-over time. Before cut-over, one would like to move trunks in small groups to the new switch, test them, then move them back. With SS7, this is difficult if the switch is "assuming" the original Point Code because there is no easy way to connect the new switch to the SS7 network (with the new Point Code) and still allow most traffic through the old switch. The box (I'm guessing here) must connect into the signalling links coming into both the old and new switches, allowing both to have the same PC. All outgoing traffic from the new switch would be blocked. Then a small number of PC/CIC identifiers are marked "under test", the corresponding trunks are blocked from traffic, allowing the trunks to be moved and tested. In this mode, the box would "re-route" ISUP messages for specific trunks to/from the new switch. At cut-over, I don't see the box providing any traffic re-routing; it probably just sends everything to the new switch. (After all, at cut-over, all the trunks are typically reconnected to the new switch. There are few cases anymore where duplicate trunks are provisioned, allowing calls to terminate normally.) A similar mechanism is available from AT&T when the old switch is a 1A ESS(tm) switch and the new one is a 5ESS(reg) switch. No special hardware is involved, and coordination of test trunks is not as critical. There is even some interest in the Standards groups for a non-proprietary solution, but don't look for anything soon ... Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL; Above info. is my own opinion. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 18:32 GMT From: Proctor & Associates <0003991080@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Connection Between Digital Phone and Answering Machine tatsuya@hamblin.math.byu.edu writes: > Some time ago, someone was trying sell information on how to make an > interface to connect a regular answering machine to digital phone. > If someone could help me on that, I would appreciate it. It should > not be too hard to make it but I am not an EE. Not too hard? I assume that you are talking about connecting an answering machine or any other standard telephone device to a station port on an electronic key system. The problem is that there is no one standard for all these systems. They generally have an analog pair for the voice path, and another pair that carries digital information between the telephone instrument and the KSU (the central device that connects between the outside telephone lines and the telephones). This digital information includes things like hookswitch status, ringing, and even dialing. Every manufacturing has their own standard for the signalling over this digital pair. Our company used to manufacture a device called the 46225 Single Line Interface for Electronic Key. It turned one of these two pair KSU connections into a standard two wire RJ-11 jack with standard 48 vdc and 20 Hz ringing, but it was only programmable for the Tie EK612 and Modkey 16, and the Premier 1A3. It had to be programmed by the user for one of these three systems only, had a microprocessor, ring generator and 48 volt supply inside, and at $325 per line was not too popular. We used to get calls from folks who had installed one of these three key systems at some mansion, and now needed to add a cordless phone for the tennis court or the pool. We no longer manufacture this unit. Maybe some surplus dealer has one, but it is only good for those three key systems. There is another possible solution, if you are using Tie products. Some of the Tie key systems use the Tie SLU card or Single Line Card. You can connect the Proctor 46222 Long Loop Adaptor to the SLU to generate standard tip and ring voltage. The best solution is to contact the manufacturer of the key system, and find out what they recommend for connecting their system to voice mail. Voice mail/auto-attendant applications use the same standard two wire connection as an answering machine, and the manufacturer is used to answering this particular question, because of the increased popularity of these systems over the past few years. For many systems, the manufacturer has no solution. But this is changing, mostly because of voice mail requirements. Paul Cook 206-881-7000 Proctor & Associates MCI Mail 399-1080 15050 NE 36th St. fax: 206-885-3282 Redmond, WA 98052-5317 3991080@mcimail.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #924 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13397; 14 Nov 91 1:40 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20733 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 00:03:59 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02585 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 00:03:48 -0600 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 00:03:48 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111140603.AA02585@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: Issue 921 apparently lost, coming out again The next mailing you will receive from telecom is a retransmission of issue 921 ... it was in transit when all the troubles started here yesterday with the mailer. Enough people have said they did not recieve it that it seems apparent it fell in a black hole somewhere. Patrick Townson   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13565; 14 Nov 91 1:48 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18879 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 00:05:33 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00523 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 00:05:17 -0600 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 00:05:17 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111140605.AA00523@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #921 TELECOM Digest Tue, 12 Nov 91 21:58:28 CST Volume 11 : Issue 921 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson You Can Help Build the National Public Network (Gerard Van der Leun) San Francisco Examiner Telecom Editorial (Seth I. Robson) BIX and Genie Come to the Internet (J. Philip Miller) AT&T Long Distance Repair Service (Mike Olson) Personal 800 Service Plans (Greg Paris) Inquiry For Information on Telecommuting (Janet Dixon) Free USA Today Number Cancelled (Robert Virzi) Limited Bandwidth PBX? (Alan Gilbertson) Fiber Optic Component Drafting Standards (Jeff Brown) AT&T Billing SNAFU (Jack Dominey) AT&T Mail Minimum Charge (Toby Nixon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 21:24:58 -0500 From: van@eff.org (Gerard Van der Leun) Subject: You Can Help Build the National Public Network. Here's How. THE NATIONAL PUBLIC NETWORK BEGINS NOW. YOU CAN HELP BUILD IT. Telecommunications in the United States is at a crossroads. With the Regional Bell Operating Companies now free to provide content, the shape of the information networking is about to be irrevocably altered. But will that network be the open, accessible, affordable network that the American public needs? You can help decide this question. The Electronic Frontier Foundation recently presented a plan to Congress calling for the immediate deployment of a national network based on existing ISDN technology, accessible to anyone with a telephone connection, and priced like local voice service. We believe deployment of such a platform will spur the development of innovative new information services, and maximize freedom, competitiveness, and civil liberties throughout the nation. The EFF is testifying before Congress and the FCC; making presentations to public utility commisions from Massachusetts to California; and meeting with representatives from telephone companies, publishers, consumer advocates, and other stakeholders in the telecommunications policy debate. The EFF believes that participants on the Internet, as pioneers on the electronic frontier, need to have their voices heard at this critical moment. To automatically receive a description of the platform and details, send mail to archive-server@eff.org, with the following line: send documents open-platform-overview or send mail to eff@eff.org. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 23:09:04 -0800 From: srobson@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Seth I. Robson) Subject: San Francisco Examiner Telecom Editorial The {San Francisco Examiner} ran an editorial regarding a thread that has been discussed here for some time now, that of RBOCs attempting to sell their own information services. From the {San Francisco Examiner}; 10 November, 1991 [ begin quoted text. ] "Baby Bells' Big Brother act" [ nice title... ] Since the breakup of AT&T in 1984, the resultant nine regional Bell companies have been barred by the courts from entering certain businesses where their monopoly power over local telephone networks could be abused. Their efforts to shake off such restrains have been rewarded in recent months with judicial rulings allowing them to sell information services, such as news and electronic advertising. With their monopoly control over the phone lines by which such services are delivered, the Bells are being handed an enormous advantage over competitors in the information field who do not own telephone companies. Legislation pending in Congress would backtrack partly on that and curb the Bell companies' ability to purvey the content of phone lines as well their [sic] use as "common carriers." The bill, HR3515, should be passed to permit fair competition and protect the public from the consequences of monopoly power. This newspaper and others have a self-interest in the issue. We are among information-oriented businesses exploring possibilities in telecommunications. Newspapers also have an obvious stake in their share of the advertising dollar. But several other kinds of enterprises seek to offer competitive electronic information services, and all must use phone lines. The Bell companies should not be allowed monopolistic control of competitors' phone links -- including the conditions and timing of techno- logical innovations. Their privileged access to everyone's home and business gives them the sheer power to dominate the field. The phone companies are needed to provide local phone service, which guarantees them fair profits from captive customers. Their monopolies should not be allowed to gobble up competitors in other businesses. Members of Congress should stand up to the Bells' blatant pressuring and pass the Telecommunications Act of 1991. [ end quoted text. ] Anyone who wishes to reply directly to the {Examiner} should write to: Letters to the Editor San Francisco Examiner P.O. Box 7260 San Francisco, CA 94120 Their editorial department also has a fax number: +1 415 512-1264. Otherwise, flame away. :-) Seth I. Robson; srobson@ucscb.ucsc.edu imc@mcimail.com Immediate Media Company; Redwood City, CA. ------------------------------ From: phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) Subject: BIX and Genie Come to the Internet Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 8:50:05 CST In the November issue of {UnixWorld} in an article "E-mail Beyond UNIX" by Art Campbell, a sidebar indicates that both BIX and Genie will be connected to the Internet "by the end of the year." Given the number of prior postings on this topic, I am certain it will be welcomed by many users of these services and will provide yet another method of gaining Interent mail services for those without direct connections. Prodigy, of course, indicated that they have no intention of connecting. J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110 phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617 uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP (314)362-2693(FAX) C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet [Moderator's Note: Oh gosh, let's all get down on our knees and beg Prodigy to change their corporate mind and be one with us. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mao@postgres.Berkeley.EDU (Mike Olson) Subject: AT&T Long Distance Repair Service Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 09:09:14 PST I've been having trouble calling a number in Puerto Rico from Cali- fornia, so I called AT&T long distance repair (AT&T is my carrier). The woman I spoke to was courteous and I have no complaints about the service. I do have a question, though: why did they want my home address for the trouble report? The clerk told me she was "just filling in the blanks on the form." Since AT&T already knows who I am, I didn't get indignant about it. I'm curious, though. Any ideas? Mike Olson UC Berkeley ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 12:24:45 -0500 From: Greg Paris Subject: Personal 800 Service Plans Hopefully this hasn't been covered in the Digest recently (I don't have access to the archives), but I'm interested in finding out about what "personal" 800 number plans are available. I can call AT&T, MCI and Sprint to find out what they offer, but from reading the Digest it seems that some of you have your 800 service through other providers who I wouldn't know to call. If you've already done the "legwork" on this, any info you can share would be sincerely appreciated. The questions I'm most interested in answers to are whether I have to change my default LD carrier (AT&T now) on the line to get 800 service, what kind of discount I would get on outgoing LD calls, and of course, what the installation fee, monthly service fee, and rates on incoming calls are. Horror stories about service problems are welcome. Thanks. Greg Paris Motorola Codex, Software Environment Group, +1 617 821 7020 ------------------------------ Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Date: Tuesday, 12 Nov 1991 10:07:59 PST From: Janet Dixon Subject: Inquiry For Information on Telecommuting Needed for a doctoral dissertation: A student at Golden Gate University is doing a doctoral dissertation in Business on Telecommuting and would like information on what it takes to successfully supervise telecommuters. If you work in California, have supervised telecommuters for at least six months (and at least 1/4 of your staff work from home an average of one day or more per week, and would be willing to be interviewed for the study, please call doctoral student Lauren Speeth at (510) 675-3747 (work) or (510) 841-2140 (home). Results from the one hour interview, which includes a standardized psychological test, will be kept confidential. General study conclusions will be shared with all participants. ------------------------------ From: rv01@gte.com (Robert Virzi) Subject: Free USA Today Number Cancelled Date: 12 Nov 91 20:54:10 GMT Organization: GTE Laboratories Incorporated, Waltham MA As of today, the {USA Today} information service available by calling 800.555.5555 has been discontinued. Apparently that was some sort of reserved number, although I don't know who exactly it was reserved for. When I finally got through to the Information Systems Department, the man I spoke to was p*ssed. He actually didn't know that the number had been disabled when I called, and he began the conversation by telling me not to call the free number anymore, just the 900 number. When I told him that 800 access had been discontinued, he seemed audibly relieved. He affirmed that I had incurred no charges, and restated that I should use the 900 number in the future. He wouldn't give details, and declined to tell me what the new 800 number was. ;-] I'd sure like to hear about it if anyone stumbles across another gold mine like this one in the future. Bob Virzi rvirzi@gte.com [Moderator's Note: The man had good reason to be angry, since the 800 version was a programming error which slipped through the cracks at some point and took all this time to locate and purge. There was never to have been an 800 number to begin with from what I am told. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Alan.Gilbertson@f230.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Alan Gilbertson) Subject: Limited Bandwidth PBX? Date: Sun, 10 Nov 91 18:32:00 PDT Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/230 - CSFSO Telecomm, Clearwater FL It is not very real. I responded to this particular post in the comp.dcom.modems newsgroup, but perhaps some of it bears repeating here. Modern digital PBXes made by such manufacturers as AT&T (S75/85, G1.x, G2), NEC (2400 IMS), Hitachi (HCX series, DX series), Siemens, et al., use 64 kbps PCM internally. This is more than sufficient bandwidth and phase information for V.32bis connections to operate correctly. At one site I manage, I have a (digital) PBX that has no DS1 capability, so I send the output into analog line cards on a small AT&T S75XE. From there, the calls go out on T1 lines to either AT&T or MCI. A modem signal from the main PBX begins life as an analog signal output from the modem, is converted to digital form at the line card, travels through the PBX as a PCM-encoded digital signal, is converted to analog at a trunk card, is reconverted to PCM digital form by the S75 line circuit codec, and goes from there in digital form to the outside world. This tandem arrangemnt is clean enough that I have never seen a problem with any modems connecting through it. In fact, some comparisons of throughput definitely give it the edge over local central office connections on ordinary 1FB business lines. In general, I don't know of any digital PBX equipment designed or marketed in the last ten years or so that can't handle a V.32 or V.32bis modulation. This is NOT to say they don't exist, but I haven't come across any personally. Internet: Alan.Gilbertson@f230.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG UUCP: ...!uunet!ndcc!tct!psycho!230!Alan.Gilbertson Note:psycho is a free gateway between Usenet & Fidonet. For info write root. ------------------------------ From: edjcb@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Jeff Brown) Subject: Fiber Optic Component Drafting Standards Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center / Cleveland, Ohio Date: 12 Nov 1991 16:29 EDT Are there any established drafting standards for fiber optic systems? We're just starting to use fiber and would like to follow accepted practices if they exist. Thanks. Jeff Brown edjcb@scivax.lerc.nasa.gov ------------------------------ From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Tue Nov 12 09:08:24 EST 1991 Subject: AT&T Billing SNAFU Through issue #911, I've seen one or two references to the recent hoopla over AT&T billing for Reach Out plan charges after a customer switches to a different carrier. Since at least one person seemed to have misunderstood the situation, I'd like to take a stab at clarifying things. Everything that follows is my own understanding, based on AT&T intra-company news and clippings from general news sources. The situation: A customer subscribes to a Reach Out plan, with a monthly charge of say, $8 per month. Later the customer changes LD carriers. AT&T still bills the customer that $8, sometimes for many months. The misunderstanding: Some people seem to have the notion that AT&T has refused the customer's request to stop the billing plan. In fact, no direct request was ever made. If a customer calls AT&T and says, "Discontinue my Reach Out plan," then billing stops. The real problem: The customer's request to switch is either made directly to the local company, or through the other carrier. AT&T apparently gets notified of these switches, but has not treated them as requests to shut off Reach Out plans. A correction is apparently in the works. Jack Dominey, AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA (404) 496-6925 AT&T Mail: !dominey or !bsga05!jdominey ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: AT&T Mail Minimum Charge Date: 12 Nov 91 13:05:33 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA I called the 800-242-6005 number for information on AT&T Mail's new rate structure. They sent me a two-page letter (probably the same thing other folks have received), and, indeed, I can see the $25 "Monthly Usage Minimum" listed under "Core Services". There are about three dozen members of TIA TR-30 (the US modem standards committee) that have been using AT&T Mail to communicate amongst ourselves (few of the committee members have any other email service available). At $300 per year, that comes out to about $10,000 we'd be paying AT&T Mail. Kind of ridiculous when you understand that we only send, all together, about 5 messages per month to each other. At that rate, we could buy a very nice computer, some excellent BBS software, several phone lines, and set up our own private BBS -- we'd even get the modems for free. In fact, we could do all of this for under $1000, and even paying a couple of hundred dollars a month for phone lines, we'd end up saving a LOT of money. But why bother with all that trouble, when we can all get on CompuServe, which has a monthly minimum of just $2? Methinks AT&T Mail has shot their feet full of holes with this, as far as individual users are concerned. Please assume their is a "cancellation pending" next to my AT&T Mail address below. 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 [Moderator's Note: Or alternatively, start a mailing list here on the Internet with a common address for everyone to write to which will then send the mail around to everyone. Thus far everyone I've talked to is dropping out of AT&T Mail over the next month or two, and that includes myself. I'm sorry to leave them, but $25 per month is not very nice when my usual bill is $3-4 per month. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #921 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15348; 14 Nov 91 2:48 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05120 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 01:04:19 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11299 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 01:04:05 -0600 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 01:04:05 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111140704.AA11299@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #925 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Nov 91 01:04:00 CST Volume 11 : Issue 925 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Last Week at the FCC 10/28 - 11/1 (Karl.N6BVU@p0.f39.n382.z1.fidonet.org) AT&T Definity Plays Dial Tone While Forwarding (Andrew Klossner) Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone (Ken Sprouse) 5ESS and Music on Hold (Philip Reese) Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Bill Gripp) Call Waiting on the 5ESS (John Higdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karl.N6BVU@p0.f39.n382.z1.FidoNet.Org (Karl N6BVU) Date: 13 Nov 91 11:05:21 Subject: Last Week at the FCC 10/28 - 11/1 The following were part of the actions taken by the Federal Communications Commission during the week of 10/28 - 11/1, 1991. ON OCTOBER 28th.... The FCC issued a Public Notice giving Results of Sample Testing of 49 MHz Walkie-Talkies; Contact Hugh L. Van Tuyl at (301)725-1585, extension 221. The FCC issued a Public Notice listing 13 Petitions for Rulemaking Filed; some of them are as follows: RM# Rule Sect. Petitioner Nature of Petition 7837 90.173 Assoc for Private Request Amendment of the FCC's Paging Section of Rules & Regulations Concerning NABER Shared Use of Paging Freq's. 7838 80 U.S.C.G. Maritime Request Amendment of the FCC's Radio & Spectrum Rules to Phase out the Management Div. Authorization for Class C EPIRBs 7839 94.17(a)(1) Motorola, Inc. Request Amendment of the FCC's Rules to allow Federal Access to Low Power 18 GHz Pvt Systems 7849 97.113(d)(e)Michael Reynolds Request Amendment of the FCC's W0KIE Rules Governing the Amateur 3826 S 92 E Place Radio Service & Prohibited Tulsa, OK 74145 Transmissions. The FCC issued a two page TEXT on FM Booster Stations. The Commission has amended its rules governing operation of FM booster stations by codifying the limitations imposed on FM booster stations by existing international agreements. The Commission also defined the standards to which FM booster stations must conform to prevent increased interference to stations that are 53 or 54 channels removed from the booster station. By Order (FCC 91-317) adopted October 8. The FCC issued a 200 page TEXT on AM Broadcast Services. The FCC has concluded an important phase of its long-term program designed to transform and revitalize the AM broadcast service. Numerous revisions and adjustments, both major and minor, to the existing AM rules and policies have been adopted. MM Docket 87-267 by R&O (FCC 91-303) adopted September 26. The FCC issued a five page TEXT on Personal Communications Services. Adopted Policy Statement that provides preliminary guidance for the development of PCS in the United States; scheduled En Banc hearing for December five on the development of PCS. General Docket 90-314 by Policy Statement and Order (FCC 91-338) adopted October 24. ON OCTOBER 28th.... The FCC issued a 54 page TEXT on Wireless Cable and ITFS Rules. In response to several petitions for reconsideration of the FCC's Report and Order (of October 26, 1990) which facilitated the provision of "wireless cable" service to the public, the FCC has modified and clarified some of that report's provisions. General Dockets 90-54 and 80-113 by Order on Reconsideration (FCC 91-301) adopted September 26. ON OCTOBER 29th.... The FCC issued a one page TEXT on In-Flight Phone Vs. GTE Airfone. Granted motion by In-Flight and terminated proceeding concerning In-Flight's complaint against GTE alleging that GTE violated its experimental radio license for air-to-ground service by offering a Business Calling Card Program to airline passengers. By Order, (DA 91-1324) adopted October 21. ON OCTOBER 31st.... The FCC issued a News Release about a Pirate Radio Broadcast Station Closed Down in Colorado. Contact: Joe Di Scipio or Bob Weller at (303) 969-6497. The FCC issued a three page TEXT on Low-Power Mobile. Proposed amending Part 90 to increase the number of frequencies in the 72-76 MHz band for low-power mobile use. PR Docket 91-295 by NPRM (FCC 91-315) adopted October 3. The FCC issued a Public Notice that the 1992 Maximum Reimbursement Fee for an Amateur Operator License Examination ($5.44) **See separate posting***. ON NOVEMBER 1st.... The FCC issued a News Release, Ordering Dismantlement of a Radio Tower Located in Manchester, Tennessee. Ordered David Stiles, owner of a radio tower located in Manchester, TN., to dismantle the tower because it constitutes a hazard to air navigation as determined by the FAA. Action by the FCC by Order (FCC 91-343) on October 28. For information, contact: Wayne T. McKee at (202) 632-7059. * Origin: The Master's BBS Garden Grove, CA. 1:103/102 (1:103/102) via "MDF" Central Texas Gateway - f39.n382.z1.fidonet.org mdf.fidonet.org ------------------------------ From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) Subject: AT&T Definity Plays Dial Tone While Forwarding Date: 13 Nov 91 22:34:46 GMT Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon My employer just installed an "AT&T Definity G2" phone system. When I leave my desk, I instruct it to forward my calls to my cellular number. But when the system does this, it plays half a second of dial tone to the calling party, which as often as not misleads them into thinking the call has dropped and they hang up. I've complained to the corporate authorities, who don't seem to know much about the system but they promise to look into it. Is this an immutable characteristic of this system? -=- Andrew Klossner (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com) (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew) ------------------------------ Subject: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone Date: 13 Nov 91 13:16:50 EDT (Wed) From: sprouse@n3igw.pgh.pa.us (Ken Sprouse) In article kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes: > So, a telemarketer who calls ten people who are not interested is > equivalent to ten calls to one person who is not interested? > [Moderator's Note: Nope, not true at all, because a telemarketer does > have a legitimate business reason for calling. The fact that you or I > or anyone else is not interested does not remove the legitimacy of the > call in the first place. The difference between them and phreaks who > war-dial an entire community is the phreak had no business calling the > number in the first place ... the telemarketer did. PAT] ---stuff deleted--- >> The main advantage to me is that while both, in accordance with >> Murphy's law, call while I'm in the shower, the phreak doesn't take up >> my time with a sales pitch. >>> [Moderator's Note: The phreak intends to steal something from you if >>> possible; ie your computing and telecom resources. The telemarketer >>> wishes to sell you something if possible. There is legally and >>> otherwise a difference between selling you something and stealing from >>> you. PAT] Pat, I have a real problem with the idea that the intent of the caller makes it all right for him/her/it to call and ring my phone when they please. Consider the following. There are a large number of open bulletin boards in my area. Many of them maintain a list of other boards in town. Often times these lists are out of date or have inaccurate information in them. I decide that I will create and maintain an up to date list for my own use and if there is a demand I may even offer this information for a small fee on a subscription basis. Now to do this once a month I turn lose my modem with a "war games" style program to call every number in an exchange and check for ones that have modem tone. I even write some code to record the responses of the ones that do and from that list verify the systems that are open to the public and invite unsolicited callers. Taking it one step further I track all of the numbers that are modems but are closed systems and I exclude them from my monthly dialing expedition. I don't do this for voice numbers (even if I can determine that a human answered) because tomorrow that person may decide to put a bbs on line, or they may move and give up the number which gets reassigned to a bbs. Now if a person doesn't want to be bothered with these calls all they have to do is give me a call and I'll be glad to add them to the dialer's exception list. And should my program become popular and I sell it to some other folks I'll form a BBS Search Association where people who don't want to be bothered with these calls can register there name on a list that is distributed to others in my business. I won't even charge them for this service :-). Now I think this is every bit as legitimate a business reason for me to be ringing people's phones as an automated telemarketer. What a load of horse manure! No one should be allowed to dial numbers at random for the purpose of soliciting or selling period! And I don't care if its a human or a machine doing the dialing. If these people want to be in the business of soliciting/selling by way of the telephone let them find a way to build a database of phone numbers of people who have said that they don't mind being called on a random basis for the purpose of hearing a sales pitch. No I don't know how they could go about building this database but that is their problem. On second thought, how about this as one possible alternative -- All of the magazines I subscribe to make their mailing lists available to companies for mass mailings of advertising literature. All I have to do is drop them a note and they take my name off the list. When I subscribe to telephone service the rep says "We make our subscribers list available to mass marketing companies who offer products and or services you may be interested in by phone. May we include your name and number on this list?" The local phone company then sells its list of people who say "yes" to the telemarketing crowd. Yes I know this is a far from perfect plan ripe with problems of its own but I would prefer it 100% to what we have now. Sorry to be so long winded on this but these unsolicited phone calls really set me off. By the way did anyone see ABC's Night Line program on Monday (11/11) night talking about pending congressional action to limit automated telemarketing? I had no idea how cheaply one could get into the business. (A machine demo'd on the show was < $2000.) Ken Sprouse / N3IGW sprouse@n3igw.pgh.pa.us GEnie mail ksprouse Compu$erve 70145,426 [Moderator's Note: Well, unsolicited calls from people looking for modems on the line set me off. At least the telemarketers are trying to earn a living selling things on the phone ... I'm the first to agree I don't like sales calls, but I tell them 'no' and hang up the phone. What, precisely, is the big deal? PAT] ------------------------------ From: preese@skat.usc.edu (Philip Reese) Subject: 5ESS and Music on Hold Date: 14 Nov 91 05:33:45 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA I've been following the discussion of 5ESS noise or no noise. Here at USC the new 5ESS is very quiet. It is so quiet it is hard to tell if a connection has been made or not. More than once I've surprised someone when I've come back from being on hold and started talking to them. We have a problem however. Our new VMX voice mail system would be a lot more friendly if we had music on hold. While the VMX is doing its thing the caller only hears dead silence. The system tells the user that they should wait during the silence but waiting time seems to be magnified because of the silence. The switch is not owned by AT&T but by the campus proper. There are interesting stories about that but lets leave that for another time. My question to this group is how to get music on hold. The local telcom folks tell us in vague terms that there are a lot of technical issues involved and financial issues as well. Can anyone help me understand why the state of the art switch would have this type of problem? Is it something simple like the whole campus would have to listen to the same music or is it something more techincal. Thanks for any help or ideas, Phil Reese University Computing Services University of Southern California 213-740-2836 preese@usc.edu ------------------------------ From: billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) Subject: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? Organization: The Bank of New York Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 15:21:02 GMT Speaking of causing trouble for these jerks, is there any way to generate the message you get when you call an out of service phone number for a specific number (one that YOU can specify or call from)? I think it might make an effective "filter" for telemarketers if my answering machine responded with the recording ... The number you have reached 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 is not in service. No furthur information is available on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Of course it would have to sound right to be effective, hence my inquiry. Is there a way to get Bell to "give" me this message, short of calling a new number before it is connected and recording the message? Those in the "know" would know to wait for the beep and leave a message. Those darned telemarketers would no doubt hangup as soon as they heard that the number "ain't alive". =8^) Heh, heh, heh. [Moderator's Note: I cannot believe the incredible amount of effort some people will go to just to avoid a call from a telemarketer. What is wrong with answering the phone, listening to the first few words from the caller, saying 'no thank you' and hanging up? Oh, I see, you are such a busy person, such a dillitante, so important and full of yourself that you'd rather go through all these layers of subtrefuge inconveniencing all your legitimate callers just so itzy-poo you doesn't have to lower himself to answer the phone and hear something you don't want to listen to. To answer your question -- no, telco will not 'give' you their recordings, and will strongly discourage you from answering your phone with a misleading message about its connection status. If you feel you must screen all calls, then use an answering machine with a regular message and keep the volume so you can hear it and pick up the phone when you want to talk. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 00:11 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Call Waiting on the 5ESS I have just been informed by someone deep in Pac*Bell that there IS a situation where the 5ESS will allow Call Waiting to a person who is the center of a three-way call in progress. The telephone in question must have the feature, "Call Hold" enabled. This is part of Centrex-type services (Commstar, Starline, etc.). If your Call Waiting is operated by hookflashing and then pressing *9, you will be able to still receive calls while conducting a three-way call. There are some ramifications here. The person who told me about this was very annoyed that AT&T could not seem to keep its own standards with the design of the 5ESS. The 1/1AESS switches (the ones that set the Custom Calling standards) allow CW on 3W in all cases, not just on those telephones equipped with Call Hold. The Pac*Bell person indicated that up to now, most of the 5ESS cut have been from featureless crossbar and that the people "were happy to get anything". Now, some of the 1/1AESS switches are being retired and the customers are going to be more than a little annoyed to find that features do not work the same way, if at all. People who have been served by a 1ESS for twenty years will not be very impressed with the discovery that things have changed for the worse. The Pac*Bell contact indicated that he was going to be very active in calling for AT&T to get its act together and honor its defacto standards of the past decades. 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 #925 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18371; 14 Nov 91 4:33 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00978 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 02:51:08 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16244 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 02:50:57 -0600 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 02:50:57 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111140850.AA16244@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #926 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Nov 91 02:38:06 CST Volume 11 : Issue 926 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Two Cellular Questions (Ron Dippold) Re: Two Cellular Questions (Marc T. Kaufman) Re: Two Cellular Questions (R. Patrick MacKinnon) Re: Customer Slammed, But Rips Off Sprint For $125 (Phil Ritzenthaler) Re: Phone Gateways? (Harold Hallikainen) Re: Must New Second Line Use Same Class of Service as First (H Hallikainen) Re: Toll Restricted Local Service (Mark R. Jenkins) Re: Toll Restricted Local Service (Dan Hepner) Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences (Carl Moore) Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences (Scott Coleman) Old Area Code Splits (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) Subject: Re: Two Cellular Questions Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 23:30:37 GMT tlowe@attmail.com writes: > I have two questions: > 1. I have a Panasonic TP500 transportable. It has a relay in it that > clicks on whenever the unit is transmitting. When the phone is just > sitting there, it tends to transmit for about one oe two seconds every > hour or so. What is it transmitting? Is the cellular switch polling > it or is the phone taking it upon itself to transmit something? It could be a couple things ... besides answers to page (call) requests there are many quite a few different ways that the cell can get the mobile to respond. When the phone turns on or moves to a new cell it recieves overhead information on a control channel. It sits there on the control channel and looks for anything that it needs to respond to (including an incoming call). Some of the overhead messages that could cause transmissions are registration requests or rescan messages. Since rescan isn't that likely (this puts you back to initialization) unless something is up with your phone, most likely what is happening is that the cell every now and then decides to see who is still out there. "Hello?" And your mobile sez "Here I am!" There are at least four different possible registrations, so it's hard to say exactly what any system is doing. In addition, a cellular system may implement custom operation using the local control messages. If your phone is programmed by them it may respond to custom commands in any way they want. ------------------------------ From: kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) Subject: Re: Two Cellular Questions Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA Date: 13 Nov 91 16:19:55 GMT There is a disadvantage to using twin cellular antennas, if you could even find someone who would install them. The purpose of twin CB antennas was to concentrate the antenna pattern fore and aft along the road, to the detriment of signal strength to the sides. For maximum effect, this required that the antennas be mounted approximately 1/4 wavelength apart, which is 7.5 feet -- thus making it useful for trucks on long straight superhighways, but not for cars in town. Cellular sites are most often to the sides of roads or up on mountains or buildings. It would be of no advantage to direct the signal energy along the road. In any event, you probably couldn't mount two antennas accurately enough, since the cellular wavelength is of the order of 1 foot, and a directional array would place the antennas 3" apart (or an odd multiple of 3"). Placing the antenna in the center of the roof will give the most uniform (in azimuth) coverage. Center of the trunk is next best. On a fender is last on my list, because of the non-uniform ground plane under the antenna. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ From: rpmackin@student.business.uwo.ca (R. Patrick MacKinnon) Subject: Re: Two Cellular Questions Date: 13 Nov 91 19:05:03 GMT Organization: University of Western Ontario I also have a Panasonic EB-500 (or 2500 as it is the same beast). It is normal for it to xmit by itself occasionally. It is normal for a cell to interrogate a phone occasionally for whatever purposes. As far as putting two cellular antennas in phase, the law limits the amount of gain you can have on your antenna (mobile that is..) and secondly, Do you really want to put two cell antennae on your vehicle? I hope this puts you mind at ease re: the phone xmitting without reason. rpmackin@student.business.uwo.ca (R. Patrick MacKinnon) The Western Business School BBS -- London, Ontario ------------------------------ From: phil@stupid.cgrg.ohio-state.EDU (Phil Ritzenthaler) Subject: Re: Customer Slammed, But Rips Off Sprint For $125 in Calls Reply-To: phil@cgrg.ohio-state.edu Organization: Advanced Computing Center for Arts & Design References: Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 15:06:59 GMT In article , hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon) writes: > But US Sprint insisted he had switched service. > Eventually, Sprint sent Mr. Estep a copy of the form authorizing > the switch to Sprint. He said the handwriting was neither his nor his > wife's -- and refused to pay any of the bill. Sprint sent the bill to > a collection agency. > She called Mr. Estep's experience "isolated and unusual" > because Sprint's "strict policies" require authorized signatures and > the customer's request before establishing service. Excuse my language, but BS!! This is NOT an isolated incident. OK, here's my story: I received a phone call from Sprint's collection operators wondering why I haven't paid my bill ... since I had had ATT (with Reach Out America), I replied what bill? To make a long story short, some jerk had gotten a Sprint Fon Card and used my phone number and had racked up an "interesting" bill. After several calls to Sprint's investigative unit in Kansas (No, I am not him, no that isn't my address) Sprint was kind enough to send me a check to reimburse me for the changeover and looking over the bill, I paid my fair share for calls I made ... This was nine months ago ... since then I have received at least one call every two months from Sprint asking for this jerk and requesting I pay the bill!! This is frustrating and I'm REALLY PISSED OFF!! I have asked SEVERAL TIMES to have ALL TRACES of my phone number removed from his account, but I still get these damn phone calls!! What do I have to do, change my phone number?? If I do that, can Sprint trace the change ... even if it's unlisted? Phil Ritzenthaler The Advanced Computing Center for the Arts & Design (ACCAD) Systems Manager The Ohio State University UUCP: ...!{pyramid,killer}!grumpy.cgrg.ohio-state.edu!phil (614) 292-3416 ARPA: phil@grumpy.cgrg.ohio-state.edu [Moderator's Note: Yes they can get your number even if it is non-pub. The rules are local telcos must exchange name and address information with long distance carriers for billing purposes, regardless of whether the number is otherwise published or not. Sprint got a check for $10,000 from our firm and misapplied it. The back of the check was totally illegible with bank/Sprint stamps, and their microfilm was apparently illegible or filmed out of order also. So Sprint's solution was that *I* should pay again since none of them had the nerve to go to the controller or chief financial officer to get approval for a write off of that size. After six months of this, Sprint decided to place me with an agency ... I called their attorney and he got them to pull the account back from the agency and close it with a letter to me saying our account was in good standing. Never be afraid to tell an attorney what you want done and why. Most of them (but not all by any means) have better sense than their clients. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 11:50:54 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Phone Gateways? Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo > What's the hardware like on the back end of a phone "Gateway"? If I > were a service provider, I'd ideally like something like an Ethernet > connection that would support multiple logins, but the local US > Westers weren't able to give me details. They referred me to a guy in > Omaha (where the US West gateway trial was held), but I haven't gotten > ahold of him yet. This reminds me of the X.PC protocol supported by Xtalk Mk 4. It allows you to use one modem and phone line to simultaneously talk to 15 computers thru Tymnet using multiple sessions under Xtalk. Seems real nice! I haven't been able to get any information on the data format. Publisher of Xtalk won't release it. I'd like to use their packet format so our equipment could talk to multiple Xtalk sessions over one data circuit. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 11:54:53 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Must New Second Line Use Same Class of Service as First? Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo > Anticipating the need, eventually, for a second phone line to my > abode, I queried my local BOC (SNET Co.) as to whether I could get > "lifeline" measured service on a new line while retaining unlimited > service on the old. > Nope, I was told -- new line must have same class of service as old. Seems like they may have a legitimate concern on mixing some types of service. If you can afford two lines, they probably think you don't need a "lifeline". It is intended to provide the minimal service to those who cannot afford more. Harold ------------------------------ From: MARCUS@CPVA.SAIC.COM (Mark R. Jenkins 619.458.2794) Subject: Re: Toll Restricted Local Service Date: 13 Nov 91 09:09:45 PST Organization: Science Applications Int'l Corp./San Diego In article , aeg0933@ultb.isc.rit.edu (A.E. Guadagno) writes: > Is it legal for a telephone service provider to refuse access to the > LATA if one does not wish to have long distance service? [Moderator responded these lines existed for security reasons but did not ever save any money.] Ha. I asked South Central Bell about not having long distance service when I lived in Tenessee, about three years ago. I didn't want long distance service on my modem line which I only used to call into work, locally. I didn't want to pay the "Access Fee" for something I wasn't going to be using. I figured if I didn't have access, I wouldn't have to pay the "Access Fee". I was right. However, I was politely told that I would have to pay a "Blocking Fee" to block the long distance. It was about the same as the "Access Fee". Mark Jenkins Science Applications International Corporation San Diego, CA USA (619) 458-2794 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 13:40:54 pst From: Dan Hepner Subject: Re: Toll Restricted Local Service > [Moderator's Note: You did not say what telco was involved, but any > Bell company with an ESS switch can provide her with a local line on > which all toll service (including via the operator) is denied. A relative with a chronic telephone bill payment problem has a "no toll service" line which is about as restrictive as one can imagine. It's a US West phone. The phone cannot be used to make any toll call, regardless of the proposed method of payment (_I_ couldn't call out either with a valid telephone credit card, to charge to my home number, or to call collect.) Why this makes sense, other than perhaps as punishment for an outstanding bill is beyond me. It even seemed confusing to the various operators (local and AT&T); they tried to put the call through, but some switch somewhere always bounced it, with some irrelevant sounding error message. Suggestions as to how one might get around such restrictions (by someone who pays for calls) are welcome. Dan Hepner [Moderator's Note: It makes sense if there are times when the phone is left unattended and someone unauthorized could make a toll call either by dialing direct or by passing phraud billing information to the operator. There are no ways around this restriction because the subscriber does not want to have calls of that sort made from the phone they own and are paying the bill for. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 10:28:15 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences Several years ago, the area which includes my office was shifted to a new number series 301-278-6xxx , and then got a lot of wrong numbers of this form: intended -- extension 6abc actually gotten -- extension 66ab (The area code is now being changed from 301 to 410.) ------------------------------ From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (Scott Coleman) Subject: Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 18:26:26 GMT In article fenton@esd.ESD.WJ.COM (Jim Fenton) writes: > Several years ago, when I had a phone number with a repeat digit in it > (-5885), I used to get a great many wrong numbers. > Have others noticed this behavior? YOU BET!! My phone number has not one but TWO repeated digits. This appears to square the number of possible ways that people can misdial phone numbers. I've received all sorts of wrong-number calls, including some for the local cable company! It brings to mind the old AT&T ad jingle about "second class phones." There appear to be a great many second class phones out there ... Earlier this week, I got a message on my answering machine from a nearby Allstate office. The lady said she was returning my call (which I never made). I shrugged it off as just another wrong number. Yesterday, I got another message from the same Allstate office, trying again to return my call! I'll say one thing for the switchbounce in the phones at that Allstate office: their bounces are certainly consistent! ;-) I haven't considered changing my phone number since the cost to do so exceeds the "cost" of a few wrong number calls. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 11:29:35 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Old Area Code Splits Early splits for which no date appears may not have been announced publicly due to lack of direct-dial facility at the time, and can only be guessed at with the following guidelines: If an areacode is of form N1X, it is in a state or province with more than one areacode. (The reverse, if it was ever true, is now obsolete.) If an areacode is in a state or province with only one areacode, it is of form N0X. (The reverse, if it was ever true, is now obsolete.) For the last two splits in the list below, there was a note in the TELECOM Digest. For the others, I have no documentation and can only rely on the notes above. what?/209 California what?/707 California what?/805 California 305/813 Florida 404/912 Georgia what?/309 Illinois 502/606 Kentucky 504/318 Louisiana what?/906 Michigan 612/507 Minnesota 402/308 Nebraska what?/607 New York 704/919 North Carolina 405/918 Oklahoma what?/806 Texas 206/509 Washington what?/705 Ontario what?/807 Ontario what?/608 Wisconsin 901/615 Teennessee 201/609 New Jersey, late 1950s 415/408 California, 1960 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #926 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01747; 14 Nov 91 12:41 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05025 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 10:32:27 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06822 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 10:32:09 -0600 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 10:32:09 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111141632.AA06822@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #927 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Nov 91 10:32:03 CST Volume 11 : Issue 927 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Call Waiting on the 5ESS (Tim Gorman) Cellular Phone as Traveler's Only Phone Service (Robert Swenson) How Does Call Waiting Work? (Ernst Kloecker) Re: Unreasonable New Line Install Requirements (Steve Forrette) Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU (John Higdon) Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrances (Dave Niebuhr) Re: The Future of Printed Books (Dave Niebuhr) Yes, You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Yanek Martinson) Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Gordon D. Woods) Re: Cellular Antennas (Eric Florack) Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone (David G. Lewis) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Nov 91 09:55:24 EST From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Call Waiting on the 5ESS john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes in TELECOM Digest V11 #925: > The person who told me about this was very annoyed that AT&T could not > seem to keep its own standards with the design of the 5ESS. ...... According to my 1982 copy of the LSSGR, in document FSD 01-02-1201, APPENDIX, Section 1.5 THREE-WAY CALLING: Is Three-way Calling allowed with Call Waiting? YES Do they interact? YES English description of dynamic interaction: A. The use of Three-way Calling should not restrict the Call Waiting capabilities. All parties may receive Call Waiting calls in either a talking or held state. B. If the controlling party of a three-way call receives a Call Waiting call, a flash by the controlling party should place the two noncontrolling parties on hold and answer the Call Waiting call. The controlling party should then be able to alternate between the Call Waiting call and three-way call by successive flashes of the switchhook. So, the 5ESS violates AT&T's own standards, but the 1982 LSSGR standards also. (Admittedly, my copy is very old. Maybe someone with a newer copy can check to see if this still applies.) Tim Gorman - SWBT * opinions are my own, any resemblence to official policy is coincidence* ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 15:05:45 PST From: Robert_Swenson.OSBU_North@xerox.com Subject: Cellular Phone as Traveler's Only Phone Service I will be retiring soon and traveling around the US in our trailer. One problem is telephone service. The average trailer park telephone is out in the cold with a long line of people waiting to use it or in a rec room with so much noise you cannot hear. So I wonder about a cellular phone in the trailer (or movable between the tow vehicle and the trailer). I have never used a cellular phone and I have some questions. How much of the US is covered? If we are along a main highway even in the remote parts of the country I would expect to be able to use a cellular phone. If we were in the remote backwoods I would be doubtful. Any comments? We will not be in our home territory much of the time. I read about roaming, etc, but I don't really understand the details. I would have no objection to having to do something special to be logged into the local system. How does this work? Anything else that we should know about? Any books, etc, you would recommend for a new user? Thanks, Bob Swenson ------------------------------ From: ernst@cs.tu-berlin.de (Ernst Kloecker) Subject: How Does Call Waiting Work? Date: 14 Nov 91 13:26:54 GMT Hallo, out there ! Could somebody help me with some information about how a typical American telephone is wired ? When I visited my friends in the States, I was amazed by this thing I think it's called "call waiting service", so that if you are on the phone and another call is coming in you just press the HOLD-button to switch between calls. In Germany, old-fashioned TELEKOM does not provide this system. But I have got two ordinary telephone lines (with two different phonenumbers) and an American telephone with a HOLD-button. So here my question : Is there any way to connect the American phone to both lines and use its HOLD-Button to switch between the lines ? A solution would save me a lot of running around between the two phones which I am using now. Thanks. Ernst Kloecker phone: ++49-30-6181635 e-mail: ernst@cs.tu-berlin.de ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 00:51:58 pst From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Unreasonable New Line Install Requirements Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA My parent's house in Northern California had the same configuration as the original poster's: three pair inside wiring, and a two pair drop, just buried with no conduit. Over the last ten years, the drop pair has failed twice due to leakage. The first time, they came out and switched to the second pair. The second time, a trench had to be dug. Since the problem was on their side of the demark, it was of course free of charge. They had an non-Pacific Bell construction company come out and dig the trench while the lineman watched. Then, the new drop was laid, and the construction guys filled in the trench. Perhaps if the original poster's existing drop were to develop some "difficulties," Pacific Bell would have to pay for the trenching. And, as long as the trench is open, they might as well lay the extra drops for the extra lines which of course would be on order at the time ... Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 00:09 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com writes: > The real problem: The customer's request to switch is either made > directly to the local company, or through the other carrier. AT&T > apparently gets notified of these switches, but has not treated them > as requests to shut off Reach Out plans. A correction is apparently > in the works. Why is this a problem? Some people may even want to continue AT&T plans even with another PIC. Just because a customer has "switched carriers" does not mean that they can never use AT&T again. When recently being slammed by one of those "other" carriers, I was afraid that I would have to re-up for all of my AT&T plans after switchback. Fortunately, this was not necessary. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 6:26:59 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrances fenton@esd.ESD.WJ.COM (Jim Fenton) in Message-ID writes about repest digits. I, too, had that problem when I received a new number (-0062). People would usually be dialing 0662, 0622, 0006 and most said "Oops!" when I informed them that they called a wrong number. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 7:03:50 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: Re: The Future of Printed Books john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) in writes: > Item: New service orders and additions are handled in hours, not days > and weeks. I had a second line installed in September, 1991, and NYTel took over two weeks to get it working despite the fact that there was a second line from pole to the house and interface block in the basement. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ From: Yanek Martinson Subject: Re: Yes you can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? Date: 14 Nov 91 12:23:17 GMT Organization: University of Miami Department of Mathematics & Computer Science In billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) writes: > I think it might make an effective "filter" for telemarketers if my > answering machine responded with the recording ... > The number you have reached > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > is not in service. > No further information is available on > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. > Of course it would have to sound right to be effective, hence my > inquiry. Is there a way to get Bell to "give" me this message, short > of calling a new number before it is connected and recording the > message? There is a way to get such a message, if you are willing to work somewhat with a tape recorder. The method: call a number that is not in service and record the parts of message that are same for any number. The beep, the "is not in service" and "no further information" part. Then call your ANI number to and record your number as pronounced by the phone company computers. It will sound exactly like the real out of service message would sound. The only thing you need to find out is your local ANI number. ANI is Automatic Number Identification. It is a number that you dial, a machine answers, and reads you back your number from which you are calling. This is also useful for example if you have many phone lines and get mixed up which is which you can identify each. The ANI that works for me is 1-200-555-1212 but I think it may wary from place to place. I don't know if the phone company publishes this information in the white pages or not. I know every area must have one it is usually used by the person installing or repairing your phone to test the connection. yanek@mthvax.cs.miami.edu safe0%yanek@mthvax.cs.miami.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 08:59:48 EST From: gdw@gummo.att.com (Gordon D Woods) Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories >From article , by billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp): > [Moderator's Note: I cannot believe the incredible amount of effort > some people will go to just to avoid a call from a telemarketer. What > is wrong with answering the phone, listening to the first few words > from the caller, saying 'no thank you' and hanging up? The only explanation for someone not beleiving this amount of effort is that they do not live in a high "telemarketing community." I have recently moved and it is clear that telemarketers target specific areas. Before the move, one telemarket call per week; after the move, two or three per night. (Generally one during dinner, another later.) Unless you want to live right next your answering machine, screening in real time just doesn't work. Since we don't get many calls that are really for us (several a week), telemarketing represents most of the terminating traffic. My solution is to just turn off the ringer and never answer calls in real time. For all intents and purposes, telemarketing has removed a telephone feature I used to have (call termination). [Moderator's Note: Well, if the problem is that severe -- two or three calls a night every night of the week, then I would have to partly retract what I said -- but only a little. Maybe 60659 is not a telemarketer's paradise, but I get very few sales calls here. One every week or two would be the average. To me, the 'solution' is more of an annoyance than the problem, by far. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 06:28:25 PST From: Eric_Florack.Wbst311@xerox.com Subject: Re: Cellular Antennas For the sake of accuracy: > The purpose of twin CB antennas was to concentrate the antenna > pattern fore and aft along the road, to the detriment of signal > strength to the sides. For maximum effect, this required that the > antennas be mounted approximately 1/4 wavelength apart, which is 7.5 > feet -- thus making it useful for trucks on long straight > superhighways, but not for cars in town. Not quite correct. At CB frequencies, (27MHz) the wavelength is 11 meters. 1/4 of that is around 102" or a slice under 9 feet. Most cars, of course (and darned few trucks) are not wide enough to provide a fully directional system at this frequency, so the detriment to the pattern along the sides of the car wasn't quite as bad as you might expect. The inside trick here was not so much the directionality of the resulting signal, although that did play a part, but that there was so much added (tuned) antenna up in the air. (I know ... I was a broadcast person, and a CB fanatic for many years ... since the middle 60's.) > Cellular sites are most often to the sides of roads or up on > mountains or buildings. It would be of no advantage to direct the > signal energy along the road. In any event, you probably couldn't > mount two antennas accurately enough, since the cellular wavelength is > of the order of 1 foot, and a directional array would place the > antennas 3" apart (or an odd multiple of 3"). In this case, I agree fully, but with the added stipulation that with the wavelength so short, many other things come into play, like the shape of the body, structural supports and the location thereof, and so on, so as to make any change unpredictable at best, and therefore, any advantage hard to obtain. In this case, the added RF radiated by the added antenna would be offset by phasing problems, and the losses generated thereby. With all of this established, my final point: With any co-phased system, line length, antenna placement, and grounding effects, and transmitter frequency are all /critical/. Even at the longer wavelength of CB frequencies, the effect is that of lowering the bandwidth by quite a bit ... to the point where at the band edges, your increased ERP was roughly offset by your increased Standing wave ratio (the amount of power reflected back to the transmitter.) Because the bandwidth requirements of Cellular phones are so much wider, it would make tuning a co-phased (twin) antenna system unlikely, if not impossible. In CB you can 'ahng out' on a favorite channel, to take advantage of your antenna array. Not so, of course, for cellular. Such a system is all but useless. IF you're seeing two cellular antennas, someone has bought a dummy antenna and suck it up there. (Gee, he has TWO phones?) Funny part is, even if the second antenna isn;t hooked up, it's likely as not to be fouling the performance of the first ... but that's another story. Eric Florack:WBST311:xerox ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 14:29:13 GMT In article sprouse@n3igw.pgh.pa.us (Ken Sprouse) writes: > In article kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu > (Carl M. Kadie) writes: > I have a real problem with the idea that the intent of the caller makes it > all right for him/her/it to call and ring my phone when they please. Doesn't *anyone* have a right to call and ring your phone when they please? And don't you have the right to not answer it, to screen using an answering machine, to get an auto-attendant, or to take any number of other strategies to not talk to whomever may be calling? It seems to me that by purchasing service on a public network, you are implicitly permitting anyone else on that public network to attempt to call you. If you don't like it, don't answer. Or purchase something that will not answer for you. Or purchase a service that will enable you to selectively not answer. But I have a problem with it being illegal for me to call you under certain conditions, while it's still legal for me to call you under other conditions. For example, let's say it's illegal for an outbound telemarketer to call you on the basis of dialing all lines in a given area. So said outbound telemarketer purchases an electronic white pages, sorts on phone number, and dumps the resulting list into his/her autodialer, which then dials all the numbers. Is that legal? Face it -- if you want restrictions on whether or not a call is permissible based on the reason for the call, the intent of the call, or whether or not the call has a "legitimate purpose" or some such, you're getting into regulating content. And having anyone -- certainly the telco, but even worse the government -- starting to regulate content of telecommunications is to me a very scary thought. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #927 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12481; 14 Nov 91 18:24 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26598 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 16:11:38 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20494 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 16:11:11 -0600 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 16:11:11 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111142211.AA20494@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #928 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Nov 91 16:10:59 CST Volume 11 : Issue 928 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Message to AT&T Mail About Monthly Usage Minimum (Toby Nixon) Re: AT&T EasyLink Services New Rates (Colin Plumb) Is The Following True? (John Adams) ATTMail Rates, Service (Help Ticket ID: 17050) (Paul S. Sawyer) Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message (Wayne G. Namerow) Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message (Andrew M. Boardman) Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Mark Fulk) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Toby Nixon Subject: Message to AT&T Mail About Monthly Usage Minimum Date: 14 Nov 91 09:59:34 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA It was brought to my attention that Daniel Rosen of AT&T Mail is responsible for forming a "consumer-oriented" AT&T Mail service that will meet the needs of low-volume individual users. Accordingly, I have sent him the following message. Toby Date: Wed Nov 13 15:35:02 EST 1991 Original-From: attmail!tnixon (Toby L. Nixon ) Phone: +1 404 840 9200 Fax-Phone: +1 404 447 0178 Subject: Impact of AT&T Mail minimum usage charge on individual subscribers To: attmail!danrosen (Daniel Rosen ) Dear Mr. Rosen: It is my understanding that you are in charge of developing a "consumer" service for AT&T Mail, that would accommodate low-volume users. I thought I would make you aware (if you aren't already) that there is a quite vocal revolt going on right now amongst low-volume individual AT&T Mail users over the $25 per month "Monthly Usage Minimum" announced in the November 1st letter sent to all subscribers. I personally know of over three dozen low-volume users (all business associates of mine) who are planning to cancel their AT&T Mail accounts and take their messaging business either to CompuServe or to private BBSes (which I already have set up). There is an ongoing discussion of the charge on the comp.dcom.telecom USENET newsgroup, and several other users there have said they plan to cancel their AT&T Mail service. In my case, even though my company pays my AT&T Mail bill, I cannot in good conscience include $300 in my budget just to maintain a mailbox when my actual usage will be much less. I get the impression that AT&T Mail has intended all along to provide a lower-cost way for individual low-volume users to maintain AT&T Mail accounts, but there has not been even a hint of this in public. I think you'll find that unless some announcement is made soon (like, THIS WEEK), that several thousand individuals are going to terminate their AT&T Mail service when the new charge goes into effect. While I don't think such a loss would put AT&T Mail out of business, I can't imagine that you actually WANT to lose all of these customers; to do so would reduce the utility of the system for the remaining large users. Can you confirm that this $25/month charge will indeed apply to all users, including individuals with only one user ID per account? Can you tell us when AT&T Mail plans to institute a pricing plan that accommodates users who send and receive very few messages? Does AT&T Mail really want to lose all of their individual low-volume accounts? Finally, can I have your permission to post your response to comp.dcom.telecom? Thanks for your anticipated quick reply. Best regards, Toby Nixon 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: colin@array.uucp (Colin Plumb) Subject: Re: AT&T EasyLink Services New Rates Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 04:15:01 -0500 Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA In article dave@westmark.WESTMARK.COM (Dave Levenson) writes: > For example, a 200,000 character spreadsheet delivered via our service > within the U.S. will cost $10.70, about the same price as an overnight > delivery service. > Electronic Mail (Within U.S.) > characters rate > 1-1,000 $.50 > 1,001-2,000 .80 > 2,001-3,000 .95 > Each add'l. 1,000 .05 H'm, let's see ... I live in Canada, which is not known for telecom deregulation, and uunet will run a 19200 bps line to my front door and connect me to IP for $600/month. (They'll do 56K for $1200). I understand it's cheaper in the states. Assuming 1K/sec out of that line, that's 43.2K/cent. Only a slight factor of 864 away from AT&T's rates. Oh, yes, add Canadian dollar adjustments. Now, there are differences in service... uunet only serves Toronto and Ottawa right now. But it's real-time. Uunet probably needs a much smaller support staff to explain things to novices. But nearly a thousand? More, if I use a 56 kbps line? And if I can batch like AT&T do, then I can average a pretty good clip on that line ... So let's say I pay for both ends of a line, and a bunch more at 10x the cost to odd places, and spend a few more thousand dollars a month on front-ends and modems and a few full-time support people, and I only average 1/10 the efficiency I assumed above, and ... Gee, how long is $10.70 coast-to-coast on a phone call? Take that 200K spreadsheet, compress it to, say, a bit under 150K (conservative), send it at V.32bis rates (a bit over 1.5K/sec), and we're talking a minute and a half, plus half a minute overhead -- it's cheaper to modem it to Moscow! Well, okay, that's a bad line -- use a Trailblazer. Can someone explain where my reasoning that this is a tremendous rip-off is in error? When my computations end up 100 times off, I'm not sure *what* to suspect. But, but ... some sites get 100 times that 200,000 bytes in news traffic daily and aren't running up costs anything like $10/day ($300/month, $3600/year). If I offered that trade to any BBS in town, they'd take it in a heartbeat. Colin ------------------------------ From: jadams@nvuxl.cc.bellcore.com (adams,john) Date: 14 Nov 1991 8:24 EST Subject: Is the Following True? [Moderator's Note: Mr. Adams sent along a copy of a letter he wrote to someone else, thinking Digest readers might be interested. PAT] Hi Dale, It's been a couple of years since I last talked to you in Lincroft. We were exploring linking TRUEVISION VDA, TGA, & NAPLPS images in AT&T MAIL. Since that time, I took the Bell Labs 5+5, retired, and now work for Bellcore. My point in writing to you is to question the marketing strategy alluded to in recent "netnews" postings from Toby Nixon and Dave Levenson. Since you are deeply entrenched in Easy Link, perhaps your perspective on this rate change would help me decide whether or not I continue my personal account(s) with AT&T Mail. As you may have noted (Cc:s above), I use AT&T MAIL principally to keep in touch with my two sons who are away during the school year. It also provides a convenient and cost effective methods of reaching many other business contacts. The previous rate structure and per message fees were just fine (actually below my willingness to pay for an excellent service). I must say that $25.00/month minimum fee is a bit too steep. If the AT&T MAIL pricing strategy is to discourage individual and small business users (let alone poor college students), then it is right on the mark. Since AT&T doesn't pay me to develop products anymore, I can only guess at this hypothetical strategy based on the evidence presented so far. Perhaps you may want to pass this message along to some of the "empty suits" in Product Management and Marketing for a _level set_ from some of us "small customers". Jack (John) Adams | Bellcore RRC 4A-253 (908) 699-3447 {Voice} | (908) 699-0231 {Facsimile} jadams@nvuxl.bellcore.com | kahuna@attmail.com (For a little while!) ------------------------------ Subject: ATTMail Rates, Service (Help Ticket ID: 17050) Date: 14 Nov 91 11:54:13 EST (Thu) From: paul@unhtel.unh.edu (Paul S. Sawyer) I sent a letter to attmail!atthelp (Customer Assistance ): My message was: We received a letter from Steven A. Graham, Marketing Vice President with "AT&T Mail Rate Summary - Effective December 1, 1991" attached. There is an item under "Core Services" of "Monthly Usage Minimum - - 25.00" which I interpret to mean that we would have to pay $300.00 a year to remain connected to ATTMail, rather than the previous $30.00. If I am correct, I do not believe that we can continue the service. If I am NOT correct, please let me know. Thank you. Paul S. Sawyer - University of New Hampshire CIS - paul@unhtel.unh.edu Telecommunications and Network Services - VOX: +1 603 862 3262 Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3523 - FAX: +1 603 862 2030 And this is the answer I received in response: > Please call 1-800-242-6005 for information regarding the new billing > rates. > Thank You, > Tom > !atthelp If I cannot get an answer via e-mail to a question I posed via e-mail to a provider of e-mail concerning their e-mail rates, then I guess I really don't need their service ... Paul S. Sawyer - University of New Hampshire CIS paul@unhtel.unh.edu Telecommunications and Network Services - VOX: +1 603 862 3262 Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3523 - FAX: +1 603 862 2030 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 13:50:04 EST From: "Wayne G. Namerow" Subject: Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message In yankek@mthvax.cs.miami.edu writes: > There is a way to get such a message, if you are willing to work > somewhat with a tape recorder. > The method: call a number that is not in service and record the parts > of message that are same for any number. The beep, the "is not in > service" and "no further information" part. Then call your ANI number > to and record your number as pronounced by the phone company > computers. It will sound exactly like the real out of service message > would sound. Actually, this probably could be accomplished via a MUCH simpler method. Since the 'Not in Service' Jane recording only repeats your seven digit number, simply call multiple NPA's then your number until you find one where it really *IS* out of service. Then just tape the recording and you have a genuine Jane recording to put on your answering machine (or wherever). Wayne Namerow@pokvmcr3.vnet.ibm.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 13:56:20 EST From: "Andrew M. Boardman" Subject: Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message I suspect it would be far easier to find an NPA where your number is not in service (consult exchange lists to avoid annoying people), call it there, and record the resulting message, which in virtually all cases only reports a seven digit number not being in service. andrew [Moderator's Note: Thank you for at least suggesting the consultation of exchange lists. Otherwise, how many people would be disturbed in the process of finding a solution to prevent yourself from being disturbed? (Still looking down my nose with distaste at the whole project.) PAT] ------------------------------ From: fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 19:10:13 GMT In article gdw@gummo.att.com (Gordon D Woods) writes: > From article , by billg@bony1.bony.com > (Bill Gripp): >> [Moderator's Note: I cannot believe the incredible amount of effort >> some people will go to just to avoid a call from a telemarketer. What >> ... plus answering machine solution ... > The only explanation for someone not beleiving this amount of effort > is that they do not live in a high "telemarketing community." I have Another problem with the answering machine solution is the use of deceptive tactics used by telemarketers. I don't know all my wife's friends; furthermore, we have no chance of training them to identify themselves on every call. Consequently, when a telemarketer calls, the following sort of thing frequently ensues: Ring, Ring, Ring. Answering machine: We can't answer the phone right now, please leave a message after the beep. Beep. Male Voice: I'd like to speak to Tina please. Could she call me at... Me: Who is this please? Voice: Joe Blow. Me: Could I ask why you're calling? Joe: I need to talk to Tina Reynolds. Me: Are you selling something? Joe: No, I need to talk to Tina Reynolds. Me, shouting up stairs: Honey, Joe Blow is on the phone. Tina: (pause) I'll get it in a minute. A minute passes, while Nathan gets a new diaper. Tina: I'll take that call now. Joe: Mrs. Reynolds, have you heard about Flim-Flam Marketing and our new deal on aluminum garbage can siding.... Tina, Mark, in unison: We're not interested. Joe: ... just $200,000 per can, we think you just can't pass up ... Tima, Mark, in unison: Did you hear us, we're not interested! Joe: ... considering the frequency of raccoon damage in, uh, uh, Rochester, you really ... Tina, Mark, in unison: Goodbye! Slam! Now I know there are laws against some variations of this sort of thing. Those laws are enforced about as well as the anti-fornication laws, as far as I can see. I have tried to file a complaint with Rochester Telephone, and they make it about as painful as a hundred telemarketing calls. If I was willing to invest in CNID equipment, and lived in an area where they were testing it, I might have a chance; somehow, though, I expect all those calls are blocked for CNID. I could also use call trace, which is offered, but, again, the numbers are likely blocked, I would have to pay a per-trace fee, and my phone company and police department will only act after a pattern of harassing phone calls is established. I suspect our esteemed Moderator lacks one or more of the following features: - Small children, who often need our undivided attention. - Friends and co-workers who don't identify themselves when calling. - Friends and family who refuse to leave messages on our answering machine. - Frequent occasions of waiting for a call we don't want to miss. - Frequent phone calls, which, though unexpected, we wouldn't want to miss. (Our babysitting coop is great for generating those.) - Frequent telemarketing calls, often from people who are deceptive about their real purpose. We average about two per night. I know I am going on and on, and there is real work to do, but three more things ... Last night's second telemarketer was from AT&T! At least, that's what he said. He was selling (oops, he wasn't selling it, he was just explaining features and taking reservations for a seminar on home security) AT&T home security systems. If I have a detail or two wrong, it is because I cut him off pretty quickly. I wasn't aware that AT&T sold home security products, so perhaps this call was a ripoff. There is a historical precedent for the current surge in telemarketing. In the early thirties, as unemployment soared, large numbers of people went into door-to-door sales. It was the great age of door-to-door bibles, vacuum cleaners, encyclopedias, you name it. I even remember reading a novel about selling teapots door-to-door. It was widely perceived as being just about the most obnoxious thing anyone could do for a living, but people were desperate for any sort of job. I get a few calls per week at work. My department chose not to get phone mail on our (buggy ROLM) phones, so I or the very busy secretary upstairs have to answer these calls. Mostly they are from financial services companies, John Hancock, Merrill Lynch, and Prudential among them. Schwab is never one of the callers. I wonder if the non-discount brokers, uncompetitive by any reasonable measure, are trying to get customers by making deceptive claims in a private way. That was certainly very much the case with the door-to-door salesmen of 60 years ago. Mark A. Fulk Computer Science Department fulk@cs.rochester.edu University of Rochester Omit needless words -- Strunk Rochester, NY 14627 [Moderator's Note: You are partly right about my circumstances. I will reply in detail in the next issue. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #928 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13414; 14 Nov 91 19:01 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18651 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 16:58:46 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02209 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 14 Nov 1991 16:58:15 -0600 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 16:58:15 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111142258.AA02209@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #929 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Nov 91 16:57:54 CST Volume 11 : Issue 929 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Dave O'Heare) Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out of Service Message? (Dan Swinehart) Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone (Jim Haynes) Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (TELECOM Moderator) Re: Phone Gateways? (Dick Rawson) Alternative Email Service (Ken Sprouse) Re: New Zealand Toll Price War (Tony Harminc) Re: Cellular Antennas (Robert L. McMillin) Re: Two Cellular Questions (Dave Levenson) Re: 540 Pager Scam Update (Ralph W. Hyre) Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences Administrivia: Overload Continues Unabated (TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: doheare@hobbit.gandalf.ca (Dave O'Heare) Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? Organization: Gandalf Data Ltd., Nepean, Ontario Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 19:46:35 GMT In article our Moderator responds to billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp): > [Moderator's Note: I cannot believe the incredible amount of effort > some people will go to just to avoid a call from a telemarketer. Pat: The problem I've had with telemarketers is that they WILL NOT leave a message on an answering machine. It's very distressing to come home to see that the machine has received a dozen or so calls, and NO-ONE has had the decency to leave a message. It is very easy to get the feeling that somebody is calling to find out if there is anybody home. Having been the victim of a few break- ins over the years, I'd rather not repeat that experience. I subscribed to Caller-ID. I've called back a few telemarketers, and harangued them for not leaving messages. Funny, the more telemarketers I call, the fewer telemarketing calls I get. Do you suppose there might be a connection? :-) Dave O'Heare doheare@hobbit.gandalf.ca +1 613 723 6500 [Moderator's Note: You may have hit on a very good solution. Call them back and waste as much time of theirs as they do of yours. Seriously, time is money to those folks. Waste it for them. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 08:17:50 PST From: Dan_Swinehart.PARC@xerox.com Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? "I'm ancient, decrepit, and disintegrating rapidly." That line from "Brigadoon" accurately describes the way I feel at the end of a long day these days. Clearly I should do something about that. But in the mean time, I find it quite tedious, and not at all itzy-poo, to have to drag myself out of the easy chair for the fourth or fifth time to answer the phone at night. Similarly, during the few evenings a month when our family actually eats together, we often have serious business to discuss and the interruption of a phone call, even for a few seconds, can be distracting. We accept the need to take calls from our friends and acquaintances, but the telemarketers are another thing entirely -- especially those who want to sell us something we already have (subscriptions) or something we have already refused (service contracts on their flashy wonderful appliances that they now claim are so flaky we'll lose if we don't buy their insurance). So I work pretty hard to make their lives miserable. I usually engage in prolonged discussions with them, hoping to diminish their returns, about why they are barking up the wrong tree because I don't speak English and can't possibly understand their pitch. ------------------------------ From: haynes@cats.UCSC.EDU (Jim Haynes) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 10:07:24 -0800 Subject: Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone > [Moderator's Note: ... I'm the first to agree I don't like sales > calls, but I tell them 'no' and hang up the phone. What, precisely, is > the big deal? PAT] Well I'm not one of those people who sit around the house waiting for the phone to ring, so whenever it does it interrupts something I am doing. This may be a pleasant interruption, if it's someone I enjoy talking with; or it may be a justifiable interruption, if it's someone who needs to talk with me about something more important than what I was doing before the phone rang. It is not either of these if the caller is advertising a business or soliciting for a charity. They can advertise in the newspaper or send me junk mail and I might read it at a time of my own choosing. But I get angry when they choose the time and I drop what I'm doing to answer their calls. And I would guess they interrupt and annoy thousands of people for every one who is interested in their pitch. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 11:18:36 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood I am convinced part of the reason I do not see eye to eye with many readers regarding the 'scourge of telemarketing' is due to the relative rarity of this sort of call to my phones. That may be why I feel the various complex efforts by some of you to avoid these calls are in themselves such a waste of time. Twice today we've had messages from people claiming to receive these phone calls in great quantities: one person said he got two or three a day, and a writer in this issue alluded to leaving his easy chair four or five times in an evening to answer the phone. That's amazing! For starters, I have phones everywhere I sit, including my throne chair. By my bed, on my desk at home, near the sofa, a wall phone in the kitchen area, etc. I have a speaker phone I can casually reach over and tap with my finger. It is wired so it will pull either line which is ringing. On the rare occassion when I am home during the day, the phone rarely rings, except with wrong numbers. Those I do admit to receiving more than I would like, but where repetitive digits are concerned, the line which gets the most wrong numbers has the same digit five times in a row in it, ie abc-cccc. But telemarketers just don't call. I'm 'lucky' if I get one telemarketing call every two weeks. This probably has to do with my location: telemarketers are a very sophisticated bunch, and something in the paper the other day mentioned that to a large extent they had 'redlined' inner city areas. Is this true? I don't feel like a major series on this in the Digest, and won't print a lot of lengthy sociological treatises in response, but maybe there is one good reason at least for me to remain living in this impoverished ghetto city, eh? :) In response to the person who asked other questions about my household the answers are these: we (my brother and his wife who live with me) have a two year old son who must be supervised constantly by one or the other of us. The two of them wind up getting a lot more calls than myself, yet I'm the one to reach over and slap the button on the speaker phone as often as not when a call comes in. They get three or four legitimate calls per evening most days; I get one or two. As noted above, telemarketing calls are extremely rare here, which for whatever reason, suits me fine. If I got four or five a night, I guess I would be annoyed by it also. So I can see why some of you want to devise schemes to avoid the calls when possible. Is three or four a night about average for most people? That seems like a lot. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 10:11:19 PST From: drawson@Tymnet.COM (Dick Rawson) Subject: Re: Phone Gateways? > This reminds me of the X.PC protocol supported by Xtalk Mk 4. > It allows you to use one modem and phone line to simultaneously talk > to 15 computers thru Tymnet using multiple sessions under Xtalk. > Seems real nice! I haven't been able to get any information on the > data format. Publisher of Xtalk won't release it. I'd like to use > their packet format so our equipment could talk to multiple Xtalk > sessions over one data circuit. X.PC is freely available to the public, both as a specification and as implemented in C. I don't know the current terms if you try to get it from BT North America, who now operate TYMNET. But I think it is available from SIMTEL20 and its mirrors. I found the following three lines in the index file from the ftp archive at wuarchive.wustl.edu, but didn't confirm if it's really X.PC, although I THINK it is! arc_mirr 495 Aug 11 19:00 ./mirrors/msdos/xpc/00-index.txt arc_mirr 5472 Mar 17 1990 ./mirrors/msdos/xpc/xpc.frm arc_mirr 639766 Nov 15 1988 ./mirrors/msdos/xpc/xpc401.arc Dick Rawson, BT North America. +1 408 922 6545 ------------------------------ Subject: Alternative Email Service Date: 14 Nov 91 11:11:03 EDT (Thu) From: sprouse@n3igw.pgh.pa.us (Ken Sprouse) In article 5771 Toby Nixon writes: > But why bother with all that trouble, when we can all get on > CompuServe, which has a monthly minimum of just $2? Methinks AT&T > Mail has shot their feet full of holes with this, as far as individual > users are concerned. And the Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: Or alternatively, start a mailing list here on the > Internet with a common address for everyone to write to which will > then send the mail around to everyone. Thus far everyone I've talked > to is dropping out of AT&T Mail over the next month or two, and that > includes myself. I'm sorry to leave them, but $25 per month is not > very nice when my usual bill is $3-4 per month. PAT] I think you should also look at GEnie.(General Electric Information Service) They offer email as part of their BASIC services package for a flat fee of $4.95 a month with no connect time charges (18:00 to 08:00 eastern time) and no limit on the number of email messages. I think CompuServe is at $12.50 an hour right now (no time of day restrictions) along with the monthly minimum. (last time I looked it was $1.50 they may have raised it) With your low usage it might not be worth you while but I would at least look. Ken Sprouse / N3IGW sprouse@n3igw.pgh.pa.us GEnie mail ksprouse Compu$erve 70145,426 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 15:28:39 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: New Zealand Toll Price War Pat Cain wrote: > This weekend the two major New Zealand phone companies (which are > primarily American owned) are having a price war. > Clear Communications (MCI and Bell Canada), the new player on the > scene, provide an alternative tolls service (by dialling 050). They > offer slightly cheaper rates than Telecom, have discounts for prompt > payment, and round calls to the nearest six seconds (Telecom round to > 60 seconds). Bell Canada's hypocrisy surfaces again. While owning a portion of a competing carrier in New Zealand, they are adamantly opposed to long distance competition back home in Ontario and Quebec. Sigh ... Tony Harminc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 10:56:30 PST From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: Cellular Antennas Eric Florack writes about cellular telephone car antennas: > Such a system is all but useless. IF you're seeing two cellular > antennas, someone has bought a dummy antenna and suck it up there. > (Gee, he has TWO phones?) Funny part is, even if the second antenna > isn;t hooked up, it's likely as not to be fouling the performance of > the first ... but that's another story. Well, maybe he has and maybe he hasn't. Here in Los Angeles, traffic congestion has made cellular phones a near necessity for salesmen and anybody else doing business out of their cars. The appearance of pigtail antennae on such pedestrian autos as Fords and Buicks has driven the truly status-conscious to adopt the cellular fax machine as the latest in electronic one-upsmanship. Robert L. McMillin | Voice: (310) 568-3555 Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc. | Fax: (310) 568-3574 Los Angeles, CA | Internet: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.WESTMARK.COM (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Two Cellular Questions Date: 14 Nov 91 19:43:41 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , tlowe@attmail.com writes: > 1. I have a Panasonic TP500 transportable. It has a relay in it that > clicks on whenever the unit is transmitting. When the phone is just > sitting there, it tends to transmit for about one oe two seconds every > hour or so. What is it transmitting? Is the cellular switch polling > it or is the phone taking it upon itself to transmit something? The cellular switch is probably sending a periodic request for registration. Mobile units which receive these requests identify themselves. Your unit may also re-register itself when it discovers that you have moved it from one cell to another. This is done to allow the switch to poll you where it thinks you are, rather than all over the place, when you have an incoming call. It is typically done in high-density areas where the paging traffic becomes large. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: rhyre@cinoss1.ATT.COM (Ralph W. Hyre) Subject: Re: 540 Pager Scam Update Date: 14 Nov 91 17:05:40 GMT Reply-To: rhyre@cinoss1.ATT.COM (Ralph W. Hyre) Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati In article rboudrie@encore.com (Rob Boudrie) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 888, Message 12 of 12 > ... it mentioned that their pager company (Skytel) was updating > their software to prevent such numbers from being displayed ... Wonderful. This is clearly the WRONG solution. Why should Skytel be forced to change the content of everybody's messages because some users indiscriminately call whatever appears on their pagers? I can see it now ... Ralph: Call me at hospital: 513 212 5401 gets replaced with Ralph: Call me at hospital: 513 XXX XXX1 or even better: 'Japan contract awarded: Call 0112125407342' XXXXXX Don't most of the victimized companies have PBXs that can drop calls to 'bad' exchanges (like 1-900-NXX-XXXX and 976-XXXX?) (Our PBX's don't decide which trunks to route a call until they have the NPA-NXX entered, so (212) 540-anything is easy to squash.) [disclaimer: I don't claim to know how Skytel will implement the fix. Perhaps 10 digit skytel pagers can only display phone numbers, so 212-540 is easy to edit out with minimal impact. I think the solution is to train users, rather than force Skytel to modify its software. Aren't they risking their common carrier status by modifying message content?] Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. E-mail: rhyre@cinoss1.att.com Snail: Box 85, Milford OH 45150-0085 Phone: +1 513 629 7288 Radio: N3FGW ------------------------------ From: Subject: Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences Date: 14 Nov 1991 15:09 -0400 Then there is the problem of phone numbers starting with "9". People don't change their dialing patterns when the get home from work. I also have a double digit which probably doesn't help. Interestingly I get more wrong numbers on one line than another. The offending one is the second line which is one higher than the first line. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 16:27:23 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: Overload Continues Unabated I am still receiving a huge amount of mail daily here, and aside from the usual constraints on me, there is some trouble with the mail here and at the Bitnet gateway which has kept me running a little slower than usual. Another thing has to begin at this time, and that is a slowdown on Digest mailing when this site is otherwise running at a high load level. Although no specific rule has been set yet, to be as accomodating to my hosts as I can, when the 'uptime' command says the load is higher than desired, I'll be holding off mass mailing of the Digest for the duration. The end result will be a chronic backlog of message traffic for telecom, and an even larger than usual number of messages turned away. Please don't take it personally; I'm doing what I can to circulate as much telecom news as I can, as rapidly and thoroughly as I can. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #929 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26415; 15 Nov 91 2:58 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13657 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 15 Nov 1991 01:08:20 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00860 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 15 Nov 1991 01:08:09 -0600 Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 01:08:09 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111150708.AA00860@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #930 TELECOM Digest Fri, 15 Nov 91 01:08:02 CST Volume 11 : Issue 930 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Geoff Steckel) Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Bill Fisher) Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message (Brent Byer) Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood Gordon Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (Mickey Ferguson) Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone (John Hood) Moderator's View of Telemarketers (Ken Levitt) Answering Machine Message For Telemarketers (Mike Van Pelt) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gsteckel@vergil.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Steckel) Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? Date: 14 Nov 91 21:40:06 GMT Reply-To: gsteckel@eastapps.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Steckel) Organization: Omnivore Technology, Newton, Mass. (617) 332-9252 >> [Moderator's Note: I cannot believe the incredible amount of effort >> some people will go to just to avoid a call from a telemarketer. What >> is wrong with answering the phone, listening to the first few words >> from the caller, saying 'no thank you' and hanging up? Why is a telephone different from a front door? I believe I should have the ability to mark my telephone number just like my front door. I see a need for a way to put a clearly visible `NO SOLICITORS' sign on my telephone, just like the one on my door. If someone THEN calls, they have been warned that I consider them intruding, and repeated intrusions will be treated as (at least) matter for complaint to authorities. I get recorded sleazecalls at work and at home, and it is intrusive. Just because someone is trying to make a living by bothering people in their homes does not, in my opinion, give the solicitor the right to bother the victim. The victim (for I see it in these terms) should be able to preemptively say `DON'T even TRY to bother me unless it is >>URGENT<<'. There should be a nationwide data base of phone numbers who do not accept solicitations. I can't believe this is difficult to set up ... 1 bit per line. $1000 fine per call to numbers in that database. This is the best use of CLID I can think of! Oh yes -- it should also be illegal to conceal the number or identity of the caller for uses of automated solicitation equipment! ( 1/2 (:-) ) Yes, I have my phone number in my header -- it's my BUSINESS line, which I do not answer out of business hours. I have yet to get a junk call from displaying my number on the net (fingers crossed!). Just another solitary grump, geoff steckel (gwes@wjh12.harvard.EDU) (...!husc6!wjh12!omnivore!gws) Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with Sun Microsystems, despite the From: line. This posting is entirely the author's responsibility. ------------------------------ From: bill@fisher.eedsp.gatech.edu Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? Organization: Georgia Tech Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 23:32:37 GMT In article fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) writes: > Another problem with the answering machine solution is the use of > deceptive tactics used by telemarketers. I don't know all my wife's > friends; furthermore, we have no chance of training them to identify > themselves on every call. Consequently, when a telemarketer calls, > the following sort of thing frequently ensues: [telemarketer won't admit who or what he is until the intended victim gets on the line] I'll tell you what, I get the very same calls. Normally, I answer my phone if I can. If the call is from "Out-of-Area" on my CLID box or shows up as a mysterious number, I prepare myself for a sales spiel. Ring, ring. Me: Hello? TM: May I speak with William? [sometimes they even add my last name!] Me: Who's calling, please? (Note that is ME asking who's calling for me before I let on who I am) TM: William? Me: I asked who's calling, please? TM: I'll call again later. [CLICK!] or just {CLICK!} That has happened to me more often than any other variation. A friend or associate knows my voice (and I know most of theirs) for one thing and for another thing they wouldn't hesitate in the least to tell me who they are when I ask (if it is a friend or associate). Other netters may want to try my approach above, either for themselves or for a housemate/family member. It seems pretty foolproof to me. I am of the impression that if someone is calling me, they want something from me. If I win the Publisher's Warehouse Sweepstakes they'll try something else besides the phone -- like a registered letter and/or a courier. If it's a friend, family member, or associate, of course I'll be happy to talk with them right then and there -- they took the time to call me, after all. If it's a sales drone, then they'll tell me so (and I'll say "Not interested" usually) or they'll be evasive and I'll know who they are anyway but not who they are calling on behalf of. It's a win-win and I never spend more than 30 seconds or so on an unwelcome call. I have an unlisted number and it doesn't buy me a whole lot. I don't get a huge number of sales calls, possibly as a result of the unlisted number, but some places do still end up with my phone number. I don't guard it as rabidly as some folks would, though. I suspect that some of the calls are as a result of captured ANI information. On the other hand, I don't make calls from my home phone that I wouldn't want the recipient of the call to have my number. I may get a Ring Master line and just give that number to "call me anytime" people, such as friends and family. I dunno. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 23:53:03 -0500 From: bb@generali.harvard.edu (Brent Byer) Subject: Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message Organization: Textware, Cambridge, MA > In yankek@mthvax.cs.miami.edu writes: > There is a way to get such a message, if you are willing to work > somewhat with a tape recorder. > The method: call a number that is not in service and record the parts ... This reminds me of one of our best phone pranks in college. Way back in 1966, we did just this, but there weren't any answering machines around, just klunky reel-to-reels. The recorded message was: "I'm sorry; the number you have reached is not in service. Please make sure that you have dialed correctly and try again. If you need assistance, please stay on the line and an operator will assist you." We would remove the phone's microphone and connect the recorder output. Then, we would call people up, and as soon as they answered, we'd play the recording to them. Baffled the hell out of them! It was especially good when we called the guy across the hall (frat house) and woke him at 3 AM. "Groan ... Huh ... Did I call someone? Huh! Yeah, I'll stay on the line and talk to the operator. Huh..." We recorded the whole thing on a second recorder and played it at dinner the next night. If anyone knows David Rudd, RPI '67 (Math), remind him :-) Brent Byer ( bb@wjh12.harvard.edu ) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 19:34:53 CST From: "Mike Gordon N9LOI 99681084@uwwvax.uww.edu" Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood In issue #929 Pat Townson writes: > I have a speaker phone I can casually reach over and tap with > my finger. It is wired so it will pull either line which is ringing. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ How do you have it wired? Is it a feature in your particular model, or are you using a (now discontinued) Radio Shack line selecter box? Mike Gordon N9LOI 99681084@uwwvax.uww.edu [Moderator's Note: I am using a Radio Shack Duofone Telephone Amplifier System (speakerphone) behind a Radio Shack Two Line Controller (yes, the discontinued one). I've also got the newest Radio Shack headset phone coming from there. So on an incoming call, the controller puts the ringing line on the pair out to the speakerphone and the headset phone. From where I am sitting I either slip on the headset and tap the talk bar or just tap on the speakerphone. The soft pleasant chirp in the headset phone sounds for incoming calls on either line that way. Looking at the lights on the controller tell me which line has the call. The ringing cadence tells me if it is the first line or the Ringmaster number (to which my 800 lines are routed by Telecom*USA for ease in identifying those calls, and consequently who is paying for the call!) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 17:56:30 PST From: fergusom@scrvm1.vnet.ibm.com (Mickey Ferguson) Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood Organization: Rolm Systems In Digest # 929 TELECOM Moderator writes: > I am convinced part of the reason I do not see eye to eye with many > readers regarding the 'scourge of telemarketing' is due to the > relative rarity of this sort of call to my phones. That may be why I > feel the various complex efforts by some of you to avoid these calls > are in themselves such a waste of time. One thing that comes to mind is that it is human nature to remember the calls which come in and annoy us, and thus it *seems* like we are receiving an average of four or five telemarketing calls per day, when in fact most probably receive four or five calls on *a particular* day, and many more go by without receiving any at all. I'm not disputing the numbers, I would just like to see some of our readers who feel that they really do receive large numbers to actually tally up the results for a two week period. As for the person who hated having to get up out of his super-comfortable easy chair to answer the phone, I have a suggestion: Get a cordless phone, and keep it nearby. That way, at least you can be annoyed in comfort! :) Mickey Ferguson Rolm Systems fergusom@scrvm2.vnet.ibm.com ------------------------------ From: jhood@banana.ithaca.ny.us (John Hood) Subject: Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone Organization: Pick a banana, any banana Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 00:56:06 GMT Pat appends these words to article : > [Moderator's Note: Well, unsolicited calls from people looking for > modems on the line set me off. At least the telemarketers are trying > to earn a living selling things on the phone ... I'm the first to > agree I don't like sales calls, but I tell them 'no' and hang up the > phone. What, precisely, is the big deal? PAT] The big deal is that a telephone call demands your time and attention, wherever you may be. Junk mail you can let pile up in the mail box for a few days, newspapers and TV you can ignore, but the ring of a phone brings you running. To put it more formally: other forms of communication don't demand your immediate attention. Telephones, for most people, are an intrusion into daily life, albeit a welcome one. They are welcome because they allow immediate conversation in a way that is not otherwise possible. However, this intrusion is a significant one. Perhaps it is not so significant for you, if you have a phone convenient at a table in every room. Some of us may find it more significant -- for example, I am hearing impaired, and often work at my computer without my hearing aids on. I can hear the phone trill without them, and if I want to answer it, I've got to stuff them into my ears and run for the phone and hope the caller hasn't given up by the time I get there. There are plenty of other similar situations -- there are millions of two-story houses with one phone, I am sure; there are millions who work night shifts and would be unpleasantly annoyed by a call between 9 am and 9 pm. If the phone starts ringing frequently to play recorded messages about 1-900 astrology hotlines, it starts to become an unwanted intrusion. It takes up my time and diverts my attention from what I'm doing. You may say, "Use an answering machine and screen those unwanted calls". So, say I do this, and I no longer leap up to the phone and answering machine, secure in the knowledge that I can go over the tape later and call people back (yes, I know this is different from the usual method of standing over the answering machine and picking up the phone if the voice is recognized -- but this is what could happen if uninvited and undesired calls became popular). Now say that my mother starts to do the same thing. I can't reach her; she can't reach me. Now, say that a significant percentage of the population in my town starts to do this. Do you see that the value of the telephone, as an instrument of immediate communication, has been nullified? People cannot reliably call and speak to other people anymore. Some notes: I live in a low-rent area in an isolated city -- the only telemarketing calls I've gotten are two from the above-mentioned 1-900 "service", and ironically, one from the local Gannett newspaper, in the past four months. This problem is somewhat hypothetical to me :) I have an answering machine, but I don't use it to screen calls; I grab the phone when I'm around and awake. I dislike the idea of screening calls. John Hood, CU student, CU employee, and sometime BananaOp jhood@albert.mannlib.cornell.edu,jhood@banana.ithaca.ny.us,jeh@crnlvax5.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 22:21:47 EST From: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) Subject: Moderator's View of Telemarketers In TELECOM Digest Volume 11 : Issue 925 our Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: I cannot believe the incredible amount of effort > some people will go to just to avoid a call from a telemarketer. What > is wrong with answering the phone, listening to the first few words > from the caller, saying 'no thank you' and hanging up? Oh, I see, you > are such a busy person, such a dillitante, so important and full of > yourself ... I find it hard to believe that such an intelligent person as yourself would be so intolerant of other peoples needs and desires. I run a business out of my home. I am on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. When a customer calls, they want to talk to a person, not a machine. I can not afford to let the phone ring even when I am eating dinner, sleeping, or in the bathroom. I work late into the night and generally sleep until 9:30 or 10:00 am in the morning. At least once a week I get woken up out of a sound sleep by a telemarketer. When working, I am generally deeply involved in writing software with five or six things all stacked up in my head. When I have to stop and answer the phone, I lose several minutes of work just getting back to where I had been prior to the phone ringing. Is there any reason that I should accept some idiot telemarketer messing up my productivity? I think not! P.S. According to my spell checker the word is "dilettante", not "dillitante". Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org or levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu ------------------------------ From: mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Answering Machine Message For Telemarketers Date: 15 Nov 91 01:22:59 GMT Reply-To: mvp@hsv3.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) Organization: Video 7 + G2 = Headland Technology A friend of mine found the following answering machine message very effective: Yes, this is an answering machine. We didn't want to do it, but after months of getting pestered by a dozen calls a night from random salespeople, we are using this machine to screen our calls. If you are a friend or family, just stay on the line and start talking after the beep. If we're available, we'll pick up the phone. If, however, you are one of those salespeople, then you needn't bother. We aren't interested. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #930 ******************************  ISSUE 931 APPEARS FOLLOWING ISSUE 932 DUE TO ERROR IN MAILING.  Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08222; 16 Nov 91 2:50 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17774 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 00:31:13 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32157 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 00:31:01 -0600 Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 00:31:01 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111160631.AA32157@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #932 TELECOM Digest Sat, 16 Nov 91 00:30:56 CST Volume 11 : Issue 932 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Wasting the Slime's Time (John Higdon) Telemarketers: One Good Solution (Eric Florack) Federal Telemarketing Legislation Proposed (Bob Yazz) Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Bill Gray) Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message (Linc Madison) Re: Telemarketing COS (Simona Nass) Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (Jeffrey Hunt) Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (Gordon D. Woods) Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (Adam Ashby) AT&T Security Systems (was Can I Generate FAKE Msg?) (Paul S. Sawyer) Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 01:45 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Wasting the Slime's Time I have turned what many of you consider an annoyance into an opportunity for a bit o' fun. When I get a telemarketing machine, I play around with it. Does it hang up when I put the call on hold? Does it do anything strange when I play DTMF into it? Anyway, the name of the game is to waste the telemarketer's time. If you are not interested, he wants to move along to the next victim. So be interested. Tonight was a good case in point with a call (the first junk call in some time) on my public line. It was a machine introducing "a computer that would tell me how I could cash in" on the equity in my home or something like that. This particular system wanted me to answer a bunch of personal questions. I was to wait for each tone before speaking. Usually, I answer the questions and feign interest so the live person will call back and I can waste even more time (and maybe find out who is violating CPUC tariff). Tonight, however, I simply played a little of my MOH at each prompt. Currently, my MOH is a Spanish language radio station. While the machines are sort of fun to play with, live people get an unceremonious, "I'm sorry, I do not respond to telephone solicitation." This has yet to result in anything other than an apology for bothering me from the other end and an immediate end to the conversation. I, too, work all hours. I do programming and hate to have my train of thought derailed. And I get my share of junk calls. But I have to admit that they are really nothing more than a minor annoyance. And it is much easier to resume writing code or whatever after a couple of words with a telemarketer than when a client calls and talks my ear off. I think that Herculean efforts to avoid telemarketers are more of a waste of time than the "problem" itself. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 05:41:47 PST From: Eric_Florack.Wbst311@xerox.com Subject: Telemarketers: One Good Solution I have my own solution ... and given the medium this is being discussed on, I'm amazed nobody's thought of it! A modem answers my phone when I'm not on the computer. If no modem tone exists on the calling end, the /COMPUTER/ emits a turkey caller type ring, indicating a human caller. At this point, the modem holds the line open for 45 seconds, or until I tell it to let go of the line, whichever comes first. I've not had a telemarketing call in some months, now ... most give up as soon as they get the tone. I've been told by someone in that business that the common practice is for numbers that have modems attached to them get removed from calling lists. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 17:04:37 -0800 From: Bob Yazz From: yazz@locus.com (Bob Yazz) Subject: Federal Telemarketing Legislation Proposed Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 01:02:44 GMT Rep. Barney Frank was interviewed at Boston's Logan Airport the other evening on Nightline, about his proposed legislation. Surely someone else has seen it and might be able to fill in the following a bit more completely. I believe there were four points but I remember only the first and last: o Require all junk-call dialers to disconnect immediately if the the callee hangs up. (The inability to call 911, or whatever, until the automated sales pitch finishes is the issue here.) o Create a national list of phone numbers that could Not be junk-called or junk-faxed. The crucial point that I didn't hear made specific is whether this list would prevent human junk calls too, or just the machine ones. Rep. Frank did say that until machines started bothering people in their homes in the last few years, the problem was small enough that people didn't much complain. Elections are coming up, and is this the kind of legislation that the public can really get behind. Maybe, in the name of saving trees, we can get them to put our mailing addresses out-of-bounds for junk mail too! yazz@locus.com ------------------------------ From: gray@s5000.rsvl.unisys.com (Bill Gray) Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? Date: 15 Nov 91 15:59:29 GMT Organization: Unisys - Roseville, MN gdw@gummo.att.com (Gordon D Woods) writes: > The only explanation for someone not believing this amount of effort > is that they do not live in a high "telemarketing community." I have > recently moved and it is clear that telemarketers target specific ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ > areas. Before the move, one telemarket call per week; after the move, > two or three per night. I live in the Twin Cities, and we have a lot of telemarketing here. And yes, telemarketers do target specific locations; if you sell roofing or siding, you do not need to call areas where most people live in apartments or rental housing. Some of what Mr. Woods reports may be geographic targeting. But there are at least two other possible reasons for his sudden surge in traffic: First, there are seasonal efforts. For example, this time of year, he may get called on furnace cleaning services or other winterizing pitches. Secondly, he recently moved. Especially if he bought his new abode, several telemarketers may have bought his name/number from people who target new move-ins or new mortgagees. Many people move into a new home and find that there is something they must fix immediately -- furnace, roof, wet basement, leaking pipes, etc. Also, homeowners are perceived as being good risks and therefore good prospects for major sales. None of which reduces the annoyance of being bombarded. We've endured several blitzes, though, and they have seemed to run their course after a LONG couple of weeks. :-( Then comparative peace for weeks or months, then another seige. It will get worse, though; my eldest child is approaching 13 ... Bill gray@rsvl.unisys.com Unisys has enough problems without being blamed for my personal opinions. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 01:57:33 PST From: linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article amb@cs.columbia.edu (Andrew M. Boardman) writes: > I suspect it would be far easier to find an NPA where your number is > not in service (consult exchange lists to avoid annoying people), call > it there, and record the resulting message, which in virtually all > cases only reports a seven digit number not being in service. > [Moderator's Note: Thank you for at least suggesting the consultation > of exchange lists. Otherwise, how many people would be disturbed in > the process of finding a solution to prevent yourself from being > disturbed? (Still looking down my nose with distaste at the whole > project.) PAT] Gee, since my phone number is 540-xxxx, I guess I could try this with 212-540-xxxx, and see if I can get something like "5-4-0-x-x-x-x: we are sorry -- we do not connect to 976 numbers at this time." Now *that* would confuse people! If I could convince the telemarketers that they were paying $2/minute to try to sell me light bulbs and garbage bags, they might try less often ... Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu, Still amused that every "special toll" prefix in NYC except 976 is a plain local prefix to me here in Berkeley. ------------------------------ From: simona@panix.com (Simona Nass) Subject: Re: Telemarketing COS Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 22:31:32 GMT Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC Wouldn't local telephone companies also oppose having telemarketers check a database of folks who don't want calls, simply because it would cut the revenue of the local telcos? ( simona@panix.com or {apple,cmcl2}!panix!simona ) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 10:44:26 MST From: asuvax!gtephx!huntj@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Jeffrey Hunt 4082) From: huntj@gtephx.UUCP (Jeffrey Hunt 4082) Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood Reply-To: huntj@hw_zilch.UUCP (Jeffrey Hunt 4082) Organization: gte Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 17:43:59 GMT In article telecom (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > I am convinced part of the reason I do not see eye to eye with many > readers regarding the 'scourge of telemarketing' is due to the > relative rarity of this sort of call to my phones. > If I got four or five a night, I guess I would be annoyed by it > also. So I can see why some of you want to devise schemes to avoid the > calls when possible. Is three or four a night about average for most > people? That seems like a lot. Thank you for finally acknowledging the validity of this concern. I get an average of three or four telemarketing calls per night, but the telemarketers, clever rascals that they are, are getting better at figuring out when I'll be home. I can count on six to eight calls from them if a Suns game is being televised. To me, the trend is more alarming than the current frequency. Five years ago, I got almost no telemarketing calls; three years ago, perhaps one per day; now it's tripled that. In five more years, will I be fielding 15 to 20 calls each evening? Impossible! It's no wonder that people are trying to discourage them. Jeffrey Hunt (602) 581-4082 UUCP: ...!ames!ncar!noao!asuvax!gtephx!huntj Compuserve: 73760.767@compuserve ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 09:56:13 EST From: gdw@gummo.att.com (Gordon D Woods) Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article , TELECOM Moderator writes: > For starters, I have phones everywhere I sit, including my throne > chair. I am working on this but it takes a long time to wire the whole house. I tried a cordless phone but I always seemed to leave it where I wasn't. I have trouble putting my heart into it, though, essentially succumbing to telemarketers forcing me to waste time wiring my whole house or buying expensive equipment. IT'S JUST NOT FAIR! > On the rare occassion when I am home during the day, the phone rarely > rings, except with wrong numbers. This is my experience also, even for my targeted neighborhood. They just don't call during the day. Dinner and afterward, that's the plan. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 15:08:33 GMT From: ashbya@zeus.swindon.rtsg.mot.com (Adam Ashby) Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood Pat, I have always wondered why you are so down on Chicago. Where exactly do you live?? I have and will always have, very good memories of my two years in the city -- well one year of utter boredom in the northwest suburbs (Palatine) and one excellent year in the city. I suppose that I was lucky in that I lived in what I was told was the Gold Coast -- SW corner of Dearborn and Chicago. But having said that I was only a few blocks away from Cabrini Green -- not the most salubrious part of ChiTown eh?! During the time I spent in both places, I received a few telemarketing calls from newspapers when I first moved in and almost nothing since then. I experienced one recorded sales pitch that I hung up on and a couple of Visa-type places trying to sign me up. I did of course have the advantage of not having a credit record so I suppose that not many people were intersted in me. Anyway, my initial reason for this mail was to wonder why you felt Chicago was such a bad place to live. I never had any problems, despite my proximety to Cabrini Green and being diagonally opposite the YMCA. My wife had only one exciting moment even though she walked up Dearborn every night from #33 even in the dark. The only "moment" she had was when she noticed someone trying to steal her bag (purse to you Americans!!), she soon sent him packing with a swift right to the face!! We often used to take late night walks around the area, or up to Oak Street beach, or down to Grant Park, something I wouldn't so happily do in London. I think that you should be proud of the city and let people know what a fine place it is instead of the doom and gloom that you paint it in the Digest. If I had unlimited funds, I would wish to have an appartment in Chicago, London and New York, but I can never decide which one I prefer the most!! I do realise that Chicago has its problems -- I spent a lot of time at Blues clubs, including some of the lesser known ones on the South and West sides where very few white Chicagoans would go, let alone your average tourist -- but it also has a lot of good points! Adam [Moderator's Note: I'll respond in detail in a special mailing over the weekend. That way, anyone not interested in me crying in my beer can pitch it unread. PAT] ------------------------------ From: paul@unhtel.unh.edu (Paul S. Sawyer) Subject: AT&T Security Systems (was Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Msg?) Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 14:12:37 GMT In article fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) writes: > Last night's second telemarketer was from AT&T! At least, that's what > he said. He was selling (oops, he wasn't selling it, he was just > explaining features and taking reservations for a seminar on home > security) AT&T home security systems. If I have a detail or two > wrong, it is because I cut him off pretty quickly. I wasn't aware > that AT&T sold home security products, so perhaps this call was a > ripoff. Most likely it was a local security company that is an authorized dealer of AT&T security products. Around here, the GOOD security companies have all the business they can handle without telemarketing. Paul S. Sawyer - University of New Hampshire CIS - paul@unhtel.unh.edu Telecommunications and Network Services - VOX: +1 603 862 3262 Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3523 - FAX: +1 603 862 2030 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 10:43:27 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences frankston!Bob_Frankston@world.std.com writes: > Then there is the problem of phone numbers starting with "9". People > don't change their dialing patterns when the[y] get home from work. In other words, someone has dialed 9-abc-defg to make a local call from an office and forgets to omit the leading 9 when calling that same number from home, so reaches 9ab-cdef instead? Here is a case of the reverse: In the installation where my office is (Maryland), 9 + (7D or 1+NPA+7D) is the way to make a call thru the "outside" commercial network, and 17 is the emergency number. Recently, I heard (no specifics given) that some people forget to dial that leading 9 when making long distance calls to an area code starting with 7. Notice that area codes 703 and 717 border Maryland. > Interestingly I get more wrong numbers on one line than another. The > offending one is the second line which is one higher than the first > line. Vague. [Moderator's Note: When I worked at the Amoco-Diners credit card processing office years ago my centrex extension was 7261. Next door was a combination delicattessen/cut rate liquor store where employees would order lunch by phone. Their number was 726-1111 if memory serves me. Starting at 11:45 AM daily, my phone would ring; I would answer and the caller(s) would usually curse and hang up, having forgotten to dial a '9' first. I'd get one or two of these calls every day during the two lunch hours. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #932 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10797; 16 Nov 91 4:40 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24617 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 15 Nov 1991 22:45:29 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15478 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 15 Nov 1991 22:45:17 -0600 Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 22:45:17 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111160445.AA15478@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #931 TELECOM Digest Fri, 15 Nov 91 22:45:10 CST Volume 11 : Issue 931 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Future of Printed Books (Jack Decker) Re: Phone Gateways? (Bob Frankston) Re: Early Switches Permitting Touch-Tone (Andrew C. Green) Re: Alternative Email Service (Robert J. Woodhead) Re: Call Waiting in the 5ESS (Tad Cook) Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences (Dave Strieter) Re: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption (Robert E. Zabloudil) Re: Cellular Antennas (John Gilbert) Re: Cellular Antennas (John Higdon) Re: Cellular Antennas (Mark Ahlenius) Re: Cellular Antennas (Russell Lang) Re: On Having Telco as a Housemate (was Question Easement) (Lars Poulsen) Finding a Message From Prior Issues (William M. Davidson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 22:01:43 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: The Future of Printed Books In a message dated 10 Nov 91 14:24:59 GMT, Pat (the Moderator) writes: > [Moderator's Note: Not everyone here would agree with you, but I do. > For all that was wrong with the old Bell System, we still had the best > phone system in the world, bar none. That is now very questionable. > Yes, we have all kinds of new technological gimmicks on the phone we > did not have years ago, but the network itself has gone to hell in a > handbasket, and the old-time enthusiasm and dedication to quality of > service is mostly missing. PAT] Pat, you're probably getting a lot of mail on this one, but I'll throw in my two cents' worth anyway. I will grant that in some cases the quaility of service has degraded, though I have to wonder how much of that is specifically related to the breakup of the Bell System and how much of it is due to the change in society as a whole. America once made the best cars and television sets in the world, too. It seems that pride in workmanship and an emphasis on doing things right the first time has fallen by the wayside in many industries, not just the telephone industry. On the other hand, when the Bell System broke up we did not have voice calls from across the continent that sounded as clear as if the person speaking were next door, and you thought twice about picking up the phone to make that cross-country call because the tolls were so much higher. And, yes, it was comforting to know that if something broke, Ma would fix it for free ... but was it really worth $5 per month (more if you wanted a color other than black) per extension phone, for a phone that Ma paid maybe $20 to produce (and no extra cost per color)? I think the Bell System really sowed the seeds of its own demise, by ripping people off in various and sundry ways. And I think the Baby Bells are making the same mistakes today, especially with the imposition of mandatory measured service. People aren't so dumb that they don't know when they're being overcharged, and sooner or later the resentment comes to a head. The one thing that few people will ever say about the old Bell System (just prior to divestiture) was that service was a real bargain, especially if you wanted something more than just one telephone, or made more than a few long distance calls! Jack Decker : jack@myamiga.mixcom.com : FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ From: Subject: Re: Phone Gateways? Date: 14 Nov 1991 14:53 -0400 X.PC is a publicly available protocol defined by Tymnet. I don't know the current number for reaching them, but I'd guess the main info number is a start. XPC code might also be avialable on arious BBSes. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 16:13:29 CST From: acg@HERMES.DLOGICS.COM Reply-To: acg@hermes.dlogics.com Subject: Re: Early Switches Permitting Touch-Tone kclark@cevax.simpact.com (Ken J. Clark) writes: > I'm not sure when AT&T introduced Touchtone(R) to the market place. I'm going to GUESS at sometime around 1964 at the latest. We attended the New York World's Fair that year, and among the neat new things there were Touchtone(R) payphones around the fairgrounds. I'm pretty certain that those early ones didn't include the "*" and "#" keys, by the way. I remember that they made such an impression on the visitors that people not only made the usual gee-whiz calls ("Hey, Grandpa, we're calling you from a Touchtone-parentheses-R phone!"), but also photographed each other standing at the telephone. I know we did. :-) Andrew C. Green (312) 266-4431 Datalogics, Inc. Internet: acg@dlogics.com 441 W. Huron UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!acg Chicago, IL 60610 FAX: (312) 266-4473 ------------------------------ From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: Alternative Email Service Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 03:26:56 GMT sprouse@n3igw.pgh.pa.us (Ken Sprouse) writes: > I think you should also look at GEnie.(General Electric Information > Service) They offer email as part of their BASIC services package for > a flat fee of $4.95 a month with no connect time charges (18:00 to > 08:00 eastern time) and no limit on the number of email messages. Currently, GEnie does not have connectivity with outside mail services (although there are persistant rumors that this will change soon). If GEnie does get a hookup with the internet, it will certainly be the best deal in the commercial arena by far. When I moved to Japan I gave my CI$ account to my mother so we could email back and forth. If GEnie gets internet connectivity, I'll switch her to a GEnie STAR*SERVICES account the next day. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Call Waiting in the 5ESS From: tad@ssc.wa.com (Tad Cook) Date: 14 Nov 91 23:21:21 GMT Organization: very little john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) sez: > I have just been informed by someone deep in Pac*Bell that there IS a > situation where the 5ESS will allow Call Waiting to a person who is > the center of a three-way call in progress. Incredible! After twice posting that I can do this from my home phone (served by a 5ESS), my friend Mr. Higdon insisted that I didn't know what I was talking about ... "reliable" sources had told him that this is impossible, and I think his comment was something like "are we to believe these (unnamed) authoritative sources, or Mr. Cook?". When I offered to demonstrate this for him, he claimed that I didn't know what flavor of switch I am served by, so my demonstration could do nothing to enlighten anyone, since as a residential customer I could not actually PROVE that the Lakeview CO in Seattle is a 5ESS. Somehow quirks in his 5ESS in PacBell are alleged to be the defacto standard for the rest of us in US West! Tad Cook | Phone: 206-527-4089 | MCI Mail: 3288544 Seattle, WA | Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA | 3288544@mcimail.com | USENET: tad@ssc.wa.com or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 16:57:45 MST From: asuvax!gtephx!strieterd@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Dave Strieter) From: strieterd@gtephx.UUCP (Dave Strieter) Subject: Re: Repeat Digits and Wrong Number Occurrences Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 23:57:16 GMT In article , tmkk@uiuc.edu (Scott Coleman) writes: > phone numbers. I've received all sorts of wrong-number calls, > including some for the local cable company! It brings to mind the old > AT&T ad jingle about "second class phones." There appear to be a great > many second class phones out there ... Our AT&T cordless phone must have been one of those "second-class phones" that AT&T was talking about, because it sure had a bad case of key bounce. Fortunately, AT&T has agreed to fix it for free, even though it is out of warranty. But then, they haven't sent it back to me yet, so ... :-) Dave Strieter, AG Communication Systems, POB 52179, Phoenix AZ 85072-2179 *** These are not my employer's opinions, and I have no intent to advise. *** UUCP:..!{ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!samsung!romed!asuvax | att}!gtephx!strieterd Internet: gtephx!strieterd@asuvax.eas.asu.edu ------------------------------ From: nol2105@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert E. Zabloudil) Subject: Re: Fast Turnaround on Service Interuption Date: 14 Nov 91 16:36:25 GMT Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus In article Jay.Ashworth@psycho. fidonet.org (Jay Ashworth) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 907, Message 5 of 10 > If they really mis-encode your bill, I expect you can sue them. If they Hate to respond without seeing the original post, but the above would be rather a drastic first step. When I got my October statement from my CU (canceled checks are not returned), I noticed my check to Kroger's for $8. Something was cleared for $81. Something. I called them, they got a copy of the check without the usual $5 charge, and then fixed my account, reassuring me that nothing had bounced in the meantime. ------------------------------ From: johng.all_proj@mot.com (John) Subject: Re: Cellular Antennas Organization: Motorola Inc, LMPS Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 02:28:38 GMT In article Eric_Florack.Wbst311@ xerox.com writes: > ...Such a system is all but useless. IF you're seeing two cellular > antennas, someone has bought a dummy antenna and suck it up there. > (Gee, he has TWO phones?) Funny part is, even if the second antenna > isn;t hooked up, it's likely as not to be fouling the performance of > the first ... but that's another story. The second antenna might be for another cellular phone as a later posting points out. It might also be for a land mobile 800 or 900 Mhz conventional or trunked radio. Most likely it is for diversity reception capability. Some high tier phones offer this feature that requires two antennas. With diversity you can switch or combine signals to gain a 12 dB signal-to-noise improvement. One antenna talks and listens; the other only listens. The original Chicago AMPS trials telephones all used dual antenna diversity reception. At one time the Bell System anticipated using diversity reception on all AMPS telephones. I don't know why it is not seen on more phones today, but I would assume it would be primarily for cost considerations. More information about the Chicago AMPS trials is in the Bell System Technical Journal vol 58, pp. 97-122 Jan 1979. (A great publication -- another of the casualties of divestiture.) As the earlier posting pointed out, phased transmit antennas wouldn't make sense in this application. John Gilbert KA4JMC Secure and Advanced Conventional Sys Div Astro Systems Development Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Sector Schaumburg, Illinois johng@ecs.comm.mot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 12:43 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Cellular Antennas Eric_Florack.Wbst311@xerox.com writes: > IF you're seeing two cellular antennas, someone has bought a dummy > antenna and suck it up there. (Gee, he has TWO phones?) Funny part > is, even if the second antenna isn;t hooked up, it's likely as not to > be fouling the performance of the first ... but that's another story. This is not necessarily true. Some cellular transceivers (one being an EF Johnson which happened to be my first cellular phone) use "diversity reception". The receiver monitors the signal on TWO input ports and switches to the one that has the cleanest signal. Transmitting is done through only one of the antennas, but the receiver can switch at will to either one. With that particular radio, there was a tremendous difference between one and two antenna reception. So I would venture to say that if you see two cellular antennas, the most likely reason is that the radio utilizes diversity reception. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: motcid!ahlenius@uunet.uu.net (Mark Ahlenius) Subject: Re: Cellular Antennas Date: 15 Nov 91 12:39:18 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL Often the reason for two cellular antennas is for diversity reception. Some mobile phones offer this feature, which permits the radio to select the stronger of two signals received. This requires a more complex front end in the radio, and a technique that measures which signal is stronger, and then it choses that signal. Due to the short wavelength of cellular frequencies, multipath distortion can often occur. Ever notice how in a downtown area when you are listening to your radio and you stop at a light, the radio fades, but if you move a few feet or inches, reception often comes back? Well the same concept is applied to diversity reception. Two antennas are spaced a specified distance apart, and chances are if the recieved signal at one antenna is in a fade, the other is not. The same technology applies to wireless microphone systems with diversity reception (in building coverage is often a bear!). Some cellular manufacturers also provide diversity reception on the celluar base stations as well for the same reasons. Now once while driving on Rt. 53 (Illinois) I saw a van with 13 cellular antennas, unless it was a special test vehicle, your guess is as good as mine. Hope this overly simplified answer helps. mark ------------------------------ From: rjl@fawlty4.eng.monash.edu.au (r lang) Subject: Re: Cellular Antennas Organization: Monash University, Australia Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 21:57:29 GMT The purpose of twin cellular antennas is most likely space diversity. The signal at the mobile undergoes rapid fading due to reception of multiple path reflections (commonly called multipath or rayleigh fading). The fading received at two spaced antennas has been found to be uncorrelated for spacings of several wavelengths or more. If the signal drops below a threshold, and if the other antenna has a better signal, the mobile will change antennas. References: Bell Systems Technical Journal circa 1980 (from memory) Microwave Mobile Communications, Jakes (Ed.) Russell Lang Email: rjl@fawlty4.eng.monash.edu.au Phone: (03) 565 3460 Department of Electrical and Computer Systems Engineering Monash University, Australia ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 10:58:35 PST From: lars@cmc.com (Lars Poulsen) Subject: Re: On Having Telco as a Housemate (was Question Easement) Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA PAT, Don't leave us hanging like that: Did that lady ever get the box removed? Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM [Moderator's Note: I don't know. I never followed up on it. If someone wants to do so, I'll be glad to run a followup story. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 14:03:37 -0700 From: davidson@cs.sandia.gov (William M. Davidson) Subject: Finding Messages From Prior Issues During the last two years, I have seen several complaints about MCI and Sprint customer service. I did not save any of them but I now wish I had. Does anyone have a collection of complaints towards MCI, Sprint and AT&T? Thanks! William [i aM not a dweeb] Davidson Sandia National Laboratories (505) 844-1863 davidson@intvax.UUCP [Moderator's Note: Ah, a chance to plug the subject index in the Telecom Archives! A file you will find there is entitled 'index-vol9-10-11.subj.Z'. The /Z/ means it is compressed. This file contains the subject lines in alphabetical order of all messages in the Digest since about March, 1989 to the present time. (Actually, up to issue 900.) Take this back to your site, uncompress it, then grep it to your heart's content for subjects, author's names, phrases which appeared in the headers, and (in the left column) the volume number and block of issues where the desired message is to be found. Grep -i is recommended for best results. The Telecom Archives is available via anonymous ftp: lcs.mit.edu; give name@site as password, then you must 'cd telecom-archives'. Happy hunting! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #931 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21873; 16 Nov 91 13:54 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03402 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 10:54:31 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14972 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 10:54:22 -0600 Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 10:54:22 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111161654.AA14972@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #933 TELECOM Digest Sat, 16 Nov 91 10:54:03 CST Volume 11 : Issue 933 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Telemarketers: Why Not Transfer Them? (Ben Delisle) New AT&T Mail Rate Clarification (Alan Toscano) Method Needed to Test Extension Phone (David Nyarko) New SS7 Specifications From Bellcore (Dave Leibold) Looking For Help With an IBM 026 Keypunch (Cliff Stoll) Re: Cellular Antennas (Chris Sattler) Re: Two Cellular Questions (Michael Lyman) Re: Cellular Phone Rates Boudrie Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU (Steven King) Re: Easements (Dave Niebuhr) Re: Bell of PA *Offers* CallerID Blocking (Vincent D. Skahan) Re: Calling Card Wars (Simona Nass) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle) Subject: Telemarketers: Why Not Transfer Them? Date: 15 Nov 91 08:36:20 GMT Organization: ESKIMO NORTH (206) 367-3837 SEATTLE WA. [Moderator's Note: In this issue, I decided to save the best for first. Go ahead Ben ... PAT] Something just gave me a great idea, if it would work the way I am hoping. If you have or get call transfer ... and somebody you don't like or even a telemarketer calls you ... how about using Call Transfer on them? My plan is to transfer their call to a foreign country or to a real expensive 900 / 976 number. Now the catch is ... do you pay for the call from your switch to wherever you send the offending caller(s), or does the person who you transfered pay for the call to wherever they happen to get sent? (I'm bustin my belly on this idea, it's so funny! ;) I want to make their call as expensive as possible (nasty, ain't I?). delisle@eskimo.celestial.com [Moderator's Note, complete with straight face, like that of an unduly unctious undertaker: Ben, I hate to break the news to you, but I hope you haven't been trying this little trick. The telemarketers won't like it, but you'll like it even less when you get your next phone bill. ANYTHING you dial on your phone is charged to you, Ben. People only pay for what they dial. Where the call gets extended to is the responsibility of the extending party -- that's you! -- and if you've been forwarding or transferring your callers to 1-900-328-7448 or Hong Kong Telephone Company's Talking Clock, then the joke is on you, I'm afraid. Thanks for writing to me. PAT] ------------------------------ From: atoscano@attmail.com Date: Fri Nov 15 12:31:35 CST 1991 Subject: New AT&T Mail Rate Clarification I've just spoken with an AT&T EasyLink Services representative, regarding the scheduled rate increase for AT&T Mail users. She indicated that the $25/mo usage minimum, and $3/mo mailbox fee, will not apply until the account's next anniversary. That is, they will take effect one year after the user was last billed the $30 annual fee. Also, it is possible to combine several mailboxes under one Master Account, in which case the $25 minimum will apply to the combined usage. (I'm not sure when the minimum takes effect if the several mailboxes had different anniversaries.) Companies with multiple mailboxes should definitely look into this. Finally, anyone planning to cancel their AT&T Mail account because of the rate increase, is encouraged to call 800 242-6005, and register their intentions. EasyLink is taking names and numbers in the hope that they can offer some type of economy plan. For now, it's just a hope -- there's nothing official. A Alan Toscano Work: +1 713 236 6616 Home: +1 713 993 9560 P O Box 741982 AT&T Mail: atoscano ELN: 62306750 Houston, TX CIS: 73300,217 Prodigy: BHWR97A 772741982 USA X.400: C=US;A=ATTMAIL;S=Toscano;G=A;DDA.ID=atoscano [Moderator's Note: I see they have linked ATT Mail to the FYI Information Service run by WU in Bridgeton, MO. I sent a note asking if the $25 minimum could be applied to FYI usage, in which case I might consider sticking around. They have not answered me yet. PAT] ------------------------------ From: nyarko@ee.ualberta.ca (David Nyarko) Subject: Method Needed to Test Extension Phone Reply-To: nyarko@ee.ualberta.ca (David Nyarko) Organization: University of Alberta Electrical Engineering Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 22:25:07 GMT I would like to know if there is a way (short of asking a friend to call your number) of testing/phoning an extension phone from another phone on the same line. nyarko@bode.ee.ualbeta.ca [Moderator's Note: If you know the ring-back number you can use it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 18:49:21 EST From: David Leibold Subject: New SS7 Specifications From Bellcore Bellcore has just announced a new edition of its Specification of Signalling System Number 7 (issue 2). The notice that came my way in the mail had a list price of USD$550, document number TR-NWT-000246. Covered are such things as Message Transfer Part (MTP), Singalling Connection Control Part (SCCP), ISDN User Part (ISUP), Transaction Capabilities Application Part (TCAP), Operation, Maintenance and Administration Part (OMAP) and Interworking of ISDN Access and Network Signaling. SS7 is a protocol that provides signalling within a telephone network; the idea is that signalling is done on a common channel, away from the voice circuits, in order to improve security and efficiency of connections. Practical examples of the network include the Caller Number ID service (SS7 delivers the caller's number to the called party) or the almost instantaneous call completion after Toronto-area subscribers dial the last digit on most local phone calls. I do not represent Bellcore; I'm just one who gets mailings from them. For more information, contact 1 800 521.CORE (USA) or +1 908 699.5800 (other), or check the FAQ for more info (mail address, Bellcore's activities). dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ From: stoll@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Cliff Stoll) Subject: Looking For Help With an IBM 026 Keypunch Date: 15 Nov 91 23:33:19 GMT Organization: ucb Hi there, Comp.dcom.telecom isn't the place to post this, but there's a lot of oldstyle hardware wizards hanging around here, so here goes: I'm rebuilding an IBM 026 Keypunch and need documentation. Schematics, service manuals, information on where to grease, and where to find replacement parts (like belts and printer ribbons). If you don't know what an 026 is, you're indeed fortunate! Many Thanx! Cliff Stoll cliff@ocf.berkeley.edu [Moderator's Note: Cliff, it's nice to hear from you again. Your messages are always welcome here. Answers, anyone? PAT] ------------------------------ From: motcid!sattlerc@uunet.uu.net (Chris Sattler) Subject: Re: Cellular Antennas Date: 15 Nov 91 20:41:45 GMT Reply-To: motcid!sattlerc@uunet.uu.net Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL Eric_Florack.Wbst311@xerox.com writes: > Such a system is all but useless. IF you're seeing two cellular > antennas, someone has bought a dummy antenna and stuck it up there. > (Gee, he has TWO phones?) Funny part is, even if the second antenna > isn;t hooked up, it's likely as not to be fouling the performance of > the first ... but that's another story. The purpose of having two antennas for a cellular phone is to supply antenna diversification when receiving a signal. Here's the idea ... When you're stuck in city traffic and just inching along , you can move the antenna into a small area where the radio signal combines with a reflected signal which is out of phase. The two signals cancel each other out resulting in a weak signal. Antenna diversification uses two antennas and select the one with the best signal. When you have antenna diversification the probability of both antennas being affected by such a condition is much less. These areas are very small. Obviously this is not a problem if the mobile is moving very fast as you are in and out of the area before you notice any effect. Chris Sattler Motorola Inc !uunet!motcid!sattlerc (708) 632-3615 All opinions expressed are my own, not those of my employer. ------------------------------ From: motcid!lyman@uunet.uu.net (Michael Lyman) Subject: Re: Two Cellular Questions Date: 15 Nov 91 23:01:42 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL tlowe@attmail.com writes: > I have two questions: > When the phone is just sitting there, it tends to transmit for about > one oe two seconds every hour or so. What is it transmitting? Is the > cellular switch polling it or is the phone taking it upon itself to > transmit something? This is most likely because the "reregistration" bit is set in the overhead signaling stream. This is an option when set by the switching operator that changes a bit in the signaling scheme to the phone that tells the unit to start a timer. Upon timeout the unit will momentarily transmit and send its registration parameters to the switch ( via the base site of course ). Apparently the system has been scoped such that this amount of overhead is allowable on that particular system since with the constant rereg messages going on this amounts to quite a bit of data above and beyond the normal amount. > 2. Is there any advantage to using twin cellular antennas on a car? > Remember during the CB craze this was the case. Also, does it matter > if the antenna is in the back, middle, or side of a car? I can't be sure which twin cellular antennae you're refering to but there has been (and still are I assume) a version of cellular receiver that uses a form of diversity reception ... actually two different receivers in the same unit. The received signals are processed in parellel then sumed to give an enhanced recovered waveform. If memory serves correctly I believe this was the scheme that the AMPS system originally used. Although I can't be certain, it would seem a bit defeating to have a directional cellular antenna as one might normally view the two antenna philosophy normally used in C.B. radio's. Michael Lyman, Motorola S.E.D (Iridium) Chandler, Az. ...uunet!motcid!lyman (for now..) ------------------------------ From: Rob Boudrie Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 15:04:47 EST Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Rates >> cellulars use radio frequencies, so there aren't any lines to >> maintain. Should be much cheaper. Why do people put up with such a >> ripoff? You appear to be under the assumption that the goal of carriers is to provide a service. No so. The goal is to lawfully separate the customer from as much of their money as possible, with as little corporate expenditure as possible. Also, given the history of the development of Cellular Service, society has not regarded it as anything that must be "universal", or is "essential" for all members of society, whereas public policy does make that tacit assumption about regular fones. Hence, there is litle regulatory pressure bearing on the industry to keep prices low. Another factor is the limited competetion. The FCC licenses two carriers in each local (to stimulate competetion, but avoid chaos in the spectrum). These licenses were originally raffled off to any entrant who could prove they had the resources to develop a cellular system (no "get rich quick by winning a license and selling it" unless you could convince the FCC that you had a credible chance of using the license yourself). As a result, each celluar provider has 1 competitor to worry about. It is very possible, and even likely, that the competing providers agree (without ever discussing it) not to get into price wars. Each one realizes that if they lower the price to increase market share, the enemy carrier will as well, they'll still have 50% of the market but at a lower price (of course demand will go up, but they seek to optimize the profit integral). As a result, you see lots of competetion based on service, innovative billing "arrangements" (a zillion "plans" to chose from), but no meaningful attempt by any celluar company to underprice the competetion. This allows each company to have roughly half of the subscribers in a given market; maximize their profit; and minimize the amount of cash left in the subscriber's pocket. Why do people put up with such a ripoff? I don't!!! If they had Hong Kong style pricing, I'd have a celluar phone. Another issue relates to recovery of the capital investment. In the absence of regulatory pressure, firms will want to recover this ASAP. In general, I'm a fan of unregulated free market competetion. Unfortunately, the nature of celluar fones (limited spectrum and inability of N, n>2 providers, competitors in the market) creates a situation where regulation may be appropriate. If I've made any "errors of fact" I invite the net community to post corrections. Rob Boudrie rboudrie@encore.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 17:13:29 CST From: king@blue.rtsg.mot.com (Steven King) Subject: Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU John Higdon writes: >jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com writes: >> [AT&T's Reach Out doesn't end automatically if you switch carriers.] > Why is this a problem? Some people may even want to continue AT&T > plans even with another PIC. Just because a customer has "switched > carriers" does not mean that they can never use AT&T again. I'd consider this to be a *major* bug! As a consumer, I consider Reach Out and any other special billing plans as part of my AT&T service. If I cancel my AT&T service (by switching to another carrier) I expect AT&T to stop billing me. Period. If I were to find a charge the next month for Reach Out I'd complain bitterly to AT&T. I realize that some people may want AT&T's Reach Out plan but have another company as their default carrier. Provision should be made for that. But I expect that this is the exception rather than the rule. I'd prefer to see the default be to terminate all billing plans unless AT&T is otherwise notified, rather than having to explicitly cancel each plan separately. Your average consumer just isn't going to think to do that. (Heck, I'm hardly your average telecom consumer, and *I* wouldn't think to explicitly cancel my Reach Out America service if I changed carriers!) Steven King, Motorola Cellular (king@rtsg.mot.com) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 10:01:57 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: Re: Easements I'd like to add one more thing about my easement for utilities. In New York, as I understand it, an easement gives a utility the permission to string their lines across your property on under its surface. Should a problem occur with an underground installation, the homeowner is responsible for digging the trench to expose the item and replace it at my expense. At least this is true for water. I don't know about telephone or electric lines since mine are overhead. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ From: vds7789@tahoma.fsl.ca.boeing.com (Vincent D. Skahan) Subject: Re: Bell of PA *Offers* CallerID Blocking Date: 15 Nov 91 15:02:36 GMT Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplanes - Seattle, WA In article GREEN@WILMA.WHARTON. UPENN.EDU (Scott D. Green) writes: > D. Michael Stroud, Bell's VP and general counsel, said that callers > could press *67 to make a call untraceable. "I think that would cure > every issue raised by every opponent," he said. I don't want to have to do ANYTHING to block Caller-ID ... I just want it blocked positively and absolutely. ------------------------------ From: simona@panix.com (Simona Nass) Subject: Re: Calling Card Wars Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 22:28:15 GMT Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC In phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) writes: > Is it war or not between AT&T and the Baby Bells for credit card > accounts? Are others using the same advertising strategy? At least here in New York it is. I just got a notice from NYTel that AT&T would no longer be able to use customers' home phone number as part of their calling card. NYTel offered to allow customers ("How many plastic cards would you like?") to keep the same number (home phone) and PIN from their AT&T card, but with it under NYTel's jurisdiction. ( simona@panix.com or {apple,cmcl2}!panix!simona ) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #933 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23897; 16 Nov 91 15:18 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05100 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 11:53:03 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23050 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 11:52:53 -0600 Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 11:52:53 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111161752.AA23050@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #934 TELECOM Digest Sat, 16 Nov 91 11:52:39 CST Volume 11 : Issue 934 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson How Do They >>Know<< ? (Marshal Perlman) New Product Review: EmBARC (David Lesher) AT&T Early Efforts in Radio Broadcasting (SIGNALS Show via Scott Fybush) AT&T Speech Recognition (Charles Hoequist) What Information do Phone Companies Process? (Dr. Ross Alan Stapleton) Are Phone Books Available on Diskette? (John Roberts) Problem With Three Way Call (J. Brad Hicks) Tone Decoder Wanted (Tatsuya Kawasaki) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mperlman@isis.cs.du.edu (Marshal Perlman) Subject: How Do They >>Know<< ? Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci. Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 02:50:25 GMT OK ... I hope you can all understand this ... but here I go. Today, I got my HI! HELLO catalog...and noticed something neat. I can fill out a form, fax it in to 1-800-888-0108, and they would send me back the product information I indicated on the sheet. Anyhow on the sheet, you are supposed to write your fax number in "ocr handwriting" so their fax can see it, and send it back to you. Well, I got the information I wanted, and said "HEY ... THAT IS NEAT". So I decide to 'play' with it and I learned something quite odd. First and formost (this is important to the story), we have two fax machines, one 'real one' and one on a computer board. I decided to type up a little message that said "FAX" and send it to the machine. Two minutes later a fax came in and said 'we cannot process your request' and a bunch of other stuff. I wondered how the computer got my fax number and then I realized that the 'header' had my fax number in it so I said 'wow it reads that too ... pretty neat' but then I went out on a limb and tried something. I erased the fax number and name of my company from the header of the fax (I double checked that I did erase it by sending a fax to my other machine) and faxed it in. Lo and behold two minutes later I got another 'we cannot process your request' thingy. NOW I am positive that my fax number was not anywhere on the fax, and it still knew my phone number ... I live in CALIFORNIA and I am 99% positive that we don't have CID (otherwise I'd have it). How did they know my phone number? Was it ANI? And there is NO HUMAN input from their side. It was all by their machine ... the damn thing knew my number. SO again, in the face of science I thought maybe it knows my number from the 1st two REAL faxes. I went to the other machine, erased the number and name from the header, and send a blank page to them and guess what happened two minutes later? I got a fax saying 'we cannot process your request..." but this time it was on a different fax at a different number. Now can anyone tell me how they know my number? Marshal Perlman mperlman@isis.cs.du.edu Huntington Beach, California [Moderator's Note: You said the answer yourself: They have real time ANI. Your number is delivered to them along with your fax. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: New Product Review: EmBARC Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 23:09:02 EST Reply-To: wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex Galvin Manufacturing, sometimes known as Motorola, announced a new product at NATA - Unicom. EmBARC is a somewhat uneasy marriage of pagers and commercial email. Your message starts out in their X.400 switch. It then goes to their uplink site, and bounces down to all the planned 931.9125mhz paging sites in the country. Then based on how much the sender paid, all or selected sites transmit the message, up to 1500 characters, via {quote} State of The Art 1200 bps POCSAG {endquote} to your special "NewsStream" receiver's 32k buffer. Then when you plug it into your laptop or HP-95, you can scroll thru all the received messages. They showed salesmen getting spreadsheet data, price updates, and the usual ilk of email. They say their software can sort one from the other on the PC. Impressions: Macy asked about Internet access. The speaker [basically] said no way. I pointed out they were pushing the transmission of all KINDS of sensitive data to anyone with a 900 mhz receiver, and asked if it was encrypted. The answer to that was [basically] "That's YOUR problem...." [where have we heard THAT before?] The scheme is one-way. There is no way for the remote to know it has just missed a vital message. So there is a modem port on the X.400 switch. You can call in, reply to messages still in its buffer, and get told you missed messages # 245, 246, and so forth. You do get a notice if you receive #247 that two are missing, etc. It seems very pricey. Plus, every time someone asked, some new charge emerged. First there is a $400 cost to buy the pager, including a startup pack of software for the laptop. There is a $15.00/month charge for the X.400 mailbox of some finite size. Then each message needs a $0.13 "stamp" and depending on: the urgency {10 minutes --> overnight}, area {only the #256 transmitter in North Podunk or every one in Podunk, or nationwide} repetition {once, or repeated pages -- remember, there's no feedback of receipt} and other things, a charge of from $0.05-->$0.50 per 100 bytes. Note that the SENDER pays all these charges, hence there is a real problem with establishing accounts, billing, etc. In addition, if you want your email switch to talk to their X.400, that's more, too. They do have the gimmick of specifying areas to be covered by area code. ISTM at these prices, they should be "900 numbers" ;-} All in all, I think they'd have rather Macy and I were not there to ask embarrassing questions. On the other hand, Ogilvy & Mather {the PR house} provided all kinds of goodies including beach towels, drinks and great horse-dovers! wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 12:12 EDT From: Scott Fybush Subject: AT&T Early Efforts in Radio Broadcasting Our esteemed Moderator asked me to post a transcript of the piece that I did for SIGNALS a few weeks ago on AT&T's early radio involvement. I wouldn't dare act against the Moderator's wishes :), so... AT&T AND RADIO As heard on *SIGNALS*, 9 November 1991 by Scott Fybush When you think of AT&T, you probably think of the phone company. AUDIO: {DTMF dialing, followed by AT&T's "ka-bong} But AT&T had a radio career as well. In fact, it was AT&T that invented the radio network. Our story takes us back to 1922, when radio broadcasting was still in its infancy. All radio was non-commercial, and all of it was local. AT&T looked at radio and saw something different -- a money- maker. It envisioned a "phone booth of the air," where people could walk in, pay their money, and address the world. The first phone booth station, WBAY New York, signed on July 25, 1922. It was something less than successful, though. The engineers who built WBAY didn't realize that the steel-framed building that held the transmitter tower would absorb so much of the station's signal. For most listeners, including AT&T's president at his Connecticut Home, WBAY sounded more like _this_... AUDIO: {static} ...than like a phone booth. AT&T's engineers went back to work. On August 16, the phone booth programs moved to a new transmitter, with the call letters WEAF. Twelve days later, WEAF presented the first commercial broadcast, a fifteen-minute talk advertising apartments in Queens. As radio began to take off, stations started bringing listeners programs from outside the studion. To present programming from long distances required the help of the phone company. And as phone company engineers worked on these long-distance remotes, it occurred to AT&T that WEAF's programs could be more valuable if they were heard in other cities as well. AT&T prepared a plan for 38 relay stations across the country. The first such station, WCAP Washington, signed on July 4, 1923. AT&T continued to offer firsts...a four-station network the same month ... a presidential address over six stations in December ... coast-to-coast broadcasts by 1924. That summer's political conventions were heard in twelve cities. By the spring of 1925, AT&T had a regular 12-station network available for use. It also had a growing government headache. The problem was monopoly. AT&T had the only network of wires available for radio. As a network operator itself, AT&T was becoming unwilling to let other potential networks use its wires. After several years of negotiation, AT&T agreed to sell WEAF and its network to the Radio Corporation of America -- RCA. On November 1, 1926, the sale was closed for one million dollars. And on December 15, the network, now with nineteen stations, received a new name -- the "National Broadcasting Corporation" -- NBC. As for the stations, WEAF was known later as WRCA and as WNBC. It left the airwaves for good in 1988. WCAP's airtime was consolidated into RCA's Washington station, WRC. Today the station is known as WWRC. And AT&T? They left the programming business, but their lines continued to carry radio -- and television -- networks across the country. Only the advent of satellite networking in the 1980s took AT&T out of the business that it helped invent. AUDIO: {"Thank you for using AT&T!"} For SIGNALS, I'm Scott Fybush. ------------------ My next radio history piece will be heard on SIGNALS Saturday November 23. SIGNALS airs every Saturday from 11:35 pm to 12:30 am Eastern time over WWCR, 7435 kHz shortwave. The topic of the next piece will be synchronous AM broadcasting ... give it a listen! For SIGNALS info: signals@portal.com For me: Scott Fybush -- ST901316@pip.cc.brandeis.edu [Moderator's Note: We'll be watching for another report here later this month. Thanks very much for sending this along. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 91 12:20:00 EST From: Charles (C.A.) Hoequist Subject: AT&T Speech Recognition I brought this topic up a while ago with a request for information, and for those who might be interested, here's a summary of what I've turned up. First, thank you to everyone who replied, both in Digest and in direct e-mail. Apologies for my not directly responding, but I've been so busy that just keeping up with the Digest has been my main leisure activity. :) I had originally inquired about an automatic speech rec system called the BT-100, which I'd seen referenced in a {DEC Professional} article. First, it's not clear from what I've been told (and found since then) just what 'BT-100' refers to. Definitely a board, but whether the recognizer is also 'BT-100', is pretty hazy. It makes use of AT&T's DSP-32 chip, which I referred to as 'proprietary', and on which just about everyone caught me. Of course it isn't proprietary. I _know_ that. My only excuse (aside from momentary brain absence), is that I was paraphrasing the _DEC Pro_ article without paying enough attention. There it is also called "AT&T's proprietary DSP-32 chip". I received enough information about the chip itself that I could probably write a squib on _it_ for _DEC Pro_. Most responses included a suggestion that I ask AT&T. Folks, I'm not trying to get the Digesters to do my legwork. I contacted AT&T _first_, and they still haven't returned my calls. (This may just be corporate inertia. DEC never answered my inquiries about DECvoice either, and we have some cooperative ventures with them, for crying out loud! I had to contact the author of the _DEC Pro_ piece, and he then contacted people, and the whole thing bounced around for about eight weeks before I got any response at all.) As a side effect of digging, I found that AT&T is plunging more deeply than I'd realized into speech recognition. They have not only the collect-call billing system, but their Conversant product is adding on a digit-recognition option, and a trial starts this month with US West to use ASR to recognize requests for (CLASS?) features from residential sets. People in the trial can hit #44, get a prompt and then say the name of the feature they'd like on their line. However, after all this, I still haven't been able to match recognition algorithms (which Bell Labs folks regularly present at IEEE conventions) to a particular product, though I can make some guesses. Sigh. One correspondent suggested this was based on AT&T's reluctance to hand out information of potential use to the competition. (1) not likely, since the algorithms are published anyway. (2) if it is true, I think it's wrongheaded. NT effectively took over an issue of {IEEE Computer} (August 1990) to brag about their public- network ASR system, including algorithm descriptions. There's a great deal more, but this is already getting to be a long summary. Again, thanks to all those who wrote. Charles Hoequist |Internet: hoequist@bnr.ca BNR Inc. | 919-991-8642 PO Box 13478, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3478 ------------------------------ Subject: What Information do Phone Companies Process? From: stapleton@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (Dr. Ross Alan Stapleton) Date: 14 Nov 1991 21:52 MST Organization: University of Arizona MIS Department I'll be teaching a course on Information Age issues next semester, and would be interested in pointers to people or resources who could tell me what sort of information telephone companies do or can collect and process, and how that's done, e.g., does my local service (C&P Telephone) retain (and for how long?) a record of all calls made from and/or to all numbers in its area, do they share records with the long distance carriers (so as to be able to generate my monthly bill), and so on. Does a telco have an enormous computer center? Or does the system "forget" information as fast as it's created, e.g., once a call is made, unless it's needed to account for billing, the fact that it was made is unimportant and not retained? As an experienced computer person and a relative novice in the commercial telecom field, I'd be grateful for any help, particularly in the form of leads to experts. Responses to the list or to stapleton@mis.arizona.edu, and thanks! ras ------------------------------ From: mtbb136@ms.uky.edu (John Roberts) Subject: Are Phone Books Available on Diskette? Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 21:52:23 GMT I was interested in aquiring a phone book on diskette to enable quick searches in locating phone numbers. I realized that this would make it much more easy for phone solicitators to bother customers, but it would be really useful for many computer users. Does anyone know if this service is offered anywhere? Is there a reason for not doing this that I have missed? Suggestions for encouraging the phone companies to provide phone books on diskette? Thanks for your time and efforts! John S. Roberts, Jr. [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell does not have their directory on diskettes but they do have a program where you can access their data base from a terminal at your location. Called 'Directory Express', it is not inexpensive. I think they get a couple hundred dollars per month for a few hours of time on line. All you get is whatever the directory assistance operator gets. Is it worth it? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 20:09 GMT From: "J. Brad Hicks" <0004073044@mcimail.com> Subject: Problem With Three Way Call I was in the middle of a cross-continental call today. The vendor's Chicago office set up the call via three-way call using Centel (sorry, I don't know the IXC), to conference rooms in our St. Louis office and their Wayne, PA office. Whenever anybody in St. Louis talked, it shut their microphone in Wayne down cold ... until the woman in Chicago talked, at which point it turned back on again. What was happening? To whom should we have complained? ------------------------------ From: tatsuya@hamblin.math.byu.edu (& Kawasaki) Subject: Tone Decoder Wanted Organization: Brigham Young University Date: 14 Nov 91 16:39:12 Does anyone know any reliable and inexpensive tone decoder?? Tatsuya tatsuya@hamblin.math.byu.edu EMT:901006 Ham: N7UQJ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #934 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29988; 16 Nov 91 19:17 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18266 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 16:22:28 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13090 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 16:22:16 -0600 Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 16:22:16 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111162222.AA13090@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #935 TELECOM Digest Sat, 16 Nov 91 16:22:11 CST Volume 11 : Issue 935 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson New FCC Rule Threatens Higher Long Distance Costs for Info (Dave Leibold) Internet Access In Berlin (Kee Nethery) I Want to Locate BBS or E-Mail in China (Dmitry Dmitriev) Silicon Valley Networking Conference - Call For Papers (B.V. Jagadeesh) Wanted: Network Engineering Software (Boudi Sahyoun) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 19:01:38 EST From: DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA Subject: New FCC Rule Threatens Higher Long Distance Costs for Info [Moderator's Note: This article appeared before in the Digest, but there have been several requests for a reprint for folks who cannot use the archives to obtain a copy. PAT] ----------------- Mike Riddle, Esq. Nebraska Inns of Court 1:285/27 NEW FCC RULE THREATENS HIGHER LONG DISTANCE COSTS FOR BBS'S =========================================================== o WHAT'S HAPPENING? In July the FCC, in an action virtually unnoticed by the bulletin board community, issued its "Final Rule" in Docket 89-79. The innocuous-sounding title is "Amendments of Part 69 of the Commission's Rules Relating to the Creation of Access Charge Subelements for Open Network Architecture." Industry sources estimate that this rule, when fully implemented, will result in an average increase of from three to five times the current costs for users of "Enhanced Service Providers (ESPs)," such as GEnie, Compuserve, PC Pursuit and Starlink. Already someone is reading this and saying something like: "Hoo boy! Doesn't this jerk realize that's an old rumor?" Well, I'm sorry to say I wish it was, but it isn't. For those who want to know all the details (and I'm one of them), the Notice of Proposed Rule Making NPRM is 89-79, FCC 89-105, and the Final Rule was announced at 56 Fed Reg 33879-01 on July 24th, 1991. It took effect on August 23, 1991. What it seems to me, after some hours of research and analysis, is that the FCC is attempting to do indirectly in 1991 what it could not do directly in 1987. If you remember the history, in 1983 the FCC created the access charge structure. It granted exemptions from usage-sensitive access charges for Enhanced Service Providers (ESPs) for a number of reasons. In 1987, Docket 87-215, the FCC proposed to remove the exemptions. We all know what happened then. The Commission and Congress received an unprecedented public input on a telecommunications regulatory issue. The plan to remove the exemptions was dropped. While Rep. Markey, among others, thought the idea was dead, period, the Commission appears to have merely gone into hiatus. The current rule, if I have it analyzed correctly, attempts to do three things: 1. Preserve ESP exemptions "in their current form." 2. Create incentives for new services, known as BSEs, under the ONA proposals. ESPs would have to pay access charges to use these services. 3. Ultimately require the removal of the existing feature groups the BSEs would replace. The result in the end, usage-sensitive access charges for ESPs, the very concept thought killed in 1987. o WHY ARE WE JUST HEARING ABOUT IT? The "posture of the proceeding" is important. When the FCC issued the NPRM in 1989, it seemed to imply that the exemptions would continue, so no one got real upset. This was, after all, only 18 months or so after the 87-215 fiasco. When the final rule was released in July, effective in August, it took people a while to figure out the probable impact. As a result, what the Enhanced Service Providers and others are asking for from their users is support for their petition to reconsider the rule. o OKAY, YOU CONVINCED ME! WHAT SHOULD I DO? Public input, to the FCC, to key Congressmen and Senators, and to your own Congressional delegation, will likely make a difference now, just like it did in 1987. GEnie, among the services I use, has taken the lead on generating public input. The last part of this article is the GEnie "Call to Action." Some of you may have seen it before. +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | If you do choose to write, please do NOT call it a "modem tax." | | It isn't a tax at all, and most likely you'll be told (with a | | straight face) there isn't any such proposal. To the best of my | | knowledge this is *NOT* the case. No new taxes on existing | | services are currently under consideration. | +------------------------------------------------------------------+ The issue which we need to mention is the FCC's *approved* pricing for Open Network Architecture (ONA) services [passed by the Commission on July 11, 1991 as part of CC Docket No. 89-79 "Amendments of Part 69 of the Commission's Rules Relating to the Creation of Access Charge Subelements for Open Network Architecture"]. We need to ask the Commission to reconsider its decision to require "enhanced service providers" and other end users that wish to subscribe to federally tariffed basic service elements, to pay usage-based rates for access to these new services. You should write the Commission, supporting this request for reconsideration. o WHAT DO I SAY? Here's the GEnie "Call to Action" (reproduced verbatim with permission): "The Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") has adopted rules that will increase by up to five-fold the price of local telephone lines that use new network features to provide access to information services. The new rules could have as serious an impact as the FCC's 1987 access charge proposal, which was successfully defeated through a massive letter-writing campaign. "Any information service provider that wishes to take advantage of new network features -- which are to be made available as part of the FCC's Open Network Architecture ("ONA") -- must start paying the higher charges. Although the FCC would allow information service providers to continue using their existing lines at current rates, providers choosing this option would be denied the use of much existing and future network functionality. Many state regulators are compounding this problem by following the FCC's lead. "These pricing rules will needlessly inflate the costs of providing information services. Information service providers will have no option but to pass these added costs on to their subscribers in increased prices. This is bad for the information service providers, bad for subscribers, and bad for the United States. At a time when the FCC should be encouraging the widest possible use and availability of information services, the FCC has adopted rules that will have precisely the opposite effect. "It's not too late to stop the FCC from implementing its new ONA pricing rules. GEnie (through its trade associations ADAPSO and IIA), CompuServe, Prodigy, BTNA (formerly Tymnet) and others have petitioned the FCC to reconsider its rules, and the FCC is now considering whether it should grant those petitions. "You can help by writing to Al Sikes, Chairman of the FCC, and sending copies of your letter to his fellow Commissioners. You should also write to Congressman Ed Markey and Senator Daniel Inouye, the Chairmen of the House and Senate Subcommittees that have jurisdiction over the FCC. (You may also wish to send copies of your letters to your own U.S. Senators and Representative). "Tell them that: - You use information services and how you use them. - You will curtail your use of these services if prices increase as a result of the FCC's new ONA pricing rules. - The FCC's new ONA pricing rules will create the wrong incentives by discouraging information service providers from taking advantage of new network features. - The FCC should reconsider the rules it adopted in Docket 89-79 and allow information service providers to use new network features without being required to pay usage-sensitive access charges that are three to five times higher than existing rates. "Write to: Honorable Alfred C. Sikes Chairman Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 814 Washington, D.C. 20554 Honorable Sherrie P. Marshall Commissioner Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 826 Washington, D.C. 20554 Honorable Andrew C. Barrett Commissioner Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 844 Washington, D.C. 20554 Honorable James H. Quello Commissioner Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 802 Washington, D.C. 20554 Honorable Ervin S. Duggan Commissioner Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 832 Washington, D.C. 20554 Honorable Edward J. Markey Chairman, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance U.S. House of Representatives 2133 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515-2107 Honorable Daniel K. Inouye Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications United States Senate 722 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-1102 "Fax Numbers: Federal Communications Commission 202-632-7092 Senator Daniel K. Inouye 202-224-6747 Congressman Edward J. Markey 202-225-8689 "To the best of our knowledge, the FCC has only one fax number. If you send your letter via fax (standard fax or GE Mail-to-FAX), the body of your message should indicate that it is intended for Mr. Sikes and that copies should be provided to the other Commissioners." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 10:34:17 PST From: "Kee Nethery" Subject: Internet Access In Berlin The following is a shortened version of all the replies to my question on what someone in Berlin needs to know to get a connection to the internet. Thanks to all who replied. Kee_Nethery@irl.com part 1 : the law part 2 : technics part 3 : prices part 4 : mailboxes Part 1 : The Law In Germany there are two kinds of modems: legal ones and illegal ones. Legal modems got an OK from our government. Modems bought in the US may not be used legally in Germany, unless they get an FTP number (that is, they are "legalized" by the Federal Postal Services). Modems bought in Germany have such a number already when you buy them. I guess, nearly 70% of the modems in Germany have no FTP approval. Technically they are comparable. Usually the illegal ones are better because they are Hayes compatible. The "officially OK modems" have to strip some of the Hayes commands. If someone is caught working with an illegal modem he or she has to pay a fine and police will probably take his/her computer. It is common to use an illegal modem. In 1992 even in Germany law will be less restrictive due to common market regulations. As for using a foreign modem. Telekom, which is the phone company of the Bundespost (post office), has a legal monopoly on telecommun- ications in Germany. EVERYTHING dealing with this stuff has to be inspected and certified by Telekom. And if you haven't heard any of the horror stories of German bureaucracy, trust me, getting certification for a foreign telecommunications device could take forever. All Hayes-compatible modems will work with the European phone systems, including, I think, the VERY antiquated German phone networks (they're over 30 years old; no touch-tone dialing, no clean connections, etc.). Part 2 : Technics Illegal modems usually come with English documentation and English/American phone jacks. You need a "German" 230V voltage transformer (around 20 Deutschmarks) and an adapter RJ11-->TAE 6 (German plug (around 10 Deutschmarks)) if the phone line is installed by the Deutsche Bundespost. You have to buy the adaptor and install it yourself. (It's just a different phone extension cord.) To install something to your phone is against the law ... of course. Do not tell the Deutsche Bundespost about this subject because most US modems are probably not tested by Deutsche Bundespost and as such a little bit illegal. But don*t worry about this! Usually modems come without a cable connection to your computer. So you have to buy this too. If you are using a Mac, this will be difficult (at least expensive) in Germany. (I soldered my cable myself.) The Global Village Teleport modem gets power from the Desktop Bus (same as a mouse or keyboard) and thus does not need an special power supply to work in the US or in Germany. Part 3 : Prices A modem could be bought over here without any problems. They're a tad bit expensive, but it'd work, and they already have Telekom/Bundespost certification. German approved modems are about 50% more expensive than in the US. Many people who are rather working in private settings buy modems in the US and just use them here, without legalization. It works, but it is illegal. Part 4 : Mailboxes Your friend does not have to get a Compuserve account. He only needs to be admitted to one of the many privately run mailboxes here in Berlin that offer internet gateways. The oldest and still one of the most popular ones is "Telemail" (Tel Berlin 492 66 43). He would have to sign in (the usual procedure, first you are a guest, then you apply, then you pay your membership fees (about DM 120, per year), then you get access to the e-mail. Of course, you have to pay your e-mail separately (by k-byte, about 0.06 DM per K, I think). I myself am using a smaller box, called Parrot (Tel72 44 67). However, access to international e-mail is restricted to certain users there. ------------------------------ Organization: Kurchatov Institute of Atomic Energy Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 20:11:35 +0200 (EET DST) From: dmitry@bison.khabarovsk.su (Dmitry Dmitriev) Subject: I Want to Find BBS or E-Mail in China Reply-To: dmitry@bison.khabarovsk.su Organization: Commodity-Stock Exchange 'Bison' Hi, everybody! I'm anxious to know about BBS or e-mail, located in China (better if it be in the Harbin City). Could you please tell me BBS's phone or e-mail address. Thanking you beforehand for your cooperation, I remain, Dmitry Dmitriev. | Information Company EastNet Co.Ltd. dMITpIJ dMITpIEW. | Khabarovsk, Russia; tel. +7-421-033-5748 ------------------------------ From: bvj@NSD.3Com.COM (B.V. Jagadeesh) Subject: Silicon Valley Networking Conference - Call For Papers Date: 15 Nov 91 21:40:59 GMT Silicon Valley Networking Conference - 1992 ------------------------------------------- Call For Papers Papers are solicited for the Silicon Valley Networking conference (SVNC-92) to be held April 27th to 29th 1992 at Santa Clara Convention Center, Santa Clara CA 95052, USA. Papers are solicited in the following areas: Distributed Systems Internetworking Network Management X-windows Advanced File servers High Speed Networking Standards activities (IEEE, CCITT, IETF etc ) Network Monitors WireLess Networking SVNC typically attracts over 400 engineers every year and is a nice forum to discuss system design architecture and solutions to complex networking problems. If you are interested in presenting a paper, please send me an abstract of the paper before December 4, 1991. If accepted for submission, a rough draft of the paper should be submitted before January 10, 1992 and camera ready copy should be submitted before February 1, 1992. Please include your address, telephone and fax number in the abstract and mail it to: B.V. Jagadeesh Silicon Valley Networking Conference 1248, Olive Branch Lane San Jose, CA - 95120 USA. Fax Number: (408)- 997-8265 Thanks. Jagadeesh bvj@3Com.com (408)-764-5169 ------------------------------ From: sion@ctr.columbia.edu (Boudi Sahyoun) Subject: Wanted: Network Engineering Software Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 16:44:45 GMT I'm not sure this is the right group but does anybody know of a network engineering software? It should be capable among other things to do traffic engineering on the network. Commercial software ok, preferably running on PC or Sun platforms. Thanks in advance, Boudi ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #935 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03285; 16 Nov 91 21:23 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09873 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 19:41:59 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18534 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 19:41:47 -0600 Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 19:41:47 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111170141.AA18534@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #936 TELECOM Digest Sat, 16 Nov 91 19:41:25 CST Volume 11 : Issue 936 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson New Bell Labs Findings! (Humor) (Mike Riddle) Telecom Sucks on the Road (Dennis G. Rears) New Equipment in Athens, GA.? (Michael A. Covington) Two Line Selector Box Schematics Wanted (Mike Gordon) ANI Number Wanted For Ohio Bell 216-891 (Phil Pavarini, Jr.) Follow Up: Credit Card Fraud Attempt (John Parsons) Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? (Bob Ackley) Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? (Jack Decker) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 08:20:51 cst From: Mike.Riddle@ivgate.omahug.org (Mike Riddle) Subject: New Bell Labs Findings! (Humor) Reply-To: mike.riddle@inns.omahug.org Organization: Inns of Court, Papillion, NE A Humorous Interlude stolen from a local BBS, original source unknown: A Light In The Dark Bell Labs Prove Existence of Dark Suckers (Reprinted from the Bell Labs Newsletter) For years it has been believed that electric bulbs emit light. However, recent information from Bell Labs has proven otherwise. Electric bulbs do not emit light, they suck dark. Thus they are now called dark suckers. The Dark Sucker Theory, according to a Bell Labs spokesperon, proves the existence of dark, that dark has a mass heavier than that of light, and that dark travels faster than light. The basis of the Dark Sucker Theory is that electric bulbs suck dark. Take for example the dark suckers in the room where you are. There is less dark in the immediate area of the dark suckers than there is elsewhere in the room. The larger the dark sucker, the greater its capacity to suck dark. Dark suckers in a parking lot have a much greater capacity than the ones in this room. As with all things, dark suckers don't last forever. Once they are full of dark they can no longer suck. This is proven by the black spot on a full dark sucker. A candle is a primitive dark sucker. A new candle has a white wick. You will notice that, after the first use, the wic turns black -- representing all the dark which has been sucked into it. If you hold a pencil next to the wick of an operating candle, the tip will turn black because it got in the way of the dark flowing into the candle. Unfortunately, these primitive dark suckers have a very limited range. There are, fortunately, portable dark suckers. The bulbs in these cannot handle all of the dark by themselves, and require the use of additional dark storage units. When the dark storage unit, referred to by some as a battery, is full it must either be emptied or replaced before the portable dark sucker can operate again. Dark has mass. When dark goes into a dark sucker, friction from this mass generates heat. Thus it is not wise to touch an operating dark sucker. Candles present a special hazard because the dark must travel in the solid wick instead of through glass. This generates a large quantity of heat, which makes it inadvisable to touch an operating candle. Dark is also heavier than light. If you swim deeper and deeper you notice that it slowly gets darker and darker. When you reach a depth of aproximately 80 meters, you are in total darkness. This is because the heavier dark sinks to the bottom of the water and the lighter light floats to the top. The immense power of dark can be utilized to humankind's advantage. Dark which has settled to the bottoms of lakes can be pushed through turbines to generate electricity. In this way dark can be forced into the oceans where it can be safely stored. Prior to the invention of the turbine it was much more difficult to get dark from rivers and lakes to the oceans. The Indians recognized this problem and tried to solve it. When on a river in a canoe traveling in the same direction as the flow of dark, Indians paddled slowly, so as not to stop the flow of dark. When they traveled against the flow of dark they paddled quickly to help push the dark along its way. Finally, it becomes clear that dark is faster than light. If you stand in an illuminated room in fromt of a closed, dark closet you notice that, as you slowly open the closet door, light slowly enters the closet. However the dark moves so quickly that you are not able to see the dark leave the closet. In conclusion, scientists from the Bell Labs have noted that dark suckers make our lives easier and more enjoyable. So the next time you look at an electric bulb remember that its function is actually that of a dark sucker. AMAX 2.20 The Nebraska Inns of Court (1:285/27) [Moderator's Note: What kind of suckers do you take us for, anyway? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Nov 91 14:47:17 EST From: "Dennis G. Rears " Subject: Telecom Sucks on the Road I went on business travel for the first time in months about two weeks ago. I am so disgusted with the telecom service in hotels. Here's why: 1) Charges for 800 and calling card services. I stayed at the Orlando Airport Marriot for three nights. The hotel services guide said something to the effect of "To make things easier for the business traveler we do not charge you for toll free calls". I look at the telephone page of the guide and it states clearly "75c charge for these calls". I talk with the manager about these and he said "they changed the policy and they do charge for these cards. I asked why and he stated "we normally only get business travellers here and the business reimburses them for it. He further stated they haven't had time to change the services guide completely. 2) Lack of modular jacks. I stayed at the Tampa LaQuinta (budget hotel) and they had free calling card calls and 800 numbers but no modular jack. After lugging my laptop (Zenith 286) around I thought I would use it. But no!!! No modular jack. I was able to take the phone apart and and use a special cord I had made for the occasion with alligator clips. Unfortantely the maid saw the phone was taken apart and had wires leading from it. I had to explain to the manager that I was not vandalizing the phone but using it for offical business. Thank Gawd, I had all sort of government ID on me. 3) Time outs. The last hotel I stayed in Tampa would time me out every 15 minutes. I spoke to the management and they said they limit every outgoing call to 15 minutes. 4) 900 numbers. I ran the NYC marathon the day I left for travel. I was anxious to get my results and call the 900 number for my results. I have since found out I can't use my Sprint FON card, AT&T credit card, NJ bell calling card, or even coins in a pay booth. It's only $2.00 a minute. Dennis P.S. Has anyone heard about the county government subpoenaing the telephone records of the {Orlando Sentinel}? While I was in Orlando, I was reading that the paper was ticked off because the county government subpoenaed the telephone records of it from the local telephone company. The newspaper wasn't informed of the subpoeona until after the records were delivered. It seems as if someone was whistleblowing to the newspaper and the county did not like it. ------------------------------ From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) Subject: New Equipment in Athens, GA? Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Date: Sat, 16 Nov 91 06:04:03 GMT Does anybody happen to know whether Athens, Georgia (404-549) installed new switching equipment last night? At 2:45 AM my phone went dead, cutting off a call in progress, and it came back to life about a minute later. I understand this is the normal scenario for installing new equipment. 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: Fri, 15 Nov 1991 08:10:02 CST From: Mike Gordon N9LOI 99681084@uwwvax.uww.edu Subject: Two Line Selector Box Schematic Wanted I know this is probably one of those FAQs that isn't on the list, but has anyone ripped apart one of those Radio Shack two line controller boxes and drawn up a schematic for it? I finally have the need for one, and since they've been discontinued, nobody who has one want's to give it up. I haven't seen a box with similar functions ("pick the ringing line"), and I don't have the cash for a bunch of two line phones right now. One thing I would like, is if it would reset to line one after you hang up a call on line two. Line one is voice and line two is data, but I may get hunting or call-forward-on-busy, to forward voice calls to the data line when I'm on the voice line. What I don't want, is someone picking up the phone and knocking me off the modem. (The reason for second line in the first place.) I also need to keep the modem line clear for incoming calls when I'm not on the modem.) Any ideas would be greatly appreciated! Mike Gordon N9LOI 99681084@uwwvax.uww.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Nov 91 12:55 EST From: pep@pavnet.nshore.ncoast.org (Phil Pavarini Jr.) Subject: ANI Number Wanted For Ohio Bell 216-891 Organization: PAVNET News & Mail Service Does anyone know of the ANI number for OHIO BELL 216-891? I've tried 1-200-555-1212, I've tried many others -- some suggested here on Telecom. None work. Any help is appreciated! Phil Pavarini Jr. -- Voice 216.891.1122 Fax 216.891.0009 INTERNET: pep@pavnet.nshore.ncoast.org -- UUCP: pavnet!pep P.O. Box 360302 -- Cleveland, Ohio 44136 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 19:39:52 -0700 From: John Parsons Subject: Follow Up: Calling Card Fraud Attempt Two weeks ago I related an incident whereby a person impersonating an employee of Telecom USA tried to obtain our calling card number. My story concluded: > I've noted the time of the call, so when the next bill comes, I'll > send you Mr. Scum's number. Any bets that it's a coin station? > Thanks to TELECOM Digest for the prior warning. It DOES happen! > [Moderator's Note: You did not specifically say so, but I assume the > call arrived on the 800 number, in which case yes there will be ANI on > your bill next month. I get ANI on my Telecom 800 numbers. So by all > means send the number along. Let's see who the creature is, and what > he is about. And I'll bet you it was NOT a pay station. Hmmm ... :) PAT] PAT, you're on! The bill came today, and his number is 212 221-9242. Is this a pay station or not? If I win, you owe me a Chicago pizza. If you win, I owe you a plate of Rocky Mountain oysters! John Parsons johnp@hpgrgu.gr.hp.com [Moderator's Note: You win. The phone is a pay station located 'next to the pizza restaurant' by the subway entrance at 42nd and Broadway in New York City. That shouldn't make it too hard to find out who called you. Just check out the people in New York City who like pizza and ride the subway to/from 42nd Street. To make sure you don't miss any suspects, also check the ones who don't like pizza but may have ordered the beef and sausage combo sandwich with fries. (Dipped, but hold the mustard and hot peppers!) Cross check these names against a list of people with criminal histories of fraud and/or deceptive practices who hang around 42nd Street at night. We'll find out who it was, by god, and use the Tucker Telephone to convince him it is in his best interests to confess his practice of phreakcraft :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Nov 91 09:57:40 cst From: Bob.Ackley@ivgate.omahug.org (Bob Ackley) Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? Reply-To: bob.ackley@ivgate.omahug.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha In a message of <05 Nov 91 15:26:58>, TELECOM Moderator noted: > [Moderator's Note: Remember the guy who was a programmer for a bank > who fixed the bank's computer so that all the tiny fractions of a > cent of interest which otherwise were rounded off and dropped got put > in his account instead? The fractional shavings when totalled up > amounted to a nice piece of change for him. In computer programming circles this is known as the 'salami slicing' technique. It's illegal, and current auditing software can and will catch it. It dates to the early days of computers in banking when a 'creative' programmer thought it up. I know it's been done, but I don't know who, where, or when. There are a number of ways, mostly illegal and completely unethical, for programmers (and others) to get other people's money into their own accounts -- and all are off topic. ;-) msged 1.99S ZTC Bob's Soapbox, Plattsmouth (1:285/666.7) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 22:18:52 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? In a message dated 8 Nov 91 08:50:29 GMT, Pat (the Moderator) notes: > [Moderator's Note: The phreak intends to steal something from you if > possible; ie your computing and telecom resources. The telemarketer > wishes to sell you something if possible. There is legally and > otherwise a difference between selling you something and stealing from > you. PAT] With all due respect, Pat, I think your logic on this one may be a bit shaky. Granted the phreak MAY be looking to steal something but on the other hand he may just be interested in exploring your system, in which case all that he is really "stealing" from you is the use of a phone line that could be used for more important calls, and perhaps processor time that could be allocated to other tasks. Now, when a telemarketer calls, isn't he pretty much doing the same thing? He's tying up your phone line and wasting your time, and depending on how legitimate the organization he represents is, he may be looking to steal something from you as well (as is illustrated by the numerous posts of telemarketing scams that have been seen in the TELECOM Digest!). Looking at it from that perspective, I'm a bit hard pressed to find a real difference. I'm not condoning phreaking at all, but I think if I were an attorney and had to argue the point, it would not be too difficult to argue that phreaking and telemarketing are VERY similar, especially considering some of the slime that work in the telemarketing industry. I personally would have more respect for the curious 15-year-old hacker that is trying to learn about computers than for the sleazeball that calls with the intention of selling me shoddy merchandise. This brings to mind another point. How many readers have received calls in which the telemarketer was blatently and openly lying? I've caught a few in this. One that's been pulled twice on me already is where someone calls and says, "Mr. Decker, you probably don't remember me, but about ten or twelve months ago we spoke and you told me that if I ever came across a good investment opportunity I should let you know." For various reasons I won't go into here, the chances of that conversation having actually taken place are about as likely as me getting struck by lightning in November in Sault Ste. Marie. The last time this happened, I just said "You are a LIAR and I don't deal with LIARS" and I hung up. My wife works in a dental office and one of her duties (especially during the summer) is keeping the books and (sometimes) ordering supplies. Apparently they get calls from a company selling those disposable rubber gloves that dentists and doctors use. Typically, someone will call and find out who is responsible for purchasing such supplies. Then a week or two later, they call back and say something like "The gloves that so-and-so ordered last month that were backordered have arrived, and we'll be sending them out today." I'm not sure what happens if the person who answers the phone says "okay", but in the office where my wife works they have tried to pull this scam so often that she just automatically says "I'm sorry, you must be mistaken, we didn't order anything from your company" and hangs up (she is probably more polite about it than I would be!). I am really beginning to believe that telemarketing scams are becoming a VERY serious problem, especially because now that the economy is getting tight, more people seem to be turning to unethical means of obtaining cash. I'm not sure what the answer is, though. Jack Decker : jack@myamiga.mixcom.com : FidoNet 1:154/8 [Moderator's Note: On conviction, these people would be required to make all their calls in the future from 212-221-9242, and take all their meals at the subway pizza stand. :) PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #936 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08006; 17 Nov 91 0:28 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10233 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 22:13:10 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17307 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 22:12:59 -0600 Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 22:12:59 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111170412.AA17307@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #937 TELECOM Digest Sat, 16 Nov 91 22:12:11 CST Volume 11 : Issue 937 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Telemarketing and the Slippery Slope (Jim Haynes) Re: Telemarketing COS (John Higdon) Re: Telemarketing COS (Michael A. Covington) Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (Dave Niebuhr) Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (Mark E Anderson) Re: Telemarketers: Why Not Transfer Them? (Glenn R. Stone) Re: ATTMail Rates, Service (Help Ticket ID: 17050) (Paul S. Sawyer) Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message (Mark Oberg) Re: Looking For Help With an IBM 026 Keypunch (Mark Fulk) Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls (Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Call Waiting in the 5ESS (John Higdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Haynes Subject: Telemarketing and the Slippery Slope Date: 16 Nov 91 07:03:11 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz I got to thinking about this along the following lines: How much would it annoy you if you got one telemarketing call in six months? How about once a month? Once a week? Once a day? Once an hour? Five times in an hour? Every two or three minutes? Clearly most people would tolerate the once in six months call; and at the other extreme one would have the phone taken out or changed to outgoing only service if possible. Slippery slope theory says if we don't do something about a problem while it is minor then we will have to deal with it when it becomes major. While this isn't always a realistic view of things it isn't clear to me that there is any reason for telemarketing to be self-limiting. The machinery and phone service are cheap enough. What's to keep someone from setting up a machine that simply calls people and delivers a canned advertising message, not caring whether it gets a response? What's to keep 500 people from doing the same thing? haynes@cats.ucsc.edu haynes@ucsccats.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Nov 91 01:39 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Telemarketing COS simona@panix.com (Simona Nass) writes: > Wouldn't local telephone companies also oppose having telemarketers > check a database of folks who don't want calls, simply because it > would cut the revenue of the local telcos? Hey, no problem! The telcos would "estimate" the loss of revenue and build it into the price for those telemarketing lines. Remember, I suggested that these special lines would actually be a revenue generator for the telco in that they could be priced at several times whatever the telco deemed the actual cost of the service. This would be in keeping to what they already do to 900/976 service providers who pay exhorbitant monthly charges for what amounts to ordinary incoming lines. In addition, whenever a caller refuses to pay, it 'recharges' the provider AND collects all of its charges for carrying the call from the provider as well. It is a "Win-Win-Win-Lose" system. The customer wins (he got the service for free), the telco wins in that it got its money OR the telco wins in that it got its money (it gets its money either way), and the provider loses. Why not apply this to telemarketers -- the ones who are truly a pest. Again, I ask you: when was the last time your dinner was interrupted, or you were awakened from a sound sleep by a 976 number? (976-WAKE doesn't count.) So let us start soaking the telemarketers. Let them pay for the database. Let them pay for the lookup. Let them pay the costs of adding to the database. And let them pay for the calls that telco does NOT complete because of a negative entry in the database. The more I think of this, the more it sounds like a good, workable idea. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) Subject: Re: Telemarketing COS Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Date: Sat, 16 Nov 91 16:11:29 GMT Instead of a "national list of numbers that cannot be junk-called" I propose going even further: - require each telephone directory to show (by means of an asterisk or something) which subscribers do not want junk calls; - require telephone companies to offer this asterisk at no charge to each subscriber once. Yes, that would kill auto-telemarketing dead. But that's what it deserves. It would be a victim of nothing but individuals' rights. 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: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 10:51:31 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood In PAT writes: [ text deleted ] > They get three or > four legitimate calls per evening most days; I get one or two. As > noted above, telemarketing calls are extremely rare here, which for > whatever reason, suits me fine. If I got four or five a night, > I would be annoyed by it also. So I can see why some of you want to > devise schemes to avoid the calls when possible. Is three or four a > night about average for most people? That seems like a lot. My monthly average for telemarket calls is less than ten and I don't live in a "red-lined" area, so to speak. At the rate of three or four a night, I, too, would be willing to go to the extremes when dealing with these outfits. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Nov 91 17:16:37 EST From: mea@ihlpl.att.com (Mark E Anderson) Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories I've lived in Rogers Park (in Chicago) for about three years and around Belmont and Lake Shore Drive for the past five years. Throughout this time, I've received around one or two telemarketer calls per year. Most of these would be from from the local police or fire departments selling tickets to their annual dances to raise money. Considering the going rates for rents around here, it is far from "inner city." I think some of the reasons for the lack of telemarketers in this area would be that: - Most people are single and are rarely home to answer calls. - People move very often so there may be a higher percentage of phone numbers that are being "aged." - The lifestyle of people around here is atypical of the average American. My parents, grandparents, aunts, and uncles live in the surrounding suburbs. They receive about four or five telemarketer calls per week. My cousin, who is intelligent yet telecom naive, got duped into calling that 1-900 number to get free tickets to Hawaii. While my aunt was explaining this story to me, that same telemarketer called and left a message on her answering machine. Mark Anderson mea@ihlpl.att.com [Moderator's Note: Interesting ... I've lived in Rogers Park (or more correctly in the part of Rogers Park known as Northtown/West Rogers Park) for many years with the same phone numbers all that time, give or take a couple extra lines at one time or another to run my BBS, etc. I think telemarketers have largely redlined 312 while keeping 708 as fertile territory. The last three or four telemarketing calls I've received have in fact come in to my 708-voicemail number, a line which never has a human being attached to it. If you were in the East Rogers Park area until 1986 (I assume you were; I doubt you'd have moved from West Rogers to Newtown) then you know how bad things have gotten all along the lakefront area with crime up about 300 percent. PAT] ------------------------------ From: gs26@prism.gatech.edu (Glenn R. Stone) Subject: Re: Telemarketers: Why Not Transfer Them? Date: 16 Nov 91 17:37:15 GMT Reply-To: glenns@eas.gatech.edu Organization: Dead Poets Society In the referenced article delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle) writes: > If you have or get call transfer ... and somebody you don't like or > even a telemarketer calls you ... how about using Call Transfer on > them? [Moderator's note about what YOU dial being charged to YOUR phone.] Well, so, if you can't stick'em with 976 charges, I'd say, throw'em for a loop by dialing the local freebie time/temperature service ... or the local NWS forecast recording or some such. Can you imagine the look on some poor telesleaze's face when he realizes he's been had? It may not get you fewer calls, but it'd sure be good for a laugh ... 'specially if you three-way it and speakerphone the reaction ... Then again, I usually opt for POTS, and just use the hold function built into my phone and watch and see how long the silly critter blabs on before he realizes he's talking to nothingness ... Glenn R. Stone (glenns@eas.gatech.edu) ------------------------------ From: paul@unhtel.unh.edu (Paul S. Sawyer) Subject: Re: ATTMail Rates, Service (Help Ticket ID: 17050) Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services Date: Fri, 15 Nov 91 14:01:02 GMT In article paul@unhtel.unh.edu (Paul S. Sawyer) writes: > If I cannot get an answer via e-mail to a question I posed via e-mail > to a provider of e-mail concerning their e-mail rates, then I guess I > really don't need their service ... To be fair, after I sent them the above message, they did reply via e-mail that the $300.00 per year does apply, and that I was free to cancel the service.... I seem to remember that we originally signed up because it was the "only way" to contact our AT&T representatives via e-mail.... :- Paul S. Sawyer - University of New Hampshire CIS - paul@unhtel.unh.edu Telecommunications and Network Services - VOX: +1 603 862 3262 Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3523 - FAX: +1 603 862 2030 ------------------------------ From: grout!mark@uunet.uu.net (Mark Oberg) Subject: Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message Date: 25 Nov 91 14:28:14 GMT Organization: Eric's PC, Landover MD If the person who wished to place an Out-of-Service recording on their answering machine has a Sound Blaster digital audio card in their machine, the solution may be easy. I have seen a file available on some BBS's that cater to MIDI and Sound which contains digital samples of various intercepts and samples of the 0-9 digits. I had it here for a while and experimented with messages such as: 7-3-0...9-0-6-9. IS OUT OF SERVICE.....FOR INCOMING CALLS. 7-3-0... 9-0-6-9. I also live in an area which is targeted for telemarketing calls. I receive them regularly and have been able to stop most of them short by agreeing to take the call upon payment of a fee for my time. I ask them: "How do you wish to pay for this call? Visa, Master Card and company check in advance are accepted." Mark Oberg NATel, Inc. | UUCP: wb3ffv!grout!mark Voice: (301)964-0505 | Internet: mark%grout@wb3ffv.ampr.org BBS: (301)596-6450 | Fidonet: 1:109/506 [Moderator's Note: The correct phrase is 'not in service for incoming calls', not *out of service*. Incidentally, does anyone know the reason some idle numbers return the message 'xxx has been disconnected' while others return the message 'xxx is not in service'. I've heard both on IBT idle numbers. I think the latter is used if the line never did have anyone on it, ie, a relatively new prefix. Other ideas? PAT] ------------------------------ From: fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) Subject: Re: Looking For Help With an IBM 026 Keypunch Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 19:40:30 GMT In article stoll@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Cliff Stoll) writes: > I'm rebuilding an IBM 026 Keypunch and need documentation. > Schematics, service manuals, information on where to grease, and where > to find replacement parts (like belts and printer ribbons). > If you don't know what an 026 is, you're indeed fortunate! Sad to say, I do know. I still don't use my right pinky to shift, even for Z, because I got used to the right shift key being "alpha." If you're ever in New York, walk down Canal Street in Manhattan, between Broadway and Seventh Avenue. There are quite a few used equipment dealers there, with bins and cabinets full of obsolete hardware. Frequently you can find manuals, usually stained and torn, stuffed in with the goods. Some places will let you cannibalize from old stuff, although that is less likely now that trash disposal has gotten so expensive. Anyway, Met Life used to be up in the thirties. They must have dumped tens of thousands of keypunches, fifteen or twenty years ago. I'd bet lots of them ended up on Canal Street. Mark A. Fulk Computer Science Department fulk@cs.rochester.edu University of Rochester Omit needless words -- Strunk Rochester, NY 14627 [Moderator's Note: Have you seen any of those little red stick-um tape things we used to cover up a punch made in error recently? PAT] ------------------------------ From: joel@wam.umd.edu (Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls Organization: University of Maryland at College Park Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 22:22:48 GMT In article porterg@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (greg porter) writes: > "Federal and State tariffs state that for a telephone conversation to > be recorded, on of the following conditions must be met: > 1. All parties being recorded must give their prior consent to being > recorded; or, > 2. All parties being recored must hear a "beep" tone approximately > every 15 seconds. Does this mean that in some sense average citizens are supposed to recognize the beeps as some sort of "standard" signal that recording is in progress? How common is this knowledge in actual fact? Joel ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Nov 91 00:05 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Call Waiting in the 5ESS tad@ssc.wa.com (Tad Cook) writes: > Incredible! After twice posting that I can do this from my home phone > (served by a 5ESS), my friend Mr. Higdon insisted that I didn't know > what I was talking about ... "reliable" sources had told him that this > is impossible, and I think his comment was something like "are we to > believe these (unnamed) authoritative sources, or Mr. Cook?". Tad, please get off your righteous soap box. I asked in virtually every post on the subject if perhaps you had any special conditions on your phone. I even tried to contact you via e-mail and it bounced. Even now, you do not state whether or not your phone has "Call Hold", which would tie up loose ends and make the situation clear. Is that indeed the case? Do you have Centrex-style features (such as Call Hold)? Are we really interested in getting to the bottom of the 5ESS characteristics and features or are you simply going to sit back and wait for an apparent opportunity to say, "Hee, hee, hee. John has no idea what he is talking about and I know everything"? Notice that when I got an answer that made some sense (rather than just some raving about how "my phone can do it and it is served by a 5ESS and I know what I am talking about"), I shared it with the forum, even though it proved some of my publicly stated opinions to be in error. I did not ask for a demo; what I was looking for was an explanation why the feature did not work. It did not work on the phones that I tried and all the demos on your part would not change that. AT&T engineers said it would not work, and your demo would not change that, either. Pac*Bell said it would not work, and again...well, you get the point. Not once, NOT ONCE, did you answer the question about why it was not working on the phones that I tried. But now, no thanks to you, but rather thanks to someone at Pac*Bell, it is clear. If you are going to be indignant and self-righteous at least impart some knowledge in the process, please. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Thread closed. Thanks to all who responed. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #937 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08691; 17 Nov 91 0:53 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17536 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 20:34:02 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26658 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 16 Nov 1991 20:33:50 -0600 Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 20:33:50 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111170233.AA26658@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: History of Morkrum Company - Ancestor of Teletype Corporation [Moderator's Note: Attached is a very interesting piece I received which is too large for a regular issue of the Digest. I thought it was fascinating and hope you feel the same way. PAT] From: Jim Haynes Subject: History of Morkrum Company - Ancestor of Teletype Corporation Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE MORKRUM COMPANY Howard L. Krum circa 1925 ABSTRACT This is a first-hand report of Teletype's early years. Although the original manuscript was found unsigned and undated, it has been positively identified as the work of Mr. Howard L. Krum, son of Mr. Charles L. Krum, a co-founder of the original Morkrum Company. The date of writing seems to have been somewhere between 1925 and 1928. The fame of Howard Krum does not depend on his illustrious parentage. His own contributions to the printing telegraph art, among them the invention of _stop-start synchronization_, were of lasting importance. ----- In the year 1902, Mr. Joy Morton, nationally known as the founder and head of the Morton Salt Company, became interested in the possibility of developing a printing telegraph system. He called Mr. Charles L. Krum, who was at that time Mechanical Engineer of the Western Cold Storage Company, into consultation on the matter. While cold storage seems rather a far cry from printing telegraph development, Mr. Krum had had considerable experience on the design of intricate mechanisms, including adding machines. Inventors had been working on the development of printing telegraph for forty years prior to this time but had not succeeded in producing apparatus which was simple and practical enough to find any market or any considerable use by the communication systems in the United States. As is the case with most others who started work on printing telegraph, Mr. Krum was fascinated with the possibilities of this development, and Mr. Morton agreed to go ahead with the proposition and finance it. How important this decision was did not become apparent for many years, as certainly no one realized the vast sums of money and the years of hard work which would have to be expended before satisfactory printing telegraph apparatus would be produced and widespread use made of it. In 1906, Mr. Howard Krum received his degree in electrical engineering and immediately started work with his father on this problem. The combination of the electrical engineer and the mechanical engineer proved to be a happy one and experiments were diligently prosecuted for a couple of years, until in 1908 a system was developed which looked good enough to try on an actual telegraph line. The first trial of this system was made on the lines of the Chicago & Alton Railroad. While operation was secured and the results were sufficiently satisfactory to cause the inventors to feel quite jubilant, still they were hard-headed enough to see the weak points of this system in the state of development in which it was at that time. The experience acquired in this actual line test of the apparatus was made the basis for further research, and after two more years of work, the start-stop printing telegraph system which has become the basis for all successful single channel printer systems of the present day, was born. The apparatus which embodied the start-stop system at that time bore little resemblance to the present apparatus but the principles of operation were there and the working out of them was sufficiently satisfactory to justify a commercial installation. In their pursuit of a satisfactory system of transmission, the mechanism for recording the signals was not neglected. Several different kinds of commercial typewriters were modified to perform the duty of recording the received signals, but strange as it may seem, it was found that commercial typewriters were not satisfactory for the rigorous job of recording telegraph signals. It was therefore found necessary to design a typewriter especially for this work. These first tests also pointed out the advantages and superiority of mechanical over electrical operation, with a result that all functions outside of the bare selection are now performed mechanically by the Teletype in its present form. Having finally produced a system and apparatus which they felt certain was commercially practical, the inventors were then faced with the necessity for finding a communication company who would permit the installation of this apparatus in regular commercial operation. The Postal Telegraph Company proved to be the most receptive and a commit- tee headed by Mr. Minor M. Davis, at that time Electrical Engineer for the Postal Telegraph Company, visited Chicago to investigate this new Morkrum system. It is interesting to note that Mr. Davis, who had years of experience in the telegraph business and who had seen many attempts at the development of a successful printing telegraph system, was not so much concerned in the actual functioning of the recording apparatus but was more concerned in learning if the basis of the system, that is, the line signal, was of a type which would function on ordinary telegraph lines in good weather and bad. After a thorough investigation of the system, he became convinced that the start-stop line signal devised by the Krums would meet the rigorous service requirements, and the committee decided to permit an actual commercial installation on the Postal lines between New York and Boston. This installation was made in the summer of 1910. After years of work, the inventors felt that they had finally reached their goal. The apparatus was packed and shipped and Mr. Howard Krum went to Boston to supervise the installation at that end of the circuit and Mr. Charles Krum went to New York to take care of the operations at that end. However, the difficulties were not yet over, for when the apparatus arrived at its destination it was found that due to rough handling the delicate instruments were so badly damaged that instead of proceeding with the installation they had to spend months of work to get the machines back in shape for operation. Finally the day came when everything was in readiness and the two sets, one at New York and one at Boston, were hooked together by a telegraph wire and the first commercial message was transmitted by the Morkrum system. From the start good results were obtained, but as operation continued the inventors realized more and more that the operating requirements for commercial telegraph service were terribly exacting. The percentage of accuracy required was much higher than with any other form of mechanism; it must work twenty-four hours a day; it must operate on good telegraph wires and on telegraph wires whose quality was impaired by rain and other adverse weather conditions. The apparatus was too delicate to function over long periods of time without the necessity of close supervision. However, as in the case of the earlier installation, the inventors profited by their experience and went steadily along perfecting their apparatus, making changes here and there to improve its accuracy [and] to make it sturdier and simpler. Further Postal Telegraph lines were equipped and an installation was made on the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad between Chicago and Galesburg, Illinois. However, in spite of the fact that these circuits gave good service, the growth of the business was very slow. Telegraph companies and the railroads seemed loath to adopt the new system. Possibly this slow growth in the early days of the Morkrum system was due to the fact that the telegraph companies and the railroads could easily secure good Morse operators at low wages. Therefore, they were loath to abandon Morse operation, concerning which they were thoroughly familiar, and to replace it with machine telegraphy which would force them to go to school all over again. However, the telegraph business continued to grow and good Morse operators became harder to secure, wages increased, and above all, the Morkrum system steadily improved and finally installations of the system were made by the Western Union Telegraph Company, and the Canadian Pacific and Great Northwestern Telegraph companies in Canada. Due to increased business, Morkrum Company were able to enlarge their plant facilities, to engage expert assistants and to steadily improve their product. In 1917, Mr. Sterling Morton, son of Mr. Joy Morton, who had had wide experience with the Morton Salt Company, became president of the Morkrum Company. Mr. Morton brought to the Morkrum Company not only his great organizing and executive ability, but also an unusual talent for machine design work. The page printer and the Simplex tape printer, which are the most widely used units at the present time, are the joint work of Mr. Morton and Mr. Howard Krum. Up to this time, the laboratory and manufacturing work had been carried on in an old building near the business district. A careful survey of the employees showed that the majority of them lived on the north side of Chicago and this study determined the location of the present factory. In 1918, the factory was moved to the first unit of the present building, which is entirely fireproof and is considered one of the finest factory buildings in Chicago. Since that time, a total of six units have been built and a seventh is just being started. [1] As the demand for printing telegraph apparatus grew, the standards were steadily raised and apparatus which was thought quite wonderful a few years previous became obsolete and was replaced with newer types having greater margins of operation, higher speeds, and which were much simpler to maintain. Installations were made in new fields and each new field offered new and more difficult problems. In 1914, Mr. Kent Cooper, who was then head of the Traffic Department of the Associated Press, became convinced that the method of delivering copy to the New York newspapers by messenger boy was decidedly unsatisfactory and asked the Morkrum Company if they could make an installation of their apparatus by which one operator in the Associated Press could transmit the press matter simultaneously to all of the newspapers in New York City. A simple problem in the light of our present-day knowledge, but at that time it was an undertaking which offered many problems as yet unsolved. However, it was undertaken; the problem was studied, suitable apparatus was designed and within a year all of the newspapers in New York City and nearby towns, as well as in Philadelphia, were receiving their press matter simultaneously from a transmitting set controlled by a single operator in the Associated Press office in New York City. From this small beginning in the service of the Associated Press, the use of printing telegraphs has spread until over 800 newspapers belonging to the Associated Press receive their news dispatches by these machines, and some of the wire circuits of which this matter is transmitted involve as much as 4,000 miles of wire. The other press associations are using the apparatus to much the same extent. Up to 1917, the Morkrum Company had devoted all their efforts to the design of single channel printing telegraph systems and had developed both direct keyboard and tape transmission, but at this time the Postal Telegraph Company asked the Morkrum Company to develop a Multiplex system to meet the requirements on their heavy trunk lines. This development was undertaken and in less than a year a satisfactory Multiplex system had been designed, manufactured and installed on the Postal Company's line and proved so valuable that its use was extended to all their main trunk lines. As the use of printing telegraph became more general, needs developed for different types of apparatus to meet different classes of service, and the Morkrum Company attacked these problems and devel- oped different types of apparatus until at present there are available both direct keyboard and perforated tape transmission systems, printing either on tape printers or page printers, operated either single channel or Multiplex, using either five-unit or six-unit code, the latter being especially valuable for stock quotation work. The use of the apparatus in the telegraph companies continued to grow until at the present time fully 80% of all commercial telegrams are handled by printing telegraph. As the use of the machines grew, the requirements became more and more rigid and these were met by intensive research and development work which has never ceased. Printers are operating today under service conditions which would not have been considered possible even two or three years back. The latest development, the so-called "Typebar Tape Teletype" has proven so simple and reliable that it bids fair to drive Morse operation even from the way wires. Always on the alert for new fields for its equipment, the Morkrum Company several years ago became convinced that its apparatus could render valuable service for the communication needs of business houses, factories, hotels, etc. To sell this idea required a lot of time and much hard work, and the first few installations proved that this service was much more exacting that the use of the machines in regular telegraph offices where expert maintenance was instantly available, The experience gained in these early commercial install- ations paid big dividends, in that it resulted in such marked improvement in the apparatus that the use has grown so that today there is scarcely a city or town in the United States where this apparatus is not used for some communication need outside of its primary field -- that of telegraphic message traffic. The development of an organization that could satisfactorily handle the complex problems of developing and manufacturing a printing telegraph system has been quite as remarkable as the development of the apparatus itself; in fact, the successful culmination of the work would not have been possible had it not been for the splendid loyalty and intelligent work of the whole organization. This is particularly true in the case of the many men who had courage enough to stick to the proposition through the many years that it took before practical commercial results were obtained. The Morkrum Company is particularly proud of the fact that the outstanding men in the organization have developed in their own organization. It is a fixed policy of the company to develop its own men for important positions wherever possible. Mr. Howard Krum met Mr. J. O. Carr, who is now head of the Sales Engineering Department, in Boston in 1910 and engaged him for testing and engineering work. About the same time, Mr. G. Heding, who is now Factory Manager, came to the company as a tool maker. During their long years of service these two men have filled practically every position of importance in the organization and much credit is due them for their part in the final success of the work. We believe there are few companies where such a large proportion of the men in supervisory positions have grown up with the company and developed as the company has developed and there are certainly few companies where there is a greater spirit of loyalty and co-operation. Just a word about the manufacture of this apparatus. The requirements which printing telegraph apparatus must meet are extremely severe. This is readily understood when it seen that when a printer is opera- ting at the rate of 60 words per minute it is printing six characters per second. The printing of a character requires at least four successive operations of the various portions of the machine; in other words, many of these mechanisms have less than a twenty-fourth of a second in which to do their job. Coupled with this is the fact that the control of this rapidly moving mechanism is by means of a current of electricity so weak that it would hardly cause the smallest electric light globe to even glow. Knowing this, it is easy to understand that continuous work and research must be carried on to secure proper alloys and devise the proper methods of heat treating and hardening to permit all of the parts of the machine to function properly. Another requirement which is successfully met by Morkrum apparatus is absolute interchangeability of parts. This has been secured by the work of a force of highly trained designers and engineers and by the policy of the company of unhesitatingly securing the finest machine tool equipment available to permit parts to be made with the highest degree of accuracy. The present plant of the Morkrum-Kleinschmidt Corporation [2] at Chicago contains about 135,000 square feet of floor space devoted solely to the manufacture of this type of apparatus, filled wit the best machine tool equipment that can be purchased and manned by a force of highly trained employees, many of whom have been in the service of the company for a great many years. ----- [1] This would be the building at 1400 Wrightwood Ave., in Chicago which was occupied by Teletype until early in the 1960s, when the R&D portion of the complex at 5555 Touhy Ave., Skokie, was completed. I hear it has now been remodeled into luxury apartments. [2] E. E. Kleinschmidt had a competing printing telegraph company in the 1905-1920 time frame. His company eventually merged with the Morkrum company because of the dominance of the Krum patent on start-stop operation. In the 1950s Mr. Kleinschmidt got back into the business with his own company, located in Deerfield, IL. haynes@cats.ucsc.edu haynes@ucsccats.bitnet   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18285; 17 Nov 91 5:11 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03851 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 17 Nov 1991 03:24:38 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01205 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 17 Nov 1991 03:24:25 -0600 Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 03:24:25 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111170924.AA01205@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #938 TELECOM Digest Sun, 17 Nov 91 03:24:14 CST Volume 11 : Issue 938 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia: All Saturday Night Messages Lost (TELECOM Moderator) History of Teletypewriter Development (Teletype Corp. via Jim Haynes) Need Help With ATT Speaker Box (Roger Clark Swann) Re: Genie vs. FCC -- Tempest in a Teapot? (Barton F. Bruce) Re: Method Needed to Test Extension Phone (Yanek Martinson) Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls (Tatsuya Kawasaki) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 02:35:29 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: All Saturday Night Messages Lost If you sent a message to the Digest Saturday afternoon or evening it was probably lost due to a glitch in the filter/autoreply program which has since (hopefully) been fixed. More than likely you did not get an autoreply message because the messages were simply being trashed in the process of passing from the filter to the autoreply. You may have gotten a reciept because a fix (incorrect) was installed at one point in the evening, but I still didn't actually get the message. And that includes your article, Lauren W ... both times you sent it! Even though the filterlog had it listed (which is how I was able to notify some people of the loss of their articles) twice for Lauren, which included my request to retransmit it, it failed the second time also. As of 1:30 AM CST Sunday, things are running okay again. Patrick Townson TELECOM Moderator ------------------------------ From: Jim Haynes Subject: History of Teletypewriter Development Date: 17 Nov 91 08:34:46 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Here's another one (and that exhausts my supply). These two came into my hands as Monographs when I was working for Teletype in 1963-1966. The main reason I typed them in is to get them into the telecom archive since they contain information that isn't readily available so far as I know. HISTORY OF TELETYPEWRITER DEVELOPMENT R. A. Nelson K. M. Lovitt, Editor October 1963 Teletype Corporation 5555 West Touhy Avenue Skokie, Illinois ------ ABSTRACT The success of the modern teletypewriter began with Howard L. Krum's conception of the start-stop method of synchronization for permutation code telegraph systems. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief historical account of events which led to that achievement and of those which ensued. Four areas of development will be covered: (1) The contributions of Sterling Morton, Charles L. Krum and Howard L. Krum. (2) The contributions of E. E. Kleinschmidt. (3) The contributions of AT&T and Western Electric. (4) The contributions of L. M. Potts ----- _HISTORY OF TELETYPEWRITER DEVELOPMENT_ Area I. In 1902 a young electrical engineer named Frank Pearne solicited financial support from Joy Morton, head of the Morton Salt interests. Pearne had been experimenting with a printing telegraph system and needed sponsorship to continue his work. Morton discussed the matter with his friend, Charles L. Krum, a distinguished mechanical engineer and vice president of the Western Cold Storage Company (which was operated by Joy's brother, Mark Morton). The verdict for Pearne was favorable, and he was given laboratory space in the attic of the Western Cold Storage Company. After about a year of unsuccessful experimenting, Pearne lost interest and decided to enter the teaching field. Charles Krum continued the work and by 1906 had developed a promising model. In that year his son, Howard, a newly graduated electrical engineer, plunged into the work alongside his father. The fruit of these early efforts was a typebar page printer (Patent No. 888,335; filed August 22, 1903; issued May 19, 1908) and a typewheel printing telegraph machine (Patent No. 862,402; filed August 6, 1904; issued August 6, 1907). Neither of these machines used a permutation code. They experimented with transmitters as well, applications filed in 1904 and 1906 maturing into Patents No. 929,602 and No. 929,603. These patents covered modes of transmission which depended both on alternation of polarity and change in current level. By 1908 the Krums were able to test an experimental printer on an actual telegraph line. The typing portion of this machine was a modified Oliver typewriter mounted on a desk with the necessary relays, contacts, magnets, and interconnecting wires (Patent No. 1,137,146; filed February 4, 1909; issued April 27, 1915). As a result of the successful test of this printer, Charles and Howard Krum continued their experiments with a view to developing a direct keyboard typewheel printer. They sought most of all to discover a way of synchronizing transmitting and receiving units so that they would stay "in step." It was Howard Krum who worked out the start-stop method of synchronization (Patent No. 1,286,351; filed May 31, 1910; issued December 3, 1918). This achievement, which more than anything else put printing telegraphy on a practical basis, was first embodied (for commercial purposes) in the "Green Code" Printer, a typewheel page printer (Patent No. 1,232,045; filed November 28, 1909;issued July 3, 1917). The transmitters first used by the Krums were of the continuously- moving-tape variety. (A stepped tape feed, they maintained, would have reduced transmission speed.) In order to permit sequential sensing, the rows of code holes were arranged in a slightly oblique pattern (with respect to tape edges). This method of transmission is more fully elaborated in Krum Patents No. 1,326,456, No. 1,360,231, and No. 1,366,812. Keyboard-controlled cam-type start-stop permutation code transmitters were developed by Charles and Howard Krum in about 1919. Such a device is the transmitter component of the Morkrum 11-Type tape printer (Krum Patent No. 1,635,486). This kind of transmitter employs a single contact to open or close the signal line. In about 1924 the Morkrum Company introduced the No. 12-Type tape printer (H. L. Krum Patent No. 1,665,594). On December 23, 1924, Howard Krum and Sterling Morton (son of Joy Morton) filed an application on the 14-Type type-bar tape printer which matured into Patent No. 1,745,633. [1] Area II. It appears that the early efforts of E. E. Kleinschmidt were directed toward development of facsimile printing apparatus and automatic Morse code equipment. He patented first a Morse keyboard transmitter (Patent No. 964,372; filed February 7, 1095; issued January 11, 1910) and later a Morse keyboard perforator (Patents No. 1,045,855, No. 1,085,984, and No. 1,085,985). (The latter became known as the Wheatstone Perforator.) In 1916 Kleinschmidt filed an application for a type-bar page printer (Patent No. 1,448,750 issued March 20, 1923). This printer utilized Baudot code but was not start-stop. It was intended for use on multiplex circuits, and its printing was controlled from a local segment on a receiving distributor of the sunflower type. Later, around 1919, Kleinschmidt appeared to be concerned chiefly with development of multiplex transmitters for use with this printer (Kleinschmidt Patent No. 1,460,357). It seems that Kleinschmidt first became interested in modern start-stop permutation code telegraph systems when H. L. Krum's basic start-stop patent was issued in December 1918. Shortly after that Kleinschmidt filed an application entitled "Method of and Apparatus for Operating Printing Telegraphs" (Patent No. 1,463,136; filed May 1, 1919; issued July 24, 1923). The system described therein employed the start-stop principle with a modified version of his earlier multiplex distributor. That patent, accordingly, was dominated by the Krum start-stop patent. The conflict of patent rights between the Morkrum Company and the Kleinschmidt Electric Company eventually led to a merger of the two interests. Shortly after the new Morkrum-Kleinschmidt Corporation (later called the Teletype Corporation) had been established, Sterling Morton, Howard Krum, and E. E. Kleinschmidt filed an application covering the commercial form of the well-known 15-Type page printer (Patent No. 1,9904,164). [2] Area III. Teletype entered the Bell System in 1930. From this point on, advances in the Teletype product can be considered the result of the pooled efforts of the AT&T Company, the Western Electric Company, and the Teletype Corporation. Teletype Corporation, of course, holder of the basic patents and expert in the art, was the chief contributor. Although it appears from the report of R. E. Pierce, dated December 24, 1934, that the Bell System was active in the development of telegraph printers and transmitters as early as the year 1909, a review of the patents issued to Bell reveals no significant contribution to modern teletypewriter development (using start-stop permutation code) until the introduction in 1920 of the 10-A teletypewriter (Pfannenstiehl Patents No. 1,374,606, No. 1,399,933, No. 1,426,768, No. 1,623,809, and No. 1,661,012). The 10-A teletypewriter was the first embodiment of such basic design features of the 15-Type printer as stationary platen, moving type basket, and selector vane assembly, but the majority of improvements incorporated in the 15-Type were proprietary to the Teletype Corporation. Area IV. The earliest contribution of Dr. L. M. Potts to the start-stop method of synchronization appears to have been set forth in a patent application filed November 18, 1911, covering a reed-type start-stop selector (Patent No. 1,151,216). In 1914, Dr. Potts filed an application for a single magnet page printer which used an eight-unit code (Patent No. 1,229,202; issued June 5, 1917). In 1915, Dr. Potts filed an application covering another single magnet page printer, this one using the start-stop permutation code (Patent No. 1,370,669; assigned to AT&T March 8, 1921). Potts Patents No. 1,517,381 and No. 1,570,923 were also assigned to AT&T. ---------- [1] For anyone who is old enough to have seen a Western Union Telegram where the typing is on narrow gum-backed tape that is moistened and stuck to a telegram blank, this is the machine that produces that kind of printing. The same mechanism is the basis of a typing reperforator, a machine which punches received signals into a tape for retransmission and also types on the tape so an operator can read it. [2] This is the machine used until the 1960s or so by the news wire services. Some radio stations still use a recording of the sound of one of these machines as background during news broadcasts. haynes@cats.ucsc.edu haynes@cats.bitnet [Moderator's Note: Thank you for two very excellent articles this weekend on the history of Teletype and its predecessor companies. Jim's earlier article on the history of the Morkrum Company was distributed as a special mailing sent out between issues 936-937 on Saturday evening. Watch for your copy to arrive if it hasn't yet. But I am curious about something not mentioned in either article. Did the Bell System buy out Morkrum and change the name to Teletype in 1930 or did Teletype start and later buy out Morkrum? How did that transition occur? I love these history articles because so much telecom history happened right here in Chicago -- the Chicago I like to remember from years ago. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ssc-bee!ssc-vax!clark@cs.washington.edu (Roger Clark Swann) Subject: Need Help With ATT Speaker Box Date: 16 Nov 91 06:28:24 GMT Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics I am looking for hardware help in connecting up an ATT speakerphone unit that I just acquired. The numbering on the backside is: S101A. This is a single box unit that connects to Merlin and similar insturments. It has two push switches on top of the unit, one for on/off and one for mic mute. There is a sliding volume control across the bottom. I found a listing in the ATT sourcebook for these devices as a QUORUM 101 & 102 speakerphone. The 101 being for digital telephones and the 102 being for analog telephones. There is also a listing under the Merlin section for what looks like the same thing, but different part numbers. Since I don't have a Merlin set handy, can I hook this little gem up to a POTS insturment? There is an 8 conductor modular jack on the rear of the unit for connection to a Merlin or whatever. I assume that I can get hookup info from ATT, if I knew what to ask for, no? OR am I just flat out dead w/o a Merlin type set? Roger Swann | email: clark@ssc-vax.boeing.com @ | fax: 206-773-1249 The Boeing Company | voice: 206-773-5491 ------------------------------ From: bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) Subject: Re: Genie vs. FCC -- Tempest in a Teapot? Date: 16 Nov 91 04:26:53 EDT Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , Jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes: > rural areas. If they had to use 950 or 10XXX access just like any > other OCC, we'd probably have access to at least one of them here in 950.1288 answers in Boston with an AT&T info access system message. I assume it isn't everywhere, yet. I have no idea what their prices look like. I think this is a CDC/ATT offering. I also assume they are using Primary Access's modems that take up to 20 T1s of voice lines (that is 488 ckts) and convert it all to several x.25 ckts all without any rats-nest of eia cables between modems and pads, and without bothering to take the incoming modem signals back to analog -- they process them digitally the whole way. Since Primary Access boxes understand FG-B and FG-D signalling, this is a trivial application for them. ------------------------------ From: Yanek Martinson Subject: Re: Method Needed to Test Extension Phone Date: 16 Nov 91 17:45:18 GMT Organization: University of Miami Department of Mathematics & Computer Science In nyarko@ee.ualberta.ca (David Nyarko) writes: > I would like to know if there is a way (short of asking a friend to > call your number) of testing/phoning an extension Call a unix system with a dialout line you can access. Then nohup "sleep 180; cu " & logoff and in three minutes the computer will call you back. yanek@mthvax.cs.miami.edu safe0%yanek@mthvax.cs.miami.edu ------------------------------ From: tatsuya@hamblin.math.byu.edu (& Kawasaki) Subject: Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls Organization: Brigham Young University Date: 17 Nov 91 00:46:52 Speaking of recording phone conversations: The federal government does not require that all parties being recorded must give their prior consent or that all parties being recond must hear a 'beep'. According to FCC rules, as long as one of parties is aware of the conversation is been taped it is legal. But some states impose strict laws such as insisting both parties be aware. For example, in the state of Utah, there are no regulations. My attorney checked it for me a few weeks ago. If you are interested about the FCC regulations, I will try to post them for you. Tatsuya tatsuya@hamblin.math.byu.edu EMT:901006 Ham: N7UQJ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #938 ******************************  ISSUE 939 DELAYED IN TRANSMISSION AND APPEARS FOLLOWING ISSUE 940  Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16504; 18 Nov 91 0:57 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00841 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 17 Nov 1991 22:53:41 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24030 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 17 Nov 1991 22:53:31 -0600 Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 22:53:31 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111180453.AA24030@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #940 TELECOM Digest Sun, 17 Nov 91 22:53:17 CST Volume 11 : Issue 940 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson The ZZZZZZ Saga -- Part 1 -- "The Books" (Lauren Weinstein) Local Telephone Company Assigns Same Number to Two Housholds (Barry Ornitz) Are Personal 900 Numbers Available? (William R. Mark) Embassy Suites Hotel Advertises AT&T Service (Joel Upchurch) Vacant Chair Telecommunication Networks (Rudi Westerveld) X.PC, was Re: Phone Gateways? (John R. Levine) What Does Internet Cost Per Person? (drmath@viking.rn.com) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 16 Nov 91 20:56:35 PST From: lauren@vortex.COM (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: The ZZZZZZ Saga -- Part 1 -- "The Books" ==== This is Part 1 of a series chronicling the history of the ZZZZZZ telephone entertainment service; from 1970 to 1980 the last listing in the Los Angeles telephone directory, and at the time "the most frequently dialed residential telephone number in the world". ===== The ZZZZZZ Saga Part 1 -- "The Books" It was February, 1970. Richard Nixon was President. The Vietnam War continued to grind up lives. The previous summer, an obscure farmer named Max permitted his land to be used for a rock festival named "Woodstock". It was a time when men with hair over their collars were still chastised for their "long hair" (little did the parents of the time know that such hairstyles would be considered "short" by later standards!) It was the age of Ma Bell; a time when The Phone Company (TPC) owned virtually all of the phones, hooking up your own answering machine without an expensive "coupler" rented from telco was illicit, and modular plugs a development yet to come. The thought of paying for directory assistance, either local or long distance, or having to pay for non-local phone books would have been viewed as totally ludicrous by most. I was of high school age at the time. I sat in the Century City (a West Los Angeles pseudo-"downtown" area) waiting room of an office one afternoon that month, idly looking through the cartoons in "The New Yorker" (does anyone ever look at anything other than the cartoons in there? Never mind ...) As I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came (no, not a tapping!) but rather a loud THUMP as a large pile of new phone books were dropped onto the receptionist's desk by a burly telco employee. Having finished the cartoons, I wandered over to the pile of books, pulled the local area code 213 (Western Section [orange area]) L.A. white pages book from the pile, and started to thumb through it, looking for any interesting changes in the telco information pages. Out of curiosity, I turned to the last page of the book, and looked for the last listing -- I thought there might be a particularly amusing surname present (there usually was!) But this time, it was different. The last listing was: Zzzzzz ...................................... 837-5566 Here was a double oddity. Not only was the listing obviously not that of a person, but there was also no address (non-address listings were fairly rare back then ...) For no good reason, I turned to the front of the book, where various triple-A's and related listings could normally be found. Egads! Look at the first listing: A ........................................... 837-5566 There were a couple of other "A" listings as well, but all of the other ones had addresses, and the "mystery" number was in front of them all. The same number as the last listing! This was getting interesting. There was obviously only one thing to do. Heading for the nearest phone, I dialed the number (yes, with a genuine rotary dial). It rang about five times. A Click! "Z", said a somewhat disgruntled voice. "Uh, hello. I noticed your listing in the new Western book. What is this, anyway?", I inquired. "What do you want it to be?" asked the voice. "Well, uh...", I started ... "Well if you don't know, goodbye", said the voice ... "CLICK!" And that was that. All in all, not a very satisfying conversation, but certainly an amusing one. This was a number that would need to be called again later; there was obviously something going on and I wanted to find out what it was. I was indeed to find out. Little did I know then that the chain of events that had started would eventually lead to one of the strangest sagas in "telephone history", ultimately involving not only the local AT&T telephone company (Pacific Telephone) but the California PUC as well, and a wide variety of rather interesting people over the next decade. But that was all to come. At the time, all I had was a phone number, and a mystery. I'd wait a few days and try the number again ... TO BE CONTINUED ... [Note: I'm still willing to provide a few digitized samples of classic ZZZZZZ tapes for the amusement of the readership, but I have yet to receive any mail from persons with some anonymous ftp disk space they'd be willing to donate to the cause. Gigantic amounts of space would not be required, but the space available for the Telecom archives is quite limited, so they can't go there. If you have some space you'd like to make available for this purpose, please let me know.] --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Reply-To: ornitz@kodak.com From: ornitz@kodak.kodak.com (Barry Ornitz) Subject: Local Telephone Company Assigns Same Number to Two Housholds Organization: Eastman Kodak Co. Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 23:49:55 GMT I learned late Friday afternoon (after business hours) that the local telephone company has assigned another household the same telephone number as ours. This was evidently done approximately three months ago, and it certainly explains the very large increase in the number of calls we have received for another party. I called the repair office after verifying through the directory assistance operator that indeed two households were listed as having the same number. The repair office told me this situation would have to be handled through the business office. A few minutes later, two telephone company troubleshooters came through my office area (ECC is putting in a fancy new phone system). Since it was after normal hours and I was the only one around with keys, they asked me to let them in a few laboratories. While talking with them, I mentioned the problem with my home telephone. They said this happens more frequently than United Intermountain [United Intermittant] cares to admit. They said the most likely problem is that the ESS was programmed improperly. They also said theft of service was far more common than phone company also liked to admit. In my case, since the other party was listed in the directory files, they said the problem was in the ESS. I might add that I have never picked up my home telephone and heard another conversation already in progress. The next day, a repairman came to my house to check my phone. He plugged in his portable set, and when it worked, he declared everything fine. He said it was impossible for the central office to assign two lines to the same number. Checking back through my past few bills, I can find no additional long distance service charges. Of course I use AT&T long distance and it is possible the other household uses another service. I will call the business office tomorrow and complain loudly. I will also call the state Public Service Commission. United Telephone rarely listens unless you do this, and the commissioners love to take every available opportunity to make the telephone company responsive to their customers needs. I have found that getting the Public Service Commission involved makes dealing with the phone company far more pleasant. My questions to the telecom group are: how easy is it to assign duplicate numbers on different lines, how are long distance charges assigned back to a household (rather than a number), and is it worth asking for credit for the added inconvenience and potential lost service (and quite a few wrong numbers in the middle of the night)? Thanks. Barry L. Ornitz orintz@kodak.com Eastman Chemical Company Research Laboratories Kingsport, TN [Moderator's Note: First of all, *who told you* another party had the same phone number? You mention you 'found out', but don't say who told you or why they could not fix it. I think it is far more common to have two subscribers on the same pair by accident rather than two subscribers with two pairs but only one number. If you have never once heard anyone else talking on the line; never once called and found the line busy when you knew it should not be; never once come across charges on your bill that should not be there, then I suggest you do not have anyone sharing your number and/or your line. What probably happened was the other party got listed incorrectly in the data base with your number attached instead of theirs; no more, no less. The large number of calls you receive for the other party is due to the number of people trying to call the other party who check with directory assistance for the number. Is it also in the phone book? Have you yet talked to the other party to see if they consider themselves to have the same phone number, or if they understand it to be just a typographical error yet to be corrected, or something else. If I were you, I'd approach the Business Office saying you believe someone else has been listed in the directory data base with your number, and let them handle it from there. And no, you have no compensation coming. Your service was not interuppted. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 19:40:33 CST From: William R. Mark Subject: Are Personal 900 Numbers Available? Would it be possible for long distance companies to provide personal 900 numbers similar to their personal 800 numbers? I can quickly think of two uses for such numbers: 1) Establishing 900 numbers similar to those which are already available, but which are useful to a much more limited audience. It is my understanding that it currently requires a fairly large investment to establish a 900 service. If it was easy, and relatively cheap, to establish such services, there would probably be an enormous increase in useful 900 numbers 2) An extremely effective way to discourage the telemarketing calls that seem to be disturbing many of the posters to TELECOM Digest. Suppose that your phone number was a 900 number. If a telemarketer did call, then you could suffer through the call knowing that you make a couple of dollars from it. The obvious problem is that friends, relatives, etc. would also have to pay the charges. A solution to this problem would be to provide a method to "reverse the chargers" and make the callee pay instead of the caller (perhaps flashing and dialing a code). If this system was priced reasonably (a big "if"), then you would make money off of annoyance calls and pay charges similar to WATS charges for calls that you did want. Does anyone think there's any chance of such a service ever being provided? [Moderator's Note: It is being provided. Call any 900 vendor and tell them you want a line. Telesphere was asking for about $1000 up front to install one, including the channel between the 900 point of presence and your location, which would come in like an FX or a ring down via your local telco to your premises from the vendor's switch. Tell the vendor how much you want to charge per call and minute. They rake off the first 40-50 cents a minute, maybe less, which includes the local telco's charge for the ringdown before you see any of the net proceeds. But tell me this: what kind of fools do you take the telemarketers to be? Who do you expect will call your number? PAT] ------------------------------ From: joel@peora.sdc.ccur.com (Joel Upchurch) Subject: Embassy Suites Hotel Advertises AT&T Service Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 17:46:05 GMT Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL My November 18th {Newsweek} has an ad for Embassy Suites on page 71. They highlight that they have AT&T long distance and that AT&T calling card and Universal cards work from the rooms. They also mention that computer modem hookup are available in most suites. It sounds like it isn't just the readers of comp.dcom.telecom that are getting annoyed with hotel telecom policies if a major hotel is mentioning this as a sales point. Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809 joel@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel (407) 859-0982 ------------------------------ From: rudi@dutetvf.tudelft.nl (Rudi Westerveld) Subject: Vacant Chair Telecommunication Networks Organization: Delft University of Technology Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 15:55:07 GMT [Moderator's Note: This message was previously published and is being repeated in an effort to help fill the position. PAT] CHAIR IN TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORKS. Delft University of Technology (the Netherlands), Faculty of Electrical Engineering announces a vacant chair in Telecommunication Networks. The full professor will be appointed in the Telecommunications and Traffic-Control Systems group, where teaching and research responsibilities are shared by three chairs. Key areas of attention in this group are: tele-information systems, including data networks and mobile communications; radio location, navigation and traffic-control systems; teletraffic theory (ATM); systems integration. The successful candidate will assume responsibility for the area of network architecture, including protocols, interfaces and switching techniques, and for the systems engineering disciplines necessary for design and management of major communication infrastructures. He/she is required to have an outstanding research record and practical experience within this area. He/she should demonstrate strong didactic skills and the ability to stimulate joint research with other disciplines, in addition to directing and personally advancing the research of the chair. Send nominations or applications (including a C.V. and a list of publications) in confidence to: Prof. J. Davidse, Dean of E.E., P.O. Box 5031, 2600 GA Delft, the Netherlands, quoting vacancy No. ET9125/2731. More information available from Rudi Westerveld at Telecommunication and Traffic-Control Systems group. E-mail: rudi@dutetvf.et.tudelft.nl ------------------------------ Subject: X.PC, was Re: Phone Gateways Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 17 Nov 91 13:01:09 EST (Sun) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) In article is written: > This reminds me of the X.PC protocol supported by Xtalk Mk 4. > Publisher of Xtalk won't release it. The X.PC protocol is in the public domain. It is basically a version of X.25 designed for regular old async phone line modemss. On-line copies of the spec are floating around all over the place. MCI Mail and Tymnet themselves currently use it. Only Tymnet uses it for multiple simultaneous sessions. If there is suffiecient interest, I can send along the spec to put in the telecom archives (it's about 125K long.) You can get a paper copy along with some handy DOS software by sending a request for the X.PC Packet and a check for $35 made out to BT Tymnet to: X.PC Distribution Tymnet Network Resources M/S C41 South Bay Center 2560 North First Street P.O. Box 49019 San Jose, CA 95161-9019 Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: drmath@viking.rn.com (Doctor Math) Subject: What Does Internet Cost Per Person? Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 00:49:57 EST Organization: Department of Redundancy Department hsilbiger@attmail.att.com (Herman R Silbiger) writes: > In article , haynes@cats.UCSC.EDU (Jim > Haynes) writes: >> Contrast that with the situation of the Internet RFCs, freely >> available by FTP. > They're not free, you pay for them in your income tax, whether you > need them or not. Has anyone calculated the exact cost per taxpayer to support the Government's share of Internet operating expenses? (I must admit, I wish all standards could be implemented as RFCs ...) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #940 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18894; 18 Nov 91 2:30 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24231 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 17 Nov 1991 21:28:09 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22610 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 17 Nov 1991 21:27:56 -0600 Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 21:27:56 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111180327.AA22610@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #939 TELECOM Digest Sun, 17 Nov 91 21:27:47 CST Volume 11 : Issue 939 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? (Peter da Silva) Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? (John Higdon) Re: Telemarketers: One Good Solution (Roger Fajman) Re: Federal Telemarketing Legislation Proposed (Harold Hallikainen) Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message (S.E. Williams ) Re: Are Phone Books Available on Diskette? (Mark Oberg) Re: Are Phone Books Available on Diskette? (Harold Hallikainen) Re: Two Line Selector Box Schematic Wanted (Charlie Rosenberg) Re: What Information do Phone Companies Process? (Peter Marshall) Re: Easements (Charlie Mingo) ANI Numbers That I Know of (Joe Stein) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? Organization: Taronga Park BBS Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 18:14:21 GMT TELECOM Moderator noted what colin@array.uucp (Colin Plumb) had written: > [Moderator's Note: The phreak intends to steal something from you if > possible; ie your computing and telecom resources. The telemarketer > wishes to sell you something if possible. There is legally and > otherwise a difference between selling you something and stealing from > you. PAT] I agree that there is a legal difference, but there are quite a few telemarketers that *do* have every intention of stealing from you, courtesy of a 900 number call-back and the local operating company. So, there are three groups of people: the legitimate telemarketers, the telescammers, and the phreaks. Of the three, I'd put the telescam folks at the bottom of *my* list. Plus, with Caller-ID I'm more likely to get the phreak's number. Jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes: > I personally would have more respect for the curious > 15-year-old hacker that is trying to learn about computers than for > the sleazeball that calls with the intention of selling me shoddy > merchandise. I wouldn't. "Learning about computers" is no excuse for phreaking, less so today than at any time in history. For the price of a decent terminal, you can get a UNIX clone with source code, compiler, and everything and a computer to run it on. What's he going to learn from a binary-only system which, half the time, doesn't even have compilers on ... over a 2400 baud phone link ... that he wouldn't learn from a cheap used PC clone and MINIX? Not to condone telemarketing scams or anything, but phreaking is no different than joyriding. Peter da Silva Taronga Park BBS +1 713 568 0480|1032 2400/n/8/1. ------------------------------ From: zygot!john@apple.com (John Higdon) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 20:27:58 PST Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? Jack Decker writes: > I am really beginning to believe that telemarketing scams are becoming > a VERY serious problem, especially because now that the economy is > getting tight, more people seem to be turning to unethical means of > obtaining cash. I'm not sure what the answer is, though. Telemarketing scams ARE becoming more blatant and crooked. But as with most things the answer is probably to be found in education rather than legislation. Barney Frank and other congressmen are all ready to attempt to legislate the telemarketer out of business with a patchwork quilt of complex laws (that will be next to impossible to enforce), but there is a better way. Most of us have come to adopt the "I don't do unsolicited business over the phone" method of handling junk calls. The reasons for this are many. You know nothing about the seller. Your chances of getting a "good deal" are remote. Your dissatisfaction recourse is non-existent. Now, if most people dropped the receiver on telemarketers, they would go away without passing any laws. It is called marketplace regulation. Just as with 900 services, knowing what is going on is more than half the battle. Oh, yes, there will be some who will never figure it out but we cannot protect everyone from themselves and their own ignorance. And, yes, the telemarketers are looking for that one sucker to make their day. But for the victim, consider the transaction the cost of education. The slime will do it to itself. If the vast majority of people are irritated enough, the fruits of telemarketing will disappear and the perpetrators will have no reason to continue the practice. It WILL happen, but let us not jump off the deep end in the meantime. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: "Roger Fajman" Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 14:38:03 EST Subject: Re: Telemarketers: One Good Solution I received the following a while back in a newsletter from my bank: The Direct Marketing Association, a trade organization for direct mail and telephone companies, maintains a list of people who do not want to receive unsolicited mailings or telephone calls. The DMA will send your name to hundreds of national companies, and your name will come off those firms' solicitation lists. To get on the association's list (and removed from many mailing and/or telephone lists), send your name address and telephone number to: Mail Preference Service and/or Telephone Preference Service Direct Marketing Association 6 East 43rd Street New York, NY 10017 It takes several weeks for your action to take effect because the Direct Marketing Association updates and distributes its list once per quarter. Not all companies belong to the Direct Marketing Association. You'll have to write to some companies individually to have your name removed from their lists. (from "Bank Notes," Sandy Spring National Bank of Maryland, Spring 1991) I sent my name into the Telephone Preference Service some years ago after it was mentioned in the newspaper. I think it does cut down on the telemarketing calls, but it does not eliminate them completely. Roger Fajman Telephone: +1 301 402 1246 National Institutes of Health BITNET: RAF@NIHCU Bethesda, Maryland, USA Internet: RAF@CU.NIH.GOV ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 13:13:19 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Federal Telemarketing Legislation Proposed Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo yazz@locus.com wrote: > Create a national list of phone numbers that could not be junk- > called or junk-faxed. The crucial point that I didn't hear made > specific is whether this list would prevent human junk calls too, or > just the machine ones. Seems like this could be another option sold (or maybe even provided standard) by the telco. As I recall, existing switch software will disallow collect calls or third number billing. Perhaps there could be a "junk call refusal" flag. Telco probably would not go for this, though, since I'm sure they make a fair amount of money on "telemarketing". Maybe something could be done with caller ID. Do telemarketers use any sort of bulk long distance that could be identified by a caller ID (similar to the personalized junk mail I get third class, carrier route sorted -- how personal can they get)?. At present, I just try to talk the telemarketers out of using that sales technique. They just lost the sale. Next time, try direct mail. Automated calls that do not meet the CPUC requirements are reported to PacBell. My favorite opening line from a telemarketer is "You wanted us to give you a call when we had an especially good deal on ...". This is typically used to sell stocks, bonds, rare metals, etc. I NEVER told them I wanted a call (I don't have enough money for any of that stuff. Besides that, I try to earn money the old fashioned way -- by working). Harold ------------------------------ From: sew7490@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.E. Williams ) Subject: Re: Yes You Can Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 16:35:28 GMT > reason some idle numbers return the message 'xxx has been disconnected' > while others return the message 'xxx is not in service'. I've heard > both on IBT idle numbers. I think the latter is used if the line never > did have anyone on it, ie, a relatively new prefix. Other ideas? PAT] Has anyone ever created/compiled a list which includes all the phrases a switch can say, and when it will say them? I think it might be interesting ... Sean E. Williams (sew7490@ultb.isc.rit.edu) Rochester Institute of Technology - Telecommunications Technology (ITFT) [Moderator's Note: The number you reached [dialed] (area code xxx) xxx-xxxx 1. is not in service (for incoming calls). 2. has been disconnected. (Calls are being taken by (areacode xxx) xxx-xxxx). 3. (at the customer's request) has been temporarily disconnected. 4. is being tested [checked] for trouble. Please try your call again later. 5. cannot be reached from outside the customer's premises. 6. is a working number. Please hang up and dial the call again. 7. has activated call screening, and is not accepting calls at this time. [Some use this phrase instead] ... (ocassionally this phrase is added). In the case of #3 above, if (at the customer's request) is added, they will be the first four words spoken before the number is read. Without that phrase present at the beginning, the customer is almost always on a credit disconnect. Example #6 applies when your call is manually intercepted by an operator who bubbles in what you tell her you *think* you dialed. Obviously in an automatic intercept the switch knows what you dialed -- you couldn't have dialed a working number and still gotten intercepted. It will say what you dialed. On the other hand the operator has to take your word for it and you may have in fact intended to dial a good number but misdialed. There are many more, but these came immediatly to mind. Anyone want to compile more? PAT] ------------------------------ From: grout!mark@uunet.uu.net (Mark Oberg) Subject: Re: Are Phone Books Available on Diskette? Date: 26 Nov 91 18:18:34 GMT Organization: Eric's PC, Landover MD In article mtbb136@ms.uky.edu (John Roberts) writes: > I was interested in aquiring a phone book on diskette to enable quick > searches in locating phone numbers. I realized that this would make > it much more easy for phone solicitators to bother customers, but it > would be really useful for many computer users. Complete telephone directories are published on CDROM and available in EAST and WEST editions. Bureau of Electronic Publishing (advertised in most PC magazines) offers these for $995 each. They also offer a complete U.S. Yellow Pages listing on CDROM for about $400. I have not purchased either of these ROM's, so cannot vouch for the accuracy or timeliness of the data provided. Mark Oberg NATel, Inc. | UUCP: wb3ffv!grout!mark Voice: (301)964-0505 | Internet: mark%grout@wb3ffv.ampr.org BBS: (301)596-6450 | Fidonet: 1:109/506 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 13:40:42 -0800 From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Are Phone Books Available on Diskette? Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo > I was interested in aquiring a phone book on diskette to enable quick > searches in locating phone numbers. I realized that this would make > it much more easy for phone solicitators to bother customers, but it > would be really useful for many computer users. > [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell does not have their directory on > diskettes but they do have a program where you can access their data > base from a terminal at your location. Called 'Directory Express', it > is not inexpensive. I think they get a couple hundred dollars per > month for a few hours of time on line. All you get is whatever the > directory assistance operator gets. Is it worth it? PAT] Seems like the information in the telephone directory is "public information" that is made available to people at the cost of duplication. I think the "alternate phone direcories" (such as Key Marketing) get all the name/address/number information on nine track tape. If there were enough demand, it would appear that someone could buy this 9 track tape and transfer it to whatever other medium might be desired. I don't think diskette would be appropriate (unless you go with Garrison Keilor's "Condensed Phone Book"). A CD ROM would probably be appropriate. I also get mailings from a company that generates mailing lists from telco yellow page directories. They actually subscribe to every phone book in the country and hand key the yellow page entries into their system. Amazing! As far as online directory assistance, as I recall, the French telephone company (probably government owned) figured it was cheaper to give everyone a terminal and provide online directory assistance than it was to reprint all those directories. Thus, the Minitel system was born. I don't know if it actually WAS cheaper. It does seem, however, that providing machine accessible directory assistance would be less expensive than paying all those operators (though they probably make money on that now that they charge). Similarly, I'd like the Postal Service to have zip code and rate information on line. Today, I'm trying to figure out what it costs to send a three pound package to Puerto Rico. No answer at the local PO. Tomorrow, the line will be busy all day ... Online directory assistance may become more common as the US telcos adapt to the recent court decisions allowing them to be information providers instead of just information carriers. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 05:45:06 PST From: Charlie Rosenberg Subject: Re: Two Line Selector Box Schematic Wanted I was at Radio Shack yesterday in Cambridge, MA and they had a bunch of these devices for $21.95. If you get the schematic, how about a copy for me? ------------------------------ Subject: Re: What Information do Phone Companies Process? From: peterm@halcyon.com (Peter Marshall) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 09:24:29 PST One suggestion might be to utilize the questions presented to US West and the responses provided some time ago to the US West Regional Oversight Committee, composed of regulators from the US West region. Dr. Stapleton might want to contact the Arizona PUC for this information. Peter Marshall The 23:00 News and Mail Service - +1 206 292 9048 - Seattle, WA USA PEP, V.32, V.42bis +++ A Waffle Iron, Model 1.64 +++ ------------------------------ From: Charlie.Mingo@p0.f716.n109.z1.FidoNet.Org (Charlie Mingo) Date: 17 Nov 91 03:10:31 Subject: Re: Easements NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) writes: > I'd like to add one more thing about my easement for utilities. In > New York, as I understand it, an easement gives a utility the > permission to string their lines across your property on under its > surface. > Should a problem occur with an underground installation, the homeowner > is responsible for digging the trench to expose the item and replace > it at my expense. At least this is true for water. I don't know about > telephone or electric lines since mine are overhead. An easement is simply a right of way. An easement does not of itself impose any burden on the landowner to excavate cables every time the utility asks him to. Perhaps if *you're* having problems with your utility service, due to a cable on your own land, you may have to pay for excavation as part of the cost of repair. Not otherwise. ------------------------------ From: joes@techbook.com (Joe Stein) Subject: ANI Numbers That I Know of Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 18:34:08 GMT I know of several. Here in GTE-Northwest, you dial 999, or 611. In US-West territory, it is 956-2742 Also, 1-200-555-1212 is supposed to work in the "little" offices. Joseph W. Stein +1 503 643 0545 joes@techbook.com -or- joe@m2xenix.psg.com My opinion is that I have no opinion but my own... So there! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #939 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29421; 19 Nov 91 1:34 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16029 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 18 Nov 1991 23:31:17 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21319 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 18 Nov 1991 23:31:02 -0600 Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 23:31:02 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111190531.AA21319@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #941 TELECOM Digest Mon, 18 Nov 91 23:30:53 CST Volume 11 : Issue 941 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Fax Etiquette (Nigel Allen) Telescum Targeting Families of Vietnam MIAs (Dave Niebuhr) Moscow: Direct Dialing Overseas Now Available 11/15/91 (J. Philip Miller) Information Needed: GlobeCom91 in Phoenix (Anders Johansson) Wireless Access For Email Users (Ericsson Press Release) Offing Telemarketers (Chris Arndt) AT&T InterSpan Locator Service (Lauren Weinstein) Shared Area Codes (Ted Hadley) AT&T Home Office Network - What am I Risking? (Roy Stehle) Job Descriptions in Telecom (Stan Reeves) Call-Waiting Signal Sounds Different (Marcus Adams) One Second Telephone Charges (Steve Dillinger) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 22:08:50 -0500 From: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) Subject: Fax Etiquette Organization: FidoNet Node 1:250/438, Echo Beach, Toronto Most people who read this echo understand their fax machines. But you may want to take a look at the other fax machines in your organization. I wish that users of fax machines and fax boards would set their machines up properly. (I could say "program" their machines, but perhaps that's not the best way to describe pushing a few buttons in the appropriate sequence.) Most fax machines can be set up to display the number of the phone line that they are attached to, and ten or more alphanumeric characters that can be used for the name of the organization that uses the fax. Some fax users never bother to key in the number and name, which can be annoying if this information isn't provided on the organization's cover sheet or letterhead. And if a fax machine has been bought second-hand, or if it has been switched from one phone line to another, the fax number it identifies itself with can be wrong. I appreciate that there are times when someone deliberately chooses not to include a fax number (a fax machine on a line used primarily for voice or BBSing, for example). But most missing fax numbers are caused by sloppiness, not be deliberate choice. As well, I wish that people sending a fax message with small type or fine detail would remember to send it in fine mode, particularly if the recipient will have to mark changes on it and fax it back. Nigel Allen 52 Manchester Avenue Toronto, Ontario M6G 1V3 Canada telephone (416) 535-8916 fax (416) 978-7552 Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 6:33:41 -0500 (EST) From: NIEBUHR@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (Dave Niebuhr 516-282-3093) Subject: Telescum Targeting Families of Vietnam MIAs A new scam (at least it is to me) that telemarketers are using is the "In-Touch" database of Vietnam Veterans who are still listed as MIAs. This information is free to those who access it. These scum will call relatives of the MIA and say that they are almost 100% postive that their loved one is alive; if not, for a small fee, they will have the servicemen/servicewomen's name engraved on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall in Washington. If PAT will allow, I'll post the entire article and let others see just how low these people have gone. They should all be tarred-and-feathered and then shot. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 [Moderator's Note: Yes, by all means give us a bit more background on these creeps ... and *anyone* who would dare to speak up to or solicit the family of a missing vet with some kind of commercial nonsense *is* a creep. You've got my word on it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) Subject: Moscow: Direct Dialing Overseas Now Available 11/15/91 Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 8:16:47 CST According to a news release from {NewsByte}, direct international dialing is now available from Moscow from 0000-0900 each day. Local analysts say the reason for the start of direct-dial service is that a second international phone exchange, originally scheduled to start six months ago, has finally been launched. To dial international numbers from Moscow, one must dial 8, then wait for a second dial tone, dial 10 + country code + city code + phone number. J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110 phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617 uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP (314)362-2693(FAX) C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet ------------------------------ From: Anders.Johanson@eua.ericsson.se (Anders.Johansson) Subject: Information Needed: GlobeCom91 in Phoenix Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 14:58:53 GMT Someone told me about a conference called "GlobeCom91", and that it will be held in Phoenix in the beginning of December, but that's all I managed to find out about it. If You happen to know more about it, where to get information, where to register, which topics will be addressed, please send me an email about it! Anders Johansson Telia Research Sundsvall Sweden email: ajo@sundsvall.telesoft.se or Anders.Johanson@eua.ericsson.se (Yes, only one 's' in Johanson) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 19:00 +0100 From: ERICSSON CORPORATE RELATIONS Subject: Wireless Access For E-Mail Users PRESS RELEASE 1991-11-18 ERICSSON GE, ANTERIOR TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH IN MOTION (RIM) ANNOUNCE WIRELESS ACCESS FOR E-MAIL USERS Ericsson GE announced today that it signed joint development and marketing agreements with Anterior Technology and Research In Motion (RIM) to develop a wireless E-Mail gateway service. This service will allow out-of-office workers to use their portable computers to access major public and private E-mail systems over Mobitex mobile data networks. Anterior's RadioMail gateway will connect the RAM Mobile Data Mobitex network to public E-mail systems such as ATT-Mail, LAN-based systems such as Lotus cc:Mail and the worldwide TCP/IP Internet and UUCP/USENET. RIM will develop an E-mail applicaton software package which will allow portable computers to access the RadioMail gateway using Ericsson GE radio modems. "A major limiting factor of electronic mail and information services has been their dependence on deskbound communications technologies," stated Geoffrey S. Goodfellow, president and CEO of Anterior Technology. "The utility of these services are greatly enhanced when they are available anywhere and anytime." Anterior Tehcnology, located in Menlo Park, California, is a communications services company, and has been providing electronic mail and information services since 1988. In addition to RadioMail, Anterior offers turnkey communication services for Internet, UUCP and cc:Mail sites. Research In Motion, headquartered in Waterloo, Ontario, specializes in software development and electronic engineering in the portable communications field. It also provides an application program interface (API) for Mobitex, which allows software companies to rapidly develop applications without the need to acquire specialized knowledge of radio communications protocols. Ericsson GE Mobile Data Inc., based in Paramus, New Jersey, is part of the Ericsson GE joint venture in mobile communications. Ericsson GE Mobile Data markets radio modems, mobile data terminals and communications software for the Mobitex system in the US. The company is also responsible for supplying and installing the RAM Mobile Data Network infrastructure which uses Mobitex technology. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT Kathy Egan, The Ericsson Corporation Tel. +1 212 685 4030 Lars Jonsteg, The Ericsson Corporation Tel. +1 212 685 4030 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 11:52:49 -0800 From: carndt@nike.calpoly.edu (Chris Arndt) Subject: Offing Telemarketers I've been following the discussion on screening telemarketers. Here is a rather elegant way of dealing with nuisance calls, without missing important ones. I have a FAX/modem switch (sorry -- the name escapes at the moment) which has several jacks on it one for the answering machine, one for other phones, one for the FAX, and one marked AUX. The key feature of this particular switch is that after tripping on the first ring, it not only looks for FAX or modem tones, but DTMF tones. The programmable DTMF tones can also be used to switch incoming calls to different jacks. Hook up your answering machine to the appropriate jack, and the rest of the phones to the AUX jack. Give 'important' people the access code to the AUX jack. They can ring through to the house phones and get in touch with you directly, while the trash calls, and those from 'not-so-important' people route to the answering machine, where you can screen 'em or ignore 'em. You could even add a second answering machine on the AUX jack for 'important' messages. Some cellular companies have a plan that allows the subscriber one number he can call locally at no charge for airtime. Using the FAX/modem switch and a Melco Remote Access Unit to access a second line, you could cut your local outgoing cellular airtime charges to zip just by dialing a few extra digits! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 12:23:21 PST From: lauren@vortex.COM (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: AT&T InterSpan Locator Service Greetings. A press release from AT&T today officially announced their "InterSpan (SM) Locator Service", which enables customers to reach the nearest location of a business via a call to a single 950 number. As reported here previously, Domino's Pizza has been testing this for sometime. While it sounds like a useful service, I imagine there will be some interesting geographic anomalies from time to time. If the routing database is based on official exchange area locations, some customers might end up being routed to stores which aren't actually closest to their locations. For example, the Topanga Canyon (310-455) prefix where we are located is in the Santa Monica exchange/rate area (it's served from a Remote Service Unit via Pacific Palisades). But as a practical matter, Santa Monica locations would be close to a 20 mile drive, while *much* closer commercial areas are located in the San Fernando Valley (area code 818) in the opposite direction. A smart database could deal with this of course -- but not one based only on exchange area information! I can't actually test this yet. Calls to the Domino 950 number (950-1430) do not go through from here at this time. --Lauren-- [Moderator's Note: 950-1430 does not work from Chicago-Rogers Park yet either, but tra-la! 950-1288 now answers with modem tone and accepts 9600 baud from me to connect with AT&T Mail. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 13:23:18 PST From: tedh@cylink.COM (Ted Hadley) Subject: Shared Area Codes Simple trivia question: What cities (towns, etc) in the US and Canada are split by differing area codes? By cities, I mean only that, not metropolitan areas. The only example I know of is Sunnyvale, CA, which has 415 on the NW edge and 408 elsewhere. Are there any others? And why would the Bell Companies do that (i.e., not cut at city boundries)? Ted A. Hadley ---------------- tedh@cylink.COM ---------------- (408) 735-5847 Cylink Corporation, 110 S Wolfe Rd, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA All opinions expressed are my own, and probably not liked by my employer. [Moderator's Note: It's a little bit of a cheat answer to your question, but 'Unincorporated Norwood Park Township', a fully developed residential area fully surrounded by Chicago (312) and the villages of Harwood Heights (708) and Norridge (708) -- themselves both surrounded on all sides by Chicago -- but not part of any of them, is split between two area codes and two telcos. A couple sections of the township are served by Illinois Bell on 312; a section is served by Illinois Bell on 708; a section is served by Centel on 312; and a couple sections are served by Centel on 708. The whole unincorporated area has about 1000 residents in total. They are appealing now to the state legislature to allow them to incorporate themselves as a town, apparently to avoid being gobbled by Chicago. Once an actual municipality, the new town of about 1000 people will have two area codes and two telcos with no easily defined boundary as to who gets service from where or by whom. I think they also have two different postal zip codes. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T Home Office Network - What am I Risking? Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 08:57:14 -0800 From: stehle@erg.sri.com AT&T has recently sent me an offer, listing my home phone that rarely is used for modem traffic, for a free membership to the Home Office Network. I haven't decided if I think there is anything of value being offered. They offer discounts on AT&T 800 STARTERLINE, Network Autoquote software, PARTNER Comm System, fax machines, 800 Business Directory, Safari notebook computer, Find/SVP and offerings from Avis, Days Inn, Hilton, Embassy Suites, Egghead, Continental, H&R Block, IDS, Panasonic, Reliable, CompuServe, and UPS. Most of these are discounts, rather than freebies. There is a Member Profile to complete including the question: I currently (check one): o operate a home-based full-time business o work from home for a company (telecommute) o bring work home after hours If I sign up: will I become a telemarketing target? will I have my residence phone upgraded to business? Roy Stehle, SRI International stehle@erg.sri.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 13:55:24 CST From: Stan Reeves Subject: Job Descriptions in Telecom Sorry, I'm not offering any jobs here. :-) I am teaching an undergrad class in communications. I was thinking that it would be instructive to give the class an idea of some of the kinds of jobs that B.S.-level electrical engineers do in the communications field. The experience and observations of the readers of this group should be relevant, so I thought I would ask you. If you're in a position to observe the kinds of jobs that B.S.-level electrical engineers do in the communications field, then I would appreciate your sending me a *short* description of the job (general problem being worked on, particular responsibilities of B.S.-level people, etc.). It needs to be pretty succinct because I won't be able to go into a lot of detail in class. Please EMAIL your responses to me, and if there's enough interest, I'll summarize to the net. Thanks. Stan Reeves Auburn University, Department of Electrical Engineering, Auburn, AL 36849 INTERNET: sjreeves@eng.auburn.edu ------------------------------ From: madams@aludra.usc.edu (Marcus Adams) Subject: Call-Waiting Signal is Different Date: 19 Nov 91 00:37:17 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA It used to be that when I got a call on my call-waiting, there would be a click that was audible to whoever I was talking with at the time. It was handy because they would hear the click and say something like "Sure, go ahead and answer that." Sometime a couple years back, I noticed that this click disappeared on my phone. Friend's call waiting would still emit a click, but whenever I get a call-waiting call, the tone is only audible to me (although my girlfriend says she can hear my voice "drop out" for a second instead of the click). What happened? Is it my phone that caused the change? Is it the switch in my area? I really hate not having that audible click because its a pain to stop someone mid-sentence to tell them I have another call, and some people don't believe me, saying "I didn't hear a click ..." Is this the price of progress? ------------------------------ From: dill@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dill) Subject: One Second Telephone Charges? Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 20:03:14 GMT Is it not the case that AT&T would not bill for a call until after the first second or two or five? I remember hearing that somewhere. Recently, I noticed that I have had a large increase in one minute calls. So, last month I tried making a few calls and hanging up the moment the other side picked up (say it was an answering machine or something to that effect). Sure enough, these 1 minute calls showed up on my bill. Is AT&T trying to dig out a few pennies or am I just wrong? I guess I just cannot help being suspicious of telco's ... Steve Dillinger :: ramoth.cso.uiuc.edu University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #941 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01929; 19 Nov 91 2:56 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22905 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 19 Nov 1991 00:49:02 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04294 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 19 Nov 1991 00:48:49 -0600 Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 00:48:49 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111190648.AA04294@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #942 TELECOM Digest Tue, 19 Nov 91 00:48:47 CST Volume 11 : Issue 942 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Value-Added Service and Local Competition (Jack Decker) Copyrights on Phone Books (Was Phone Books on Diskette) (Dale Gass) Why I am Down on Chicago (TELECOM Moderator) USWest Voice Mail Problems (Bob Maccione) When Will 410 Start Appearing on Pay Phones? (Carl Moore) 950-1288 Officially Anounced (John R. Levine) Re: Toll Restricted Local Service (Peter da Silva) Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU (Peter da Silva) Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls (Dave Levenson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 16:31:14 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Value-Added Service and Local Competition A thought occurred to me the other day and I will present it here because, quite honestly, I don't have the resources to develop this idea myself. But it seems like it could kill several birds with one stone. As just a bit of a preface, let me point out that many have bemoaned the lack of competition for telephone service at the local level. However, it's not that there is NO competition, just that the competition is not priced in such a way as to be a real threat to the so-called "monopoly provider". I'm referring, of course, to cellular service. A person could tell the local telephone company to take a flying leap and use cellular service exclusively, but in most cases it would not be economical to do so, thus everyone overlooks the fact that the so-called "monopoly" really isn't, IF price is not considered (the same is true in the postal service ... only the United States Post Office can legally deliver "First Class" Mail, yet courier services deliver what is essentially first class mail at a much higher price!). Now, the difference is really not so much one of price as it is one of added VALUE ... the cellular companies (and the courier services) offer services that the monoply provider does not. What I wonder is, suppose you could provide a service that the phone company has no interest in providing, but that would be of sufficient added value that a few people would be willing to pay premium rates for it? Before I answer that, remember that most telephone companies have tariffed rates for continuous private line service over the proverbial "bare pair of wires". It's typically used for broadcast station feeds, alarm systems, background music feeds, "ringdown" phones for taxi companies and the like, and anything else where continuous service is desired. Now, suppose you offered a service where a person's phone line, instead of being directly connected to the phone company, was instead sent to another location. In other words, when that person picked up your phone, they wouldn't be connected directly to the telephone company's central office exchange switch, but rather to a piece of equipment is some other location. They'd still be using the facilities of the telephone company for the circuits, but not for dial tone. And what would be connected at the other end? OPERATORS! Real, human, flesh-and-blood OPERATORS, that could complete calls between subscribers and also to customers served by the "real" telephone company! And who would this service appeal to? Well, first consider that you could actually offer three classes of service: 1) Screened outbound calls -- you pick up the phone and get an operator, who completes your call for you. The equivalent of the old "Number Please!" operator. Operators could assist in dialing the phone, or in some cases restrict outgoing calls based on certain pre-specified (by the customer) criteria. Special features like conference calling, etc. could also be offered. Inbound calls (which would come into the company on DID trunks) would cause your phone to ring directly, with no human intervention. 2) Screened inbound calls -- someone calls YOU and gets the operator, who would pre-screen your call per your instructions and then either complete the call to your phone, send it elsewhere if necessary (call it EXTREMELY selectable and programmable call forwarding!), take a message or whatever. When you placed an outbound call, you'd get a dialtone from the company's PBX and could then dial another customer of the company directly (of course, the call would first go to the operator if it were screened) or dial "9" for an outside line, etc. 3) Combination of the above, where all incoming and outgoing calls would be screened. Who would this appeal to? * Those who have difficulty getting to or using a conventional telephone. For example, in the case of a handicapped person who has trouble getting to the phone in the first place and dialing it once there, the operator could pre-screen inbound calls to make sure that they are really for the proper person and that they are really someone important enough to disturb the person, then advise the caller that it may take extra rings for the person to reach the phone. On an outbound call, the operator could assist in dialing. * Those for whom English is a difficult language, if the service provided multilingual operators. * Busy executives who don't want to have to wait online for a call to complete and who don't wish to be bothered with incoming calls from telemarketers, but who may wish to have calls pre-screened even when not in the office. For example, this kind of service might even save money for cellular phone users since calls could be pre-screened and only forwarded to the cell phone when they are really important ... and being able to have an operator do the dialing would be a definite plus in some situations, too! * Those who have multiple users on (or uses of) the same phone line ... presumably an operator could generate many different types of coded ringing. * Those who need outgoing calls allowed or denied based on complex criteria ... for example, allow calls only to certain 900 numbers and then only on certain days of the week at certain hours, unless it's the owner placing the call. Or, allow outgoing toll calls ONLY to a list of certain emergency numbers, but notify certain executive officers immediately if such a call is placed. I'm not even getting into the various ways that one could charge for such a service. Note, however, that such a service would be able to charge premium rates while still introducing a factor of local competition (for example, you could charge maybe $25 - $50 per month for the service, or even more in some cases, but allow unlimited calls between subscribers for calls that never go onto the switched network ... and you wouldn't be in DIRECT competition with the phone company because you'd be providing the "Value Added" service, just as courier services aren't considered to be in competition with the Post Office. So, you'd be providing a useful service, getting a foot in the door for local competition, and employing people who may now be unemployed. You would have to price the service in such a way that your operators are paid (and paid fairly well, so you get good people and don't have constant turnover) and you'd never want to run a service that appeals to EVERYONE ... you're going after a select market. But I think this could be a real money-maker for someone, if it's done right. If you use this idea, just remember where you got it, please. I might knock on your door asking for employment some day (I'll be the guy who is NOT wearing a necktie ... I hate 'em with a passion)! :-) Question: Do you think that such a service could be operated profitably under existing telephone company tariffs? Jack Decker/voice +1-906-632-3248/1804 W. 18th #155, Sault Ste. Marie MI 49783 Jack Decker : jack@myamiga.mixcom.com : FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ From: mkseast!dale@uunet.uu.net (Dale Gass) Subject: Copyrights on Phone Books (Was Phone Books Diskette) Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Atlantic Canada Branch Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 02:46:31 -0400 mtbb136@ms.uky.edu (John Roberts) writes: > I was interested in aquiring a phone book on diskette to enable quick > searches in locating phone numbers. I realized that this would make > it much more easy for phone solicitators to bother customers, but it > would be really useful for many computer users. I noticed that the Halifax (Nova Scotia) phone book is copyrighted (and I assume most are), so I assume it's up to the phone company to provide it on diskette. This started me thinking about a numerically-sorted phone book I saw a few years back; it obviously wasn't produced by the local phone company. Was this an outright case of copyright violation? How far does this copyright extend? Is it a violation to copy down a name and number onto a piece of paper? How about ten names/numbers? How about one page? How about the whole book? Is it a copyright violation for a company to input information from the phone book into a computer database for their own use? (If they type it? If they scan and convert to ASCII?) Another interesting point: a notice in the white pages states that the book itself remains property of MT&T. What's the significance of that? (Confiscation of your phone book isn't going to hurt that much; there's plenty on the black market :-) Dale Gass, Mortice Kern Systems, Atlantic Canada Branch Business: dale@east.mks.com, Pleasure: dale@mkseast.uucp [Moderator's Note: As far as telco retaining ownership of the book is concerned, there was a time many years ago when Southwestern Bell threatened to disconnect someone's service because they had one of those plastic phonebook covers with advertising on it. Telco referred to it as an 'unauthorized attachment' (straight face here, I am not kidding about this.) You might want to check out the rules on what is termed 'compilation copyright'. This is something publishers of reference books (which is what the phone directory is) use to protect their work from being ripped off. Cross reference directory publishers generally have to get permission from telco to compile their books unless they can show their work was done independently with their own research and not just by backwards key-punching the telco book. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 01:39:17 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Why I am Down on Chicago Over the weekend, a letter from Adam Ashby in the Digest asked me why I was so down on Chicago ... I answered him, and had planned to send out a mailing on it ... but it grew lengthy and I thought I'd just send it to whoever wants a copy. If you want to know why I feel as I do about Chicago in recent years, just write to telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu and ask me for a copy of the letter I sent to Ashby. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: asuvax!anasaz!bobm@handies.UCAR.EDU (Bob Maccione) Subject: USWest Voice Mail Problems Organization: Anasazi, Inc. Phoenix, Az Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 19:04:10 GMT At last, a reason to post to telecom! I have USWEST (tm, no doubt) voice mail and am experiencing a problem with missing data (so to speak). It seems that whenever someone pauses the next couple of words are lost. This is most apparent when the person is leaving a phone number; I seem to lose at least one digit. I did call the friendly USWEST rep and her reply was that it was supposed to happen whenever a person paused. I said (in my Monday voice) "But that's not acceptable, I shouldn't lose any of the message", her reply was "That's just the way it works" ... Needless to say I'm pissed. Any net hints on what to do? Thanks, Bob Maccione ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 13:43:26 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: When Will 410 Start Appearing on Pay Phones? Yesterday, I saw a panel truck with area code 410 noted on it. It was parked near Maryland Route 3 in Anne Arundel County, not far north of the Prince Georges County border (which is apparently also the new 301/410 border in that area). The prefix was 721 Crofton, and I also saw use on that truck of area code 301 (apparently for a Washington- area prefix, possibly 261). But I have yet to see 410 on pay phones. There is a long period (one year from the publicly-announced start for 410) before 410 is fully cut over; when in relation to full cutover does the new area code start appearing on pay phones? [Moderator's Note: The rule here with 312/708 was that payhone number stickers got very low-priority. When a repairman or coin collector was otherwise at the phone during the month or so before or after the conversion, he'd change the number sticker as part of his other duties. No special effort was made to change them otherwise. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: 950-1288 Officially Announced Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 1:04:47 EST From: John R. Levine AT&T sent out a press release yesterday officially anouncing their national data access number 950-1288 under the name "AT&T InterSpan (SM) Information Access Service (IAS)." The 950 number, as well as an 800 number (which they didn't give) connects to AT&T's existing public packet switch network. They are marketing it to organizations who want to make it easy for travelling salesmen and the like to dial in from the road by providing a nation-wide free number they can dial into. Calls can run at up to 9600 bps V.32. They also announced AT&T InterSpan Frame Relay Service, a fast packet network which can run at up to T1 speeds, and is implemented by frame relay switches purchased from StrataCom. Also new is InterSpan Locator Service which is supposed to allow people to find the nearest office of a national company by calling a common nationwide number. This is probably the service that Domino's Pizza uses. Incidentally, the 950-1288 service is unlikely to be price competitive with the usual packet nets such as Tymnet due to the per-minute charges, about six cents, on the FG B 950 number. This kind of access is exactly what Genie and Adapso are fighting to avoid in the continuing "modem tax" arguments with the FCC. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Toll Restricted Local Service Organization: Taronga Park BBS Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 22:04:38 GMT dhepner@hpcuhc.cup.hp.com (Dan Hepner) writes: > It's a US West phone. The phone cannot be used to make any toll call, > regardless of the proposed method of payment (_I_ couldn't call out > either with a valid telephone credit card, to charge to my home > number, or to call collect.) Even via 1-800-877-8000 with a valid Sprint FONCARD? Peter da Silva Taronga Park BBS +1 713 568 0480|1032 2400/n/8/1. ------------------------------ From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU Organization: Taronga Park BBS Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1991 22:16:22 GMT king@blue.rtsg.mot.com (Steven King) writes: > I'd consider this to be a *major* bug! As a consumer, I consider > Reach Out and any other special billing plans as part of my AT&T > service. If I cancel my AT&T service (by switching to another > carrier) I expect AT&T to stop billing me. Period. If I were to find > a charge the next month for Reach Out I'd complain bitterly to AT&T. I have AT&T as my primary carrier, and Sprint as my secondary one. If I switch the order of those two I would be severely pissed if they blithely cancelled my accounts, either way. No matter *what* they do automatically, they're damned. The only appropriate action is to call the customer and ask. Peter da Silva Taronga Park BBS +1 713 568 0480|1032 2400/n/8/1. ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.WESTMARK.COM (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls Date: 18 Nov 91 13:00:04 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , joel@wam.umd.edu (Joel M. Hoffman) writes: > Does this mean that in some sense average citizens are supposed to > recognize the beeps as some sort of "standard" signal that recording > is in progress? How common is this knowledge in actual fact? That has been stated in the front pages of the telephone directory in every place I have lived for the last 40 years or so. I just checked, and in NJ Bell territory, it still appears today. Apparently, they expect that it is general knowlege. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #942 ******************************   TELECOM Digest Tue, 19 Nov 91 23:58:41 CST Volume 11 : Issue 943 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Federal Telemarketing Legislation Proposed (Robert J. Woodhead) Re: Federal Telemarketing Legislation Proposed (Terry Kennedy) Re: Telemarketing Prevented (S. Spencer Sun) Re: Telemarketers: Why Not Transfer Them? (Roy Smith) Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood (Bernard Rupe) Re: Telemarketers and Crank Callers (Ted Hadley) Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? (Paul A. Houle) Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Jim Rees) Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? (Jack Decker) Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of (Alan M. Gallatin) Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of (Granville Barker) Re: Are Phone Books Available on Diskette? (Pushpendra Mohta) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: Federal Telemarketing Legislation Proposed Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 04:35:56 GMT hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: >yazz@locus.com wrote: >> Create a national list of phone numbers that could not be junk- >> called or junk-faxed. > Seems like this could be another option sold (or maybe even > provided standard) by the telco. As I recall, existing switch > software will disallow collect calls or third number billing. Perhaps > there could be a "junk call refusal" flag. Take it a step further, and make the market solve the problem. 1) Require telemarketers to register with the phone company. The phone company can easily detect who the telemarketers are, in any case, by scanning call records. In addition, allow customers to punch a * code to tell the phone company "I think the previous call was a telemarketing call." Set up stiff fines for violators. 2) Allow each phone customer to set a per-minute fee (default $0.00) which he wishes to be paid for any telemarketing call. He can change this fee once per week, or perhaps once per month. 3) The phone company collects the fees, keeps a percentage, and credits the rest to the customer's phone bill. 4) Telemarketers can call up a database and make requests such as "give me all the telephone numbers in 212-345 that have their per- minute fee less than 10 cents." 5) Customers can thus balance their tolerance for telemarketers with their desire to reduce their phone bills. 6) Marketers can avoid annoying potential customers. Furthermore, by matching phone numbers with addresses (easy, alas), they can send direct-mail solicitations to the "don't phone me" crowd and still get their message across _at a lower price_. 7) The phone company gets richer. 8) I will become the idol of millions, having cut the gordian knot. There ought to be some lucre coming my way too, as this idea is: (C)1991 Robert J Woodhead ;^) Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp [Moderator's Note: Since you put the smiley afrer your copyright notice I left the notice intact and am including your message in this issue. Ordinarily nothing in the Digest is copyrighted as that would give me extra work responding to people asking permission to reprint things. (Permission is always given.) PAT] ------------------------------ From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" Subject: Re: Federal Telemarketing Legislation Proposed Date: 18 Nov 91 11:16:22 GMT Organization: St. Peter's College, US In article , hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: > Seems like this could be another option sold (or maybe even > provided standard) by the telco. As I recall, existing switch > software will disallow collect calls or third number billing. Perhaps > there could be a "junk call refusal" flag. Telco probably would not > go for this, though, since I'm sure they make a fair amount of money > on "telemarketing". Maybe something could be done with caller ID. Well, at least in this area, they *lose* money. The telemarketers advertise in the "make big bucks at home" sections of papers and magazines for people who are "willing to allow the use of their telephone while they are not at home". The telemarketers drop a sequential dialer into the residence and make thousands of calls within the flat rate calling area. When they've saturated the market, they move on. Of course, another outfit then moves in. Since this is an improper use of flat rate residential service, the phone company doesn't make a nickel on it. Around here, they're quite interested in receiving reports of such activities 8-} Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing terry@spcvxa.bitnet St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA terry@spcvxa.spc.edu (201) 915-9381 ------------------------------ From: spencer@burn.Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun) Subject: Re: Telemarketing Prevented Organization: Princeton Class of '94 Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 04:37:20 GMT I've always wondered ... how sophisticated are the automated whatevers that are used to call up people where they say "At the sound of the tone, please leave your name ... at the sound of the tone, please leave your address ..." etc. Cuz one thing I've always wanted to do was stick a Guns N' Roses or otherwise heavy metal tape into the player, put the phone down next to the speaker, and walk off for a while ... S. Spencer Sun '94 - Princeton Univ. spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu: :WWIVnet #1 @6913 The Corner Pocket 609-258-8647 - 38.4k/DS/v.32bis [Moderator's Note: Most have an automatic time out in addition to VOX operation, and will drop out after a minute or so. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 10:24:45 EST From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: Telemarketers: Why Not Transfer Them? Organization: Public Health Research Institute (New York) delisle@eskimo.celestial.com writes: > My plan is to transfer [an unwanted call] to a foreign country or to a > real expensive 900 / 976 number. Our Moderator notes: > ANYTHING you dial on your phone is charged to you, Ben. People > only pay for what they dial. Where the call gets extended to is the > responsibility of the extending party -- that's you! Ok, how about this devious little twist. Let's go on the assumption that, taken out of context, most people won't recognize a 540 number for what it really is. Step one, find a very expensive 540 number (even better, set one up yourself). Step two, when a telmarketer calls, feign interest, but say "I'm interested in your product, but I'm waiting for an important call on this line, could you please call me right back on my other line, 540-xxxx, and I'd be glad to talk to you". roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA [Moderator's Note: Well if the guy who pages beepers to call those numbers is found guilty of fraud, then you would be also. If he is not, then I guess you are off the hook also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: motcid!rupe@uunet.uu.net (Bernard Rupe) Subject: Re: Telemarketers and My Neighborhood Date: 18 Nov 91 15:58:19 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL > [Moderator's Note: Interesting ... I've lived in Rogers Park (or more > correctly in the part of Rogers Park known as Northtown/West Rogers > Park) for many years with the same phone numbers all that time, give > or take a couple extra lines at one time or another to run my BBS, > etc. I think telemarketers have largely redlined 312 while keeping 708 > as fertile territory. The last three or four telemarketing calls I've I don't think area code necesarily has a major impact. I live in the 708 area code (Arlington Heights) and get virtually zero calls from telemarketers. I can`t remember the last time I got a call from a telemarketer, certainly not within the last month or so. Bernie Rupe 1501 W. Shure Drive Room 1315 Motorola, Inc. Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Cellular Infrastructure Group +1 708 632 2814 rupe@rtsg.mot.com or motcid!rupe@uunet.UU.NET ------------------------------ From: tedh@cylink.COM (Ted Hadley) Subject: Re: Telemarketers and Crank Callers Organization: Cylink Corp. Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 21:16:28 GMT In article glenns@eas.gatech.edu writes: > Then again, I usually opt for POTS, and just use the hold function > built into my phone and watch and see how long the silly critter blabs > on before he realizes he's talking to nothingness ... I used to just quietly set the phone down. When I heard the off-hook signal, I would go hang up. This worked wonders until a telemarketer got pissed ... she ended up calling me six + times a night for a week just to harass me. I found out then just how little Pacific Bell cares about crank calls at the same time. She was never caught (I'm sure). Now I just say "No thanks; I'm not interested." And I hang up. (fortunately, I receive few calls). Ted A. Hadley ---------------- tedh@cylink.COM ---------------- (408) 735-5847 Cylink Corporation, 110 S Wolfe Rd, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 19:35:39 MST From: pahsnsr@jupiter.nmt.edu (Paul A. Houle) Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? Organization: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology [Moderator's Note: This message arrived truncated. Below is the part I received. PAT] ...... radical viewpoint, and similarly trash the telemarketers. Now, I'll agree that phreaking is illegal and immoral; and between ham packet radio, BBSing and programming, they could and should be doing lots of legitimate things with communication and computer technology. I think that phreaking is a byproduct of our culture in two ways: (1) The first of which is the lack of positive structuring that leads kids to do things like cruising, joyriding and drinking (The Alcoholic pattern) and (2) which is the negative structuring of the corporate world, designed to impound the flow of information. This doesn't justify phreaking, but not only are phreaks motivated by #1, but many of them are fighting against #2 in the only way that they see available. (Of course they should really join Earth First! :-) Phreaks motivated by #2 are basically honest (not lawful, but truthful) people who feel they can become ~empowered~ by being phreaks; I think that they would grant some kind of human validity to their victims. This is unlike telemarketers who want to take advantage of the human organism's stupidty (because of the impounding of information) and the human organism's suggestibility and vunerability to coersion under high- stress situation. Telemarketers treat people like cattle, they don't see them as valid human beings who deserve good information and time to think before making a decision. What telemarketers do is legal. Of course it's legal to insult the human spirit; of course it's legal to sell people stuff that's totally worthless. Of course it's legal to get college students to sign up for credit cards that they can't pay off so they can rip off their parents for 20% interest. Yet, all of these activities collectively diminish the spirit and intellegence of man. All of these activities debase Man to simple stimulus and response system, not a wonderfully complex and well-assembled organism in a joyous universe. At least phreaking teaches people to use their minds, instead of trying to intimidate them into submission and inactivity as does telemarketing. ------------------------------ From: rees@paris.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? Reply-To: Jim.Rees@umich.edu Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 19:09:21 GMT In article , billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) writes: > Speaking of causing trouble for these jerks, is there any way to > generate the message you get when you call an out of service phone > number for a specific number (one that YOU can specify or call > from)? When I order a new line, I always call the number before it's connected and record the intercept. One of my lines is connected to an answering machine that delivers the intercept if anyone calls it. This is a modem line that's "always" busy, and if it's not, I don't want to get any calls on it. The line doesn't even have a ringer on it. I know some people who call around to other area codes to find an intercept for their number, starting with the sparsely populated codes like Wyoming. I wouldn't do that myself because I think it's an intrusion if you get a live person while hunting for an intercept. Another thing you can do is just record the generic intercept, which we get around here if we call an unallocated prefix (not many of those left in 313). I'd also like to collect a nice generic Japanese language intercept. Can someone suggest a number? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 16:30:43 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Can I Generate FAKE Out Of Service Message? In a message dated 14 Nov 91 19:46:35 GMT, Pat (the Moderator) writes: > [Moderator's Note: You may have hit on a very good solution. Call them > back and waste as much time of theirs as they do of yours. Seriously, > time is money to those folks. Waste it for them. PAT] For some odd reason that comment brought to mind something I saw over 20 years ago in, of all places, MAD Magazine. It was a bunch of suggestions for how to handle annoying telephone salesmen (the term "telemarketer" didn't exist back then) and one of them was something like, "as soon as you discover it's a telephone salesman, sound interested and then say something like 'Excuse me a moment, I have to answer the door, but don't hang up 'cause I'll be back!' Then just listen and see how long it takes them to finally hang up. You can have real fun by timing them to see which company stays on the line the longest!" The accompanying illustration showed a smiling lady with phone in hand standing next to a chalkboard, on which was written the names of various companies, and times in minutes and seconds. Like I say, I saw this one 20 years ago or more but it has always stuck with me as being a perfect form of revenge, though I can't say as I have ever personally done it. Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 23:16:24 EST From: alan@hercules.acpub.duke.edu (Alan M. Gallatin) Subject: Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C. In article Joe Stein writes: > I know of several. Here in GTE-Northwest, you dial 999, or 611. > In US-West territory, it is 956-2742 > Also, 1-200-555-1212 is supposed to work in the "little" offices. Is anyone compiling a list? If so, two additions: NY Telephone (at least in NYC and on Long Island) = 958 GTE-South (at least in Durham, NC) = 711 ------------------------------ From: geb1@Isis.MsState.Edu (Granville Barker) Subject: Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of Date: 18 Nov 91 05:17:02 GMT In most places there is some special number you can dial and it will tell you what number you are dialing from. In some places in MS you can dial 1 - 310 - 555 - 1212 or 5555 and a Computer voice will come on and say the number you are calling from. I was wondering if anyone knew of any other simular numbers? Thanks, Granville Barker geb1@isis.msstate.edu [Moderator's Note: We get a spate of these messages now and then for the Digest and the only answer is that the number to call for ANI is different in almost every city. There is no standard, and frequently it is a seven digit number whih is changed every month or two. PAT] ------------------------------ From: pushp@nic.cerf.net (Pushpendra Mohta) Subject: Re: Are Phone Books Available on Diskette? Date: 18 Nov 91 07:14:56 GMT Organization: CERFnet > [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell does not have their directory on > diskettes but they do have a program where you can access their data > base from a terminal at your location. Called 'Directory Express', it > is not inexpensive. I think they get a couple hundred dollars per > month for a few hours of time on line. All you get is whatever the > directory assistance operator gets. Is it worth it? PAT] At the TCA tradeshow in San Diego last month, AT&T demoed a similar service. I think it was called Find America, and had listings from all Baby Bells. Pushpendra Mohta pushp@cerf.net +1 619 534 5056 CERFNet ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #943 ****************************** ^A^A^A^A ^A^A^A^A Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17300; 20 Nov 91 4:50 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08815 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 20 Nov 1991 02:53:33 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07233 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 20 Nov 1991 02:53:23 -0600 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 02:53:23 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111200853.AA07233@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #944 TELECOM Digest Wed, 20 Nov 91 02:16:51 CST Volume 11 : Issue 944 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson RCMP Raids Montreal BBS (Nigel Allen) Pac*Bell Clears the Way (John Higdon) Pac*Bell Repair (or, the Mother Of All Black Widows) (Kevin Collins) Does Each Long Distance Carrier Have Its Own 800 Service? (Bill Gripp) Re: Telemarketers - Why Not Transfer Them? (Bill Gripp) Cute Phone Number (Nigel Allen) G1 Capabilities Question (Don Preuss) AT&T Phone Poster (Bill Cerny) Taking Notebook w/Internal Modem to London, U.K. (Richard Campbell) Australian 2nd Carrier License Awarded to Optus Comm (Niall Gallagher) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nigel.allen@canrem.uucp (Nigel Allen) Date: 19 Nov 91 (21:48) Subject: RCMP Raids Montreal BBS I know nothing about the case beyond the press release, and I have no affiliation with either the CAAST or the BBS in question. -------- Press Release from Canadian Alliance Against Software Theft 14 November 1991 MONTREAL, QUEBEC -- The Federal Investigations Section of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police today seized components of an electronic bulletin board system (B.B.S.) "90 North" at a West Island residence. This is believed to be the first execution of a search warrant under the Copyright Act of Canada against an electronic bulletin board system. The seizure included ten micro computers, seven modems and the software present on these systems (approximate value of $25,000). An electronic bulletin board is a service which allows personal computer users to exchange messages and to exchange or receive computer files including software, text and digitized images over telephone lines via a modem. During a four-month investigation, it was established that the 90 North B.B.S. enabled users to obtain software in exchange for other files or for an annual fee of $49.00. While some of the programs consisted of "shareware" which may legally be distributed in this way, much of the available material was protected under the Copyright Act including beta versions of commercial software packages which have not yet been released on the market. More than 3,000 software programs were available to users of this B.B.S. including WordPerfect 5.0, Microsoft DOS 5.0, Windows 3.0, Lotus 1-2-3 for Windows, Borland C++ 2.0, Quattro Pro 3.0, d-Base IV 1.1, SCO Xenix for DOS, Netware 3.11 and Clipper 5.0. Charges of commercial distribution of pirated software are planned against the owner and operator of 90 North. Paragraph 42 (1) (c) of the Copyright Act states that "every person who knowingly distributes, infringes, copies of any work in which copyright subsists either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright, is guilty of an offense and liable on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding $25,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both, or on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding $1 million or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or both." For further information contact: Allan Reynolds (416) 598-8988 [voice] --------- Canada Remote Systems. Toronto, Ontario NorthAmeriNet Host [Moderator's Note: The Royal Canadian Mounted Police [RCMP] is essentially the same as the FBI in the United States. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 23:33 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Pac*Bell Clears the Way Pac*Bell has already started clearing the field in preparation for its entry into the information business. Recently, it announced its new refund policy for its 900/976 services. To make a long story short, it is essentially an unlimited, unconditional refund for anyone who asks. Under this policy, it is possible to call 900/976 numbers in Pac*Bell land and simply not pay for it. Pac*Bell couldn't care less. And why should it? The more IPs that go out of business before Pac*Bell's own offerings come on line, the better. Of course, those liberal refund policies will NOT apply to services offered directly by the telco itself. But as we all know, everyone will be completely satisified with official telco IP services so refunds will not be necessary. In a previous move, Pac*Bell stopped billing for "adult" services. The audiotex industry has been reading the handwriting on the wall and before long most will leave the world of 900/976 and go to direct billing. Those that have done this already report higher profits and less collection problems than when telcos and IECs "did it for them". A side benefit is that once off the 900/976 bandwagon, anything goes. Adult (smut, if you will) sells. And without the Prudence Peabody Telco looking over its shoulder, an IP can literally do anything it wants. All of the "900 standards and safeguards" are out the window. It then becomes a one-on-one transaction between provider and customer with no carrier in the middle. This should make many readers here very happy. The telcos will no longer be collection agencies (and poor ones at that) for those providing information and other things. If 900/976 dies completely, the terminally stupid will no longer have to suffer heavy charges on the bill (even though they are easily removed). I can imagine the attractiveness of being out from under the thumb of the telcos. My own play "party line" from time to time comes under the attack of some idiot parent or another. Usually it is some father on the warpath because his thirteen year-old daughter got on the party line, impersonated a real human being, and gave out the family telephone number and address. The father's complaint is that twenty-six year-old men come at all hours to visit the daughter. The angry dad goes complaining to Pac*Bell about my "service" (of course his daughter is blameless :-( ). And what does Pac*Bell do? Nothing, of course. There are no rules, regulations, tariffs or laws regulating what can be said on my private, residential lines. No one forces anyone to call my lines. I run no advertising. I advertise nothing on the party line. It is terribly refreshing to not be content-limited by the telco so it is easy to believe that IPs are eagerly looking forward to direct billing in its many forms. My prediction is that eventually the current audio IPs will all go to subscription and that the telcos will fall flat on their corporate faces with their laughable offerings, as they have always done in the past. Anyone who has been watching knows what silly things Pacific Bell has thought people would be willing to pay for. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: aspect!kevinc@uunet.uu.net (Kevin Collins) Subject: Pac*Bell Repair (or, the Mother Of All Black Widows) Date: 19 Nov 91 01:57:07 GMT Organization: Aspect Telecommunications, San Jose, Ca I'm in the process of moving (from 408-733 to 510-794), so I've had the opportunity to deal with everybody's favorite PC, Pac*Bell. They handled the billing name change at my old address just fine, and I scheduled installation of the new number on 11/15. When I got to the apartment on that day, I found a note from Pac*Bell stating that the installation was complete. So, I rambled over to the phone and picked it up -- dead air. Same story for all three jacks in the condo, and the phone and wire were the same ones I had been using at my old address. I called Pac*Bell Repair and told them what was up, and they asked me to meet a repairman at the condo between 5-8. The repairman knocked on my door at about 5:30; he couldn't find the manager (office was closed), and the door to the wiring closet for my building was padlocked! We made another appointment for the next afternoon, and he left. About 15 minutes later, I heard some banging around at the wiring closet. The repairman, unsatisfied with leaving a job unfinished, had decided to unscrew the hinges on the closet door and see what was up. Fate rewarded his efforts with the _biggest_ black widow spider either of us had ever seen! Luckily, the beast did not attack and the repairman had a can of bug spray handy -- he quickly ended its apparently long and well-fed life. He then discovered that my pair was punched down to the wrong location and rectified the problem. Hopefully, the unintended recipient of my dial tone didn't make too many calls to 900-SEND-ME-$. Then again, if they did, _I_ won't be the one paying for the calls! I was quite impressed with the repairman's sticktoitiveness (not to mention his aim with the bug spray!). After all of the posts here about the RBOC's lack of commitment to quality service, it was pleasant to see an example to the contrary. Kevin Collins | My opinions are mine alone. USENET: ...uunet!aspect!kevinc | GO BEARS! (That's Chicago, not Cal!) ------------------------------ From: billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) Subject: Does Each Long Distance Carrier Have It's Own 800 Service? Organization: The Bank of New York Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 22:07:11 GMT Does each long distance carrier have it's own set of 800 numbers? About 2 1/2 years ago I was in Groton, CT for a training course. I was listening to a local radio station who was soliciting listeners to call in and make some comments on some topic. The number was 1-800-abc-defg. Well I called and got somebody other than the radio station. I guess I dialed wrong. Call again, same party answers. You're not W123, who are you? Turned out to be some company in BOISE, IDAHO!!! I check the number I had written down with the next announcement on the radio station and they were the same. I'm not sure, but I think the SNET payphone I was using was set for MCI. So do AT&T, MCI, SPRINT, etc each have their own 800 services so that 1-800-abc-defg on AT&T is Spacely Sprockets, 1-800-abc-defg on MCI is Yutzo Widgets, 1-800-abc-defg on SPRINT is Scuzo Telemarketers??? [Moderator's Note: No they do not. Each carrier has its own 800 number space, or group of prefixes. The lion's share belongs to AT&T because they were the sole player for so many years. For example, 800-373 and 800-747 both 'belong to' Telecom*USA. All the telcos follow the same routing tables, handing off calls to the carrier assigned to the prefix code. Your example seems to be one where a local telco was somehow misrouting the call. PAT] ------------------------------ From: billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) Subject: Re: Telemarketers: Why Not Transfer Them? Organization: The Bank of New York Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 16:50:03 GMT > [Moderator's Note: ... Where the call gets extended to is the > responsibility of the extending party -- that's you! -- and if you've > been forwarding or transferring your callers to 1-900-328-7448 or > Hong Kong Telephone Company's Talking Clock, then the joke is on > you, I'm afraid. Does this mean that I can talk to Alaska from New York as a local call if I can get enough people to keep forwarding me over to their West most or North most local exchange??? =8^). [Moderator's Note: Yes, you can do that, subject to a few considerations such as the quality of the transmission by the time all the connections are in place, and the cost for all those local calls. I have said before it is very rare when two or more local calls patched together to avoid a toll charge wind up costing less than the straight-thru toll charge itself. Yes, there are instances where contiguous communities have some form of unmeasured service, but I think it would kind of rare to find three or four such communities in a row in the direction you are traveling, all of whom are local to the one next to them and all of whom offer unmeasured service. The first time you have to pay for a local call at some measured rate in the path, you lose price-wise. As an example, a call from Chicago to Alaska at night costs 12 cents per minute on Reach Out. A call from Chicago to one of the western suburbs costs 3-4 cents per minute, and that just gets you 20 miles or so away from downtown. Call forwarding was designed as a convenient way to have your calls catch up with you; not as a way to reduce toll charges. PAT] ------------------------------ From: nigel.allen@canrem.uucp (Nigel Allen) Date: 19 Nov 91 (05:12) Subject: Cute Phone Number A Toronto eye surgeon is running radio commercials to promote surgery to cure near-sightedness. (I'm almost tempted, but the Ontario government regards surgical correction of mild near-sightedness as cosmetic surgery, which the provincial health insurance plan won't cover. Surgeons who perform medically necessary surgery are busy enough that they don't have to advertise.) Anyway, the good doctor has gotten himself a vanity number to help drum up business: (416) 512-2020 (twenty-twenty, meaning perfect vision). (As an aside, most vanity telephone numbers spell something; this is one of the few times where the number itself has some significance.) Canada Remote Systems. Toronto, Ontario NorthAmeriNet Host [Moderator's Note: Wasn't / isn't Domino's Pizza trying to load up with all the 3030 numbers they can get? PAT] ------------------------------ From: donp@niaid.nih.gov (Don Preuss) Subject: G1 Capabilities Question Organization: National Institutes of Health Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 00:22:17 GMT I have run into a problem with the installation of a G1 and the AT&T rep says that what I want to do can't be done. This doesn't sound correct. The situation is that there is a G1 being installed to support data and voice lines. The dial tone is provided by a centrex system. With the centrex we currently dial a '9' to get an outside line. For local calls on campus, we just dial the seven digit number. Now that the switch is in place, we have been told that we must dial '99' to get the outside line, and 9-xxx-xxxx for local calls. The double 9 can be worked around by the ARS (?) software by capturing the first 9, and inserting a second 9. However, we are told this cannot be done for our local seven digit numbers. The question is, can we make the switch transparent to the users? We want it to appear that nothing has changed. (ie no extra digits or pauses). Thanks. donp@niaid.nih.gov Al Graeff al@niaid.nih.gov [Moderator's Note: In other words, from now on *everything* you dial has to start with a 9, is that it? Then program the switch for what I shall call '9 assumed', meaning have it automatically prepend a 9 to the start of each call. With a user-provided 9, there will then be two 9's on the front. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) Subject: AT&T Phone Poster Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 01:31:17 GMT > From the 3Q91 AT&T Shareowner's Report: _Phones old and new_ A colorful 22-by-28 inch poster that traces the development of the telephone from Bell's first model to the latest high-technology feature phone can be purchased for $12. Send check to: Poster AT&T Archives WV A102 5 Reinman Road Warren, NJ 07059-0647 (908) 756-1590 Bill Cerny | ATTMail: !denwa!bill ------------------------------ From: ric@is.Morgan.COM (Richard Campbell) Subject: Taking Notebook w/Internal Modem to London, U.K. Organization: Morgan Stanley - IS Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 14:12:01 GMT I'll be taking a 386 notebook with an internal 2400-baud modem over to London for about six months. What will I need to do to use the machine for telecommunications: Are phone jack adapters needed? Line voltage changers? Do British BBSs understand the same modem characteristics? Any other differences I should know about? ric ------------------------------ Date: 19 Nov 91 14:25:00 EST From: Niall (N.) Gallagher Subject: Australian 2nd Carrier License Awarded to Optus Comm Extracts from a Government of Australia news release, Nov 19th: "Government selects Optus Communications as Second Carrier Optus will pay the goverment a total of AUS$800 million for the opportunity. It will invest almost AUS$2000 million over the next six years in building a network to compete with Telecom/OTC Optus is committed to providing a comprehensive range of services including: o A comprehensive modile telephone service in early 1992 o STD and IDD telephone service from Sydney and Melbourne in late 1992 o Competitive services to all of Australia by 1997" The Optus consortium is led by Bellsouth and Cable and Wireless. Northern Telecom will be providing DMS switches for wireline and GSM access. Regards, Niall Gallagher BNR, PO Box 3511, Stn C, Ottawa, CANADA K1Y 4H7 Niall@BNR.CA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #944 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17526; 20 Nov 91 4:59 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26228 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 20 Nov 1991 03:02:51 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17480 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 20 Nov 1991 03:02:39 -0600 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 03:02:39 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111200902.AA17480@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #945 TELECOM Digest Wed, 20 Nov 91 02:47:46 CST Volume 11 : Issue 945 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Special Promo to Fidonet? (Jack Winslade) 'Easy' Numbers, Teleslime, Wrong Numbers, etc. (Jack Winslade) Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone (Christopher C. Stacy) Re: Shared Area Codes (Robert L. McMillin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 19:43:59 cst From: Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org (Jack Winslade) Subject: AT&T Special Promo to Fidonet? Reply-To: jsw@drbbs.omahug.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha Yet Another Telecom Tale from Omaha, but this time I won't bastardize any Kipling quotes. ;-) A couple of years ago, some of the system operators in Omaha thought I needed something to occupy my spare time so I was elected 'Echomail Coordinator' of the local Fidonet network. For those of you not familiar with 'Arfnet', Echomail is very similar to Usenet News. I coordinate a cooperative method of sharing the cost of importing megapiles of echomail to the various Fidonet systems in Omaha. We use a dedicated box and Sprint Plus for v.32 and HST. By feeding most of Omaha's echomail through one hose, all of us save quite a bit. (My typical share is about two bucks. The highest in the net averages around $18 or so.) Anyway, this morning I got the following in my inbound mail. I assume all other EC's (Echomail Coordinators) in the known universe got it as well. (A mass e-mailing of stuff like this is often referred to as a 'bombing run' and is frowned upon in Fidonet.) I don't mind junk e- mail nearly as much as I do junk phone calls, but I usually kill such junk before reading one screenful. This one caught my eye, and I read the attached file(s). I'll share this with you and ask your feedback. > Greetings... > ... describes how the AT&T Software Defined Network is saving my company > a lot of money in their long distance charges. Additionally, NETxxxx > is using the AT&T SDN to cut their costs of echomail. > I am very impressed with the program and thought all NECs might like > to take advantage of the savings. > Best of all... the rates are CHEAPER than ANY OTHER CARRIER for > daytime rates! It has enabled us in Netxxxx to call at anytime of the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > day and get nighttime rates. I noticed that nowhere did they quote rates for, or even mention evening and late-night rates. As of last month we were paying (with discounts) the equivalent of about 9.4 cents per minute late night out of state using Sprint Plus. > 3 Get AT&T Cheaper than MCI, Sprint, > 3 and all the rest! Get the BEST for > 3 the least! > Reach Out Cheaper...CDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD > 3 > 3 A Report by Gxxxxx T. Gxxxxxx > 3 (drivel deleted) This is the one that caught my eye, and made my BS detector go 'beep'. > Now I have tried almost all the other long distance carriers; Sprint, > MCI, etc. ... AT&T is the only company that offers true answer-back > supervision. The result is that you only pay for calls that are > connected. Other Common Carriers use other methods to determine if > your party has answered like noise sampling and timing. .... > At the end of this report there is a comparison of the technical aspects > of this overbilling. I thought all but the crudest tin-cans-and-string AOS services had far-end supervision by now. I >>KNOW<< Sprint does. Here's another thing that I thought AT&T did not officially support > With their calling card, you dial a TOLL-FREE 800 number and enter > your special code (your social security number) and the number you > want. Sounds like a lot of numbers but it is only four more digits >than a using a regular AT&T card. Huh ?? Does this mean anyone who knows my SS number can ... ?? > In order to qualify for AT&T SDN your bill must be greater than twenty > dollars a month in long distance charges ..... It takes about six weeks > to switch over to the SDN. The BEST part is this: If you sign > up before December 31st, 1991, there is absolutely NO SIGN UP FEE or > monthly charge. Is there usually a monthly charge for this ?? I wonder how much this normally is, and how long the 'free' monthly charge will last. What would be the typical monthly charge for this ?? (I am editing out the pseudo-boxes included in this chart. It looks like hell on anything but an IBM-PC. I wish people would quit assuming everyone in Fidonet runs an IBM or compatible! :-( In our network, PCs and clones are in the minority. ;-) > TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMPARISON OF LONG DISTANCE CARRIERS > OCC > AT&T (Other Common > Carrier) > Call Set Up 4 Seconds 10-15 Seconds > Blocked Calls Less than 1% 3%-5% of all calls > Circuit Take Down 0 Seconds 2-5 Seconds > Ringing Time 6 Seconds/Ring 6 Seconds/Ring > Conversation Measurement 100% Answer Supervision Timing, Noise > Electronic Signaling Sampling, Software > Disconnect Measurement 100% Answer Supervision Timing, Noise > Electronic Signaling Sampling, Software > Off-Net 0% - AT&T is EVERYWHERE Varies, as needed > > OCC COMPARISON > > If Average OCC Setup Time is 12 Seconds > If Average Client Call rings 5 times 0 Seconds > If Average Circuit Take Down time is 2 Seconds > ______________ > Total Overhead per call is 44 Seconds > > If OCC "Grace" Period is 0 seconds -30 Seconds > ______________ > OVERBILLING by OCC is 14 Seconds > > Formula to calculate estimated overbilling by OCC: > > Divide 14 (seconds) by average call time (seconds) = % of OCC overbilling > > Examples: > Overbilling on an Average 2.5 Minute Call (14/150) = 9.33% > Overbilling on an Average 3.5 Minute Call (14/210) = 6.67% > > > Losses Due to Decreased Productivity Are Not Included! Not to call anyone a liar, but I do not believe Sprint (MCI, etc.) regularly overbill 2.5 minute calls by 9.33 %. I don't mean to appear to be flaming AT&T at all here. They are my primary carrier at home, work, and on cellular. I use Sprint Plus as a secondary carrier primarily because I can just send the total of the Sprint bill to the guy who handles the 'Arfnet' $$$. Sprint does, however, provide very clean connections for v.32 and HST. Questions for those who are more in the know on these telecom issues: Is this type of promotion officially sanctioned by AT&T ?? What would the rate typically be for late-night calls, out state, a few hundred miles ?? Is this plan REALLY a good deal ?? How long would these rates (and the lack of monthly charge) last ?? Is this guy getting a kickback from the calls placed by those he signs up ?? I >KNOW< some LD companies do this. I was offered to just such a deal myself recently if I would sign others up for a certain plan. That's about it. Good day JSW ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 21:55:26 cst From: Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org (Jack Winslade) Subject: 'Easy' Numbers, Teleslime, Wrong Numbers, etc. Reply-To: jsw@drbbs.omahug.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha About eight years ago I (of all things) got married and moved from the inner city out to Yuppieville. When I was downtown, my phone service was on one of those oddball prefixes that was 90% businesses, like airlines, car rental agencies, some of the Centrex of The Phone Company and various small businesses. Some of the extra numbers were given to single-line residence service in the area. I >>NEVER<< got telemarketing calls. About the closest thing was AmVets phoning to remind me when they would be in the area. Likewise, I >>NEVER<< got wrong numbers. Shortly after moving out here, I noticed two things about the telephone. One was a sharp increase in the number of wrong numbers. We have xxx-1379, which has no repeated digits, and I would not call it an 'easy' number to remember. I would say we get a couple of wrong numbers per week. In spurts, we will get calls where the caller is either silent or immediately hangs up. We've had this number for about eight years, and the frequency of wrong numbers has not decreased at all. The second was the number of telemarketers. (I now believe that telemarketers are living proof of Darwin's missing link.) On the nights we are home, we usually get at least one per night. At first I put up with them, but now when I answer the phone and the calling party asks 'Mr. Wine-slad ?' (or if they ask for my wife, grossly mispronouncing her name) I immediately ask if it is a sales call. 90% of the time they will say it is, to which I politely say that we do not accept sales calls, and they will usually give up, often with an apology for bothering us. The other 10 percent, well -- (&*%^#$@) -- they may say something like 'this is a courtesy call', 'this is a survey', 'this is a prize notification' etc. They are a tough bunch. Some do not seem to understand 'I am not interested', in which case I simply hang up. Occasionally I've done nasty stuff like saying 'hold on a minute', putting the receiver down, and hanging it up when I hear the ROH 'clanking'. Some years ago, when I took a course in Urban Geography, we learned that telephone prefixes, like zip codes and census block groups, are rated as to the buying potential of the residents. The point is well made. My old neighborhood, while certainly not a slum, is inner-city, and considered as 'changing'. I am also familiar with Patrick's neighborhood, as I have (or rather had, all of them have moved well north of Howard {and a bit further north than Jonquil or Juneway }) relatives in the area and used to visit frequently when I was younger. I can see that Pat's neighborhood would appear to a telemarketer to be in the same class as that from which I moved. I think the best thing we can do if we do not like telemarketers is to refuse to do business with them. If we firmly state that we do not accept sales calls, and that we never donate anything in response to a telephone call, eventually they will get the point. However (comma) SOMEBODY has to be buying and giving. They are just as persistent as ever. Good Day JSW ------------------------------ From: cstacy@ai.mit.edu (Christopher C. Stacy) Subject: Re: Legitimate Reasons For Ringing My Phone Date: 19 Nov 91 01:09:10 GMT Mr. Moderator, and Mr. Lewis: > Moderator's Note: I cannot believe the incredible amount of effort > some people will go to just to avoid a call from a telemarketer. What > is wrong with answering the phone, listening to the first few words > from the caller, saying 'no thank you' and hanging up? Oh, I see, you > are such a busy person, such a dillitante, so important and full of > yourself that you'd rather go through I cannot believe the incredible arrogance that some people will display just because not everybody conforms to their odd lifestyle. Different people have different ideas about how to live in their homes, and their reasons for wanting a telephone and how they expect it will be used can be a big part of that. Some of us like to have peace and quiet, and not be constantly interrupted by random phone calls from people we don't know. Caller-ID technology (including free ID supression for privacy purposes) is a going to be a great boon to alot of us. I can't wait to program my telephone to automatically punt the invaders. (Of course, this will cost maybe $500-$2000 to do effectively anytime soon, and most people cannot afford that luxury.) But that kind of technological solution is not quite enough, because without a social compact about how the network is to be used, things will just degenrate into wars of technology, with the average consumer losing. Social problems cannot generally be solved by technology. > Doesn't *anyone* have a right to call and ring your phone when they > please? No, not necessarily. > It seems to me that by purchasing service on a public network, you are > implicitly permitting anyone else on that public network to attempt to > call you. It doesn't seem that way to everybody. I have an unpublished (can't get it from 411 or the book) number, for which I pay an extra montly premium of several dollars, but I am not sure why I bother. This morning I was awakened at 5 AM (after four hours of sleep) by a recording of someone trying to get me to call an 800 number to buy some crap or another. I could not get back to sleep, and my whole day (and probably tomorrow) has been badly disrupted. This is not what I signed up for when I got a phone. To make this feel more personal to you, here is a proposal. Maybe I should arrange to have your numbers called constantly with irritating calls at all hours? Dinnertime, at your office, 3 AM. Every 20 minutes maybe. Do you have a wife and children? (You don't need to answer -- I can cross-reference that information from the network marketing databases.) Perhaps I can find some very special messages to give to them. This would all be alot of trouble for me, but not more trouble than telemarketers will go to. I am sure that I could find ways to do this which would satisfy any legal requirements (concerning things like harassment and telemarketing) in your state, and I think I could probably "outgun" you in technology battle, given what's commonly available. Anyway, if you have better equipment, perhaps I could pick on some close elderly relative of yours who cannot defend themselves as well as you. After all, anyone has the right to call you anytime they want -- you're on the public network! Right? Well, that's just an idea, to let you know how "some people" feel. > Face it -- if you want restrictions on whether or not a call is > permissible based on the reason for the call, the intent of the call, > or whether or not the call has a "legitimate purpose" or some such, > you're getting into regulating content. And having anyone -- > certainly the telco, but even worse the government -- starting to > regulate content of telecommunications is to me a very scary thought. Your argument is a red-herring, because nobody has to regulate content! They have to regulate that there will be conventions wherein you announce the nature of the content of unsolicited communications. I feel that there should be absolutely no restrictions on the content, even though we have some in today's society. The mechanics of how to make this all work are not totally obvious, but I am quite sure we can come up with suitably libertarian solutions. All these same problems will be worse when everybody has multi-media telecommunications terminals. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 08:35:11 PST From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: Shared Area Codes Ted Hadley asks: > What cities (towns, etc) in the US and Canada are split by differing > area codes? By cities, I mean only that, not metropolitan areas. The > only example I know of is Sunnyvale, CA, which has 415 on the NW edge > and 408 elsewhere. Are there any others? And why would the Bell > Companies do that (i.e., not cut at city boundries)? Los Angeles comes immediately to mind: the San Fernando valley neighborhoods (Van Nuys, Sepulveda, etc.) are served by the 818 area code; Westchester (Los Angeles International Airport) and San Pedro (Port of Los Angeles) are served by the new 310 area code; and downtown is still 213. (The aforementioned areas are in fact all part of the city of Los Angeles, and are simply names for various localities.) In the south, Los Alamitos is split between 310 and 714, as I recall. To the north, Beverly Hills is, despite much complaining, split between 310 and 213, as is the much less affluent city of Inglewood, home of the Lakers. The 213/310 split has gone according to exchange, not geographical boundaries, so there have been quite a few cities divided thusly. I expect that there are more here than these given here. New York should also qualify, as Manhattan is 212; and Brooklyn is 718. Robert L. McMillin | Voice: (310) 568-3555 Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc. | Fax: (310) 568-3574 Los Angeles, CA | Internet: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #945 ******************************   Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22182; 21 Nov 91 1:11 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31162 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 20 Nov 1991 23:01:50 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23585 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 20 Nov 1991 23:01:37 -0600 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 23:01:37 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111210501.AA23585@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #946 TELECOM Digest Wed, 20 Nov 91 23:01:33 CST Volume 11 : Issue 946 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? (Doctor Math) Re: Cellular Antennas (Eric Florack) Re: Early Switches Permitting Touch-Tone (David G. Lewis) Re: Method Needed To Test Extension Phone (David Nyarko) Disconnected vs. Not in Service (Josh Muskovitz) New Delaware Switch (was New Equipment in Athens, GA?) (Carl Moore) Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU (David G. Lewis) Re: The Future of Printed Books (Bill Sohl) Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches (Mark Schuldenfrei) Re: Calling Card Wars (Andy Sherman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: drmath@viking.rn.com (Doctor Math) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 23:31:38 EST Organization: Department of Redundancy Department Subject: Re: Are 212-540 Numbers Reverse Toll? shihsun@lamp.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) writes: > .. drug dealers carry beepers, we ought to try and find out their > numbers (yes, I know that's incredibly unrealistic) and then plague > them with these 212-540 numbers in hopes that it'll expend all their > money. How about this: Government agencies get the numbers to the beepers being used by the drug dealers and set up a special "hotline", where, instead of a charge on the phone bill, police come and arrest them, having gotten the ANI cross referenced to location courtesy of the RBOC. Of course, if anyone mis-dialed the number by accident ... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 06:10:06 PST From: Eric_Florack.Wbst311@xerox.com Subject: Re: Cellular Antennas > Wrong!!! The original AMPS phones all had 2 antennas and several > still on the market today do too. The reason for 2 antennas wasn'r > for "additional antenna in the air" but to reduce "picketing" > effects due to Raleigh fade. On phones that have setups like this > there's a "voting" circuit to determine which antenna has the best > signal and thats what gets sent to the actual receiver. True. But, I had to go on the most likely reason for someone running such ... you must admit that such a system as you describe is a bit of a rarity, with cost being a major factor. Also, while systems such as you describe do their jobs rather well, I have extreme doubts about anyone's replicating this in the field ... so between these two factors, someone fooling with the thing after the fact is far more the likely happening. Preventing multipath, without a "voting" system is no arguemnt, because a straight tie-in as was implied in the conversation thusfar would only CAUSE and not SOLVE the multipath problem. Also, even the 'voting' systems, if not set up properly in the shop, or fouled by car washes afterwards, fouls it's own performance with the second antenna. ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: Early Switches Permitting Touch-Tone Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 14:38:56 GMT kclark@cevax.simpact.com (Ken J. Clark) writes: > I'm not sure when AT&T introduced Touchtone(R) to the market place. 1963, according to EOBS. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 08:15:44 mst From: David Nyarko Subject: Re: Method Needed to Test Extension Phone >I would like to know if there is a way (short of asking a friend to >call your number) of testing/phoning an extension phone from another >phone on the same line. nyarko@bode.ee.ualbeta.ca [Moderator's Note: If you know the ring-back number you can use it. PAT] Could you please explain what the "ring-back number" is. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 10:22:35 EST From: "Joshua E. Muskovitz" Subject: Disconnected vs. Not in Service When I was living in Michigan, the phone company (MI Bell) explained that they hold disconnected numbers for 90 days (business lines for 1 year) before they will reassign them, to avoid misdirected calls. I found this out because I requested a personalized number (616-DOING-IT) which I knew was unused (after all, I called it and got the intercept!) but they wouldn't give it to me unless I was willing to wait a day for the timeout to occur. So, if this practice is common (do you think Pac*Bell does it this way?), I would say that if you wait long enough, one will become the other. An interesting side note is that I have had very little trouble getting personalized numbers by finding out what the prefixes for my new address will be, sitting down and coming up with a list of potential numbers, calling them and noting which ones have intercepts, and calling the business office with my order. Since I'm interested in a number which spells something, and not a xxx-0000 type number, I've never been questioned. I understand that if you say that some unnamed developmentally disabled person lives at your house and you want a "special" number that is easy to remember, TPC can be very accomodating, but I haven't needed to try that. Josh Muskovitz ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 10:44:09 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: New Delaware Switch (was New Equipment in Athens, GA?) I don't know about Athens, Ga., but I did see a note about new switch being installed at U of Delaware, and to prepare for the change, phone assignments will be frozen from shortly before Christmas to about 3rd week in January there. The configuration has to be kept constant for testing purposes, and people are being advised to schedule changes before or after such freeze period. The new Delaware switch is to introduce prefixes 831 and 837. I don't know what will become of the 451 exchange. ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: AT&T Billing SNAFU Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 15:46:43 GMT In article king@blue.rtsg.mot.com (Steven King) writes: > John Higdon writes: >> jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com writes: >>> [AT&T's Reach Out doesn't end automatically if you switch carriers.] >> Why is this a problem? Some people may even want to continue AT&T >> plans even with another PIC. Just because a customer has "switched >> carriers" does not mean that they can never use AT&T again. > I'd consider this to be a *major* bug! As a consumer, I consider > Reach Out and any other special billing plans as part of my AT&T > service. If I cancel my AT&T service (by switching to another > carrier) I expect AT&T to stop billing me. Ah, but you're *not* cancelling your AT&T service by switching to another carrier. You're changing a service with the LEC. Presubscription is a service of the LEC, *not* the IXC. You indicate a presubscribed carrier to the LEC. The LEC uses this information to route inter-LATA calls. I grant that the marketing approach used by IXCs, including AT&T, adds to or causes some of the confusion. It is made to appear as if "presubscription" == "service" -- to be an IXC customer, you presubscribe to that IXC. ("We want you back".) Not so. Presubscription may indicate the carrier to which the vast majority of your inter-LATA calls are routed, but it doesn't indicate who you're a customer of. (I guess "we want the vast majority of your inter-LATA traffic back" just didn't make it as a catchphrase ...) Note also that if this premise was carried to its logical conclusion, "slamming" would not be a problem. If IXC presubscription is a service I get from the LEC, only I can change that service, not an IXC. Note, of course, that any policy statements regarding Reach Out America (sm, or tm, or (R), or something) would perforce come from an AT&T spokeperson or ROA product management; and that any policy statements regarding AT&T's position on IXC presubscription, slamming, and the like aren't my ballgame. Hey, I just do ISDN. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning ------------------------------ From: whs70@taichi.cc.bellcore.com (24411-sohl) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 15:26:45 GMT Subject: Re: The Future of Printed Books Reply-To: whs70@taichi.cc.bellcore.com (24411-sohl,william h) Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article Jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes: > I will grant that in some cases the quaility of service has degraded, > though I have to wonder how much of that is specifically related to > the breakup of the Bell System and how much of it is due to the change > in society as a whole. America once made the best cars and television > sets in the world, too. It seems that pride in workmanship and an > emphasis on doing things right the first time has fallen by the > wayside in many industries, not just the telephone industry. > On the other hand, when the Bell System broke up we did not have voice > calls from across the continent that sounded as clear as if the person > speaking were next door, and you thought twice about picking up the > phone to make that cross-country call because the tolls were so much > higher. > And, yes, it was comforting to know that if something broke, Ma would > fix it for free ... but was it really worth $5 per month (more if you > wanted a color other than black) per extension phone, for a phone that > Ma paid maybe $20 to produce (and no extra cost per color)? > The one thing that few people will ever say about the old Bell System > (just prior to divestiture) was that service was a real bargain, > especially if you wanted something more than just one telephone, or > made more than a few long distance calls! Two points need to be refuted here: 1 - The Bells had long ceased charging for extension phones prior to divestiture. 2 - There already was a competitive arena for long distance (MCI, Sprint, et al) prior to divestiture. I think the point made by our Moderator, Pat, was the breakup of the "Bell System" has now created a telecommunications network with no single entity having an end-to-end reponsibility for and, therefore, the probability that major service effecting outages can occur will, indeed, occur. Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's. 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 [Moderator's Note: Thank you. You phrased it very well. I have no complaints about competition. I fully favor the right of anyone and everyone to offer telecommunications services, and let the public decide who is the best. But to allow MCI, Sprint et al to compete with AT&T is not the same thing as smashing AT&T into pieces. The *only* legitimate thing Judge Greene could have done was to order AT&T and the Bell Companies to interconnect in an even-handed and arm's length way with the new competitors. He should have ruled the competitors were permitted to string wires, set up exchanges, solicit customers and compete in every way -- both at the local and long distance level -- with the Bell System, with the assurance their customers would be able to connect with Bell System customers. PERIOD. END OF COURT ORDER. Let *them* put together a nationwide integrated network, even if it took them over a century to do so. Let them start out like Bell started out at the turn of the century. That would be fair. The rest of the MFJ was simply theft of AT&T's property, based in large part on Greene's own bigotry toward and dislike of AT&T. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 12:05 EST From: schuldy%intrbas@uunet.UU.NET (Mark) Subject: Re: Touch-Tone on Old Switches Organization: Interbase Software Corporation, Bedford MA 01730 Pat writes (in response to a TT payment dispute): > It is instances like this which make me wish I was a telco service > rep. I would have called your friend back; apologized for us > 'accidentally getting cut off'; reminded him that he had no property > rights in his telephone number and that his number could be changed at > anytime the Company found it expedient to do so in the conduct of its > business; and that he was being moved to an exchange where the Company > found it expedient to place his service: one on which his use of touch > tone *could* be controlled; ie, an ESS. Almost as an afterthought I > would ask if he had reconsidered his earlier position and was willing > to either (a) use it and pay for it, or (b) refrain from using it. PAT] I suspect that if Pat were a telco service rep, he might not have lasted very long. Especially if John Higdon were the customer ... Doesn't it seem interesting that so many of us decry the larceny of PUC and telco's and at the same time feel so vigorous about enforcing tariffs? Mark Schuldenfrei schuldy@interbase.com [Moderator's Note: I suspect I would have outlasted that incident at the least when I explained that my intent was only in one thing: to stop the theft of telco resources, and that since the subscriber would not agree to curtail his theft of resources he would need to be placed in an environment (ie on a prefix) where such theft could be controlled by the company. PAT] ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: Re: Calling Card Wars Date: 18 Nov 91 17:36:13 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ In article , simona@panix (Simona Nass) writes: > In phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip > Miller) writes: >> Is it war or not between AT&T and the Baby Bells for credit card> >> accounts? Are others using the same advertising strategy? > At least here in New York it is. I just got a notice from NYTel that > AT&T would no longer be able to use customers' home phone number as > part of their calling card. NYTel offered to allow customers ("How > many plastic cards would you like?") to keep the same number (home > phone) and PIN from their AT&T card, but with it under NYTel's > jurisdiction. If it is a war, it is one that was started by a third party rather than any of the participants. According to the MFJ (for the acronym impaired, that stands for Modified Final Judgement, the official name for the future of telecommunications according to Judge Greene) 1/1/92 is yet another deadline for getting rid of shared network arrangements between AT&T and the RBOCs. I believe this may end the last all such arrangements but I wouldn't bet the rent on it. For sure, one arrangement that must end on 1/1/92 is the shared calling card database. So AT&T and the RBOCs have no choice -- they must have independent databases. In almost all states, AT&T has agreements either signed or pending with the RBOC to allow cross-verification of each others cards, so you can use an AT&T card for LEC carried intraLATA toll calls and you can use a LEC issued calling card for AT&T carried toll calls. However the AT&T card option of calling plans (like the Reach Out(SM) Card Option) will only work with the new AT&T card numbers. It is an easy thing to figure out why the LEC uses your phone number and AT&T doesn't -- just think about who issues and owns your phone number. I've posted before about some consumer advantages of the new arrangement: 1) the new AT&T Card is AOS-proof. Only AT&T or a RBOC with a cross-verification agreement can charge calls to your new AT&T card. If any other carrier accepts that number the call will be free, since they will be unable to bill it. 2) the new AT&T Card number is portable across changes of address and phone number. An astonishingly high percentage of the population moves in any given year. They will be able to arrange to keep using the same AT&T Card number before, during and after the move. 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! [Moderator's Note: Have you ever noticed how when Greene wrote the MFJ, the welfare and convenience of the American public in their use of the telephone network was the last thing he was going to worry about? Just get that evil old AT&T smashed up no matter how confusing and screwed-up the network gets for everyone else. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #946 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24436; 21 Nov 91 2:42 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03954 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 21 Nov 1991 00:00:23 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12831 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 21 Nov 1991 00:00:08 -0600 Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1991 00:00:08 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111210600.AA12831@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #947 TELECOM Digest Thu, 21 Nov 91 00:00:03 CST Volume 11 : Issue 947 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Local Telephone Company Assigns Same Nmbr to 2 Households (W Carpenter) Re: Local Telephone Company Assigns Same Nmbr to 2 Households (M Deignan) Re: 5ESS Audio Quality (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: How Do They >>Know<< ? (Marshal Perlman) Re: Cellular Antennas (Bradley J. Bittorf) Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of (Simona Nass) Re: History of Teletypewriter Development (Jim Haynes) Re: What Does Internet Cost Per Person? (John Higdon) Re: Copyrights on Phone Books (Monty Solomon) Re: Copyrights on Phone Books (Michael Ho) Re: Call-Waiting Signal Sounds Different (Lauren Weinstein) Re: Shared Area Codes (Lauren Weinstein) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 19:50:59 EST From: billc@pegasus.att.com (William J Carpenter) Subject: Re: Local Telephone Company Assigns Same Number to Two Housholds Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories > My questions to the telecom group are: how easy is it to > assign duplicate numbers on different lines, how are long > distance charges assigned back to a household The Moderator suggests that it is more likely that only the directory is wrong. I find that position particularly easy to support, since a local department store has my phone number as one of its half dozen or so listings in the Monmouth County white pages. In case you are wondering, I also assume that this is somewhat more inconvenient than having another household with the same listing (since the latter is somewhat self-correcting over time, while the former, I have experimentally determined, is not). Two questions have twirled around my brain since the situation first came to our attention: (1) who to be mad at; and (2) how to get it fixed. (1) Who to be mad at? (a) Can't really be mad at the department store, since they're not likely to be any amount at fault. So, there go unused a bunch of really humorous responses to "Are you open?" (by the way, apparently the most popular times [empirically determined] to want to know that are late Saturday night and early Sunday morning). (b) Can't be mad at the people mistakenly calling us. They're going by the book, so to speak. (c) Can't be mad at NJ Bell, since like most modern Americans I'm already about as worn out as humans can be disliking the local phone company (but not those LD folks; they're okay in my book :-). (2) How to fix it? (a) Wait for new phone book. Thanks ... we thought of that two years ago when the mistake was in the Ocean County phone book instead. After waiting for that to be fixed, we got a year of peace until the new Monmouth book came out last summer. Must be what them there phone company folks call your compooter glitch. (b) Get the phone company to change our number. They offered, for free even, but there's a subtle problem. "Dee-da-doo ... the number you have dialed, 5 5 5 1 2 3 4, has been changed. New number, 5 5 5 4 3 2 1. Please make a note of it!" We already have two humans (us) performing this service for the department store, and it doesn't seem to affect call volumes. (c) Like (b), but the phone company intercept doesn't give the new number. I personally favor this, but my wife is a sort of independent consultant. Although she doesn't normally work out of the house, it would still be pretty inconvenient (loss of $$) if we went that way. Ditto with an unlisted number or some variant of that. Any other ideas on how to fix this in the short term? If you feel like looking it up, check out the current Monmouth County (NJ) Area phone book (the edition with the Freehold area yellow pages included). Look on page 550 for Sterns, Seaview Square Mall. Don't stop at the 922-0900 entry ... that's the right one (I just happen to know that number off the top of my head). Keep going until you get to another Sterns, Seaview Square Mall, four lines below it. Yup, that's us! You'll also find us buried in amongst the listings of people with similar last names as ours on page 91 of that same book. If you'd like to sympathize, please write; don't call! :-) Bill William_J_Carpenter@ATT.COM or (908) 576-2932 attmail!bill or att!pegasus!billc AT&T Bell Labs / AT&T EasyLink Services LZ 1E-207 [Moderator's Note: Some telcos also offer a form of intercept where a live operator answers and asks 'what party are you trying to reach?' and then makes the referral based on the caller's response. However, the original writer has sent a new article describing what happened when he called telco on Monday and how it was fixed. Its a long article so I have it scheduled for the next issue after this. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Michael P. Deignan Reply-To: anomaly!mpd@rayssd.ssd.ray.com Subject: Re: Local Telephone Company Assigns Same Number to Two Housholds Organization: Small Business Systems, Incorporated, Esmond, RI 02917 Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 22:56:32 GMT > [Moderator's Note: ... I think it is far more common to have two > subscribers on the same pair by accident rather than two subscribers > with two pairs but only one number. NETEL has done this to the last two personal lines I had installed. Both times I found out by picking up a ringing phone and hearing someone else pick it up and say "Hello?" a few seconds later. What are the odds of that happening? Michael P. Deignan Since I *OWN* SBS.COM, Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com These Opinions Generally UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd Represent The Opinions Of Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 My Company... ------------------------------ From: goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: 5ESS Audio Quality Date: 18 Nov 91 22:42:09 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article , u1906ad@UNX.UCC.OKSTATE.EDU writes ... > I am sure glad to hear several people mentioning the problem of clock > synchronization when talking about line noise. We have an Ericssen > MD110 PBX connected to trunks leading to a DMS100 Southwestern Bell > switch via a digital interface of which I have no practical working > knowledge. We do, however have the strangest problem. Sometimes, > when calling in on any data line using 1200 or 2400 baud, we get a > connection which sounds perfectly normal to the ear, but produces a > rhythmic pattern of garbage characters which march across the > screen.... Okay, go to your telephone services people and lay the law out to them: TIMING ON A PBX MUST BE SLAVE TO THE CENTRAL OFFICE! A digital PBX has its own low-accuracy crystal oscillators. The public network, on the other hand, is synchronized to a Stratum 1 Cesium clock, which means that it won't slip more than once every 36 days if linked, free-running, to another Stratum 1 (10^-11 accuracy). The MD-110 should derive all of its own timing from the digital CO line! Otherwise you WILL get clock slips, causing } on modems. In Europe, where telcos don't give customers so much freedom, it's usually a requirement. In America, it's simply the way things work; telco can't force you to do it right, but it only works right if you do it right! Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 ------------------------------ From: mperlman@isis.cs.du.edu (Marshal Perlman) Subject: Re: How Do They >>Know<< ? Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci. Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 00:34:42 GMT > [Moderator's Note: You said the answer yourself: They have real time > ANI. Your number is delivered to them along with your fax. PAT] Well ... we don't have CID in California ... how do they have it? What makes them special ... (and no again ... I was sure that my fax number was not on top of the fax. ) Marshal Perlman mperlman@isis.cs.du.edu Huntington Beach, California [Moderator's Note: It is not a question of them being 'special'. ANI (auto number ID) is not the same thing as Caller-ID. The end results do look the same, but the method of delivery is different and the purpose of the information is different. ANI is delivered on calls to 800 numbers. Caller-ID is delivered to customers who pay for that service on regular POTS lines. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bjb@odin.icd.ab.com (Bradley J. Bittorf) Subject: Re: Cellular Antennas Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc. Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 01:08:45 GMT In article John Higdon writes: > This is not necessarily true. Some cellular transceivers (one being an > EF Johnson which happened to be my first cellular phone) use > "diversity reception". The receiver monitors the signal on TWO input > ports and switches to the one that has the cleanest signal. John is correct. I once worked on a diversity system at EF Johnson. (circa 1983-84). At that time almost all the EF Johnson mobiles had diversity. We were building our first handheld, and we had designed diversity into it as well, but the production version ended up using only one antenna. The original design included both the external monopole and an internal ferrite antenna. We found that the benefit from diversity was not worth the cost, at least within the handheld, where we could only get a small distance between the antennae, both of which could be blocked by the user's head while the phone was in use. The software retained the diversity option because we planned to supply a second antenna interface as a part of the adapter we were creating to be used to make the handheld unit competitive with mobile units when used in vehicles. It was entertaining to watch the handheld test setup while it was bouncing between the good and the null antennae, picking the stronger one. Selection of the strongest channels required multiple samples on each antenna on each sample, in case one of the antennae happened to be located in a fade zone for one of the transmitters, etc. Bradley J. Bittorf (216) 646-4629 Allen-Bradley Company bjb@odin.ab.com.UUCP or bjb!odin!uunet ------------------------------ From: simona@panix.com (Simona Nass) Subject: Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 03:37:20 GMT Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY In article joes@techbook.com (Joe Stein) writes: > I know of several. Here in GTE-Northwest, you dial 999, or 611. > In US-West territory, it is 956-2742. > Also, 1-200-555-1212 is supposed to work in the "little" offices. 958 works in New York's 212 area code. (simona@panix.com or {apple,cmcl2}!panix!simona) ------------------------------ From: haynes@cats.UCSC.EDU (Jim Haynes) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 22:09:57 -0800 Subject: Re: History of Teletypewriter Development > From cmoore@BRL.MIL Mon Nov 18 08:30:01 1991 > To: Jim Haynes > Among the patents in the message about Teletype is this one: > 15-Type page printer 1,9904,164 [sic] > Is there a type of some sort in this patent number? Yes, there is a typo. The patent number should be 1,904,164. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 23:44 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: What Does Internet Cost Per Person? drmath@viking.rn.com (Doctor Math) writes: > Has anyone calculated the exact cost per taxpayer to support the > Government's share of Internet operating expenses? (I must admit, I > wish all standards could be implemented as RFCs ...) I doubt that anyone has, but IMHO whatever it is, it is worth it. The Internet is one of those unusual gummit sponsored projects that actually has benefit to education, business, and individuals. Maybe it is because there is so little gummit control ... John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 03:27:23 EST From: monty@roscom.UUCP (Monty Solomon) Subject: Re: Copyrights on Phone Books Pat, There was a recent case which determined that the phone company does not have a valid copyright on their white pages since no creativity was used in producing the book. Assembling the names in alphabetical order doesn't require any creativity. A company in Cambridge, Mass. offers a CD-ROM version of all of the yellow pages published in the U.S. Monty Solomon roscom!monty@bu.edu ------------------------------ From: ho@hoss.unl.edu (Tiny Bubbles...) Subject: Re: Copyrights on Phone Books (Was Phone Books Diskette) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 17:10:26 GMT In a response to mkseast!dale@uunet.uu.net (Dale Gass), our esteemed Moderator (PAT) writes: > You might want to check out the rules on what is > termed 'compilation copyright'. This is something publishers of > reference books (which is what the phone directory is) use to protect > their work from being ripped off. Cross reference directory publishers > generally have to get permission from telco to compile their books > unless they can show their work was done independently with their own > research and not just by backwards key-punching the telco book. PAT] Alas, if you'll think back a year or (at the most) two, there was a federal court case that effectively nullified ALL copyrights on White Pages, saying that there is insufficient "creative effort" involved in putting together alphabetical listings of subscribers to warrant the granting of a compilation copyright. I think the case specifically involved a company that "backwards key-punched" an RBOC's phone book. Nonetheless, phone companies are still asserting the copyright, just in case the feds change their minds. I believe it was a Supreme Court decision, but I can't remember for sure. Perhaps one of our resident legal bash-- um, *scholars* will remember the case. In the same breath, I think they also ruled that it is illegal to refuse to sell the lists at a reasonable cost. I'm less sure of this part, though, than I am of the denial of copyright. ... 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. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 23:51:25 PST From: lauren@vortex.COM (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Re: Call-Waiting Signal Sounds Different Greetings. To the person asking why the "click" associated with their call waiting had vanished ... your central office type was apparently changed back at the time you noticed the click was gone. You probably had a 1AESS office to start with (the click is an attribute of the analog nature of the 1A). You now would appear to be in a digital office (perhaps a 5ESS), where the digital nature of the office allows for "silent" cut-throughs on the voice path. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 23:46:45 PST From: lauren@vortex.COM (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Re: Shared Area Codes As of this Nov. 2, the city of Los Angeles is split by no less than three area codes (213/818/310). There are various other cities and unincorporated areas involved with these three codes as well, of course. The city of West Hollywood (by the way, there *is* no city of Hollywood -- Hollywood is unincorporated) was cut down the middle by the latest split (213/310), right down the center of a major commercial street. As you might imagine, they're not at all happy about that. Area code splits tend to follow prefix boundaries. Since telephone prefix areas have been related to telco outside plant layouts rather than city boundaries, there is often a considerable divergence between area code boundaries and city boundaries, particularly when existing area codes are split. One thing that would help in areas with many area codes (like L.A.) would be if it were possible to optionally dial all 10 digits (or rather, 1 + 10D) even for calls in your own area code. It's becoming something of a hassle to be dialing two different lengths of numbers for random local calls. From this location, there are local (non-ZUM, non-toll) prefixes which can be dialed in all three L.A. area codes! The time has long since passed around here when dialing 1+10D meant anything at all in terms of whether or not there would be a charge for a call. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #947 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06016; 21 Nov 91 10:02 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28628 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 21 Nov 1991 07:54:18 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA32302 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 21 Nov 1991 07:54:07 -0600 Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1991 07:54:07 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111211354.AA32302@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #948 TELECOM Digest Thu, 21 Nov 91 07:54:04 CST Volume 11 : Issue 948 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia: Issues 942-944 [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Local Telephone Company Assigns Same Nbr to 2 Households (Barry Ornitz) How Do Phone Lines Get Crossed and How Does This Get Fixed? (Simona Nass) Re: Shared Area Codes (Rich Greenberg) Re: Shared Area Codes (Jeff Mischkinsky) Re: Copyrights on Phone Books (Was Phone Books Diskette) (Graham Toal) Re: Copyrights on Phone Books (Tad Cook) Re: Federal Telemarketing Legislation Proposed (Michael A. Covington) Re: Federal Telemarketing Legislation Proposed (Roy M. Silvernail) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: Issues 942-944 Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 08:18:21 -0500 This note is typical of several I received today: From: Joel B Levin I'm confused, but I'd guess that the two issues I received this morning marked # 942 were spurious copies of 943 and 944? (in case you aren't aware that something got mixed up). There seems to have been a 942 yesterday that is different from all the stuff I got today. Regards / JBL [Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly issues 943, 944 and 945 had some problems that got past me. In places they were named 942. I went through and straightened out all the headers and sent them again. You got several copies in this number range; look for three actual issues of the Digest. I must quit working on the Digest at 2 AM when I am nodding off as I do it. I fell asleep on line, got autologged out with an issue sitting in my work queue. When I woke up and called back in somehow I failed to reset all the software pointers. :( PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: ornitz@kodak.com From: ornitz@kodak.kodak.com (Barry Ornitz) Subject: Re: Local Telephone Company Assigns Same Number to Two Households Organization: Eastman Kodak Company, Eastman Chemical Company Research Labs Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 05:19:43 GMT In article ornitz@kodak.com writes: > I learned late Friday afternoon (after business hours) that the local > telephone company has assigned another household the same telephone > number as ours. ----- Much deleted ----- > [Moderator's Note: First of all, *who told you* another party had > the same phone number? You mention you 'found out', but don't say > who told you or why they could not fix it. To start with, my wife was told by a member of the other household that their number was the same as ours. She called me at work, and I called local directory information since the other party was not listed in the telephone book. The directory information operator verified that both the other household and ours were listed as the same number. They referred me to the repair service. The repair service told me that they would file a service request, but that this problem had to be corrected by the business office as they had no capability of assigning or changing numbers. The repair service did send a lineman by our house on Saturday to check our line. He told my wife it was IMPOSSIBLE for two pairs to be assigned the same number. > I think it is far more common to have two subscribers on the same > pair by accident rather than two subscribers with two pairs but > only one number. Quite true, especially when theft of service occurs. > If you have never once heard anyone else talking on the line; > never once called and found the line busy when you knew it should > not be; never once come across charges on your bill that should > not be there, then I suggest you do not have anyone sharing your > number and/or your line. What probably happened was the other > party got listed incorrectly in the data base with your number > attached instead of theirs; no more, no less. The large number of > calls you receive for the other party is due to the number of > people trying to call the other party who check with directory > assistance for the number. Is it also in the phone book? I have never heard anyone else talking on the line, but I have called and found the line busy when it should not have been. I have never found any unexplained long distance charges, but I should point out that the other household used a different long distance carrier. The other household began their service about three months ago, after the directory was published. > Have you yet talked to the other party to see if they consider > themselves to have the same phone number, or if they understand > it to be just a typographical error yet to be corrected, or > something else. Only once when the other party spoke to my wife. They claimed their number was the same as ours. I have tried several times recently but always got a busy signal. > If I were you, I'd approach the Business Office saying you > believe someone else has been listed in the directory data base > with your number, and let them handle it from there. I spoke with the business office Monday morning. They said it was impossible to have identical numbers with two different pairs. I told them about the information from directory assistance, and they again said this was impossible and that I was obviously mistaken. The business office then called directory assistance and checked on the number of the other party. It was the same as mine except two digits had been transposed. I asked if they had corrected the problem between Friday when I reported it to the repair service and Monday morning. They said they had no way of checking on this, and that I was still obviously mistaken and wasting their time. Not liking to be called a liar, I then called the repair service. They told me that the other party had not filed any repair orders but they had my complaint from Friday evening. I asked if the problem could have been corrected between then and Monday. The clerk ran through their files and found where the lineman who had come to our house had filed a change order for the other people's line. They HAD corrected the problem after all. At this point I called the Tennessee Public Service Commission. The commissioner listened to my story and said that the telephone company was certainly wrong to deny there was ever a problem and accuse me of wasting their time. He said he would call the telephone company to insure that this kind of problem could not happen again and that the other household was treated properly also. On Tuesday after lunch, I had a message waiting on my answering machine from the business office. I tried to return the call, but twice got a single ring tone followed by a dead line when I called the business office. I probably should have called the PSC back at this point, but instead I called the business office in Bristol, TN, the central business office in this area (long distance, by the way). This time, I was finally able to speak with someone who at least understood a little of what I was talking about. I learned that the original service order for the other household was entered correctly. However when the number was entered into the "processor" (basically their version of the ESS from her description, she had never heard of an ESS), two digits were transposed. The second line pair was assigned the same number as ours. I was told that there are occasional legitimate reasons for having two pairs assigned the same number, so the "processor" did not flag the problem. The correction was indeed made after the change ordered by the lineman. They were not sure how the long distance charges were sorted correctly. The woman at the business office then apologized for the way I was treated and said they certainly had made no attempt at a cover-up, and that the error was entirely a human one. Since I had never, ever, mentioned anything about a "cover-up", I suspect the PSC commissioner got a little carried away when he spoke to them. I did tell the woman that the business office certainly seemed inept, especially considering the dead lines when I tried to call them. She agreed that they did have problems, especially with their attitude towards customers. I told her that the repair service, on the other hand, seemed very helpful and competent. I told her that I had also told this to the PSC; she said she would ask the repair office manager to commend his staff. > And no, you have no compensation coming. Your service was not > interrupted. PAT] I did not think so either, but I would still like to awaken the person responsible a few times in the middle of the night! ;-) I would like to thank you for your comments, PAT. I would also like to mention that while speaking to the PSC commissioner, I strongly endorsed the ISDN services being considered by the PSC. The CATV people in Tennessee have been fighting ISDN tooth and nail. I would also like to add that until about four years ago, United Intermountain Telephone System in Kingsport still used Strowger step-by- step equipment for large portions of the town. This was sitting in a room next to the latest fiber equipment (my exchange was one of the first to go fiber). When the Guatemala telephone system went to crosspoint, UTS bought much of their old Strowger equipment as spare parts. I believe crosspoint switching is still used in parts of the system. Barry L. Ornitz ornitz@kodak.com ------------------------------ From: simona@panix.com (Simona Nass) Subject: How Do Phone Lines Get Crossed and How Does This Get Fixed? Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 23:28:59 GMT Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY My phone is crossed with the line of another person a block away. She has had people working on her apartment (I know - I spoke to them). They say they couldn't have been responsible, and I'm tempted to believe them, but wanted to double check. What are the ways lines get crossed? When people dial my number they get her, and vice versa. If the phone company fixes it, can they do it remotely or do they need to visit both apartments? (simona@panix.com or {apple,cmcl2}!panix!simona) [Moderator's Note: I'm going to re-run a piece which was in the Digest a couple years ago exlaining this in more detail. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 09:40:22 -0800 From: Rich Greenberg From: richg@locus.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: Shared Area Codes Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 17:38:35 GMT In article tedh@cylink.COM (Ted Hadley) writes: > Simple trivia question: > What cities (towns, etc) in the US and Canada are split by differing > area codes? By cities, I mean only that, not metropolitan areas. The > only example I know of is Sunnyvale, CA, which has 415 on the NW edge > and 408 elsewhere. Are there any others? And why would the Bell > Companies do that (i.e., not cut at city boundries)? A few trivial examples: 1) Los Angeles (City of) is split between 213, 818, & 310. 2) New York City split between 212, 718, and a third soon. Disclaimer: The above writings are the ramblings of one human being and have nothing what-so-ever to do with Locus Computing Corp. ---> Rich Greenberg, richg@locus.com TinsleTown, USA 310-337-5904 Located in Inglewood, Ca, a small city completely contained within Los Angeles ------------------------------ From: jeff@unify.com (Jeff Mischkinsky) Subject: Re: Shared Area Codes Organization: Unify Corporation, Sacramento, CA, USA Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 18:49:56 GMT In article tedh@cylink.COM (Ted Hadley) writes: > Simple trivia question: > What cities (towns, etc) in the US and Canada are split by differing > area codes? By cities, I mean only that, not metropolitan areas. The > only example I know of is Sunnyvale, CA, which has 415 on the NW edge > and 408 elsewhere. Are there any others? And why would the Bell > Companies do that (i.e., not cut at city boundries)? I would think the most obvious answer is New York City -- area codes 212 and 718. And the reason is pretty clear, too many lines. Jeff Mischkinsky internet: jeff@unify.com Unify Corporation ...!{pyramid,csusac}!unify!jeff 3901 Lennane Drive voice: (916) 928-6262 fax: (916) 928-6401 Sacramento, CA 95834 ICBMS: 38 38 40 N / 120 28 10 W ------------------------------ From: gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal) Subject: Re: Copyrights on Phone Books (Was Phone Books Diskette) Date: 19 Nov 91 21:39:56 GMT Reply-To: gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl Organization: MCGV Stack @ EUT, Eindhoven, the Netherlands In article mkseast!dale@uunet.uu.net (Dale Gass) writes: > [Moderator's Note: You might want to check out the rules on what is > termed 'compilation copyright'. This is something publishers of > reference books (which is what the phone directory is) use to protect > their work from being ripped off. Cross reference directory publishers > generally have to get permission from telco to compile their books > unless they can show their work was done independently with their own > research and not just by backwards key-punching the telco book. PAT] I think this has changed in the US with a Supreme Court ruling in one case where the compilation in question was in fact a telephone directory. Check with misc.legal. The ruling was within the last year. Graham ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Copyrights on Phone Books From: tad@ssc.wa.com (Tad Cook) Date: 19 Nov 91 23:54:24 GMT mkseast!dale@uunet.uu.net (Dale Gass) writes: > How far does this copyright extend? Is it a violation to copy down a > name and number onto a piece of paper? How about ten names/numbers? > How about one page? How about the whole book? Is it a copyright > violation for a company to input information from the phone book into > a computer database for their own use? (If they type it? If they > scan and convert to ASCII?) Of course this will be different in Canada where Dale lives, but earlier this year the US Supreme Court ruled on this. One of those non-telco directory publisher tried to get the database from a small independent telco on Kansas. The telco wouldn't sell it to them, so the publisher merely got a copy of the small town phone book and copied it. They got sued for copyright violation, and lost. It went all the way to the highest court in the land, where the Supreme Court ruled (in a decision written by Sandra Day O'Conner) that lists of information are no longer copyrightable, because copyrights only extend to "creative" content. At the time the Wall Street Journal ran an article exploring the ramifications for publishers of directories and almanacs. The general opinion that I gleaned from that article was that even creative arrangements of lists of information are no longer copyrightable in the United States. Tad Cook | Phone: 206-527-4089 | MCI Mail: 3288544 Seattle, WA | Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA | 3288544@mcimail.com | USENET: tad@ssc.wa.com or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad ------------------------------ From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) Subject: Re: Federal Telemarketing Legislation Proposed Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 06:47:48 GMT In article trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) writes: > hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: > 8) I will become the idol of millions, having cut the gordian knot. > There ought to be some lucre coming my way too, as this idea is: > (C)1991 Robert J Woodhead ;^) Everybody knows you can't copyright ideas, only expressions. 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. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Federal Telemarketing Legislation Proposed From: cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 22:39:50 CST Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) writes: > My favorite opening line from a telemarketer is "You wanted us > to give you a call when we had an especially good deal on ...". This > is typically used to sell stocks, bonds, rare metals, etc. I NEVER > told them I wanted a call Well, I had an even better one when I still lived in Anchorage. One of the local papers, {The Anchorage Times}, had their sales droid force calling my exchange. (John, do _all_ newspapers do this stuff?) The fellow, who called himself "George", said "I spoke with someone there last week, and they said I should call you back today about subscribing." As I pointed out to "George", I lived alone, just me and the answering machine. After I confronted him with his opening lie, he was most anxious to terminate our conversation. Roy M. Silvernail |+| roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #948 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17921; 22 Nov 91 10:26 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01856 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 22 Nov 1991 07:56:45 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00275 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 22 Nov 1991 07:56:33 -0600 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1991 07:56:33 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111221356.AA00275@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #949 TELECOM Digest Fri, 22 Nov 91 07:56:13 CST Volume 11 : Issue 949 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Esoterica (Josh Quittner) Advice on Multiplexer (Alex Nguyen) Automatic Emergency Dialers in Chicago (Michael J. Graven) Discount International Calls (Heard on BBC Mediawatch Program) (E A Wilson) How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708 (Stephen Wolfson) Cross Country Data Pipe (Malcolm Slaney) Busying Out a Phone Line (Chan Wilson) Re: Looking For Help With an IBM 026 Keypunch (Tony Harminc) What Vendor of 800 Service is Best For Us? (kev@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu) FYI-What? (Laird Broadfield) Smart-1, a Neat SMDR (Horatio Cadiz) DID Specs? And What is ANI? (Ken Burgess) Caller-ID Capable Answering Machines (Keven Kadow) Caller-ID Tariffs (John Bertot) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 18:15:38 est From: "josh quittner" Subject: AT&T Esoterica On July 1, 1989, at AT&T's Network Operations Center, in Bedminster, NJ., the company quietly celebrated the digitization of the long- distance network, something that was completed, by AT&T's reckoning, some 20 years ahead of schedule. I'm writing a newspaper story about this and there's something that's driving me batty: The sheetcake. Ap- parently, a big sheetcake was wheeled into an auditorium on that summer day and SOMETHING was written on it. No one I've spoken to can remember what it said ... Is there anyone out there who was in that auditorium and recalls? Thanks. josh quittner quit@newsday.com voice: 1.800.544.5410 (2806 at tone) ------------------------------ From: xnguyen@icsi.Berkeley.EDU (Alex Nguyen) Subject: Advice Wanted on Multiplexer Date: 19 Nov 91 21:08:28 GMT Organization: International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, CA Our department is thinking about purchasing several multiplexers for our new modems and terminals. The terminals are either WYSE 60 or X terminals. The modems are USR Courier 9600 V32bis. I was wondering if anyone has any recommendations on types and model of multiplexer I should consider. The Multiplexer must: 1) able to handle 8 to 16 ports. 2) handles speeds of 12k for terminals and 9.6k for modems. 3) It must be configable in all aspects hardware and software. ie. what username, password, lockout, lock speed ... 4) It should be configable to reject call in from outside local IP or if not then some security measure is available to screen out certain incoming calls not within certain net addresses. desirable : It is desirable that the multiplexer be bidirectional for the modem lines. (in/out calls) not needed : The multiplexer will only handle terminals and modems. It does not need to be able to handle printers, etc ... Please reply to: Alex@icsi.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: mjg@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Michael J Graven) Subject: Automatic Emergency Dialers in Chicago Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 15:28:06 CST Reply-To: mjg@nwu.edu (Michael J Graven) From the {Chicago Tribune}, 20 Nov 1991, Section 2, p. 2: "Law requires you to personally dial 911" The Chicago Police Department will no longer respond to calls generated by automatic taped messages received over the police emergency 911 system. The new legislation, enacted by the General Assembly, was signed into law August 20 by Gov. Jim Edgar. The installation or connection to the telephone company's network of any automatic alarm, automatic alerting device, or mechanical dialer which accesses the 911 system with a prerecorded message is now illegal. In case of an emergency, anyone with these automatic devices should call 911 personally and request assistance. ### So, will this eliminate the LifeCall systems as well? My only knowledge of them stems from some rural New Jersey installations, in which the devices call the local police department directly because the exchange lacks 911 service. Have injunctions like this been instituted in other urban areas besides Chicago? It seems to me that ill cordless phones would pose more of a problem than off-kilter autodialers, and idle minds (the devil's workshop) more so than that. Michael mjg@nwu.edu [Moderator's Note: The Chicago Fire Department has for several years had the right to bill for unwarranted emergency calls due to dialers which malfunctioned or went off at the wrong time. Their fee is $500 per hour, with a one hour minimum, since the equipment and firefighters are engaged for most of that time in rushing to the location; making a check of the premises; packing their equipment back up to return to the fire station and writing a report. The CFD also is hired on an as-needed basis by the village of Lincolnwood. I think their fee to Lincolnwood is $500 per hour. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David E A Wilson Subject: Discount International Calls (Heard on BBC Mediawatch Program) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 91 9:42:14 EST Last night on the BBC World service program Mediawatch there was an item on a company which is offering discounts of between 50% & 80% on the cost of a call from various countries to the USA. The system works as follows. The subscriber (who pays a couple of hundred dollars a month for the service) rings a number (I think in the USA), lets it ring once and hangs up. About 20 seconds later his phone rings and when he picks it up he has an American dial-tone provided by the carrier of his choice. This can be used to make multiple calls (using the # key [pronounced pound by the person describing the service] to terminate a call and get a fresh dial tone). I have no idea how this could be made to work -- ANI would not be available internationally would it? The other items were on providing live radio coverage on airliners. Cathy Pacific will have the BBC world service available to passengers using a radio which chooses the best signal available from up to 96 different frequencies and an American airline will use a satellite down-link to the plane to provide its service. David Wilson (042) 21 3802 voice, (042) 21 3262 fax Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong david@cs.uow.edu.au ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 09:29:50 MST From: wolfson@motsat.sat.mot.com (Stephen Wolfson) Subject: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708 This topic may have been covered many moons ago, but since I got it straight from the source I'd thought I'd pass it along. Recently I had the opportunity to sit next to a recently retired Illinois Bell exec on a plane flight back to Chicago. Aha I thought, now for a chance to do some investigative reporting for TD. Well, nothing earth shattering (I guess my fake Geraldo mustache didn't work.) but he did relate a story that I sensed he felt went against the grain of typical bureaucratic thought. When it came time to decide on the AC split for 312, my companion had setup a conference in some hotel, figuring that this committee (I don't recall the exact count but it sounded like at least 15-20 people were involved) was going to take days to decide which area code they wanted and where to align the new boundaries. Bellcore had given them two choices, 901 and 708. Well, within a short period of time they decided 901 was too close to 911 (Actually in hindsight also way to close to 900, "Grandma, you want to do what?!" :-) ) and how could they really choose any boundary other than Chicago/Suburbs to make the split without totally upsetting all the suburbs that didn't get 312. Steve Wolfson, Motorola Inc. - Satellite Communications, Chandler AZ wolfson@sat.mot.com ------------------------------ Subject: Cross Country Data Pipe Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 21:41:48 -0800 From: malcolm@apple.com I was at a workshop over the weekend where there was a discussion about the NREN (National Research and Education Network) and mention was made of about 100Gbits/second of cross country capacity. Which made me wonder ... just how much capacity is there from coast to coast? If I wanted to make a data call and could get access to all of AT&T network's capacity, just how many bits per second can I pass from San Francisco to New York? Seems to me that 100Gbits isn't so large in those terms. Malcolm Slaney ------------------------------ From: cwilson@snarf.wpd.sgi.com (Chan Wilson) Subject: Busying Out a Phone Line Reply-To: cwilson@snarf.wpd.sgi.com (Chan Wilson) Organization: sgi Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 23:51:08 GMT Given an "ordinary" phone line, how would one go about busying the line out? I don't think crossing the two wires is an appropriate way of doing it, and it probably doesn't work ... Replies / pointers via email, please, as this probably isn't of general interest ... Thanks. Chan (cwilson@wpd.sgi.com) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 15:35:01 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Looking For Help With an IBM 026 Keypunch stoll@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Cliff Stoll) wrote: > I'm rebuilding an IBM 026 Keypunch and need documentation. > Schematics, service manuals, information on where to grease, and where > to find replacement parts (like belts and printer ribbons). Some manuals for the 026 are still listed in the IBM KWIC Index: 0024 0026 Parts Catalog. S123-7091 0024 0026 Card Punch CEMI S223-8319 0024 0026 RI/RO Punch OEMI GA19-0012 0024 0026 Ref Man GA24-0520 0026 Inter Card Punch Bul. GG24-1060 024/26 Card Punch PC. S1B3-7091 Though the titles are written in IBMese and may not always be 100% clear ( :-) ), all these manuals are cheap (all well under US$10). Any IBM branch office should be able to order them for you. They are not marked obsolete, and so should be in stock in IBM's Mechanicsburg (Penn.) distribution centre. S1B3-7091 is, by its order number, a microfiche version of S123-7091. The IBM Publications KWIC Index (an 800 page treasure trove of IBM publications ancient and modern) is itself orderable using number G320-1621. It is currently in its 50th edition, and costs under US$10. Tony Harminc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 16:33:40 -0600 From: kev@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu Subject: What Vendor of 800 Service is Best For Us? Dear Patrick, I'm working with the local YWCA in a program called Outyouth. We recently decided to open a hotline for teens. What we want to do (and have almost done) is get two phone lines, hunting (local number) and then have an 800 number tie into those lines (for Texas calls only). Do you know or can you recommend a company that: 1) has the lowest rates; 2) has the capability of offering caller ID when the call comes in; 3) might offer it free since we are non profit and running this hotline as a service to the community (ha, unlikely, but...); 4) will only allow calls from within our state of TeXas. I'd appreciate any help and information you can provide. I know I've read before that you have an 800 number that can be call forwarded, this might work to our advantage as well. One other quick question: Caller-ID isn't available here yet, are we still able to receive the signal from an 800 number even if the local number doesn't provide it? Thanks! [Moderator's Note: Caller-ID and ANI are not the same thing, even though the end-results look the same. All telcos capture the calling number and send it through the network to the telco which will bill for the call (some exceptions, not worth noting here.) So you will get ANI regardless of whether or not Caller-ID is available. I get my 800 number from Telecom*USA, it cannot be forwarded, and calls come from all over the USA at about 25 cents per minute on average. Cable and Wireless offers the forwardable version. AT&T offers 800 numbers which can be restricted by location (ie Texas only). I don't know about the other suppliers and thier ability to restrict callers by location. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 13:38 PST From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird Broadfield) Subject: FYI-What? > [Moderator's Note: I see they have linked ATT Mail to the FYI > Information Service run by WU in Bridgeton, MO. I sent a note asking > if the $25 minimum could be applied to FYI usage, in which case I > might consider sticking around. They have not answered me yet. PAT] What's this? For those of us who are not ATT subscribers (and not likely to become at this rate, but that's another topic), can you provide a quick blurb? Laird P. Broadfield UUCP: {ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com [Moderator's Note: or our formation is a news and feature story service offered by Western Union to their EasyLink and Telex subscribers. The newswire they use is from United Press I believe. Now that AT&T owns EasyLink, the FYI service is available to AT&T Mail customers as well. I think the rate is about 30 cents per minute for most categories, but 60 cents per minute on others. They also offer weather and sports news, and private BBS space if you want to run one there for friends, etc. I've thought about putting TELECOM Digest there in one of the private BBS areas. PAT] ------------------------------ From: cadizht@csgrad.cs.vt.edu Subject: Smart-1, a Neat SMDR Date: 21 Nov 91 02:44:42 GMT Organization: VPI&SU Computer Science Department, Blacksburg, VA A while back, I posted that I was looking for the functionality of a Station Message Detail Recording without buying a PBX. It seems that there is product called the Smart-1 which is manufactured by Mitel. It is a complete store and forward dialer. It also has the capability of determining which line made or received a call, time and date of call, its length, and the number dialed on an outgoing call. I was informed that this product is available at major supply houses like Graybar and North Supply. However, I don't have the addresses nor the phone numbers of Graybar, North Supply, and Mitel. If you know them, please email them to me. Thanks a lot. Horacio Cadiz cadizht@csgrad.cs.vt.edu ------------------------------ From: Ken Burgess Subject: DID Specs? And What is ANI? Date: 20 Nov 91 23:37:36 GMT Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA Anyone know where I can find specifications on decoding DID (Direct Inward Dialing) information from a "trunk" line supplied by the telco? Is there a standard? Any pointers, or discussion of how DID works, would be greatly appreciated. Also can anyone tell me what ANI is? Seems to have somthing to do with "the" caller's phone number ... Thanks, KB [Moderator's Note: See the message on this earlier in this issue. ANI is automatic number identification. It is the process of sending the phone number of a caller to an 800 number to the subscriber of the 800 number for billing purposes. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Kevin Kadow Subject: Caller ID Capable Answering Machines Organization: Technology News, IIT, Chicago, IL Date: Wed, 20 Nov 91 04:43:17 GMT Illinois is scheduled to have Caller ID in mid-January 1992, and I have been considering getting a CID box, but since my answering machine takes my calls more often than I do it would make more sense to get a machine that would have a DATE/TIME/CALLER ID stamp. I looked through my vast assortment of esoteric catalogs and found several DATE/TIME stamp machines for around $100 and Caller ID boxes for $35-$60, so I'd expect a DATE/TIME/CID stamping machine to run around $130, since most of the hardware needed for CID would already be present in the machine. Has anybody seen one of these available in states that already have Caller ID? What's the lowest rate for a simple serial output Caller ID box? technews@iitmax.iit.edu kadokev@iitvax (bitnet) My Employer Disagrees. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1991 09:42:25 EST From: John Bertot Subject: Caller-ID Tariffs I am a doctoral student in Information Studies at Syracuse University and am researching Caller*ID's implementation across the US. I have followed the Telecom usegroup for some time, and have found the discussions concerning Caller*ID most interesting. At this point, I am looking for actual costs of Caller*ID to residents and businesses in various states which have Caller*ID currently in operation. Specifically, I am looking for initiation, monthly and other incurred costs to users of the service. I thank you in advance for your help. John Bertot JCBERTOT@SUVM ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #949 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10463; 23 Nov 91 2:28 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30129 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 23 Nov 1991 00:31:46 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05911 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 23 Nov 1991 00:31:30 -0600 Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1991 00:31:30 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199111230631.AA05911@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #950 TELECOM Digest Sat, 23 Nov 91 00:31:20 CST Volume 11 : Issue 950 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The March of Progress (John Higdon) Re: Job Descriptions in Telecom (Ted Timar) Re: Telemarketers: Why Not Transfer Them? (Brandon S. Allbery) Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? (Andy Sherman) Re: Credit Card Number Wars (David Ofsevit) Re: Looking For Help With an IBM 026 Keypunch (Larry Jones) Re: Call-Waiting Signal is Different (David G. Lewis) Re: USWest Voice Mail Problems (Mickey Ferguson) Re: Moscow: Direct Dialing Overseas Now Available 11/15/91 (Geoff Steckel) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 00:06 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: The March of Progress From: madams@aludra.usc.edu (Marcus Adams) writes: > It used to be that when I got a call on my call-waiting, there would > be a click that was audible to whoever I was talking with at the time. That was when you were served by (probably) a 1/1AESS switch. The clicks were the relays switching you to a conference bridge that is used for special things such as three-way and call waiting. But then your CO switch was replaced with something digital. > Sometime a couple years back, I noticed that this click disappeared on > my phone. That is the new way. Once the old ESSes are gone, the call waiting clicks will be gone with them. And in the next article, dill@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dill) writes: > Is it not the case that AT&T would not bill for a call until after > the first second or two or five? I remember hearing that somewhere. This was a technical limitation in the old mechanical (including crossbar) switches. It took up to several seconds for such equipment to recognize supervision from the far end and as such would take that long to start the billing record. This was not done as a courtesy or to provide a "grace period". It was merely a technical limitation. > Recently, I noticed that I have had a large increase in one minute > calls. So, last month I tried making a few calls and hanging up the > moment the other side picked up (say it was an answering machine or > something to that effect). Sure enough, these one minute calls showed > up on my bill. Is AT&T trying to dig out a few pennies or am I just > wrong? Modern electronic equipment can recognize supervision almost instantly. Added to this is the conversion from inband signaling. Your observations are correct, but your assumptions regarding cause and purpose are not warranted. Yes, the grace periods are over. But remember, AT&T has no control over what the originating switch is. That equipment belongs to the LEC and when call timing begins depends on the local switch. Even when it does not, as in the case of some OCCs, billing will generally begin immediately because most equipment is now capable of it. > I guess I just cannot help being suspicious of telco's ... By all means, be suspicious of telcos. But in this case, it is not a plot. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Ted M A Timar Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 18:27:48 +0900 Subject: Re: Job Descriptions in Telecom Reply-To: tmatimar@nff.ncl.Omron.Co.Jp Organization: Omron Corporation I have a similar question, just to satisfy my curiosity ... How many people who read this group/digest are working on research or leading edge development in the industry? You are welcome to define leading edge any way you want to. I am wondering if this is in fact the single best way to keep up with the industry. (Pat, I'm sure your answer to this is "yes", but I'm trying to gauge this myself. :-) Anyone have a better idea about how to track leading edge R&D in this industry? Anyway to merge these? Please respond by e-mail, I'll summarize. Ted Timar tmatimar@nff.ncl.omron.co.jp Omron Corporation, Shimokaiinji, Nagaokakyo-city, Kyoto 617, Japan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 21:45:07 -0500 From: allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH) Subject: Re: Telemarketers: Why Not Transfer Them? Reply-To: allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH) Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast) As quoted from by gs26@prism.gatech.edu (Glenn R. Stone): > Well, so, if you can't stick'em with 976 charges, I'd say, throw'em > for a loop by dialing the local freebie time/temperature service ... or > the local NWS forecast recording or some such. Can you imagine the Here in northeast OBT-land, the time/temperature number is a 976 advertisement for the real NWS recording (grrr ... thank goodness I've three radios and a scanner that can receive 162.55). I must admit it'd be rather ironic ... Brandon S. Allbery, KF8NH [44.70.4.88] allbery@NCoast.ORG Senior Programmer, Telotech, Inc. (if I may call myself that...) ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 08:14:27 EST Subject: Re: How Does The Law Handle Crank Calls? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ In article Jack Decker writes: > With all due respect, Pat, I think your logic on this one may be a bit > shaky. Granted the phreak MAY be looking to steal something but on > the other hand he may just be interested in exploring your system, in > which case all that he is really "stealing" from you is the use of a > phone line that could be used for more important calls, and perhaps > processor time that could be allocated to other tasks. OK, how about I walk in your front door (maybe using a plastic ID card because you have cheap locks, making it your fault) because I'm just interested in exploring your place. Oh I won't do much. I'll just use your chair, stove, refrigerator, etc. which merely deprives you of their use for a little while. While I'm there, I'll explore your address book to see who your friends are. After all, I can probably get into their houses by assuming that they have the same cheap locks you do, or by using thier trust in you to get them to trust me. While I'm at your desk, I may go through your personal records, just because they are fascinating to me and I may learn something by reading them. After all, only the papers themselves are tangible. All I'm doing is reading the information on them, and after all, you're not gonna tell me you own the information -- everybody knows you can't own information or ideas. Your bank balance *is* my business. Your letters contain information that are public property, buddy, and I'm here to collect. Now why would anybody call this "stealing" or "invasion of privacy"? I'm so misunderstood ... 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! [Moderator's Note: Aren't all hackerphreaks poor, misunderstood people? When I've used the term 'burglar' and 'burglary' to describe computer break-ins in the past, I have been widely castigated, in particular by some of our Socially Responsible readers who don't like it that I phrase the activity in such stark, plain terms. They'd rather play word games and talk about the dire consequences of stifling the intellectual curiosity of the hackers. So the next time you see a message like that, respond to the author and ask if it would be okay for you to sneak into his file cabinets or bedroom closet while he is gone. Of course then they squeal and squall like pigs on their way to the pork chop factory. :) PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Credit Card Number Wars Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 08:40:52 -0500 From: ofsevit@decvax.dec.com I received a mailing yesterday from New England Telephone. It seems that, if I don't do anything, AT&T, with whom I currently have my telephone credit card, will change my card number from the usual ten digit phone number + PIN to 14 random digits. NET is offering to instead convert my credit card to an NET card without changing the card number. According to NET, this would not affect my costs or ability to use the card. Is this correct? Why would AT&T bother changing the number? It seems clear that telephone credit card operations has become independent of actual phone use accounts, so there is no logical tie-in between card and phone numbers; but AT&T is going to lose business over this because people like to have an easily-remembered credit card number. David Ofsevit [Moderator's Note: One or the other (AT&T or local telco) has to change the card number; otherwise how would a distant telco know who to (intercompany) bill for the call you made on your trip? PAT] ------------------------------ From: scjones@thor.sdrc.com (Larry Jones) Subject: Re: Looking For Help With an IBM 026 Keypunch Date: 19 Nov 91 16:08:39 GMT Organization: SDRC, Cincinnati In article , our Moderator asks: > [Moderator's Note: Have you seen any of those little red stick-um tape > things we used to cover up a punch made in error recently? PAT] Seen any? Somewhere in the deep, dark recesses of my closets I have a good supply of all three varieties: the thin red ones that work great in mechanical readers but don't work in optical readers because they're translucent; the thin silver ones that work great in optical readers but don't work in mechanical readers because they're conductive; and the thick multilayer ones that should work in either because they're both opaque and nonconductive, but don't really work very well in either because they're too thick and have an annoying tendency to get caught in the works! If anyone want any for historical purposes, let me know and I'll dig them out. Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH 45150-2789 513-576-2070 Domain: scjones@sdrc.com Path: uunet!sdrc!scjones IBM: USSDR7DR at IBMMAIL [Moderator's Note: When we were still using punch cards (but phasing them out) at Amoco/Diners credit card processing back about 1968, sometimes a card would have so many erroneous punches in it the entire back side would be filled with those little red square tapes over the wrong holes. When there were more than ten or so, the card was difficult to work with, as often as not getting ripped up or crinkled in the sorting machine. We had a rubber stamp for the face of the card (really, it was the original invoice with the customer's signature on it) which marked the card with the letters "NMU" (non-machine-usable), and after stamping the card, it went manually to the end of the line and a special box on the supervisor's desk. We then took a blank 80 column card entitled 'Substitute for Original Media' and punched it up, hopefully correctly, including a 8 punched in column 41 which was for the purpose of identifying the substitute card at the end of the line. Once the processing was done and the punched cards were being microfilmed before they were mailed to the customers in their bill, the ones with 8 in column 41 got sorted out and the NMU original card swapped back in so we could microfilm the customer's signature and send him the invoice. PAT] ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: Call-Waiting Signal is Different Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 16:43:23 GMT In article madams@aludra.usc.edu (Marcus Adams) writes: > It used to be that when I got a call on my call-waiting, there would > be a click that was audible to whoever I was talking with at the time... > Sometime a couple years back, I noticed that this click disappeared on > my phone ... The audible click is a result of how an analog switch inserts the call waiting tone. Because an analog switch makes a physical connection between your line and the other side of the connection (line or trunk), it must break this connection temporarily to connect your line to the service circuit that provides the call waiting tone. This break causes the click. A digital switch doesn't make a physical circuit path between the two sides of the call. When it inserts the call waiting tone, there's no physical switchpath to break, so no click. The dropout is because the voicepath is interrupted for the duration of the call waiting tone -- you hear and "talk to" the call waiting service circuit, and the far end party hears and talks to dead air. > I really hate not having that audible click because its a > pain to stop someone mid-sentence to tell them I have another call, > and some people don't believe me, saying "I didn't hear a click ..." All together now: "That's not a bug, that's a feature!" I can see it now -- 5E10 will have a new feature in the 1AESS Transparency Features category called "far-end call waiting notification", which will bridge the far-end party to a service circuit which generates on call waiting ... David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!houxa!deej ISDN Evolution Planning [Moderator's Note: Well believe it or not, some people considered the old way, with the click to be invasive, since 'everyone' knew what the click meant when they heard it, and some people did not like the other person knowing they had a call-waiting (if they planned to ignore it in favor of the present call.) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Nov 91 09:57:53 PST From: fergusom@scrvm1.vnet.ibm.com (Mickey Ferguson) Subject: re: USWest Voice Mail Problems Organization: Rolm Systems Bob Maccione writes: > At last, a reason to post to telecom! I have USWEST (tm, no doubt) > voice mail and am experiencing a problem with missing data (so to > speak). It seems that whenever someone pauses the next couple of words > are lost. This is most apparent when the person is leaving a phone > number; I seem to lose at least one digit. I did call the friendly > USWEST rep and her reply was that it was supposed to happen whenever a > person paused. I said (in my Monday voice) "But that's not acceptable, > I shouldn't lose any of the message", her reply was "That's just the > way it works" ... Yeah, I can tell you what to do -- drop the service! As an engineer in the PhoneMail department here at Rolm, their response of, "That's just the way it works," is weak. Yes, it is supposed to compress the blank air to save on message storage size, but the compression algorithms are also supposed to resume immediately when it detects voice (or whatever is being recorded :) again. Either that, or their system just doesn't have the processing horsepower to be able to resume voice recording fast enough. Mickey Ferguson Rolm Systems fergusom@scrvm2.vnet.ibm.com ------------------------------ From: gsteckel@vergil.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Steckel) Subject: Re: Moscow: Direct Dialing Overseas Now Available 11/15/91 Date: 19 Nov 91 18:44:43 GMT Reply-To: gsteckel@eastapps.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Steckel) Organization: Omnivore Technology, Newton, Mass. (617)332-9252 In article phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) writes: > According to a news release from {NewsByte}, direct international > dialing is now available from Moscow from 0000-0900 each day. > Local analysts say the reason for the start of direct-dial service is > that a second international phone exchange, originally scheduled to > start six months ago, has finally been launched. According to miscellaneous sources imperfectly remembered (== word of mouth) international direct dial `broke' sometime in the `70s and was never `repaired'. All outgoing calls were filtered by human operators, and if you were on a list, your calls never went through. The Soviets remembered what happened in Iran, where the Islamic radicals and anti-Shah forces used direct dial overseas calls to coordinate activities. Presumably since the fall of the central government there is no reason to continue the restriction on international flow of information, and financial incentives to improve communications for foreign companies. Just my two kopecks. geoff steckel (gwes@wjh12.harvard.EDU) (...!husc6!wjh12!omnivore!gws) Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with Sun Microsystems, despite the From: line. This posting is entirely the author's responsibility. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #950 ******************************