Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14839; 16 Feb 93 6:24 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00591 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 16 Feb 1993 03:55:42 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19485 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 16 Feb 1993 03:54:35 -0600 Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 03:54:35 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302160954.AA19485@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #101 TELECOM Digest Tue, 16 Feb 93 03:54:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 101 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Stupid Phone Tricks (Richard Nash) Re: Stupid Phone Tricks (Steve Forrette) Any Experience With Prometheus Home Office Modems? (Chris Norley) Loops and ANI in (206) NPA (Ken Hoffmann) Cellular Phone Questions (Don Wegeng) Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? (Mark Ferris) Tone Decoding (Lance Neustaeter) E1 Lines - What Are They? (Danny Bielik) Third Party Network Connectivity (Ron Beach) Help Needed Finding TDD Relay Service (Richard Osterberg) Using AT&T's Switch on 800/321-0ATT (Paul Robinson) Cellular Switching Question (circuit@convex.csd.uwm.edu) Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? (Richard Nash) Re: Toll-Denial Also Blocks 911 Access; Why? (Richard Nash) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 07:56:37 -0700 From: rickie@trickie.ualberta.ca (Richard Nash) Subject: Re: Stupid Phone Tricks Jim.Rees@umich.edu writes: > Our University has a DMS of some kind. Dialing 91072 gets you an > intercept recording that states, "The number you have reached, > 107-0000, has been changed. The new number is 000-0000." This announcement is most likely not directed from the DMS but rather the Intercept System (AIS) that the intercepted number (107-0000) is going to. In the AIS database, the number is probably referenced to a default status code and new number. When the number was placed on intercept, either one of two things happened. The number was placed on operator intercept route, but the AIS database not updated to reflect correct status, or the number should not have been placed on operator intercept but rather a local mechanical treatment such as "the number you have dialed is not on service". The service order clerk probably just goofed. Richard Nash Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8 UUCP: rickie%trickie@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 10:58:03 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Stupid Phone Tricks Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA > [Moderator's Note: Clever response. Since you only make outgoing calls > on those lines occassionally, and never have incoming calls, you > should ask telco to set the lines up as one-way outgoing service only. > Then you'd never see any wrong numbers at all. PAT] Except if you live in the technological backwaters of Pacific Bell, which offers no such service. Nor do they offer other services commonly available elsewhere, such as distinctive ringing. Maybe they will start doing so with their recently-announced modernization commitment. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 12:53:18 EST From: E102030@PWAGPDB.pwfl.com Subject: Any Experience With Prometheus Home Office Modems? I am interested in getting a multi-capability modem for my mac at home. The Prometheus Home Office mMdems appear to do everything that I would like/need. does anyone have any experience with these modems or know of a viable alternative? I would like the modem to be able to take voice messages or switch to fax/modem as appropriate. Any information about this would be appreciated! chris norley norleyc@pwfl.com or cnorley@goliath.pbac.edu ------------------------------ From: kenh@pacifier.rain.com (Ken Hoffmann) Subject: Loops and ANI in (206) NPA Organization: Pacifier BBS Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 18:39:49 GMT Hello, all. I am looking for a list of loops and "ANI Numbers", numbers that you call or dial in, and it will return the calling number. Also as for the Digest compiling stuff like this, I agree with PAT. It'd be very difficult to keep current, but it IS possible. Maybe if we had some people from the local BellCo giving us a hand? :) Thanks, Ken [Moderator's Note: Let's everyone try hard to laugh at Ken's little joke about people from telco 'giving us a hand' in compiling 'hear your number' codes. Uh, it was a joke, right Ken? Here is my very own submission for comp.dcom.telecom.humor.funny for today: Maybe the telcos would standardize the number nationally, and ask TELECOM Digest along with {2600} and other fine e-journals for the trade to assist in publicizing it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wegeng.henr801c@xerox.com (Don Wegeng) Subject: Cellular Phone Questions Reply-To: wegeng.henr801c@xerox.com Organization: Xerox Corp., Henrietta, NY Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 19:24:38 GMT I recently bought a handheld cellular phone for personal use. After some playing and reading, I now have some questions. Background: My contract is with Genesee Telephone, which is the A channel carrier here in the Rochester, NY area. GenTel is affiliated with Cellular One, NACN, and RA (but not FMR). 1. The phone is currently programmed to roam only with A carriers. This probably makes sense for when I'm close to home, but I'm not so sure about whether I should change this when I take the phone out of the area. It probably makes sense to compare roaming rates for the cities where I'll be travelling, and program the phone to use the cheaper one. If I'm travelling in rural areas it may make sense (from a safety perspective) to roam with both the A and B carriers. Is my reasoning correct? 2. The salesperson where I bought the phone suggested that I also purchase a magnetic mount 3dB gain external antenna, for use when I'm outside of the city limits (I have friends who live in the country, but within the GenTel service area). My EE background tells me that an external antenna will probably help, but will the 3dB gain make a significant difference (I realize that 3dB equals 2X). I didn't buy the antenna, since I wanted to see how the phone performed without it first (I haven't had time to try it yet). Any other advice, tips, recommended accessories or recommended reading will be appreciated. Thanks, Don wegeng.henr801c@xerox.com [Moderator's Note: Generally the A and B carriers stick to their own kind when making roaming agreements. You'll usually only see A agree to roaming terms with a B carrier or vice-versa when there is only one (but not both) in a location. This happens now and then, but generally you are wise to stick with the side you are on at home when you roam. You may think their terms are outrageous, but wait until you see what the other side will stick you with if you are not affiliated with one of their sisters. Depending on the metropolitan area, some are so saturated with cell sites (like Chicago) that it hardly matters if you use an antenna on the phone or not. On my CT-301 I use a tiny little dummy load (well almost, it is a thing about the size of my thumb) when I am about town, and my TX/RX is fine. But when you get outside the city, better quality antennas cut to the proper length do make a difference. My dummy load will get me nowhere in Independence, Kansas, but my 'good' antenna lets me TX/RX with ease via the Tulsa, Oklahoma B carrier, with its nearest tower 40 miles away. PAT] ------------------------------ From: markf@atlastele.com (Mark Ferris) Subject: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc. Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 18:21:39 GMT My mom was asking me about an ad she read recently that was selling a product that allowed a phone jack anywhere an electrical outlet is. It seems to work in a similar fashion to the old BSR (?) home protection boxes that allowed control of lights, etc via the electrical lines. One box was the transmitter, and it would support multiple receivers. The ad mentioned that the phone signal was translated to an FM signal and transmitted via the electrical wiring. Anybody hear about this product? Any comments? Does it actually work? What's the signal/noise ratio via this method? Would this actually be a recommended way to add additional phone lines into a house? Thanks for any info, Mark Ferris EMAIL: markf@atlastele.com Atlas Telecom VOICE: [USA] 1+503.228.1400 x242 4640 SW Macadam Ave. FAX1: [USA] 1+503.228.0368 Portland, OR 97201 FAX2: [USA] 1+503.225.5518 [Moderator's Note: They work okay unless you have flourescent lights or other noise making conditions in the power lines. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 08:29:51 PST From: Lance_Neustaeter@tvbbs.wimsey.bc.ca (Lance Neustaeter) Subject: Tone Decoding Has anyone heard of any software which will analyse touch tones (probably sampled from a tape or phone line) and display which numbers are being dialed? I know they have electronic devices which do this, but I was wondering if it could be done with software and if so, how? (If the advice were applicable to an Amiga, that would be even better, but it's not totally necessary -- I'm curious if it's possible in general.) ------------------------------ From: dannyb@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Danny Bielik) Subject: E1 Lines - What Are They? Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 23:40:55 GMT Could somebody please tell me what an E1 line is? Thanks, Danny Bielik ------------------------------ From: BEACHRI@RCWUSR.BP.COM Subject: Third Party Network Connectivity Date: 15 Feb 93 18:46:38 -0600 Organization: BP Research, Cleveland, OH (USA) I'm looking for someone to help me research the issue of one business directly connecting it's internal network to that of another company - a supplier, a business partner, a vendor, etc. We call that 'third party connectivity' within BP (British Petroleum, ne Standard Oil). I need to identify real-world business examples of existing third party connections, identify costs of providing restricted connections, identify what costs would reduce (hopefully) to if the connection was more 'open', and access the cost impact in terms of changes needed to protect 'internal' information or resources or establish 'firewalls' between parts of the 'internal' network-plus any costs for the time of people to make these assements. I know that's a pretty tough order, but if anyone is willing, please send me email at beach@rcwcl1.dnet.bp.com. Please do not answer by replying to this newsgroup. I do not get much opportunity to read the news and likely any reply will be lost!! Thanks, Ron Beach Manager, Telcom and Information Strategy BP Research 4440 Warrensville Ctr. Rd Cleveland, Ohio 44128 beach@rcwcl1.dnet.bp.com [Moderator's Note: Mr. Beach should review Unitel, the internal telecom network for United Airlines. They've got tie-lines off their centrex in Chicago into the centrex of every airport they fly into. At their HQ here, you dial '8', get new dial tone then dial the three digit designator for the city (i.e. 726 = SAN = San Fransisco) then the four digit number on the centrex *out there*. Some of those centrexes then have their own tie-lines going places, such as at Seattle (732 = SEA = I think) where a three digit tie-line code drops you on the centrex at Boeing Aircraft. The oddest example was a three digit code out of Chicago which itself produced new dial tone; dialing zero at that point produced 'operator' who when questioned said she was the switchboard operator for the Las Vegas, NV City Hall. (??). Finally after years and years, Unitel did away with progressive dialing (that is, dial something, get new dial tone, dial something else off that, get new dial tone, dial off that, etc) in lieu of an intelligent switch in their Chicago HQ which simply takes seven digits and makes its own decisions on where to route the call. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Help Needed Finding TDD Relay Service From: osterber@husc8.harvard.edu (Richard Osterberg) Date: 16 Feb 93 02:46:51 GMT A good friend of mine has run into a small problem. She's deaf, so she uses the TDD Relay Service quite frequently. However, her parents are currently in Bulgaria for some time (overseas work), and they can't call into a relay operator from overseas. Each state has its own statewide 800 number to access the relay service, however these can't be accessed when dialing into the US from overseas. Is there some sort of a national/international TDD relay service? It's quite frustrating. Rick ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 23:08:22 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Robinson Subject: Using AT&T's Switch on 800/321-0ATT In Telecom Digest 13-98 Curtis E. Reid wrote: > Can someone give us the procedure for using the AT&T's Switch at > 800/321-0288? TELECOM Moderator noted: > After dialing 800-321-0288, you hear the AT&T tones, and the > robot operator announces, "AT&T ... please enter the number you > are calling, or zero for an operator." After entering the > number you are asked to enter your card number. It is basically the > same as any other credit card call. Persons who have experiences with > this are requested to write. PAT] You punch the number as ten digits WITHOUT DIALING 0 OR 1 FIRST. If the call is international, you punch 01 and the country, city, and local numbers. If you dial it correctly, you get a "bong" and it allows you to punch in your calling card number. Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM ------------------------------ From: circuit@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (The Circuit) Subject: Cellular Switching Question Date: 16 Feb 1993 07:06:35 GMT Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee I have a question concerning switching tones: I've seen two references to tones that keep other mobile units off a channel. They are the Sieze Tone (1800Hz) and the Gaurd Tone (2150Hz). Now which of the two is actually used? And if both, what is the difference? Also, could someone tell me If I have these other tones correct? Idle: 2000hz Connect: 1633hz Dissconect: 1336hz And last, could someone describe the difference between SAT's 00, 01, and 10? I realize this is alot, but any info would be greatly appreciated. If possible, reply in email too so as not to waste space on here. Thanks much! circuit@csd4.csd.uwm.edu circuit@convex.csd.uwm.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 08:21:17 -0700 From: rickie@trickie.ualberta.ca (Richard Nash) Subject: Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? rlm@indigo2.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) writes: > Will Martin writes: >> There's been recent news coverage of the new administration's plan to >> set up a data network for general public access that has been referred >> to as "National Data Superhighways". Publicized examples of the way >> such a network would be used include such things as letting school >> students run programs on NASA supercomputers that model weather and >> other such computing-intensive tasks. What nobody ever mentions in >> these news items is just what sort of access control and/or security >> is planned for this environment. > What I want to know is, why aren't the telcos pushing for this? The telcos view such a highway as a monopoly arrangement, something the public has stated they don't want anymore. > But what bothers me even more than the telcos lack of initiative in > this matter are the implications of the Feds running such a network. > Based on the way the FCC has behaved itself in matters of free speech > on the broadcast airwaves, it seems an easy step for the datacops to > come along and shut you off the net if you don't profess politically > correct ideology under the "limited resource" doctrine. In speech- > restricted California, we now have a law that will enable the > PC-minded to arrest fourth graders for calling other kids ugly names. > What's to prevent a similar law against puerile morons doing so on the > digital highway? Sooner or later someone will have to put their foot down on all the stupidity making its way into law. Eventually the laws all start to contradict each other. > A state-controlled "data superhighway" smells like an ingenious way > for the U.S. government to do to two-way digital communications what > the U.K. did to one-way radio broadcasting with the BBC: maintain > control over access, and thus, content. It would be an excellent tool > for snooping on individuals. As with driving privileges, no one is > guaranteed access to the net, but if you sign this form handing over > certain rights to the state, we'll let you on. Networking has so far > been a tool for decentralization and democratization, but it could > just as easily become a device allowing the state even further > encroachments into our lives. > GTE may offer terrible service, but at least they don't come into the > houses of teenage hacking suspects, guns cocked. Aside from the subversive possibilities that allowing the government to set up and run such a data highway would cause, with such a metaphor of the highway, think of the other entities that exist on our roadways. Traffic violators! To address them, a special enforcement agency will have to be established, a couple dozen or so layers of beauracracy, and the makings of a DMV and Data Highway Patrol.:) Maybe some faster cleaner routes could be set up with special *toll* surcharges for those data users who demand uncongested data movements.:) Perhaps someone could add to this metaphor? Richard Nash Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8 UUCP: rickie%trickie@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 07:38:35 -0700 From: rickie@trickie.ualberta.ca (Richard Nash) Subject: Re: Toll-Denial Also Blocks 911 Access; Why? Marcus Leech writes: > My sister volunteers for a women's shelter in Squamish, B.C. They've > been having problems with unauthorized long-distance calling, so they > had B.C. Tel put toll-denial on the line. The problem is that B.C. > Tel says this also blocks 911 access. I can't think of any technical > reason for this, and it seems unreasonable. > Is anyone familiar with the CO equipment they use in B.C., and why > there would be this restriction? B.C. Tel has a heavy investment in GTE (Microtel) equipment. GTD #5. Perhaps toll restriction in a GTD is based upon toll-route selection and quite possibly the 911 translation utilizes a toll route? Richard Nash Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8 UUCP: rickie%trickie@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #101 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01460; 16 Feb 93 14:43 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23570 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 16 Feb 1993 12:10:30 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14888 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 16 Feb 1993 12:10:03 -0600 Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 12:10:03 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302161810.AA14888@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #102 TELECOM Digest Tue, 16 Feb 93 12:10:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 102 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Intel, BellSouth, RAM and Ericsson Sign Agreement (Ericsson Press Release) Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? (Andrew Blau) North Korea Appears To Have Changed Most Telephone Numbers (Jaap Akkerhuis) Re: DS0 Portion of a T1 (Fred R Stearns) Outrageous Hotel Phone Charges (Ed Greenberg) Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? (Scott Dorsey) EasyReach 700 Changes (John J. Butz) Re: E1 Lines - What Are They? (Ken Becker) High-Speed Dial-Ups (John Biederstedt) Re: Cellular Phones Power Control (John Nagle) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Feb 1993 18:38:11 +0100 From: ERICSSON CORPORATE RELATIONS Subject: Intel, BellSouth, RAM and Ericsson Sign Agreement Intel Corporation, BellSouth Corporation, RAM Mobile Data and Ericsson today announced that they have signed preliminary agreements relating to the development of new products and new services for the rapidly emerging mobile computing market. The agreements will expand the market availability and increase the uses of standard Intel processor-based mobile computers performing two-way wireless communications via the nationwide, dedicated public mobile data networks operated by RAM Mobile Data. Later this year, Intel-branded PC enhancement wireless products, coupled with mobile communications services from RAM and BellSouth subsidiaries, will be offered through the more than 6,200 retail outlets that serve Intel. Intel and Ericsson have agreed to work on the joint development of PC enhancement products, utilizing Ericsson's innovative radio technologies. "As the worldwide leader in the computer business, Intel's entry into wireless computing is shifting the growth of this industry into high gear," said Michael K. Harrell, president of BellSouth Mobile Data. "With the convergence of computing and communications, these cross-industry relationships are the crucial ingredients in accelerating the growth of worldwide, wireless mobile computing." "The integration of PC's and wireless communications is an enormous opportunity. With these agreements we don't have to start from scratch," said Intel senior vice president Frank Gill. "The infrastructure already exists in the form of the huge installed base of Intel-processor based mobile computers, the nationwide network from RAM Mobile Data, BellSouth's worldwide mobile communications business and Ericsson's wireless modem technology. This momentum will be a big help as we move forward to integrate Intel processor-based PC's with wireless communications." Intel's wireless products will enable computer users to communicate nationwide on the Mobitex wireless data networks operated by RAM Mobile Data, a partnership between BellSouth and RAM Broadcasting Corporation. RAM Mobile Data operates wireless data networks that cover more than 6,000 cities in the top metropolitan areas of the U.S. "Our networks will provide service to approximately 90% of the urban population by the end of June. They are already being used by mobile professionals to send and receive wireless electronic mail and by corporations to communicate time-critical information," said Carl Aron, chairman and chief executive officer of RAM Mobile Data. Networks incorporating the Mobitex technology are installed in Canada, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland and Norway, and plans are underway to build such systems in France, the Netherlands, Australia, Latin America and Asia Pacific. "The days of one-stop shopping for mobile computing solutions are here," said Ake Persson, vice president of business development for Ericsson GE Mobile Communications Incorporated. "This will ensure that mobile computing customers can purchase at retail a variety of Intel-based computers and enhancements, an array of software applications and RAM Mobile Data's wireless service." Intel and BellSouth will also explore new mobile computing products and services that can be used by professionals worldwide on a variety of communications networks. BellSouth is an Atlanta-based international communications holding company. BellSouth provides local telecommunications services in nine southeastern states, and offers a wide variety of innovative mobile communications services worldwide, including cellular, paging and dedicated wireless data networks. RAM Mobile Data USA Limited partnership is a leader in providing wireless data communications services based on the Mobitex architecture, an open, international standard. Ericsson is an international leader in telecommunications, recognized for its advanced systems and products for wired and mobile communications in public and private networks. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Kathy Egan, Director of Press Relations, The Ericsson Corporation Tel +1 212 685 4030 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 11:06:20 -0500 From: Andrew Blau Subject: Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? In TELECOM Digest, V13, #101, rickie@trickie.ualberta.ca (Richard Nash) writes: > rlm@indigo2.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) writes:> >> Will Martin writes: >>> There's been recent news coverage of the new administration's plan to >>> set up a data network for general public access that has been referred >>> to as "National Data Superhighways". Publicized examples of the way >>> such a network would be used include such things as letting school >>> students run programs on NASA supercomputers that model weather and >>> other such computing-intensive tasks. What nobody ever mentions in >>> these news items is just what sort of access control and/or security >>> is planned for this environment. >> What I want to know is, why aren't the telcos pushing for this? > The telcos view such a highway as a monopoly arrangement, something > the public has stated they don't want anymore. In fact, the telcos have become *very* involved in this. During President Clinton's Economic Summit after the election, the one moment of reported conflict was when Robert Allen of AT&T challenged Mr. Gore's contention that the superhighway should be a public works project. Allen said, "I believe I have some points to make about who should do what in that respect. I think the government should not build and/or operate such networks. I believe that the private sector can be and will be incented to build these networks...." He held to this even after being challenged by Gore, who seemed to suggest that Allen couldn't have meant what he seemed to be saying. LECs, too, are getting into this quickly. They see data transport as a big part of their future, and notion that the government might come in and build a national infrastructure that isn't the telco infrastructure raises lots of red flags (such as bypass on a massive scale, for one). LECs and Bellcore submitted comments to the NSF on last year's draft solicitation for the next generation of the NSFNet (a/k/a the Interim Interagency NREN). In those comments and through other actions they made it clear that they believe telcos have a _very_ important role to play in the construction and operation of tomorrow's 'data superhighways.' Thus, both LECs and IXCs are in fact pushing here -- pushing to make sure they are included. > Aside from the subversive possibilities that allowing the government > to set up and run such a data highway would cause, with such a > metaphor of the highway, think of the other entities that exist on our > roadways. Traffic violators! To address them, a special enforcement > agency will have to be established, a couple dozen or so layers of > beauracracy, and the makings of a DMV and Data Highway Patrol.:) Maybe > some faster cleaner routes could be set up with special *toll* > surcharges for those data users who demand uncongested data > movements.:) Some of these issues are already before policy makers, and you can bet that more are on the way. Last year, the Congress passed legislation that included provisions to remove the NSF's "Acceptable Use Policy," which restricts traffic on teh government funded backbone. At a hearing two weeks ago, EFF asked the House Science Subcommittee, which oversees the NSF, to ask why that had not happened yet. The problem isn't only one for the government-sponsored networks, though. Private carriers, including LECs as they offer newer services, also impose "acceptable use policies" -- consider examples often discussed in this newsgroup -- and there is no recourse except to go to another network. Finally, I understand that groups such as "Morality in Media" have asked Congressional leaders known to favor restrictions on certain types of controversial speech (e.g., Jesse Helms), to look into some of the information found in some newsgroups. To protect free expression on these info highways, we need to push for common carriage principles (e.g., non-discrimination on content) in the Data Superhighways/Infrastructure debate. As a separate matter, we already have "faster cleaner routes ... with special *toll* surcharges": private networks. The issue is not whether these might get set up; the issue is will the "National Information Infrastructure" be affordable and accessible to all users, will it promote free speech and exchange, and will it have options for interconnection. If somebody then wants to set up special routes, they should be allowed to do that, too. Andrew Blau Electronic Frontier Foundation 202-544-9237(v) Associate for 666 Pennsylvania Ave., S.E. 202-547-5481(f) Telecommunications Policy Washington, DC 20003 blau@eff.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 11:56:17 EST From: Jaap Akkerhuis Subject: North Korea Appears To Have Changed Most Telephone Numbers TOKYO (AP) _ North Korea, a bastion of totalitarian rule, has changed many of its phone numbers, a Japanese phone company official said today. A South Korean news report said the move might be aimed at stopping sensitive information from leaking. Takeo Tanaka of Kokusai Denshin Denwa Co., Japan's leading international telecommunications carrier, said North Korea notified the company of the changes by telex in mid-October. The North's message said the reason was a reorganization of the nation's telecommunications system. Tanaka said North Korea has two area codes _ 2 and 81 _ and that numbers beginning with 2 have become unreachable. Five-digit numbers have been replaced with six-digit ones, he said. On Monday, South Korea's national Yonhap News Agency said in a dispatch from Beijing that the hard-line Communist state has changed every single telephone number in the country to block all contact with overseas. Yonhap quoted unnamed observers in China as speculating that the move is to prevent information on "communal turmoil" and the health of North Korean President Kim Il Sung, 80, from reaching the outside world. Several KDD operators today had to spend more than an hour when requested by The Associated Press to get the new number of the North Korean Foreign Ministry from North Korean operators. A ministry official who answered the phone at the new number refused to respond to questions and hung up. Tanaka said North Korea does not publish a telephone directory, apparently because it considers the information secret. Only a handful of people in North Korea have telephones. Newspapers, radio and television are strictly government-controlled. ------------------------------ From: fred@dickens.com (Fred R Stearns) Subject: Re: DS0 Portion of a T1 Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 12:19:40 GMT Organization: Dickens Data Systems, Inc. In article goldstein@carafe.dnet. dec.com (Fred Goldstein writes: > The standard method is Pulse Code Modulation (PCM), with 8000 samples > per second and 8 bits transmitted per sample. > In North America, the low order bit is sometimes "robbed" for > signaling, (1/6 of the time) which limits data to 56 kbps. In North > America, a 12-bit linear sample is compressed to 8 bits via a formula > called mu-255 (note News won't pass Greek letters), while Europe > compresses it using a formula called "A law". Europe also inverts > alternate bits. So the two flavors of PCM are incompatible. Please excuse my math, but if one bit of every 6th byte is stolen, doesn't that make 62.667 kbps? Fred R. Stearns -- fred@dickens.com ------------------------------ From: edg@netcom.com (Ed Greenberg) Subject: Outrageous Hotel Phone Charges Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 13:04:21 GMT Of course, hotel charges of all kinds are outrageous. $18.75 for an average steak dinner? Seven-fifty for a plate of eggs and bacon? When you want it in the room, the dining room prices are inflated by 20-30 percent, and then a service charge is added on top of that. Telephone charges for calls that cost the hotel nothing. .75 or 1.00 for an 800 number. $3.00 to launder a shirt. How about a mandatory $2.00 surcharge for a safe installed in the room, whether you use it or not. I remember one hotel with a charge such as this, where the safe was locked and therefore unusable, but they were charging for it anyway. I don't really place the blame for this at the hotel door though. I place it squarely on american business, especially at the CEO and Vice President level. American executives consume most of the business travel dollars in this country, and they sign the expense reports of the salespeople and other travelling employees. If those holding the purse strings on travel dollars would stop sitting still for such charges, I believe that the market would drive hotel costs back to reality. Edward W. Greenberg | Home: +1 408 283 0511 | edg@netcom.com 1600 Stokes St. #24 | Work: +1 408 764 5305 | DoD#: 0357 San Jose, CA 95126 | Fax: +1 408 764 5003 | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH) ------------------------------ From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov (Scott Dorsey) Subject: Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? Date: 16 Feb 1993 13:49:44 GMT Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm In article markf@atlastele.com (Mark Ferris) writes: > My mom was asking me about an ad she read recently that was selling a > product that allowed a phone jack anywhere an electrical outlet is. > Anybody hear about this product? Any comments? Does it actually > work? What's the signal/noise ratio via this method? Would this > actually be a recommended way to add additional phone lines into a > house? Yes, these are great. One of the folks in our neighborhood has them, and we can all use their phone line together. scott [Moderator's Note: What a convenient arrangement! I had heard these devices get back as far as the transformer serving the neighborhood, and I guess your experience shows this is true. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 09:55:50 EST From: qchange@hogpa.ho.att.com (John J Butz +1 908 949 5302) Subject: EasyReach 700 Changes Has anyone noticed any changes to the EasyReach 700 service? jZb ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 10:27:07 EST From: kab@hotstone.att.com Subject: Re: E1 Lines - What Are They? Organization: AT&T In article , dannyb@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Danny Bielik) writes: > Could somebody please tell me what an E1 line is? Simple question, simple answer. E1 is the non-US/Japan equivalent of a T1 line. In the US, a DS1 (or T1) signal runs at 1.544 Mb/s, has 24 64 kb/s channels associated with it, and so on as readers of this group know. In Europe (and I'm sure other places) the standard for DS1 is known as "E1" which runs 2.048 Mb/s with 32 64 kb/s DS0 channels. There are other interesting differences: the line code is B3ZS; when not running clear DS1 one time slot holds framing and some maintenance information; there is (optionally) a second time slot that holds signaling information. So, a fully loaded T1 (USA domestic) has 24 time slots (DS0) channels; a fully loaded E1 (Practically everywhere else) has 30 time slots (DS0) channels. There is one interesting difference between T1 and E1: Channelized E1's don't have robbed bit signaling or an equivalent. Therefore, all data (as compared to signaling) DS0's in a channelized E1 are 64 kb/s clear. Ken Becker kab@hotstone.att.com DACS II hardware development ------------------------------ Subject: High-Speed Dial-Ups From: John@msus1.msus.edu (John Biederstedt) Date: 16 Feb 93 11:35:15 -0600 Organization: Mankato State University We have some T1 circuits and would like to provide high-speed dial backup capability. It would be nice to get 56 kb dial-ups. Codex makes such a modem, but it is compressed. Dissapointingly, they are moving to higher-speed asyncronous modems rather than syncronous modems. :-( Does the Internet have any suggestions? Thanks! John@msus1.msus.edu ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: Cellular Phones Power Control Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 18:00:46 GMT tcscs!zeta@src.honeywell.com (Gregory Youngblood) writes: > This is only one reason. I worked in several systems and frequently > had to disable cell sites power control features. Why? Because of > terrain and foilage conditions which changed during the year resulting > in a large number of dropped calls. By disabling this we were able to > get rid of that problem. We had to disable the power stepping in both > directions. And your handheld customers wonder why they get lousy battery life? John Nagle ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #102 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25369; 17 Feb 93 2:50 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21154 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 17 Feb 1993 00:17:44 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21796 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 17 Feb 1993 00:17:01 -0600 Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 00:17:01 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302170617.AA21796@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #103 TELECOM Digest Wed, 17 Feb 93 00:17:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 103 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Phone Questions (Phillip Dampier) Re: Cellular Phone Questions (Rich Greenberg) Re: Cellular Phone Questions (Steve Forrette) Re: DS0 Portion of a T1 (Steve Forrette) Re: DS0 Portion of a T1 (Al Varney) Re: DS0 Portion of a T1 (rfranken@cs.umr.edu) Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE (Dave Niebuhr) Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE (John R. Levine) Re: 'Secure' Motorola CT2 Silverlink (Andrew C. Green) Re: Help Needed Finding TDD Relay Service (Curtis E. Reid) Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (Bob Longo) Re: BBS Tax Passes Florida Senate (Jeffrey Jonas) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: phil@rochgte.fidonet.org (Phillip Dampier) Reply-To: phil@rochgte.fidonet.org Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 12:41:14 -0500 Subject: Cellular Phone Questions In a message from: wegeng.henr801c@xerox.com (Don Wegeng): > 2. The salesperson where I bought the phone suggested that I also > purchase a magnetic mount 3dB gain external antenna, for use when I'm > outside of the city limits (I have friends who live in the country, > but within the GenTel service area). Having an account with GenTel here in Rochester and one of their basic Motorola handheld units, I have found an external antenna is completely unnecessary. Genesee is in a constant battle with Rochester Tel to build cell cites all over the Rochester LATA. Rochester Tel really gives them a good run for their money. We have competitive cell phone prices here in Greater Rochester (I have their Occasional Call Plan - $16.95 a month plus 15c a minute off-peak (6p-8a), 50c a minute peak. They have other plans that will give you flat rate calling during off peak hours for just a few dollars more.) Because of the competition, I can take my handheld east to almost the outer suburbs of Syracuse with a clear signal, because they have loaded the area will cell sites along the NYS Thruway. I can get past Batavia to the west with no problems either. Western NY cell sites tend to be located close to the NY State Thruway, since much of the east-and-west traffic follows that route, and also north-south along interstates. In Rochester, that means Route 390 south. ------------------------------ From: richg@hatch.socal.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Questions Organization: Hatch Usenet and E-mail. Playa del Rey, CA Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 23:26:29 GMT The outside antenna will make considerable difference in the fringe areas. It may be only 3 db gain, but consider that the built-in whip inside the metal car is at least a 20db loss by comparison. Its a good idea to use it whenever you are in the car. This keeps RF energy away from your body. (RF is said by some to be hazardous to your health.) Rich Greenberg Work: rmg50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com 310-417-8999 N6LRT Play: richg@hatch.socal.com 310-649-0238 What? Me speak for Amdahl? Surely you jest.... ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Questions Date: 17 Feb 1993 00:01:16 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article wegeng.henr801c@xerox.com writes: > Background: My contract is with Genesee Telephone, which is the A > channel carrier here in the Rochester, NY area. > If I'm travelling in rural areas it may make sense (from > a safety perspective) to roam with both the A and B carriers. Is my > reasoning correct? > [Moderator's Note: Generally the A and B carriers stick to their own > kind when making roaming agreements. You'll usually only see A agree > to roaming terms with a B carrier or vice-versa when there is only one > (but not both) in a location. Generally speaking, if an A customer roams onto a B carrier, the B carrier will not be able to bill the A customer's bill directly, and will want to set up a temporary account billed to a major credit card. Most every B carrier I've dealt with has been set up to handle credit card accounts, but this is not very widespread on the A side as far as I can tell. My experience with the credit card temporary accounts is that they are a big hassle. First, there may be limited customer service hours in the city you roam in, so if you arrive in the evening or on a weekend, you may have to wait until the next business day to get set up. The last time I had to do this, it took over 20 minutes on the phone with customer service to give the required information. They want to know your phone's number, ESN, home carrier, home address, social security number, home phone number, credit card, etc, etc. They are really paranoid about fraud, so your regular cell phone's account has to have the same name and address as the credit card and so on. Then, it takes them about an hour to get the account set up in the switch. Also, since it's not a good idea to give out all of that confidential information over the air, you have to be calling from a landline to get set up which defeats a big advantage of having the cellular phone in the first place, especially if you are driving. The last time I did this, the charge was $15 to set up the temporary account, which was valid for up to 30 days. Then you pay whatever the roaming airtime rate is, usually $.99/minute. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com [Moderator's Note: And if all you are doing is passing through the territory on the way to somewhere else, you may as well forget a cell account with the opposite carrier. How long are you going to be in their coverage area when you are driving down the interstate anyway, a few hours perhaps? It isn't worth the trouble to stop and talk to them when you can just use the payphones at the rest stops. PAT] ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: DS0 Portion of a T1 Date: 17 Feb 1993 00:52:46 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article fred@dickens.com (Fred R Stearns) writes: > In article goldstein@carafe.dnet. > dec.com (Fred Goldstein writes: >> In North America, the low order bit is sometimes "robbed" for >> signaling, (1/6 of the time) which limits data to 56 kbps. > Please excuse my math, but if one bit of every 6th byte is stolen, > doesn't that make 62.667 kbps? The problem is that you don't know *which* samples have the 6th bit robbed. Also, each switching element in the connection path may use a different synchronization to choose which sixth of the bits to use. By the time the samples get to you, anywhere between 1/6 to 6/6 of the low-order bits may be changed, and even if you know how many are, you don't know which ones. So, the custom is just to ignore the LSB and use only the seven high-order bits. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 19:50:32 CST From: varney@ihlpl.att.com Subject: Re: DS0 Portion of a T1 Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL In article fred@dickens.com (Fred R Stearns) writes: > In article goldstein@carafe.dnet. > dec.com (Fred Goldstein writes: >> The standard method is Pulse Code Modulation (PCM), with 8000 samples >> per second and 8 bits transmitted per sample. >> In North America, the low order bit is sometimes "robbed" for >> signaling, (1/6 of the time) which limits data to 56 kbps. In North >> America, a 12-bit linear sample is compressed to 8 bits via a formula >> called mu-255 (note News won't pass Greek letters), while Europe >> compresses it using a formula called "A law". Europe also inverts >> alternate bits. So the two flavors of PCM are incompatible. Hmmm, inverts alternate bits?? My references don't mention this explicitly. Do you mean that the A-law table entries are "scrambled" by having the entry for (say) 00000011 represented as 01010110? That doesn't sound right to me -- but I'll check. On the other hand, if you are talking about T1/E1 line coding over the transmission facility using Alternate Mark Inversion (bipolar) to maintain a net DC power of 0, then both systems do "inversion". Note that bipolar coding is part of the transmission system, and not part of the DS1 data stream. For example, fiber doesn't use bipolar to transmit DS1 and higher data rates (probably would if light had a fast, easily-detected polarity not altered by fiber). > Please excuse my math, but if one bit of every 6th byte is stolen, > doesn't that make 62.667 kbps? Thank you, Fred, for the lead-in. (I think every class in digital transmission has someone sharp that asks that question.) There are two facts that no one told you: o- The generator of a 64-kbps (DS0) stream is not synchronized with any higher layer of the digital data system. That is, the generator only has to receive a bit clock from the network and generate bits at that rate. The generator is not aware of when the 6th (robbed) frame is coming, and cannot thus anticipate which bit will be stepped on. Your solution to this problem could be to just send at 62.666 ... kbps and let the DS1 level buffer bits and only insert seven bits into the appropriate sixth frames. o- When the DS1 stream runs through a digital switching system, the 6th frame on the incoming circuit and the 6th frame on the outgoing circuit are not synchronized. Some multiplexors may also do this. Since the signaling bits are independent on the two circuits, and at random positions relative to each other, an eight-bit value that was in frame three on the incoming circuit could be placed into frame six on the outgoing circuit. Now a byte has been damaged. The only answer is to assume the robbed-bit position in EVERY frame could be garbaged, and just send seven bits in each frame. Thus the 56-kbps rate. The unit that places eight-bit samples into each frame just forces the robbed-bit position to be a one. If the system steps on the bit, no one cares. It's ignored at the receiver. (This also insures that all zeroes in the seven bits will not yield eight bits of zero on the DS1 frame. Two such adjacent fields would be treated as a T1 framing failure.) Al Varney ------------------------------ From: rfranken@cs.umr.edu Subject: Re: DS0 Portion of a T1 Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 20:04:48 CST Fred Goldstein said: > The standard method is Pulse Code Modulation (PCM), with 8000 samples > per second and 8 bits transmitted per sample. > In North America, the low order bit is sometimes "robbed" for > signaling, (1/6 of the time) which limits data to 56 kbps. In North > America, a 12-bit linear sample is compressed to 8 bits via a formula > called mu-255 (note News won't pass Greek letters), while Europe > compresses it using a formula called "A law". Europe also inverts > alternate bits. So the two flavors of PCM are incompatible. > Of course, some long-haul transmission systems use lower bit rate > audio, like ADPCM. Actually, this is not (in most cases, at least), the primary reason that data is limited to 56Kbps ... data connections do not typically have one bit robbed for signalling. However, in a T1 data stream, there can not be more than 14 (I think ... it may be 15) consecutve 0's, as this could cause the repeaters to lose synchroziations. In voice lines, this is easy to fix ... just insert a 1 where needed ... human ears won't be able to tell the difference ... but in data, this is unacceptable, so they slow down to 56,000 bps and use one bit in each group of eight bits and set it to 1 always, thus ensuring proper one's density. T1 lines using B8Z8 have another method of eliminating the 0's problemand can be used at the full 64kbps. Also, ADPCM is not generally used on commerical LD (AT&T, Sprint, MCI), as it is not high enough quality. (Its fine for voice, but modems will not train at above 4800bps over an ADPCM trunk, and faxes are also limtied to 4800bps). Brett (rfranken@cs.umr.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 13:37:38 EST From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE In TELECOM Digest V13 #99 john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > co057@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven H. Lichter) writes: >> I would guess that if the return call is Toll or L/D it would appear >> as would any other one of that type. > Pacific Bell has stated that a return call that is toll will appear on > the bill with the last four digits converted to 'X's. Interestingly > enough, that is very useful information. If I suspect that some known > jerk in Hayward is calling me and I use "call return" on him and then > the bill shows up with the Hayward prefix of this person, it would be > strong circumstantial evidence of evil-doing. > Imagine if I actually found out who was annoying me on the telephone. > It drives the activists crazy to think that might be possible! NYTel (at least in the New York LATA (NYC, Long Island, Part of Area Code 914 and a small part of Area Code 203 (Conn.)) lists the number called that was returned with Call Return so long as the call was chargeable in both directions. I haven't used this feature much since I don't receive that many calls that are blocked (mostly from two people that I know). Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 16 Feb 93 17:07:32 EST (Tue) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) > Pacific Bell has stated that a return call that is toll will appear on > the bill with the last four digits converted to 'X's. > [Moderator's Note: If they blocked out the number with XXXX on my > bill, I would persist that since I was paying for the call, I was > entitled to know the number; then not pay for it until they revealed it. You're lucky you don't live in France. (Or perhaps the French are lucky that you live in the U.S.) French phone bills never show the last digits of the phone numbers in the call detail, due to privacy concerns. This includes direct dial calls. The theory is that the digits that they do show are adequate to document the amount that they're charging you. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 13:12:48 CST From: Andrew C. Green Reply-To: acg@hermes.dlogics.com Subject: Re: 'Secure' Motorola CT2 Silverlink Juha Veijalainen (JVE%FNAHA@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com) writes: > Motorola CT2 Silverlink cordless / TelePoint phones are supposedly > digital and transmit data over a 38400 bit/s link to your base station > or Telepoint cell. > Salespersons also tell that 'conversations cannot be eavesdropped'. > What they could not tell me is whether digital transmission itself is > considered 'secure' or is the actual data crypted or scrambled. As it happens, these phones are the exact units in use by Ameritech for their PCS trial here in Chicago. I use one. My understanding based on some conversations with Ameritech and with fellow Telecom reader Stu Jeffery of GTE (Hi, Stu!) is that they are indeed digital. My admittedly incomplete impression of the transmission details is that the data is not encrypted per se; however the frequency of the transmitted signal bounces around within a specific range, with the receiver presumably also tracking the frequency changes to keep up the connection. The theory as explained to me is that this enables many units running separate conversations to share the same spectrum, with a very low possibility of two different paths simultaneously landing on the same frequency by mistake. I don't know whether this is deliberately avoided by algorithm somehow, or whether it's statistically highly unlikely to happen. Security-wise, this has been popular for military applications since an eavesdropping receiver set to one particular frequency would not find anything. Similarly, without the proper algorithm (or whatever the handshake entails), an eavesdropping receiver would be unable to follow the frequency changes. Finally, in the relative chaos of a military field operation, a large number of units would be able to share the same spectrum without having to worry about who should be assigned what frequency, how they would be able to contact others, how many could be on the air at once, etc. I reserve the right to be wrong on some of the fine details above; if Stu Jeffery is reading this, I'm sure he can straighten us out. Andrew C. Green Datalogics, Inc. Internet: acg@hermes.dlogics.com 441 W. Huron UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!acg Chicago, IL 60610 FAX: (312) 266-4473 ------------------------------ Date: 16 Feb 1993 15:35:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Curtis E. Reid Subject: Re: Help Needed Finding TDD Relay Service In a message received on 16 Feb 1993, 07:07 Richard Osterberg wrote to TELECOM Digest V13 #101: > A good friend of mine has run into a small problem. She's deaf, so she > uses the TDD Relay Service quite frequently. However, her parents are > currently in Bulgaria for some time (overseas work), and they can't > call into a relay operator from overseas. Each state has its own > statewide 800 number to access the relay service, however these can't > be accessed when dialing into the US from overseas. Is there some sort > of a national/international TDD relay service? It's quite frustrating. There is no international TDD relay service to the best of my knowledge. If you can tell me which state she is in, perhaps I can find the relay's local number where her parents can call via USA Direct Service. I've read somewhere in previous TELECOM Digests that it is possible to call an 800 number via the USA Direct Service provided that you tell them you are paying for it. I don't know if that works or not. Curtis E. Reid CER2520@ritvax.isc.rit.edu Rochester Institute of Technology/NTID REID@DECUS.org (DECUS) P.O. Box 9887 716.475.6089 TDD/TT 475.6895 Voice Rochester, NY 14623-0887 U.S.A. 716.475.6500 Fax (Business Use Only) ------------------------------ From: Bob Longo Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State Date: 16 Feb 93 13:26:34 PST Organization: Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines In article , leavens@mizar.usc.edu (Justin Leavens) writes: > In article rlm@indigo2.hac.com (Robert > L. McMillin) writes: >> Which probably means that the switch was SS7-connected, but thanks to >> the California Public fUtilities Commission, EVERYBODY's phone number >> will show up as PRIVACY-enabled. After all, privacy is the same thing >> as anonymity ... NOT! > But the CPUC *approved* CNID with its guidelines. So shouldn't PacBell > (and GTE for that matter) be delivering CNID information where > appropriate (on any line that is not unlisted)? Or are they not > required to do anything that doesn't result in a profit? Absolutely! The lack of CNID is a result of PacBell and GTE acting like spoiled children and NOT a requirement by the CPUC. The CPUCs ruling was great, and I believe it reflected the opinion of the majority of Californians. Californians want CNID, but they also want per-line blocking to be available (which is what PacBell is vigorously opposed to). That is reasonable in a state where 40% of phone customers have unlisted numbers. Bob Longo (longo@sfpp.com) Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines Los Angeles, CA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 13:54:54 EST From: jeffj%jiji@uunet.UU.NET (Jeffrey Jonas) Subject: Re: BBS Tax Passes Florida Senate Hmmm, I am already thinking of ways a BBS could avoid the tax: 1) if the BBS is free, 6% of nothing is nothing. 2) Do non profit organizations have to collect the tax? 3) Or, a way to dance around the tax: the BBS is free for members of the club, and club dues are $xx/month and therefore not taxed. Jeffrey Jonas jeffj@panix.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #103 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27393; 17 Feb 93 3:45 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21682 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 17 Feb 1993 01:16:20 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18720 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 17 Feb 1993 01:15:40 -0600 Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 01:15:40 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302170715.AA18720@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #104 TELECOM Digest Wed, 17 Feb 93 01:15:40 CST Volume 13 : Issue 104 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 1-800-CALL-ATT 'ext. 21' (Laurence Chiu) Exchange Scanning - Enough Already! (Hugh Eaves) Re: What Number do I Dial From My Phone to Get My Phone to Ring? (Forrette) Re: V & H to Latitude/Longitude? (Bill Garfield) Re: Ma Bell Calling (Steven King) Pacific Bell and Out of State CID Delivery (Mark Rudholm) One-Way Outgoing Service (Jeffrey Jonas) Re: Graybar Hotel, Sorry. (Ed Greenberg) Re: Procedure to use 800-321-0ATT (Ed Greenberg) Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Mike Riddle) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: LCHIU@HOLONET.NET Subject: Re: 1-800-CALL-ATT 'ext. 21' Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 03:39:08 GMT In a message to Comp.dcom.telecom, Tdarcos@access.digex.com had the following to say about Re: 1-800-CALL-ATT 'ext. 21': > The usual practice is for the customer to select the carrier they > want. Or they can often dial 1-0 and the three digit code (usually > called the '10XXX code') belonging to that carrier. Some telephones, > especially private pay stations and hotels, have their lines connected > to a specific carrier (because of commissions paid by the carrier) and > even go so far as to block the '1-0-xxx' code (which is illegal, like > 'red lining' some areas so that people can't use credit cards to some > countries, but it's done anyway). Also, if you are calling from an > office that cannot give you a dial tone to dial a long distance call, > you may have to use an operator and pay more for the call. > So AT&T, like its competitors, implemented a code off of one of its > 800 numbers you could dial into, then when you got to AT&T's "welcome" > message, you could punch in '21' on a touch-tone pad and be given to > AT&T's switch and be able to dial a call directly over AT&T's > facilities. I have a couple of comments and questions on that. Firstly, does anybody know why when you call 1-800-CALL-ATT you get a message, "to complete your call please press or dial 1 now" (or words to that effect). Unless it's some kind of touch-tone determination. I am going to find this a little annoying. 800-CALL-ATT is easy to remember. Plus it's printed on AT&T's calling card. I use this way to gain access to AT&T's network often enough because: 1) 10XXX seems to be blocked from my work phone (though all LD is allowed via our default carrier of MCI) But I don't want to charge personal calls on the company. 2) As many people have pointed out, intra LATA calls can be carried by AT&T if you use this method, whereas if you do 10XXX or rely on a phone's 1+ carrier, you usually get the local telco. At peak times, inter LATA calls via PacBell anyway are outrageously priced. I am going to have to put a little sticker on my calling card now :) Laurence Chiu lchiu@holonet.net ------------------------------ Date: 16 Feb 1993 22:36:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Hugh Eaves Subject: Re: Exchange Scanning - Enough Already! bill.garfield@yob.sccsi.com (Bill Garfield) writes: (edited) > My employer, at our Houston corporate office, has _all_ of one > exchange plus 3,000 numbers in another exchange. Approximately 4500 > of the total numbers are currently unassigned, reserved for expansion. > Recently, I did a traffic study on calls going to intercept due to > number not in service. I was shocked to discover that we're taking > over 5,000 intercept pegs per day, every day. > SWBT tells me that most of this is due to "scanning" and that there > are legitimate companies that actually perform this "service". > Why is this legal? This to me, constitutes nuisance calling and > harrassment. What can be done to stop it? > [Moderator's Note: It is harassment and nuisance calling to dial a > number, let it ring once and disconnect when done deliberatly as > part of a scan. PAT] Harrasment and nuisance is a misdemeanor in Virginia (it probably is in most states). It is also against federal law. However, as stated in Virginia law: "Any person who, without intent to converse but with _intent to annoy_ any other person, causes any telephone not his own to ring, and any person who permits or condones the use of any telephone under his control for such purposes shall be guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor." It seems that it would have to be proven that the call was made with "intent to annoy" as opposed to information gathering or other purposes. If I remember correctly, though, people have been arrested for scanning. Maybe they were prosecuted under a different law. Does anyone have any better information on the current laws applying to "scanning"? Hugh L. Eaves Internet: hleaves@ruby.vcu.edu Medical College of Virginia Bitnet: hleaves@vcuruby Department of Human Genetics Voice: (804) 371-8754 ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: What Number do I Dial From My Phone to Get My Phone to Ring? Date: 17 Feb 1993 01:06:39 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article oppedahl@Panix.Com (Carl Oppedahl) writes: > According to Part 68 of the FCC regulations, the local telco is > supposed to tell you how to make your line ring back ... so that if > you have installed your own phone jacks you can test them out. > The idea is to put do-it-yourselfers on a level playing field with the > telco inside-wiring installers. Otherwise, if they keep the number > secret, their installers would have an unfair advantage. > [Moderator's Note: Telco need not provide an automated service for > this purpose or tell you how to access the automated service. They > need only to make your bell ring on request. In other words, the > business office could have told you to ask the operator to ring you > back. That would have met the requirements. PAT] Are you sure? If the stated purpose of this regulation is to provide non-telco inside wiring folks a level playing field, then allowing the telco to internally use an automated service, while requiring that non-telco personnel use a manual service through the operator, is NOT providing a level playing field, now is it? Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: V & H to Latitude/Longitude? From: bill.garfield@yob.sccsi.com (Bill Garfield) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 07:00:00 -0600 Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569 Reply-To: bill.garfield@yob.sccsi.com (Bill Garfield) One of the new features in the upcoming release of the shareware program 'NPA' by Robert Ricketts addresses this issue. The latest version is currently in final beta. I will be notifying our Moderator here when it is released to the public BBS networks and CI$. NPA author Robert Ricketts is a personal friend of mine who so happens to work at the same company as I. He has provided me with a pre-release beta of the latest version and has tentative plans to release it to the public bbs network sometime within the next three or four weeks. It will also be posted on CI$ at the same time, in the 'Safety Net' I believe. For those not familiar with this program, it is either command line or menu driven lookup of *ANY* NPA-NXX which can sort on any field, city, county, state, NPA, NXX, supports wildcards. The newest version is blazingly fast compared to previous releases. Bill Garfield | Standard disclaimer applies. PBX/Datacom Engineer | Opinions are my own and not Panhandle Eastern Corp. | my employer's. Ye Olde Bailey BBS 713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis) Houston,Texas yob.sccsi.com Home of alt.cosuard [Moderator's Note: Please do let us know, and I'll put a coy in the Telecom Archives for everyone who wants it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: king@rtsg.mot.com (Steven King, Software Archaeologist) Subject: Re: Ma Bell Calling Reply-To: king@rtsg.mot.com Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 23:08:27 GMT Donald E. Kimberlin <0004133373@mcimail.com> publicly declared: > Concerning the relative cost of a DDD adventure as a youth in 1957, > John wrote: >> As soon as I realized what it was, I hung up. The charge? $2.00! And >> those were 1957 dollars. (Today it would be what? $.20? Terrible!) > That prompted me to get out a shareware program that's stowed around > here, and see what the current dollar cost of $2.00 expended in 1957 > was. [...] This threw me for a second too, but I believe John was refering to the cost of the call being $.20 these days, not $2.00 in 1957 dollars being worth $.20 in 1993 dollars. It makes a lot more sense if you read it this way! Steven King, Motorola Cellular (king@rtsg.mot.com) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 15:40:18 PST From: rudholm@ruby.aimla.com (Mark Rudholm) Subject: Pacific Bell and Out of State CID Delivery Well, Pacific Bell has never offered CID (as we all know) but *67 has returned a secondary dialtone for at least three years now from my parents' home (213-265) and other COs. It works from my home as well, 213-930. I'd really be interested in spending a few minutes one evening calling someone who has Caller ID service. I'd like to know (and pass on to c.d.t. of course) what happens when I call a Caller ID equipped phone both with and without *67. By the way, I'm scheduled to have Call Return (*69) activated on my phone (213-930) on March 1st! I think it'll really surprise a lot of crank-callers because there has been NO announcement or advertisement made about it as far as I can tell (like most c.d.t. readers, I tend to watch these things pretty closely.) What fun! Now everybody, repeat after me "The CPUC has NOT prohibited Caller ID in California." Understand? Good. Regardless of what Pacific Bell and GTE CA would like you to believe, this is the case. The reason there is no CID here is because both of those carriers claim that they believe that the restrictions would make the service unprofitable to offer. Their biggest complaint is with the requirement that unpublished numbers will default to the per-line-blocked state. Of couse, the customer can have her/his line's blocking status set any way they choose. I honestly think that the telcos are wrong in their thinking that anyone who can block, will block. I think most people will decide that they WANT to announce themselves whith CID when they place a call, especially personal calls (which are most of the calls I place from home by far, anyway.) Sure, with blocking available, CID won't be much good against crank-cals but call-return and call-trace should deal with that pretty well and really, CID's biggest selling point isn't dealing with crank-calls (and I wish telcos would stop acting like it is) it's the fact that you can announce yourself. So if anyone in World Zone 1 has Caller ID and would like to do some experimenting, send me E-Mail. Mark D. Rudholm Philips Interactive Media of America rudholm@aimla.com 11050 Santa Monica Boulevard +1 213 930 1449 Los Angeles, CA 90025 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 18:16:45 EST From: jeffj%jiji@uunet.UU.NET (Jeffrey Jonas) Subject: Re: One-Way Outgoing Service I am curious about this: > [Moderator's Note: Clever response. Since you only make outgoing calls > on those lines occassionally, and never have incoming calls, you > should ask telco to set the lines up as one-way outgoing service only. > Then you'd never see any wrong numbers at all. PAT] Is "one-way outgoing service" an additional cost? I've heard of the opposite (incoming only, to prevent any long distance billing), but no incoming calls -- interesting. Would those lines even HAVE a phone number? Could they all be the same number, and billed based on some imaginary number (trunk/line number just as places with more than one line at the same number)? At home, I have a second line that I'm currently using only for outgoing modem/data calls. Someday I may have a FAX or BBS, so I do not intend to block incoming calls, but it is a curious idea. Could you elaborate why this service is offered? If it is possible to have a phone line with no number, what would Caller-ID report? ANO? I guess that *SOME* number must be associated with every line for billing purposes. Drat -- I'd like to have a number with no ANI so 900 numbers can't bill me. Or was I not supposed to notice that? Jeffrey Jonas jeffj@panix.com [Moderator's Note: Lines equipped for outgoing only service generally have regular phone numbers attached to them. Callers to those numbers either get a busy signal (if the line is in use on an outgoing call) or an intercept message, "The number you dialed, xxx-xxxx is not in service for incoming calls" if the line is not busy. There are other variations: Lines for incoming service only generally provide battery but no dial tone to the subscriber if picked up with no call coming in. Then there is this odd one: "The number you dialed, xxx-xxxx cannot be reached from outside the customer's premises." These are centrex lines which can make or receive calls from other centrex extensions but are blocked from making or receiving calls from outside the local network. A strange one I came across the other day was on an island in the area 809 group of small country/islands: "The number you have dialed is restricted from receiving international calls. This is a Cable & Wireless recording." (C&W is the local telco for a few of those places.). Illiois Bell at least does not charge extra for lines which are restricted in one direction or the other; you just pay the regular monthly fee for having the phone there. I suppose restricted lines (in either direction) are offered because the subscriber does not want to receive incoming calls on those lines or have people making any outgoing calls on them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: edg@netcom.com (Ed Greenberg) Subject: Re: Graybar Hotel, Sorry. Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 04:20:02 GMT In Marin County, CA, the county civic center (the government building) is a famous Frank Lloyd WRight structure. It's pink, Spanish in design and has a bright blue roof. One of the things it houses is the Sheriff and Jail. While local residents sometimes call the Marin Civic Center "Big Pink", the Jail is known as the "Blue Roof Inn." Edward W. Greenberg | Home: +1 408 283 0511 | edg@netcom.com 1600 Stokes St. #24 | Work: +1 408 764 5305 | DoD#: 0357 San Jose, CA 95126 | Fax: +1 408 764 5003 | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH) ------------------------------ From: edg@netcom.com (Ed Greenberg) Subject: Re: Procedure to use 800-321-0ATT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 04:21:32 GMT My experience with 1-800-321-0ATT is that it's busy a lot. :-( Edward W. Greenberg | Home: +1 408 283 0511 | edg@netcom.com 1600 Stokes St. #24 | Work: +1 408 764 5305 | DoD#: 0357 San Jose, CA 95126 | Fax: +1 408 764 5003 | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 12:00:10 CST From: Mike.Riddle@axolotl.omahug.org (Mike Riddle) Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones Reply-To: mike.riddle%inns@axolotl.omahug.org Organization: Inns of Court, Papillion, NE john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)) writes: > Scanner laws will be just about as effective as gun laws -- only much > sillier. The FCC is seriously deluded if it thinks it can win a > technological war with anyone. The below-average moron outguns the FCC > in the brain cell department. This may well be true, :-), but as the original post noted, the FCC is under a mandate from our Congre$$ Critter$ to promulgate reguations on this subject. Now if anyone wonders about the collective I.Q. of Congre$$ on technological matters ... PAT has some perfectly dry tunnels under Chicago to sell. Maximus 2.01wb Riddle Law Office (1:285/28) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #104 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00857; 17 Feb 93 5:08 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13740 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 17 Feb 1993 02:40:42 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31244 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 17 Feb 1993 02:39:43 -0600 Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 02:39:43 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302170839.AA31244@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #105 TELECOM Digest Wed, 17 Feb 93 02:39:40 CST Volume 13 : Issue 105 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Third Party Network Connectivity (Lars Poulsen) Re: GTE On the "Move" (John Higdon) Re: EasyReach 700 Changes (Dave Rand) Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? (John R. Levine) UK PHoneDAY Details (Linc Madison) What About #? (Jeffrey Jonas) DECT (Digital European Cordless Telecommunication) Info Request (E. Jang) FX Service Across Area Codes (Phydeaux) The War on Pagers (Jeff Hibbard) Beepers and Pagers Question (Molly Geiger) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 23:05:33 PST From: lars@CMC.COM (Lars Poulsen) Subject: Re: Third Party Network Connectivity Organization: CMC Network Systems (Rockwell DCD), Santa Barbara, CA, USA In article Ron Beach writes: > I'm looking for someone to help me research the issue of one business > directly connecting it's internal network to that of another company > - a supplier, a business partner, a vendor, etc. We call that 'third > party connectivity' within BP (British Petroleum, ne Standard Oil). When I first read this request, I assumed, from my limited perspective, that you were discussing data networks, with an emphasis on TCP/IP protocols. I then noticed that Patrick was answering from the perspective of phone networks, which on a second reading, was equally valid. > I need to identify real-world business examples of existing third > party connections, identify costs of providing restricted connections, > identify what costs would reduce (hopefully) to if the connection was > more 'open', and access the cost impact in terms of changes needed to > protect 'internal' information or resources or establish 'firewalls' > between parts of the 'internal' network-plus any costs for the time > of people to make these assements. One egregious example of third party connection, is attaching the corporate network to the Internet. To do this with some control over the exposure and risk incurred, requires some planning, but the requirements are fairly well understood. In the case of the global TCP/IP Internet, the benefits from the third party connectivity are obvious. The risks are much less understood. Many people worry about random attacks from "malicious hackers"; but while there is some potential for damage from such sources, the real threat is more likely to come from disgruntled employees or ex-employees. To control the risk exposure, you need to partition your network in a fashion similar to how you secure a building; indeed in some cases, the network partitions may parallel building compartments. 1) At the gateways from the outside network to the corporate network, access controls should be instituted on the border routers. Most likely, these will take the form of packet filters, such as: - allow domain name querys to the two name servers - allow incoming MAIL, TELNET and FTP connections only to the three "public gateway" hosts. - allow incoming and outgoing news (NNTP) connections to the public gateways - allow outgoing Gopher, TELNET and FTP from anywhere in the internal network - allow no other traffic to pass 2) Similarly, a company-wide interdepartmental backbone can be identified, with major departments connecting to the backbone in manners similar to the way the company network connects to the Internet. Similar access controls may be imposed at the gateways that link departments to the backbone. 3) Finally, a companywide computer security policy must be in place, which defines what risks one is concerned with, and what acceptable use policies are in effect. Finally, the policy must plan what will be done when violations are detected. RFC1244 provides an outline for such a policy. At my company, we have about 100 employees in our main facility, which is on the internet, as CMC.COM; some smaller offices are connected by dial-up links. Our parent company, Rockwell International, has its own worldwide multiprotocol Internet, with sites connected on T1 and 56kbps links. When we joined Rockwell about five years ago, the Rockwell network was mostly SNA and DECNET. Since then, it has become mostly TCP/IP, and Cisco routers now connect departments to the backbone, which is run by the corporate MIS department. The corporate networking group is of a similar size as the U.S. regional Internet service providers, and charges similar fees to the user departments. > [Moderator's Note: Mr. Beach should review Unitel, the internal > telecom network for United Airlines. Rockwell, like other large companies with multiple sites, provides a corporate telephone network with seven-digit numbers for almost every employee world-wide, and allows most employees to dial these numbers unrestricted while requiring the use of a "calling card" to call numbers outside of this network. Until a few years ago, this network was built on Rockwell-manufactured switches, but it is now implemented by in IXC-provided "Software Defined Network" which is procured competitively (and actually changes suppliers once in a while with no change in phone numbers). I have been very impressed with the translation services provided by the SDN, as well as the accounting features. Considering the amount of tedious data management that must be required to keep our translations in a large number of IXC switches, alongside with the public dialing plan and a few hundred other SDN translation sets, I find it impressive that I have never heard of large-scale mistranslations. Some people complain about connection quality, but mostly I think this dates back to an institutional memory of the days before the network was outsourced. Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer Internet E-mail: lars@CMC.COM CMC Network Products / Rockwell Int'l Telephone: +1-805-968-4262 Santa Barbara, CA 93117-3083 TeleFAX: +1-805-968-8256 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 22:07 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: GTE On the "Move" barnett@zeppelin.convex.com (Paul Barnett) writes: > This is the new reality at GTE Telephone Operations, based in Irving, > where management wants nothing short of a complete culture change -- > from bureaucratic to lean and creative, from a regulated utility to a > telecommunications services company. Institutional propaganda has become the marketing tactic of the nineties. When I read this article, I checked the date. It seems my deja vu was triggered by the fact that Pac*Bell has been talking about this (and doing something about it) for more than five years. Of course, it did not have to move its customer service and repair operations to Texas (or even Thousand Oaks) to stay on top of it. Pacific Gas and Electric (a sorry excuse for a utility if there ever was one -- the GTE of energy) has joined the "competition" frey. In a recent {San Francisco Chronicle} article, spokespersons for PG&E admitted that the company's rates were among the highest in the nation. As a result, many of its largest customers have turned to their own co-generation facilities for electric power. It turns out to be cheaper for a large manufacturing company in California to generate its own electricity than to buy from PG&E, even at "discount" rates. Residence customers have been subsidizing business electric rates for years. But there was another shocker. "Our customers want more reliable service", sayeth a PG&E executive. No excrement, Sherlock! It seems that digital clocks and computers have put PG&E's little "mini-outages" in customers' faces. So what is the plan? Cut the workforce, says PG&E. "We need to become lean and mean." Now, given that PG&E's facilities suffer from gross neglect (causing many of the outages), how does trimming the workforce make the company better? How does moving GTE's facilities to Texas improve that company's service? > In a considerably more competive world, GTE believes that its > Telephone Operations unit must adapt to a fast-moving environment, and > it must do so quickly. So they move it all out of town? If droids in Thousand Jokes had no idea where Los Gatos was, the weenies in Plano, TX, will probably ask if it is in the US. And when I have to make the fifteen callbacks to follow up on repairs, I will have to make sure that my long distance calling plans include Texas, since GTE insists that you do business with the company on your own nickel. (I hope Pac*Bell does not start cutting costs in this manner.) > There's an sidebar with a sampling of the goals of GTE Telephone > Operations, extracted from an employee handbook. I'll follow up with > it later if there is any interest. I will bet that is entertaining reading. > The whole article reads more like marketing propaganda than anything > else, but I thought it was interesting to see "The Phone Company" > admit that they might be doing something wrong. This is just the "new marketing". GTE never does anything wrong. I have been told that thousands of times over the last thirty years. Understand that GTE has to sooth many customers (particularly those served by good phone companies that were taken over by the evil empire) who justifiably feel abandoned when the local offices suddenly sport "For Sale" signs. "We are slapping you in the face and walking out on you and your town so that we can supply better service, blah, blah, blah." Even GTE employees are bummed by the rush out of town. I have always said that GTE was a disease. Now it is beginning to metastasize. But it is nice to see that it took a course in Propaganda and Public Relations. It used to just kick you in the teeth without even so much as a by-your-leave. At least at my residence I will be served by a company that maintains a presence in California. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: dlr@daver.bungi.com (Dave Rand) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 22:09:54 PST Subject: Re: EasyReach 700 Changes [In the message entitled "EasyReach 700 Changes" on Feb 16, 12:10, John J Butz writes: > Has anyone noticed any changes to the EasyReach 700 service? The EasyReach main menu has changed. The forwarding option that allows you to forward your calls to the number you are calling from has been removed, effective 02/01/93. There was no announcment of this prior to the change. This also removes the highly useful ANAC feature (determining the number that you are calling from). Customer service gives two reasons for this change: Many people had complained that using the feature would result in calls being forwarded to the billing number, rather than the extension being called from. This was also cited as a potential security problem, as some businesses apparently did not want their billing number divulged. The second reason has to do with customer service assisting people in programming their forwarding. When calling in via the 800 number, as must be done from time to time due to billing restrictions, COCOT's and the like, the customer service direct number would be used as the target number (of course) rather than the customer's number. The people that I spoke to were knowledgable, and very familiar with the product. They are collecting customer feedback on this change, so if you don't like it -- call them. The customer service number is 800-982-8480. As EasyReach is not (currently) available outside the USA, a direct-dial number is not available. I still use the service, and find it an essential part of my telephone needs. Dave Rand {pyramid|mips|bct|vsi1}!daver!dlr Internet: dlr@daver.bungi.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 16 Feb 93 17:13:53 EST (Tue) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) >[Moderator's Note: They work okay unless you have flourescent lights Hmmn, flourescent lights? I've been able to get flour to explode, but never to glow continuously. Have you told the USDA about this? Surely price supports are needed. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl PS: :-) [Moderator's Note: Sorry about that. After the first 50K bytes of text go across my screen each day, I sometimes get careless. Those lights can cause a lot of noise to communication systems however. I recall an instance in about 1972: A friend was hired to relocate about eight or so six-button, five-line phones for the First Unitarian Church in Chicago, 312-FAIrfax-4100. He asked me to help him. They had four outside lines and a dial intercom on the fifth position. One thing I noticed before and after the relocating of the phones (they had moved their offices around a little) was a very soft 'hum' in the background om each outside line in the second or so the phone was off hook before the dial tone arrived. Likewise, on incoming calls, the caller heard this soft 'hum' instantly on connecting and during the ringing. It went away once a connection was made, and could not be heard when there was conversation on the line. I called repair service to see about getting it cleared up, and shortly thereafter got a call back from a foreman in the CO. This guy croaked like a frog and said to me, "First Church, eh? ... I told you people a year ago to get the electric wires for the ceiling lights in the office out of *my* conduit! No way to get rid of the noise until you vacate the conduit. I'm going to have the Business Office write you another letter on it." All my arguments about conduit-in-common, and various court rulings saying that everyone was entitled to use the *property owner's* conduit including but not limited to telco went over his head. "We had that conduit first! When we pulled pairs through there it was empty. Then you people installed those new lights in the offices and pulled wire right through *my* conduit ... I stood there a year ago and watched them do it." A letter from the Business Office a few days later said that while it was true that conduit was available to all for use, they were 'there first' and would not have used it had they found 'other wiring not their own' inside it. Since it now had other, non-telco wiring in it, we had to live with it or pull ours out. A little experimentation with some filters got the noise to where it was barely audible if you listened very closely. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 21:57:09 GMT From: Linc Madison Reply-To: telecom@hedonist.demon.co.uk Subject: UK PHoneDAY Details [The following is excerpted from British Telecom's brochure about "PHoneDAY", 16 April 1995, on which date significant changes will occur in all numbers in the United Kingdom.] THE COUNTDOWN HAS STARTED TO PH[ONE]DAY On 16 April 1995 all UK area codes starting [0] will start [01]. Here's why. A number 1 will be added to all UK area codes at 1:00am on the morning of 16 April 1995. Manchester's code, for example, will then change from 061 to 0161. This is happening to meet the huge demand throughout the country for new codes and numbers. These changes were decided by OFTEL, the telecommunications watchdog, after lengthy consultation with those most affected, including businesses and customers. The result will be enough codes and numbers to last us well into the next century. Other changes to look out for: There are two other changes taking place on 16 April 1995, in addition to the changes to UK area codes. The first concerns the cities of Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham, Leicester, and Bristol. They desperately need more numbers as a result of the overall growth in telecommunications services, and the rapid growth of the cities themselves. Each of these cities will therefore get a new area code and an additional digit (an extra 9 or 2) in front of the existing six-digit local telephone number. * Leeds - 0532 xxxxxx becomes 0113 2xx xxxx * Sheffield - 0742 xxxxxx becomes 0114 2xx xxxx * Nottingham - 0602 xxxxxx becomes 0115 9xx xxxx * Leicester - 0533 xxxxxx becomes 0116 2xx xxxx * Bristol - 0272 xxxxxx becomes 0117 9xx xxxx The other change taking place involves the international dialing code. At present it's 010, but a European Community standard requires all European countries to share the same international dialing code. From 16 April 1995, the code will therefore change to 00. There is also a move around the world to adopt 00 as the standard international code. [There follows a Q&A section. Selected excerpts...] Q: Will all numbers change? A: No. Mobile phones will still use the same codes [0831, 0836, 0850, 0860, and others]; only geographic area codes will change. 0800 and 0345 numbers won't change either. Nor will recorded message phone lines beginning with codes like 0891 [and 0898]. Q: Why couldn't these changes have been made at the same time as the London code change? A: London simply couldn't wait for an increase in phone numbers. We had to act by 1990, and OFTEL hadn't made a decision about the National Code Change at that stage. [The brochure also mentions that there will be permissive dialling in effect beginning in August, 1994.] Readers within the UK can dial 0800 01 01 01 for more information. ---------- Linc Madison == Linc@Hedonist.Demon.co.uk == Telecom@Hedonist.Demon.co.uk 59 Stourcliffe Close, London W1H 5AR Tel. +44 71 723 0582 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 13:48:02 EST From: jeffj%jiji@uunet.UU.NET (Jeffrey Jonas) Subject: What About # Dear Elana Beach, I wish to add to Pat's comments on why "#" is not used: What about people using rotary/pulse phones? Since "*" is a prefix, you can dial "11" instead of the "*" (ex: call trace is *57 or 1157). But how can you dial the "#" suffix using numbers only? It's quite ambiguous. So shed those excess pounds! (hmmm, I wonder what would happen if I modified the dialer to give more than ten pulses -- what would I get? Perhaps 11 pulses gives *, 12 pulses gives # so that playing with the dial as it returns could give a hack for dialing * and #). Jeffrey Jonas jeffj@panix.com ------------------------------ From: jang@acsu.buffalo.edu (Euee S. Jang) Subject: DECT (Digital European Cordless Telecommunication) Info Request Organization: UB Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 19:25:43 GMT DECT( Digital European Cordless Telecommunications) information needed: I am considering the DECT for the environment for my experiment. Right now, I am having difficulties in finding out the details in DECT. I got some articles but it is just an introduction. Does someone have any kind of detail in DECT? Also, can anyone recommend some articles on DECT? Erik Jang jang@acsu.buffalo.edu Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering State University of New York at Buffalo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 12:41:07 PST From: reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux) Subject: FX Service Across Area Codes Hi! I'll soon be moving about a mile, from Springfield NJ (201-376 Millburn CO) to Union, NJ (908-686,687,688,851,964 Union CO). Unfortunately, these are not served by the same CO, and NJ Bell tells me that there is a $410 charge for FX service plus $11.67 for the first mile and $3.35 for each additional mile per month. Is FX service usually this expensive? Are there any other alternatives which I'm overlooking? Trying to hold on to my current 201 number as long as I can, reb [Moderator's Note: FX service becomes expensive when it has to run between two central offices which connect direct to each other. It becomes *very expensive* when it involves tying up a pair full time between two offices not next to each other (meaning it has to pass through some third office). It is *very, very expensive* when it involves different LATAs or some other telco or an LD carrier with intervening offices, etc. At our firm here in Chicago, we have an FX line to New Jersey and one to Los Angeles. They cost BIG $$ monthly. A modern alternative is 'remote call forwarding'. Ask telco to terminate your current 201 number right in the CO where it is now and put it on permanent call forwarding to your new number. That will only cost $15-20 per month plus all calls it forwards at direct dial rates. You'll get a lot of calls for the price of an FX, which is only needed if you feel you must continue to make outgoing calls on the 201 number as well. Despite what may be lower priced calls dialed via 201, you'll need lots of them to justify what the line itself will cost you each month. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jeff@bradley.bradley.edu (Jeff Hibbard) Subject: The War on Pagers Organization: Bradley University Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 20:13:28 GMT > [Moderator's Note: In the Chicago Public Schools, pagers are > considered verbotin and are confiscated from students. This is part > of the War on Drugs. PAT] It's not just Chicago, it's state-wide. Illinois state law allows pagers and cellular phones to be confiscated from anybody (not just students) who brings them onto school property. If I visit my son's school wearing my (employer-supplied) pager, they can keep it. If I drive through the school's parking lot to pick him up, they can confiscate the cellular phone in my car. An adult who gives a student such a device to take to school can do a year in jail and pay a $10,000 fine. Although text in the actual bill passed makes it clear the intent was to forbid cellular phones and pagers, all of the above actually applies to "communication devices", which the law defines as anything designed to receive or transmit radio signals outside of the commercial broadcast band. For example, if I let my son take my Radio Shack "Time Cube" (which can only receive WWV) to show-and-tell, they could confiscate it, fine me $10,000 and lock me up for a year. ------------------------------ From: Molly Geiger Subject: Beepers and Pagers Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 03:00:14 GMT Organization: University of Illinois I am looking for information on radio pagers and beepers. Basically, I need to know how these instruments are being updated to compete with current technologies. Also, what types of communication are being used as alternatives to the beeper? What about PCN? Voice-mail? Post any information please. Thanks! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #105 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23575; 17 Feb 93 15:40 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07220 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 17 Feb 1993 12:45:36 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20985 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 17 Feb 1993 12:45:03 -0600 Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 12:45:03 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302171845.AA20985@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #106 TELECOM Digest Wed, 17 Feb 93 12:45:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 106 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson New Directions, New Choices (Rochester Telephone via Phillip Dampier) AT&T Billing Practices --> Illegal? (Christopher Wolf) Boston-CT Delivery, NY Gets FMR (Douglas Scott Reuben) Fiber Optic Television Information Request (Martin Egan) Cellular Switching Question (Gregory Youngblood) Telecom in Banking Industry (Clayton E. Kuetemeyer) Status of Cellular Resellers in California? (Robert Michael Gutierrez) Need Names of Carrier for 800-xxx Number (Glenn McComb) Multi-line Answering Machine (Paul E. Hoffman) Re: White House Phone Factoids (Brian Gordon) Re: Hilton Hotel Telephone Surcharge (Dennis G. Rears) Re: Running Out of Area Codes (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: phil@rochgte.fidonet.org (Phillip Dampier) Reply-To: phil@rochgte.fidonet.org Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 15:57:31 -0500 Subject: New Directions, New Choices The following text comes from a booklet Rochester Telephone is sending in all telephone bills this month. | NEW DIRECTIONS | | NEW CHOICES | ** New Opportunities for Telephone Customers ** :: Rochester Telephone's "Open Market Plan" is Important to Everyone Rochester Telephone is proposing an "Open Market Plan" which will introduce competition for local telephone service in the Rochester, N.Y. market. It is our response to the reality of competition which faces every business today, including ours. :: Making the Move to An Open Market Competition has changed the telephone industry for the better. From long distance to cellular, competition is the way of the future. Our plan will allow customers, for the first time, to choose their local service company. We envision this will result in a broader selection of products and services for Rochester customers. Accordingly, Rochester Telephone has developed a plan for opening the local market to all competitors. To insure a level playing field and provide customers with the best service at the best price, Rochester Telephone plans to restructure itself by creating two new companies under a parent Holding Company. :: Creating Two New Companies To Meet the Needs of Both Customers & :: Competitors Our plan calls for creating two distinct companies. One company, temporarily referred to as R-Net, will be regulated by the New York State Public Service Commission and act as a wholesale "network" company. It will let competitors use our network services. These competitors will resell these telephone services to area customers. The second company, temporarily referred to as R-Com, will be a real competitive company. It will offer a complete package of telephone products and services to the general public -- directly competing with all other companies which enter the market. Our competitive company will buy from the wholesale network company at the same prices paid by all competitors. The new parent company will be formed to serve as a Holding Company for all our subsidiaries. All three companies will receive permanent names at some point in the future. "I don't want anything fancy. Can I still get basic service from Rochester Telephone?" Yes. You will be able to get basic service from our new competitive company, R-Com. "Will R-Com be like Rochester Telephone today? Will it service both residential and business customers? Absolutely. R-Com will offer basic residential and business dial tone service, along with the extra features you already rely on to stay efficient, like Voice Mail, Call Waiting, and many others. You can also look forward to some very exciting new features and service packages. :: Having More Choices Will Benefit Customers For Rochester Telephone, Open Market restructuring offers us the chance to broaden the scope and quality of our own competitive products and services and to introduce new technologies. Competition typically results in a greater range of choices, lower prices and more attractive products and services. We expect our customers to quickly benefit from the new choices available to them. "Is this good for me?" We think so. By eliminating some regulatory restrictions, we can move faster to offer our customers a wider choice of advanced products and services ... at competitive prices. Long distance offers a perfect example. Competition in the long distance market has lowered rates as much as 45% over the last 10 years. "What will happen to local residential rates?" We have proposed a multi-year Rate Stabilization Plan. Under the plan, Rochester Telephone guarantees no increase in basic residential or Lifeline rates until at least January 1995. After that, rates would increase no more than inflation. Further, any competitor buying wholesale from R-Net and offering residential local service will be required to pass along the same basic rates to customers. :: There'll Be Plenty of Time to Make an Informed Decision Rochester Telephone's Open Market Plan must first be approved by the New York State Public Service Commission. That process begins now and will stretch well into 1993. Once approved, it will take another six or seven months for Rochester Telephone to completely establish its two companies and for competitors to enter the market. During this period, customers will be provided with new product and service information from all competitive companies. So, there'll be plenty of time to make a careful decision. "Will I see any changes right now?" No. This plan is subject to the New York State Public Service Commission's approval, a process which will take several months. Continuing to deliver high quality products and services is our priority throughout the review period and beyond. "Will my phone number change?" Your phone number will stay the same no matter which telephone company you choose to provide your local service. "Why are you doing this now?" Competition is coming to all local telephone service companies -- whether or not we initiate this change now. Competition is accelerating due to changes in technology and as a result of decisions by state and federal regulatory agencies. By taking this action, we will be better prepared to serve customers in the future, as full competition develops. "How do I let you know which phone company I want?" All local customers will receive a ballot to choose the local telephone company they prefer. "Is that like when we picked a long distance company?" Yes. It's very similar. :: Any other Questions? Although we've tried to anticipate many of your questions, if you have others, Rochester Telephone will be happy to answer them for you personally. Simply call (716) 777-1200 to discuss residential service or (716) 777-1234 with inquiries about business telephone service. Rochester Telephone ------------------------------ From: cmwolf@mtu.edu (CHRISTOPHER WOLF) Subject: AT&T Billing Practices --> Illegal? Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 16:40:40 -0500 (EST) I have a question regarding the legality of something that AT&T is doing. It seems to me to be illegal. Last month I ran up charges of $11.77 on my phone. I live in University housing, which uses the AT&T Acus Service, in which each person in the room has a personal identity number which must be entered in order to make a long distance phone call. Supposedly, this keeps everyone in the room from being disconnected when one person does not pay his part of the bill. Anyway. I had $11.77 and sent them a cashier's check for $12.00, only because I could not remember the exact amount of the bill when I was at the bank. The bill for this month came back with the credit for $12.00 on it, and NEW CHARGES for $0.93 Now the fun part. The Acus Service has a policy of charging 10% in late fees if the bill is not paid by the due date. In my case, the following is listed: If PAYMENT IN FULL received by 03/02/93, amount DUE: $0.70 If payment in full NOT received by 03/02/93, amount DUE: $0.79 Now, 10% of $0.70 comes to $0.07 in my book. I called and asked about this. The gentleman I spoke with gave me a bit of a run-around in the respect that every time I asked why it was 12.5% instead of 10% he said that I shouldn't worry because I probably wouldn't get charged anyway, being that my bill was under $5.00. When I pressed, he said the $0.09 was because the late fees are charged on the NEW CHARGES, not the NET BALANCE DUE. If this legal? They're trying to charge me late fees on something I've already paid, namely the extra $0.23. As an aside, I think their policies are horrible on this service. If I don't spend $0.29 on a stamp and $0.20 for a check fees to pay this $0.70 in charges, I get a late fees and possibly disconnection of my service. This applied even if one only owes a few cents. I argued with them about a $0.12 bill one time. Also, he agreed that it shouldn't be $0.09, and asked that I call him back next month with whatever late charges I get. I few cents here, a few cents there, spread across a couple thousand college student could really add up. Christopher Wolf Electrical Engineer cmwolf@mtu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 17-FEB-1993 04:45:21.40 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Boston-CT Delivery, NY Gets FMR Customers of Cell One/Boston can now get calls in Metro Mobile's CT and Western Mass systems, just as they may currently do in Rhode Island. To initiate Call Delivery, hit *28 (anywhere that accepts it, even in Delaware, although you won't get calls there yet). To deactivate, hit *29. In some areas outside of the "official" areas where you can use *28/*29, you can use *350 (for *28) and *35 (for *29). Remember, you will only get calls in all of Mass, Rhode Island, and Connecticut -- even though the *28/*29 may work in other Motorola-EMX markets, it doesn't mean your calls will be delivered there. You should, however, be able to continue using Call-Forwarding, Call-Waiting, and Three-Way Calling from New Hampshire down to Delaware, with the current exception of Cell One/NY. I'm not sure as to any change in the Atlantic Cellular (CO/VT)/ Cell One Boston "interim/partnership" service in New Hampshire regarding call delivery. I'll check this out next time I'm there. All other features should work fine, though. If you have voicemail active, any unanswered calls in CT or W.Mass will dump back to your voicemail after a few rings. You can of course force calls to voicemail by hitting *29. I believe that there will be a toll delivery charge for calls delivered to CT and W. Mass, ie, the cost of an LD call from Boston to CT. (At least CT customers in Boston will be assesed this charge, and since both are owned by Bell Companies, I suspect the same will be true for Boston customers in CT). The same *28/*29 codes now work for Metro Mobile/CT customers in the Boston system, but calls still don't seem to be delivered into Boston for some reason, and callers are met with the standard Re-Order that a Motorolla delivers when it can't complete a call for technical reasons. On another note, NYNEX/NYC *finally* got Follow Me Slowly ...errr ROAMING ... sorry! :) I *HOPE* they have a sufficient number of "dummy numbers" so that most *18 activations can be processed. The NYNEX/Orange County and whoever does the B side in Syracuse have SO few numbers that they usually run out by three in the afternoon, in which case all subsequent FMR activations will get a confirmation but never take effect. Additionally, BAMS/Philly-NJ will be adding to its automatic Call-Delivery network with Baltimore and DC by April (or so they tell me), and other BAMS properties later on in the year. Thus, there will soon be automatic delivery from NY (I-84) all the way down to Virginia on the B side, which is rather impressive. Note that if you are an SNET/Linx or BAMS/Philly customer, and you activate FMR in some other market, and then come to NYC, you can now avoid the "dead spot" in NY in terms of Call-Delivery by hitting *19. You will need to do this in order to get Call-Delivery IF you have activated FMR elsewhere the same day. Automatic Call-Delivery does NOT supercede FMR (ie, call-forwarding), so FMR must be cancelled with *19 in order for Automatic Call-Delivery to kick in. Finally, I don't think unanswered calls will go to voicemail -- you need to turn your phone OFF if you want calls to go to voicemail. There are no "codes" to force this to happen (although you can have them turn call-delivery off at the switch on a semi-permament basis), but the response is instantaneous, unlike the "A" side's NACN and other delivery systems which may take over two hours after powering OFF before calls go to voicemail (unless you use the *35/*350 "Do Not Disturb" codes). This inability to "take back" a call and route it to voicemail or anywhere is a MAJOR flaw in my opinion, and hopefully they will be able to use IS-41 Rev.A or do *something* to correct this. Well, at least there's been SOME progress! Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: Martin Egan Subject: Fiber Optic Television Information Request Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 22:31:28 GMT Organization: University of Illinois I am doing research on the benefits/disadvantages of the telephone industry using fiber optics to enter the cable television industry. If you have any information, or something similar, please send it. Thank You. ------------------------------ Subject: Cellular Switching Question From: tcscs!zeta@src.honeywell.com (Gregory Youngblood) Reply-To: zeta%tcscs@src.honeywell.com Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 08:15:05 CST Organization: TCS Consulting Services circuit@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (The Circuit) writes: > And last, could someone describe the difference between SAT's 00, 01, > and 10? SAT tones are: none, 5970, 6000, 6030 Here's where I'm going to stick my keyboard in my mouth probably. I don't remember exactly which range these are in. I want to say Hz. I'll look it up in my manuals. Greg TCS Consulting Services P.O. Box 600008 St. Paul, MN 55106-0008 Mail-server requests to: mail-server%tcscs@idss.nwa.com zeta%tcscs@src.honeywell.com or zeta%tcscs@idss.nwa.com ..!srcsip!tcscs!zeta or ..!guppy!tcscs!zeta ------------------------------ From: Clayton E. Kuetemeyer Subject: Telecom in Banking Industry Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 05:35:12 GMT Organization: University of Illinois Doing research on telecommunications in the banking industry. Any information on capabilities or effects on customer service would be greatly appreciated. Also very interested in automated teller machine info. Thanks. ------------------------------ From: gutierre@nsipo.nasa.gov (Robert Michael Gutierrez) Subject: Status of Cellular Resellers in California? Reply-To: gutierre@nsipo.nasa.gov (Robert Michael Gutierrez) Organization: NASA Science Internet Network Operations Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 06:06:58 GMT Does anybody have any status of the CPUC decision on allowing resellers in the Monarchy ... err ... State of California. I understand that the CPUC appeal was lost (3rd hand info, though), but no info on the proposed lawsuit by the carriers against the CPUC for that decision. Secondly: If the decision is standing, is anybody poised to start reselling? I'll be the first in line to sign up, BTW. Thanks in advance. Robert Gutierrez ------------------------------ From: gmccomb@netcom.com (Glenn McComb) Subject: Need Names of Carrier for 800-xxx number Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 08:15:25 GMT I am trying to find out how to get a custom 800 number, say 1-800-268-xxxx. I was told that each carrier owns certain blocks of numbers. How do I find out this one in particular, and in general? It was pleasing to here that you will soon be able to take your 800 numbers with you to another carrier. If anyone know anything about this, please help! Thanks! Glenn A. McComb (408) 725-1448 ofc * 725-0222 fax McComb Research PO Box 220 * Cupertino, CA 95015 gmccomb @ netcom.com MHS: glenn @ mccomb [Moderator's Note: At the time of divestiture, AT&T was the only supplier of 800 numbers. After the split, AT&T kept what 800 prefixes they were using plus a few spares. The rest were put in a pool and distributed to other carriers. I think Bellcore handled the distri- bution. For a list of which carriers got which prefixes, pull some files from the Telecom Archives: 'areacode.guide', '800*'. Use anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu, then 'cd telecom-archives'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: phoffman@orac.holonet.net (Paul E. Hoffman) Subject: Multi-line Answering Machine Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 17:17:09 GMT I'm doing research for a friend. She wants five lines worth of outgoing-only answering machines, low cost. Same message on each, and in can be a barge-in system (one repeating tape with people coming in in the middle). -- I know a company called "Skutch" makes some sort of system like this. Does anyone have a tele for them or a rep of theirs? -- Are there industrial-strength single-line systems that are cheap? She doesn't mind duping the tape five times and dropping it in five machines if that's much cheaper and/or more reliable than a five-line system. Please respond in email and I'll summarize the results here. Paul Hoffman ------------------------------ From: briang@Sun.COM (Brian Gordon) Subject: Re: White House Phone Factoids Date: 17 Feb 93 00:07:36 GMT Organization: Sun In article knauer@cs.uiuc.edu writes: > "Contrary to widespread belief the old "hotline" between Washington > and Moscow was not a telephone to warn against an impending doomsday > attack, but rather a teletype manned at the Pentagon." Maybe it's been moved, but the "hot line" _used to_ terminate somewhere other than the Pentagon -- in the dark recesses of No Such Agency ... Brian G. Gordon briang@Sun.COM briang@netcom.COM B.GORDON2 on GENie 70243,3012 on CompuServe BGordon on AOL ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 9:31:43 EST From: Dennis G. Rears Subject: Re: Hilton Hotel Telephone Surcharge TELECOM Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: Have you ever considered having a call-extender > type of device put on a line -- with a complex security code -- and an > 800 number in to it to be used for ALL outgoing long distance calls? > That way you would get the direct dial rate on all your long distance > calls no matter where you are when you need to make a call. The > 'surcharge' would be whatever you pay per minute on the 800 line, but > the combination of charges would often times still be less than making > a call via the hotel switchboard with its surcharge, or the surcharge > your calling card requires. Your biggest savings would come on very > short calls where there is no opportunity to spread the surcharge over > several minutes. PAT] Where can one get a "call-extender"? How much do they cost? Can one do this with just two lines? dennis [Moderator's Note: Two lines is all you need; one for incoming calls and one for outgoing calls. You can get them at various telephone supply houses including (I think) 'Hello Direct' 1-800-HI-HELLO. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 9:51:39 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes A while back, I mentioned the zip-area directory as being of some help. I don't have the publisher's phone number in front of me, but I could supply the address from memory. Let me know if you need it. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #106 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01342; 17 Feb 93 18:52 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13525 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 17 Feb 1993 16:08:25 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05241 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 17 Feb 1993 16:07:56 -0600 Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 16:07:56 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302172207.AA05241@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #108 TELECOM Digest Wed, 17 Feb 93 16:06:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 108 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (John Higdon) Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (David G. Lewis) Re: Cellular Phone Questions (Don Wegeng) Re: FX Service Across Area Codes (Mark Blumhardt) Re: Running Out of Area Codes (Carl Moore) Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? (Jeffrey Jonas) Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? (Brent Whitlock) Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? (Larry Ader) Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? (Ihor Kinal) Re: Need Names of Carrier For 800-xxx Number (Doug Zolmer) Re: Does Anyone Know Tellab's Phone Number? (John Anderson) Re: Third Party Network Connectivity (Ron Beach) Re: High-Speed Dial-Ups (John K Scoggin, Jr.) Re: DS0 Portion of a T1 (Fred R. Stearns) Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Steve Scherer) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 04:23 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State Bob Longo writes: > Californians want CNID, but they also want per-line blocking to be > available (which is what PacBell is vigorously opposed to). That is > reasonable in a state where 40% of phone customers have unlisted > numbers. Perhaps you could site the surveys and studies that back this up? I am damn sick of people pronouncing what Californian's want (based upon absolutely no evidence) when trying to justify the stifling of yet another useful technology. I, for one, do not much care what Californian's want; I know what is useful and desirable and what is available in most of the rest of the country. I also know that none of the doom and gloom, even in areas that have no blocking capability, has been demonstrated in any way. The CPUC is perfectly aware that its restrictions are not standard and that no other state has required default per-line blocking and per-call enabling. Please stop pontificating about how it is just the mean old telephone companies that are being unreasonable. The restrictions were passed with one purpose in mind: to eliminate the offering of CNID in California. It succeeded royally. The activists won this round. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State Organization: AT&T Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 15:11:17 GMT I don't have an opinion on this issue, but there are some facts I wanted to clarify. In article jack.decker@f8.n154. z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) writes: > In message , rlm@indigo2.hac.com (Robert > L. McMillin) wrote: >> kgdykes@Thinkage.On.CA (Ken Dykes) writes: >>> Recently I received a call from the Glendale area of Los Angeles. I >>> live in southern Ontario CANADA. My Caller-ID box instead of showing >>> out-of-area showed PRIVACY. The call to me was made (and answered) >>> twice in the same night; both times PRIVACY ... some sort of >>> call-blocking was enabled by PacBell. >> Which probably means that the switch was SS7-connected, but thanks to >> the California Public fUtilities Commission, EVERYBODY's phone number >> will show up as PRIVACY-enabled. After all, privacy is the same thing >> as anonymity ... NOT! >>> PacBell is being far too kind to the zealots :-) >> It's not Pac*Hell's fault, really. > I think I would take issue with both of these statements. First of > all, it would seem that Pac*Bell would have the choice of not sending > the number at all, rather than sending the number with a "privacy" > flag attached. If Caller ID is not being offered in California, then > there is no reason they should be sending the number out of state, > particularly when they're sending it with the "private" flag, which > means that Caller ID subscribers can't read it anyway. PacBell doesn't have this choice, because the decision of whether or not Calling Party Number is sent is part of the IXC interstate access tariff. If the IXC subscribes to delivery of Calling Party Number, the LEC must send it if it is available. Regardless of whether anyone can read it, the IXC has subscribed to receive it. > Apparently the Caller ID software is already installed, so all they > have to do is turn it on, yet apparently they'd rather do without the > extra income from Caller ID than to even try it the way the PUC > allowed it. The fact that numbers are being delivered to IXCs is not sufficient to indicate that the Caller ID software is available or active in PacBell's switches. Sending CPN does not require the Caller ID feature; it requires only SS7 ISUP. Activating the Caller ID feature requires payment of an additional Right-To-Use fee. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!goofy!deej Switching & ISDN Implementation ------------------------------ From: wegeng.henr801c@xerox.com (Don Wegeng) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Questions Reply-To: wegeng.henr801c@xerox.com Organization: Xerox Corp., Henrietta, NY Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 16:27:01 GMT The replies that I have received about roaming and antennas have been very useful, and are much appreciated. There's still one area that I'm still not clear on, namely emergency use of the phone when I'm outside my home service area. Consider the following scenario. At home I have a contract with the A carrier, and have the phone programmed to only roam with A carriers. Now I'm travelling in another state, and come upon a serious car accident. My phone says that there's no cellular service in this area, so I can't use it to summon help, regardless of whether this particular area was covered by a B carrier. In the above scenario, had I programmed the phone to roam on B channels (or roam on both, with priority to A channels) would I have been able to make an emergency call? In other words, will carriers accept emergency calls from any telephone, or will they only accept emergency calls from phones that they recognize? Thanks, Don wegeng.henr801c@xerox.com ------------------------------ From: msb@advtech.uswest.com (Mark Blumhardt) Subject: Re: FX Service Across Area Codes Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 19:03:07 GMT > [Moderator's Note: FX service becomes expensive when it has to run > between two central offices which connect direct to each other. > A modern alternative is 'remote call forwarding'. Ask telco to > terminate your current 201 number right in the CO where it is now and > put it on permanent call forwarding to your new number. That will only > cost $15-20 per month plus all calls it forwards at direct dial rates. Let's make this a little more complex: Let's say that I move from location A to B, and A and B are in the same calling area (no toll). Let's also say that C is in the same calling area as B. But C and A are not in the same calling area and would have a toll charge if they called each other. So, if I call forward from A to B, and C calls A, would C be charged for a toll call? Sorry if this is too difficult to follow; a diagram would be easier ... Mark [Moderator's Note: Yes, C would have a toll call to reach A and A would have a local call to reach B. Likewise, if D was a phone sitting right next to C and you had A forwarded to C, then when D called A, the call would wind up on the same desk where it started and you would have two toll charges; one going and one coming back. What A and B do is of no concern to C. C wants to place a call to A, then C pays for a call to A. The fact that A says 'send all my incoming calls to B' is not important. C wants to talk to A, and A is making sure that will occur, but via B. C gets what C paid for, with the added expense charged to A because A wants coverage of his line. Each part of a forwarded call is charged to where it *expects* to wind up; that is the fallacy behind the idea that you can forward your phone to 'some expensive 900 service' and stick the originating caller with the charge. Do it and the joke will be on you. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 13:57:46 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes From the message sent by co057@cleveland.Freenet.Edu: > "It is my understanding that only the areas that are in the City of > Los Angeles;" I don't understand what this means. Other sources indicate that the City of L.A. is much bigger than just the Los Angeles exchange or the 900xx zipcodes. > "downtown only remained 213 and the others went to 310. Those > areas are West LA and such." Montebello stayed in 213, and the central Los Angeles exchange (which includes downtown, Hollywood, etc., plus the "foreign" L.A. exchanges appearing in what is now 818 and 310) also stayed in 213. Yes, West L.A. is among the exchanges which moved to 310. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 11:31:55 EST From: jeffj%jiji@uunet.UU.NET (Jeffrey Jonas) Subject: Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? [Moderator's Note: What a convenient arrangement! I had heard these devices get back as far as the transformer serving the neighborhood, and I guess your experience shows this is true. PAT] Oh Pat, what a sense of humor you have! In areas of private houses, the pole transformers serve perhaps 3-10 homes (perhaps 20 - I'm not sure). That's hardly the entire neighborhood - just the block or apartment building. I don't think the signals cross between the phases either -- that's why the X10 modules needed some capacitor between the house's phases to let the signal propagate throughout the house. Yes, I agree that the signals are getting out of the house and into neighbors' homes, but like a cordless phone, it's limited enough in range that the risks are acceptable to many people (but certainly not to us!) Jeffrey Jonas jeffj@panix.com ------------------------------ From: bwhitlock@uiuc.edu (Brent Whitlock) Subject: Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 21:38:42 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: > >[Moderator's Note: They work okay unless you have flourescent lights > Hmmn, flourescent lights? I've been able to get flour to explode, but > never to glow continuously. Have you told the USDA about this? Surely > price supports are needed. > Regards, > John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl > PS: :-) Actually, virtually any material can be made to emit photons if enough power is pumped into it. I refer you to the paper on the first edible laser, the "Jello" laser. T. A. Hansch, M. Pernier, and A. L. Schalow, "Laser Action of Dyes in Gelatin," {IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics} QE-7, 47, January 1971. So, here's to those flourescent lights! :-) * * * * * * --> DISCLAIMER: I speak only for myself. <-- * * * * * * Brent Whitlock Beckman Institute for Advanced Science & Technology bwhitlock@uiuc.edu Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ------------------------------ From: lra@Sun.COM (Larry Ader) Subject: Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? Date: 17 Feb 93 06:13:45 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Mt. View, CA In article markf@atlastele.com (Mark Ferris) writes: > My mom was asking me about an ad she read recently that was selling a > product that allowed a phone jack anywhere an electrical outlet is. > Anybody hear about this product? Any comments? Does it actually > work? What's the signal/noise ratio via this method? Would this > actually be a recommended way to add additional phone lines into a > house? I tried using a pair of them myself. The intent was to be able to use it for connection to a modem in one of my rooms that doesn't have a phone jack. Unfortunately, when I "listened to the line" through a telephone (after dialing one digit) there was a detectable hum on the line. I was able to discover the source of the hum -- I also have several (formerly BSR) X-10 modules in my place. If I disconnected them, the hum went away. I decided that that inconvenience wasn't worth it. I did try to make a modem connection anyway, and I guess the hum was just too much for it (the modem). Anybody want to buy a pair of them (barely used)? Larry Ader Sun Microsystems, Inc. 2550 Garcia Ave. M/S MPK03-201 Mountain View, CA 94043-1100 amdahl!echidna!lra (home) ph. 415/688-9721 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 13:46:10 EST From: ijk@violin.att.com Subject: Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? Organization: AT&T In article , markf@atlastele.com (Mark Ferris) writes: > My mom was asking me about an ad she read recently that was selling a > product that allowed a phone jack anywhere an electrical outlet is. > [Moderator's Note: They work okay unless you have flourescent lights > or other noise making conditions in the power lines. PAT] What concerns me, is the capability that someone could grab the line remotely. I remember that allegedly people use to cruise neighbor- hoods looking for cordless frequencies to dial out on. Nasty hassle to resolve. Is that possible with these devices? Inquiring minds want to know ... Standard disclaimers apply. Ihor Kinal att!trumpet!ijk ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 15:33:00 +0000 From: Doug (D.W.J.) Zolmer Subject: Re: Need Names of Carrier For 800-xxx Number > I am trying to find out how to get a custom 800 number, say > 1-800-268-xxxx. I was told that each carrier owns certain blocks of > numbers. How do I find out this one in particular, and in general? > It was pleasing to here that you will soon be able to take your 800 > numbers with you to another carrier. > If anyone know anything about this, please help! Bell Canada - Ontario region "owns" 800-268-XXXX. There are a lot of TV commercials in Ontario with 800 numbers with that exchange. I doubt very much if Glenn will be able to obtain an 800 number in that exchange since it's in Canada. Doug Zolmer Internet: dwjz@bnr.ca Disclaimer: my opinions only Bell-Northern Research Limited, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Dept. 7N61 - Service Control Point - Routing Services Design Voice: +1 613.763.8217 FAX: +1 613.763.8312 ------------------------------ From: andrsonj@rtsg.mot.com (John Anderson) Subject: Re: Does Anyone Know Tellab's Phone Number? Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 20:33:46 GMT jasko@park.bu.edu (John V. Jaskolski) writes: > Does anyone know Tellab's phone number? Tellab's Headquarters: 708-969-8800 Tellab's Technical Assistance: 708-505-0099 John D. Anderson, M.S. |Internet: andrsonj@rtsg.mot.com Motorola |uucp: uunet!motcid!andrsonj 1501 W. Shure Drive |Phone: +1-708-632-2103 Arlington Heights, IL 60004, Mail Stop: IL27-2237 ------------------------------ From: beachri@rcwusr.bp.com Subject: Re: Third Party Network Connectivity Date: 17 Feb 93 07:30:02 -0600 Organization: BP Research, Cleveland, OH (USA) In article , BEACHRI@RCWUSR.BP.COM writes: > I'm looking for someone to help me research the issue of one business > directly connecting it's internal network to that of another company > - a supplier, a business partner, a vendor, etc. We call that 'third > party connectivity' within BP (British Petroleum, ne Standard Oil). Dear all - Thanks to those that have replied to me. As hindsight, I should have made it clearer that I meant data networks, not telephone networks. There are no issues with connecting voice systems. We have an international internal data network, and, of course, a secure Internet gateway. We have quite a few current network connections to things like banks, accounting firms, etc , and are considering opening our data network by plugging into the networks of business partners -- for instance joint operation of facilities and sites. The head audit group is helping with the process, and currently supportive. Cost is the issue. If it costs more to the whole organization to open the network than to leave it closed,then we probably won't do it. The businesses are fragmented -- with differing needs for data connectivity. If our network is declared open and insecure, then those business portions who don't like it, or are sensitive (as finance, trading, etc) must spend money to close themselves off. If the aggregate total cost for internal security is greater than the aggregate total of costs of external 'firewalls' needed, and there are no offsetting benefits, then we'll likely not proceed. Any leads to other companies who might have gone through this for direct inter-business links (not via the Internet) would be appreciated. Thanks again, Ron Beach Manager, Telcom and Information Strategy BP Research 4440 Warrensville Ctr. Rd Cleveland, Ohio 44128 beach@rcwcl1.dnet.bp.com ------------------------------ From: John K Scoggin Jr Subject: Re: High-Speed Dial-Ups Date: 17 Feb 1993 12:31:57 GMT Organization: Delmarva Power & Light Company Reply-To: scoggin@delmarva.COM In article 9@eecs.nwu.edu, John@msus1.msus.edu (John Biederstedt) writes: > We have some T1 circuits and would like to provide high-speed dial > backup capability. It would be nice to get 56 kb dial-ups. Codex > makes such a modem, but it is compressed. Dissapointingly, they are > moving to higher-speed asyncronous modems rather than syncronous > modems. :-( Does the Internet have any suggestions? Western Datacom makes a 56KBPS Synchronous modem that will run over dialed lines or leased lines. It uses compression, but they seem pretty confident in it ... John K. Scoggin, Jr. Email: scoggin@delmarva.com Supervisor, Network Operations Phone: (302) 451-5200 Delmarva Power & Light Company Fax: (302) 451-5321 500 N. Wakefield Drive NOC: (800) 388-7076 Newark, DE 19714-6066 The opinions expressed are not those of Delmarva Power, simply the product of an over-active imagination... ------------------------------ From: fred@dickens.com (Fred R Stearns) Subject: Re: DS0 Portion of a T1 Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 12:14:24 GMT Organization: Dickens Data Systems, Inc. > In article fred@dickens.com (Fred R > Stearns) writes: >> Please excuse my math, but if one bit of every 6th byte is stolen, >> doesn't that make 62.667 kbps? Thanks to all of the following people: Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com Brett (rfranken@cs.umr.edu) Al Varney floyd@ims.alaska.edu John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl For pointing out to me that you don't know which of the bytes has a bit stolen, so you must assume that they all do. Fred R. Stearns -- fred@dickens.com ------------------------------ From: steves@csufresno.edu (Steve Scherer) Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones Organization: CSU Fresno Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 15:23:47 GMT In article mike.riddle%inns@ axolotl.omahug.org writes: > john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)) writes: >> Scanner laws will be just about as effective as gun laws -- only much >> sillier. The FCC is seriously deluded if it thinks it can win a >> technological war with anyone. The below-average moron outguns the FCC >> in the brain cell department. > This may well be true, :-), but as the original post noted, the FCC is > under a mandate from our Congre$$ Critter$ to promulgate reguations on > this subject. Now if anyone wonders about the collective I.Q. of > Congre$$ on technological matters ... PAT has some perfectly dry > tunnels under Chicago to sell. QST Magazine recently published an article on how to build a modification to an existing scanner that would allow scanning of the 800 meg band. There was the usual disclaimer, but we all know how far that will go. steves@csufresno.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #108 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05000; 17 Feb 93 20:33 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26384 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 17 Feb 1993 15:00:54 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17353 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 17 Feb 1993 14:59:57 -0600 Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 14:59:57 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302172059.AA17353@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #107 TELECOM Digest Wed, 17 Feb 93 14:59:45 CST Volume 13 : Issue 107 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: ANI on 800 Line w/o T1? (Brent Capps) Re: One-Way Outgoing Service (Al Varney) Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (John Langner) Re: Meaning of TTL in TCP/IP (was Jack Decker's FTP Problem) (Jack Decker) Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? (Robert L. McMillin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bcapps@atlastele.com (Brent Capps) Subject: Re: ANI on 800 Line w/o T1? Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc. Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 17:26:13 GMT In article John Higdon writes: > Tas Dienes writes: >> Does anybody know if it is possible to get ANI on an 800 line without >> having to get T1 service? I just have a couple of regular (actually, >> Centranet) lines - local service is GTE, 800 is Sprint. Sprint says >> no, but I was wondering if anybody else can? > In order to receive realtime ANI from a long distance carrier, you > must have a "trunk-side connection". All connections from your telco's > switch are "line-side connections". So the answer is no, you cannot > get realtime ANI without having a direct trunk connection to a > carrier's switch. Correct. MCI offers a "DTMF ANI" service that may mislead some people into thinking that they'll get ANI over a line-side circuit. However, what this service is really designed to do is replace the MF with DTMF so you won't need to order MF receiver circuits for your PBX or ACD gear. You still need a trunk-side circuit. In article tim gorman <71336.1270@ CompuServe.COM> writes: > Third, having said trunk side connections are available from the > telco's switch, it is also necessary to point out that this probably > won't help you in getting your ANI in any way. No switch I am aware of > that is in use in the LEC networks will accept ANI from a carrier so > the telco switches couldn't tandem ANI to you anyway. The telco > switches aren't setup to pass ANI on the trunk side unless you are the > billing office for a toll call, are a 911 PSAP, or are a Feature Group > D interLATA carrier. If your PBX can handle Feature Group D signaling > formats, you want to go through the process of being designated as an > interLATA carrier, want to get an 800 NXX assigned (or wait until May > 1 when 800 portability comes into play), and provide trunks into every > sector where you may receive calls from then this may be a viable > solution. It's not necessary to be designated as a carrier. You are correct about the LECs giving FGD ANI only to IXCs and never accepting it from them, but an IXC can still drop ANI to you over a trunk-side FGD circuit (analog or digital). FGD actually encompasses four different protocols. The one that the IXCs use to terminate to LECs is called the terminating protocol, and it makes no provision for passing ANI information (which is why you've never seen the LECs accept ANI from the IXCs). However, the Exchange Access North America (EANA) protocol used by LECs to terminate to IXCs does provide for ANI signaling, and even though it's not officially defined for IXCs terminating to end-users, it can be and is done all the time, generally to inbound calling centers running large ACD systems. The only carrier I'm aware of that *won't* support this is AT&T, and the reason seems to be that they want you force to buy PRI or BRI if you want to get calling party information. There's one more way to get ANI -- you can order an SMDI data link, which is used by Centrex voice mail systems, and will also work on the 1ESS. However it's much more limited in the ways it can be used than FGD ANI. Brent Capps bcapps@agora.rain.com (gay stuff) bcapps@atlastele.com (telecom stuff) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 11:27:30 CST From: varney@ihlpl.att.com Subject: Re: One-Way Outgoing Service Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL In article jeffj%jiji@uunet.UU.NET (Jeffrey Jonas) writes: > I am curious about this: >> [Moderator's Note: Clever response. Since you only make outgoing calls >> on those lines occassionally, and never have incoming calls, you >> should ask telco to set the lines up as one-way outgoing service only. >> Then you'd never see any wrong numbers at all. PAT] > Is "one-way outgoing service" an additional cost? I've heard of the > opposite (incoming only, to prevent any long distance billing), but no > incoming calls -- interesting. Would those lines even HAVE a phone > number? Could they all be the same number, and billed based on some > imaginary number (trunk/line number just as places with more than one > line at the same number)? > At home, I have a second line that I'm currently using only for > outgoing modem/data calls. Someday I may have a FAX or BBS, so I do > not intend to block incoming calls, but it is a curious idea. Could > you elaborate why this service is offered? See below. > If it is possible to have a phone line with no number, what would > Caller-ID report? ANO? I guess that *SOME* number must be associated > with every line for billing purposes. Drat -- I'd like to have a > number with no ANI so 900 numbers can't bill me. Or was I not > supposed to notice that? Lines without Calling Party numbers are not uncommon -- PBXs can interface that way on some switches, and "rural" or multi-party lines do not have a single number associated with them. Most cellular calls don't have a calling number with the current interfaces. International numbers don't usually get transported, since the current Bellcore specs specify only ten-digit numbers. One way or another, every line has a billing number (and thus has ANI). Multi-party lines get "per-call ANI" assigned by the Operator Number Identification service ("What number are your calling from, please?"). PBXs get one (or more) billing numbers assigned to outgoing facilities. Trunks, except for Private Facilities and PBX/Service Provider trunks, don't have a billing number. > [Moderator's Note: Lines equipped for outgoing only service generally > have regular phone numbers attached to them. Callers to those numbers > either get a busy signal (if the line is in use on an outgoing call) > or an intercept message, "The number you dialed, xxx-xxxx is not in > service for incoming calls" if the line is not busy. There are other > variations: Lines for incoming service only generally provide battery > but no dial tone to the subscriber if picked up with no call coming > in. ...] Bellcore's LSSGR calls the two line capabilities "denied origination" and "denied termination". You can have either or both assigned to a line. (Service denial due to non-payment of bills is normally accomplished using a separate capability that remembers all your old line features. Denied origination requires that all originating features (call forwarding, etc.) be removed first. Anyway, denied origination should give no dial tone, but will appear busy to incoming calls if off-hook. Denied termination should never receive a call (but operator ring-back is permitted), and should NEVER appear busy to a caller, even if off-hook. The appropriate announcement on termination attempts is not suggested by Bellcore. One use for denied termination occurs in COs. Usually at least one line is marked this way, to assure there is always one line available for outgoing calls. That way, they can't all be tied up with spouses calling in with a shopping list, etc. I once was working on a CO problem (remotely), and the WECo installer gave me a number for a later call-back. He didn't know (he claimed) that it was denied incoming calls. Not any worse than giving me the WRONG number, which has happened more than once. Al Varney - just my opinion, of course. [Moderator's Note: In order for the operator to ring back, doesn't she have to already be on the line (and apply ringing voltage) rather than just dialing in? If the operator dials in, won't the response be the same as anyone else dialing in? If she was talking to someone on that line and they hang up (while she still has control of the conn- ection) then she could ring their bell, but the connection has to be there already. Am I correct on this? Regards an outgoing only line never giving a busy signal to a caller when it is in use, I have never seen any in IBT territory which work that way! I always assumed it was the nature of the wiring on that type of service, at least in the older crossbar offices, etc. Lots of payphones here are outgoing only, and when I tested this by dialing the number from the same phone I always got a busy rather than an intercept. Hang up the phone, go to the next one over and dial the first number, then being idle, I got the intercept message saying it was not in service for incoming calls. Lest you think it is me calling myself which generated the busy, I'd get the same response if someone else was using that phone when I dialed the number; busy signal if in use, intercept message if idle. PAT] ------------------------------ From: johnl@avs.com (John W. Langner) Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones Organization: Advanced Visual Systems Inc. Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 12:56:13 GMT In article kaufman@cs.stanford.edu writes: > john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >> Scanner laws will be just about as effective as gun laws -- only much >> sillier. The FCC is seriously deluded if it thinks it can win a >> technological war with anyone. The below-average moron outguns the FCC >> in the brain cell department. > Actually, it's not the FCC by itself in this. In fact, they have > declined to attempt to regulate scanners in the past. If you read the > NPRM, you will see that the FCC is only attempting to set a rule in > accordance with legislation passed by Congress. It's the dummies in > Congress who are short in the brain cell department. Whining about the idiots in Congress won't do any good but a half million letters to the FCC pointing out the problems with Docket 93-1 can't be ignored. So, if you want to express your concern about this issue, please write a letter to the FCC. It will only take a few minutes. Here is a rough draft of what I plan to send. Feel free to use it with little or no modification. John Langner WB2OSZ johnl@avs.com Comments on Docket No. 93-1 --------------------------- < Your address here > Feb. 16, 1993 Office of the Secretary Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20554 Dear Commissioners: After examining the text of Docket No. 93-1, I am convinced this proposed rule would NOT contribute to the stated objective of ensuring "the privacy of cellular telephone conversations." Recent magazine articles on this topic indicate that there are already millions of scanning receivers in use that can receive frequencies in the 800 MHz range. The proposed law would not not take effect for another year, providing ample opportunity for scanner manufacturers to sell many millions more. Even if a scanner isn't capable of receiving signals in this frequency range, a simple converter can be used between the antenna and receiver to shift the frequency of the radio signals. Trying to ban converters with 800 MHz in and some other frequency range out would be a futile effort. These are very cheap and simple circuits that any electronics hobbyist could build. Plans have been published in electronics magazines. Besides having no benefits, this proposed rule creates several problems: (1) The technically ignorant public might get the idea their conversations are suddenly more secure. When they learn the truth they will be bitter and more distrustful of the telephone companies and government agencies that deceived them. (2) Privacy might even be reduced. Before the publicity on this topic, most people didn't realize it was so easy to listen to cellular phone calls. Many who never considered buying a scanner will run out and buy one during the next year. (3) New regulations would place an unnecessary burden on electronics manufacturers who would have to change designs and have them recertified. (4) It would set an unfortunate precedent. If we have a ban on receivers capable of receiving a certain range of frequencies, other businesses will expect the same treatment for "their" frequencies. (5) The regulations could hit unintended targets. For example the 902 MHz band is now experiencing explosive growth for low power commercial and "ham" applications. Surely much of this equipment could easily be modified to pick up signals in the 800 MHz range even if the manfacturer didn't design it with that intention. I'm all for guarding the privacy of cellular telephone conversations but this is not the way to do it. There is only one solution. The cellular telephone companies must make encryption options available. In summary, I urge the Commission to reject the proposed regulations in Docket 93-1 because they would create many problems without making any progress toward the stated goal. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Yours truly, < Your name here > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 12:21:15 EST From: jack_decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) Subject: Re: Meaning of TTL in TCP/IP (was Jack Decker's FTP Problem) In message , add@philabs.philips.com (Aninda Dasgupta) wrote: > Perhaps Jack Decker will let us know whether he finally succeeded in > his attempts to ftp to mintaka. No, I haven't, but I want to take this opportunity to thank all those who wrote with suggestions. Unfortunately, I don't have the source code for the KA9Q program, and while sources are available, I think the one I am using has been specially modified somehow for use with MichNet (the statewide public data network in Michigan that I'm using) ... I'm not sure of that but do know that I have tried newer versions of KA9Q and for whatever reason, they don't seem to work as well. And even if I did have sources, I have no way to compile them here. There is a parameter that supposedly sets the IP TTL in KA9Q. In fact, my autoexec.net file (a list of commands that is automatically implemented at startup) contained the line "ip ttl 32". I doubled the 32 to 64 with no apparent change (I've even tried considerably higher values temporarily). I do know that someone using the EXACT same software, and also using MichNet (but at a different access port in a different city) is able to reach lcs.mit.edu with no problem. However, it seems that in the Internet, where there is a will there is a way! While I still can't do FTP, I have found a way to at least read some of the files stored in the telecom archives, thanks to a TELECOM Digest reader who told me about this (I don't know if he would want his name mentioned, but I've already thanked him via mail). If you can telnet to a Gopher system (which I can), and if that Gopher allows you to access "other gophers" (most do), you should eventually be able to find one that offers remote FTP access. I've found that it is often buried under some pretty cryptic menu items ... for example, on one such Gopher you have to select "Network Info", then "Internet files (FTP sites)", then you enter the location you want to FTP from and then the Gopher automatically goes out and gets the directories and lets you choose the item you want to read. If you go in through the right gopher system for your initial point of contact, you may even have the option of mailing a copy of anything you find interesting back to yourself (not sure I'd try that with some of the larger archives, though ... some are pretty huge!). I'm not mentioning which gopher(s) have the FTP access because I'm sure that several do, and I don't want any one of them to get overloaded. Try all the gophers in your home state first, then try adjacent states and fan out from there. The closer you get to home, the less delay you should experience (and gophers can be painfully slow at times anyway, so every little bit helps). As a side note, it seems as though there ought to be a newsgroup for gopher users; a place where folks can share their "finds" on the gophers. Many of the gophers have fairly cryptic menus, so it can be a daunting task to find what you are looking for, but there is a real wealth of information out there IF you can find it! I do have one request, if anyone has considerably better access to the archives than I do. I would like to find any references in the archives to the referendums in the states of Maine and Oregon (I believe these were both in the fall of 1986, if memory serves correctly) in which the voters turned down mandatory measured service. I've always wanted to get more information on that, including (if possible) text of the actual initiatives passed by the voters. If you have the capability to grep the files and let me know of any issues in which this information might appear, I would much appreciate it. Of course, I wouldn't mind receiving information on this from other sources as well! Anyway, thanks again to everyone who wrote! Jack Decker | Internet: jack.decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org | Fidonet: 1:154/8 [Moderator's Note: Jack's suggestion about using gophers *does* work! I just now went to the Telecom Archives using gopher and mailed a file to myself. It is slow and cumbersome, but it gets what you want. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 04:20:41 -0800 From: rlm@indigo2.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? Andrew Blau writes: >> The telcos view such a highway as a monopoly arrangement, something >> the public has stated they don't want anymore. > In fact, the telcos have become *very* involved in this. During > President Clinton's Economic Summit after the election, the one moment > of reported conflict was when Robert Allen of AT&T challenged Mr. > Gore's contention that the superhighway should be a public works > project. Allen said, "I believe I have some points to make about who > should do what in that respect. I think the government should not > build and/or operate such networks. I believe that the private sector > can be and will be incented to build these networks...." He held to > this even after being challenged by Gore, who seemed to suggest that > Allen couldn't have meant what he seemed to be saying. Three cheers, then, for Robert Allen. We should hold off on the 21-gun salute until AFTER we've heard AT&T's full proposal. > LECs, too, are getting into this quickly. They see data transport as > a big part of their future, and notion that the government might come > in and build a national infrastructure that isn't the telco > infrastructure raises lots of red flags (such as bypass on a massive > scale, for one). It's no surprise that the LECs see digital services in their crystal balls. The question that needs to be asked is this: will these digital services to the residential demarc be affordable? My guess is not, especially if the LECs or the IXCs have anything to say about it. Outrageous pricing of digital services is the reason that EDS is currently sueing AT&T (I believe -- I haven't got the {Forbes: ASAP} article handy) over the issue of so-called "dark" (i.e., redundant and unused) fiber. EDS bargained for use of these dark fiber links, pushing high-volume image data over them. AT&T figured it was losing T1 and T3 business this way, so after a time, tried to cancel its existing "dark fiber" contracts with EDS. But EDS, armed with General Motors' capital and battery of lawyers, fought back under the common carriage laws. Moral: no player with the capital and the equipment wants to see you get cheap two-way digital services. (This story was much better told in the {Forbes: ASAP} supplement that came out several months ago. Therein was presented the reason behind the "dark fiber" conflict, what it means for telephony, and why tunable lasers and cheap fiber optic pipes can let you throw your 5ESS in the dumpster -- at least, in theory. The article forms the kernel of a soon-to-be-published book entitled, {Into the Cybersphere}.) Somebody once said that the triumph of capitalism is not that it can produce silk stockings for the Queen, but that it makes affordable nylons for the secretaries. That is the approach we need to take with digital services: by making them available cheaply, we can spread their benefits widely. All we need is the capital and the vision to apply it. Robert L. McMillin | Voice: (310) 568-3555 Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc. | Fax: (310) 568-3574 Los Angeles, CA | Internet: rlm@indigo2.hac.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #107 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26334; 18 Feb 93 19:32 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07196 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 18 Feb 1993 16:44:01 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17208 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 18 Feb 1993 16:43:31 -0600 Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 16:43:31 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302182243.AA17208@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #109 TELECOM Digest Thu, 18 Feb 93 16:43:30 CST Volume 13 : Issue 109 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia: Fax Machine Contact With Digest (TELECOM Moderator) Touch Tone is No Extra Charge (Part 2) (Paul Robinson) South American Phone Service is Better Than GTE (Wayne Lorentz) If GTE's the Disease ... (was: GTE On the "Move") (Robert L. McMillin) National Information Infrastructure Conference (Matt Lucas) Veriphone (Credit-Card Verifier) Protocols? (Russ Nelson) Virtual Private Networks - Users Opinions, Please (Mikko Tapio Lavanti) Help With Stolen Calling-Card Number! Please! (Joel M. Hoffman) Mandatory Measured Service (Steve Forrette) RS449 or V.35 to Fiber Line Driver (Phil Green) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Fax Machine Contact With Digest Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 16:00:00 CST Effective at this time, and for a limited trial period, you may contact me by Fax at 312-743-0002. This machine may or may not stay here. It is only a small machine, not a large commercial one, so please don't send big multiple-page documents without asking me first. My budget for paper, etc is limited. Also, this line is used for *long* outgoing calls by a modem, so there may be times the line is busy for extended periods, mainly late in the evening. If busy, try later. Thanks, Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 13:31:49 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Robinson Subject: Touch Tone is No Extra Charge (Part 2) In a previous issue of the Digest I explained how I have two phone lines and decided to install two more. I thought I'd tell people what happened. Yesterday the installer from C&P Telephone of Maryland came out to put in the two new phone lines. We discovered the following things about my house: 1. The place is so old that, from the days when there was not enough lines running out here, there is a Slick-1 on the network block, unused, for when they had to use subscriber carrier. It was used, not for other phones in the neighborhood, but so that this house could have two phone lines by using subscriber carrier. Also, he notes that C&P has only recently stopped using subscriber carrier as they have sufficient lines out here to handle the traffic. 2. The original two lines were turned on from the office; no installer came out. Otherwise I would have discovered I had no protection against lightning on either line; if there had been a lighting short, it would have fried everything: all phones, my computers, everything. 3. He pointed to the line running across the street to the telephone pole. One of the lines had a splice in it. So he decided to rip out the two lines that ran across the road and replace them and add the two new ones with a brand new SIX pair wire. He even reconnected the two lines he disconnected. Also, he gave me about 50 feet of four-pair wire which he strung at the time he was putting the wire. He installed in the basement, a brand new five-pair network block that have the best GAS DISCHARGE surge protectors. In the event of lightining, they will blow, disconnecting the line. He also threaded the four-pair at the same time he inserted the main wire. He then left the spool on the roof next to my second floor window for me to install. He also did not install the new lines (and I thought he was correct on this point) because the phone wire he gave me was sitting outside, in the rain. Also, because he suggested that because of the construction on the house, I'd be better off having a hole drilled in the siding and add the wire instead of using one of the older holes. The installer stated that if I just wanted to hook up the four-line wire myself, all that would be charged is the installation fee, which would save at least $50 for the additional work. I agreed. I thought it was funny that a while after he started there was a second installer in a cherry-picker also out there on the pole doing my installation. Well, it turns out that the phone company didn't bother to run the additional two lines out to the network box on the telephone pole until after the installer showed up here. He spent about two hours here installing the two lines. I am also the ONLY user of the network box on that telephone pole, as I am the *last customer* at the end of that run. The house across the street uses a pole further up the road. The house on the side uses a pole on the other street in the next central office. The house on the other side is also on the other central office. Also, the network box on the pole has enough room for up to TEN telephone lines. If I ever get to the point I need ten lines I'll get a T1-Line and a codec. Which reminds me: I humorously mentioned about what would happen if I wanted a T1 line (or fractional one). He pointed out that AT&T would have to put it in; C&P doesn't do T1 wiring! I'd order the POP at the central office, but someone else would have to supply the drop. End result; I got the four-pair wire running into my room; he does nice work as the wire had 8 feet of slack. All I've had to pay for was the base installation so I, in effect, got the new wire for "free". I brought the wire in my room and hooked it up downstairs. This morning I hooked the two lines to the two line jack I have in my room. I tried using the 1073214049889664 number from both lines and it read back the xx7-xxxx numbers I was given originally. Calling the main hunt number when it's busy causes the second number to ring. As to whether it works for outgoing calls, this message was posted from my new modem line! Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM [Moderator's Note: Congratulations on getting the job done right! PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: South American Phone Service is Better Than GTE From: waynel@sod.linet.org (WayneL) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 08:13:50 EST Organization: The East Wind +1 201 875 7063 Well, far be it from me to be the only one reading this newsgroup _NOT_ to flame GTE, thus I'm blowing off a little steam. I don't have a problem with the bill, since I only use GTE at work, but I would like to say that I've used telephone setups in South America that were better than what they've provided us. A large percentage (at least 20%) of my calls within the area (914) don't go through. Sometimes I just get a re-order. Sometimes it gives me a busy signal, even though the line isn't (I tested this by calling a phone in another studio that was empty at the time). And if that's not bad enough, many times if I dial xxx-xxxx I get a message saying that I need to dial a 1 before the number. So, I dial the same number, with the "1", and get a message saying that the number cannot be completed as dialed. (grumble grumble) Since I work in the newsroom (at WALL/WKOJ) it's very important that my calls go through the first time. So, each reporter has come up with their own solution ... I always diak 1-914-xxx-xxxx on ALL calls within the area code, even if it's only down the street and in the same prefix. For whatever reason, it works. Another guy uses the social engineering approach: he ALWAYS calls the GTE operator to place the call for him. Every once in a while the operator protests, but it doesn't take long for them to just put it through, anyway. I live in a tiny tiny telephone company (The Warwick Valley Telephone Company) that has only four pay phones in its entire operation, does not allow Equal Access (either by 950-xxxx, or 10xxx), and has less than 5,000 phones (split between 201 and 914). I never thought any telephone company could be worse, then I met GTE. -Flame off- Wayne V.H. Lorentz : WayneL ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 04:38:36 -0800 From: rlm@indigo2.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: If GTE's the Disease ... (was GTE On the "Move") John Higdon writes: > I have always said that GTE was a disease. If that's true, is LEC competition the cure? I sure hope so ... Robert L. McMillin | Voice: (310) 568-3555 Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc. | Fax: (310) 568-3574 Los Angeles, CA | Internet: rlm@indigo2.hac.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 16:57:59 -0500 From: matt lucas Subject: National Information Infrastructure Conference TeleStrategies Conference Announcement: The National Information Infrastructure Conference April 27-28, 1993 - Washington, DC PLUS "Understanding Information and Network Technologies for Non-Engineers" Monday, April 26, 1993 Tuesday, April 27, 1993 8:30-9:00 Registration 9:00-10:00 KEYNOTE ADDRESS: WHY DO WE NEED A NATIONAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE? What are the decisions to be made and alternatives to be faced? Should the NII be a single national system or specialized networks loosely interconnected? What should federal policy be? Senator Conrad Burns, (R - Mt.) 10:00-10:30 Coffee Break 10:30-12:00 DEFINING THE VISION AND PROVIDING LEADERSHIP The panelists will present a variety of policy views from the perspectives of their constituencies. Jerry Berman, Executive Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation Fiona Branton, Technology Counsel, Computer Systems Policy Project Ken Dowlin, Director, San Francisco Public Library Marc Rotenberg, Director, Washington Office Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility 12:00-1:30 Hosted Lunch 1:30-3:00 WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? Should the Federal government build the NII, pay for it in order to provide technology transfer, or should it just provide leadership and articulate a national interest point of view? Ralph Andreotta, Director, Technology Infrastructure, AT&T John Clement, Director, Consortium for School Networking Stewart Personick, Vice President, Information Networking and Research, Bellcore Paul Peters, Director, Coalition for Networked Information 3:00-3:30 Coffee Break 3:30-5:00 WHO WILL BUILD THE NII? This session will focus on issues related to building the NII. Panelists will discuss the parts of the infrastructure that are already in place and examine the components that still need to be added. The roles of the following players will be described: TCP/IP network service providers; the Community Learning & Information Network; industry and manufacturing nets (EINet); and the Internet Society and its role in international issues. Rick Adams, Chairman, Commercial Internet Exchange Ken Fiduk, Director, Enterprise Integration Network, MCC Anthony Rutkowskii, Secretary, Internet Society Sam Wyman, Chief Operating Officer Community Learning & Information Network 5:00-6:00 Reception Wednesday, April 28, 1993 8:30-10:00 THE ROLE OF THE NSFNET AND NREN Where do the NSFnet and NREN fit in the context of a NII? How is the role of the NSF changing in terms of the final backbone solicitation? How will (or should) NSF subsidies affect the NSFnet mid-level infrastructure? Gordon Cook, Editor & Publisher, COOK Report on Internet -> NREN Tom Grunder, President, National Public Telecomputing Network John Rugo, Project Manager, NEARnet Steve Wolff, Director, NSFnet 10:00-10:30 Coffee Break 10:30-12:30 THE ROLE OF CARRIERS, CABLE AND WIRELESS A NII will bring new opportunities for delivery of information to the home and business. What are the risks and potential rewards facing the telcos, cable TV, and wireless industries as they make their plans to participate in these new services? Mark Coblitz, Vice President, Strategic Planning Comcast Corporation Bob Doyle, Director, Marketing, Science and Education, US Sprint Lucie Fjeldstad, IBM Vice President and General Manager of been serving as a testbed for new ideas and services. Senator Kerrey has ambitious plans to pick up the pace of Nebraska's involvement by funding a grassroots computer network within the state. Issues involving access to the NII will also be discussed. Carolyn Fuller, Counsel, Office of Senator Kerrey Frank Odasz, Director, Big Sky Telegraph Roy Perry, Network Architect, U S West Advanced Technologies Samuel A. Simon, President, Issue Dynamics Inc. For complete information call TeleStrategies at (703) 734-7050 Conference Hotel: The conference will be held at the SHERATON RESTON HOTEL 11810 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA 22091, (703) 620-9000. THE HOTEL IS LOCATED 15 MINUTES FROM DULLES AIRPORT. Seminar Hours: Registration begins at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, April 26 and Tuesday, April 27. Seminar hours are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday and Tuesday, and 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 28 ------------------------------ From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) Subject: Veriphone (Credit-Card Verifier) Protocols? Date: 18 Feb 93 02:57:10 GMT Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY Does anyone have the specification used by a VeriFone credit-card verifier? I borrowed a friend's and did a little reverse-engineering on it. It dials a pre-programmed phone number, and connects at 1200 baud. It waits for ENQ, sends the info on the transaction, then waits for ACK followed by something (don't know what). ASCII ENQ -> <- ASCII STX <- Merchant account number <- ASCII FS <- @ <- credit-card number <- ASCII FS <- four digits of expiration date <- ASCII FS <- dollar amount to be verified <- ASCII ETX ASCII ACK -> something??-> russ Businesses persuade; Governments force. ------------------------------ From: s34011b@taltta.hut.fi (Mikko Tapio Lavanti) Subject: Virtual Private Networks - Users Opinions, Please Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 12:43:15 GMT Hello! I'm doing my final thesis on Virtual Private Networks in the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland. I have a lot (about 1000 pages) of written material but most of them are seen from the Operator point of wiew. I'd like to have as well some oppinion from the VPN users. Does anyone here have experience in using VPN (say SDN,Sprint VPN, GVPN or others) What have been the greatest benefits/disadvantages in using VPN? What should be considered in taking VPN in use for the company? Is there any good material seen from this point of view? How about using international virtual private networks? Thanks in advance, Mikko Lavanti ------------------------------ From: joel@wam.umd.edu (Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Help With Stolen Calling-Card Number! Please! Organization: University of Maryland, College Park Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 15:29:09 GMT Two months ago someone got hold of my calling card number (from AT&T). My bill for last month was well over $500, and included two carriers. My bill for this month is also well over $500, but includes dozens of LD carriers. The phone calls are to such places as Guam and Saudi Arabia; there can be no doubt that the card was used illegally. I'm having three problems resolving this issue. Can anyone help?? 1. Last month I only paid for the calls I made, and wrote a letter to the local telco explaining that the other calls were not made by me. They ignored my letter and sent me a notice that my phone service would be cut off. When I called them about it, they told me that I have to resolve the problem by speaking to someone on the phone; a letter is not good enough! I know this isn't possible. What should I do? 2. The local telco told me that I have to resolve the problem with each LD carrier independently. They will not act as a go-between for my and the LD carriers. Based on my experience in 1. (above), this would entail HOURS and HOURS of work. Is the local telco right? 3. Somehow, one of the LD carriers lists a calling-card call from MY HOME PHONE. I >KNOW< I didn't make that call, because I never use the calling card from home and I've never heard of the LD carrier. How could that have happened? Is it possible that this is an "inside job"? Is there any other explanation? Please help. This has become an administrative nightmare, and I really don't have time to spend hours on the phone and writing letters. MANY thanks in advance! Joel (joel@wam.umd.edu) [Moderator's Note: Let me ask this: Has AT&T now killed the PIN so the card can no longer be used? If so, then it is likely they are investigating the charges. It is really inconvenient for them and telco to put a hold on your bill and send you a manually corrected one, so you may be living with false charges coming through for a couple more months. And, if your call to telco or AT&T came too close to your billing cut off date the first time around, then it is likely the credit did not make it through in time causing your bill to become delinquent and obviously quite large. It is true each long distance company will have to investiogate the phraud calls which pertain to it, but telco can assist by charging back all the phraud as you identify it each month. You did the right thing by paying onyly foe what was yours. See if the billing settles down back to normal over the next couple months. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 19:43:56 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Mandatory Measured Service There are bills pending in both houses of the Washington State legislature which would permanently ban mandatory measured service in this state. Sounds like a hard thing to argue against, doesn't it? Well, guess who is against the ban? The PUC! That's right, the Public Utility Commission in WA is against a ban on mandatory measured service. They say that it would possibly interfere with their ability to guarantee universal telephone service! Their argument goes that if some point in the future it would become necessary to enact a tariff containing mandatory measured service in order to maintain universal telephone service availiability, that this law would prevent them from approving it. Now I've heard everything. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com [Moderator's Note: Believe me, there are people who prefer measured service because their use of the phone is so minimal. Modem users and telecom 'enthusiasts' like ourselves may find measured service not in our best interests, but for lots of people, it is a great deal. When we went to measured service here several years ago, with the complete elimination of plans which allowed unlimited calling across northern Illinois for a flat fee, a local consumer utility watchdog group gave the new (measured rate) plans a great deal of support because they perceived their constituents to mostly be people with limited financial resources who make limited use of the telephone. For quite a few people here, measured service cut their monthly bill in half. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 10:32:56 MST From: Philip Green Subject: RS449 or V.35 to Fiber Line Driver Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM I am looking for a device that will convert a rs422 or v.35 sync signal to fiber. The driver needs to handle up to 1.5mbit/sec. I want to connect a sync high speed line from a T1 mux to a router that is in another building. Thanks, Phil Green green@aoc.nrao.edu NRAO 505.835.7294 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #109 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11425; 19 Feb 93 3:01 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07443 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 19 Feb 1993 00:24:58 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15163 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 19 Feb 1993 00:24:31 -0600 Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 00:24:31 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302190624.AA15163@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #110 TELECOM Digest Fri, 19 Feb 93 00:24:30 CST Volume 13 : Issue 110 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Future of North American Numbering Plan (Dave Leibold) A "Handy" Risk for AirTravel? (RISKS via Monty Solomon) Telecommunications Policies (Mike Seebeck) NETSIG / Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing (Skip Addison) Unifi Distributed Call Center Information Wanted (Jim Karkanias) Press Release - Canadian Marconi FAX-X.400 Switch (Bill St. Arnaud) Directory Services Billing (Mark Blumhardt) Correction: Ontario Communications Ministry Merged (Nigel Allen) Satellite Modem For Sale (Al Wong) ISDN Book Wanted (Jim Karkanias) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 01:48:24 -0500 From: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dave Leibold) Subject: Future of North American Numbering Plan I have a copy of "North American Numbering Plan Administrator's Proposal on the Future of Numbering in World Zone 1", 4th January 1993 (second edition).In January 1995, there will be a new "interchangeable" area code (or NPA - Numbering Plan Area) format, where area codes are no longer restricted to having 0 or 1 as the middle digit. This will mean dialing changes throughout most of North America to reflect the loss of distinction between area codes and local number central office (exchange) codes. Some notable items are contained with document sectional references as appropriate. Not everything is covered here in full detail; this is my approximate summary of the document - the official version is available from Bellcore. Direct Distance Dialing started 10 November 1951 in Englewood NJ (sec. 2.1); there was early use of 11X+ codes for long distance, then eventually 1+ long distance dialing. 0+ dialing was started in 1960 for operator assistance; 011+ and 01+ for overseas started in 1970. Bellcore (Bell Communications Research) was assigned the function of administering the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) (sec. 2.2) in 1984 following the U.S. telephone divestiture. The NANP is expected to remain a ten-digit plan for the time being (sec. 3.3.4) that is area code of three digits plus seven-digit local numbers, and will continue to consist of decimal digits (0-9) consistent with CCITT recommendation E.164 (23 Aug 1991) (sec. 3.3.5). Numbers can be classified as "geographic" (the traditional local numbers, with area codes based on geographical boundaries) and "non-geographic" (such as the 800 or 900 area codes which apply throughout the NANP and not necessarily restricted to certain portions of the NANP) (sec. 3.4.1). A non-geographic purpose could also include future systems that assign a single number which can be forwarded to various places in North America (ie. a "lifetime" number that allows for moving to various cities) Section 4 recommends a method of assigning the new area codes: Geographic codes: N2X, N3X Growth/expansion: N4X - N7X Non-geographic codes: N8X, N9X N represents a digit from 2 to 9, X represents any digit. Thus, area codes like 223, 734, 520 would be geographic codes under the proposal, while area codes like 987, 294, 740 would be non-geographic. This middle digit of the area code is referred to as the "B" digit, thus the B digit indicates a new geographic or non-geographic code. As the initial set of geographic or non-geographic codes are used up, expansion takes place by using the nearest available expansion set. Thus, N4X codes are next in line for geographic codes expansion, while N7X codes are next for non-geographic expansion. Ultimately, expansion to more digits will be needed in the distant future, and it is proposed that either the N5X or N6X codes can be used to provide for "expansion" codes to set up a numbering plan of more than ten digits. The Carrier Identification Code (CIC) format of 10XXX+ (to select MCI, use 10222+ or Sprint 10333+) will be expanded to 101XXXX+ "in the near future". Nearly all of the 10XXX codes are assigned at this point. Since some services like Domino's Pizza are setting up 950 numbers like the long distance carriers (ie. dial 950.1430 to order their pizza), there is concern about seven digit "national numbers" and that there isn't enough room to provide these on the current system. (sec.6.3). On 31 December 1996 (referred to as "Time T"), there will be an expansion of the maximum international number length from 12 digits to 15 digits according to CCITT recommendation E.164 (sec. 7.4). There is a clalim that "at least one country has already expanded its numbering format to 13 digits and that additional countries outside WZ1 [world zone 1 ie. NANP] will also be expanding their digit format to exceed the currently allowable 12 digits". There was no mention of which country expanded to the 13 digit format. One carrier in NANP can apparently handle international numbers up to 14 digits already, according to a report footnote. "Overlay" NPA codes (sec. 7.6) are proposed in such cases as metropolitan areas. This means more than one area code can cover a geographic area; New York City already uses the 917 area code as an "overlay" to 212, and eventually more area codes will be needed. Now, section 7.7 states: "It is recommended that the North American telecommunications sector resolve to evolve to ten-digit dialing for station-to-station (network based) calls, *including local*" (my emphasis). The idea is to start in the metropolitan areas using "overlay" NPA codes like New York and perhaps other areas soon. This section also proposes that 1+ be eliminated as a long distance access prefix; in other words, any call in North America would consist of ten digits, whether local, long distance, or to a 900 service, or whatever. Section 9 of the report deals with the formation of steering committees for the NANP, with a proposal for the World Zone 1 Numbering Steering Committee (WNSC) with representation from Canada, U.S., and Caribbean groups. Section 10 is the Action Plan; there will be a Future of Numbering Forum (FNF) meeting 16-18 March 1993 in the Washington DC area. Those contributions to this forum received by Bellcore by 8 March 1993 will be forwarded to participants in the forum. For the complete document, or for more information, contact: NANP Administration, Bellcore - Room 1B225, 290 West Mt Pleasant Ave, Livingston NJ USA 07039 Tel: (201) 740.4596 or fax: (201) 740.6860. Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 23:16:48 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: A "Handy" Risk for AirTravel? Excerpt from RISKS DIGEST 14.33 Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1993 15:42:07 +0100 From: brunnstein@rz.informatik.uni-hamburg.dbp.de Subject: A "Handy" Risk for AirTravel? German newspapers report broadly on risks of hand-held telephones used in flight. Following a report of a new German weekly magazine FOCUS (some sort of Anti-Spiegel published since mid-January 1993, with some remarkably well-investigated articles on IT InSecurities), Germany's federal airtransport authority (Luftfahrt-Bundesamt, LBA in Braunschweig) admitted that major problems with passengers telephoning with "handy" mobile hend-held telephones have recently been experienced in some German airplanes. Newspapers report that hand-held telephones have influenced flight instruments (e.g. indicating velocity) even in landing approach. An LBA manager responsible for analysis of flight systems' security mentioned a B737 approaching Hamburg airport under IFR conditions when slope indicator suddenly began to jump; the pilot interrupted descent and made another (successful) approach. In som. The LBA manager was quoted to say that if velocity indicators be adversely affected by some influence of such a "handy" telephone, the pilot may be tempted to diminish the velocity below the critical value, with catastrophic influence on the plane. When contacted by me, this LBA manager refused some overdrawn citations but admitted that LBA sees serious problems and had warned carriers several times. Meanwhile, passenger instruction concerning emergency exits etc now also mentions risk of hand-held telephones which (according to some old German law) are not allowed to use in-flight. According to him, wires in planes are traditionally "hardened" against some electromagnetic induction; but the order of magnitude of such protection (about 3 Volt/meter) is, according to recent measurements of MBB (part of German Airbus, DASA) significantly lower than the 30 Volt/m which some hand-helds induce. Signal induction may even be worse as effects of reflections and resonances (which may develop in edges and channels below the cabin) may well enlarge the effect in a way hardly to measure. In public debates, such new facts add to the criticism that some overly computerized systems (e.g. Electronic Flight Management Systems, Fly-by-Wire) may enlarge in-flight risks. But at least one more advanced technology may reduce the risk of electromagnetic radiation: German Airbus is preparing to replace one (of 3) wires for some part of A340 communication (at least experimentally) by Fly-by-Light connection; in such a system, risk will remain with opticouplers between electromagnetic and optic parts as well as with traditional non-optical computers but the lines near the passengers parts will become immune against electromagnetic effects. Klaus Brunnstein (Univ Hamburg, February 6,1993) PS: this year, some of you may have missed my traditional report from Chaos Conference. Luckily, I was unable to participate, because several participants independently informed me that NOTHING worthwhile to report happened. Participation was said to be significantly lower than ever before, and even some journalists which are CCC's good friends did not report this year. Moreover, due to very chaotic organisation, CCCs usual electronic articles were not available for FTP. "Downsizing" CCC seems to be in interesting contrast to US hackers (2600) which become more active, as visible from the Pentagon raids. [TELECOM Moderator's Note: I don't think he meant 'Pentagon raids'. I think he meant the Justice Department/FBI activities. PAT] ------------------------------ From: seebeck@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Mike Seebeck) Subject: Telecommunications Policies Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 00:13:28 GMT I am working on telecomm policies for a corporation. We are looking at all aspects of telephone and data transmission. Subjects of interest are long distance service, cellular use, data links, executive suites, etc. Are there any reference materials or resources available that I can be directed to? Thanks in advance, Michael Seebeck Sr.Telecomm Consultant RMH Group, Lakewood, CO,USA main(303)239-0909 direct 239-2761 ------------------------------ From: saddison@Novell.COM (Skip Addison) Subject: NETSIG / Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Organization: Novell, Inc. Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 01:24:12 GMT Software Entrepreneurs' Forum Networking Special Interest Group *presents* Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Panel including RAM Mobile Data and others 7:00 pm Tuesday, February 23rd, Novell/Sunnyvale Need "Information At Your Fingertips" be restricted either to an office or whereever a phone line can be accessed? NETSIG will host a panel of experts such as Kurt Christofferson, a Product Manager at RAM Mobile Data and a NETSIG participant. He and others from industry players such as GO and RadioMail will tell us where wireless communication is headed and how to take advantage of this burgeoning industry is headed. Admission is free for SEF members; $10.00 for non-members. For more information, contact Skip Addison (408.283.3545). The Novell facility is located at 890 Ross Drive in Sunnyvale, where 101, 237 and Mathilda Avenue converge. Come around to the "Sales Seminar Entrance" at the back of the building. SEF is a non-profit trade association of people involved in the creation, publishing and support of innovative commercial software. For more information about SEF call Barbara or Ellen at 415-854-7219 (and tell 'em Skip sent you ;-). NETSIG normally meets the fourth Tuesday of each month at the Novell Sunnyvale facility. ------------------------------ From: karkan@msdrl.com (Jim Karkanias) Subject: Unifi Distributed Call Center Information Wanted Organization: Merck Research Laboratories Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 01:21:19 GMT I'm interested in any opinions regarding the Unifi Distributed Call Center. It's a software solution to providing automatic call distribution (ACD) by exploiting the processing and other advanced capabilities inherent in ISDN. Anyone care to share any info or experience regarding such devices? Any info. would be grand. Thanks. What's the rated bandwidth/data capacity of ISDN? Thanks. Jim ------------------------------ From: wcsv2k@ccs.carleton.ca (Bill St. Arnaud) Subject: Press Release - Canadian Marconi FAX-X.400 Switch Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 11:33:56 EST CANADIAN MARCONI WINS FAX-X.400 CONTRACT IN DENMARK Canadian Marconi, a member of the VISION 2000 Consortium, has won a major contract to supply its FAX-X.400 Enhanced Facsimile Switching equipment to Fyns Telefon, a wholly owned subsidiary of Tele Danmark A/S, the national telecommunications agency of the government of Denmark. The contract represents Canadian Marconi's second major sale of its FAX-X.400 system to a major European public carrier company. British Telecom was Canadian Marconi's first customer in Europe for this equipment. This new contract secures Canadian Marconi's position as a leading supplier of value added services in Europe. According to Bryan Locker, Marketing and FAX Group Manager at Canadian Marconi: "Our goal now is to extend this success throughout continental and northern Europe." Canadian Marconi's FAX-X.400 Enhanced Facsimile Switching Equipment uses an X.200 OSI layered architecture incorporating X.400 message handling and switching for national and international routing of FAX messages. Canadian Marconi is a world leader in the innovative design and quality production of facsimile, communications, avionics, radar and navigation systems. Canadian Marconi is also an active participant in the VISION 2000 consortium. The VISION 2000 consortium is a Communications Canada and industry initiative to accelerate and foster the development of personal communications in Canada through the use and deployment of new developments in FUTURE FAX technology. For more information please contact: Bill St. Arnaud Tony Oliver VISION 2000 Canadian Marconi Company V: +1 613.567.2000 V: +1 613.592.6500 F: +1 613.567.4730 F: +1 613.592.7427 ---------------- Bill St. Arnaud Internet: wcsv2k@ccs.carleton.ca VISION 2000 INC. X.400: C=CA; A=TELECOM.CANADA; 203-294 Albert St. O=VISION2000; DDA:ID=V2K.EMS Ottawa CANADA Voice: +1 613 567-2000 K1P 6E6 Fax: +1 613 567-4730 VISION 2000 INC: A Department of Communications and industry initiative to foster and accelerate the development of personal communications in Canada. ------------------------------ From: msb@advtech.uswest.com (Mark Blumhardt) Subject: Directory Services Billing Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 19:36:45 GMT Just a quick question. When you use directory assistance (1+411), where is billing initiated? The end office where the 411 call was made, or the directory assistance center, or ...? Are AMA records generated? Thanks in advance. Mark Blumhardt [Moderator's Note: It is billed by your CO, based on the charge for the service made by your one-plus carrier (if an inter-lata call) or the local telco (in the case of 411). Yes, call records are kept. When I have had occassion to examine the detailed billing records for my phone lines, '411' and '0' have been listed in the amongst the other calls. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Nigel Allen Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 19:00:00 -0500 Subject: Correction: Ontario Communications Ministry Merged Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto Earlier this month I reported that Ontario's Ministry of Culture and Communications had been merged with the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. The Communications Division of the former Ministry of Culture and Communications, I have since learned, is *not* part of the new Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. It is now part of the new Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. According to mail I received from someone at the Communications Division, the address is expected to remain the same for the forseeable future. Nigel Allen nigel.allen@canrem.com 52 Manchester Avenue Voice: (416) 535-8916 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6G 1V3 Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario 416-629-7000/629-7044 ------------------------------ From: awong@cns.caltech.edu (Al Wong) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 08:12:22 PST Subject: Satellite Modem For Sale I have a SM-200A Satellite Modem made by Fairchild for sale. The modem appears to be new as it is still in the original bubble wrap packaging. THe modem works in the 52-88 Mhz range. I would be happy to mail/fax the spec sheets to anyone who is interested. Please respond directly to me as I am not subscribed to this list. The modem sells new for at least $10K but I am willing to sell it at a gross discount. Thanks, Al Wong awong@cns.caltech.edu ------------------------------ From: karkan@msdrl.com (Jim Karkanias) Subject: ISDN Book Wanted Organization: Merck Research Laboratories Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 01:27:34 GMT Anyone care to recommend a good book on ISDN? Thanks, Jim [Moderator's Note: Why yes, as a matter of fact, telecom reader Fred Goldstein has written the very book you are seeking. I reviewed it here awhile back, perhaps Fred will write you with details, and send a cc: to the Digest so we can plug his book again to new readers who did not see the earlier review. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #110 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12249; 19 Feb 93 3:29 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01254 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 19 Feb 1993 01:10:28 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24850 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 19 Feb 1993 01:10:00 -0600 Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 01:10:00 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302190710.AA24850@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #111 TELECOM Digest Fri, 19 Feb 93 00:10:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 111 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Adam Frix) Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (J. Hanrahan) Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Hans Ridder) Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (Conrad Kimball) Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (Jeff Sicherman) Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (Steven H. Lichter) Re: The War on Pagers (Maxime Taksar) Re: The War on Pagers (Adam M. Gaffin) The War on Freedom (Paul Robinson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Feb 93 23:39:29 EST From: Adam.Frix@cmhgate.fidonet.org (Adam Frix) Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones g9gwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Geoffrey P Waigh) writes: > Whenever I have heard of this plan, I have wondered how Americans > will continue to design radio equipment. Is there some clause > that I missed that will allow RF engineers to continue purchasing > spectrum analyzers, mixers and other simple to connect gadgets > for the purpose of testing their equipment? If so, what is > going to stop these devices from being used to scan cellular > communications? It would be amusing if spectrum analyzers > had to be kept under lock-and-key to prevent use by anyone > other than a "certified, responsible entity." > Much like printing presses and fax machines under current Chinese > rule, or under the old Soviet Union. Agreed. I can't wait until law enforcement decides they want to communicate with each other in, say, a certain color of blue. There will be special billboards along the roadside where cops can leave messages to one another. To ensure that Joe Public "can't" read these messages, cops will pass laws stating that it is illegal for any non-law-enforcement agent to see that particular frequency of EMR. Because it's a law, by definition no one will "be able" to read these messages, and therefore such communication will remain private, privileged law enforcement communication. Anyone who dares to see that particular frequency can and will be put in jail, an obvious menace to society. Isn't it great to see what happens when ignorant old fogies, easily boozed and swayed by special interests, are in charge of drafting laws relating to and intertwined with basic laws of physics? Aloha, Adam America OnLine: AdamFrix (okay) Internet: Adam.Frix@cmhgate.fidonet.org. (convenient) OR adamfrix@aol.com (if you must, but try CIS first) Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH UUCP: ...!uunet.uu.net!towers!bluemoon!cmhgate!Adam.Frix INET: Adam.Frix@cmhgate.fidonet.org Please use bang path until my mail forwarding gets fixed. ------------------------------ From: Jamie Hanrahan Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones Date: 17 Feb 93 21:32:52 PST Organization: Kernel Mode Systems, San Diego, CA john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Scanner laws will be just about as effective as gun laws -- only much > sillier. The FCC is seriously deluded if it thinks it can win a > technological war with anyone. I know the basics of how cellphones work, but not the "internals", so forgive me if I am displaying my ignorance by asking: Can someone explain why cellphones couldn't gain increased security simply by channel-hopping *within a cell*? Say, every five seconds or so? If you only move one call at a time, you'd only need one free channel in the cell. Granted this would be no defense against a determined eavesdropper (neither is the FCC's proposed rule), but it would certainly make it more unlikely that someone with a standard scanner could hear anything useful. Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Systems, San Diego CA Internet: jeh@cmkrnl.com, or hanrahan@eisner.decus.org Uucp: uunet!cmkrnl!jeh ------------------------------ From: ridder@zowie.zso.dec.com (Hans) Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - DECwest Engineering Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 17:32:39 GMT In article John Higdon writes: > Scanner laws will be just about as effective as gun laws -- only much > sillier. The FCC is seriously deluded if it thinks it can win a > technological war with anyone. The below-average moron outguns the FCC > in the brain cell department. Remember, the FCC is only doing what its told to. The real "below-average morons" are *your* elected officials who passsed the law so no one could listen to their phone calls. We have no one to blame but ourselves for putting these idiots into office. :-( Hans-Gabriel Ridder DECwest Engineering, Bellevue, Washington, USA Any opinions expressed are not those of my employer, honest. [Moderator's Note: Actually here in the USA, people who bother voting wind up only voting for less than one percent of the petty tyrants and others who dominate our lives. The rest are appointed or hangers-on; civil 'servants' we call them, but rebellious and willful servants is more like it. That's why I always thought it was such a joke to hear people say 'if you don't like things the way they are, then vote for a new bunch.' When is the last time *you* voted for anyone in the FCC/FBI/IRS/DOD/HUD/NSA/CIA/ETC? I don't blame myself for putting idiots in office. I didn't vote for any of 'em! PAT] ------------------------------ From: cek@sdc.boeing.com (Conrad Kimball) Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State Date: 18 Feb 93 07:02:04 GMT Organization: Boeing Computer Services (ESP), Seattle, WA In article John Higdon writes: > Bob Longo writes: >> Californians want CNID, but they also want per-line blocking to be >> available (which is what PacBell is vigorously opposed to). That is >> reasonable in a state where 40% of phone customers have unlisted >> numbers. > Perhaps you could site the surveys and studies that back this up? I am > damn sick of people pronouncing what Californian's want (based upon > absolutely no evidence) when trying to justify the stifling of yet > another useful technology. Perhaps you can site surveys that support _your_ desires? It's hardly fair to claim your position should be adopted by default in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The converse position is just as defensible (but obviously _you_ don't like it). I'm damn sick of self-centered techno junkies writing off people that express privacy concerns as being uninformed ignorant boobs. > I, for one, do not much care what Californian's want; I know what is ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This says it all ... Sounds like my four-year old: "Give me what I want!! Give me what I want!! (whine, whine, whine...)." Fortunately, most people's parents managed to properly socialize them. > useful and desirable and what is available in most of the rest of the "Aww, mom!! All the _other_ kids get to do , why can't I?". > country. I also know that none of the doom and gloom, even in areas > that have no blocking capability, has been demonstrated in any way. Let's see ... absence of (reported) negative effects over an observation period of a year or so, therefore: there _are_ _no_ negative effects ... first rate reasoning there. > The CPUC is perfectly aware that its restrictions are not standard and > that no other state has required default per-line blocking and > per-call enabling. Please stop pontificating about how it is just the > mean old telephone companies that are being unreasonable. The > restrictions were passed with one purpose in mind: to eliminate the > offering of CNID in California. It succeeded royally. The activists > won this round. Right on!! Conrad Kimball | Client Server Tech Services, Boeing Computer Services cek@sdc.boeing.com | P.O. Box 24346, MS 7A-35 (206) 865-6410 | Seattle, WA 98124-0346 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 00:50:34 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article John Higdon writes: > Bob Longo writes: >> Californians want CNID, but they also want per-line blocking to be >> available (which is what PacBell is vigorously opposed to). That is >> reasonable in a state where 40% of phone customers have unlisted >> numbers. > Perhaps you could site the surveys and studies that back this up? I am > damn sick of people pronouncing what Californian's want (based upon > absolutely no evidence) when trying to justify the stifling of yet > another useful technology. This is a reasonable request, but restricting in the public interest is not stifling by its definition. And in your business you hardly represent the attitudes of the average consumer of telecommunications services. > I, for one, do not much care what Californian's want; I know what is > useful and desirable and what is available in most of the rest of the > country. I also know that none of the doom and gloom, even in areas > that have no blocking capability, has been demonstrated in any way. Yes, the self-righteous rarely care what other people want, but, John, I think you're a lot more intelligent and decent than this; you seem to have a few hot buttons when your own 'expert' view of telecom is challenged. Trouble is, this is not a technical issue at all, it's a civil rights and privacy one; you're technical rights and desires rank quite a bit below that. > The CPUC is perfectly aware that its restrictions are not standard and > that no other state has required default per-line blocking and > per-call enabling. Please stop pontificating about how it is just the > mean old telephone companies that are being unreasonable. The > restrictions were passed with one purpose in mind: to eliminate the > offering of CNID in California. It succeeded royally. The activists > won this round. Please stop pontificating yourself. If you have any proof of this grand conspiracy to stifle caller-id, please present it. Otherwise, we may just take the situation at face value: that there is a difference of opinion as to what privacy rights ought to be with respect to the use of the telephone, and that the phone companies views didn't win. Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ From: co057@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven H. Lichter) Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State Date: 18 Feb 1993 03:02:48 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA) It did not reflect the majority of the California public, it reflected the few people that took time to go to the hearings or write plus a couple of groups ran by a bunch of fuddy duddies that want us to go back to a manual system. Those were the same people that raised a storm when Catalina Island finally came into the 20th century. They may do a lot of good, but in this case they blew it and people should not support them unless they wake up. This service is available almost across the US and Canada plus a few foreign countries and there has not been the doom prodicted by these people. Besides the PUC has never been receptive to either the companies they regulate or the public. They should be elected or if they are appointed we should be able to vote on them as we do with the Supreme Court in California. Steven H. Lichter COEI GTE Calif. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 14:08:36 -0800 From: mmt@RedBrick.COM (Maxime Taksar KC6ZPS) Subject: Re: The War on Pagers In article , jeff@bradley.bradley.edu (Jeff Hibbard) writes: >> [Moderator's Note: In the Chicago Public Schools, pagers are >> considered verbotin and are confiscated from students. This is part >> of the War on Drugs. PAT] > It's not just Chicago, it's state-wide. Illinois state law allows > pagers and cellular phones to be confiscated from anybody (not just > students) who brings them onto school property. If I visit my son's > school wearing my (employer-supplied) pager, they can keep it. If I > drive through the school's parking lot to pick him up, they can > confiscate the cellular phone in my car. An adult who gives a student > such a device to take to school can do a year in jail and pay a >$10,000 fine. This sounds blatantly unconstituational, being seizure with due process. Has this law had to stand up in court yet? Has anyone been jailed or fined yet? Or is it too new a law, still? It would be interesting to know how long this law has been around and if any other states have it. Just about every public school in the Bay Area that I know of forbids pagers (and, I assume cellphones), and I think that anyone under 18 is forbidden to carry a pager *anywhere*. Sounds like it's time to start sending the ACLU money ... Maxime Taksar KC6ZPS mmt@RedBrick.COM ------------------------------ From: adamg@world.std.com (Adam M Gaffin) Subject: Re: The War on Pagers Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 00:15:51 GMT Here in Framingham, Mass., administrators and teachers have confiscated five or six beepers from students this year. But the principal doubts the students are using them to arrange drug deals. He says his students are wearing them as status symbols -- if they were selling drugs, they wouldn't be dumb enough to wear their beepers where teachers could see them! Adam Gaffin Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass. adamg@world.std.com Voice: (508) 626-3968. Fred the Middlesex News Computer: (508) 872-8461. ------------------------------ From: Paul Robinson Subject: The War on Freedom Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 01:00:02 -0500 (EST) jeff@bradley.bradley.edu (Jeff Hibbard) on the Subject: The War on Pagers In TELECOM Digest Volume 13, Issue 105 wrote: >> [Moderator's Note: In the Chicago Public Schools, pagers are >> considered verbotin and are confiscated from students. This is part >> of the War on Drugs. PAT] Let's call it what it is: the War on the Constitution. Fifty years ago, the U.S. Government used hysteria to put American Citizens in U.S. Government operated Concentration Camps. Now, it is aiming at another group of people: those who have a profile of whatever it doesn't like. And, to add insult to injury, it is using every means it can imagine to deny them any means in law to challenge these acts of terror. Anyone whose property is confiscated in 'civil forfeiture' has essentially zero chance of recovering it; the fact that they are totally innocent of any wrongdoing is irrelevant. > It's not just Chicago, it's state-wide. Illinois state law allows > pagers and cellular phones to be confiscated from anybody (not just > students) who brings them onto school property. If I visit my son's > school wearing my (employer-supplied) pager, they can keep it. If I > drive through the school's parking lot to pick him up, they can > confiscate the cellular phone in my car. An adult who gives a student > such a device to take to school can do a year in jail and pay a > $10,000 fine. > Although text in the actual bill passed makes it clear the intent was > to forbid cellular phones and pagers, all of the above actually > applies to "communication devices", which the law defines as anything > designed to receive or transmit radio signals outside of the > commercial broadcast band. For example, if I let my son take my Radio > Shack "Time Cube" (which can only receive WWV) to show-and-tell, they > could confiscate it, fine me $10,000 and lock me up for a year. This sort of thing needs to be fought and stopped. Write to the FCC. This is a clear interference in interstate commerce since these radios are operated by authorized users communicating with federally licensed carriers. Most people probably feel they don't have the time or the money to mount a court fight but one aught to be made. Laws like this have the nasty habit of being used as a stepping stone for even worse onslaughts on people's rights. First it's $10K for giving someone a pager; how long before it's the death penalty for posession of a single-edge razor blade? ("So what are you on death row for?" "Giving my son a razor to use in arts-and-crafts.") :( The Interstate Commerce Commission might have an issue in this: if a truck with a CB radio drives past a school in Illinois, the truck might be stopped and its radio confiscated. (Most laws prohibiting posession of something in or near a school include as much as 300 feet.) This could interfere with the efficient moving of material in interstate commerce. Try contacting the ACLU, however because they tend to approve of more government controls on the public, they might think the law is a nice idea. Or try contacting the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Or get the media involved: Let them know about this. You may have to gore their ox and point out that this sort of thing could be used against them: Knowing how bad Chicago politics are, you might want to send a note about this to the radio and television stations there: the next time a reporter from a station or newspaper runs articles which are unfavorable to the school board is at a school board meeting, or is doing a report at a school, the security guard confiscates the microwave transmit truck! Think this is unlikely? During the famous "zero tolerance" issues, where the government was taking the policy of confiscating any vehicle entering or leaving a U.S. Border, if it had even miniscule amounts of drugs on it, it was noted that all that would have been necessary was to find a couple of joints in a passenger cabin, and the U.S. Government could have siezed the {Queen Elizabeth II}! Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #111 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19493; 19 Feb 93 21:19 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24011 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 19 Feb 1993 11:43:36 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25418 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 19 Feb 1993 11:43:06 -0600 Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 11:43:06 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302191743.AA25418@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #112 TELECOM Digest Fri, 19 Feb 93 11:43:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 112 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Phone Questions (Gregory Youngblood) Re: Cellular Phone Questions (Steve Forrette) Re: Cellular Phone Questions (David E. Sheafer) Re: 1-800-CALL-ATT 'ext. 21' to be Discontinued (A. Alan Toscano) Re: 1-800-CALL-ATT 'ext. 21' to be Discontinued (Dave Levenson) Re: What Number do I Dial From My Phone to Get Phone to Ring? (F. Schimmel) Re: Running Out of Area Codes (Doug Granzow) Re: BBS Tax Passes Florida Senate (Steven H. Lichter) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Questions From: tcscs!zeta@src.honeywell.com (Gregory Youngblood) Reply-To: zeta%tcscs@src.honeywell.com Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 22:11:34 CST Organization: TCS Consulting Services stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes: > In article wegeng.henr801c@xerox.com > writes: >> Background: My contract is with Genesee Telephone, which is the A >> channel carrier here in the Rochester, NY area. >> If I'm travelling in rural areas it may make sense (from >> a safety perspective) to roam with both the A and B carriers. Is my >> reasoning correct? >> [Moderator's Note: Generally the A and B carriers stick to their own >> kind when making roaming agreements. You'll usually only see A agree >> to roaming terms with a B carrier or vice-versa when there is only one >> (but not both) in a location. > Generally speaking, if an A customer roams onto a B carrier, the B > carrier will not be able to bill the A customer's bill directly, and > will want to set up a temporary account billed to a major credit card. > Most every B carrier I've dealt with has been set up to handle credit > card accounts, but this is not very widespread on the A side as far as > I can tell. My experience with the credit card temporary accounts is > that they are a big hassle. First, there may be limited customer > service hours in the city you roam in, so if you arrive in the evening > or on a weekend, you may have to wait until the next business day to > get set up. This also depends on who the carriers are. When I established roaming agreements for one carrier, I kind of made the policy as I went along. As a result, within the main areas of competition (Houston/Galveston/ Conroe TX) we didn't allow A and B roaming, only A. But, anywhere else we always did our best to set up roaming with A and B carriers. My thinking, which was backed up by the bosses, was that our customers deserved the greatest convenience, and since some markets one carrier was far better than the other, so we tried to allow our customers to roam on either one. > The last time I had to do this, it took over 20 minutes on the phone > with customer service to give the required information. They want to > know your phone's number, ESN, home carrier, home address, social > security number, home phone number, credit card, etc, etc. They are > really paranoid about fraud, so your regular cell phone's account has > to have the same name and address as the credit card and so on. Then, > it takes them about an hour to get the account set up in the switch. This is probably because the market(s) where this happened did not have raoming agreements with your home carrier. If they did, then they could bill directly to your phone bill. Actually, when you're roaming, your calls are billed to your carrier in bulk at a fixed rate set in their contracts. The roaming carrier where you're at then sends in their billing tapes, and the billing company sorts all the call records and generates bills for the home customers, and tapes for the rest, which then generate the roaming reports. These tapes, or the data on the tapes, will get to your home carrier's billing company who then include the calls on your personal bill. Before that happens though, the roaming carrier has a series of reports and bills which detail the bulk calls (or whatever the contracts require) to be paid. Last I checked the carriers paid for roaming in a 30 day window, but the calls wouldn't show up on the cellular bills sometimes for 45 to 90 days. They were trying to bring that window of carrier paying carrier down to 15 days. Greg TCS Consulting Services P.O. Box 600008 St. Paul, MN 55106-0008 Mail-server requests to: mail-server%tcscs@idss.nwa.com zeta%tcscs@src.honeywell.com or zeta%tcscs@idss.nwa.com ..!srcsip!tcscs!zeta or ..!guppy!tcscs!zeta ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Questions Date: 19 Feb 1993 01:03:27 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article wegeng.henr801c@xerox.com writes: > In other words, will carriers accept emergency calls from any > telephone, or will they only accept emergency calls from phones that > they recognize? Generally speaking, cellular carriers will always accept calls to 911 or 611 (or whatever the customer service number is). A noted exception to this rule is LA Cellular, which won't let you call anyone, not even 911 or the LA Cellular customer service number, if you're not recoginized. I was stuck in LA for four days in December and was completely without service. I tried to get an account set up with the B carrier, but they were closed because of Christmas and the weekend. At least they would let 911 calls go through, so I was set for emergencies once I figured out that I should switch my phone to B. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: nin15b0b@merrimack.edu (David E. Sheafer) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Questions Date: 18 Feb 93 20:03:56 GMT Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA, USA In article , wegeng.henr801c@xerox.com (Don Wegeng) writes: > The replies that I have received about roaming and antennas have been > very useful, and are much appreciated. There's still one area that > I'm still not clear on, namely emergency use of the phone when I'm > outside my home service area. In Mass I've dialed the the state police with a cellphone that was no longer signed up with either carrier and it worked fine. David E. Sheafer internet: nin15b0b@merrimack.edu or uucp: samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b GEnie: D.SHEAFER Cleveland Freenet: ap345 ------------------------------ From: atoscano@attmail.com Date: 18 Feb 93 20:07:46 GMT Subject: Re: 1-800-CALL-ATT 'ext. 21' to be Discontinued In TELECOM Digest Volume 13, Issue 104, lchiu@holonet.net (Laurence Chiu) writes: > I have a couple of comments and questions on that. Firstly, does > anybody know why when you call 1-800-CALL-ATT you get a message, "to > complete your call please press or dial 1 now" (or words to that > effect). Unless it's some kind of touch-tone determination. This was implemented back in November, presumably to accomodate rotory callers. Previously the "timeout defaults" for the 800 CALL-ATT and 800 882-CARD main menus were to route the caller to the Calling Card Customer Service center in Kansas City, MO. (800 CALL-ATT is used for personal/consumer Calling Cards, while 800 882-CARD is used for business/corporate Calling Cards.) These Customer Service Reps, in addition to normal functions, had to handle call completions for rotory callers who could not reach an Operator through traditional means. They did this by transferring the caller to a Kansas City area AT&T OSPS Operator, and relaying billing information about the call while the caller was still on hold. This resulted in slower service to everyone, and inadvertantly, in "call splashing" of a sort, causing poorer connections. With the changes made in November, the "main menus" for both of these 800 numbers were placed behind the initial prompt to which Laurence refers. On 800 CALL-ATT (but not on 800 882-CARD,) for calls placed from Equal Access end offices, the "timeout default" for both initial and "main menu" prompts became AATOS, the Automated Access To Operator Services part of AT&T's Operstor Services network. (Actually it didn't matter what you dialed in response to the initial prompt, thus while the new menus prompted dialing "1-1" to reach AATOS, the older "2-1" continued to reach AATOS as it had before.) Rotory callers would now timeout to AATOS, and subsequently timeout again to an OSPS Operator near the caller's location. This allowed rotory users to be routed to someone well trained in call completion, and eliminated the "splashing" problem for them. (Rotory callers needing to contact Calling Card Customer Service could either ask the Operator to connect them, or call 800 882-CARD themselves and timeout.) The initial prompt reduces the holding time required by a rotory caller before timeout occurs. The 800 CALL-ATT and 800 882-CARD "main menus" have become rather extensive over the years! A timeout on the 800 CALL-ATT "main menu" now takes nearly one full minute! I'd like to add my own thoughts about 800 321-0ATT: As I see it, the introduction of this number represents a FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE in Corporate Policy and thinking on the part of some folks at AT&T. For years, AT&T resisted in implementing an 800 access number. When the FCC issued regulations, persuant to federal legislation, requiring that either an 800 or 950 access number be established, AT&T adapted its Fully Automated USA Direct Service for domestic use, but placed it behind an 800 Call Prompter menu that tutored the caller to first attempt to dial in a preferred way. The service was slowly phased in across the country over a three month period from mid-March of 92, through mid-June. Initially it only served TouchTone callers from Equal Access switches. The changes implemented last November accomodated rotory callers, albeit with some timeout waiting, but not callers from non-Equal Access switchs. The March 10 rollout of 800 321-0ATT provides "universal access" for: TouchTone and rotary callers; (Rotary callers now have an even shorter timeout wait) Equal Access and non-Equal Access callers; Callers from non-compliant (illegally blocking) COCOTS; Callers from most business PBXs - which may legally block 10ATT-0+ (BTW: Many PBXs will allow 9-18003210288 to be stored in Speed Dialing - some, however, may block *all* outside calls from certain stations); Callers from cellular systems - which may also block 10ATT-0+ (Not all cellular systems send 0+ calls to AT&T - I know of none which allow 10XXX-0+ calling); Also, the "tutoring," which may be accessed via 800 CALL-ATT (option "12"), now suggests 800 321-0ATT on an *equal par* with 10ATT-0+. Once some problems with Busy Tones are cleared up, AT&T will finally have in place an access number that I personally believe will serve its customers very well (provided that COCOT/AOS companies don't try to overtly block it - an act that's now apparently a federal offense). I applaud AT&T for providing this long needed access number. Finally, a Usage Tip: After dialing "the number you are calling," press "#" for faster progression. As previously noted, this technique also speeds up "sequence calling." Disclaimer: I do not work for AT&T - I'm just a customer. A Alan Toscano -- Houston, TX -- ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: 1-800-CALL-ATT 'ext. 21' to be Discontinued Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 23:21:14 GMT In article , Paul Robinson writes: > Effective April 1, dialing 1-800-CALL-ATT, then dialing extension 21 > will no longer be available for getting direct access to AT&T's > switch. > Oh horrors! What will we do, what will we do? > Fortunately, AT&T has an answer. They have a new number which is > *exclusively* for connecting to their switch. The new number is: > 1-800-321-0-ATT I have read about this number in several articles on today's issue of the Digest. I have dialed this number repeatedly from my office here in Stirling, NJ, and I always get a busy signal. Does this not work yet? Are all of the readers of this Digest trying it out today and overloading it? I really would like to use this, because I spend a lot of time at a customer site where they block 10288 and force me to use a carrier who doesn't accept my AT&T corporate calling card. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: schimmel@gandalf.ca (Fred Schimmel) Subject: Re: What Number do I Dial From My Phone to Get My Phone to Ring? Organization: Gandalf Data Ltd. Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 18:44:20 GMT In stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes: > In article oppedahl@Panix.Com (Carl > Oppedahl) writes: >> According to Part 68 of the FCC regulations, the local telco is >> supposed to tell you how to make your line ring back ... so that if [some stuff deleted] >> [Moderator's Note: Telco need not provide an automated service for >> this purpose or tell you how to access the automated service. They >> need only to make your bell ring on request. In other words, the [some more stuff deleted] > Are you sure? If the stated purpose of this regulation is to provide > non-telco inside wiring folks a level playing field, then allowing the > telco to internally use an automated service, while requiring that > non-telco personnel use a manual service through the operator, is NOT > providing a level playing field, now is it? Just adding another log to the already incredibly high pile of articles about ring-your-phone numbers and Caller-Id too: I live in southern New Jersey and just subscribed to CLID. When I installed my box, I wanted to test it. (Yeah I know, call a friend and ask them to call you back ... which I had to do, because... Well, after reading about all these people who wanted their phone to ring on command, I decided to try and remember how I used to do it (as a teenager a long time ago). All I remembered was dial 55? and the last four digits of your phone number. So I tried various 55? calls til one gave me something other than a please check the number intercept. The number for (609) (this week anyway) is 553-dddd where dddd is the last four digits of your phone number. This number answers and gives you a high pitched tone, after which you should issue a hook flash (confirmed by an interruption of the tone), then hang up. Your phone should now ring. The tone should be there again so don't bobble the phone on the way back down or it may ring you again. I have gotten this "stuck" where I almost couldn't get rid of the stupid ring test. I also vaguely remember using this number to test the touchtone keypad (it speaks back to you the number you press) but I didn't verify if that feature was there. Also note that this number is busy at times, so try again later. I did my tries at night, not too many phone installers then. Anyway, the finish line is that the ringback did ABSOLUTELY nothing to my CLID box, which caused me to use step number two above, whereupon the CLID did what it was supposed to, and I could amaze my friend that I knew it was him calling, because my CLID said it was his number [etc. etc.]. Sorry about the rambling Pat. Now for the obligitory test number query, does anyone know any other test numbers (like to verify touchtone keypad, etc.)? In this area I do know that xxx-9966 is a quiet termination (you can use this to see if your line has crosstalk) and xxx-9971 gives a 1KHz test tone (I guess at 0dBm0). (yes xxx above is your local exchange prefix) Fred Schimmel my opinions > /dev/null/flames Gandalf Systems Corporation Cherry Hill NJ [Moderator's Note: To test the pad here, we dial the ring back number and have it ring back, but instead of hanging up at that point, hit the digits 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-0 in that order and if all is well you will hear a short double beep. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dig@pro-cynosure.cts.com Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes Organization: ProLine [pro-cynosure] Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 15:01:25 EST denny@alisa.com (Bob Denny) writes: > My kid tells me that it is "in" to have a pager, whether you're a drug > dealer or not. Each of those pagers have their own seven-digit phone > number, and you can buy 'em at the local stationery store. The service > is something like $15/mo. Pagers are not permitted in schools around here. This rule was implemented a few years ago, like PAT said, as part of the War On Drugs. There were to be no exceptions. A friend of mine, who is a volunteer firefighter, was personally told he could not bring his pager to school or any school related events. He didn't pay much attention to their threats, and they never did anything to him. I guess the school officials weren't interested in seeing a newspaper article titled "Student Suspended For Putting Out Fire". > No wonder phone numbers are disappearing so fast!!! This is also a result of wasteful use of phone lines by businesses. Where I work, we have five different computers, each with its own phone line. Most of these computers receive/make one call per day (one of them gets one call per week). It would be cheaper to put them all on the same phone line (it would be cheaper still to put all the programs on one computer), but that would require too much coordination. Doug Granzow dig@pro-cynosure.cts.com or ...crash!pro-cynosure!dig Call: The Cynosure BBS | Free | Internet | 14.4kbps USR DS | +1 410 549 2584 Ask me about the a2-bbs mailing list! ------------------------------ From: co057@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven H. Lichter) Subject: Re: BBS Tax Passes Florida Senate Date: 19 Feb 1993 03:05:42 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA) Just look at what happened in California with the tax on newsprint. The free papers had to pay tax even though the paper was free. That was fixed but the way the govenment thought they would try and collect it anyway. Didn't you know we work for them? I was told by the Public Works Director of Riveride, Calif when I asked why they act the way they do and his answer was we are thou. They think they are gods. Steven H. Lichter GTE Calif. COEI ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #112 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23473; 19 Feb 93 23:09 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16999 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 19 Feb 1993 20:55:03 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29412 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 19 Feb 1993 20:54:36 -0600 Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 20:54:36 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302200254.AA29412@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #113 TELECOM Digest Fri, 19 Feb 93 20:54:20 CST Volume 13 : Issue 113 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (Jack Decker) Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (John Higdon) AT&T Billing Practices --> Illegal? (Dave Niebuhr) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 02:23:09 EST From: jack_decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening? In message , John Higdon wrote: > jack.decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) writes: >> Why not use both carriers? I would suggest you do this: Switch your >> line to MCI and use them for all your voice calls. > As previously stated, I would suggest the opposite. Keep AT&T as your > PIC. That way you have much easier access to AT&T's vastly superior > operator services. I really hate it when I pick up a phone, dial an > operator assisted call and have one of the "brand X" operators answer. > MY guests never have to deal with that. John, my phone is here for MY convenience, not that of my guests. As a matter of fact, if anyone tries to use my phone to make an operator assisted call, they are going to HAVE to dial a ten-triple-X code first, because I have no default PIC (and I specifically asked for the line to be set up that way!). Maybe you have guests that you feel are so important that they cannot be inconvenienced by having to dial five extra digits in order to use their calling card. Personally, I don't see it as a big imposition, and anyone who makes operator assisted calls with any regularity these days had better know how to reach the carrier of their choice! >> If there is a location that you have consistent problems calling via >> MCI, by all means call up MCI's customer service and complain! > Good luck. MCI droids are worthless. You will never reach a resolution > on the first try. You will be lucky to even ever speak to anyone who > even knows what you are talking about. You should see the hell we go > through ANYtime we have to deal with even the slightest technical > matter with MCI. I will agree with you that the other carriers fall down a lot on communicating with the customer, but as I've mentioned previously, most of us don't have the same demanding telecommunications requirements that John Higdon does! :-) And, all of my recent contacts with MCI have resulted in reaching someone who was quite helpful and fairly knowledgeable. They may not be perfect but I think they are a lot better now than they were a few years ago. >> AT&T spends a LOT of money on advertising to convince you that their >> quality is better. > If your definition of quality is "does the call (eventually) go > through and can I hear the person at the other end?", then I would > agree that such an advertising statement is probably meaningless. But > AT&T is still the only company where you can actually speak to a > knowledgeable technician on the first call and speak to a rep who > actually knows about the service in question and can give you real > answers. I just hope the other carriers are listening to this, because you are making some valid points here. >> If you try a call over MCI and it doesn't work, and you then try to >> complete it over AT&T and it does, that doesn't necessarily mean that >> AT&T is better, it just means you got a different circuit from the >> local telco. Had you tried your second attempt on MCI again, you >> would probably have been just as satisfied with the result. > Not necessarily true. MCI and Sprint outages are legion and legendary. > Sprint is constantly suffering from local outages here in the Bay Area > and MCI's answer to a complaint about calls not going through is for > the caller to dial '10288' before the number. Sure is a good thing > AT&T is there when you REALLY need to call. AT&T has had some notable outages too, and as the saying goes, "the bigger they are, the harder they fall!" I still contend that many of the problems that are attributed to the carriers actually occur in the facilities of the local telcos. I believe that in the few cases where AT&T can really claim superior connections, it is only because they are still using some of the pre-divestiture facilities (Feature Group C?). When all the carriers are on a level playing field, I suspect you will not see a great difference between at least the top two carriers. >> AT&T's new fax commercials really get me ... > Yes, they annoy me as well. But since I do not use media advertising > as a basis upon which to select a carrier (pro or con), AT&T's > commercials do not send me into a tailspin, ignoring reality and the > facts. And the fact is that AT&T remains the most responsive, > comprehensive, and consistently the highest quality IEC in the world. > Its operator services are not even in the same universe as the > pretenders. Yes, MCI, Sprint and a host of other carriers have some > specific services and plans that MAY (but not necessarily) be > incrementally cheaper than AT&T, but for most purposes involving FGD > long distance, the company's services are hard to beat. But, John, if it had not been for the competition, you know that AT&T would still be giving us the same level of service (at the same high prices) as we had in the 70's. I think the reason that the AT&T commercials bother me is because it still shows that in some ways they are not playing fairly ... they are using questionable claims to try and destroy the competition. If they only had, say, 30% of the market share this might be appropriate, but since they are a former monopoly and still the dominant carrier, their ads come off as mean-spirited. It's clear they want all the marbles and would do anything they could to put MCI and Sprint out of business. > MCI and Sprint are slowly (very slowly) getting better and better. But > the truth is that AT&T is also beginning to smell the coffee. Right > now Sprint is hawking its "digital network with the most modern > signaling", etc., etc. The thrust is that it was the leader in digital > telephony. What a laugh. Who do you supposed invented it? AT&T did > misread the importance of "digital quality", and lagged in giving > digital connections to customers. But when Sprint started making hay > with it, AT&T became fully digital in very short order (the network > WAS already in place, long before Sprint even thought about it). Well, if you want to go back into history, let us not forget that when AT&T owned the Bells, we could not even (legally) install our own extension telephones. I don't think Sprint is claiming to have invented digital telephony, but they were the first carrier to have a 100% fiber optic network. If only they had invested as much in upgrading their billing system and in training customer service personnel, they might be at least the number two carrier today. > And advanced signaling? Calls on AT&T complete in a split second; in > about eight seconds with Sprint. Yes, it is because AT&T is connected > via SS7 to my telco and Sprint (for whatever reason) is not. But it > goes to illustrate the stupidity of the advertising and how > intelligence is not to be gained by listening to it. Again, I wonder if this call completion advantage isn't due to the more direct connections to the telephone central office, that aren't available to other carriers? Tell me why, for example, an AT&T operator can hold my line open until she releases the call, while OCC operators cannot? Have these superior connections been made available to other carriers? I think not. Again, once AT&T has to compete on a totally level playing field, I think a lot of these so-called advantages will disappear (when was Feature Group C supposed to be discontinued, anyway?). > Both MCI and Sprint have experienced major billing problems and then > demonstrated a serious lack of ability to handle them. Yes, I had a > billing problem with AT&T that turned out to be Pac*Bell's problem. > But AT&T did not attempt to ruin my credit and turn me over to a > collection agency as Sprint did. (Sprint ended up giving me a $50 > credit over and above all of the disputed amounts as a "good will" > gesture, but I really prefer having it done right to begin with.) Agreed, agreed, agreed! Especially with Sprint. Sprint really mystifies me. They come up with these wonderful calling plans and then shoot themselves in the foot by giving poor customer service. I have to wonder if any Sprint executives have ever called in AS A CUSTOMER to see what sort of treatment they would receive? I would rather be on Sprint's "The Most" plan than on MCI's "Friends & Family", but MCI's customer service people are FAR easier to deal with, in my experience (one caveat ... I gave up on Sprint about three years ago and have NOT tried them recently, and if you recall the article that I posted about a month ago describing how one of their bill collectors tried to dun me for a debt that wasn't even mine, you'll understand why I'm not inclined to try them again!). > I have no stock or interest in AT&T. But every time I have used MCI or > Sprint for whatever reason, some monster rears its head and a major > inadequacy is revealed. I think it's a problem with the whole telephone industry. By the way, John, do you have a personal AT&T rep? It might make a big difference. I will concede that if you spend a LOT of time talking to your carrier's customer service department, then how you are handled there is going to be very important to you. I just wish the other carriers would take these comments to heart. Even someone like I, who is pro-competition and maybe even slightly anti-AT&T, can get VERY frustrated when dealing with incompetent folks on the other end of the phone line. To that end, I'd like to offer the "seven deadly sins" that lose business for the other carriers. 1) Waiting ... and waiting ... and waiting ... on hold, usually while listening to interminably boring music interspersed with commercials for the carrier. 2) Getting transferred from department to department, with each department saying something like "I wonder why they transferred you here" or "Why did they send you back here, couldn't they help you?" (As if *I'm* supposed to know the answer to that!) 3) Service or repair reps who won't even let you finish describing your problem before they put you on hold and go searching for the wrong answer! 4) Giving out just plain WRONG information (e.g. "You have to be a 'dial 1' customer to use that plan" when it really isn't true). 5) The inability or unwillingness to give immediate credit for problem calls ("You'll have to wait until you get your bill and then call us back!"). 6) Repair clerks who make out trouble reports that are then deposited in a "black hole." The trouble doesn't get fixed, you call back and are told "We have no outstanding trouble reports on that problem." Or worse: "Didn't someone contact you about that?" (Obviously not, or I wouldn't be calling back). 7) Finally, what can generally be described as an inability of the folks who answer the phones to do anything meaningful to resolve a problem or to get an immediate answer. When I call with a question, I want an answer NOW, particularly if it's something fairly straightforward (something printed in black and white in the tariffs, for example). When I call repair, I want the person who answers to take some personal responsibility to see that the problem will be fixed (not to just have the attitude of "I'll make out a trouble report and we'll hope for the best!"). In short, you'd think that folks in the business of communications would learn how to communicate with customers. Apparently many of the OCC's are having a big problem in that regard! Jack Decker | Internet: jack.decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org | Fidonet: 1:154/8 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 03:45 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening? On Feb 19 at 02:23, Jack Decker writes: > I will agree with you that the other carriers fall down a lot on > communicating with the customer, but as I've mentioned previously, most > of us don't have the same demanding telecommunications requirements > that John Higdon does! No, but a lot of people do. And until the OCCs can deliver major long distance to demanding customers rather than those who are impressed by the commercials, they have no hope of being truly major players. I have clients who now have "AT&T-only" policies after being burned big time by MCI and Sprint. In essence, they will not even consider services by OCCs no matter how attractive they sound because of major business-disrupting screwups in the recent past. > AT&T has had some notable outages too, and as the saying goes, "the > bigger they are, the harder they fall!" AT&T has had a couple of major outages. I find these much more tolerable than hundreds of minor outages which are characteristic of the OCCs. "The Great AT&T outage of 1989" which lasted part of one day has not irritated me nearly so much as MCI's outage yesterday for an hour, Sprint's problems last week, etc., etc. > I believe that in the few cases where AT&T can really claim superior > connections, it is only because they are still using some of the > pre-divestiture facilities (Feature Group C?). When all the carriers > are on a level playing field, I suspect you will not see a great > difference between at least the top two carriers. All connection facilities enjoyed by AT&T are available to any OCC. But it takes two to Tango. AT&T is the only carrier offering coin-paid calls from utility (non-COCOT) payphones simply because the other carriers do not want to be bothered with the substantial tooling up required to offer the service. Not enough money in it -- let AT&T do it. If an OCC has inferior connection arrangements, that is squarely the fault of the carrier and none other. > But, John, if it had not been for the competition, you know that AT&T > would still be giving us the same level of service (at the same high > prices) as we had in the 70's. I think the reason that the AT&T > commercials bother me is because it still shows that in some ways they > are not playing fairly... they are using questionable claims to try > and destroy the competition. If you have even read a fraction of my Digest ramblings, you would be fully aware that there is no greater advocate of competition. In fact, the one major area where the Moderator and I disagree is my insistence that divestiture was the greatest thing that has ever happened to telephony. I have no doubt that without competition AT&T would still be a Bad Deal with HoHum service (no features). But the truth is that AT&T IS still the dominant carrier BECAUSE it is competing. The "monopoly advantage" evaporated some time ago. The OCCs would like you to believe the opposite since it would take some of the heat off of them in the competition arena. They would love to maintain the crippling regulations on AT&T. I do not think that anyone at AT&T believes that anything is going to "destroy the competition". It is a competitive jungle out there and AT&T is entitled to use the same tactics that both MCI and Sprint have themselves used. > I don't think Sprint is claiming to have invented digital telephony, > but they were the first carrier to have a 100% fiber optic network. Technical point of order: bits is bits. In digital telephony, it makes no difference whether the data stream is carried via copper, microwave, or fiber. There is nothing magic about the quality of a fiber optic connection over a microwave digital connection. And even so, I will bet that AT&T's fiber facilities are far more massive than Sprint's. > Again, I wonder if this call completion advantage isn't due to the more > direct connections to the telephone central office, that aren't > available to other carriers? Again, these connections are available to everyone. > Tell me why, for example, an AT&T operator can hold my line open > until she releases the call, while OCC operators cannot? Have these > superior connections been made available to other carriers? I think > not. Why would they want them? What you describe is the old TSPS (left over from pre-divestiture). The facilities available now are obviously more advanced. > I think it's a problem with the whole telephone industry. By the way, > John, do you have a personal AT&T rep? No. AT&T is one the forward-thinking companies that has instituted the policy of one-stop customer service. The person that answers the phone has access to all necessary account info, rate info, plan info, and is empowered to make adjustments and changes on the spot. Pacific Bell also handles customer service in this manner (in fact, there were some major write-ups on it in the trades). GTE and the OCCs shuffle you around from one person to another, have to "call you back", and no one seems to have the authority to do anything even remotely unusual to keep a customer happy. My little adventure with Sprint (bogus billing) involved about five people including some upper level managers. In fact, resolution only came when one of those managers happened to read one of my posts on the net. Oh, the OCCs and the telcos read this forum. They know what we are saying. But their market is not people like us. It is the average telephone buffoon whom they perceive will buy into the carefully contrived advertising. AT&T also participates in this, but at least it also has the depth to offer major league service to demanding customers, something still sorely lacking at the OCCs. > I will concede that if you spend a LOT of time talking to your > carrier's customer service department, then how you are handled there > is going to be very important to you. It should be important with everyone. It is all part of the product. > I just wish the other carriers would take these comments to heart. > Even someone like I, who is pro-competition and maybe even slightly > anti-AT&T, can get VERY frustrated when dealing with incompetent folks > on the other end of the phone line. I am not "anti" or "pro" anyone, AT&T or OCCs. I just want a certain product at a fair price. Part of that product is interaction with company representatives. And part of that product is consistent quality of connections. And we have not even talked about price. One would not realize from all the OCC advertising that within the state of California, AT&T has plans that wipe the competition away. AT&T's problem is itself. To find out about those plans, you have to do some digging -- AT&T does not bother to advertise them. > To that end, I'd like to offer the > "seven deadly sins" that lose business for the other carriers. > 1) Waiting... > 2) Getting transferred from department to department... > 3) Service or repair reps who...put you on hold... > 4) Giving out just plain WRONG information... > 5) The inability or unwillingness to give immediate credit... > 6) truble reports that are deposited in a "black hole."... > 7) inability of the folks ... to do anything meaningful... Very good! I could not have made my case any better. > In short, you'd think that folks in the business of communications would > learn how to communicate with customers. Apparently many of the OCC's > are having a big problem in that regard! And until they fix it, they are not in AT&T's league. AT&T may be arrogant, but it is the service that I buy. As long as a company has that to sell, count me in. When the other companies come around, I will give them due consideration. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 08:09:53 EST From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Re: AT&T Billing Practices --> Illegal? In TELECOM Digest V13 #106 cmwolf@mtu.edu (CHRISTOPHER WOLF) writes: [ text about extra charges on phone bills deleted - dwn ] > As an aside, I think their policies are horrible on this service. If > I don't spend $0.29 on a stamp and $0.20 for a check fees to pay this > $0.70 in charges, I get a late fees and possibly disconnection of my > service. This applied even if one only owes a few cents. I argued > with them about a $0.12 bill one time. Also, he agreed that it > shouldn't be $0.09, and asked that I call him back next month with > whatever late charges I get. > I few cents here, a few cents there, spread across a couple thousand > college student could really add up. You bet it does. I'm still going round and round with NYTel about overcharges in billing to one single exchange in the 516 area code. All looked well in November '92 but December saw a fallback to the old charging scheme. I had to get on the phone with NYTel again and complain. January '93s charges to this exchange are now back to where they should be. I suspect that there was a problem with the new ratetables (probably an exchange or exchanges being added, but I don't know for sure) and the old ones were reloaded. In each case, I get a correction on each succeeding month's bill which is usually $.10 to $.20US. PAT - Wasn't it the late U.S. Senator Dirksen who complained one day on the Senate Floor about "a million here, a million there, and it soon adds up to real money." Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 [Moderator's Note: Yes, it was Everett Dirksen who coined the phrase. He said it in the Senate, but he had earlier used the phrase when hosting one of the 'College of Complexes' programs we held on Saturday night. The CoC met weekly, and presented a different speaker every week, or sometimes a debate. Time was always allotted for the audience to question/challenge/cheer/boo/hiss the speakers, some of whom were crackpots. When I was involved, in the 1960-70's, Dirksen came to speak a couple times a year. The College charged fifty cents tuition, and that got you one cup of coffee or cola, or a beer. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #113 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04427; 20 Feb 93 4:51 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03759 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 20 Feb 1993 02:34:29 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18543 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 20 Feb 1993 02:34:01 -0600 Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 02:34:01 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302200834.AA18543@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #114 TELECOM Digest Sat, 20 Feb 93 02:34:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 114 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: What Would Be Required to Compile 'Secret #' FAQ? (Terry Kennedy) Re: What Would Be Required to Compile 'Secret #' FAQ? (Kevin Wang) Re: The War on Pagers (Mark Steiger) Re: The War on Pagers (Guy Hadsall) Re: The War on Pagers (Brad Hicks) Re: The War on Pagers (Graham Toal) Re: The War on Pagers (Bob Frankston) Re: The War on Pagers (John Nagle) Re: The War on Freedom (Alan T. Furman) Re: California Caller-ID (Jeffrey Jonas) Re: California Caller-ID (Steve Forrette) Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE (Arthur Ruubi) Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE (Richard Nash) Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE (John Temples) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: terry@spcvxb.spc.edu (Terry Kennedy) Subject: Re: What Would Be Required to Compile 'Secret #' FAQ? Date: 19 Feb 93 23:48:14 EST Organization: St. Peter's College, US In article , TELECOM Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: One of the things you'd have to contend with is the > frequency with with which 'ringback' and in particular 'hear your > number' code numbers are changed. 'They' do not like people outside > the telco to know these or use them, thus the routine varies from > community to community, and sometimes from month to month. You would > have a lot of changes in your list on a regular basis. PAT] Well, 958 is popular in this area (New York/New Jersey). I think it may have been a Bellcore recommendation at one time. Most of the other older styles, like 55x-your# for ringback and 200-xxx-yyyy for your number were phased out as the prefixes were needed for expansion. Also, they were set up based on mechanical switches, while the newer stored-program switches can do all of this with a single number. For example, recent 1A generics can be configured with a single number in the reserved space, usually on the first exchange a switch serves, which can be used to return the calling number, determine loop distance, open a line for a brief interval, calculate loss, generate test tones, etc. - far more info than was available with the old methods, and more accurate and faster as well. However, these numbers require a dialed pass- word and have additional restrictions on security-related features like verify. With such a system, a single test number can serve fifty thousand to well over a hundred thousand lines. Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing terry@spcvxa.bitnet St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA terry@spcvxa.spc.edu +1 201 915 9381 ------------------------------ From: kwang@zeus.calpoly.edu (Kevin Wang) Subject: Re: What Would Be Required to Compile 'Secret #' FAQ? Organization: The Outland Riders Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 20:57:17 GMT In comp.dcom.telecom lvc@cbvox1.att.com writes: > In article Chris Taylor > writes: >> RINGBACK: 445 >> HEAR YOUR NUMBER: >> 958 > Maybe I was asleep or something ... could someone tell me why these > services would be useful? If you *MUST* figure out your lines at home, I just dial the operator and ask "is this xxx-yyyy or aaa-bbbb?" and they verify it for me. They can't officially just give it out, but the will verify it for you. Kevin Wang ------------------------------ From: Mark.Steiger@tdkt.kksys.com (Mark Steiger) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 14:04:58 -0600 Subject: Re: The War on Pagers Organization: The Dark Knight's Table BBS: Minnetonka, MN (Free!) jeff@bradley.bradley.edu (Jeff Hibbard) wrote: > Although text in the actual bill passed makes it clear the intent was > to forbid cellular phones and pagers, all of the above actually > applies to "communication devices", which the law defines as anything > designed to receive or transmit radio signals outside of the > commercial broadcast band. For example, if I let my son take my Radi > Shack "Time Cube" (which can only receive WWV) to show-and-tell, they > could confiscate it, fine me $10,000 and lock me up for a year. Sure hope they don't have any Ham Radio clubs there ... could be a killer if they want anyone to do any demonstrations ... Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo BBS (612) 574-0037 Internet: mark@tdkt.kksys.com Fido: 1:282/4018 Simnet: 16:612/24 ------------------------------ Organization: The American University - University Computing Center Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 09:42:34 EST From: GHADSAL@AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: The War on Pagers Most of the national paging concerns have self-imposed rules for new paging subscribers outside of normal credit proceedures. These rules hinge on AGE > 18 and EMPLOYMENT > 6 months. WHY? Because of the national studies and outcries from government and the public have pointed towards these groups as "problems". As competition in the paging/wireless industry had increased in 1983, the "value" of the new subscriber had increased dramatically. Most of the newcomers to the industry started cannibalizing market shares by offering pagers to any new customer. Right or wrong, they need new customers to cover the high overhead costs of developing a paging system. What you see now as the paging industry is comprised of (in my opinion) 80% or more cash power companies, including the Bell companies that have remained. These companies *still* need customers, and sometimes reduce there standards to survive. By the way, the average price of paging service pre-1983 was $35 (Telocator publication) and as of 1992 was $9. The start ups like PageNet, PagePlus, FirstPage, and a few others began with "junk bonds" or at elast risk investment plans. The market has driven the price *way* down; but its THE market and the US is a free market system. Survival of the fittest. Just my $.02. Guy Hadsall ------------------------------ From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com Date: 19 Feb 93 19:08:25 GMT Subj: Re: The War on Pagers Look, it would take only a very, very minor change to these laws to make them perfectly reasonable. Change the law so that (a) =students= are banned from wearing/carrying communications gear, and (b) all other people are banned from school grounds unless they have a legitimate reason to be there, as determined by the local principal/administrator, and even then, NO LOITERING. I am at a total loss to imagine what legitimate need a high school student or younger has for to have a pager or cellular phone with him or her at school. They are there to learn, period. Never mind the drug angle; if that cellular phone or pager rings during classroom hours, it is an impediment to learning -- and not just for the person who has it. If you need to get a message to a student at a school, call the school. They know where the student is and can relay a message as quickly or as slowly as it requires. (If they don't know where your child is, then you have an even bigger problem.) If a student in school needs to make a telephone call, he or she can either wait until after school or ask the office for permission; I am hard-pressed to think of any legitimate use that can't wait for one or the other. J. Brad Hicks Internet: mc!Brad_Hicks@mhs.attmail.com X.400: c=US admd=ATTMail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 21:48:54 GMT From: Graham Toal Subject: Re: The War on Pagers mmt@RedBrick.COM (Maxime Taksar) said: > Just about every public school in the Bay Area that I know of forbids > pagers (and, I assume cellphones), and I think that anyone under 18 is > forbidden to carry a pager *anywhere*. Whereas over here in the wake of a child-kidnapping, parents are being *encouraged* to buy pagers for schoolchildren, so that if they're late picking them up, they can give instructions, and the children are told never to go with anyone unless they've been messaged by their parents. G ------------------------------ From: Bob_Frankston@frankston.com Subject: Re: The War on Pagers Date: Fri 19 Feb 1993 19:47 -0400 Sounds like time to do a story on the good uses of pagers. It's worth noting that all the baby places sell pagers. When the {Boston Globe} did an article on traveling with technology a few weeks ago, they missed the whole topic of mundane use of technology in his concentration on business use. My son wants a pager partially in imitation of me. But it would also be a great way of letting him roam free but still be contactable. If he is expecting me or his mother to pick him up from school, how else can we tell him that we're late? Pairing this with personal 800 numbers (especially when they are the same as the home phone number so even preschoolers can call home from anywhere) provides a very effective means of staying in touch. While it would be nice to give each kid a pocket phone for safety, a pager is a more appropriate technology in terms of cost and size. Next, we've got to figure out why airlines are so scared of portable PC's and cellular phones with dead batteries. Or are they just being nice when I board a plane and want to make sure that I've got a charged battery when I take such a device onto the plane? ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: The War on Pagers Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 07:29:25 GMT Motorola recently introduced a line of decorator pagers, neons and clear, aimed at the high-school market. John Nagle ------------------------------ From: atfurman@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: The War on Freedom Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 15:55:47 PST "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." -- Amendment V to the U.S. Constitution, deceased As there is no way I could even scratch the surface of a topic like forfeiture without trial while staying inside the boundaries of the TELECOM Digest, I present instead an annotated set of pointers: The International Society for Individual Liberty is now organizing a coalition to challenge the massive escalation of forfeiture without trial now being conducted by governments, courts, and police forces at all levels. Collaborating groups are: The Drug Policy Foundation (which produces the PBS series "America's Drug Forum"), the Institute for Justice (a civil-rights litigating group like the ACLU, focusing on free enterprise and property rights issues), and F.E.A.R (Forfeiture Endangers Americans' Rights, founded by forfeiture victims). For more information, contact ISIL at 71034.2711@compuserve.com Telephone (415)864-0952; snailmail 1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102. The investigative report "Presumed Guilty: The Law's Victims in the War on Drugs" which originally appeared in the Pittsburgh Press, 11-16 August 1991, and was reprinted in other newspapers over the following weeks, is a good starting place to find out about this situation. Reprints cost $5 for the full series of articles. A book called _Spectre of Forfeiture_ by Judy Osburn explores the legal "rationale" of this blatant repudiation of the Bill of Rights. Both are available by mail order from ISIL. Those interested in discussing this suject online can try alt.politics.libertarian on Usenet, or the Internet mailing list Libernet (subscription requests to libernet-request@dartmouth.edu). Alan T. Furman atfurman@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 11:34:42 EST From: jeffj%jiji@uunet.UU.NET (Jeffrey Jonas) Subject: Re: California Caller-ID Steve: I'm mailing this to TELECOM because I don't seem to be explaining myself clear enough. I hope you don't object to making this public, particularly since we've been quite polite and I want to ask others to clarify or correct me. TELECOM: Please help me clarify the situation and correct any of my misconceptions. -- start of e-mail Steve Forrette posted an article in TELECOM asking about caller-id from California callers. TELECOM readers have noted that all calls from CA are delivered either as "out of area" or "private" (sometimes arbitrarily either for the same caller) due to Pac Bell's (mis)interpretation of the ruling banning caller-id. Steve e-mailed me: > If I subscribe to CO-based "block blocking", then this prevents me > from receiving any calls from anyone in California under the present > state of affairs. Considering that all of my family and many of my > friends live in California, this is not a workable solution for me. I replied that my understanding is that "PRIVATE" calls can blocked, traced and returned with call block, etc. "PRIVATE" means that your CO got the number but won't let you get it, but you may access it as a "black box". You can use call block with the "add last number to the list" option but it won't read it back to you when you perform list maintenance. "Out Of Area" calls can't be traced or blocked or anything because no number was received (the call was not SS7 all the way). Oh yes, if call trace, call return or call block is not available at the recipient's CO, that's the real obstacle. If I am correct, then why does Steve fear blocking all of California? Steve wanted CPE (Customer premesis equipment) to perform call screening. Hmm, he knows to use the CPE acronym but one of us is certainly confused about caller-id! > Caller ID can be a useful tool in screening out the garbage, > especially if you have block blocking, or a CPE-based device that will > cause PRIVATE calls to not even ring. I have been thinking about CPE based caller-id processing. There's a real problem with call block. Let's say I get a call and caller-id identifies it as a call I am blocking. What can I do? - not answer the phone? Even if the CPE doesn't ring the phones, I cannot get a dial tone until the caller hangs up, and nobody else can call me since the line is busy. That's denial of service: I can't call out and nobody else can call in while an annoying call is in progress. - go off hook and on hook. That can take 5-20 seconds to clear the line. I still am denied use of the phone line for a while. If the pest keeps redialing me, it would be difficult for me to make calls or receive calls. That's why the CO based call block has a 'home turf' advantage. You can use the "add last call to call block list" command and even "private" numbers can be blocked and not only never ring your phone again, but they cannot even get near your lines (can't even know if your phone is busy or not). CPE cannot block private numbers, CO based call block can. CPE uses the line even for unwanted calls, CO based call block does not let the call get that far. Jeffrey Jonas jeffj@panix.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 14:12:54 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: California Caller-ID Call Trace, Call Block, etc. are NOT acceptable recourses to most annoying calls. What are you going to do, call the police and tell them "Hey, this chimney sweep just called me - throw the bum in jail!"? Nor is Call Block going to be effective, as the same chimney sweep is not likely to call you back again. Again, Call Trace and Call Block are not effective against telemarketers and many other sorts of annoying calls. They only work in cases where the same person calls you many times. A "private" call should tell you that the person calling has specifically requested anonymity, and not that they have done so OR live in California. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE From: a_rubin%dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) Date: 18 Feb 93 18:09:55 GMT Reply-To: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) In johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: >> [Moderator's Note: If they blocked out the number with XXXX on my >> bill, I would persist that since I was paying for the call, I was >> entitled to know the number; then not pay for it until they revealed it. > You're lucky you don't live in France. (Or perhaps the French are > lucky that you live in the U.S.) French phone bills never show the > last digits of the phone numbers in the call detail, due to privacy > concerns. This includes direct dial calls. The theory is that the > digits that they do show are adequate to document the amount that > they're charging you. Convenient for hackers, or telecom personell using your phone line for their work. (I had several calls to a number in PacBellLand a few years ago, which turned out to be an internal work reporting number.) Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea 216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal) My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer. My interaction with our news system is unstable; please mail anything important. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 09:17:35 -0700 From: rickie@trickie.ualberta.ca (Richard Nash) Subject: Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE Steve Forrette writes: > It seems that telcos (such as Pacific Bell) which do not yet offer > Caller ID in their regions, and are marking all calls that leave the > LATA as PRIVATE so that they don't show up in other areas, are > creating a major impediment for the usefulness of Caller ID. What if > a users in another area subscribes to "block blocking," whereby their > telco will reject any call that's market PRIVATE. This will prevent > any incoming calls from anyone in California! Similarly, I would > imagine that a great deal more people who have Caller ID boxes choose > to ignore calls that come in as PRIVATE. How are you supposed to > differentiate between people who have specifically requested that > their numbers be blocked (who I most certainly DON'T want to talk to) > from those who just happen to live in a state who's PUC knows what's > best for its citizens (many of whom I do want to talk to)? Easy! Demand that Californians have the right of not having their calls blocked with blocked blocking. Demand that the telcos must insert a tag number to be used instead of marking as PRIVATE. ACB and AR would utilize this tag number to look up the real number to be used. Just think of all the new telecom headaches that could be created! :) Richard Nash Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8 UUCP: rickie%trickie@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca ------------------------------ From: jwt!john@peora.sdc.ccur.com (John Temples) Subject: Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE Organization: Private system -- Orlando, FL Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 03:01:02 GMT In article rudholm@ruby.aimla.com (Mark Rudholm) writes: > Their biggest complaint is with the requirement that unpublished > numbers will default to the per-line-blocked state. Of course, the > customer can have her/his line's blocking status set any way they > choose. Perhaps PacBell should offer free blocked-call blocking on all lines by default. This would certainly discourage people from choosing per line blocking, since it would be very inconvenient to call almost everyone. John W. Temples -- Preferred: john@jwt.UUCP (jwt!john@peora.sdc.ccur.com) -- Alternate: john@jwt.oau.org ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #114 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08197; 20 Feb 93 6:30 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10409 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 20 Feb 1993 04:05:59 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02591 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 20 Feb 1993 04:05:01 -0600 Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 04:05:01 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302201005.AA02591@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #115 TELECOM Digest Sat, 20 Feb 93 04:04:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 115 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: What Could Happen! (Bangkok, Thailand Telecom Uprising) (Bob Goudreau) Re: Interesting Tricks You Can Do With Your Phone (Patricia A. Dunkin) Re: Salesmen That Won't Quit (Mark Malson) Re: Mandatory Measured Service (Steve Forrette) Re: 1ESS and CNID (Dave Levenson) Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (M. McCormick) Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (J. Sicherman) Re: Pac Bell, Caller ID & SS7 (John Pettitt) Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? (Andrew Blau) Re: White House Phone Factoids (Tim Tyler) Re: Curious Local Exchange Problem (Tim Mangan) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 14:32:31 -0500 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: What Could Happen! (Bangkok, Thailand Telecom Uprising) Tony Pelliccio writes: > Similar things happen here in the US. A few years ago New England > Telephone went on strike and lo and behold, a few of the key fiber > trunks got cut. Ah, but was it ever determined who did the cutting? If the sabotage turned out to be the work of rogue striking telco workers or their sympathizers, then the motivation was simply to bring the company's management to its knees so that it would quickly cave in to union demands. This is quite a different thing than the Bangkok scenario, wherein outraged *customers* were venting their frustration at the whole telco. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 17:39 EST From: pad@groucho.att.com (Patricia A Dunkin +1 201 386 6230) Subject: Re: Interesting Tricks You Can Do With Your Phone In article , HARTTREE@vax1.elon.edu (Matthew Harttree) writes: [ amusing story of unexpected recording on misdial ] > If this type of thing amuses you too, I would love to hear about it. Since you asked, several years ago, I was in a motel somewhere east of the Mississippi, trying to call my sister in Nevada. The otherwise thorough dialing instructions in the room didn't say how to charge a call to a credit card (possibly they didn't want to offer help to guests wanting to avoid surcharges), so I had to experiment a bit before I found the right combination. (Okay, I *could* have called the front desk and asked, but that wouldn't have been nearly as interesting.) One of the misdials connected me to a recording that said something like, "Direct dialing service is not available to the country you are trying to reach. Please call the operator for assistance." I never did figure out which country the switch thought I wanted. ------------------------------ From: kgw2!!markm@uunet.UU.NET (Mark Malson) Subject: Re: Salesmen That Won't Quit Organization: Xetron Corporation, Cincinnati, Ohio Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 23:34:25 GMT In article wagner@utoday.com (Mitch Wagner) writes: > I've always thought that if I ever had a salesman that just wouldn't > stop phoning, even when I asked them to stop, I would inform them that > if they didn't stop calling I would file harassment charges against > them with the police. One way to avoid harrassing phone calls is (if you are willing to spend $20 a year) to join a group called "Private Citizen". They provide your name to all the major phone number vendors and tell them that you are hereby notifying them that you no longer permit them the free use of your telephone and your time for their profit. If they wish to call you anyway, your fee is $500 per call. Or something pretty close to that. I haven't joined the group yet (I just got my package), so I am not ENDORSING them. Anyone interested can call 1-800-CUT-JUNK and talk to them (or their machine). Mark D. Malson Xetron Corporation 40 West Crescentville Road Cincinnati, Ohio 45246 markm@xetron.com ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Mandatory Measured Service Date: 20 Feb 1993 02:03:45 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes: > There are bills pending in both houses of the Washington State > legislature which would permanently ban mandatory measured service in > this state. > [Moderator's Note: Believe me, there are people who prefer measured > service because their use of the phone is so minimal. That's fine. Then those people who prefer it can order measured service. Right now in Washington State, both business and residence customers can choose between measured or unmeasured service. The bills pending in the legislature would only ensure through statute that it stays this way. US West says it currently "has no plans" to phase out measured service, but wants the prohibition to last only 5 years. The PUC wants the authority to ban unmeasured service at any time. Just whose side are they on? Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: 1ESS and CNID Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 01:34:55 GMT In article , john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > I encourage Pac*Bell to not send blocked status on interstate calls. That is a good position to take. In Virginia, the telco offers a customer-controlled per-line option called Anonymous Call Rejection. If you enable this option, you'll still get "Out of Area" calls (calls from non-SS7-connected areas), but you will not receive calls where the calling number is available but its display is blocked. The caller reaches a recording which explains how to enable the transmission of CNID. If callers from California are prevented from reaching parties in Virginia, then Pac*Bell probably ought to be 'encouraged' not to send mandatory anonymous calls. The question is, John, do they ever listen to your encouragement? Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 10:57:44 -0600 From: Martin McCormick > Can someone explain why cellphones couldn't gain increased security > simply by channel-hopping *within a cell*? Say, every five seconds or > so? The idea of channel-hopping to increase security is, on the surface, a very good one. It is another variation on the military-style system of frequency hopping in a pseudo-randomized sequence to thwart eavesdropping. For cellular telephones, as we presently know them, it wouldn't work very well because of the way a cellular telephone receives digital control signals. Presently, once a cell phone is tuned into a talk channel, the only way the switch can get its attention is to send it a burst of data on the actual voice channel. These bursts are presently used to initiate handoffs to the next cell and request changes in output power. They are slightly disruptive to voice communication and extremely disruptive to any data communication which relies on a continuous carrier. That is why data communication through cell phones works best when done with a modem actually designed for this purpose. When a cellular phone receives a control command from the switch, the user may hear a little dropout in audio lasting about 1/4-second. If a frequency hopping scheme were in use, those little dropouts would happen each time a new channel was selected. For most people, this would create an unacceptable degradation of sound quality. The only real solution is to go digital. This would stop casual eaves-dropping since the scanner-owner would just hear a bunch of noise, if that much. Handoffs and other house-keeping commands could be accomplished without even a click since digital buffering would take care of any discontinuity as long as it wasn't too bad. About the only thing that an intelligently-written law can do to enhance privacy is to keep it from being too easy. It probably would make sense to ban manufacture of scanners with a digital demodulator built right in, but that is about all that can be done. If somebody does figure out how to decode the signals, on their own, then what they hear is already covered by the Communications Act of 1934. Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK O.S.U. Computer Center Data Communications Group ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 00:48:37 -0800 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article Esteemed Moderator parades his biases again: > [Moderator's Note: Actually here in the USA, people who bother voting > wind up only voting for less than one percent of the petty tyrants and > others who dominate our lives. The rest are appointed or hangers-on; > civil 'servants' we call them, but rebellious and willful servants is > more like it. That's why I always thought it was such a joke to hear > people say 'if you don't like things the way they are, then vote for a > new bunch.' When is the last time *you* voted for anyone in the > FCC/FBI/IRS/DOD/HUD/NSA/CIA/ETC? I don't blame myself for putting > idiots in office. I didn't vote for any of 'em! PAT] Then again, none of us got to vote for the Telecom Moderator but we have to put up with him. There seems to be an element of tyranny in his management of the responsibilities he has undertaken and I don't always agree with his policies or opinions but I am generally willing to accept that he is human, fallible, quirky, opinionated, stubborn, sometimes self-righteous but also a dedicated and hard-working doer of the moderation task. He does the job as he sees his responsibility to the 'consumers' and to the policies and laws regulating the medium. Frankly, it's hard to see any really essential difference between his role and modus operandi and the public servants he seems to feel some superiority towards. Jeff Sicherman [Moderator's Note: Ah, but there is a big difference. There is an unmoderated forum you can use any time expressly devoted to telecom and Lord knows how many other unmoderated news groups are operating on the net at any given time. Try telling Uncle you're going to take your business elsewhere, to an ungoverned country. You can get away from me anytime you wish ... try avoiding Uncle's hard, staring and watchful eyes. And despite my own biases, which I freely admit to, I print a huge diversity of opinion here including yours. If you think I am disagreeable and hard to get along with, try the ederal ureau of nquisition. Uncle's little worker bees may humor you, but they can afford to: when all is said and done, despite your bravado they know you'll be an obedient and meek citizen when they point a gun at your head. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jpp@StarConn.com (John Pettitt) Subject: Re: Pac Bell, Caller ID & SS7 Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 15:31:11 PST Following on the from the thread regarding numbers from California being marked private, I called Pac Bell and asked them about what happens when I call out of state. The rep said she did not know and somebody would call back. Well they just did. After we got to the same level (yes I understand ANI, SS7, CLASS etc etc) the following is the postion: 1) If I call NY from here (Palo Alto, CA) then depending on which LD company I use they may or may not get my number. 2) Pac Bell is looking for customers to complain about display of numbers out of state so that they can "ask the long distance companies to not pass on the number". 3) When I asked how they were to do this -- the rep did not know and seemed confused as to a) they would discontinue SS7 in an out of CA (I don't believe this) or b) they would mark data private. 4) I asked that my lines not be marked private as I wanted people in the rest of the country to take my calls. This completely confused him. Anyway he promised to go find some papers on the subject and fax them to me. I will OCR anything that arrives and pass it on. Confused? Not as confused as Pac Bell is ! If somebody out of state has a caller ID box I can call we can run some tests and see just what is going on. John Pettitt Mail: jpp@StarConn.com CEO, Dolmus Inc. Voice: +1 415 390 0581 Fax: +1 415 390 0693 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 20:36:12 -0500 From: Andrew Blau Subject: Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? In TELECOM Digest V13 #107, Robert L. McMillin (rlm@indigo2.hac.com) writes: > Andrew Blau writes: >> In fact, the telcos have become *very* involved in this. During >> President Clinton's Economic Summit after the election, the one moment >> of reported conflict was when Robert Allen of AT&T challenged Mr. >> Gore's contention that the superhighway should be a public works >> project. [Allen's quote deleted] > Three cheers, then, for Robert Allen. We should hold off on the 21-gun > salute until AFTER we've heard AT&T's full proposal. Absolutely. I don't think that anything I wrote could or should be construed as a 21-gun salute to Robert Allen or AT&T. It's simply to suggest that telcos have become quite vocal about trying to get in on the Data Superhighway action. > It's no surprise that the LECs see digital services in their crystal > balls. The question that needs to be asked is this: will these > digital services to the residential demarc be affordable? My guess is > not, especially if the LECs or the IXCs have anything to say about it. [...Info about EDS v. AT&T "dark fiber" controversy deleted...] > Somebody once said that the triumph of capitalism is not that it can > produce silk stockings for the Queen, but that it makes affordable > nylons for the secretaries. That is the approach we need to take with > digital services: by making them available cheaply, we can spread > their benefits widely. All we need is the capital and the vision to > apply it. Three cheers, then, for Robert McMillin. I could not have said it better myself. Affordable digital service for residential users so that the benefits of this system can be widely shared is one of the most critical public policy issues in this area, and one that is often overlooked. Moreover, much of the financial capital that Mr. McMillin refers to has already been sunk over the last eight years, if we are talking about the first level of digital services for the home. The real capital that needs to get spent is likely to be political capital, and, following Mr. McMillin, the vision to apply it. Andrew Blau Electronic Frontier Foundation 202-544-9237(v) Associate for 666 Pennsylvania Ave., S.E. 202-547-5481(f) Telecommunications Policy Washington, DC 20003 blau@eff.org ------------------------------ From: tim@ais.org (Tim Tyler) Subject: Re: White House Phone Factoids Organization: UMCC Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 04:03:29 GMT In article briang@Sun.COM (Brian Gordon) writes: > In article knauer@cs.uiuc.edu writes: >> "Contrary to widespread belief the old "hotline" between Washington >> and Moscow was not a telephone to warn against an impending doomsday >> attack, but rather a teletype manned at the Pentagon." > Maybe it's been moved, but the "hot line" _used to_ terminate > somewhere other than the Pentagon -- in the dark recesses of No Such > Agency ... Using a reasonable definition of 'terminate,' you're wrong. The primary 'subscriber' terminals for the CONUS end of the computer and facsimile link are at the Pentagon and White House. Tim Tyler Internet: tim@ais.org MCI Mail: 442-5735 P.O. Box 443 C$erve: 72571,1005 DDN: Tyler@Dockmaster.ncsc.mil Ypsilanti MI Packet: KA8VIR @KA8UNZ.#SEMI.MI.USA.NA 48197 ------------------------------ From: Tim Mangan Subject: Re: Curious Local Exchange Problem Organization: TyLink Corporation Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 03:29:13 GMT More strange phone setups -- I had a phone in college that was set up to not have a dial tone. This prevented anyone from making an outside call from the phone; you could only receive calls. So far so good ... If someone left the phone off the hook when the caller hung up, the next caller would get connected without the phone ringing. As there were several extensions to this phone it would happen quite often. When you gave anyone your phone number, you had to add the instructions that after dialing if they hear hall noises instead of a ring, yell like crazy until someone notices that you are on the line. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #115 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22410; 20 Feb 93 14:23 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07566 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 20 Feb 1993 12:09:35 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04597 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 20 Feb 1993 12:09:00 -0600 Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 12:09:00 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302201809.AA04597@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #116 TELECOM Digest Sat, 20 Feb 93 12:09:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 116 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: ISDN Book Wanted (Pat Turner) Re: ISDN Book Wanted (Fred R. Goldstein) Cost of ISDN Voice Terminals? (Ben Stoltz) Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (David G. Lewis) Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners (sbpress@ic.sunysb.edu) Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (Bob Longo) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: turner@Dixie.Com Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 11:34 EST Reply-To: turner@dixie.com Subject: Re: ISDN Book Wanted Jim Karkanias writes: > Anyone care to recommend a good book on ISDN? What follows is the biblography from a paper I wrote on ISDN about a year ago. You will find several good books listed in it. Gary Kessler's and Fred Goldstein's are among the better ones. William Stallings' books are also very popular, but as a EE, I think he touches on a few issues he doesn't really understand. Then again, I'm no computer network expert, and only have a BS in electrical engineering. The paper was more concerned with the physical interfaces and lower level protocals than aplications, thus the references are slanted in that direction. A few of these articles deal with fiber optics, privacy issues, or other aspects that may not interest you. [1] S. Hardwich, ISDN Design ; A Practical Approach, Academic Press, San Diego, Ca., 152 pp., 1989. [2] B. G. Kim, Current Advances in LANs, MANs & ISDN, Artech House, Boston, 369 pp., 1989. [3] G. Kessler, ISDN : concepts, facilities, and services, McGraw- Hill, New York, 302 pp., 1990. [4] J. Spragins, Telecommunications : Protocols and Design, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass, 716 pp., 1991 [5] N. Burd and F. Benetti, "A single chip 2B1Q U interface for customer access to ISDN," Electronic Engineering, vol. 62, no.7, July 1990. [6] C. Wolinsky and J. Sylvester, "Privacy in the telecommunications age," Communications of the ACM, vol. 35, no. 2, Feb. 1992. [7] M. Rotenberg, "Protecting Privacy," Communications of the ACM, vol. 35, no. 4, Apr. 1992. [8] W. Stallings, ISDN and broadband ISDN, Macmillan, New York, 633 pp., 1992. [9] W. Stallings, Tutorial : Integrated Service Digital Networks (ISDN), IEEE Computer Society, Washington, D.C., 325 pp., 1985. [11] C. Wilson, "Pacific Bell to upgrade 112 COs to National ISDN-1 standard," Telephony, vol.222, no. 1, Jan. 6 1992. [12] C. Wilson, "The Changing Face of the CO Switch," Telephony, vol. 222, no. 15, April 13 1992. [13] S. Jones, "National ISDN-ONE," Telecommunications, vol. 25, no. 9, Sept. 1991. [14] T. Bartee, ISDN, DECnet, and SNA Communications, H. W. Sams, Indianapolis, Ind, 414 pp., 1989. [15] M. Thomas, "ISDN: Some Current Standards Difficulties," Telecommunications, vol. 24, no. 6, June 1991. [16] K. Marrin, "U Interface silicon crystallizes ISDN standards," Computer Design, vol. 29, no. 44, Nov. 1, 1990. [17] J. W. Lechlieder, "Line codes for digital subscriber lines," IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 27, no.9, Sept. 1989. [18]G. Dicenet, Design and Prospects for the ISDN, Artech House, Boston, 280 pp., 1987. [19] N. Johal, "U Interface tackles non-ISDN applications," Computer Design, vol. 29, no. 44, Nov. 1, 1990. [20] T. Lin, "ISDN Basic Rate Interface Architecture For ADPCM Transmission," Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, vol. 18, no. 1, Nov. 24, 1989. [22] L. Golding, et. al., "VSATs:Expert Views On Future Trends," IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 27, no.6, May. 1989. [23] Y. Yamamoto and T. Wright, "Error Performance in Evolving Digital Networks Including ISDNs," IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 27, no. 4, Apr. 1989. [24] G. Achaibar and M. Pauzer, "NT1: key to basic rate access," Communications News, vol. X,no. 1, Jan. 1991. [25] N. Rogers, "Power controllers for ISDN basic access," Electronic Engineering, vol. 61, no.8, Aug. 1989. [26] G. Lee and C. Un, "Delay Analysis of the ISDN D Channel Access Protocol," Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, vol. 19, no. 1, Sep. 1, 1990. [27] M. Donlin, "Single chip U transceiver provides ISDN echo cancellation," Computer Design, vol. 28, no. 48, Dec. 1, 1989. [28] P. Fletcher, "Telephone With Modular Plugins Paves The Way For ISDN Services," Electronic Design, vol. 39. no. 45, Nov. 7, 1991 [29] Y. Hishino, et. al., "ISDN Telephone Sets With Advanced Voice Features," IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, vol.37, no. 3, Aug., 1991. [30]"ISDN: A World of Services," Electrical Communication, vol. 65, no.1, 1991. [31] B. Baldwin, "Integrating ISDN Lines for Financial Users," Telecommunications, vol. 24, no. 6, June 1991. [32] R. W. O'Dell and M. Kurnick, "Adapt Non-ISDN Terminals To ISDN Data Rates," Electronic Design, vol. X, no. 17, Apr.25 1991. [33] D. Gulick, "ISDN Terminal Adaptor Options," Telecommunications, vol. 25, no. 9, Sept. 1991. [35] A Lindstrom, "RHCs gear up for ISDN marketing challenge," Telephony, vol. 222, no. 11, Mar. 16 1992. [37] J. M. O'Neil, "Videoconferencing: It's more affordable when you use ISDN," Communications News, vol. X, no. 7, July 1991. [38] A. Day, "International Standardization of BISDN," IEEE LTS Magazine, vol. 2, no. 3, Aug. 1991. [39] H. Helgert, Integrated Services Digital Networks : Architectures, Protocols, Standards, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass, 449 pp., 1991. [40] R. E. Basch, et. al., "VISTAnet, A BISDN Field Trial," IEEE LTS Magazine, vol. 2, no. 3, Aug. 1991. [41] H. Bauch, "Transmission Systems for the BISDN," IEEE LTS Magazine, vol. 2, no. 3, Aug. 1991. [42] E. Goeldner and M. Huber, "Multiple Access for BISDN," IEEE LTS Magazine, vol. 2, no. 3, Aug. 1991. [43] N. Ailawadi, et. al., "Broadband Photonic Switching Using Guided-Wave Fabrics," IEEE LTS Magazine, vol. 2, no. 2, May 1991. [44}K. Nakagawa, et. al., "Optical Amplification in Trunk Transmission Networks," IEEE LTS Magazine, vol. 3, no. 1, Feb. 1992. Missing number are for personal contacts. I also erased Fred Goldstein's book by mistake. Pat Turner KB4GRZ turner@dixie.com [Moderator's Note: Even though you erased Fred Goldstein's listing in error, Fred did respond also, and discusses his book in the next message of this issue. PAT] ------------------------------ From: goldstein@carafe.dnet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: ISDN Book Wanted Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 22:44:50 GMT In article , karkan@msdrl.com (Jim Karkanias) writes: > Anyone care to recommend a good book on ISDN? > [Moderator's Note: Why yes, as a matter of fact, telecom reader Fred > Goldstein has written the very book you are seeking. I reviewed it > here awhile back, perhaps Fred will write you with details, and send a > cc: to the Digest so we can plug his book again to new readers who > did not see the earlier review. PAT] Well, Pat, so long as you asked ... :-) My book is called "ISDN In Perspective", is a 246-page paperback, published by Addison-Wesley with ISBN 0-201-50016-7. It talks about ISDN services, switching and transmission, protocols, B-ISDN/ATM, and various other related matters. And of course it's blatantly opinionated and seasoned with ISDN "folklore". If you want to do me a favor, you can pester your local tech bookseller into stocking it. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com NOT "dnet"! k1io or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice:+1 508 952 3274 Standard Disclaimer: Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ From: stoltz@Sun.COM (Ben Stoltz) Subject: Cost of ISDN Voice Terminals? Date: 20 Feb 93 00:47:36 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA What is the lowest cost ISDN voice terminal that you know of for your local ISDN standard? I am trying to compile a list of low cost ISDN voice terminals. It is nice to have HOLD, CONFERENCE, TRANSFER, and DROP buttons as well as 3 call appearances, a speaker, and a display. However, I am also very interested in no-frills versions with a corresponding lower cost. Please send email to stoltz@Eng.Sun.COM. I'll compile a list and post it in a week or so. Thanks, Ben Stoltz Voice: (415) 336-2818 Fax: (415) 965-4903 Email: stoltz@Eng.Sun.COM ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening? Organization: AT&T Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 00:43:44 GMT In article jack_decker@f8.n154.z1. fidonet.org (Jack Decker) writes: > In message , John Higdon com> wrote: >> AT&T has had some notable outages too, and as the saying goes, "the >> bigger they are, the harder they fall!" This is very true, especially when you consider the traffic volumes. AT&T has approximately 63% of interexchange traffic, MCI approximately 20%, Sprint approximately 12%, and the remaining carriers split up the rest. Now let's do a thought experiment. Assume that half of the customers out there in the world are knowledgeable enough to dial 10XXX to select an IXC other than their PIC. Assume further that half will try each of the other two major carriers. (Any of these assumptions are open to challenge; I'm using the theorem that says if you don't have any information about a distribution, assume it's uniform.) Now, consider a failure scenario where a given set of callers can't reach a given IXC, whether due to IXC failure, LEC failure, failure on the boundary, or whatever. If the IXC is MCI, using the above assumptions, AT&T's total traffic load will increase by (5/63)%, or a delta of 7% -- less than normal daily variation, probably. If the IXC is Sprint, the impact on AT&T's total traffic volume is even less significant -- an increase of under 5%. If, however, the IXC is AT&T, Sprint and MCI promptly get swamped under the overflow -- MCI's load increases by 80%, and Sprint's by more than 130%. So when AT&T falls, everyone hurts ... >> I still contend that many of the problems that are attributed to the >> carriers actually occur in the facilities of the local telcos. No argument here :-) > I believe that in the few cases where AT&T can really claim superior > connections, it is only because they are still using some of the > pre-divestiture facilities (Feature Group C?). Argument here. There's very little FGC left out there (I don't know hard numbers, but I'd guess less than 5%). The BOCs have had ten years to implement FGD, and they've been pretty agressive. Where there is a difference is in the exchange access routing. AT&T connects directly to many End Offices. Other IXCs connect primarily to Access Tandems, which aggregate their traffic and route it to/from End Offices. If you have another switch and another set of trunks in the path, you're more susceptible to failures. I submit this is a major advantage AT&T has. Of course, we pay for it, because we've got to have facilities to dozens of EOs in a LATA instead of one or two ATs, requiring more small trunk groups instead of fewer larger trunk groups, which are more expensive on a per-trunk basis. > I don't think Sprint is claiming to have invented digital telephony, > but they were the first carrier to have a 100% fiber optic network. (personal gripe): Actually what get's me is Sprint's commercial where the v/o says "If you were going to build the perfect 800 service, you'd do what AT&T did: Follow Sprint." Of course, this disregards the fact that AT&T invented and patented 800 service. >> And advanced signaling? Calls on AT&T complete in a split second; in >> about eight seconds with Sprint. Yes, it is because AT&T is connected >> via SS7 to my telco and Sprint (for whatever reason) is not. But it >> goes to illustrate the stupidity of the advertising and how >> intelligence is not to be gained by listening to it. > Again, I wonder if this call completion advantage isn't due to the > more direct connections to the telephone central office, that aren't > available to other carriers? Yes, and no. The advantage is due to the more direct connections to EOs; those connections are available to other carriers, but they choose not to purchase them. We can't buy anything from an LEC that any other IXC can't buy, if they so choose. > once AT&T has to compete on a totally level playing field, I think a > lot of these so-called advantages will disappear (when was Feature > Group C supposed to be discontinued, anyway?). From my favorite Bellcore document, "Notes": "AT&T must convert their access service to FGD when an end office is converted to equal access. Most end offices have now been converted so the use of FGC is diminishing." No numbers, tho. Note also, though, that AT&T must continue to incure the cost of FGC (CAMA/OSPS) access to support coin-sent-paid calls as carrier of last resort. Claimer: I work for AT&T Communications Services; I'm not in Access and don't work on this stuff normally, but I know some of it from general knowledge. This is not an AT&T ad, but I do take some pride in my employer ... David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!goofy!deej Switching & ISDN Implementation ------------------------------ From: sbpress%engws8@sbcs.sunysb.edu (The Stony Brook Press) Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones Reply-To: sbpress@ic.sunysb.edu Organization: The State University of New York at Stony Brook Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 15:56:45 GMT ridder@zowie.zso.dec.com (Hans) writes: > In article John Higdon com> writes: >> Scanner laws will be just about as effective as gun laws -- only much >> sillier. The FCC is seriously deluded if it thinks it can win a >> technological war with anyone. The below-average moron outguns the FCC >> in the brain cell department. > Remember, the FCC is only doing what its told to. The real > "below-average morons" are *your* elected officials who passsed the > law so no one could listen to their phone calls. > We have no one to blame but ourselves for putting these idiots into > [Moderator's Note: Actually here in the USA, people who bother voting > wind up only voting for less than one percent of the petty tyrants and > others who dominate our lives. The rest are appointed or hangers-on; > civil 'servants' we call them, but rebellious and willful servants is > more like it. That's why I always thought it was such a joke to hear > people say 'if you don't like things the way they are, then vote for a > new bunch.' When is the last time *you* voted for anyone in the > FCC/FBI/IRS/DOD/HUD/NSA/CIA/ETC? I don't blame myself for putting > idiots in office. I didn't vote for any of 'em! PAT] Not only that, In this country you only have a choice between Republicans and Democrats. There isn't that much difference between them, compared with the choices you have in other democracies. Also, our representetives get a lot of presure from lobbiests,that are usually big corporations. the representetives also need financing from these corporations too, so in a large way, they depend on them for their election. All this means that the representetives don't reallyy represent us that much. signature: THE STONY BROOK PRESS The State University of New York at Stony Brook Community's Feature Newspaper Snailnet: The Stony Brook Press | internet: sbpress@ic.sunysb.edu S.U.N.Y. at Stony Brook | bitnet : sbpress%ic.sunysb.edu@cunyvm Stony Brook N.Y. 11794 | Voicenet : (516) 632-6451 alternate e-mail(if sbpress@ic... doesn't work): dglasner@ccmail.sunysb.edu ------------------------------ From: longo@sfpp.com (Bob Longo) Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State Date: 20 Feb 93 09:58:21 PST Organization: Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines In article , john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Bob Longo writes: >> Californians want CNID, but they also want per-line blocking to be >> available (which is what PacBell is vigorously opposed to). That is >> reasonable in a state where 40% of phone customers have unlisted >> numbers. > Perhaps you could site the surveys and studies that back this up? I am > damn sick of people pronouncing what Californian's want (based upon > absolutely no evidence) when trying to justify the stifling of yet > another useful technology. Sure. Glad to. I personally attended one of the CPUC's public hearings several months before the ruling where they were soliciting public opinion. A large majority of the individuals that spoke at that hearing were in favor of no CNID at all! A much smaller percentage of the people wanted some flavor of CNID -- ranging from no blocking available at all to a per-line blocking which ended up the be the ultimate (and in my opinion best) compromise. The comments made by the individuals speaking at that (and other hearings conducted throughout the state) are available for review at the CPUC. The only stifling of this technology has come from the phone company. They could offer it today if they wanted to. By trying to force the CPUC to disallow per-line blocking, they expect they can reap more profits because they believe more subscribers will purchase the service. > I, for one, do not much care what Californian's want; I know what is > useful and desirable and what is available in most of the rest of the > country. I also know that none of the doom and gloom, even in areas > that have no blocking capability, has been demonstrated in any way. But your signature indicates that you live in California. It sounds to me that you (being a Californian) DO care. > The CPUC is perfectly aware that its restrictions are not standard and > that no other state has required default per-line blocking and > per-call enabling. Please stop pontificating about how it is just the > mean old telephone companies that are being unreasonable. The > restrictions were passed with one purpose in mind: to eliminate the > offering of CNID in California. It succeeded royally. The activists > won this round. The restrictions passed were based upon popular public opinion. Obviously not popular with the phone companies or a few paranoids who are going to refuse to answer their phone unless they can see a number first -- but popular with those who expressed their opinion to the CPUC. Everyone had the option of expressing their opinion prior to the CPUC ruling at the public hearings or in writing. I don't feel too sorry for those who want unrestricted CNID who didn't bother to express their opinion prior to the ruling. I'm curious -- for those who believe CNID should be forced on everyone to make this technology useful, do you also believe that unlisted numbers should be unavailable? After all, what use is the phone book if everyone isn't in there? To be consistent in their logic, the phone company should stop printing the phone book until the CPUC forces everyone to have listed numbers, right? Bob Longo (longo@sfpp.com) Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines Los Angeles, CA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #116 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01414; 20 Feb 93 19:05 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02973 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 20 Feb 1993 16:51:15 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28667 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 20 Feb 1993 16:50:45 -0600 Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 16:50:45 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302202250.AA28667@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: My New Venture: The Orange Calling Card Before you read further, be advised I am going to try to sell you something. I recently resigned my employment of several years and have begun a business of my own as an independent sales agent or contractor for Orange Communications, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota, a small but growing long distance carrier. They offer 1+ dialing and a telephone calling card which has *no surcharge* associated with its use. To use it, you dial an 800 number, then the number you are calling, the ten digit card number and your PIN. It can be used from any phone anywhere, and is particularly useful if you are at a private payphone with high rates or at a phone where choice of carrier is restricted. It is quite useful in hotels where there is a surcharge added for the use of the phone. University phone systems are another example where the Orange Card is useful. If you are at a phone which allows you to call an 800 number, then you can use the Orange Card. Orange Card charges a flat rate of 25 cents per minute, and they bill in six-second increments rather than whole minutes. You can see that the savings in using this calling card come from short (one to ten minute) calls. If your long distance calls are all mostly short, then you'll save quite a bit of money monthly. Orange Card: Has no monthly minimum, no annual fees. Has open account billing; you pay from a statement rendered monthly. Has a customer service 800 number for billing inquiries and assistance with completing calls as needed. Allows calls to anywhere in the USA including Alaska and Hawaii for the flat rate of 25 cents per minute at any time. Allows Directory Assistance calls at the prevailing rate for same. Has a one-time $10 charge to process your application, put your account in the computer and issue your plastic calling card. You can make local calls around town from a payphone using the Orange Card also; bear in mind the savings applies when the calls are short, before the local telco surcharge can be 'spread across' the minutes of a longer call. To get to the point: I'd like you to sign up for an Orange Calling Card. Try it for a month or two as an alternative to the calling card you are currently using. See if it doesn't save you money anywhere you would normally pay a surcharge for calls, such as at payphones, hotels, etc. Profits to me will be used to offset my increasing costs involved in moderating TELECOM Digest and comp.dcom.telecom. You'll save money on your long distance phone bill and I'll make a little money to pay the phone bill here. Is that fair enough? If you write me, I'll send you a brochure and application by mail. You complete it and send it with your $10 signup fee direct to Orange at the address on the application. Thanks for reading this and your support. Patrick Townson The TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 1570 Chicago, IL 60690 or you may fax your request to me at 312-743-0002. or you may email your request to: ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu Please do not respond to the Digest address! PAT   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08253; 20 Feb 93 22:51 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27060 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 20 Feb 1993 20:40:57 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01017 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 20 Feb 1993 20:40:29 -0600 Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 20:40:29 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302210240.AA01017@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #117 TELECOM Digest Sat, 20 Feb 93 20:40:30 CST Volume 13 : Issue 117 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The War on Pagers (Kyle J. Cordes) Re: The War on Pagers (Matthew Crosby) Re: The War on Pagers (Samuelson S. Rehman) Re: The War on Pagers (Pat Turner) Re: The War on Pagers (Jonathan Bradshaw) Pagers, Cellphones and War on Drugs (Robert Masse) Re: Standard Dialing Plan (Bill Stewart) Re: Standard Dialing Plan (Carl Moore) Re: Meet Me at the Power Line (Matt Healy) Re: N.E.T. and the Phantom Phone Exchange (Richard Nash) Re: Cellular Phone Questions (Bernard Rupe) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: kcordes@world.std.com (Kyle J Cordes) Subject: Re: The War on Pagers Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 00:48:02 GMT Well, I can think of a legitimate reason to have a cellular phone at high school: FOR FUN. A few years ago (when I was in high school) a friend of mine had a car-phone. Neatest toy in the world. Yeah, it cost him $0 a month at the time, but it was so neat that it was easily worth it. (In retrospect, that is. Of course, he had a job at the time and I didn't ...) (At our high school, a sizable fraction of the upperclassmen had cars, and in the suburban area where we lived, going anywhere required driving around.) Kyle [Moderator's Note: I am quite sure Kyle made a typo in his message with the cost of the phone being 'zero' per month ... but I have no idea what he meant to put there so I did not change it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: crosby@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Matthew Crosby) Subject: Re: The War on Pagers Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 01:14:08 GMT In article mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@ mhs.attmail.com writes: > Look, it would take only a very, very minor change to these laws to > make them perfectly reasonable. Change the law so that (a) =students= > are banned from wearing/carrying communications gear, and (b) all > other people are banned from school grounds unless they have a > legitimate reason to be there, as determined by the local > principal/administrator, and even then, NO LOITERING. > I am at a total loss to imagine what legitimate need a high school > student or younger has for to have a pager or cellular phone with him > or her at school. They are there to learn, period. Never mind the > drug angle; if that cellular phone or pager rings during classroom > hours, it is an impediment to learning -- and not just for the person > who has it. *sigh* Why oh why do people feel that hs students should be treated in a fascist manner? Why do people consider people unable to act responsably just because they haven't had that magic 18th birthday which immediately changes them from an irresponsible teenager to a responsible adult? For the record: I am a freshman in college, so I recently finished high school. Now, when I was in high school, there where several people who had pagers, and had legitimate reasons for having them. A couple needed them for work. A large number where volunteers in various organizations, like fire departments or search/rescue and where regularily on call. Occasionally these would go off. It was certainly no more interruption then, say, a watch. I can't speak for cellular phones, because I didn't know any one who had them. > If you need to get a message to a student at a school, call the > school. They know where the student is and can relay a message as > quickly or as slowly as it requires. (If they don't know where your > child is, then you have an even bigger problem.) If a student in > school needs to make a telephone call, he or she can either wait until > after school or ask the office for permission; I am hard-pressed to > think of any legitimate use that can't wait for one or the other. My high school had about 3500 students. It had five buildings and large grounds. If a student was in class, he could have been found. If he recieved a call during one of his off periods, his chance of being found was virtually nill. He may not have even been on campus, considering most of us where allowed off campus during our off hours. Are you seriously suggesting that the office should have really been able to find a student at all times during the school day? On the broader sense, why must something be banned just because a small minority uses them for illegal dealings? What on earth is it the business of the school administration if we choose to have something that generally has no bearing on the rest of the school? If people where shoes with shoelaces, they can strangle their classmates to death. In addition, many drug dealers wear shoes. Does this mean that shoelaces should be banned? I'm sorry if this comes off as being too much of a flame, or too off topic, but when I was in high school I was sick and tired of people assuming that just because I was a student I must be a violent rowdy drug-dealing irresponsible hooligan, and therefore it was perfectly all right to treat me like that. This attempt to ban pagers is, imho, just another example of the facism of the war on drugs. Matt crosby@cs.colorado.edu ------------------------------ Reply-To: sam@ssr.nca.com From: sam@ssr.nca.com (Samuelson S. Rehman) Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 16:31:53 -0800 Subject: Re: The War on Pagers I have been listening for sometime and I'm very confused. Are we so ignorant that we actually think for one second that the best way (or even the only way for some) to help a child grow is not to inspire them, let them understand (not just "remember") what may be right (to us) and what may be wrong (as we look at it), but to merely wipe away everything signs that you dislike or similarities that they have to those "bad" kids? I can understand the fear a loving father might have in seeing his kids growing up with the "style" of a so-called bad person. Or how annoying it could be when a beeper goes off in a most inspiring lesson, both for the teacher and the students. But do you think taking away the pagers will settle their hearts? Or to be more extreme, will taking away the guns stop others from killing? I'll say no. "It's the thought that hurts, not the act." The pager is just a reception device. Televisions are reception devices. Your eyes are reception devices. Ears are reception devices, ... Everyone seems to symbolize problems from time to time, so as to identify them easier. And soon we forget the root of such problems. So we blindly attack the "symbols", instead of the actual matter it represents. And then we make more symbols. And then, again, we attack. And this goes on endless. Best Regards, Samuelson S. Rehman {Systems Programmer - RnD.NCA, Director of NIS Systems} Newspager Corp. of America voice: (415) 873-4422 | fax: (415) 873-4424 | email:sam@nca.com,sam@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: turner@Dixie.Com Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 15:13 EST From: rsiatl!turner@rsiatl.UUCP Reply-To: turner@dixie.com Brad Hicks writes: > I am at a total loss to imagine what legitimate need a high school > student or younger has for to have a pager or cellular phone with him > or her at school. They are there to learn, period. Never mind the > drug angle; if that cellular phone or pager rings during classroom > hours, it is an impediment to learning -- and not just for the person > who has it. When you consider that school property includes the parking lot, the law is a little more unreasonable. I have one friend that kept several pagers and a Wilson land mobile rig in his car when in high school. He worked for a two-way dealer. I don't think cell phones in students cars are a bad idea either, some rural students drive up to 40 miles to high school. I had a two-meter and a CB in my truck for part of high school. How the rules are actually enforced,of course, is up to the teachers. I was sent to the office when I was in high school for carying drug paraphanalia (a set of aligator clip leads I had been using while adding an extension to the school's Merlin.), yet raised no concern about having a Hilti gun in my locker, or running a chain saw in the school lobby (to prune the student council Christmas tree). When I was in high school, there was a pay phone for students to use. One of the teachers tells me it was removed the next year when the school received a bomb threat. The Assistant Principal ran out of the office to call police from another phone, only to hear the girl calling the threat in from the pay phone in the lobby. Ah the life of a high school technogeek. Pat Turner KB4GRZ turner@dixie.com ------------------------------ From: Jonathan Bradshaw Subject: Re: The War on Pagers Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 16:17:52 GMT In article mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@ mhs.attmail.com writes: > Look, it would take only a very, very minor change to these laws to > make them perfectly reasonable. Change the law so that (a) =students= > are banned from wearing/carrying communications gear, and (b) all > other people are banned from school grounds unless they have a > legitimate reason to be there, as determined by the local > principal/administrator, and even then, NO LOITERING. > I am at a total loss to imagine what legitimate need a high school > student or younger has for to have a pager or cellular phone with him > or her at school. They are there to learn, period. Never mind the > drug angle; if that cellular phone or pager rings during classroom > hours, it is an impediment to learning -- and not just for the person > who has it. First, that would ban HAM RADIO which as a high school student I was very involved in. Secondly, I carried a cell phone in high school. Of course, it was turned off during class but I had two jobs, worked 34 hours a week and went to school. I never carried a pager but considered it. At 17 I was a licensed disc jockey so I also carried a SCANNER to monitor the radio station I worked for communications too. (Check the .sig for the station). Lets get off the idea that controlling technology will control problems. HOWEVER, I agree fully with the (b) section of your message. Trouble is, in every school I have seen that IS ALREADY IN EFFECT. So, all that happens is the kids go accross the road during lunch etc. which isn't school grounds to do their deals. Didn't exactly make a difference. And you can hardly ban kids from going outside the school grounds before/after school! Jonathan Bradshaw | jonathan@nova.decio.nd.edu | PGP Key Available On Request Packet: n9oxe@n0ary.#nocal.ca.usa.na | Prodigy: XMSN02B | (Os/2)(DOS)(Linux) WNDU-AM/FM/TV South Bend, IN | Disclaimer "My opinions are not my employers" ------------------------------ From: robert@CAM.ORG (Robert Masse) Subject: Pagers, Cellphones and War on Drugs Organization: Communications Accessibles Montreal, Quebec Canada Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 16:53:08 GMT I attend CEGEP and it is full of kids with pagers. To them, it is 'cool' and neat to have them (age 17-24). Only ten or so have cellular phones. Out of all of them, one guy uses his cellular phone to get messages from his father (his father was a mobster a while ago), what he does now is unknown. In high school (age 12-17) I was the only one to have a cellular phone (for work) and when I first got it I received a lot of flak from teachers who thought the drug trade was going to start in our school. After talking to the principal, I assured them I was not dealing in illicit drugs. Now my old high school is full of kids with them, and I hear that the teachers are getting fustrated of hearing beep-beep-beep or dring dring in class. They aren't doing anything about it either because they are too scared now. Mind you all of these high school kids are using them for status symbols. I hope it doesn't come to outlawing them like previous posters mentioned, where in my opinion a person's right to carry one shouldn't be denied. Robert Masse Computer Consultant Voice (514) 466 2689 robert@cam.org robert@loki.concordia.ca Fax (514) 444 9182 robert@comsec.cam.org ------------------------------ From: news@cbnewsh.att.com Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 02:50:47 GMT Subject: Re: Standard Dialing Plan Organization: Electronic Birdwatching Society In article msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: >> There's nothing more annoying than a telco switch that says "It is >> not necessary to dial 1 and the area code for this number". If telco >> knows what number is intended, why doesn't it just go ahead and >> complete the call?! > It doesn't know what number is intended. It knows what number you dialed. > The message is a polite way of saying "You were about to reach a wrong > number! But luckily we noticed that the number you dialed would be a > local (or in-area) call, while you dialed in a manner requesting a > long-distance (or out-of-area) call. Since everyone knows the extent > of their local calling area (or area code), you must have been calling > the wrong number. Please try again and dial the right number now." ARRGH! There's nothing more annoying than a piece of hardware that thinks it knows what you want better than you do! I go to the San Francisco Bay Area occasionally on business. I often want to call places from pay phones when I do. I have enough trouble keeping track of whether the person I'm calling is in 408, 415, or 510, without also having to keep track of what the often-illegible phone number on the stupid pay phone is, much less having any clue as to whether this is officially a long distance call or a local call or which side of the LATA boundary it's on. If I dial 1-415-NXX-XXXX, then I want to talk to 1-415-NXX-XXXX. And if the pay phone says it's run by Joe's Garage COCOT service and uses FooBar Long Distance, I want to dial 10ATT-0-415-NXX-XXXX and not have some stupid friendly phone tell me I don't need to dial 1 and "Have a Nice Day - Click!" I want to get the AT&T Bong. Bill Stewart 1-908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 17:27:43 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Standard Dialing Plan To repeat an old story from me in this Digest: I answered a call at a Newark, Del. pay phone (302-366-9xxx), got an operator (British- sounding voice) who was trying to complete a collect call, and I learned she was trying to reach 203 instead of 302. ------------------------------ From: matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu (Matt Healy) Subject: Re: Meet Me at the Power Line Organization: Yale University--Genetics Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 15:58:48 GMT In article , nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) wrote: > [text deleted] > distance to the conductors is key. When you are far away from a pair > of wires near each other (like an ordinary power cord) the effects of > the two conductors cancel out. Twisted pairs cancel even better. So > an analysis based on a single-line model isn't valid. > Three-phase lines require more analysis, but I think that the > effects of all three lines cancel similarly, since there's no net > electron flow (the current in all three lines instantaneously sums to 0). The effects had *better* cancel; if not then you have a ground fault. This is, in fact, how ground fault circuit interruptors work. The GFCI has a sensing coil looped around all power-carrying lines in the protected circuit. The path integral of flux around the loop should be zero if the currents balance. A non-zero current in the sensing loop means juice is going someplace it should not go, so the GFCI trips. Close to the wires, there will be local net fluxes, but at a great distance they cancel out. This also is the reason for the old electrician's rule that you make _one_ hole in a metal enclosure for all the power wires of a given circuit. If the wires are run through different holes, so there's a non-zero net current, then you can get lots of eddy-current heating in the enclosure walls. Before I left engineering for science, I designed AC switchgear; after a couple years I decided if you've seen one motor control center you've seen them all. Matt Healy matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 09:08:16 -0700 From: rickie@trickie.ualberta.ca (Richard Nash) Subject: Re: N.E.T. and the Phantom Phone Exchange scoggin@delmarva.COM writes: > YES! This is the not the first time that a telco has hosed their > routing tables. > One Saturday morning I got a call from our Southern Division Energy > Control Center in Salisbury MD that they could not get any calls from > Southern Delaware. I tried it myself -- Delmarva has an extensive > private fiber net and I have a bunch of OPX lines in various counties > terminating on the sets in the Network Operations Center here. > Sure enough, Kent and Sussex Counties had NO long-distance access > through MCI -- AT&T worked fine. Talked to the folks at MCI -- they > had several open problem reports on the same thing. They were getting > nowhere with Bell of Pennsylvania (MCI has two big DMS250's in > Philadelphia that apparently handle Delaware, as well as eastern PA). > Anyhow, I raised enough hell that I finally spoke to a switchman in > Bell's Market St CO. Finally found that they had installed a new > generic the night before and had forgotten to load some of the > translation tables! Yup, the ONP (One Night Process) from NT strikes again! The group responsible for performing these software loads may be experiencing staffing problems, either due to over-worked individuals, or else from being less than fully trained. NT recently implemented their software *quality* program, (we are now beginning to see the the results from it.:) One of the installation steps requires that the applicator actually has to read the error report generated from the tables transfer routine. (Data from old side copied across to new software side). A lot of applicators ignore these errors, but are usually picked up that a.m., as the troubles start rolling in! :) :) -- Richard Nash Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8 UUCP: rickie%trickie@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 09:03:31 CST From: news@gold.rtsg.mot.com From: rupe@rtsg.mot.com (Bernard Rupe) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Questions Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 14:59:47 GMT wegeng.henr801c@xerox.com (Don Wegeng) writes: > Consider the following scenario. At home I have a contract with the A > carrier, and have the phone programmed to only roam with A carriers. > Now I'm travelling in another state, and come upon a serious car > accident. My phone says that there's no cellular service in this > area, so I can't use it to summon help, regardless of whether this > particular area was covered by a B carrier. > In the above scenario, had I programmed the phone to roam on B > channels (or roam on both, with priority to A channels) would I have > been able to make an emergency call? In other words, will carriers > accept emergency calls from any telephone, or will they only accept > emergency calls from phones that they recognize? Probably yes. Most systems should allow any phone to make an emergency 911 call (ie. no subscriber validation). Some phones are even set up to allow calling 911 when the phone is locked. 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #117 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09851; 20 Feb 93 23:45 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14232 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 20 Feb 1993 21:35:36 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00608 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 20 Feb 1993 21:35:00 -0600 Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 21:35:00 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302210335.AA00608@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #118 TELECOM Digest Sat, 20 Feb 93 21:35:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 118 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? (Jon Krueger) Re: What Number do I Dial From My Phone to Get Phone to Ring? (D. Levenson) Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? (Pat Turner) Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? (Harold Hallikainen) Re: Cellular Phone Questions (John Barcomb) Re: Bell Canada Charging For 411 (Bob Goudreau) Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (Andy Sherman) Re: AT&T Billing Practices --> Illegal? (Steve Forrette) Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan (John R. Levine) Re: 150th Anniversary of FAX (Adrian Godwin) Re: A "Handy" Risk for AirTravel? (Graham Toal) Re: North Korea Appears To Have Changed Most Telephone Numbers (Carl Moore) Re: Directory Services Billing (Steve Forrette) Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE (David G. Lewis) Re: E1 Lines - What Are They? (Lynne D. Gregg) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 17:58:14 -0800 Subject: Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM Organization: Ingres Corporation, a subsidiary of The ASK Group, Inc. From: jpk@ingres.com (Jon Krueger) Andrew Blau writes: > In fact, the telcos have become *very* involved in this. During > President Clinton's Economic Summit after the election, the one moment > of reported conflict was when Robert Allen of AT&T challenged Mr. > Gore's contention that the superhighway should be a public works > project. Allen said, "I believe I have some points to make about who > should do what in that respect. I think the government should not > build and/or operate such networks. I believe that the private sector > can be and will be incented to build these networks...." Yes, that was a *very* interesting little statement. Mr. Allen chooses his words most carefully. Indeed private enterprise builds highways. Does that mean it owns them? Or that a particular enterprise could have de facto monopoly via its ownership of particular routes? Of course not. Mr. Allen's speech carefully glosses over these differences. As we have seen, they are critical. > LECs, too ... have made it clear that they believe telcos have a > _very_ important role to play in the construction and operation of > tomorrow's 'data superhighways.' The question of course being: what role. The role played by my manager and by my condo's management company, for instance, are usefully different. Jon Krueger jpk@ingres.com ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: What Number do I Dial From My Phone to Get My Phone to Ring? Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 01:38:34 GMT In article , stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes: > Are you sure? If the stated purpose of this regulation is to provide > non-telco inside wiring folks a level playing field, then allowing the > telco to internally use an automated service, while requiring that > non-telco personnel use a manual service through the operator, is NOT > providing a level playing field, now is it? I don't see why the regulation requires that the telco provide such a service, manually or automatically. If I choose to be in the telephone installation business, I am free to employ a person at my office who, at the request of one of my installation personnel, will dial any number they want to verify inbound calling. If it must be a device, rather than a person, I am free to build a device which allows my installation force to call in and enter a number at which it subsequently calls them back. In other words, the playing field is level. New Jersey Bell and I are each allowed to provide ringback services, automated or human, for the use of our own service personnel. I am also free to build a device which receives Caller*ID information and voices it back to the calling party -- thus providing automatic number identification to assist installers in circuit identification. (I'm just playing 'devil's advocate' here ... I'm certainly not opposed to having the telco provide these services, but I don't feel that it should be required.) Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: turner@Dixie.Com Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 11:36 EST From: rsiatl!turner@rsiatl.UUCP Reply-To: turner@dixie.com Subject: Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? Pat writes: > "First Church, eh? ... I told you people a year ago to get the electric > wires for the ceiling lights in the office out of *my* conduit! No way > to get rid of the noise until you vacate the conduit. I'm going to > have the Business Office write you another letter on it." > All my arguments about conduit-in-common, and various court rulings > saying that everyone was entitled to use the *property owner's* > conduit including but not limited to telco went over his head. "We had > that conduit first! When we pulled pairs through there it was empty. Don't know how the rules were in 72, I was only three then. Today however, this is taboo. According to the NEC, 800-52(c): 1) Communication conductors shall not be placed in any raceway, compartment, outlet box, junction box, or similar fitting with conductors of electric light or power circuits or Class 1 circuits. Two exceptions allow this for the case of a partition separating the conductors or if the electric circuits supply power solely to communication equipiment. Pat, if you had problems then, you ought to try that now with all the switching power supplies and such in modern buildings. Disclaimer: This is from the 1990 NEC, I haven't purchased a copy of the 1993 edition yet. This paragraph was revised in the 90 edition from the 87 edition. Pat Turner KB4GRZ turner@dixie.com ------------------------------ From: hhallika@tuba.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 20:09:12 GMT It seems to me that the conduit should be available for other compatible uses, and AC power distribution would not be a compatible use on two counts: The first is the crosstalk you observed from running several amps at 120 volts in the same conduit as 600 ohm 1 mW voice signals. The second concern would be safety. Is it legal to run AC power in the same conduit as telephone wiring? Harold ------------------------------ From: jbarcom@uswnvg.com (John Barcomb) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Questions Date: 20 Feb 93 21:41:38 GMT Organization: U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc. Roaming is a really strange animal when it comes to making emergency calls. I recently read an article in a trade magazine where the editor of the magazine was roaming and watched a really bad accident occur. She picked up her phone and dialed "9-1-1" and got nowhere. Next she dialed "0" and had the operator connect the call. The operator assisted call did charge her account for the call. If she were in her "home" area, she generally* would not have been charged if she dialed 9-1-1. I have roamed on both the A and B carriers in different cities depending on coverage and availablity of cells. Your best bet is to call your cellular carriers Roaming Department (if they have one) to find out all of this information BEFORE you leave your home area so that you know. GENERALLY $3.00/day and $1.00 a minute are rates that you can count on for roaming. John ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 19:49:57 -0500 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: Bell Canada Charging For 411 Charles Stephens writes: >> In most parts of the US it's a fact of life. You're allowed roughly >> five free calls, and then after that it's around 25 cents a pop. > Well Southern Bell only gives you three freebies before they charge > you US$.30!!! Perhaps in Georgia. Here in NC, Southern Bell allots five monthly freebies, after which the charge is *fifty* cents per call. This is just another example of the dangers of generalizing about a particular Baby Bell's activities in the states it covers. Just because something is true in state A doesn't mean it will apply in B or C. State public utilities commissions often have the final say. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 13:24:58 EST Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening? From: andys@internet.sbi.com (Andy Sherman) On 13 Feb 93 20:02:50 GMT, jack.decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) said: > AT&T spends a LOT of money on advertising to convince you that their > quality is better. In my mind, this is just about as valid as the > advertising that oil companies used to run to convince you that one > brand of gasoline was better than another. In many cases, all the gas > stations in a town got their gas from the same source! It was the > same gas, yet they all tried to convince the public that theirs was > better! But the analogy doesn't hold. Phone companies don't get their infrastructure from the same source. They lay their own transmission lines, and they deal with different vendors for switching and transmission equipment. To say that with all the variation in supply and design that quality is obviously identical is arrent nonsense. While the local exchange carrier (the fall-guy for quality problems in Jack's original post) is a common factor for all long distance carriers, that doesn't mean that all interconnections are the same. It depends upon what the carrier is willing to pay for. A small carrier may have only one point of presence in a LATA with trunks to only one tandem office while a large carrier may have several, with redundant routing to several tandems. Carriers choose to buy different numbers of trunk groups to the LECS, which may be digital or may still be analog. Their equal footing with the LEC is that they all *may* buy they exact same services, not that they all *do*. If all carriers provide equal quality, why does one carrier have consistantly faster call set-up times? If all carriers provide equal quality, why does one carrier usually provide faster modem and fax throughput? Could it be that all carriers don't provide equal quality? Naaah, there must be some other explanation ... Andy Sherman Salomon Inc - Unix Systems Support - Rutherford, NJ (201) 896-7018 - andys@sbi.com or asherman@sbi.com "These opinions are mine, all *MINE*. My employer can't have them." ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: AT&T Billing Practices --> Illegal? Date: 20 Feb 1993 21:02:07 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) writes: > PAT - Wasn't it the late U.S. Senator Dirksen who complained one day > on the Senate Floor about "a million here, a million there, and it > soon adds up to real money." > [Moderator's Note: Yes, it was Everett Dirksen who coined the phrase.] I thought it was "a billion here, a billion there, ..." Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com [Moderator's Note: I'm sure it was millions; I don't think I ever heard it expressed as billions. Maybe I'm wrong, it was years ago, but the sentiment is true in either case. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 20 Feb 93 16:32:07 EST (Sat) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) > In January 1995, there will be a new "interchangeable" area code format, > where area codes are no longer restricted to having 0 or 1 as the > middle digit. Are there any hints yet about who the lucky winners will be who get the very first interchangable area code? I imagine that they may find themselves hard to call for a while. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: agodwin@acorn.co.uk (Adrian Godwin) Subject: Re: 150th Anniversary of FAX Date: 20 Feb 93 15:36:05 GMT Organization: Acorn Computers Ltd, Cambridge, UK In article Subject: Re: A "Handy" Risk for AirTravel? Monty Solomon wrote: > FTP. "Downsizing" CCC seems to be in interesting contrast to US > hackers (2600) which become more active, as visible from the Pentagon > raids. > [TELECOM Moderator's Note: I don't think he meant 'Pentagon raids'. I > think he meant the Justice Department/FBI activities. PAT] I think he was referring to a raid of a 2600 meeting *held in* the Pentagon Mall, not a raid by the Pentagon itself ... G [Moderator's Note: Good point, and I stand corrected. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 17:49:23 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: North Korea Appears To Have Changed Most Telephone Numbers The message says there are two area codes in North Korea: 2 and 81. Compare this to the archive file which has country code 850 for North Korea, with only city code 2 listed (that's for Pyongyang, the capital); it says other locations are only reachable via the operator. Where would calls to this area code 81 be coming from? ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Directory Services Billing Date: 20 Feb 1993 20:20:51 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article msb@advtech.uswest.com (Mark Blumhardt) writes: > Just a quick question. When you use directory assistance (1+411), > where is billing initiated? > [Moderator's Note: It is billed by your CO, based on the charge for > the service made by your one-plus carrier (if an inter-lata call) or > the local telco (in the case of 411). This is not entirely correct. Most inter-LATA calls have the records used for billing purposes recorded within the IXC network. However, it is likely that the originating local CO records the information as well. The IXC has the option of purchasing the records from the local telco, or recording it themselves. US Sprint used to purchase them from the local telco (around 1985), and this contributed to the delays in getting billed for calls that was common back then. Sprint would have to wait for the local telco to process the billing tapes and generate tapes just for Sprint calls and mail them to Sprint. These days, it is much cheaper and more convenient for the IXC to do this themselves. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE Organization: AT&T Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 19:21:32 GMT In article rickie@trickie.ualberta.ca (Richard Nash) writes: > Steve Forrette writes: >> It seems that telcos (such as Pacific Bell) which do not yet offer >> Caller ID in their regions, and are marking all calls that leave the >> LATA as PRIVATE so that they don't show up in other areas, are >> creating a major impediment for the usefulness of Caller ID. What if >> a users in another area subscribes to "block blocking," whereby their >> telco will reject any call that's market PRIVATE. This will prevent >> any incoming calls from anyone in California! Similarly, I would >> imagine that a great deal more people who have Caller ID boxes choose >> to ignore calls that come in as PRIVATE. How are you supposed to >> differentiate between people who have specifically requested that >> their numbers be blocked (who I most certainly DON'T want to talk to) >> from those who just happen to live in a state who's PUC knows what's >> best for its citizens (many of whom I do want to talk to)? > Easy! Demand that Californians have the right of not having their > calls blocked with blocked blocking. Hey, alright! So now we'll have Calling Number Delivery, Calling Number Delivery Blocking, Calling Number Delivery Blocking Rejection, and Calling Number Delivery Blocking Rejection Override! ;-) You *are* kidding, right? > Demand that the telcos must insert a tag number to be used instead > of marking as PRIVATE. ACB and AR would utilize this tag number to > look up the real number to be used. Just think of all the new telecom > headaches that could be created! :) Great -- let's blow the NANP numbering space even *more* out of the water. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!goofy!deej Switching & ISDN Implementation ------------------------------ From: Lynne D Gregg Subject: Re: E1 Lines - What Are They? Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 10:58:00 PST dannyb@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Danny Bielik) asked: > Could somebody please tell me what an E1 line is? E1 is the Euro equivalent of a T1 line. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #118 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16636; 21 Feb 93 2:56 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28298 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 21 Feb 1993 00:12:14 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08492 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 21 Feb 1993 00:11:39 -0600 Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 00:11:39 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302210611.AA08492@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #119 TELECOM Digest Sun, 21 Feb 93 00:11:30 CST Volume 13 : Issue 119 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Judge Finds Nynex Guilty in Criminal Contempt Case (NYT via Eric De Mund) Wanna Call Ukraine? (Oklahoman & Times via mvm@cup.portal.com) AT&T Switch Bribe Now Up to $75 (W Schleck KD3FU National and Regional Telecom Newsgroups (Nigel Allen) U.C. Berkeley Short Course on High-Speed Communications (Harvey Stern) CPUC Predispositions (John Higdon) Let's Do a Figure-8 (Jim Gottlieb) Caller ID Display With RS-232 Interface Wanted (Paul Kubinski) Long Subscriber Loop Problems (John Braden) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 22:08:50 -0800 From: Eric De Mund Subject: Judge Finds Nynex Guilty in Criminal Contempt Case Reply-To: Eric De Mund Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services Here is an item of great interest from the {New York Times} this past week. [NYT Wednesday, February 17, 1993] Judge Finds Nynex Is Guilty In Criminal Contempt Case By EDMUND L. ANDREWS Special to The New York Times WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 -- A Federal judge convicted the Nynex Corporation of criminal contempt today and fined it $1 million for willfully selling an electronic information service in violation of the antitrust decree that broke up the Bell System in 1984. Nynex, the parent company of both New York Telephone and New England Telephone, said it had done nothing wrong and would appeal the verdict. Today's conviction, handed down by United States District Judge Harold H. Greene, is the first instance in which one of the"Baby Bell" telephone companies Nynex refused to admit any has been found guilty of criminal contempt. But the verdict is based on a prohibition on the Bell companies that was ended in late 1991 by a Federal appeals court in Washington, meaning it involves actions that would not be illegal today. And whether successfully appealed or not, the case will have little impact on Nynex's profits and virtually none on the rates that its telephone customers pay. The verdict does indicate, however, that Nynex aggressively pushed the boundaries of the law and had little patience for the central restrictions of the decree that broke up the old Bell System. Work for MCI at Issue In a strongly worded verdict, Judge Greene ruled that Nynex officials knew full well they were violating a provision of the decree that barred the regional Bell companies from owning electronic information services. As a result, he said, the company should be punished with a fine that would be taken as more than "mere license fees for illegal conduct." The charges stemmed from a small Tennessee computer company called Telco Research that Nynex bought in 1986 and later sold. The company had developed software that could help long-distance companies design private networks for big corporate customers. One of Telco Research's customers was the MCI Communications Corporation, which mailed data about telephone traffic to the company. Telco Research then processed the information on a computer and used telephone lines to send MCI a network design. The Justice Department, prompted by information brought by Scott J. Rafferty, a Telco Research vice president who had been dismissed, charged that Nynex knew these activities were illegal under the decree and went ahead anyway. Nynex refused to admit any wrongdoing, arguing that at worst it had run afoul of ambiguities in the decree. It adamantly refused to settle the charges out of court, much as another regional Bell company, U.S. West, had settled similar charges in 1991 by agreeing to pay the Government $10 million. Instead, Nynex spent millions of dollars in its defense. Nynex argued that its subbsidiary had essentially been leasing a computer and software, rather than providing an information service, and that its managers thought they were complying with the law. But Judge Greene said that the activities of Telco Research clearly violated the decree and that Nynex officials received clear indications of this from Justice Department attorneys as well as some of their own employees. "Nynex officials were aware that the MCI service bureau presented decree problems," wrote Judge Greene. "While Nynex employees continued to discuss the potential violations, this produced only delay, not a remedy." ------------------------------ From: MVM@cup.portal.com Subject: Wanna Call Ukraine? Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 13:17:55 PST From the _Saturday Oklahoman & Times_, 20 Feb 93, p. 25: Copyright (C) 1993 The Oklahoma Publishing Co. Ukraine Gets AT&T Phone Switch By Bob Vandewater Staff Writer Telephone users in Ukraine are now placing calls through a digital telecommunications switch made at AT&T's Oklahoma City equipment manufacturing plant, officials said Friday. Plant manufacturing Vice President Pete Gannon said an AT&T switch, a highly-computerized electronic call routing system, was placed into service this week in Ukraine. "This is another example where a 5ESS exported from Oklahoma is providing state-of-the-art telecommunications services," Gannon said. "The digital switches made in Oklahoma City are now operating in 36 countries around the world." The Oklahoma City plant is the only domestic AT&T factory that makes and ships completed 5ESS switches. But AT&T has formed joint ventures in some other countries that allow for some 5ESS units that are partially built in Oklahoma City to be completed at plants in those nations, AT&T spokesman Ed Beltram said. AT&T Network Systems and Ukraine have formed such a telecommunications joint venture named UTEL to modernize the country's long-distance network. The first 5ESS unit installed in Ukraine was entirely built in Oklahoma City. UTEL recently signed a $35 million agreement to buy six additional 5ESS switching systems for Ukraine. Final assembly of those additional switches will take place at a joint venture plant in Chernigov in Ukraine. ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T Switch Bribe now up to $75 Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 13:00:38 CST From: Paul W Schleck KD3FU I live in Omaha, use US West, US Sprint, and have Caller-ID. I usually don't pick up the calls that say "Out of Area" too often, but figuring it might be someone important, I picked it up. "Hello, Mr. ?" "Uh Huh" "I'm so-and-so from AT&T, how are you this evening?" I'd usually hang up the phone at this point, but I was bored, and continued with the social pleasantries, and let him get on to the meat of the matter, which was a $75 bribe (not a coupon, a check) in exchange for switching to AT&T. That's right, SEVENTY-FIVE SEMOLIANS (the equivalent of at least several months of long-distance bills for me). I really shouldn't do deals over the phone, particularly telemarketing cold-calls, but as I said before, I was bored, and wanted to get more of the details. When he paused for Q&A, I asked the usual: Q: If I'm at a pay-phone, and your long-distance service is not the default, what is the access code? A: 1-0-ATT (10288, reality check to make sure I'm not talking to "ATNT" or "ATMT" or similar) Q: Do I have to pay the switching fee? A: No, a coupon to reimburse the fee will be sent to you (I had previously gotten a $35 bribe in the mail, but the switching fee was my responsibility). Q: If I agree to the service, how long do I have to stay? A: I can leave in 30 days, and keep the $75 check (forgot to ask if I have to pay to switch back) Q: How soon will the change take effect? A: 4-5 weeks And, in a moment of extreme weakness, I said "yes." I was then connected with a "neutral confirmation representative" (probably an AT&T employee to make sure that their telemarketing firm wasn't pulling an MCI slam-fest on them), who pronounced my name correctly. She confirmed that all the information was correct, and I wasn't some neighbor's kid, or cat-burglar who picked up the phone. What was amusing was that she asked for a "confirmation code," which could be several things, including mother's maiden name (probably have my credit-report on the screen right in front of them). I gave them an incorrect code, which was accepted (if they check them at all, they probably check them off-line). Will be interesting to see what they do with my order, either tear it up, call me back ("Mother's maiden name? Oh, I'm sorry, I though you said *Grandmother's* maiden name?" :-), or drop me a letter. So, am I missing something? Is this whole prospectus for real? I would assume that if the terms are very different in writing than over the phone, I can return the check uncashed and demand to be switched back. I'll take the heat for encouraging telemarketers, but I'd be interested in opinions of this latest AT&T sales pitch. Paul W. Schleck pschleck@unomaha.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 14:34:00 -0500 From: ndallen@r-node.pci.on.ca (Nigel Allen) Subject: National and Regional Telecom Newsgroups Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto What national and regional telecom newsgroups exist? I know about uk.telecom from the United Kingdom? Are there any others, in English or other languages? Sites that don't receive the uk.* hierarchy may want to turn on uk.telecom anyway, so that users who are interested in telecommunications can read any uk.telecom articles that are cross-posted to internationally-distributed newsgroups. Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ndallen@r-node.pci.on.ca ------------------------------ From: southbay@garnet.berkeley.edu Subject: U.C. Berkeley Short Course on High-Speed Communications Date: 20 Feb 1993 01:49:50 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley U.C. Berkeley Continuing Education in Engineering Announces 2 Short Courses on Communications Technology SONET/ATM-Based Broadband Networks: Systems, Architectures and Designs (May 17-19, 1993) It is widely accepted that future broadband networks will be based on the SONET (Synchronous Optical Network) standards and the ATM (Asynchronous transfer Mode) technique. This course is an in-depth examination of the fundamental concepts and the implementation issues for development of future high-speed networks. Topics include: Broadband ISDN Transfer Protocol, high speed computer/network interface (HiPPI), ATM switch architectures, ATM network congestion/flow control, VLSI designs in SONET/ATM networks. Lecturer: H. Jonathan Chao, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Brooklyn Polytechnic University Gigabit/sec Data and Communications Networks (May 19-20, 1993) This short course provides a general understanding of the key protocols and networking elements needed to design and implement gigabit local area and wide area networks, including the protocols and implementations for HiPPI, SONET, ATM, and FCS. Lecturer: William E. Stephens, Ph.D., Director, High Speed Switching and Storage Technology Research, Bellcore Applied Research For more information (complete course descriptions, outlines, instructor bios, etc.) contact: Harvey Stern U.C. Berkeley Extension/Southbay 800 El Camino Real Ste. 150 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Tel: (415) 323-8141 Fax: (415) 323-1438 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 14:11 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: CPUC Predispositions In a recent article, references were made to the CPUC public hearings on Caller-ID. As an example of the pre-disposed bias contained in these proceedings, allow me to cite the tone at another hearing topic: IntraLATA competition. The method of completing calls within the LATA but with another carrier should intraLATA toll competition eventually be approved has long ago been decided by the CPUC, who caved in to Pac*Bell. There will be no presubscription as there now is with interLATA calling. For instance, after approval if I wish to call San Francisco (in my "service area") on any carrier other than Pac*Bell, I MUST dial the carrier code (10XXX) before the number. The only default carrier allowed is Pac*Bell. Someone at the hearing (was it I?) mentioned that having to dial a five-digit number before every call gave Pac*Bell a distinct competitive advantage for intraLATA traffic. None other than the Administrative Law Judge himself was quick to point out (even to the point of interrupting the current speaker) that inexpensive dialers were available and that it was "a simple matter" to use them to prepend the carrier codes. And this was the prevailing attitude: having to dial a five digit code was a trivial matter and not worth considering. Now let us enter our time and space machine and go to a Caller-ID hearing. Suddenly we find that having to dial *67 before the number of those from whom we wish to hide our phone number is an insurmountable task, capable of being performed by only the most brilliant and technically-minded individuals. The prevailing attitude: it is too hard to remember to dial a three-key code before making an anonymous call, therefore the default should be "private". It is amazing how the pre-disposed agenda changes at the CPUC hearings. And it is funny: the same tired old activists were at both meetings! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: jimmy@tokyo07.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) Subject: Let's Do a Figure-8 Reply-To: jimmy@denwa.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 09:14:55 GMT goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes: > do I detect a little antipathy :-) toward interchangeable area > codes? Seriously, what other dialing plan would you propose instead? I, for one, would seriously suggest a change to eight-digit numbers. Think of it; a simple change where every existing number in the country has a certain digit added to the front of it, and it's done. No more area code splits, at least for the next 20 years. And no problem of dialing a number and finding it disconnected (or answered by an unknown party) because the prefix was changed to some unknown area code. Or worse, you assume the company went out of business. With an eighth digit added, you always know what to do, even five or ten years after the change. Here in Tokyo, where such a change occurred two years ago, there are plenty of signs that still show a seven-digit number. But it's no problem; everyone knows to add a '3' to the front. Contrast that to the situation in Los Angeles, where one now never knows what area code one is in while out of familiar territory (and it matters because 1 + NPA + NXX-XXXX to your own area code is denied). Directory Assistance, as already mentioned in these screens, is another problem. You know that someone lives somewhere in Los Angeles. But if you don't know where in Los Angeles, you'll have to make three directory assistance calls. I would even be so bold to suggest that after the conversion to eight-digit telephone numbers, L.A. go back to a single area code. I often try to feel for those poor souls who don't read Telecom Digest. I look on a piece of equipment here in Japan and call the number printed to ask a question. It's a +1 312 number. When I reach a telco recording, I know to try +1 708 instead. But how many people in Japan know to do that? Eight-digit numbers are the answer. Jim Gottlieb Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan In Japan: Fax: +81 3 3865 9424 Voice Mail: +81 3 3865 3548 ------------------------------ From: syspak@charlatan.Central.Sun.COM (Paul Kubinski) Subject: Caller ID Display With RS-232 Interface Wanted Date: 20 Feb 1993 15:52:28 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Reply-To: syspak@charlatan.Central.Sun.COM Hello to all, From the responses I've received I'm not sure I framed my question correctly. Here it is once again (with a diagram and brief explanation of the desired integration with the customer application). Backround: Small manufacturing company wants to make their customer service application more "responsive". They would like to pull the Caller-ID of the incoming call and use it to key a database retrieval. They want to do this today, under SunOS, and not use native ISDN connections to their Sun server. The number of incoming customer service lines will be small, probably two or three. Idea: For the most part, Caller-ID is available in the metro area. One can purchase a Caller-ID display unit for $50 or so from several sources (ie. AT&T phone centers, Radio Shack). I've heard that some of the newer caller id display units have RS-232 connections which may be used to capture the calling phone number's digits (in ASCII?) and send this info to a computer or a serial printer. Does anyone know if these devices w/RS-232 output exist? If so, can you point me towards the vendor of this item? Big picture diagram: RS-232 Sun Server--------------caller-id..........incoming phone line | box : | : | telephone | local Ethernet |-------------------------------------| | | | | Sun Client Sun Client Any alternate ideas are welcome. Cheers! PAK ------------------------------ From: braden@lincoln.diag.stratus.com (John Braden) Subject: Long Subscriber Loop Problems Date: 20 Feb 1993 19:16:38 GMT Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc. I've got a problem with high-speed modem communication and I hope somebody can help. My home phones are located at the end of a 56,000 foot. local loop (copper wire) from the central office (as measured by the lineman at the network interface). The signal level I read (using an at%l) from my modem connection is -33 to -34dB down from the 0dBm switch reference level. The lineman's box said 35dB. It also said this is acceptable for a voice-grade line. I checked with the Telecommunications Division of the Massachusetts Public Utilities Department, and was told that there is nothing in the tariff which defines an acceptable signal level for a telphone connection. I've been told by others that typical losses should be about 5dB through the central office and 8db on the local loop. After their visit, the phone company agreed to put a "bridge lifter" (which someone else called bridge clips) in to help the signal level, but I noticed no improvement. As a result of the attenuation distortion present on my lines, I cannot establish a V.32bis LAP-M connection and have some problems with a plain V.32 LAP-M connection. I'm using Zoom V.32bis modems with rev. 2.0 PROMs (Rockwell chip set) on both ends. I need some information and advice on my alternatives: 1. What is a "bridge lifter" (or bridge clips)? 2. Are there ANY modems which do well with -35dBm signal levels? 3. Is there a way I could improve the signal on my side of the network interface? 4. Is there anything I can do to get acceptable signal levels included in the published tariff for Massachusetts? 5. I investigated the cost of a foreign exchange with a closer central office and an analog FDDA circuit from my central office, but these are just too expensive. Is there an alternative I missed? 6. Should I just give up & be glad I can sometimes connect at V.32 speeds? Thanks for your help! John Braden braden@lincoln.diag.stratus.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #119 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03592; 21 Feb 93 12:41 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26828 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 21 Feb 1993 09:02:36 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29423 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 21 Feb 1993 09:02:05 -0600 Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 09:02:05 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302211502.AA29423@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #120 TELECOM Digest Sun, 21 Feb 93 09:02:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 120 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Bell's Application to Amend 411/555-1212 Assist Calls (Adele Ponty) Script Files PcPlus (Chet Pager) C&P Service Notes (Joe Bergstein) Automatic Disconnect on Mexico City Exchanges? (Don Franki) Telco Book and Equipment Advice Needed (Ed Ramsey) Need Graphic Network Tool (Bruce Sullivan) More Telecom Fora? (Olof Lundberg) Caller-ID and DTMF Chips For Sale (John Schuch) Sources For FAX Back Equipment Wanted (Jeff Brown) Need Switch/Relay to Interrupt a Leased Line (Phil Green) 301-303 Revisited (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adele Ponty Subject: Bell's Application to Amend 411/555-1212 Assist Calls Organization: UTCC Public Access Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 13:43:17 -0500 On Tuesday February 9th, 1993, I posted news regarding Bell's application to amend LDA (local 411 directory assistance) and LDDA (555-1212 long distance directory assistance) otherwise known as the CRTC Telecom Public Notice 93-14. As I stated then, my main concern over this application was Bell's request to eliminate free directory assistance for the print handicapped, seniors, the disabled and anyone using long distance directory assistance. (Little wonder why Bell did not publically announce their application, unlike what they did recently in the {Toronto Star} with their application for the community calling plan). The CRTC made a press release public on January 29th, informing the public that they had until March 1st to challenge Bell's application for dialing assistance ammendments. Nigel Allen's response to my posting on February 11th included a 1-800 number for Bell Public Affairs. Thinking that I would call this number (1-800-668-2355) to discuss the issues concerning essential services for the disabled which include dialing assistance, I called out of curiosity, even though I knew that any official statements coming from Bell's Public Affairs would be unsatisfactory. To my surprise, the Bell employee I spoke to claimed no knowledge whatsoever of the application to alter the tariffs on directory assistance. Had I not already spoken with the CRTC, I might have been led to believe that the whole issue was simply misinformation. Only after a lot of persistence inflicted on a second Bell employee, was I then referred to the director of Special Needs at Bell Canada, Shayna Maislin. Ms. Maislin informed me that an in-depth study conducted by Bell Canada concluded that telemarketers, with the co-operation of exempt individuals who held directory-assistance exemption cards, were soaking Bell for thousands of dollars. Ms. Maislin claims that the exemptions were being abused by the disabled employees of telemarketers who work from their homes and who make excessive numbers of long distance directory assistance calls. Ms.Maislin could not comment however on my question regarding how these individuals could place a 411 or 555-1212 call for a number if the name needed for the search was on a list, equally unaccessable for them. (I think that Bell has drawn an erroneous conclusion here from a survey that suggests that since both telemarketers/listmakers and the disabled make an above average number of directory assisted calls, then therefore the two groups must have something to do with each other. Interestingly, Angus Reed of Angus Telemanagement Group gave an entirely different statement on CBC Radio regarding Bell's motivation for this application, claiming that it is based on revenues lost to long distance competitors). When I was then told by Ms. Maislin that the Canadian National Institute for the Blind had agreed to decline from challenging the amendments, I decided to call the CNIB myself. The CNIB Public Affairs department first told me that the matter was "confidential" and that they could not discuss it with me. So I decided to speak with the CRTC analyst handling the file, a Mr. Robert Noakes. Mr. Noakes read to me the statements included in Bell's application submission, that claimed that a consumer panel set up by Bell and composed of reps from small, medium and large businesses, the disabled, seniors and low income customers among others, had been consulted with. Bell's application stated that nine specific groups including the CNIB, the United Senior Citizens of Ontario, among others ... had been consulted and basically had no objections to the tariff changes. Mr.Noakes pointed out that Bell wanted to offer 25 free LDA and LDDA calls per month from the exempt individual's home phone (less than one call per day). For many including Alzheimer's patients and the totally blind this could mean real hardship. The "average" caller makes 20 LDA and LDDA calls per month. Meanwhile, access to all new listings not in the book would carry a charge, while the charge per locally assisted call would drop from 60 cents to 50 cents, (despite the $88 million dollar loss Bell claims for the service). How are they going to pay for the service next year? Just when I thought I had heard enough, a Mr. Jim Sanders called me from the CNIB to tell me that he was the appointed liason between the government and Bell Canada. When I asked him if he had been part of the consumer panel that conferred with Bell Canada on their application, Mr. Sanders told me that he had only been contacted a week ago by Ms. Maislin. (Bell's application was filed last September). When I then asked him what the CNIB's position was on the elimination of unlimited directory assistance, he told me that the CNIB was adamently opposed. I then referred to the letter on file with the CRTC regarding the statement of approval given to Bell by the public groups. Mr. Sanders said it was obviously unfounded and a potential source of embarrassment for Bell Canada. The question is now, how many of the other groups mentioned on Bell's application were consulted with and when? Which of these groups will actually show up at the CRTC hearings to dispute Bell's claim? When you couple the above events with the fact that Bell never made this application public (it leaked to the press only a month ago), you get this appalling picture of a corporation that will do anything, it seems, to retain its position as the most profitable organization in Canada. If the most profitable organization says that they cannot afford to provide "essential" services for the needy, then who can, and who will? Bell Canada is setting a dangerous precedent for other greedy groups to follow, including the government. And aside from this, where is the incentive for Bell to maintain current listings in print if they are allowed to charge all of us for access to new listings not in the book? Obviously, unpublished numbers generate more profits. The main point I wanted to make here is that Bell Canada Public Affairs appears to be actively dissuading the public into believing that they have no designs to eliminate directory assistance for anyone while deliberately misleading the CRTC into believing that they have the public's approval to trim services. With tactics like Bell's, who needs lawyers? If anyone is interested in a copy of the CRTC Public Notice then I can FAX it to you. The deadline for written challenges from the public is March 1st. INTERNET: aponty@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca UUCP: wheaties@intacc.uucp (bbs) aponty@nsq.uucp (alternate) BELL: (416) 652-8072 FAX:416-653-1654 ------------------------------ From: shiva@leland.Stanford.EDU (Chet Pager) Subject: Script Files and PcPlus Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 16:38:17 GMT 1) Unfortunately, my Unix system doesn't support zmodem or even xmodem. I have found kermit to be painfully, stupidly slow. My modem handles up to 2400 baud, but I generally use 1200 because there are much fewer errors/noise, and kermit doesn't have to re-send so many packets. But I'm wondering, would a simple ascii screen-dump be faster? I always thought the protocals and compression meant greater speed alongside the error correction, but maybe not ... (Any way to speed up kermit? 1byte cheksum 94 packet size as-is. Why is it so slow, anyway??) 2) Anybody use procomm pcplus? The older version, 1.something? I'm trying to write a script file to: a) Automatically dial a number and invoke a script from the DOS command line prompt; even better if I could tell it pulse or tone from this point as well. b) log on and all that, with some sort of flexibility to skip or repeat steps, because the asp file I have now keeps getting confused (even a wait for fiveDk"Kc(T\/o,Nb']duB?;qRc>mmand which, if [string] is received during those five seconds it will go to [label], and if [string2] is received it will go to [label2] and if neither is received it will continue... c) SEND (using kermit or ascii protocal) *.* from a certain directory, and then RECEIVE a file from unix. > d) If I decide to use ascii screen dumps, I need to find some way for procomm to, "for each file in [directory]", not only send the file but give unix some commands using that filename as a variable, eg "mail [filename]" SEND [filename] "^D" Well, if anyone knows 1) or is bored and would like to enlighten me on 2) (I also use bitcom or comit sometimes), please do! but I don't read news, So please EMAIL responses to chetter@ucthpx.uct.ac.za. Thanks a lot. ------------------------------ From: Joe.Bergstein@p501.f544.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Joe Bergstein) Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 22:16:05 -0500 Subject: C&P Service Notes Paul Robinson wrote in msg. on 2/18: > Which reminds me: I humorously mentioned about what would happen > if I wanted a T1 line (or fractional one). He pointed out that AT&T > would have to put it in; C&P doesn't do T1 wiring! I'd order the POP > at the central office, but someone else would have to supply the drop. Your C&P installer was incorrect. C&P certainly does install T-1s. They install entire intra-LATA T-1s, and also the local loop portion of inter-LATA T-1s. If you ever needed an inter-LATA T-1 or FT-1, from AT&T they would arrange for C&P to install the run from the AT&T POP through C&P land to your local CO and to your house. And if you ever had enough lines, and could justify the cost of a T-1 mux, it is possible to get T-1 to connect to the CO switch for local line access. However, since most of the outlying areas from CO's are already served by fiber runs to SLC huts, ordering up a T-1 for local line access really doesn't buy much. > [Moderator's Note: Congratulations on getting the job done right! PAT] Bell Atlantic has embarked on a Quality Improvement program since 1989. They are using the Philip Crosby quality improvement process. C&P Telephone now offers "Service When You Want IT (sm)". That means that when a residential customer orders service, TELCO (C&P) no longer _tells_ you when they'll show up (i.e. the old interval). They will show up when _you_ want them. That means if you call one morning at 9 AM, and ask for installation that afternoon at 3:30, they'll do it! If you ask them to show up Saturday morning at 6:30 AM, they'll do it! Their motto is "Quality is meeting customer requirements". Over the past several years they've reduced the interval for T-1 installation from 45 business days, to two weeks (as of last summer), to about three days right now. In fact, if a business orders a T-1 for a building already equipped with a fiber termination, you can sometimes get the T-1 installed in the same day! How's that for service! What a refreshing change from the old "Ma Bell"! ------------------------------ From: radian!danf@natinst.com(Dan Franki) Subject: Automatic Disconnect on Mexico City Exchanges? Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 15:25:41 GMT Organization: Radian Corp. We are temporarily operating a network router over dial-up lines in Mexico City. The link goes down every few hours and is often difficult to reestablish without changing to another phone line. The link is only used for a few minutes each hour but the intent is maintain the connection continuously. The question arises, do some switching systems automatically disconnect a line after a few hours? All the lines are pulse dialed and as far as I know there is nothing in the way of digital switches involved. I can't feature a bunch of stepping relays having enough savy to decide that a conversation is boring (or pointless) and end it. I do not know the make or model of the switches involved so it is easy to imagine all sorts of 'features' that might make the system tolerant of other problems. Any one know one way or the other? Dan Franki Radian Corporation 512-454-4797 danf@radian.uucp ------------------------------ From: ramsey@fieldofdreams.npirs.purdue.edu (Ed Ramsey) Subject: Telco Book and Equipment Advice Needed Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Info Sys, Purdue Univ. Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 20:59:43 GMT I am looking for a good introductory and troubleshooting text on phone communications and modem operations. I want something that will help me use basic measurements such as signal strength, ring voltages, etc.. in tracking down line noise problems and in isolating marginal modems. I want to understand telephone system issues so I can talk intelligently with our local phone office and modem suppliers concerning large inbound long distance modem pool rotaries and problems we are having concerning line noise, etc ... I would also like information on appropriate (but cheap) test equipment to use in tracking down these problems. Thanks, Ed Ramsey ramsey@ceris.purdue.edu 317/494-0442 FAX/494-9727 CERIS (Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems) Network Services Manager/UNIX Systems Administrator ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 01:56 GMT From: Bruce Sullivan Subject: Need Graphic Network Tool I am looking for graphical tool to 'manage' and document my network equipment, circuits, contacts, etc. I'm currently working with a system (though that's a gracious term for it) that pre-dates my existence at this organization by several years (In other words, I take no blame). It consists of a flat file into which are 'drawn' multiple diagrams, each representing the end-to-end connectivity for a particular location. Here's an example: ______________________ _________________ ___________ ! CENTRAL SITE ! ! REMOTE SITE A ! ! SITE B ! !\ - _ /! ! \ !F! ! ! / ! ! \ ____________ !L! WXX-12345 !D! ____________ C6E123456789 / ! ! \ \ 745 / !M! (WILTEL) !D! \ 745 / (MCI) / ! !740 \ \ NODE / !5! ! !M! \ NODE / ! / 740! ! \ \ 201 / !0! ! !1! \ 202 / ! / ! !NODE \_2 3____!/!____________!0!____1 3_____________/ NODE! ! / \ / !1! 1.544 MBPS !0! \ / !128 KBPS !\ ! ! 5 / \/ !5! !0! \/ ! ! \ 7 ! ! / !0! ! ! ! ! \ ! ! / !_! !_! ! ! \ ! ! / US WEST US WEST ! ! \ !_ ! / FUJITSU DDM1000 ! ! \ ! ! !/ FIBER T3 MUX ! ! \! ! MUX 24HCGS123456 64HCGS123456 ! (US WEST) (US WEST) ___ ! LOCAL LOOP LOCAL LOOP !___!-+ MUX DIAL Makes your head hurt, doesn't it? This one is actually a fairly simple diagram. Others could include Front-end-processors, matrix switch, modems or DSU/CSUs, right down to the end devices (IBM controllers, typically). As you can imagine, I've hated this for a long time. However, we're making a big move in the direction of a client/server based application, along with LANS, routers, et al. I'm attempting to make the point that our old approach simply won't cut it any more. However, I haven't seen anything that will do what I need. It must be more than a paint or draw program such as Corel and the others. I or several others need to be able to update it easily, and it would be nice if it took a database approach to things so that I could do reporting, etc, off of it. I'd appreciate it if anyone on C.D.T has any information on or experience with products such as this that they could share with me. You can email me directly. I can post the results if there's interest. Thanks, Bruce Sullivan MCI Mail: 4544760 (4544760@mcimail.com) CI$:72747,2737 (72747.2737@compuserve.com) ------------------------------ Reply-To: olu@rowan.win.net (Olof Lundberg) Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 17:6.8.12 Subject: More Telecom Fora? From: olu@rowan.win.net (Olof Lundberg) Pat, In Digest #115 you refer to an unmoderated telecom forum. Being just recently plugged in to The Internet World it prompts me to ask whether you have a list of other telecom/wireless-related sources on Internet? Olof Lundberg Internet: olu@rowan.win.net Inmarsat CIS User ID: 73330,212 40 Melton St London NW1 2EQ, England Office phone: +44 71 7281200 Home phone: +44 932 843600 Office fax : +44 71 7281627 Home fax : +44 932 859171 [Moderator's Note: Readers, please write Olof with your advice. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mcdphx!schuch@enuucp.eas.asu.edu (John Schuch) Subject: Caller ID & DTMF Chips For Sale Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Tempe, Az. Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1993 13:13:03 GMT If anyone is interested in buying single or small quantities of either Caller ID Receiver chips, or DTMF decoder chips, E-mail me and I'll send you the details. John R. Schuch - Motorola Computer Group - Manufacturing Engineering N7XVS - schuch@phx.mcd.mot.com - (602) 438-3008 - CompuServe: 70733.3330 ------------------------------ From: edjcb@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Jeff Brown) Subject: Sources for FAX Back Equipment? Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center Date: 21 Feb 1993 01:55 EST I'm looking for sources of FAX-Back equipment. I'm interested in various levels of sophistication, from PC based to stand-alone units. Any pointers appreciated. Thanks. Jeff Brown edjcb@scivax.lerc.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 09:30:46 MST From: Philip Green Subject: Need Switch/Relay to Interrupt a Leased Line Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM I need a switch or relay that will interrupt a four-wire leased line. I need to be able to remotely force a modem into its dial backup state. Thanks, Phil Green pgreen@aoc.nrao.edu NRAO 505.835.7294 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 9:51:39 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: 301-303 Revisited 301-303 has now appeared on my phone bill as BERWYN, MD, so it's in 301 and not in 410. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #120 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03651; 21 Feb 93 12:43 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25975 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 21 Feb 1993 09:55:43 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16479 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 21 Feb 1993 09:55:14 -0600 Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 09:55:14 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302211555.AA16479@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #121 TELECOM Digest Sun, 21 Feb 93 09:55:15 CST Volume 13 : Issue 121 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Hotel Surcharges Again -- Survey? (Laird Broadfield) Repair Center Numbers (Dave Niebuhr) Hotlines in Nepal - Literally (Dave Leibold) Quality of Telco Services (was AT&T Are You Listening? (Mike Schenk) Zipcode, City, State, and Area Code List (John Villalovos) Different Rates in Same Home? (Doug Granzow) Scanners That Pick up Cellular Phones (Hans C. Klinger) Cable's Future Role in Telephony (Matt Lucas) Re: 800 Numbers That Charge (Carl Moore) Strange Ringing Behaviour (Linc Madison) Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? (Bruce Albrecht) Re: What Number do I Dial From My Phone to Get Phone to Ring? (K. Thompson) A Civil Servant Responds to Moderator Bias (John W. Shaver) Re: National Data Super Highways - Access (George Gilder) Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Alan Furman) Re: Pagers, Cellphones and War on Drugs (John Higdon) Re: Bell Canada Charging For 411 (Dave Niebuhr) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lairdb@crash.cts.com Subject: Hotel Surcharges again -- Survey? Date: 21 Feb 93 11:14:45 GMT Okay, I stayed in *another* hotel with >=$.50 charges for *any* calls (800, CC, local, everything) and I'm getting tired of it. (BTW, the last time I stayed at this hotel it didn't have charges for anything except direct-dialed LD, and they had to revise my bill when I checked out because 10XXX confused the billing program.) I've been thinking for a while about maintaining a list of hotels and chains and their sleazy/good policies; I'm not quite ready to do it mostly because my Usenet mail access is by courtesy of a friend right now and I'd like to keep the traffic down. However, in the interests of exploring this, what am I missing from the following form? HotelName: ChainName: HotelNumber: ChainNumber: Carrier800Surcharge: Other800Surcharge: CCSurcharge: LocalSurcharge: ChainwidePolicy?: Submitter: SubmitterComments: I know some of us (c.d.t et al) travel a lot, and some of us administer phone systems for companies that might be interested; is this a worthwhile project? (Also, would anyone like to leap forward and do the work, now that I've thought of it? :-) Oh yes, the hotel was the Comfort Inn on Diversey in Chicago, part of the Days Inn chain. Laird P. Broadfield lairdb@crash.cts.com ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb [Moderator's Note: And Comfort Inn is not even that great of a place. For the first fifty years or so (it is an older building), it functioned as the 'Diversey Arms Apartment Hotel'. I think they only sold the building to Days Inn as of a couple years ago. I do want to remind everyone that I am now marketing the 'Orange Calling Card' to earn money to buy food for myself and my cats. This is a no-surcharge, 25 cent per minute calling card from Orange Communications, and if you would be interested in signing up, write to 'ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu' for an application. It is a great deal for short calls from payphones and hotel phones, etc, and uses an 800 number for access. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 08:24:59 EST From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Repair Center Numbers Some time back (last year, I think) there was a discussion about calling repair service for a home phone problem from an out-of-area phone, ie. another area code. NYTel is publishing two numbers for this: 611 and 1-890-6611 (area code 516 only, I don't know about the other area codes that NYTel serves, nor Rochester Tel.). So, if I were experiencing problems at home and I was in, say Maryland (AC 301), I would call 1-516-890-6611 and should be connected to the NYTel repair center. I was going to post this sooner, but forgot about it at the time of the discussion or didn't have the bill handy. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 04:06:44 -0500 From: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dave Leibold) Subject: Hotlines in Nepal - Literally The Independent News Service, by way of {The Toronto Star}, reports of warnings in Nepal regarding connections made between the telephone system and power lines. The Nepal Telecommunications Corportation refers to the incidents as accidental; meanwhile the telco issued bulletins that phones with prolonged ringing are not to be picked up lest it be on the receiving end of 600 volts. At least one Katmandu resident was killed by the crossed connections with other reports of telephones burning up and at least one fax machine melted "to the consistency of yak butter". Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: 21 Feb 1993 11:12:42 +0000 (GMT) From: M.R.Schenk@research.ptt.nl (Mike Schenk +31 70 33 23926) Subject: Quality of Telco Services (was AT&T Are You Listening?) Organization: PTT Research, The Netherlands In article andys@internet.sbi.com (Andy Sherman) writes: > On 13 Feb 93 20:02:50 GMT, jack.decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack > Decker) said: >> AT&T spends a LOT of money on advertising to convince you that their >> quality is better. In my mind, this is just about as valid as the >> advertising that oil companies used to run to convince you that one >> brand of gasoline was better than another. In many cases, all the gas >> stations in a town got their gas from the same source! It was the >> same gas, yet they all tried to convince the public that theirs was >> better! > But the analogy doesn't hold. Phone companies don't get their > infrastructure from the same source. They lay their own transmission > lines, and they deal with different vendors for switching and > transmission equipment. To say that with all the variation in supply > and design that quality is obviously identical is arrent nonsense. More importantly, people tend to forget that it's not the quality of the transmission and switching systems that counts. Nowadays, probably all of these systems are of good quality. But what really matters is the way in which operators manage their (often very complex) networks. Ultimately, this will be the distinction between operators and not the quality of their transmission and switching systems. Mike ------------------------------ From: villalj@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (John Villalovos) Subject: Zipcode, City, State, and Area Code List Date: 21 Feb 93 09:45:52 GMT Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept. Previously I posted a request for a data base listing of Zipcodes to City, State, and Area Codes. I didn't get any answers about it but did get a lot of requests from people asking me to send them info if I found anything. Well ... I wrote a program (in VBDOS) which with the program ZipKey will output two data files. One is a listing of state abbreviations and corresponding full state names (this also includes territories i.e. Guam). The next data file is a listing of all known zipcodes, city, state, and area code. There are around 41000 zipcodes listed with the version of zipkey I used. There is an updated zipkey database which I haven't tried yet. If anyone is interested in the program they could send me some email or preferably someone could give me a site to send it to via ftp. You will also need to locate a copy of zipkey. I found a copy on simtel20.army.mil in the database directory called ZK*.ZIP. There are two files, one is the program and the other the data. Later, John Villalovos (503) 753-7883 villalj@xanth.cs.orst.edu Computer & Network Consulting Mobile Disk Jockey Certified Netware Engineer Parties, Dances, and Weddings ------------------------------ From: dig@pro-cynosure.cts.com Subject: Different Rates in Same Home? Organization: ProLine [pro-cynosure] Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 04:46:47 EST Paul Robinson writes: > Here's the details from C&P Telephone of Maryland: > Unlimited residential service is quoted as $20 a month. I note that > because I already have unlimited local service, the new lines must > also be installed that way; the sales clerk told me that this was the > case. Her exact words were that it was "a violation of tariff > schedules to install measured and unmeasured service at the same > house." Is this true? We have two lines where I live (C&P area). One is a flat monthly rate plus $.09 per call, the other is $20/monthly for unlimited calls. The only difference here is that we get two seperate bills and the lines are registered under two different names. But they are in the same home, and both lines run to all of our phones. Has the phone company allowed us to go against the tariff? Doug Granzow dig@pro-cynosure.cts.com or ...crash!pro-cynosure!dig Call: The Cynosure BBS | Free | Internet | 14.4kbps USR DS | +1 410 549 2584 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 01:48:20 -0500 (EST) From: Hans C. Klinger Subject: Scanners That Pick Up Cellular Phones I was told by a Radio Shack salesman that they sell scanners that can intercept cellular phone transmissions. Then I learned from a reliable source that the scanner does not come out of the box ready to scan cellular frequencies, but rather it has to be modified (clip a diode or something). Can anyone verify this? Can any scanner be modified and what is the procedure for doing so? I realize that creating such a device to listen to phone users is borderline illegal but this is for a research project involving the ease of eavesdropping of cellular phones and I would appreciate any information on how it is accomplished. Thanks, Hans [Moderator's Note: It is not 'borderline illegal' -- it is illegal. I am surprised the RS salesperson openly admitted what could be done. Usually they wait until you buy the unit then mention that 'they heard it could be done ...' and that 'a customer' left 'these notes and schematic here in the store one day ...' or words similar. We have covered this several times here in the past, and yes, modifications to scanners are quite easily accomplished for the most part. I do not know about the unit in question since you did not mention a model number, but with the PRO-34 (now discontinued) it was as simple as pulling a couple diodes (D-3 and D-4) off the circuit board. The radio then lost 30-50 megs as a result, but picked up full 800 coverage. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 00:40:42 -0500 From: matt lucas Subject: Cable's Future Role in Telephony The February issue of {TeleStrategies Insight} features an article by Dr. Jerry Lucas entitled "Cable's Future Role in Telephony: or how the Cable MSO' can eat the RBOC's Lunch." It is an in-depth analysis of where cable is today regarding telephony; why cable companies must partner and who they must partner with to succeed; and how the cable industry should define their business to establish a winning vision for the 21st century. If you're interested in receiving an email copy of this article, send your request to insight@telestrat.com. Thank you, Matt ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 14:09:36 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: 800 Numbers That Charge I tried 1-800-555-4578 from a pay phone which defaults to AT&T, and it said could not complete the call with the area code or number I had dialed. 10222 plus the above said could not be completed with the access code I had dialed. No mention of any charge. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Feb 93 22:41:13 GMT From: Linc Madison Reply-To: telecom@hedonist.demon.co.uk Subject: Strange Ringing Behaviour I recently moved into a shared flat in London, and set about modernizing the telephony of the place. Prior to my arrival, the only instrument in the place was an old, old black rotary-dial desk phone. The first addition to the family was an answering machine, but we noticed that it was very difficult to catch the phone before the machine did. This was causing problems, as the phone and machine were on different jacks and therefore the machine didn't reset when the phone went off-hook. At the same time, though, I also got a telephone for my room, to run off the jack extension I ran for my modem. I kept the ringer off at first, but then turned it on one day. I discovered something quite strange: the "old reliable" set (rented from BT) DOES NOT RING on the first ring! The ringing cadence in the UK is a double burst; the first ring is often just a single burst, but even in cases where it's a double burst the old phone doesn't ring at all. The behaviour is entirely consistent in all observed instances. What could cause the phone not to ring on the first ring? Linc Madison == Linc@Hedonist.Demon.co.uk == Telecom@Hedonist.Demon.co.uk 59 Stourcliffe Close, London W1H 5AR Tel. +44 71 723 0582 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 23:22:18 CST From: bruce@zuhause.MN.ORG (Bruce Albrecht) Subject: Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? > barnett@zeppelin.convex.com (Paul Barnett) writes: >> This is indeed specific to the local telephone company. In Mpls-St. >> Paul, which is served by US West, you HAVE to publish the number, or >> pay an extra charge. > That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. So, if I wanted to > avoid paying unlisting charges on my residence lines, the phone book > would look something like this (?): This is not true. I live in St. Paul, and have two phone lines. Only the first line is listed, and I do not pay an extra charge for not listing the second. If I only had one line, I would have to pay for being unlisted. bruce@zuhause.mn.org ------------------------------ From: Ken Thompson Subject: Re: What Number do I Dial From My Phone to Get My Phone to Ring? Date: 21 Feb 93 15:02:32 GMT Organization: NCR Corporation Wichita, KS ) [Moderator's Note: Telco need not provide an automated service for ) this purpose or tell you how to access the automated service. They ) need only to make your bell ring on request. In other words, the ) business office could have told you to ask the operator to ring you ) back. That would have met the requirements. PAT] ... and cost me $1.25. Ken Thompson N0ITL NCR Corp. Peripheral Products Division Disk Array Development 3718 N. Rock Road Wichita KS 67226 (316)636-8783 Ken.Thompson@wichitaks.ncr.com [Moderator's Note: But as a writer pointed out yesterday, you are free to set up your own arrangements if you want to be in the telephone installation and repair business. No one says you have to use telco to do this. You can have your own personnell to ring phones and identify lines like any other repair/installation service. Lots of companies use private vendors for their phones instead of telco. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 21 Feb 93 00:19:22 MST From: Mr John W Shaver Subject: A Civil Servant Responds to Moderator Bias Pat, As an employed Civil Servant, you did not elect me, but you elected idiots who passed laws which make it difficult to do anything in the Government. There are some regulations which civil servants enact or cause to be generated but most of these are in response to the legislators. I probably am just as irritated as you are at stupid government actions, but the source is the lawmaking ability. Sorry Pat, It is still your fault. John W. Shaver 602 538 7622 // DSN 879 7622 // FTS 658 7622 FAX 538 0656 // DSN 879 0656_// FTS 658 0656 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 20:34 GMT From: George Gilder <0004091174@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: National Data Super Highways - Access The article described in Robert L. McMillin's entry in V13 #107 discussing the future of Dark Fiber was entitled Into the Fibersphere and appeared in the December issue of Forbes/ASAP. It was written by me, George Gilder, and will be part of my new book Telecosm. The issue of ASAP can be acquired by calling 415-802-6880. ------------------------------ From: atfurman@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 16:31:22 PST Mr./Ms. Stony Brook Press writes: > Not only that, In this country you only have a choice between > Republicans and Democrats. Imagine my surprise. I have been voting Libertarian for years, and occasional TELECOM Digest contributor Toby Nixon has been a Libertarian Party candidate for the Georgia legislature. Alan T. Furman atfurman@cup.portal.com [Moderator's Note: My sympathies are with the Libertarians also, but a lot of good it does to vote for them. The television news does not even bother to report the Libertarian election results. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 22:07 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Pagers, Cellphones and War on Drugs robert@CAM.ORG (Robert Masse) writes: > Now my old high school is full of kids with them, and I hear that the > teachers are getting fustrated of hearing beep-beep-beep or dring > dring in class. They aren't doing anything about it either because > they are too scared now. Mind you all of these high school kids are > using them for status symbols. Of course. When in any kind of public meeting situation (movie theater, conference, PUC hearing :-), or staff meeting), I set my pager to vibrate rather than beep. But then that defeats one of the main reasons for a high school student having the thing in the first place. How can you impress your peers if it does not beep once in awhile, particularly during class. > I hope it doesn't come to outlawing them like previous posters > mentioned, where in my opinion a person's right to carry one shouldn't > be denied. I agree fully. But then maybe the kids ought to be informed about "pager courtesy" in public meetings and classroom situations. No place like school to learn about proper real world behavior. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 08:19:23 EST From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Re: Bell Canada Charging For 411 In TELECOM Digest Volume 13 : Issue 118 goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes: > Charles Stephens writes: >>> In most parts of the US it's a fact of life. You're allowed roughly >>> five free calls, and then after that it's around 25 cents a pop. >> Well Southern Bell only gives you three freebies before they charge >> you US$.30!!! > Perhaps in Georgia. Here in NC, Southern Bell allots five monthly > freebies, after which the charge is *fifty* cents per call. Come up north to NYTel land where a 411 call is $.48 *per pop*, no freebies, nada, zilch or whatever else you want to call it. Remember that this is the same NYTel that is part of NYNEX which got ripped by Judge Greene, the same NYTel that still can't get it's routing tables straight for some of it's customers. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #121 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28251; 22 Feb 93 0:03 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08073 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 21 Feb 1993 21:37:39 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16333 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 21 Feb 1993 21:37:06 -0600 Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 21:37:06 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302220337.AA16333@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #122 TELECOM Digest Sun, 21 Feb 93 21:37:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 122 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson CRTC News Release: Bell, B.C. Tel New Charges (Adele Ponty) Quebec Yellow Pages Controversy (Nigel Allen) Call for Articles: ConneXions (Ole J. Jacobsen) International Calling Services (Jim Sturtevant) More About General Turmoil (Brian D. McMahon) Any Way to Use Cellular Phone on Normal Phone Lines? (David C. Kovar) Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (Robert L. McMillin) Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (Tim Gorman) Re: Long Subscriber Loop Problems (Pat Turner) Re: Long Subscriber Loop Problems (Bruce Sullivan) Re: Let's Do a Figure-8 (Steve Forrette) Re: Procedure to Use 800-321-0ATT (Laird Broadfield) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adele Ponty Subject: CRTC News Release: Bell, B.C. Tel New Charges Organization: UTCC Public Access Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 15:53:21 -0500 CRTC news release January 29, 1993 BELL, B.C. TEL, APPLY TO INTRODUCE NEW DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE CHARGES OTTAWA/HULL - The CRTC today announced that it has received applications from both the British Columbia Telephone Company (B.C. Tel) and Bell Canada (Bell) to revise their customer charges for directory assistance (Telecom Public Notice CRTC 93-13 and 93-14). Bell and B.C. Tel both propose to apply a directory assistance charge for each requested telephone number, whether it be for a number in Canada or the United States. Specifically, the two companies are proposing to introduce a $0.50 local directory assistance (LDA) charge for requests for local numbers not listed in the current editions of their telephone directories; introduce a long distance directory assistance (LDDA) charge of $0.50 for Canadian telephone numbers outside the subscriber's free calling area, and; reduce the LDDA charge for requests for telephone numbers in the United States from $0.80 to $0.50. Bell also proposes to reduce its LDA charge for listed numbers from $0.60 to $0.50. The proposed changes would also affect the exemption currently available to persons with disabilities and, in the case of Bell, those persons 65 years of age and over. Currently, Bell provides unlimited local directory assistance free of charge to seniors and persons with disabilities. There is also no charge for persons with disabilities for lond distance directory assistance for numbers within Canada. For numbers within the United States, the general limit of 50 free requests per month is applied. Under Bell's proposal, there would not be unlimited free directory assistance but rather a combined maximum of 25 free local and long distancE directory assistance requests per month per residence customer account. B.C. Tel currently allows persons with disabilities unlimited local directory assistance and unlimited long distance directory assistance for numbers within Canada or to the United States. B.C. Tel now proposes to only exempt persons with disabilities from paying local directory assistance charges if he number requested is listed in the company's telephone directory. There would no longer be any free long distance directory assistance. The applications made by Bell and B.C. Tel are available for examination at any of their respective business offices, or at the offices of the CRTC. The Commission invites anyone affected by the proposed changes to submit their comments in writing, by March 1, 1993. Note: Both the public notice and this news release are available in Braille and on audio cassette. Contact: Bill Allen, Director CRTC, Public Affairs, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2 (819) 997-0313 - TDD (819) 994-0423 - Fax (819) 994-0218 or one of our regional offices listed below: Halifax,Nova Scotia - (902) 426-7997 - TDD (902) 426 6997 Montreal, Quebec - (514) 283-6607 - TDD (514) 283-831 Winnipeg, Manitoba - (204) 983-6306 - TDD (204) 983-8274 Vancouver, British Columbia - (604) 666-2111 - TDD (604) 666-0778 or the Department of Communications Regional Office: Toronto, Ontario - (416) 973-8215 Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Notice Ottawa, 29 January 1993 Telecom Public Notice CRTC 93-14 BELL CANADA - REVISIONS TO DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE CHARGES Reference: Tariff Notice 4505 The Commission has received an application from Bell Canada (Bell), dated 11 September 1992, for approval of tariff revisions related to directory assistance charges. In its application, Bell proposes to apply a common directory assistance charge of $0.50 per requested telephone number for both local directory assistance (LDA) and long distance directory assistance (LDDA). Specifically, the company proposes to: (1) reduce the current LDA charge from $0.60 to $0.50; (2) eliminate the current free allowance of 50 LDDA calls to the United States per access per month; $0.50; (3) reduce the Canada-U.S. LDDA charge from $0.80 to $0.50; (4) introduce a Canada/Canada LDDA charge of $0.50; (5) introduce a charge of $0.50 for requests for (a) out-of-book numbers (i.e., numbers that are within the same local calling area, but listed in another directory), (b) numbers that are new, changed or not listed, (c) foreign listings, and (d) 800 Service numbers via LDA, and (6) introduce a charge for LDA/LDDA requests from hotel PBX Service, and for requests for Bell numbers and for special instruction-type listings (for example, "if busy call" or "after hours call"). The company proposes to establish a free monthly allowance of 25 LDA/LDDA requests per residence account for (1) persons certified as being 65 years of age or over, and (2) persons who are certified as physically or mentally disabled, functionally illiterate or who inform the company of a temporary handicap or disability preventing them from using the directory. Bell also proposes changes to the exemptions and exceptions to the application of LDA and LDDA charges. In support of its application, Bell has submitted information for which it has claimed confidentiality. An abridged version of this information has been provided for the public record. The Commission addressed interrogatories to Bell with respect to its application. The company responded to these interrogatories on 21 January 1993. The application may be examined at any of Bell's business offices or at the offices of the CRTC, Room 201, Central Building, Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere, 1 Promenade du Portage, Hull, Quebec, or Suite 602, Complex Guy-Favreau, East Tower, 200 Rene-Levesque Blvd. West. Montreal, Quebec. A copy of Bell's application and of its responses to the Commission's interrogatories may be obtained by any person upon request directed to the company at the address shown below. If you wish to comment on the application, please write to Mr. A. J. Darling, Secretary General, CRTC, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N2, by 1 March 1993 (fax: (819) 953-0795). A copy of your letter should be sent to Mr. B. A> Courtois, Vice President, Law and Regulatory Affairs, Bell Canada, 105 Hotel-de-Ville Street, 6th Floor, Hull, Quebec, J8X 4H7 (fax: (819) 778-3437). ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 10:28:00 -0500 From: ndallen@r-node.pci.on.ca (Nigel Allen) Subject: Quebec Yellow Pages Controversy Organization: R-node Public Access Unix - 1 416 249 5366 Bell Canada's Yellow Pages subsidiary, Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc., makes Quebec companies that want to advertise in the English- language section of the Yellow Pages buy an advertisement of the same size in the French-language section as well, according to {Marketing} magazine (February 15, 1993, p. 3). French-language advertisers don't have to buy English-language advertising, though. This particularly affects small companies in Montreal and Hull that primarily serve the English-speaking community. The policy is apparently the result of a private agreement between Tele-Direct and a Quebec government agency, the Office de la Langue Francaise. As well, Bell Canada only puts the French-language Yellow Pages in Montreal phone booths, the article reports. (That is, the booth would have the white pages and the French-language Yellow Pages, but not the English-language Yellow Pages. In practice, many Bell phone booths don't have any directories at all.) I have capitalized Yellow Pages, as it is a registered trade mark in Canada. In the U.S., it is a generic term. (In the same way, Aspirin is a registered trade mark in Canada, but not in the U.S.) Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ndallen@r-node.pci.on.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 9:03:17 PST From: Ole J. Jacobsen Subject: Call for Articles: ConneXions Call for Articles ConneXions -- The Interoperability Report is a monthly technical journal which covers all aspects for computer networking and distributed computing. ConneXions seeks articles ranging from technology tutorials and user case studies, to letters, opinions and book reviews. For author guidelines, send a message to ole@interop.com. Authors receive a complimentary lifetime sub- scription. *** PLEASE: Do not include my message in your reply. If you must include it, please do so AFTER your reply rather than before it. Thank you very much.*** Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report Interop Company, 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View, CA 94040, Phone: (415) 962-2515 FAX: (415) 949-1779 Email: ole@csli.stanford.edu ------------------------------ Reply-To: jimst@cpcjes.win.net (Jim Sturtevant) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 13:22:43 Subject: International Calling Services From: jimst@cpcjes.win.net (Jim Sturtevant) Pat, I've been monitoring the TELCOM group for quite awhile and enjoy it a great deal. I want to ask if you are familiar with an consultants who are knowledgable on various techniques for providing international callers with inexpensive access to US long distance. For example there are services where you call once from Euorpe, then a return call is placed connecting the caller with their desired party at US intl rates rather than expensive European PTT rates. Also, do you know of a resource (online or printed) to get international rate tables for calls originating outside the US? Thanks for your help, any direction would be helpful. Jim Sturtevant Internet:jimst@cpcjes.win.net The Complete PC CIS UserID: 71333,612 1983 Concourse Dr. San Jose, CA Phone:408.434.0145 Fax:408.434.1048 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 16:51:13 cdt From: McMahon,Brian D Subject: More About General Turmoil I heard yet another interpretation of what the letters GTE stand for from a long-time employee ... Going to Texas Eventually. He then went on to say that he'd jokingly told a switchman that the local CO was moving down south, too. The instantaneous reply: "That already happened. What do you think all those dishes up on the roof are for?" Apparently GenTel is the butt of as many jokes inside the organization as it is on the outside. Gee ... Brian McMahon (BDM13) ------------------------------ From: kovar@world.std.com (David C Kovar) Subject: Any Way to Use Cellular Phone on Normal Phone Lines? Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 18:20:59 GMT I have a Uniden transportable phone that I use occassionally. I was wondering if there was any way of adapting it so I could use it as a normal phone, ie, connected to a house phone jack? I prefer it's handset to the other ones I have and I also would like to have one set of stored numbers rather than two or more. Thanks, in advance. David ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 06:34:17 -0800 From: rlm@indigo2.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening? Jack Decker writes about the Seven Deadly Sins of Telecom. I would propose an eighth: the attitude, common among both MCI and Sprint, and seen elsewhere, that the customer can always prepend 10288 to his calls and get through. It is an excuse for shoddy service, plain and simple. How long was South Carolina out of service before Sprint finally came back on line? ------------------------------ Date: 21 Feb 93 13:46:12 EST From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening? In TELECOM Digest V13 #113 jack_decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) writes: > Tell me why, for example, an AT&T operator can hold my line open > until she releases the call, while OCC operators cannot? Have these > superior connections been made available to other carriers? I think > not. John Higdon replies: > Why would they want them? What you describe is the old TSPS (left over > from pre-divestiture). The facilities available now are obviously more > advanced. The AT&T operator can hold your line open for exactly the same reason AT&T can provide true coin service -- they are the only carrier willing to invest in the network capability for doing so. This capability has been available for the carriers to order in SWBT since 1989. Thats four years. It would appear to me that the other carriers have no excuses, they just aren't interested in providing the same fully capable service as AT&T does. Economics, I suppose. Tim Gorman - SWBT *opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence* ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 14:30 EST From: rsiatl!turner@rsiatl.UUCP Reply-To: turner@dixie.com Subject: Re: Long Subscriber Loop Problems John Braden writes: > 1. What is a "bridge lifter" (or bridge clips)? To the best of my knowledge: Bridge clips: nickel plated bronze clips used to jumper adjcent terminals on a punchdown (esp 66) block. Bridge lifters: Inductors used on OPX lines. Without loop current, they presented a high impedence to voice frequency. When the line went off hook, the loop current saturated the core of the inductor, lowering the impedence. This isolated the on hook side of the OPX from the in use off hook side. > 3. Is there a way I could improve the signal on my side of the network > interface? There are a number of cards built by Tellabs/Wescom/XEL for this. I can't recommend a specific one because I don't know how they handle ringing. I would call your local Graybar/Anixter/North/Alltel office. Cost will be around $150 for the card and $50 for mounting. > 4. Is there anything I can do to get acceptable signal levels included > in the published tariff for Massachusetts? Not really, they would be unlikely to file a second tariff unless the PUC forces them to. > 6. Should I just give up and be glad I can sometimes connect at V.32 > speeds? Absolutely not, V.32/32 bis modems were designed to function over the public switched telephone network (PSTN). You can't expect the same preformance as someone with a Slick in his/her backyard, but you should be able to connect regardless of tariffs. I would call in another ticket, without mentioning modems. Tell them the problem is "long levels". If they can't help you I would give your PUC a call. > As a result of the attenuation distortion present on my lines, Just for reference, attenuation distortion refers to attenuation vs. freq, usually referenced to 1004 Hz. This is a different problem, but quite likely also happening on you line as well. For POTS lines this is measured with a three tone slope (404, 1004, 2804). Pat Turner KB4GRZ turner@dixie.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 20:15 GMT From: Bruce Sullivan Subject: Re: Long Subscriber Loop Problems > Are there ANY modems which do well with -35dBm signal levels? I doubt it. I don't do much work in the dial-up world, but for a leased circuit, -35db is pretty darned cold. My modems will typically alert me if the RSL goes outside of about -9 to -20db or so, even though we can still pass data beyond that. -35db would definitely get the telco a call from me. When we were ordering a lot analog lines (pretty much DDS only these days..) we paid extra at provisioning time for 'conditioning.' I don't know if this is an option with switched services, since they can't control where you go once you get past your serving CO. Still, *that's* where you problem appears to be, so if they can condition it that far, it might be of some help. There are no doubt others on CDT with far greater knowledge of that than myself. > Is there a way I could improve the signal on my side of the network > interface? Unless the problem exists on your premises, again I doubt it. Even if the problem is there, you'll be taking shots in the dark unless you have the equipment to measure it at various points. Bruce Sullivan (4544760@mcimail.com OR 72747.2737@compuserve.com) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 02:32:55 -0800 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Let's Do a Figure-8 Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article jimmy@denwa.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) writes: > goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes: >> Seriously, what other dialing plan would you propose instead? > I, for one, would seriously suggest a change to eight-digit numbers. Wasn't the original reason for thinking of alternatives to the current proposal that some vendors thought it would be too big of a change to their equipment in order to support NXX area codes? Can you imagine how many things in the US would break if the conversion were made to eight digit local numbers (or four digit area codes)? I can't imagine how long it would take the 500+ local carriers, and about as many long distance carriers, to convert. (LA Cellular still does not have the 213/310 split working correctly for roamers in all cases :-() And this does not begin to include all of the private-sector automation that deals with phone numbers. Since the current plan will run out of area codes in less than two years, I don't think this is nearly enough time to make any large-scale changes to the NANP. The FCC has set a 1997 deadline before publicly-accesible PBX's and COCOTs must be replaced to support 10XXX dialing. I would think that at least a similar five-year warning would have to be given to everyone involved before such a change could reasonably be implemented. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: lairdb@crash.cts.com Subject: Re: Procedure to Use 800-321-0ATT Date: 21 Feb 93 10:13:22 GMT Pat writes: > [Moderator's Note: After dialing 800-321-0288, you hear the AT&T > tones, and the robot operator announces, "AT&T ... please enter the > number you are calling, or zero for an operator." After entering the > number you are asked to enter your card number. It is basically the > same as any other credit card call. Persons who have experiences with > this are requested to write. PAT] Slightly amusing story: the "please enter the number you are calling" message confused the bejeezus out of an operator at a hospital I was working at this week; from the phone I was borrowing, any off-premise calls had to be made through the operator, including 800 calls (don't ask me, I don't understand why either.) So, after a number of calls to the operator to get me our corporate voicemail, it happened I needed to make a personal call. So, I called the operator, asked for 800 321 0288, and then we got "please enter the number you are calling". The operator (still on the line) says, in one of the most bewildered voices I've ever heard, "Didn't we just do that?" Laird P. Broadfield lairdb@crash.cts.com ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #122 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29216; 22 Feb 93 0:28 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00273 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 21 Feb 1993 22:20:35 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26911 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 21 Feb 1993 22:20:06 -0600 Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 22:20:06 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302220420.AA26911@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #123 TELECOM Digest Sun, 21 Feb 93 22:20:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 123 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The War on Pagers (Marc Unangst) Re: The War on Pagers (Jim Graham) Re: The War on Pagers (Kyle J. Cordes) Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (John Higdon) Re: Modems For LEGAL Use in Germany (Steve Pershing) Re: Scanners That Pick Up Cellular Phones (Michael Schuster) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) Subject: Re: The War on Pagers Date: 21 Feb 1993 13:16:49 -0500 Organization: The Programmers' Pit Stop, Ann Arbor MI In article mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@ mhs.attmail.com writes: > I am at a total loss to imagine what legitimate need a high school > student or younger has for to have a pager or cellular phone with him > or her at school. Well, I'm a high school senior here in Ann Arbor (Huron High School). I also carry a pager, both when I'm at school and when I'm not. A few reasons why I find it convenient to have a pager: 1. It makes it much easier for people to get a hold of me when I'm not at home, or when I'm not going to be near a single phone, or when I'm going to be moving around a lot. 2. My parents don't like getting calls on their line after 11:00pm or so. So instead, I just have the person page me, and I call them back. 3. I work after school as a computer technician; sometimes my employer has to get a hold of me. Yes, even at school. 4. My computer at home (a 486 running SVR4 Unix) will soon have a system set up whereby it automatically pages me with one of a special set of codes if various things happen, such as running out of disk, an improper shutdown and reboot, the INN server getting indigestion, or something similar. I might be able to take care of something like that with one of the school's computers and their modem, but it's rather difficult to teach my computer to leave a message with the school office. 5. I do volunteer work with a local computer conferencing system; sometimes other staff members need to get in touch with me to ask an important question or something. Again, paging me is a lot easier and more efficient than having the school relay the message. 6. I do a bit of computer consulting/programming work in my spare time. It doesn't look very professional if your customers don't have a way of getting in touch with you during school hours. 7. I don't have to give any reason at all. If I'm not violating anyone else's rights and not disturbing the learning process (see below if you think pagers do this) through my actions, then I should be allowed to carry out those actions. The school should not be allowed to make arbitrary and capricious rules that adversely affect my ability to make a living and go about my (perfectly legal) business, simply because they can't figure out any other way to control the student body. > if that cellular phone or pager rings during classroom hours, it is > an impediment to learning -- and not just for the person who has it. You obviously aren't familiar with recent pagers. The ones being used around here by most of the paging services (the Motorola Bravo and Bravo Plus) both have vibrating-alert modes. Obviously, I don't leave my pager in "loud and annoying" mode when I'm at school. Cellphones might be a different problem; I'm not sure if the ringer can be turned off independent of the phone. Of course, you could also just leave the phone turned off, and turn it on if you need to make a call. > They know where the student is and can relay a message as > quickly or as slowly as it requires. Of course, that assumes that the school official is qualified to judge how urgent the message is. And it also assumes that the school is able to relay the message; some of the people working in my high school's office would have trouble blowing their nose without assistance, let alone accurately taking a (sometimes technical) phone message and relaying it to me. Besides, the school isn't there to act as my personal answering service and secretary; I should be responsible for taking care of my own phone calls. > If a student in school needs to make a telephone call, he or she can > either wait until after school or ask the office for permission; Well, the school I'm at doesn't let students use the office phones. They have two banks of three payphones each, and students are expected to use those for calls. Unfortunately, those phones are frequently out of order or all in use for an extended period of time (this is especially true during lunch, which is one of the few times that I'd have an opportunity to use them). And, depending on what service plan you have for your cellphone, making the call from the cellphone can be cheaper than making the call from a payphone; this is almost certainly true if you are making an intra-LATA zone call. Marc Unangst, N8VRH mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 10:52:57 CST From: Jim Graham Reply-To: Jim Graham Subject: Re: The War on Pagers In article jeff@bradley.bradley.edu (Jeff Hibbard) writes: >> [Moderator's Note: In the Chicago Public Schools, pagers are >> considered verbotin and are confiscated from students. This is part >> of the War on Drugs. PAT] I wish I'd seen this thread from the start ... looks like it would have been an interesting one. This part makes sense most of the time. There are exceptions (a friend of mine back when I was in high school was one of those exceptions ... he was an EMT, and was on call a lot --- he had special permission to get up and leave at anytime if required, and could make up tests, etc. later), but they're probably rare. > It's not just Chicago, it's state-wide. Illinois state law allows > pagers and cellular phones to be confiscated from anybody (not just > students) who brings them onto school property. If I visit my son's > school wearing my (employer-supplied) pager, they can keep it. If I > drive through the school's parking lot to pick him up, they can > confiscate the cellular phone in my car. This part, on the other hand, seems pretty absurd. What about a doctor who is on call (aren't doctors always on call?) and wants to go to some type of performance his/her child is in, or some other type of school activity on the school grounds? Is this law trying to forbid them from going? But then again, we are talking about Illinois, right? I guess that makes the absurd a lot easier to believe. Y'all wouldn't believe how glad I was to get out of that miserable place (I lived in Chicago for a while, and hated almost every minute of it). > Although text in the actual bill passed makes it clear the intent was > to forbid cellular phones and pagers, all of the above actually > applies to "communication devices", which the law defines as anything > designed to receive or transmit radio signals outside of the > commercial broadcast band. Ok, what about schools that have Amateur Radio clubs? I know that some high schools do have club stations setup where interested students can learn about the hobby, radio, and related issues. What about Amateur Radio activities such as SAREX (Shuttle Amateur Radio EXperiment) that devote part of the time specifically to school kids? Is the government in Illinois trying to say that these are to be eliminated as part of the war on drugs? Oh yes, I can certainly see the logic in that ... Seriously, while this law was probably written with nothing but the best intents, it's yet another case of people writing laws with their heads up their [backsides], and not considering the other, totally innocent areas they impact. Actually, I've got an even better idea than the ones these politicians came up with. Going by their logic, the only people in the world who use cellular phones and pagers are drug dealers, right? So let's just make both of them completely illegal, no matter where you happen to be at the time. After all, the drug problem isn't limited to schools. While we're at it, drug dealers use regular phones too, right? Ok, *ALL* telephones are now illegal. And for anyone who believes that kind of reasoning, umm, I've got some land I'd like to sell ... it's about 25 miles south of Ft Walton. Anyone interested? ;-} (Pretend this is in ultra-tiny print: {You must be a certified diver or have your own submarine.}) Later ... gotta get some stuff done around here. jim #include 73 DE N5IAL (/4) INTERNET: jim@n5ial.mythical.com | j.graham@ieee.org ICBM: 30.23N 86.32W AMATEUR RADIO: n5ial@w4zbb (Ft. Walton Beach, FL) AMTOR SELCAL: NIAL [Moderator's Note: Well, you don't have to worry about Amateur Radio clubs here being hurt by this law; I don't think there are any in the Chicago schools. Most extracurricular activities here were dropped years ago. A few schools still offer some, but mostly the schools here function as holding-tanks for six hours daily. The school bus ride takes an hour each way and having 2000 students go through the single metal detector takes 60-90 minutes each morning. That doesn't leave much time for amateur radio or computer clubs. So you disliked Chicago when you were here? I hate it also. It is a terrible place. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kcordes@world.std.com (Kyle J Cordes) Subject: Re: The War on Pagers Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 20:20:06 GMT kcordes@world.std.com (Kyle J Cordes) writes: > car-phone. Neatest toy in the world. Yeah, it cost him $0 a month Hmmm. I'm still having trouble getting the key binding of this editor down ... I meant $50 / month. Everyone got the point, right? Anyway, there is also the issue of freedom here ... does the school have the right to completely control the communications of students from the moment they enter campus? My high school also attempted to prevent people from bringing radios on campus, with little effect. Kyle [Moderator's Note: In most places, the law provides that during school hours, school administrators have parental rights -- I forget the exact Latin term -- and as such have complete authority over the minor children in their custody. I guess they can set the rules, just as parents can set the rules at home. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 13:37 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State longo@sfpp.com (Bob Longo) writes: [ I wrote: ] >> Perhaps you could site the surveys and studies that back this up? > Sure. Glad to. I personally attended one of the CPUC's public > hearings several months before the ruling where they were soliciting > public opinion. No, I mean reality. If you regularly attended these hearings and had some understanding of the hearing process you would realize two things: 1. The same old tired activists show up time and time again. These people are against EVERYTHING that represents a technological change in the way the telephone works. They were even out in force when the telco wanted to replace the manual office on Santa Catalina Island! 2. The hearing process is a formality that is required by rules and statute, but has little to do with policy making. > A large majority of the individuals that spoke at that > hearing were in favor of no CNID at all! Of course. Not unexpected at all. For various reasons, I still attend these circuses, but the show is totally predictable. First, you have the telcos stating their desires. Then you get a parade of meaning- less, uninformed drivel, punctuated with the usual anti-technology nonsense. And wiping up the rear comes the so-called consumer- activist groups such as TURN giving their tired old garbage about how [you name the proposal] will hurt the Aunt Marthas of the state. Occasionally the Administrative Law Judge or a staff member will ask a stupid question, but the flow is relatively smooth. Go to a couple more hearings and see if I am not correct in my description. > The comments made by the individuals speaking at that (and other > hearings conducted throughout the state) are available for review at > the CPUC. Snore!! > By trying to force the CPUC to disallow per-line blocking, they > expect they can reap more profits because they believe more > subscribers will purchase the service. To do any less would be a disservice to stockholders and other customers. > The restrictions passed were based upon popular public opinion. You have not demonstrated this. > Everyone had the option of expressing their opinion prior to the CPUC > ruling at the public hearings or in writing. I don't feel too sorry > for those who want unrestricted CNID who didn't bother to express > their opinion prior to the ruling. Given the nature and actual effect of the hearings, what is the point? The decision had been made before any of those roadshows were presented. You obviously were taken in, but in some of those hearings it is exceedingly obvious that the Administrative Law Judge and the staff members are going through the motions. At least you were reinforced in your own beliefs and can feel comfortable. > I'm curious -- for those who believe CNID should be forced on everyone > to make this technology useful, do you also believe that unlisted > numbers should be unavailable? I have no problem with per-call blocking. Never have. If someone feels that he MUST keep his number private and he MUST bother me on the telephone (remember, I cannot see his number if he never calls me), then he can take the responsibility to remember to dial *67. Then I have the option to ignore his call. In that way, everyone is served. > After all, what use is the phone book if everyone isn't in there? > To be consistent in their logic, the phone company should stop > printing the phone book until the CPUC forces everyone to have listed > numbers, right? That is nonsense, and what makes arguments against CNID seem so pointless. You cannot make a case on the actual reality of the matter, so you come up with silly and ridiculous faulty analogies. Stick to the issue. It is not about published or unpublished numbers, women's shelters, or anything else. It involves the instantaneous ability for a person to transmit (or not) his number to the called party before the call is answered. If you feel that you must call someone anonymously, then dial *67. Is that such a big deal? I already know the answers: 1. The stupid and lazy must be protected; and 2. You should not have to lift a finger to continue to make anonymous calls. Got it. No more need be said. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Modems For LEGAL Use in Germany From: sp@questor.org (Steve Pershing) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 00:44:13 PST Organization: Questor|Free Usenet News|Vancouver, BC: +1 604 681 0670 A while ago, sp@questor.org (Steve Pershing - that's me) wrote: > ZyXEL modems are approved for use in Germany, and are sold there. We > will also sell them to almost anyone anywhere in the world, at about a > 10% profit. (The profit goes to support the free aspects of the > Questor site.) > For information on how to use the mail-server (and for a directory of > available files), send e-mail to: > mail-server@questor.org > and enter the following at the left margin of an otherwise blank > message body: > help > dir > end I was mistaken about the fact that they were approved. They are NOT approved *yet*. There are at least three distributors selling them quite successfully in Germany, however. The latest news I have from ZyXEL is that they are *pending approval*. Also, ZyXEL is apparently in process of translating the operating manual into the German language. My apologies for the mis-information and any inconvenience it may have caused anyone. Steve Pershing, SysAdmin The QUESTOR Project FREE access to Environ, Sci, Med, & AIDS news, and more. [also UUCP] on a ZyXEL-U1496S+ => v.42bis, v.32bis, v.33, up to 16,800bps. Fones: (+1 604) Data: 681-0670 Telefax: 682-6160 Voice: 682-6659 ------------------------------ From: schuster@Panix.Com (Michael Schuster) Subject: Re: Scanners That Pick Up Cellular Phones Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 19:26:41 GMT In article hk0z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Hans C. Klinger) writes: > I was told by a Radio Shack salesman that they sell scanners that > can intercept cellular phone transmissions. Then I learned from a > reliable source that the scanner does not come out of the box ready to > scan cellular frequencies, but rather it has to be modified (clip a > diode or something). Can anyone verify this? Can any scanner be > modified and what is the procedure for doing so? Many scanners sold in the US are also sold abroad, where there is no ECPA and reception of cellular phone frequencies is a selling point. Uniden and GRE, two of the manufacturers of Radio Shack scanners, often take short cuts by enabling full 800 MHz coverage and specifically disabling it for sets sold in the US. This is done using a matrix of diodes which select various features. On the older scanners these diodes were large and had leads which could be clipped. The newer ones (PRO-39 and PRO-43) use surface mount components which are a lot more difficult to handle; but not for the experienced hacker. Even without doing this, most RS scanners can receive cellular frequencies at the base frequency plus two times the second IF. This "image" technique is a legal way of cheating, since it is an undesireable side effect of the design rather than a feature. Mike Schuster schuster@panix.com | 70346.1745@CompuServe.COM schuster@shell.portal.com | MCI Mail,GEnie: MSCHUSTER ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #123 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23736; 22 Feb 93 12:51 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05224 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 22 Feb 1993 09:57:47 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04571 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 22 Feb 1993 09:57:19 -0600 Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 09:57:19 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302221557.AA04571@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #125 TELECOM Digest Mon, 22 Feb 93 09:57:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 125 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Ontario Telepresence Project (Barbara Whitmer) Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Bob Longo) Re: Scanners That Pick Up Cellular Phones (William H. Sohl) Re: Quebec Yellow Pages Controversy (Steve Forrette) Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (Steve Forrette) Re: The War on Pagers (Robert L. McMillin) Re: The War on Pagers (Gary W. Sanders) Touch-Tone Database Questions (Chris Hudel) Cellular Phone Questions (Jonathan Shapiro) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barbara Whitmer Subject: Ontario Telepresence Project Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 09:55:58 -0500 The Ontario Telepresence Project: A Brief Overview Bill Buxton, Scientific Director Ontario Telepresence Project, CSRI University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario Canada M5S 1A4 tel: 416-978-1961 fax: 416-978-4765 Buxton@dgp.toronto.edu January, 1993 The Ontario Telepresence Project Telepresence is the establishment of a sense of physical presence in a geographically or temporally remote location. We are concerned with reciprocal telepresence, that is, situations where people in two or more remote locations have a sense of shared presence. Our interest in this is centred on our desire to support collaboration at a distance, and to create environments that foster a strong sense of community, despite the distance separating those active in it. In short, we are interested in technologies that support a sense of social proximity despite geographical and/or temporal distance. Due to the rapid convergence of telecommunications, computational and audio/visual technologies, new opportunities to support this kind of telepresence are emerging. The Ontario Telepresence Project is a joint government, university and industry project, set up to undertake research to exploit these opportunities. Its intent is to leverage the combined skills of its partners in order to gain rapid strategic advantage. The research is human centred. Our objectives are to develop insights into applications and their usage (usability and usefulness), and the implications of these applications on the delivery infrastructure required for their support. Consequently, a large part of the research involves prototyping new applications, and evaluating them through user testing and field studies. The project exists under the auspices of two Ontario Centres of Excellence: the Information Technology Research Centre (ITRC) and the Telecommunications Research Institute of Ontario (TRIO). The research activities are split between the University of Toronto and Ottawa. The University of Toronto is responsible for social science, field studies, prototyping applications, and user interface issues. The Ottawa site is mainly responsible for the engineering aspects of the project, including developing the experimental platform and multimedia databases. Technology transfer takes place through the direct and active participation of partners in the planning and execution of the research. Such participation is facilitated through the accommodation of industrial researchers on campus and the use of telepresence technologies to enable collaboration at a distance. The project has an international component to the research. Ontario has an association with four provinces, known as the Four Motors of Europe. These are, Baden-Wurttemberg (Germany), Catalonya (Spain), Lombardia (Italy), and Rhone- Alpes (France). This association has collectively decided to undertake joint research in Telepresence, and the Telepresence Project is the Ontario part of that agreement. The main contribution of the European partners is in applications, especially telemedicine and distance education. Through the association with the Four Motors, The Ontario Telepresence Project will have the opportunity to test designs across linguistic, cultural and time zone barriers. The Telepresence Project is precompetitive research. It is based upon the understanding that technologies introduced to the project will be shared openly among the partners. There are two reasons for this: (a) it is assumed that any competitive edge lost will be made up for by the contribution of other partners and the trend to standardization that this approach fosters; (b) to enable the project to be as agile, lean and efficient as possible by minimizing the legal and bureaucratic overhead. The belief is that this will work as long as it is coupled with the understanding that any partner can, on its own, build proprietary technology on top of ideas generated through the partnership. The Ontario project is funded for three years, starting January 1992. Half of the funds ($2.6 Million) come from the Technology Fund of the Ontario Premier's Council. The other half is to come from other sources (such as industry and the federal government) in the form of matching funds, or "in kind" contributions. If you have any further questions, please contact me. Thank you, Barbara Whitmer Ontario Telepresence Project ------------------------------ From: Bob Longo Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones Date: 22 Feb 93 00:48:50 PST Organization: Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines In article , john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Also, what is the FCC's definition of "easily modified"? I happen to > know someone who has rewritten the firmware for a very popular > handheld phone to allow it to act as a powerful monitor of cellular > communications. Unlike an ordinary scanner, this modified product has > the ability to follow a conversation after a handoff. > Believe me, if I wanted to listen in on cellular traffic I would not > waste any time or effort with my venerable Yaesu. The [name withheld] > "Special Edition" cellular phone would be my weapon of choice! > Scanner laws will be just about as effective as gun laws -- only much > sillier. The FCC is seriously deluded if it thinks it can win a > technological war with anyone. The below-average moron outguns the FCC > in the brain cell department. I was talking to a guy yesterday at the ham radio store on this subject. Apparently the cellular phone industry has a LOT more to be worried about than just who is listening to the calls. He told me that in New York 25% of all cellular calls are fraudulent. Apparently there are devices available that are able to easily pick up a transmitting phone's ID number (or whatever the correct terminology is). They take that number and clone a pile of chips and make calls on it till the phone company disables it. One of these "cloned" numbers in LA recently recieved a bill from PacBell Cellular for $14,000 for one month! PacBell credited the guy all for the bill. Does anyone have any additional information on these bogus cellular numbers? Can anything be done to stop it? Or is it going to get worse when someone invents a phone that the number can be changed dynamically without the need to plug in a chip? The cellular industry seriously underestimated the technical competence and determination of the population when they were designing the current system. Bob Longo (longo@sfpp.com) Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines Los Angeles, CA ------------------------------ From: whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) Subject: Re: Scanners That Pick Up Cellular Phones Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 14:35:09 GMT In article Hans C. Klinger writes: > I was told by a Radio Shack salesman that they sell scanners that > can intercept cellular phone transmissions. Then I learned from a > reliable source that the scanner does not come out of the box ready to > scan cellular frequencies, but rather it has to be modified (clip a > diode or something). Can anyone verify this? Can any scanner be > modified and what is the procedure for doing so? That's, I believe, essentially the case for most (maybe all) of the scanners made by Radio Shack. There are, however, scanners already available that do not require any modification from other manufacturers. As to the legality, it is NOT illegal to modify and/or own a scanner capable of listening to cellular calls. The existing law (The ECPA) prohibits listening, but does not make ownership/modification of equipment that can listen illegal. There's a new law, passe in November 1992, which will make it illegal to manufacture and/or import a scanner capable of listening to cellular frequencies, but the impact of that law does not take place until November 1993. Even after Nov 93, ownership of a scanner that can receive cellular will not then be illegal. Summary ... it is the act of listening to cellular that is illegal. Owning (or for that matter modifying) equipment capable of listening to cellular is not now, nor will it be after November 1993, illegal. > I realize that creating such a device to listen to phone users is > borderline illegal but this is for a research project involving the > ease of eavesdropping of cellular phones and I would appreciate any > information on how it is accomplished. As you mention, most "modifications" involve removing a diode which is used to block the frequencies of cellular in the internal soft/firmware of the scanner. I do not condone listening to cellular, I'm just reporting the facts as I understand them. > [Moderator's Note: It is not 'borderline illegal' -- it is illegal. I > am surprised the RS salesperson openly admitted what could be done. > Usually they wait until you buy the unit then mention that 'they heard > it could be done ...' and that 'a customer' left 'these notes and > schematic here in the store one day ...' or words similar. We have > covered this several times here in the past, and yes, modifications to > scanners are quite easily accomplished for the most part. I do not > know about the unit in question since you did not mention a model > number, but with the PRO-34 (now discontinued) it was as simple as > pulling a couple diodes (D-3 and D-4) off the circuit board. The radio > then lost 30-50 megs as a result, but picked up full 800 coverage. PAT] Sorry Pat, you got the legality issue on this one wrong. Nothing in the ECPA makes ownership and/or modification of any type of receiving equipment (scanners, etc.) illegal. Furthermore, if modification was illegal, why are there still many scanners available that do not block cellular at all? Additionally, nothing in the new cellular scanner manufacture/import law addresses modification by an individual. The new law directs that manufacturers should only make/import units which can not be "easily modified." If, however, someone figures out a way to modify such a scanner, that act (the modification) is not, in and of itself, illegal. I do not condone listening to cellular, I'm just reporting the facts as I understand them. Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's. Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.) Morristown, NJ email via UUCP bcr!cc!whs70 201-829-2879 Weekdays email via Internet whs70@cc.bellcore.com ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Quebec Yellow Pages Controversy Date: 22 Feb 1993 10:22:53 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article ndallen@r-node.pci.on.ca (Nigel Allen) writes: > Bell Canada's Yellow Pages subsidiary, Tele-Direct (Publications) > Inc., makes Quebec companies that want to advertise in the English- > language section of the Yellow Pages buy an advertisement of the same > size in the French-language section as well, according to {Marketing} > magazine (February 15, 1993, p. 3). The policy is apparently the result of a > private agreement between Tele-Direct and a Quebec government agency, > the Office de la Langue Francaise. I have a business associate in Canada who tells me that businesses in Quebec (or some part thereof) are forbidden to answer the phone in English. Reportedly, even a mixed French/English greeting is not allowed -- the person answering can't use English until the caller indicates that they want to speak English. And, (perhaps in the "Office de la Langue Francaise) there are Phone Police (tm) that call businesses at random in order to ensure compliance with these regulations. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening? Date: 22 Feb 1993 10:26:39 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA In article 71336.1270@CompuServe.COM (tim gorman) writes: > The AT&T operator can hold your line open for exactly the same reason > AT&T can provide true coin service -- they are the only carrier > willing to invest in the network capability for doing so. Another nice thing about AT&T is that during a calling card call, you can just flash the line to get an operator. This makes it more convenient to get credit for wrong numbers, bad connections, etc. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 07:01:03 -0800 From: rlm@indigo2.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: The War on Pagers Marc Unangst , a high school senior (coulda fooled me!), writes about his legitimate reasons for having a pager: > In article mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@ > mhs.attmail.com writes: >> I am at a total loss to imagine what legitimate need a high school >> student or younger has for to have a pager or cellular phone with him >> or her at school. > Well, I'm a high school senior here in Ann Arbor (Huron High School). > I also carry a pager, both when I'm at school and when I'm not. A few > reasons why I find it convenient to have a pager: [excellent set of reasons for a high school student to have a pager deleted] The {Orange County Register} recently carried a story about a local teenager whose parents are very conservative Indians (they're from the subcontinent, not misnamed Native Americans) who can't stand the idea of him going out on dates with girls. His solution: prospective dates page him, he goes to the nearest payphone, calls the supplicant back, and together they plan a rendezvous. If mom worries where her boy is, she pages him, and he calls back presently. Everybody's happy. Somehow, I knew there had to be a way to work sex into this. Robert L. McMillin | Voice: (310) 568-3555 Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc. | Fax: (310) 568-3574 Los Angeles, CA | Internet: rlm@indigo2.hac.com [Moderator's Note: So why couldn't you have worked a story into it about a call to his pager telling the poor boy to call some 540 number in New York where he would hear some wanton woman, causing his parent's phone bill to be some fantastic amount. We all like those kinds of stories here. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: gary.w.sanders@att.com Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 15:42:19 GMT Subject: Re: The War on Pagers Organization: AT&T In article nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes: > Motorola recently introduced a line of decorator pagers, neons and > clear, aimed at the high-school market. From all references I have seen on the designer pagers it is geared to the medical profession. Nurses were not impressed with the "any color you want as long as its black" choice. I did notice a large number of doctor/nurses wearing them the last time I was at a hospital. I also hear that Motorola is comming out with changeable shells so you can coordiate your pager with your outfit. I just wish big M would come out with a 800mhz watch pager, My vhf model has lots of holes in the building. Gary W. Sanders (N8EMR) gary.w.sanders@att.com AT&T Bell Labs 614-860-5965 ------------------------------ From: Chris Hudel Subject: Touch-Tone Database Questions Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 08:40:06 -0500 (EST) Hello, I'd like to enquire about a phone/hardware system that would allow me to create a "touch-tone" database (of which I hope you're all familiar) so that after dialing my number you hear -- completely automated -- prompts for stuff like: "Press 1 for information about widgets" "Press 1 for service information" "Press 2 for product information" "Press * to go back" "(recorded message)" Possible? Of course! But where? and how? and how much $$? I'm thinking of a suped up PC with some tele-smart software on it but I'm likely stuck in a mindset. Thank you, Chris ------------------------------ From: shapiro@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za (Jonathan Shapiro) Subject: Cellular Phone Questions Organization: Wits Electrical Engineering (Undergrads). Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 07:21:38 GMT I really need some information on cellular phones - how they work, advantages, disadvantages, etc ... If anyone has information for me, I would appreciate it if you would email me (our news service is less than fully reliable :-) Thanks in advance, JON shapiro@underdog.ee.wits.ac.za [Moderator's Note: Well, you've posed some very open-ended questions. The discussion about cellular phones has gone on here for years. Maybe one or more of our resident cellular phone experts here will write you in email and try to answer your basic questions. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #125 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23857; 22 Feb 93 12:54 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30121 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 22 Feb 1993 10:18:30 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11151 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 22 Feb 1993 10:17:56 -0600 Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 10:17:56 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302221617.AA11151@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #124 TELECOM Digest Mon, 22 Feb 93 02:22:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 124 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Caller ID Display With RS-232 Interface Wanted (Al Varney) Re: Caller ID Display With RS-232 Interface Wanted (Abhin Singla) Re: Let's Do a Figure-8 (Al Varney) Re: Different Rates in Same Home? (John Higdon) UK PhONEyday (Richard Cox) Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Alan Furman) Re: The War on Freedom (Jim Graham) An ISDN Paper I Wrote (John Landwehr) Hardware For Connecting Two Telephones Together With Dial Tone (S. Ibrahim) Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (Stephen H. Lichter) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 21:45:57 CST From: varney@ihlpl.att.com Subject: Re: Caller ID Display With RS-232 Interface Wanted Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL In article syspak@charlatan.Central. Sun.COM writes: > Backround: Small manufacturing company wants to make their customer > service application more "responsive". They would like to pull the > Caller-ID of the incoming call and use it to key a database retrieval. > They want to do this today, under SunOS, and not use native ISDN > connections to their Sun server. The number of incoming customer > service lines will be small, probably two or three. > Idea: For the most part, Caller-ID is available in the metro area. One > can purchase a Caller-ID display unit for $50 or so from several > sources (ie. AT&T phone centers, Radio Shack). I've heard that some of > the newer caller id display units have RS-232 connections which may be They have Caller-ID via RS-232 on some versions. However, you could consider another approach. For about $200, you can get a Supra FAXModem Plus that will do Caller-ID, voice cut-through and works as a 9600 baud FAX unit. Whether this is a reasonable method for your application depends on whether the FAX part is useful to you, and whether they support Sun-OS or can provide some "generic" software interface. Supra is on 1-800-727-3443 If you want to explore a TELCo-provided interface, you could look into the one commonly used for Voice Messaging systems. These commonly use an RS-232 interface to the CO and can send combinations of the called, calling and forwarding numbers in ASCII. I don't know if the tariffs on this are beyond the 3-line application, but it's an alternative you could look at. Al Varney - just my opinion, of course. ------------------------------ Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 22:47:51 CST From: U19250@uicvm.uic.edu Subject: Re: Caller ID Display With RS-232 Interface Wanted The device you request does exist. It converts Callerr ID data to ASCII and sends it to an RS232 port. Try MoTron Electronics. (They have a 1-800 number) but I don't have it hear now. Let me know, and I can get it for you. Abhin Singla (u19520@UICVM) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 21:11:32 CST From: varney@ihlpl.att.com Subject: Re: Let's Do a Figure-8 Organization: AT&T In article jimmy@denwa.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) writes: > goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes: >> do I detect a little antipathy :-) toward interchangeable area >> codes? Seriously, what other dialing plan would you propose instead? > I, for one, would seriously suggest a change to eight-digit numbers. > Think of it; a simple change where every existing number in the > country has a certain digit added to the front of it, and it's done. > No more area code splits, at least for the next 20 years. The NANP Administration has certainly suggested that NPA splits are to be a thing of the past, assuming "overlay" NPAs like New York's work out. Seems more reasonable to me. > And no problem of dialing a number and finding it disconnected (or > answered by an unknown party) because the prefix was changed to some > unknown area code. Or worse, you assume the company went out of > business. With an eighth digit added, you always know what to do, > even five or ten years after the change. Here in Tokyo, where such a > change occurred two years ago, there are plenty of signs that still > show a seven-digit number. But it's no problem; everyone knows to add > a '3' to the front. > Contrast that to the situation in Los Angeles, where one now never > knows what area code one is in while out of familiar territory (and it > matters because 1 + NPA + NXX-XXXX to your own area code is denied). Again, the NANP folks say 1 + home-NPA denial is stupid -- and I agree. > Directory Assistance, as already mentioned in these screens, is > another problem. You know that someone lives somewhere in Los > Angeles. But if you don't know where in Los Angeles, you'll have to > make three directory assistance calls. DA bureas set up on NPA boundaries are stupid. (IMHO) > I would even be so bold to suggest that after the conversion to > eight-digit telephone numbers, L.A. go back to a single area code. > I often try to feel for those poor souls who don't read TELECOM > Digest. I look on a piece of equipment here in Japan and call the > number printed to ask a question. It's a +1 312 number. When I reach > a telco recording, I know to try +1 708 instead. But how many people > in Japan know to do that? Under the "new" NANP Administration proposal, no number will ever have to change NPAs, because new NPAs will overlay the old ones. In effect, the North American rather unique concept of NPAs will gradually be altered to a ten-digit number whose first three digits has a geographic association -- but a geographic location won't have a unique NPA. > Eight-digit numbers are the answer. Jim, the NANP folks are more far-sighted. They claim: 1) Ten-digit dialing is the answer (no 1+, just ten0 digits in World Zone 1, except for maybe 809) {why do eight digit now, then nine digit, then ten, when ten is doable today for almost no cost?}, 2) Variable-length digit conversion (mixing seven and eight digits, retaining the concept of NPAs as "optional" digits, etc.) is not easily done without mass confusion (when do you dial 1 + NPA + 7 vs. 1 + NPA + 8, and how do the ICs all coordinate their routing with each LEC) {whereas ten-digit dialing doesn't add or change ANYONEs number}, and, 3) The cost to add inter-changeable NPAs is several orders of magnitude less than eight-digit "exchange" numbers, and doesn't change the size of telephone numbers stored in data-bases, etc. So, with old NPA exhaust forcast for 1995 (mid-year), it was clearly quicker and cheaper to go with interchangeable NPAs. No one was willing to even consider the cost of replacement of all those seven-digit/ten-digit software (and hardware) structures in place in the public telephone network, all within a few short years. Al Varney - just my opinion, of course. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 11:56 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Different Rates in Same Home? dig@pro-cynosure.cts.com writes: > The only difference here is that we get two seperate bills and the > lines are registered under two different names. But they are in the > same home, and both lines run to all of our phones. Has the phone > company allowed us to go against the tariff? You may have slid through because of the two different billing names. Also, tariffs vary widely from company to company and state to state. For instance, I have in my home some business service, residential unmeasured service, and residential measured service -- all in my name and even sharing a common Commstar group (mini-Centrex). No problem. The Pac*Bell tariff is silent on this matter. However, if I lived four miles away in GTE territory, this would be prohibited. With GTE, all lines must be the same class of service. Why? I don't know. Why does SWBT limit customers to three residence lines? I don't know about that either. But it is screwy tariffs such as these that will hasten customer acceptance of local dial tone competition. As I have pointed out before, Pac*Bell smelled the coffee long ago. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 00:49 GMT From: Richard Cox Subject: UK PhONEyday Reply-To: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk telecom@hedonist.demon.co.uk (Linc Madison) said: > The result will be enough codes and numbers to last us well into the > next century. Unfortunately it won't. Key area codes are likely to exhaust their present number supply before long as, with the exception of five cities, the change will not create any more numbers under existing area codes. London, which suffered an area code split in 1990, is likely to run out *again* somewhere between 1999 and 2004. If the UK must have a complete change (and with only 3% of the possible numbers actually being used, the need for it is somewhat debatable) then at least the change should be to a numbering scheme that will be stable for a realistic period of time. >> Q: Why couldn't these changes have been made at the same time as the >> London code change? >> A: London simply couldn't wait for an increase in phone numbers. >> We had to act by 1990, and OFTEL hadn't made a decision about the >> National Code Change at that stage. But when the London changes were publicised, BT could have considered telling its customers that further number changes would be necessary. Oddly enough, they didn't seem to even mention the possibility. Richard D G Cox Mandarin Technology, Cardiff Business Park, Llanishen, CARDIFF, Wales CF4 5WF Voice: +44 222 747111 Fax: +44 222 711111 VoiceMail: +44 399 870101 E-mail: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk Not dialable on 511 in mainland USA ------------------------------ From: atfurman@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 21:10:52 PST Our Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: My sympathies are with the Libertarians also, but a > lot of good it does to vote for them. The television news does not > even bother to report the Libertarian election results. PAT] You are of course quite right. There is a major "catch-22" going on with The Media: no publicity, no wins; no wins, no publicity. But this situation is changing. Tamara Clark was endorsed by the largest-selling newspaper in Nevada when she ran for the state senate last November (and may have won--the election is still in dispute). Here in California, LP dues-paying membership doubled in 1991, and registrations increased by 30,000. Last weekend, a libertarian named Jim Warren, cofounder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, gave a talk at the California LP's convention. At the national level, the LP is verging on bankruptcy after mailing out propaganda in response to the nearly 100,000 telephone inquiries that came in on 800-682-1776 last year. And elsewhere: the Hungarian libertarian party, called FIDESZ, has several seats in Parliament (what a difference proportional representation makes ...). Vaclav Klaus, the prime minister of the Czech Republic, is a libertarian, as are a number of local government officials in St. Petersburg, Russia. (I found all this out, in case you are wondering, from the newsletter of the International Society for Individual Liberty, 71034.2711@compuserve.com). If you, the reader, are tired of the bogus "choice" between the right-wing and left-wing styles of governmental micromanagement of your life, there is an alternative. But you're going to have to check it out yourself; The Media aren't going to bring it to you on a silver platter. Alan T. Furman atfurman@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 12:06:36 CST From: Jim Graham Reply-To: Jim Graham Subject: Re: The War on Freedom Since my followup yesterday, and after reading some of the followups since then, I've got some more comments, and an interesting observa- tion to add ... this law actually works *AGAINST* law enforcement ... read on. In article tdarcos@access.digex.com (Paul Robinson) writes: > Let's call it what it is: the War on the Constitution. Yep, that's about the size of it. > jeff@bradley.bradley.edu (Jeff Hibbard) on the Subject: The War on > Pagers In TELECOM Digest Volume 13, Issue 105 wrote: >> [Illinois law that forbids " `communication devices', which the law >> defines as anything designed to receive or transmit radio signals >> outside of the commercial broadcast band" with the intent to "forbid >> cellular phones and pagers"]. Now, here's the interesting part. :-) The police normally have two-way radios, do they not? These are a very important to both their ability to do their jobs and to their safety, no? So, consider this: the cops are called in to check something out at the school ... nope, sorry, can't do that. Have to stay off school grounds with that radio ... too bad. And a slight twist on that one .... you go to pick up your son/daughter, and the school staff wants to confiscate your cell-phone. you refuse, and they call the police. a cop arrives, with his/her radio. guess what ... they just got their radio confiscated, too. Now, consider this one: a kid in school is injured, severely ill, or whatever. An ambulance is called. Nope, sorry ... we can't come on school property because of the two-way radios in here. You'll have to bring the kid to us, and if he/she is immobile, well, there's nothing we can do. At the very best, the EMTs or paramedics (whatever) go to the kid, but can't make any calls to a hospital, etc., until *AFTER* they get off school grounds and back to the ambulance. Doesn't seem like a very good situation to me. Another thing --- the high school I went to (in San Antonio, TX) used two-way radios. All of the faculty members, and even the janitors (if I remember correctly ... it's been a long time) had a radio on them (except when teaching a class). I suppose these are outlawed in Illinois, too? The law obviously applies to all of the above people just as much as anyone else (after all, cops, ambulance drivers, and teachers are not above the law any more than we are), so it seems to me that, if enforced, it could actually do more damage than good, even to those who wanted it in the first place. > This sort of thing needs to be fought and stopped. Write to the FCC. > This is a clear interference in interstate commerce since these radios > are operated by authorized users communicating with federally licensed > carriers. Here's how I look at it, with regards to Amateur Radio. I have a license issued to me by the FCC that authorizes me to use certain types of radio equipment on certain frequencies within the US (and elsewhere, if proper agreements exist and the right paperwork is shuffled around), provided that I stay within the regulations as specified in Part 97. Now, say I walk onto school grounds, and they try to take my HT. I just politely explain to them that I have a license issued by the FCC, and ask if they have the authority to override that license (knowing that they don't), they lose. If they try to STEAL my HT, I defend myself as I would against any other common (unarmed ...) thief. Gee, I wish I'd known about this bs law while I was in Illinois ... I would have walked across some school campus as a shortcut on my way home from work or something ... while in the middle of a conversation on one of the local repeaters. :-) Someone up there, do keep us informed as to how absurd things get if anyone actually tries to enforce this law ... jim #include 73 DE N5IAL (/4) INTERNET: jim@n5ial.mythical.com | j.graham@ieee.org ICBM: 30.23N 86.32W AMATEUR RADIO: n5ial@w4zbb (Ft. Walton Beach, FL) AMTOR SELCAL: NIAL [Moderator's Note: This is all getting just too silly to continue the thread so let's close it off. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 15:41:38 -0600 From: John Landwehr Subject: An ISDN Paper I Wrote Pat, I subscribed to your list a while back, and have found it very interesting. With all of the talk of ISDN, I just thought I would let you know that I wrote a paper on ISDN called: "The Golden Splice, Beginning a Global Digital Phone Network" for an independent study class here at Northwestern last fall. I thought you might want to make it available to people on the list at a ftp site or something. (And since I am graduating in June, maybe I can get a couple job offers from somewhere :-) It was created on a NeXT, but should print elsewhere ... JL [Moderator's Note: John's paper is quite lengthy and has been filed in the Telecom Archives under 'isdn.paper' for interested readers. Use anonymous ftp lcs.edu for access. PAT] ------------------------------ From: sibrahim@pollux.usc.edu (Shahril Ibrahim) Subject: Hardware For Connecting Two Telephones Together With Dial Tone Date: 21 Feb 1993 23:38:16 -0800 Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Hi Fellow Netters, I am looking for some cheap hardware that will allow me to connect two phones together with a dial tone. I am trying to test a voicemail system I've been working on. The box/hardware doesn't have to connect to an outside line. Any help would be much appreciated, Cheers, Shahril sibrahim@pollux.usc.edu ------------------------------ From: co057@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven H. Lichter) Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State Date: 22 Feb 1993 07:58:41 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA) I can't believe it -- John quoting my statement on the old bitties out a dozen or so years ago when Catalina Island was being brought into the 20th century with a real switch and not just a strip on the San Pedro cord board. By the way there was a system much like that in Santa Barbara when Reagan became President that went in to Santa Barbara Toll. GTE placed a EAX remote out there and boy was there a hoot from the locals. Steven H. Lichter GTE Calif COEI ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #124 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24905; 23 Feb 93 4:17 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26030 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 23 Feb 1993 01:01:38 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16815 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 23 Feb 1993 01:01:00 -0600 Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 01:01:00 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302230701.AA16815@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #126 TELECOM Digest Tue, 23 Feb 93 01:01:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 126 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Phone Outage in Livermore, CA Area (Lin Zuccoin via Mark Boolootian) Toll Station Conversion (was CA CNID Stuff) (John Higdon) Need Help With CCITT Recommendations (Tracy M. Nelson) Just Dial 10-ATT-0 (Dick Rawson) Quirks and Questions on International Dialing (Douglas W. Martin) Executech M0412 Manual Wanted (medimage@garnet.msen.com) RBOC Detail Billing Records Retention; Interesting Case (Mark Seiden) Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Mark Walsh) Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (J. Andrusiak) Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (J. Marvin) Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan (Ed Hopper) Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan (Carl Moore) Re: Standard Dialing Plan (Mike Seebeck) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: booloo@framsparc.ocf.llnl.gov (Mark Boolootian) Subject: Phone Outage in Livermore, CA Area Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 15:54:11 -0800 (PST) [Moderator's Note: Mark passed along this interesting item. Thanks. PAT] Date: 18 Feb 1993 09:06:10 U From: "Lin Zucconi" Subject: "Telephone Service Cut Off" The {Valley Times} (Feb.18) reported that telephone service was cut off for more than four hours to about 37,000 phone lines in Livermore, CA including "911" and operator "O" lines. The article said that "the significance (of the malfunction) was in having three prefixes that can't reach emergency phone lines. The phone company [Pacific Bell] was stymied in correcting the problem because diagnostic tests of the equipment told technicians that there was no problem. Technicians eventually located the problem in a call processor computer tape and replaced the malfunctioning tape." Luckily for those of us that live here, this is a relatively low crime area and no serious crimes occurred during the outage. Some banks compensated by letting in only a few customers at a time because they were concerned that their alarm systems wouldn't be able to call police. --------------- Mark Boolootian booloo@llnl.gov +1 510 423 1948 Disclaimer: booloo speaks for booloo and no other. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 13:24 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Toll Station Conversion (was CA CNID Stuff) co057@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven H. Lichter) writes: > I can't believe it -- John quoting my statement on the old bitties out > a dozen or so years ago when Catalina Island was being brought into > the 20th century with a real switch and not just a strip on the San > Pedro cord board. Hey, truth is truth. While I did not attend that particular hearing, the arguments presented were the source of much urban legend. In fact, every time a manual office is about to bite the dust, there is much protest. After all, as a correspondent pointed out, after conversion you lose such features as "voice recognition", "wake up service", "auto call-forwarding", and even a form of Caller-ID. And speaking of manual conversions, does anyone know if the toll stations up toward Sonora Pass have gone away yet? I am speaking of Clark Fork #1, Clark Fork #2, Dardanelle #1, Dardanelle #2, etc. Within the last couple of years the Mojave Desert stations have gone dial (e.g. Ludlow), but it has been awhile since I have had time to go camping up above Pinecrest and Strawberry. (And you can bet the road is closed right now from all the crystalized future drinking water.) John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: tnelson@telesciences.com (Tracy M Nelson) Subject: Need Help With CCITT Recommendations Organization: TeleSciences CO Systems, Inc. Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 22:21:43 GMT Can anyone tell me what the recommended guidelines for data-quality lines are (regarding attenuation, frequency response, losses between switch points, etc.)? I have gone through much of the CCITT Blue Book (however I *don't* have fascicle III.3, recommendations G.601 through G.654 on transmission media). Most of the references I have read seem more oriented towards measurement of existing conditions. What I need are minimum requirements to ensure a relatively low error rate during V.32 synchronous communication. Can anyone point me in the right direction? I've read EIA-634, but that wasn't quite what I needed. Any help will be greatly appreciated! Tracy Nelson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 19:48:57 PST From: drawson@Tymnet.COM (Dick Rawson) Subject: Just Dial 10-ATT-0 I'm in the Radisson Plaza Hotel, Raleigh NC, just now, in room 1028. A little earlier I got a good laugh from a wrong number. The phone rang; all I heard when I picked it up was a touch-tone beep. Now look at my room number again! This is one of those hotels that doesn't support 10xxx IEC selection. (And it's a T1S1 meeting; T1S1 does ISDN standards. Oh well.) Dick Rawson, BT North America [Moderator's Note: In 1969-73 I worked in an office where my centrex extension was 7264. Outside calls were placed by dialing 9 and the number. On the first floor of this building was a bar and grill where large numbers of employees went for lunch each day, or they would call downstairs and have lunch delivered up to their offices. The number for the place downstairs was (not on our centrex) RANdolph (726)-4xxx. Every day almost without fail at 11:45 AM my phone would ring. I would answer, a voice on the other end would say 'oh shit' or something similar and hang up. Almost daily, someone would forget to dial the 9 for an outside line. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 08:28:52 -0800 From: martin@cod.nosc.mil (Douglas W. Martin) Subject: Quirks and Questions on international dialing Just some quirks of international dialing: Calling Australia: (61) 5-900-xxxx gets the "telecom announcement" "Subscriber trunk dialing is not yet available to this region." In Diego Garcia, (246) all numbers appear to be four digits, with the first digit always a nine. Any other combination got "Your international call cannot be completed as dialed." In Malaysia (60) dialing 1-xxxxxx got a recording to the effect that it was now necessary to dial (11) instead of just (1) to reach mobile phones in Malaysia. The Zone 6 file in the archives has 60-2 as its first entry. I was unable to connect to either Wallis and Futuna (681) or Papua New Guinea (675); all attempts got the American intercept, "your international call cannot be completed as dialed." Does anyone know of working numbers or intercepts in these places? And another question: Can dialing too many digits cause the call not to complete? e.g. if a country has four-digit numbers, and I dial seven digits, should the call complete on the first four, or could the extra digits cause "your international call cannot be completed as dialed"? Finally, has anyone successfully called the Australian Antarctic Territories? If so, please supply a working number. Thanks, Doug Martin martin@nosc.mil [Moderator's Note: Regarding Antarctica, for some reason a call from thirty plus years ago stands out in my memory. The old 'Rate and Route' bureau in Morris, IL told the local operator to hand me off to the overseas operator in Oakland, CA. That operator in turn looked into the matter and reported that contact with Antarctica was made by the Sydney, Australia radiotelephone operator, and that " ... they allow calls from the USA on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday" at some time of day I've long since forgotten. I remember her saying there was some time available "a couple days from now if you want me to book you for it ..." I understand Scott and Casey bases in Antarctica are now direct dialable. I have no idea what the country code is. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 12:56:32 -0500 (EST) From: MedImage Subject: Executech M0412 Manual Wanted We have a Excutech M0412 phone system and the installers refuse to supply the manual. It has all sorts of programmable features. So, the articles I read about unauthorized use of a company's telephone lines worries me. Also, I know the installers are incompetant and there has to be easier ways of setting up some of the features here. Does anyone have the manual? Can I get a copy? (Rev C, by the way). [Moderator's Note: *Why* do they refuse to supply the manual? Have you asked the company itself (customer service, etc) for copies? PAT] ------------------------------ From: mis@sug.org (Mark Seiden) Subject: RBOC Detail Billing Records Retention; Interesting Case Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 00:05:46 GMT I've gotten involved (just as a pro-bono telecom consultant) in an interesting case, which perhaps telecom readers can help with. Please, only make authoritative suggestions based on your expert knowledge of the technology -- no amateur legal advice needed... Without naming names: In 1990, our client, an unsophisticated investor who had inherited some money, lost a lot of it in the market. The claim is her broker, who had discretionary trading authority, churned her account, resulting in sizeable commissions to him. Now, here's the interesting twist: Both the client and the broker are deaf. The broker claims to have (but has not produced) TDD thermal paper messages (when the TDD was acting as an "answering machine" (and a few interactive conversations) from the client showing her specific approval of and substantial participation in the trading. The client claims no such conversations occurred. Her phone bills also show no such calls. We are looking for a mechanism whereby we can establish what calls the broker placed to the client. The phone company, NYTel, claims that detailed records of calls are not available beyond 18 months of the billing date, or perhaps the calling date. This is the factoid I doubt ... anyone know who at the NY PSC could tell me what the proper records retention should be and in what form these records are actually stored? (The period in question would be almost three years ago, mid '90.) I find it incredible that the retention period of phone records wouldn't be at least as long as the statute of limitations for criminal actions. These would not be local calls, but itemized calls between 212 and 516 area codes, so no IXC is involved. We are trying to find out whether the brokerage firm had voice logging or SMD; they disclaim (or haven't produced) detail records of local calls. (Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any records of messages done in real time on a magnetic medium, only on paper ... and at the moment we only have transcripts of them, not the originals.) (If anyone knows of document examiners with special expertise in dating thermal paper, send them my way, we may need them if the original tape is produced ...) mark seiden, mis@seiden.com, 1-(415) 665 8117 (voice) [Moderator's Note: I strongly suspect the records you seek are on microfilm, although possibly in an obscure location somewhere such as a warehouse. But at three years, you are pressing your luck. I'd get them now if they are around at all. PAT] ------------------------------ From: walsh@optilink.com (Mark Walsh) Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones Date: 22 Feb 93 20:41:55 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA In article , by jeh@cmkrnl.com (Jamie Hanrahan): > john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >> Scanner laws will be just about as effective as gun laws -- only much >> sillier. The FCC is seriously deluded if it thinks it can win a >> technological war with anyone. The FCC knows this. They are merely implementing the will of our beloved elected representatives. > Can someone explain why cellphones couldn't gain increased security > simply by channel-hopping *within a cell*? Say, every five seconds or > so? > If you only move one call at a time, you'd only need one free channel > in the cell. Do you realize what you are suggesting? Why, this would cause the cellular phone industry to spend several dollars more per phone! It is far, far cheaper for them to continue to buy off our elected officials, and make them pass laws which give the cell phone user an illusion of security. I mean, an illusion is as good as the real thing, isn't it? :-( Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861 ------------------------------ From: John Andrusiak Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 23:24:16 GMT In article Jeff Sicherman, sichermn@ csulb.edu writes: > Then again, none of us got to vote for the Telecom Moderator but we > have to put up with him. There seems to be an element of tyranny in > his management of the responsibilities he has undertaken and I don't > always agree with his policies or opinions but I am generally willing > to accept that he is human, fallible, quirky, opinionated, stubborn, > sometimes self-righteous but also a dedicated and hard-working doer of > the moderation task. He does the job as he sees his responsibility to > the 'consumers' and to the policies and laws regulating the medium. > Frankly, it's hard to see any really essential difference between > his role and modus operandi and the public servants he seems to feel > some superiority towards. The difference is quite clear. Goto the news.announce.newusers group and read "What is Usenet". The answer is that when I disagree with the TELECOM Moderator, I can go and set up comp.dcom.telecom.unmoderated. (Or alt.dcom.telecom. unmoderated if I want to go all out.) Nothing is preventing you from going elsewhere to discuss things you want to. This is a major difference from your average civil servant, who when you suggest how you can "go around" that person quite easily, gets upset and starts listing how many different ways they can have you thrown in jail. As a comparision, go try and set up your own version of the FBI. You'll have much more trouble than trying to set up comp.dcom.telecom.unmoderated. The attitude shows in the policy of the FCC trying to pretend that part of the spectrum is not there. The real solution is quite simple. Encryption. It would not be that difficult to add encryption to the next generation of digital cellular phones. It might not even require the assistance of the carriers. But is would mean the FBI/NSA/CIA couldn't spy on the citizens it's supposedly trying to protect. John Andrusiak - umandru1@umanitoba.ca ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 17:43:39 -0700 From: John Marvin Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones Organization: Hewlett-Packard Workstation Kernel, Ft. Collins, CO > Does anyone have any additional information on these bogus cellular > numbers? Can anything be done to stop it? Or is it going to get > worse when someone invents a phone that the number can be changed > dynamically without the need to plug in a chip? Or worse yet (better yet for the criminals), what about a cellular phone that automatically monitored for valid ID's and then automatically used a new one for each fraudulent call? > The cellular industry seriously underestimated the technical > competence and determination of the population when they were ^ criminal > designing the current system. That's the truth! John Marvin jsm@fc.hp.com ------------------------------ From: ehbbs!ed.hopper@uunet.UU.NET Subject: Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan (Ed Hopper) Date: 22 Feb 93 07:08:00 GMT Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Berkeley Lake, GA - 404-446-9462 Reply-To: ed.hopper@ehbbs.com (Ed Hopper) > Are there any hints yet about who the lucky winners will be who get the very > first interchangable area code? I imagine that they may find themselves > hard to call for a while. I work in AT&T's internal data processing and telecom organization (IMS). Our job is to provide those services to the various business units. At any rate, we have about 400 switches at different locations around the US. In addition, there are a good number of switches that are owned outright by the business units. We are working hard on NANP conversions. In some cases it's easy, just a software upgrade. Older switches need new hardware. In any event, it has tied up a lot of our resources. If you're responsible for a switch, you better be making plans to insure that it will cope with the changes. Ed Hopper's BBS - ehbbs.com - Berkeley Lake (Atlanta), Georgia USR/HST:404-446-9462 V.32bis:404-446-9465-Home of uuPCB Usenet for PC Board ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 12:35:17 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan I thought I saw something in the Digest about 813 (Florida) possibly being split by using one of the NNX area codes. It's apparently too soon to be announcing a new area code in Florida (which now has 1 + NPA + 7D statewide for all toll calls, and I personally saw this posted near Pensacola in area 904). I am wondering how full (at least of NNX) area 703 in Virginia is. I was just back in Winchester after some absence, and the local phone book listed three Winchester prefixes I had not seen before: 336,542,678. Area 703 has N0X/N1X prefixes, but as far as I know they are still not found beyond the Washington DC local calling area. If 703 will have to be split with an NNX area code, my guess is that at least the DC area will stay in 703. Obviously, Maryland, where I am, would not be the first to get an NNX area code. 301/410 split was just fully cut over last November. ------------------------------ From: seebeck@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Mike Seebeck) Subject: Re: Standard Dialing Plan Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 16:03:52 GMT This will soon be a moot point in US West territories and elsewhere. The North American dialing plan is being changed because we have run out of area codes. The solution to this problem is to remove restrictions that require area codes to have a "1" or a "0" in the second digit and central office codes to have digits from "2" through "9" in their second position. The consequence is that area codes and co codes will no longer look different. It will be possible to have a number such as (303)303-XXXX. To deal with this the RBOC will require that area codes be dialed with all toll calls. Numbers that are presently dialed 1-NNX-XXXX wil now be dialed 1-(NXX)NXX-XXXX. This will have an economic impact on many owners of phone systems. The routing tables of many PBXs will require an update to available memory if the PBX is using least cost or automatic routing. PBX manufacturers are providing updates to the software to handle the need for larger tables. Many owners will require both an upgrade to the software and a hardware upgrade. Esitimates as to the number of systems incompatible with the new dialing plan range from 30% to 60%. Looks like switch manufacturers will be doing a bang up business in upgrades. Michael Seebeck Sr.Telecomm Consultant RMH Group, Lakewood, CO,USA main(303)239-0909 direct 239-2761 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #126 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27746; 23 Feb 93 5:42 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11159 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 23 Feb 1993 02:32:38 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18198 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 23 Feb 1993 02:32:06 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302230832.AA18198@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> Subject: I am the Stupidest Klutz Alive! :( To: TELECOM Moderator Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 2:32:03 CST Reply-To: ptownson@delta.eecs.nwu.edu X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8] I am sitting here kicking myself in the butt. For no reason other than my own clumsiness, ALL the Orange Card requests you sent me were wiped out .... :( I had received several hundred requests. They were all in a file in my home directory on 'ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu' entitled 'orange.requests'. They had been accumulating all day for a mailing to get underway on Tuesday. Then one arrived in the telecom mailbox ... and for no reason other than I apparently don't have my head screwed on straight today, I chose to put the one from the telecom account over in the other account with this command: mv ~/orange.request /users/guest/ptownson/orange.requests Of course, a fraction of a second after I hit the return key I realized I had just wiped out the file and replaced it with the one entry .... :( Now I would like to go out and shoot myself or something. It is after 2 AM here and I do not need this. **** Everyone who wrote me email asking for a brochure and application please write and ask again ***** Please! and accept my heartfelt apologies for the confusion this has caused. I am terribly embarrassed by this. Remember, I need a snail address to mail out the brochure. Patrick Townson Please write to: ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu fax to: 312-743-0002 (faxes were NOT lost) Mail to: Box 1570, Chicago, IL 60690 (attempting to be a long distance reseller but with a very red face.)   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20377; 23 Feb 93 16:11 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27783 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 23 Feb 1993 13:15:24 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30040 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 23 Feb 1993 13:14:56 -0600 Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 13:14:56 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302231914.AA30040@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #127 TELECOM Digest Tue, 23 Feb 93 13:14:40 CST Volume 13 : Issue 127 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The War on Pagers (Paul Lutt) Re: The War on Pagers (Kevin M. Dunn) Re: The War on Pagers (Gordon Burditt) Re: The War on Pagers (Kous van den Hout) Re: The War on Pagers (Scott D. Brenner) Re: Bell's Application to Amend 411/555-1212 Assist Calls (Bohdan Tashchuk) Re: Bell's Application to Amend 411/555-1212 Assist Calls (Matt Healy) Re: Current Switched56 (tm) DSU/CSU Vendors Needed (Kevin Davis) Re: Let's Do a Figure-8 (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? (John Rice) Re: Touch-Tone Database Questions (Wil Dixon) Re: Different Rates in Same Home (Mark Williams) Re: Standard Dialing Plan (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwl@tc.fluke.COM (Paul Lutt) Subject: Re: The War on Pagers Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 22:41:57 GMT One reader expressed the sentiment that there was no valid reason for a student to have a pager. Our local county Search and Rescue organization uses trained Explorer scouts for low land searches. Trying to perform a callout during school hours is a nightmare. Many of the active student participants have purchased digital pagers that are programmed for a group page that pages the whole unit. These pagers have both the beeper and vibrate modes, so the students can get pages without disturbing those around them. Now I suppose there will be those that would argue that these students should stick to school and not go on searches. My personal experience has been that those that take the training and participate in searches are quite mature and don't use searches as an excuse for not getting their school work done. Just my $.02 worth. Paul Lutt Domain: pwl@tc.fluke.COM UUCP: uunet!fluke!pwl Voice: +1 206 356 5059 Snail: John Fluke Mfg. Co. / P.O. Box 9090 / Everett, WA 98206-9090 ------------------------------ From: Kevin M. Dunn Subject: Re: The War on Pagers Date: 23 Feb 93 12:47:27 EST Organization: HRB Systems, Inc. In article , mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@ mhs.attmail.com writes: > I am at a total loss to imagine what legitimate need a high school > student or younger has for to have a pager or cellular phone with him > or her at school. They are there to learn, period. Never mind the > drug angle; if that cellular phone or pager rings during classroom > hours, it is an impediment to learning -- and not just for the person > who has it. What about volunteer firefighters/ambulance attendants. My high school was located about 200 feet from my ambulance service, and within 1 mile of the local fire station. Many's the time I was required to leave school because of an emergency call. Of course, my leaving had been pre-arranged with the principal, the school board, and all of the teachers involved. I was responsible for all work and lessons missed, and of course used common sense: I didn't leave during tests, for example. As for an impediment to learning, nonsense. A pager turned on minimum (or even with only an earphone-jack, as many of my friends used) is less disruptive then passing notes! Kevin M. Dunn (kmd@icf.hrb.com), HRB Systems, Inc. State College, PA #include "disclaimer.std" | #include "saying.witty" Volunteer Firefighter | Volunteer PA Emergency Medical Technician ------------------------------ From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) Subject: Re: The War on Pagers Organization: Gordon Burditt Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 01:34:24 GMT > [Moderator's Note: In most places, the law provides that during school > hours, school administrators have parental rights -- I forget the > exact Latin term -- and as such have complete authority over the minor > children in their custody. I guess they can set the rules, just as > parents can set the rules at home. PAT] I believe the term is "in loco parentis", "in place of the parents" or something similar. The modern translation is "you gotta be loco to want parental authority", since if you claim "in loco parentis" authority, you become liable for failure to control the child, particularly in the case of the child becoming pregnant or getting someone pregnant. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon ------------------------------ From: koos@kzdoos.hacktic.nl Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 17:07:23 GMT+2 Subject: Re: The War on Pagers mmt@RedBrick.COM (Maxime Taksar KC6ZPS) writes: >> It's not just Chicago, it's state-wide. Illinois state law allows >> pagers and cellular phones to be confiscated from anybody (not just >> students) who brings them onto school property. If I visit my son's >> school wearing my (employer-supplied) pager, they can keep it. If I >> drive through the school's parking lot to pick him up, they can >> confiscate the cellular phone in my car. An adult who gives a student >> such a device to take to school can do a year in jail and pay a >> $10,000 fine. > This sounds blatantly unconstituational, being seizure with due > process. Has this law had to stand up in court yet? Has anyone been > jailed or fined yet? Or is it too new a law, still? It would be > interesting to know how long this law has been around and if any other > states have it. > Just about every public school in the Bay Area that I know of forbids > pagers (and, I assume cellphones), and I think that anyone under 18 is > forbidden to carry a pager *anywhere*. I'm sorry, this must be something 'really american' that I am missing here, but what is wrong with carrying a pager or a cellphone ? I can see usage in class as a minor offence against school rules, but 'not allowed to bring onto the premises by law' is something completely different. Would someone please enlighten me on this matter ? Grtx. Koos van den Hout ----------------------------------------------- Sysop Student Computer Science (AKA HIO) BBS Koos z'n Doos (+31-3402-36647) Inter-: koos@kzdoos.hacktic.nl 300..14400 MNP2-5,10,V42bis) net : kvdhout@hut.nl | Use PGP for | Fido: Sysop @ 2:500/101.11012 Schurftnet : KILL !!! | private mail! | Give us a call !! ------------------------------ From: sbrenner@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (scott.d.brenner) Subject: Re: The War on Pagers Organization: AT&T Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 13:54:46 GMT In article mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@ mhs.attmail.com writes: > Look, it would take only a very, very minor change to these laws to > make them perfectly reasonable. Change the law so that (a) =students= > are banned from wearing/carrying communications gear, and (b) all > other people are banned from school grounds unless they have a > legitimate reason to be there, as determined by the local > principal/administrator, and even then, NO LOITERING. > I am at a total loss to imagine what legitimate need a high school > student or younger has for to have a pager or cellular phone with him > or her at school. They are there to learn, period. Never mind the > drug angle; if that cellular phone or pager rings during classroom > hours, it is an impediment to learning -- and not just for the person > who has it. > If you need to get a message to a student at a school, call the > school. They know where the student is and can relay a message as > quickly or as slowly as it requires. (If they don't know where your > child is, then you have an even bigger problem.) If a student in > school needs to make a telephone call, he or she can either wait until > after school or ask the office for permission; I am hard-pressed to > think of any legitimate use that can't wait for one or the other. Sorry to butt in here, but I have a question about pagers that I think many of the participants of this thread would be able to answer. But before I ask it, I'll put in my $0.02 about "The War on Pagers." I agree that it's hard to think of a reason that a school kid needs a pager or a cellphone. I suppose there might be a few extenuating circumstances, but they would be very rare; the school principal, administrators, and teachers could be informed of the situation and make a special allowance or come up with some other arrangement. I don't think that passing laws is the best way to solve the problem. Now for my question: Although I used to carry a pager for work, I don't anymore (I'm *not* upset by this!). My wife is due to give birth to our first child in June. As the due date approaches, I'd like for her to be able to get in touch with me instantly. I have a transportable cellphone that I turn on whenever I'm in the car, and she (obviously) has my phone number at work. But if I'm in a meeting, or otherwise away from my desk or car, she has no way of contacting me. I'd like to get a pager just for a month or so. Since they've always just been given to me at work when my employer wanted me to carry one, I've never actually procured one myself. Is it possible to get one for such a short period of time? Where would I get one; who would I contact? And what should I expect it to cost? Is this a poor solution to my situation; are there any better alternatives? All advice (especially from you "new" parents) would be greatly appreciated. a T d H v A a N n K c S e Scott D. Brenner AT&T Consumer Communications Services sbrenner@attmail.com Basking Ridge, New Jersey [Moderator's Note: This thread really has gone on longer than most and the replies are becoming redundant; so let's kill it at this time. PAT] ------------------------------ From: zeke@fasttech.com (Bohdan Tashchuk) Subject: Re: Bell's Application to Amend 411/555-1212 Assist Calls Organization: Fast Technology --- Beaverton, OR Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 00:59:44 GMT > When you couple the above events with the fact that Bell never made > this application public (it leaked to the press only a month ago), you > get this appalling picture of a corporation that will do anything, it > seems, to retain its position as the most profitable organization in > Canada. If the most profitable organization says that they cannot > afford to provide "essential" services for the needy, then who can, > and who will? Who can? Who should? You, the taxpayer, DIRECTLY! The beauty of telecomm costs is that they are so easily identified and segregated. If you, as part of your vision of a greater Utopia, feel that certain classes of people deserve free or subsidized phone services, then you can work thru your elected representatives to achieve that goal. In general (not commenting on the particular situation here), these types of subsidies exist SOLELY because they are hidden. There isn't enough broad-based support for them for the legislature to appropriate funds directly. That's why the special interest groups find it easier to achieve social policy thru fiats made by unelected regulatory agencies. Collectively, you the taxpayers are by far the "most profitable organization" in the country. If this subsidy is worthwhile, then YOU should pay for it. Don't whine if your attempted coercion of another organization is met with resistance. Bohdan ------------------------------ From: matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu (Matt Healy) Subject: Re: Bell's Application to Amend 411/555-1212 Assist Calls Organization: Yale U. - Genetics Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 16:43:37 GMT I always thought the policy should be: if, and only if, the number is correct in the printed directory, they get to charge you. If the directory is wrong or outdated, then it's free! My reasoning is simple: they claim the reason for charging for DA is to encourage me to use my local directory. I do! I only call DA when the local phone book does not have what I need! Name another business where they can get away with charging to fix their errors! That might encourage more accurate directories, more frequent reprinting of directories, better intercept facilities for changed numbers, etc ... Matt Healy matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu ------------------------------ From: kevin@miki.pictel.com (Kevin Davis) Subject: Re: Current Switched56 (tm) DSU/CSU Vendors Needed Organization: PictureTel Corporation Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 16:29:45 GMT Ronal Thompson writes: > I am currently in search of vendors that carry Switched56 DSU/CSU > products. We are expanding our evaluation and compatibility process > and require information of current vendors. Our list now includes: INC (Integrated Network Corp) Bridgewater NJ Transtream Inc Agoura Hills CA The INC 1056E has been around a long time and is quite reliable. Also offered in a two-unit rack-mount version. I was involved in testing two sw56 CSU/DSU from Dowty (Case/Datatel ?) about five years ago. All I can say is: I hope they have improved since then. (RS366 dialing was "dowt-ful" and user interface was very poor). kevin@pictel.com Kevin Davis PictureTel Corp ------------------------------ From: rdippold@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) Subject: Re: Let's Do a Figure-8 Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 17:33:09 GMT Steve Forrette writes: > their equipment in order to support NXX area codes? Can you imagine > how many things in the US would break if the conversion were made to > eight digit local numbers (or four digit area codes)? I can't imagine Including the cellular system ... MINs are specifically designed for three digits + seven digits. They would have to remain on a seven digit system, and then the phone company (the switches?) would have to do a seven to eight and eight to seven translation. Outdialing would still work, but every auto-hyphenation scheme would be immediately broken ... it expects xxx-xxx-xxxx. And most software which uses phone numbers would be broken. Interfere? Of course we'll interfere. Always do what you're best at, I say. ------------------------------ From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com Subject: Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 16:21:14 GMT In article , jpk@ingres.com (Jon Krueger) writes: > Andrew Blau writes: >> LECs, too ... have made it clear that they believe telcos have a >> _very_ important role to play in the construction and operation of >> tomorrow's 'data superhighways.' > The question of course being: what role. The role played by my -------- > manager and by my condo's management company, for instance, are > usefully different. Why the role to get paid by the users? What other role could they possibly be interested in? John Rice K9IJ rice@ttd.teradyne.com ------------------------------ From: wildixon@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Wil Dixon) Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Database Questions Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 19:59:20 GMT Chris Hudel writes: > I'd like to enquire about a phone/hardware system that would allow me > to create a "touch-tone" database (of which I hope you're all > familiar) so that after dialing my number you hear -- completely > automated -- prompts for stuff like: > "Press 1 for information about widgets" > "Press 1 for service information" > "Press 2 for product information" > "Press * to go back" > "(recorded message)" The Complete PC, Big Mouth, Watson are all readily available products in the $200 -$400 range that will do what you want. The scheme is often called automated attendant, audio text, receptionist and probably a dozen other things. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 1993 01:11:55 +0000 (GMT) From: williams@riogrande.cs.tcu.edu (Mark Williams) Subject: Re: Different Rates in Same Home? Organization: Texas Christian University In article John Higdon writes: > However, if I lived four miles away in GTE territory, this would be > prohibited. With GTE, all lines must be the same class of service. > Why? I don't know. Why does SWBT limit customers to three residence > lines? I don't know about that either. But it is screwy tariffs such I currently have four lines at my residence in Fort Worth, used to have four lines at my residence in Houston, and talked to a SWBT residential billing representative last week that mentioned a customer with six residential lines in a hunt group. All are within SWBT areas. But the reps do get curious ... Mark Williams williams@riogrande.cs.tcu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 10:09:57 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Standard Dialing Plan seebeck@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Mike Seebeck) writes: > This will soon be a moot point in US West territories and elsewhere. This comment, although immediately followed by comment about the coming of NNX area codes, is a little out of context. What will soon be a moot point? > [current] restrictions ... require ... central office codes to have > digits from "2" through "9" in their second position. As noted in the history.of.area.splits archive file, this restriction has already come off in several area codes to stave off a split then and there. But in that same file, it's asked: when area codes become NXX in form (not just N0X/N1X), what becomes of "no N0X/N1X prefixes until NNX runs short"? > It will be possible to have a number such as (303)303-XXXX. To deal > with this the RBOC will require that area codes be dialed with all > toll calls. Numbers that are presently dialed 1-NNX-XXXX wil now be > dialed 1-(NXX)NXX-XXXX. Are you saying that some areas will be going to 1 + NPA + 7D for all toll calls in preparation for the NNX area codes? If so, please provide specific area codes if available. There was a recent blurb about a change (to be done for the same reason) in the New England states except Connecticut; however, those areas will use 7D for all calls within an area code. A "courtesy" that emerged with the coming of N0X/N1X prefixes is that you don't use your own or nearby area codes as prefixes. In advertisements, word of mouth, etc., this avoids some confusion so that when you hear your own or a nearby area code, you know there are seven (not four) more digits. Such "courtesy" was made "legal" in the Washington DC area (and where local service exists across the 301/410 boundary in Md.), because people there are instructed to use NPA + 7D (no leading 1 required, but optional as far as I know) for local calls across area code boundary. (In MD and VA, other cases of local calls to another area code are still seven digits. Long distance within 301,410, 703 -- not yet 804, which still has 1 + 7D -- is 1 + NPA + 7D.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #127 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12540; 24 Feb 93 2:57 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15417 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 24 Feb 1993 00:25:30 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10186 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 24 Feb 1993 00:24:55 -0600 Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 00:24:55 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302240624.AA10186@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: Clinton/Gore Meeting With SGI Employees I am pleased to present this transcript in its entirety of the meeting on Monday, February 22 between President Bill Clinton and Vice-President Gore with the employees of Silicon Graphics. My thanks to the Internet Society for supplying the transcript and Mark Boolootian for preparing it for the TELECOM Digest and comp.dcom.telecom group. PAT From: booloo@framsparc.ocf.llnl.gov (Mark Boolootian) Subject: Transcript of Clinton/Gore SGI meeting Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 13:53:39 -0800 (PST) The following is provided via the courtesy of the Internet Society White House Press Release Gopher Service. E X E C U T I V E O F F I C E O F T H E P R E S I D E N T THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release February 22, 1993 REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT TO SILICON GRAPHICS EMPLOYEES Silicon Graphics Mountain View, California 10:00 A.M. PST THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I want to thank you all for the introduction to your wonderful company. I want to thank Ed and Ken -- we saw them last night with a number of other of the executives from Silicon Valley -- people, many of them with whom I've worked for a good length of time; many of whom the Vice President's known for a long time in connection with his work on supercomputing and other issues. We came here today for two reasons, and since mostly we just want to listen to you I'll try to state this briefly. One reason was to pick this setting to announce the implementation of the technology policy we talked about in the campaign, as an expression of what we think the national government's role is in creating a partnership with the private sector to generate more of these kinds of companies, more technological advances to keep the United States always on the cutting edge of change and to try to make sure we'll be able to create a lot of good new jobs for the future. The second reason -- can I put that down? We're not ready yet for this. The second reason I wanted to come here is, I think the government ought to work like you do. (Applause.) And before that can ever happen we have to be able to get the people, the Congress, and the press who have to interpret all this to the people to imagine what we're talking about. I have, for example, the first state government in the country that started a total quality management program in all the departments of government, trying to figure out how we could reinvent the government. And I basically believe my job as President is to try to adjust America in good ways so that we can win in the 21st century, so that we can make change our friend and not our enemy. Ed said that you plan your new products knowing they'll be obsolete within 12 to 18 months, and you want to be able to replace them. We live in an era of constant change. And America's biggest problem, if you look at it through that lens, is that for too many people change is an enemy, not a friend. I mean, one reason you're all so happy is you found a way to make change your friend, right? Diversity is a strength, not a source of division, right? (Applause.) Change is a way to make money, not throw people out of work, right? If you decentralize and push decisions made down to the lowest possible level you enable every employee to live up to the fullest of their ability. And you don't make them -- by giving them a six-week break every four years, you don't force them to make these sharp divisions between your work life and your private life. It's sort of a seamless web. These are things we need to learn in America, and we need to incorporate even into more traditional workplaces. So I'd like to start -- we'll talk about the technology policy later, and the Vice President, who had done so much work, will talk a lot about the details at the end of this meeting. But I just want to start by telling you that one of our missions -- in order to make this whole thing work we're going to have to make the government work differently. Example: We cut the White House staff by 25 percent to set a standard for cutting inessential spending in the government. But the work load of the White House is way up. We're getting all-time record telephone calls and letters coming in, and we have to serve our customers, too. Our customers are the people that put us there, and if they have to wait three months for an answer to a letter, that's not service. But when we took office, I walked into the Oval Office -- it's supposed to be the nerve center of the United States -- and we found Jimmy Carter's telephone system. (Laughter.) All right. No speaker phone, no conference calls, but anybody in the office could punch the lighted button and listen to the President talk. (Laughter.) So that I could have the conference call I didn't want but not the one I did. (Laughter and applause.) Then we went down into the basement where we found Lyndon Johnson's switchboard. (Laughter.) True story -- where there were four operators working from early morning till late at night -- literally, when a phone would come and they'd say, "I want to talk to the Vice President's office," they would pick up a little cord and push it into a little hole. (Laughter.) That's today -- right? We found procedures that were so bureaucratic and cumbersome for procurement that Einstein couldn't figure them out, and all the offices were organized in little closed boxes -- just the opposite of what you see. In our campaign, however -- we ran an organization in the presidential campaign that was very much like this. Most decisions were made in a great big room in morning meetings that we had our senior staff in, but any 20-year-old volunteer who had a good idea could walk right in and say, "here's my idea." Some of them were very good and we incorporated them. And we had a man named Ellis Mottur who helped us to put together our technology policy who said -- he was one of our senior citizens; he was in his 50s. (Laughter.) And he said, "I've been writing about high-performance work organizations all my life. And this is the first one I've ever worked in and it has no organizational chart. I can't figure out what it looks like on paper, but it works." The Vice President was making fun of me when we were getting ready for the speech I gave Wednesday night to the Congress; it was like making sausage. People were running in and out saying, put this in and take this out. (Laughter.) But it worked. You know, it worked. (Applause.) So I want to hear from you, but I want you to know that we have hired a person at the Office of Management and Budget who has done a lot of work in creating new businesses and turning businesses around -- to run the management part of that. We're trying to review all these indictments that have been issued over the last several years about the way the federal government is run. But I want you to know that I think a major part of my missions is to literally change the way the national government works, spends your tax dollars, so that we can invest more and consume less and look toward the future. And that literally will ^L require rethinking everything about the way the government operates. The government operates so much to keep bad things from happening that there's very little energy left in some places to make good things happen. If you spend all your time trying to make sure nothing bad happens there's very little time and money and human energy left to make good things happen. We're going to try to pare away a lot of that bureaucracy and speed up the decision-making process and modernize it. And I know a lot of you can help. Technology is a part of that, but so is organization and empowerment, which is something you've taught us again today. And I thank you very much. (Applause.) We want to do a question and answer now, and then the Vice President is going to talk in more detail about our technology policy later. But that's what we and Ed agreed to do. He's my boss today; I'm doing what he -- (laughter.) So I wonder if any of you have a question you want to ask us, or a comment you want to make. Yes, go ahead. Q Now that Silicon Graphics has entered the supercomputer arena, supercomputers are subject to very stringent and costly export controls. Is part of your agenda to review the export control system, and can industry count on export regulations that will keep pace with technology advances in our changing world? THE VICE PRESIDENT: Let me start off on that. As you may know, the President appointed as the Deputy Secretary of Commerce John Rollwagon who was the CEO at Cray. And he and Ron Brown, the Secretary of Commerce, have been reviewing a lot of procedures for stimulating U.S. exports around the world. And we're going to be a very export-oriented administration. However, we are also going to keep a close eye on the legitimate concerns that have in the past limited the free export of some technologies that can make a dramatic difference in the ability of a Gaddafi or a Saddam Hussein to develop nuclear weapons or ICBMs. Now, in some cases in the past, these legitimate concerns have been interpreted and implemented in a way that has frustrated American business unnecessarily. There are, for example, some software packages that are available off the shelves in stores here that are, nevertheless, prohibited from being exported. And sometimes that's a little bit unrealistic. On the other hand, there are some in business who are understandably so anxious to find new customers that they will not necessarily pay as much attention as they should to what the customer might use this new capacity for. And that's a legitimate role for government, to say, hold on, the world will be a much more dangerous place if we have 15 or 20 nuclear powers instead of five or six; and if they have ICBMs and so forth. So it's a balance that has to be struck very carefully. And we're going to have a tough nonproliferation strategy while we promote more exports. THE PRESIDENT: If I might just add to that -- the short answer to your question, of course, is yes, we're going to review this. And let me give you one example. Ken told me last night at dinner that -- he said, if we export substantially the same product to the same person, if we have to get one permit to do it we'll have to get a permit every time we want to do the same thing over and over again. They always give it to us, but we have to wait six months and it puts us behind the competitive arc. Now, that's something that ought to be changed, and we'll try to change that. We also know that some of our export controls, rules and regulations, are a function of the realities of the Cold War which aren't there anymore. But what the Vice President was trying to say, and he said so well -- I just want to reemphasize -- our biggest security problem in the future may well be the proliferation of nuclear and nonnuclear, like biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction to small, by our standards, countries with militant governments who may not care what the damage to their own people could be. So that's something we have to watch very closely. But apart from that, we want to move this much more quickly and we'll try to slash a lot of the time delays where we ought to be doing these things. Q Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, you've seen scientific visualization in practice here. As a company we're also very interested in ongoing research in high-performance computing and scientific visualization. Can we expect to see a change in the national scientific agenda that includes scientific visualization? Right now I don't see the scientific visualization as being represented, for example, on the FCCSET committee. THE VICE PRESIDENT: It is a good question. One of the people who flew out here with us for this event and for the release of the technology policy in just a few minutes is Dr. Jack Gibbons, who is in the back of the room -- the President's science advisor and head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. And he will be in charge of the FCCSET process. That's an acronym that -- what does it stand for, Jack - - the Federal Coordinating Council on Science and Engineering Technology. And visualization will play a key role in the deliberations of the FCCSET. We were actually, believe it or not, talking about this a little bit with Dr. Gibbons on the way over here. I had hearings one time where a scientist used sort of technical terms that he then explained --it made an impression on me. He said, if you tried to describe the human mind in terms applicable to a computer you'd say we have a low bit rate but high resolution. (Laughter.) Meaning --this is one of the few audiences I can use that line with. (Laughter and applause.) But he went on to explain what that means. When we try to absorb information bit by bit, we don't have a huge capacity to do it. That's why the telephone company, after extensive studies, decided that seven numbers were the most that we could keep in short-term memory. And then they added three more. (Laughter.) But if we can see lots of information portrayed visually in a pattern or mosaic, where each bit of data relates to all of the others, we can instantly absorb a lot of information. We can all recognize the Milky Way, for example, even though there are trillions of points of light, stars, and so forth. And so the idea of incorporating visualization as a key component of this strategy is one that we recognize as very important and we're going to pursue it. THE PRESIDENT: Let me just add one thing to that. First of all, I told the crowd last night that the Vice President was the only person ever to hold national office in America who knew what the gestalt of the gigabit is. (Laughter.) But anyway -- and now we're going to get some very funny articles out of this. They're going to make fun of us for being policy wonks. (Laughter.) Let me say something to sort of take this one step further. This whole visualization movement that you have been a part of in your line of work is going to merge in a very short time with the whole business in traditional education theory called applied academics. We're now finding with just sort of basic computer work in the elementary schools of our country dramatic differences in learning curves among people who can see the work they're doing as opposed to people who are supposed to read it. And we're now finding that the IQs of young people who might take a vocational track in school may not be all that different from kids that would stay in a traditional academic track and wind up at Stanford, but their learning patterns are dramatically different. And there are some people -- this is a huge new discovery, basically, that's coming into the whole business of traditional educational theory. So someday what you're doing here will revolutionize the basic teaching in our schools, starting at kindergarten and going forward, so that the world of work and the world of education will begin to be merged backwards all the way to the beginning. And it's going to be, I think, the most important thing we've ever done. And very important for proving that in a diverse population all people can reach very high levels of achievement. MR. MCCRACKEN: The President and Vice President have also come here today to present a new national technology policy for the country. Do you want to -- THE PRESIDENT: We'll answer some more questions. (Applause.) I'm going to forego my time and just let him announce the policy, so we can hear some more questions. Got to give the man equal time, I know. (Laughter.) Q I'd just like to say, I didn't vote for you; I wish I had. (Laughter.) THE PRESIDENT: I hope you feel that way four years from now. (Laughter and applause.) Q Well, that's actually why I'm standing up -- I really see a possibility in what you stand for and I really think this is why you were elected. That you say you stand for change; you said that during your campaign. I think the company believed that. They're counting on you -- I'm nervous -- and I just want to say we're really with the country behind you. I think that's why the statistics are saying that we're willing to have our taxes increased, we're willing to have cuts, because you say you're really going to do it this time and decrease the deficit. I hope to God that you do. We need it not just for this present time, but by your actually fulfilling on this it will make a major change in how we feel about government; that when government says they're going to make a difference and they really come through, it will make a huge impact for the future. And I'm really personally behind you all the way. I wish I'd voted for you. (Applause.) THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. I really appreciate that. Let me make one comment in response if I might. I think it's important -- and you can help others understand this -- to understand why we have to reduce the deficit, which is something that is normally not done when unemployment is high. And unemployment is still too high. Even though we're in an economic recovery, most of our recovery is due to high productivity from firms that, in turn, this time are not hiring new people for all kinds of reasons. And we have to reduce the deficit for two reasons: Number one, if we don't -- we're already spending 15 percent of your tax money just to pay interest on past debt. If we don't change present patterns we'll be over 20 cents by the year 2000. That's money we should be spending on education and technology in the future. Number two, the more money we take out of the pool of funds for borrowing the more expensive it is for companies like this and other companies that have to go into the markets and borrow to borrow. Just since the election, since we made it clear we were going to try to bring the deficit down, long-term interest rates have dropped .7 of one percent. That is a huge savings for everybody that is going to borrow money or that has a variable interest rate on a loan, whether it's a home mortgage or a business loan or a car loan or whatever. That's important. The second thing we're trying to do that I know you will also appreciate is to shift the balance of money we do spend more away from consumption toward investment. Investments in education technology, environmental cleanup, and converting from a defense to a domestic economy. That one of the bizarre things that happened to us in the '80s is that we increased the deficit first through defenses expenses and then through exploding health care costs and increasing interest payments. But we reduced our investments in the future and the things that make us richer. So those are the changes we're trying to effect. Let me just make one other point. I will not support raising anybody's taxes unless budget cuts also pass. (Applause.) Q One of the things that Silicon Graphics has been really successful is selling into the international markets, approximately 50 percent of our revenues come internationally, including a substantial market in Japan. What types of programs does your administration plan to help the high-growth companies of the '90s sell to the international markets? THE PRESIDENT: Two things. First of all, we intend to try to open new markets and new markets in our region. That is, I believe that high-growth companies are going to -- to keep America growing, I believe high-growth companies are going to have to sell south of the border more. And to do that we have to negotiate trade agreements that will help to raise incomes in those countries even as we are growing. That's why I support, with some extra agreements, the NAFTA agreement; and why I hope we can have an agreement with Chile, and hope we can have an agreement with other countries like Argentina that are making a serious effort to build market economies. Because we want to build new markets for all of you. With Japan, I think what we have to do is to try to continue to help more companies figure out how to do business there and keep pushing them to open their markets. I don't want to close American markets to Japanese products, but it is the only nation with which we have a persistent and unchanging structural deficit. The product deficit with Japan is not $43 billion, which is our overall trade deficit, it is actually about $60 billion in product, in manufactured production. So we have -- we've got a lot of problems we have to work out there. With Europe, we sometimes are in surplus, we're sometimes in deficit, but it's a floating thing. So it's more or less in balance. With developing nations like Taiwan and Korea, those countries had big surpluses with us, but as they became richer they brought them down, so that we're more or less in balance. We have our biggest trade relationship with Canada and we're more or less in balance. So we have to work on this Japanese issue while trying to help more of you get involved. Let me make one final comment on that. I think we should devote more government resources to helping small and medium-size companies figure out how to trade, because that's what the Germans do with such great success and why they're one of the great exporters of the world. They don't waste a lot of money on the real big companies that have already figured it out, but they have extra efforts for small and medium-size companies to get them to think global from the beginning of their endeavors. And I think we're going to have to do more of that. Q In addition to concerns about the economy, Silicon Graphics employees are also concerned about the environment. Your economic plan does a great job of promoting R&D investment. Are there any elements that are specifically targeted to promote the application of Silicon Graphics' technology to environmental-friendly initiatives such as the electric car or the -- train? THE PRESIDENT: I think I should let the Vice President answer that since it's his consuming passion. And if I do it, his book sales will go up again. (Laughter.) You see, we devoted a lot of time and attention to that because -- for two reasons. One is the environment needs it. Secondly, we think it's wonderful economics, because I believe that all these environmental opportunities that are out there for us represent a major chunk of what people who used to be involved in defense technologies could be doing in the future if we're going to maintain a high wage base in America. So I'd like for the Vice President to talk a little about the specifics that we're working on. THE VICE PRESIDENT: That goal is integrated into the technology plan as one of our key objectives. The Japanese and the Germans are now openly saying that the biggest new market in the history of world business is the market for the new products, technologies and processes that foster economic progress without environmental destruction. Some have compared the drive for environmental efficiency to the movement for quality control and the quality revolution in the '60s and '70s. At that time, many companies in the United States felt that the existing level of product quality was more or less ordained by the forces of supply and demand and it couldn't be improved without taking it out of the bottom line. But the Japanese, taking U.S. innovations from Dr. Demming and others, began to introduce a new theory of product quality and simultaneously improved quality, profits, wages, and productivity. The environmental challenge now presents us with the same opportunity. By introducing new attention to environmental efficiency at every step along the way, we can simultaneously reduce the impact of all our processes on the environment, improve environmental efficiency and improve productivity at the same time. We need to set clear specific goals in the technology policy, in the economic plan. And, you know, both the stimulus and the investment package focus a great deal on environmental cleanup and environmental innovation. And whereas, we've talked a lot about roads and bridges in the past, and they're a big part of this plan also, we're putting relatively more emphasis as well on water lines and sewer lines and water treatment plants and renovating the facilities in the national parks and cleaning up trails; taking kids from inner cities and putting them to work cleaning up trails in national parks, for example, as part of the summer jobs programs. So you'll find when you look at both the technology plan and the economic plan an enormous emphasis on the environment. (Applause.) THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead sir. They say we have to quit in a minute. I'll take one more question after this. Q Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, the news stories and articles that the public has access to regarding the budget and the economy are very often confusing and contradictory. I might explain it in the same terms you used: the information is delivered low-bit rate, but the problem is huge and requires the high-road's view. So my question is I wonder if you're using Lyndon Johnson's computer to analyze the budget and the economy -- whether or not you might be open to using some of the things you've seen here to get the bigger picture and also communicate that to us. (Laughter.) THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. There are two things I'd like to respond to on that and I'd like to invite you to help. I'd like to invite you to help and I'd like to invite you to help on two grounds: One is the simple ground of helping to decide which visual images best capture the reality of where we are and where we're going. Senator Moynihan and I went to Franklin Roosevelt's home in Hyde Park, New York, just a couple of days ago. You may have seen the press on it. And on the way back he said to me that the challenges that we face are different from those that Roosevelt faced, but just as profound. Unemployment was higher and America was more devastated when he took office, he said, but everybody knew what the problem was. Therefore, he had a lot of leeway working with the Congress in the beginning to work toward a solution. Now, he said, we are facing severe challenges to a century of economic leadership and it's not clear to every American exactly what the dimensions of the problem are. The capacity you have to help me help the American people conceptualize this is quite significant: showing the trends in the deficit, showing the trends in the investment, showing how the money is spent now and how we propose to spend it. The second big problem we have you can see if you look at the front page of USA Today today, which shows a traditional analysis, yesterday's analysis -- of the business section -- of the economic program. It basically says, oh, it will bring unemployment a little and it will increase economic growth a little if we do this, but not all that much. Now, why is that? That's because traditional economic analysis says that the only way the government can ever help the economy grow is by spending more money and taxing less. In other words, traditional changing economics will run a bigger deficit. But we can't do that. The deficit is already so big, I can't run the risk to the long-term stability of this country by going in and doing that. This analysis doesn't really make a distinction between investment and consumption; doesn't take any account of what we might to with the technology policy or a trade policy to make the economy grow faster; has no way of factoring in what other good things could happen in the private market if you brought long term interests rates down through the deficit. So you could also help us to reconceptualize this. A lot of the models that dominate policymaking are yesterday's models, too. I'll give you just one example. The Japanese had a deficit about as big as ours and they were increasing spending at 19 percent a year -- government spending -- back in the early '70s when the oil prices went way up and they were more energy-dependant than we were on foreign oil. And they just decided they had change it, but they couldn't stop investing. So they had a budget which drew a big distinction -- a literal distinction -- legal distinction between investment and consumption and they embarked on a 10 or 11-year effort to bring the budget into balance. And during that time they increased investment and lowered unemployment and increased growth through the right kind of spending and investment. And I want to lead in, if I might, and ask the Vice President before we go to give you some of the specifics of this technology policy by making one more pitch to you about this whole economic plan. This plan has 150 specific budget cuts. And I will be welcome -- I'm welcome to more. I told the Republican leadership if they had more budget cuts that didn't compromise our economy, if they helped us, I would be glad to embrace them. I'm not hung up about that, but I did pretty good in four weeks to find 150. And I'll try to find some more on my own. It also has the revenue increases that you know about. It also has some spending increases and there will be debate about that. There will be people who say, well, just don't spend this new money, don't immunize all the kids, don't fully fund Head Start, don't pay for this technology policy, don't invest in all these environmental cleanup things, and that way you won't have to raise taxes so much. The problem is, if you look at the historic spending trends, we are too low on investment and too high on the deficit -- and both are problems. And secondly, we've got to have some of these economic cooperations in order to move the economy forward. So I want you to listen to what the Vice President says in that context. Because what you will hear is, we don't need to do what we think we should do in this area. If we don't, I think we'll be out of competition. People like you will do fine because you've got a good company here, but the country as a whole will fall behind. And you can help on both those points. So would you proceed? THE VICE PRESIDENT: I want to give you just a few of the details of this technology policy. There will be a printed copy available and you will be able to see for yourself all of the goals and all of the elements of it. But I want to start by describing how it fits into the President's economic plan. You know, some of the special interests who oppose the President's plan are saying to the American people, don't pass this plan because everything is fine just the way it is. Well, anybody who says everything is fine with our economy hasn't been to California lately. We need some change. We can't stand the status quo. (Applause.) California has to participate in the recovery in order for America to have a recovery that is worth the name recovery. So that we can start creating new jobs. And many of the high-skill, high-wage jobs of the future are in technology areas. And that's why a key component of the President's economic plan is the technology policy that we're announcing here today. It starts with an appreciation of the importance of continuing basic R&D, because that's the foundation for all of the exciting products that this company and others like this company come up with. It continues with an emphasis on improving education, because in order for companies like this one to survive and prosper in the world economy, we as a nation have to have highly educated, well-trained young men and women coming out of colleges on to campuses like this -- it's not called -- you call it a campus, right? That's the term that's very common now. We also have to pay attention to the financial environment in which companies like this have to exist. In order for this company to attract investors for the kind of products that you are building here, you have got to be able to tell them that the interest rates are not going to be too high if they're borrowing money to invest; you've got to be able to tell them, look, President Clinton is making permanent the R&D tax credit, for example, and there are going to be specific new provisions in the law to encourage investment in high-risk ventures that are very common in the high-technology area. And then this plan makes specific investments in something called the national information infrastructure. Now, infrastructure is a five- dollar word that used to describe roads, bridges, water lines, and sewer lines. But if we're going to compete in the 21st century, we have to invest in a new kind of infrastructure. During the Industrial Revolution, the nations that competed most successfully were often ones that did the best job of building deep-water ports; those that did the best job of putting in good railway systems to carry the coal and the products to the major centers where they were going to be sold and consumed. But now we are seeing a change in the definition of commerce. Technology plays a much more important role. Information plays a much more important role. And one of the things that this plan calls for is the rapid completion of a nationwide network of information super highways. (Applause.) So that the kind of demonstrations that we saw upstairs will be accessible in everybody's home. We want to make it possible for a school child to come home after class and, instead of just playing Nintendo, to plug into a digital library that has color-moving graphics that respond interactively to that child's curiosity. Now, that's not the only reason to have such a network or a national information infrastructure. Think about the importance of software. If we could make it possible for talented young software writers here in Silicon Valley and elsewhere in the United States to sell their latest product by downloading it from their desk into a nationwide network that represented a marketplace with an outlet right there in that person's home or business, we would make it possible for the men and women who are interested in technology jobs here in the United States to really thrive and prosper. And in keeping with one of the questions that was asked earlier about how we can export more into the world marketplace and how we can be more successful in world competition, one way is by making our own domestic market the most challenging, most exciting, with the most exacting standards and levels of quality of any nation in the world. And then we will naturally roll out of our domestic marketplace into the world marketplace and compete successfully with our counterparts everywhere in the world. Now, there are some other specific elements of this package which you can read for yourself when you see the formal package. Let me just list them very briefly: A permanent extension of the research and experimentation tax credit; completion of the national information infrastructure; specific investments in advanced manufacturing technology with measures such as -- (applause.) And in response to one of the questions that was asked over here, there is a specific program on high-speed rail to do the work necessary, to lay the foundation for a nationwide network of high-speed rail transportation, and a specific project to work cooperatively with the automobile companies in the United States of America to facilitate the more rapid development of a new generation of automobiles that will beat all the world standards and position our automobile industry to dominate the automobile industry of the future in the world. (Applause.) We also have a specific goal to apply technology to education and training. Dr. Gibbon* and others have given a tremendous amount of thought to this because, after all of the dashed hopes and false expectations for computers in schools, ironically, we now have a new generation of educational hardware and software that really can make a revolutionary difference in the classroom, and it's time to use it. (Applause.) And we are going to save billions of dollars each year part way through this decade with the full implementation of environmental technologies and energy efficiency technologies, starting with federal buildings. We're going to save a billion dollars a year in 1997 just in the energy costs of federal buildings around the United States by using off-the-shelf technology that has a four-year payback on the investment. And then we're going to encourage the use of those technologies around the country, and we're going to invest in the more rapid creation of new generations of that technology. Now, the other details of this technology program will be available in the handout that's going to be passed out here. And any of you who have ideas on how we can improve it and make better use of technology, we invite you to contact us and let us know how we can improve this program as we go along. But one final word. The President's economic program is based, as he said, on cutting spending; reducing the deficit over time, including with some revenue increases that are progressive and fair; and also investing in those things which we know will create good, high-wage, high-skilled jobs here in the United States. You all are pioneers in a sense, showing how that can be accomplished. We want to make it easier for working men and women throughout this company and other companies to follow your example and to create more jobs in high technology. And that is the focus of this economic -- of this technology policy, which is part of the overall plan to create more jobs for the American people and get our economy moving again. (Applause.) THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. (Applause.) END 10:41 A.M. PST ------------------------------------ Mark Boolootian booloo@llnl.gov +1 510 423 1948 Disclaimer: booloo speaks for booloo and no other.   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15055; 24 Feb 93 4:03 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13758 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 24 Feb 1993 01:52:09 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25251 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 24 Feb 1993 01:51:30 -0600 Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 01:51:30 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302240751.AA25251@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #128 TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 Feb 93 01:51:20 CST Volume 13 : Issue 128 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Computer Makers Told To Get Involved in Rules (NY Times via Eric De Mund) Cellular Technology Questions (Greg Boop) Austel's Privacy Report (Arthur Marsh) NYTel is Introducing CIRCUIT 9(sm) Service (Dave Niebuhr) Full Cutover Putting the Bronx in Area Code 718 Nears (Dave Niebuhr) 1-800 Phone Book or Database? (James Dahan) "Murder By Phone" is Back! (John Boteler) Congress Orders FCC to Study Security For Cellphones (John Nagle) Wrong Rate Tables (was Illegal Billing Practices) (Jeffrey Jonas) PacBell in Orange County (Randy Gellens) Long Distance: The Next Best Thing to Praying There (Paul Robinson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 20:28:13 -0800 From: Eric De Mund Subject: Computer Makers Told To Get Involved in Rules Reply-To: Eric De Mund Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services [NYT, Tuesday, February 23, 1993] Computer Makers Told To Get Involved in Rules By STEVE LOHR Special to The New York Times PHOENIX, Feb. 22 -- The chairman of the House subcommittee on telecommunications warned today that the computer industry was in danger of losing out in the emerging but potentially enormous business of providing computer services to American homes and offices unless it became involved in the Federal standard-setting that will occur this year. The panel's chairman, Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, told a gathering of computer executives here that under the Clinton Administration, with its penchant for technology policy, crucial steps will be taken this year in setting the nation on the path toward establishing a so-called data superhighway that will eventually reach every home in the country. At issue, Representative Markey said, is the possibility that the early ground rules would be written to the advantage of companies that send wires into homes, like telephone companies -- a situation that would squeeze the role and profits of service providers, like computer software companies. Tailoring the Rules "Decisions will be made this year that will affect the rest of your lives," Mr. Markey said. "And unless you participate, the rules will be cut in a way that may not be to your advantage." The regulated telephone industry is a seasoned practitioner of shaping government rules, but most computer and software companies are entrepreneurial upstarts that have grown and thrived outside the reach of regulatory controls. Traditionally, the industry rarely dealt with Washington. But that attitude is beginning to change with the merger of computer and telecommunications technology, and the prospect of high-speed computer networks bringing video conferences, books, movies, factory blueprints or medical advice into homes and offices. Estimates of the size of the potential market for these computer-generated services go as high as $2 trillion over the next decade. The speed at which that business develops and what companies will get the benefits hinge on Federal and state regulations. Some in the computer industry say the vital first step is to insure that digital phone service is available nationally at affordable rates. The main digital format available is called the Integrated Services Digital Network, or I.S.D.N.; it transforms information into the ones and zeros of computer code. The network makes it possible to send voice, video images and computer data simultaneously at high speeds on ordinary phone lines. The digital network is a middle ground between the current technology and the super-speed fully fiber-optic network that is often discussed. But the fiber-optics data highway, by most estimates, would not reach most households until after 2010 and at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. By contrast, the digital network could reach every office and house in America in less than five years, estimates Mitchell Kapor, president of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. A few phone companies, led by the Bell Atlantic Corporation, are already installing digital networks, but the effort varies by company. A computer pioneer turned advocate, Mr. Kapor is pushing Federal and state regulators to insure that the digital network is available, standardized and affordable nationally. "What we need is an open platform that is going to serve as the basis for innovation," Mr. Kapor said in an interview here. "And it is not clear that telephone or cable companies would do that on their own." Efforts by Lawmaker Representative Markey is preparing Federal legislation to push the digital format later this year. "I.S.D.N. is something that can be done now," he said, "and it will help unleash the next wave of computer and software innovation, creating jobs and wealth." He added that policy to push the digital format looked more attractive because budget constraints would reduce the role the Government could play in financing the more ambitious fiber-optics network. "The Government should set standards for openness and fund pilot projects, but it isn't going to pay for the information highway," Representative Markey said. "The money just won't be there." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 10:02:14 -0500 From: aurs01!aurxcf!boop@concert.net (Greg Boop) Subject: Re: Cellular Technology Questions > I really need some information on cellular phones - how they work, > advantages, disadvantages, etc ... I am also interested in receiving some information regarding the operation of cellular phones in the AMPS network. I am particularly interested in call set and termination over the air in regards to procedures or tones that are used. Any pointers regarding which TIA (or other any other association) documents cover cellular technology and where these documents can be obtained will help me out. Our incoming mail system is not always in good order, so please be try to follow up with me if mail bounces. I regularly read the telecom newsgroup; so if any material regarding cellular technology (that contains interest to all) is posted, I will receive it. Thank You and Best Regards, Greg Boop, Alcatel Network Systems, Raleigh, N.C. phone # 919-850-6373 fax # 919-850-5131 ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 1993 04:33:06 +1000 From: Arthur@cswamp.apana.org.au (Arthur Marsh) Subject: Austel's Privacy Report Reply-To: Arthur@cswamp.apana.org.au Organization: Camelot Swamp bulletin board, Hawthorndene Sth Australia I have rough ASCII text version (that still includes some 8 bit characters) of the Australian Telecommunications Authority (Austel) December 1992 report "Telecommunications Privacy" available for download or Fidonet file request from my bulletin board (3:800/812 in Fidonet, ph +61-8-370-2133 V.22 - V.32bis with MNP 4) as AUSTPRIV.ARJ 94352 bytes. It covers privacy issues of Caller-ID, reverse directories, telemarket- ing and the like, but is lacking in its use of exact terminology. If I can get a better quality ASCII text copy I'll pass it on to David Leibold who may be in a better position than me to submit it for inclusion in the Telecom Archives. Arthur Origin: Camelot Swamp MJCNA, Hawthorndene, Sth Australia (8:7000/8) Camelot Swamp bbs, data: +61-8-370-2133 reply to user@cswamp.apana.org.au ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 08:16:33 EST From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: NYTel is Introducing CIRCUIT 9(sm) Service NYTel is in the process of introducing CIRCUIT 9(sm) for businesses and has sent out a flier in the monthly bills describing this feature and how it might affect residential customers. First of all, this feature is based on area codes 800 and 900 with three exchanges: 910 in area codes 212 and 718, 920 elsewhere in the state for area code 800 and exchange 880 in the 900 area code. The flier states, and I'm going to summarize as much as possible, "Among other features, CIRCUIT 9(sm) allows business subscribers to identify a caller's "billing" telephone number, even if the number is not published in the telephone directory." (Nothing new here - dwn) Charging: calls to 800-910/920 are free while there is a charge to 900-880. (again, nothing surprising so far. - dwn) The meat of the article: "There are important limitations on the ways in which businesses that obtain your number through CIRCUIT 9 Service may use this information. For example, they may use your number to route or screen calls, or to obtain billing information about your account with them. "However, subject to certain exceptions, businesses that obtain your phone number through CIRCUIT 9 Service may not use your number to establish telemarketing lists or to conduct outgoing telemarketing calls without your consent." (This is interesting - dwn) NYTel will offer blocking to these exchanges; the kicker here is that calls to exchanges 394, 540, 550 970, 976 and area codes 700 and 900 will also be blocked. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 08:33:03 EST From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Full Cutover Putting the Bronx in Area Code 718 Nears NYTel has announced that full cutover to area code 718 in the Bronx is getting closer to full implementation. From the monthly flier: "*From now through May 15, 1993, we're helping customers to learn the dialing changes by having an adjustment period.* 1) Calls from outside the 718 area code to the Bronx will be completed whether the caller dials 212 or 718. 2) Calls from the 718 area code -- Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island to the Bronx will be completed whether the caller dials 1 + 212 or just the seven-digit telephone number. 3) Bronx customers have no dialing changes yet, except when dialing Manhattan, where they may dial 1 + 212 + seven digits or just the seven-digit telephone number." "*On May 15, 1993, the adjustment period ends and the dialing changes become permanent.* 1) Calls from outside the 718 area code to the Bronx *must* be dialed as 1 +718 + seven digits. 2) Calls from the 718 area code -- Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island to the Bronx *must* be dialed using seven digits only. 3) Bronx customers calling Manhattan *must* dial 1 + 212 + seven digits or they may reach a wrong number. 4) Bronx customers calling Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island can and should dial seven digits; however, dialing 1 + 718 + seven digits will complete the call. On September 25, 1993, Bronx customers *must* dial seven digits only." Anything enclosed in *'s is NYTel's emphasis, not mine. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ From: moose@cs.mcgill.ca (James DAHAN) Subject: 1-800 Phone Book or Database? Organization: SOCS - Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 16:16:55 GMT I am looking for any 1-800 phone directories, books or databases. If they exist do these directories list the numbers by city, state or entire country: USA?. [Moderator's Note: Ask AT&T. They publish several 800 directories. The two largest are the 'Business Directory' and the 'Comsumer Directory'. They also have some very specialized 800 directories now. And of course the big 800 database is 800-555-1212 operated by Southwestern Bell under contract to AT&T and other carriers offering 800 service. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Boteler Subject: "Murder By Phone" is Back! Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 12:22:05 -0500 (EST) Warner has re-issued several genre titles including "Murder By Phone", also known as Bells. This is a must-have for any good phone phreak. Don't let your library go without any longer. BTW, if you locate this little gem, let us know where so that we can begin the hunt in the proper place. Also, if you see it on LaserDisc, that would by great to know, also. bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler) ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Congress Orders FCC to Study Security For Cellphones Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 17:33:45 GMT When congress ordered the FCC to deny type-approval to "scanning receivers" that can receive cellular phone frequencies, they also ordered a study. The law reads: "The commission shall report to congress no later than June 1, 1993, on available security features for both analog and digital radio signals. This report shall include a study of security technologies already available as well as those in development. The study shall assess the capabilities of such technologies, level of security afforded, and clost, with wide-spread deployment of such technologies" (P.L. 102-556 Sec. 403 (b)). This is the chance to lobby for fully encrypted cellular telephony. John Nagle ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 18:42:01 EST From: jeffj%jiji@uunet.UU.NET (Jeffrey Jonas) Subject: Wrong Rate Tables (was Illegal Billing Practices) In Telecom-Digest: Volume 13, Issue 113, Message 3 of 3 Dave Niebuhr posted that: > In each case, I get a correction on each succeeding month's bill > which is usually $.10 to $.20US. Is this only when you call and complain, or automatic? It should be automatic, just as my gas and electric bills often contain small rebates as 'adjustments'. To make these rate adjustments, wouldn't the phone company have to retain detailed calling records -- the same detailed ones that people have been asking to get to proves phone calls were made (such as a recent TELECOM request regarding a stock broker?) It would have to remain in machine readable form if billing corrections were mandated (by admission of error, FCC ruling or court order) and such refunds could be based on calls made years ago, particularly for court rulings. If my guess is correct, then calling details are available in machine readable form for many years and if it's accurate enough for the phone company to bill on, it ought to be legal evidence (else the phone company would be guilty of fraud -- charging for calls not placed). With the high density of CD-ROM, wouldn't it make sense to archive the records on CDs instead of microfilm to save on - space; - keep it machine readable; - faster, easier searching; - longer life, fewer ways to deteriorate. When it comes to self interest, phone companies are on the ball. So ideally, getting detailed records should be easier. Oh, the FBI/CIA would love that -- getting all of a person's phone calls sorted every which way all by computer. Jeffrey Jonas jeffj@panix.com [Moderator's Note: The FBI *does* get records sorted the way you suggest whenever they ask. A clerk in the law department at IBT accepts service daily (or more often as needed) from the United States Marshall calling for telephone records subpoened by federal grand juries and the like as part of FBI investigations in progress. PAT] ------------------------------ From: MPA15AB!RANDY@TRENGA.tredydev.unisys.com Date: 23 FEB 93 19:34 Subject: PacBell in Orange County I'm moving from a GTE area to a PacBell (both in south Orange County). I was looking forward to being served by a 1A, so I could get call-waiting on a three-way call, and better quality three-way calling, but PacBell informs me that they are not assigning any new numbers on 1As. They say all 1As will be replaced by 5ESSes by 1994. I was also told that CLASS features, including Call Trace, Call Return, Call Redial, Priority Ringing, and Call Blocking, will be offered starting Monday (March 1). I was told that *all* switches in the area were using SS7 (the 1As were the first). The rep I spoke with understood about the 1As (she is served by one) but said there was no way I could get on one. She said it was bacause the 1As needed copper to the curb, and they are phasing out all copper lines. Everyone gets fiber to the curb. Note that in order for two numbers to be billed together, they must be on the same switch! If they are, the calls are not broken down by calling number, unless you pay an extra $3.75/month, or so I was told. (I have two numbers from GTE, billed together, and each toll call shows the calling number). I think I'll get the two PacBell numbers on different switches. Randy Gellens randy%mpa15ab@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com A Series System Software if mail bounces, forward to Unisys Mission Viejo, CA rgellens@mcimail.com Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 13:39:44 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Robinson Subject: Long Distance: The Next Best Thing to Praying There From the {Washington City Paper} of Feb 19-25, page 18: News of the Wierd by Chuck Shepard: "In January, Israel's national telephone company initiated a fax service that transmits messages to God via the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. In May, the Roman Catholic Chuch will unveil a high-tech confessional at a trade show in Vincenza, Italy, that will accept confessions by fax. And in December, a sect of Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn, NY began selling its members special beepers so they will know instantly when the Mesiah arrives on earth." And there is precedent for a response, I guess: "Your Majesty, I have a message from God for you." - Judges 3:20 Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM "They can't stop us. We're on a mission from God" - The Blues Brothers [Moderator's Note: When Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science passed away (they prefer not to say 'died') in the early years of this century, a telephone (live and operating) was buried with her in her casket so that when she awoke from her sleep she'd be able to contact her followers, many of whom suspected she would only be resting for a short time before rejoining them. The line remained connected for several years, but no mention is made of her choice of default long distance carrier or if she had local measured service or not. Truth is stranger than fiction sometimes. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #128 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17755; 24 Feb 93 5:20 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30686 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 24 Feb 1993 02:59:37 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20100 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 24 Feb 1993 02:59:07 -0600 Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 02:59:07 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302240859.AA20100@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #129 TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 Feb 93 02:59:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 129 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Ameritech PCS Trial Update #4 (Andrew C. Green) Multi-Line Answering Machines: Summary (Paul E. Hoffman) The Moderator's New Employer (Andrew Luebker) Novatel Accessory Needed (Joe Smooth) Uniden Cell Phone Handset Question (Joe Smooth) A Pager For Jughead (Col. G.L. Sicherman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 22:36:29 CST From: Andrew C. Green Reply-To: acg@hermes.dlogics.com Subject: Ameritech PCS Trial Update #4 Here's a long overdue update on the Ameritech PCS Trial, an test involving several hundred ordinary citizens who have been issued hi-tech portable digital wireless telephones and ordered to reach out and touch someone with them. I have had my PCS phone since October of last year and will presumably be using it through the end of the test at the end of this year, unless Ameritech feels otherwise after reading my postings. :-) Following on the heels of several incentive cash payments for performing such difficult tasks as making ten phone calls in ten days ($10) and carrying it everywhere for two weeks ($75), Ameritech summoned many of us to their headquarters one evening for surveys and interviews ($65). On the appointed evening I arrived at their sprawling complex in Hoffman Estates, in the Land Beyond O'Hare. This building deserves special mention. On a huge site, they've built a high-tech, drop-dead, gee-whiz complex requiring hyphenated adjectives to describe, apparently designed by Lee Iaccocca on steroids. Anyone who doesn't leave this place with an overwhelming sense of good old American "Can-Do" attitude is legally dead. We were ushered in via the employee entrance, through a slick ultra-modern security checkpoint and along a suspended walkway passing through the middle of a large office atrium. Everything purposely showed off its construction, from steel framing everywhere down to the ridiculously overengineered lights illuminating the walkway. From my vantage point I could look down at cubicles on several floors opening into the atrium from either side. "Hmmm," I thought, "I want to make fifty copies of my resume and fling them off this balcony RIGHT NOW ..." Anyway, we were sorted into groups of about 30 each, and given a short presentation showing Ameritech's plans, followed by a computerized survey on PCs to collect our views. What follows here are my views only, combined with comments overheard from others: It turned out that there were three different models of phone in the trial. I had been issued a "medium"-sized CT2 SilverLink phone weighing about seven ounces. They had also given out what they called a "large"-sized DiamondTel 99X, about nine ounces, and a "small"-sized NEC Portable Phone, with a claimed weight of three ounces, looking vaguely like a pocket windshield scraper. Finally, as a promise of things to come, they showed a Rolodex Directory Assistant credit-card calculator and announced that they were thinking of doing a phone like this in the future. I cringed at the thought of coming around a curve and finding some bozo wandering into my lane as he picks at the tiny buttons of that thing. They also presented some alternative service area plans. Aside from the obvious choice of simply swamping northeast Illinois with 1/2-mile-wide service cells, they also had three other options: Chicago city limits only, major thoroughfares only, or payphone locations. The Chicago city limit idea basically involved saturating Chicago and leaving out the suburbs altogether. This went over like a lead balloon with the suburbanites. The major throughfares idea made good sense. Transceivers would be put in all public areas and along major routes, so that you could just pull over if you wanted to make a call while you were out somewhere. (When you're at home, you switch the PCS over to Private mode and use your base unit anyway, plugged into your home phone line.) The payphone idea was to have a transceiver built into, or hung on, all public payphones. This makes sense initially, but on further reflection means that in strange areas, you still have to find a payphone for the purpose of not using it: Me: Excuse me, where's the nearest phone? Pedestrian: Well, there's one inside the supermarket, but it's closed. Me: That's O.K. I just need to make a phone call. The unspoken impression that this gave was that they were fishing to see how soon they could launch the product, if it was possible to do so before they had the Chicagoland area completely saturated. Following the presentation, we were plonked in front of PCs for a survey. This was a sort of statistical cross-product affair where you're presented two pairs of options and asked to pick which set you prefer. Then the options are rearranged and you're asked again. After a while I began to wish that they'd just drop all the statistical gymnastics and ask us flat-out to rate each choice, but no. I answered carefully, and gave high marks to the wide service area, low proposed prices, inbound call capability and low rates. I hammered the credit-card phone idea and limited service areas. Had they asked, I would have said that my preference is for a phone that has moderate heft to it and is big enough to balance on my shoulder, at least until they make one that I can strap on my wrist. ;-) In other news, reliability has been a bit of a problem. My neighbor's original PCS expired within two weeks from some unspecified ailment, but was promptly replaced by Ameritech. My original PCS also succumbed after three months, with a pager problem that prevented you from recalling the paged number, or even getting the darn thing to shut up when it beeped. My phone was also promptly replaced, and although the new one arrived with a dead backlighting LED in the keypad, it has been performing all right for the most part. I have learned to live with occasional dropouts and some befuddled low-battery behavior. The Public/Private mode switching between air service and land-line (base unit) use has come in handy. I worked out a method for getting into our building after hours using the PCS to bypass our phone-dial access panel at the front door (some details deleted for security!): 1) My PCS base unit is plugged in to my office phone. From outside the building, I dial the office switchboard from the building's front door access panel. As this is after hours, the night bell rings. 2) I switch my PCS to Private mode, and answer the night bell from outside via the PCS using my desk line. When I speak into the PCS I can hear myself on the access panel intercom. 3) I press "9" on the PCS to buzz myself in, and enter the elevator. 4) The elevator must be called up from an upstairs floor. Again using my PCS, I get on the office PA system and call someone to press the button on an upstairs floor. I'm up and in. I'll post more details on the PCS as they occur. Tomorrow evening they have another focus group session scheduled ($75). Don't thank me, I'm just doing my job. Andrew C. Green Datalogics, Inc. Internet: acg@hermes.dlogics.com 441 W. Huron UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!acg Chicago, IL 60610 FAX: (312) 266-4473 ------------------------------ From: phoffman@netcom.com (Paul E. Hoffman) Subject: Multi-Line Answering Machines: Summary Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 22:40:20 GMT Here is a summary of the messages I got concerning multi-line answering machines. My original post was: > I'm doing research for a friend. She wants five lines worth of outgoing-only > answering machines, low cost. Same message on each, and in can be a barge-in > system (one repeating tape with people coming in in the middle). > --I know a company called "Skutch" makes some sort of system like this. > Does anyone have a tele for them or a rep of theirs? > --Are there industrial-strength single-line systems that are cheap? She > doesn't mind duping the tape five times and dropping it in five machines > if that's much cheaper and/or more reliable than a five-line system. Here are the most useful replies: From pickens@bsu-cs.bsu.edu You may want to look at a company called Interailia (sp?) and also at a company called Viking Electronics. They refer to them as multi-line announcers. Most often you would use this at a movie theatre to announce show times, etc. Some models are very similar to answering machines and others will actually store the message digitally. A good source for information on these type of devices is Telconnect magazine. They periodically run an issue on CPE auxilary equipment. BTW CPE stands for customer premise equipment. From Joe.Bergstein@p501.f544.n109.z1.fidonet.org You'd be much better off obtaining a multiport digital recorded annoucement device, much like those used to provide message while on hold for airlines, credit card firms, etc. The annoucement is recorded and stored digitally, so there's no moving parts or sound quality degradation. You need to find a multiport model which can handle five lines. And most have options to either have new call enter in the middle of message, or continue to ring until beginning of message. Also get one with internal battery so you don't lose a recorded digital message if you have a power outage. From elmo@netcom.com Skutch Electronics 209 Kenroy Lane #7 RosevilleCA 95678 (916) 786-6186 Skutch makes some very inexpensive and innovative products. I'm not certain they make a 5-line announcer. You may want to consider using a service, rather than buying hardware. For instance, Pacific Bell will sell me voicemail on a Centrex line, for $20/month; the voicemail will answer any number of calls simultaneously. Similar results are available from paging companies, altho they tend to stretch their resources a bit thinner at times, which may result in busy signals. If you have the phone lines exclusively for the purpose of announcements, you could save a lot of money with a service, disconnecting the existing lines. If equipment is the only way to go, I've had VERY good experience with Takacom over the last 7 years. I have 26 of their three-line loop-tape announcers; they run about $400/three lines. None have ever failed me. They also have digital equipment. 1-800-421-1858, or you can check with their local distributor, Tri-County Telecom, 818-885-1411, ask for Jack. He, too, has never failed me. From: dogbowl@dogbox.acme.gen.nz (Kennelmeister) Sounds like what you want is similar to the things that broadcasters use -- endless loop carts, or even better, digital recorders. Sonifex make stuff like this, along with phone interfaces. That's one relatively expensive, but reliable option - these things will run for tens of thousands of calls before the tape needs replacing. The other option that springs to mind is to get one of those relatively cheap phone answering machines which digitally records the outgoing message and either remove the i/c message tape, or set it to announce only. If it works, buy four more. Cheap, and no moving parts. From leavens@bmf.usc.edu I don't know the cost-effectiveness of this, but your friend might just want to get one answering machine and some kind of teleconferencing bridge. If you take a meet-me type bridge and configre each port to "listen-only", and then pump the endless-loop tape in another port. With that, you could then add more lines as needed. From hhallika@tuba.calpoly.edu For announce only "barge in" applications, you might talk with Henry Engineering. I believe they make such a device using digital voice storage. It may also handle multiple lines, making only one recording necessary. Contact: Hank Landsberg Henry Engineering 503 Key Vista Drive Sierra Madre, CA 91024 phone +1 818 355 3656 fax +1 818 355 0077 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 19:30:07 CST From: Andrew Luebker Subject: The Moderator's New Employer Pat, I found this article in a back issue of the {Minnesota Daily} newspaper. Are they also paying you that fat 28% commission of seven cents on every quarter spent? If so, you ought to be able to buy plenty of cat food! Minnesota Daily Monday, April 30, 1990 Page 5 "Orange Phone rings in new era of cheap long distance calls" By Stephanie Armour Staff Reporter It may look like the Bat Phone, but it's not. It's called the Orange Phone, and local businesses think it will ring in a new era of cheap long-distance calls. "It's turned the price back 40 years," said Bill Mangels, presi- dent of Mega Orangge Marketing, a Plymouth coompany which markets the phone to local businesses. "It saves customers money and builds up the use of pay phones." The Orange Phone, a pay phone that costs only 25 cents per minute for continental long-distance calls, has been springing up in businesses and on college campuses nationwide. While a three minute AT&T pay-phone call from the Twin Cities to Floridta costs $2.75, the same call on an Orange Phone is only 75 cents. Overall rates are one-fourth the cost of Bell pay-phone services, and Mangels said users of the Orange Phone can call anywhere in the United States except Alaska and Hawaii. Local marketers of the phone are banking that students will let their fingers do the walking -- right on over to Alpha Print, where the first Orange Phone in the Dinkytown area was just installed. "You know everyone is happy," Mangels said. "You can use a calling card, call 911, 411 and operator assistance." The Alpha Print phone has been in service for only a week but store owner Ali Mahavadi said that it's been very successful. "When students come in for course material or copying, they can use the phone," Mahavadi said. "Prices are very cheap compared to regular phones." But Alpha Print is just the beginning. In the future, Mangels said, he hopes to have at least eight other area stores busy with the Orange Phones. "Usually businesses aren't known for producing long-distance calls because of the rates," Mangels said. "You have to pour in a lot of change. This is something that the pay phones couldn't do." The phone has also been a big hit with students at St. Cloud State Universitty, said Jim Harstad, president of Telecommunication Consultants Inc. Installed last September at St. Cloud State's Atwood Memorial Center, the first Orange Phone earned about $100 a month for the school, which leased it at a commission of seven cents per call, said Joe Opatz, director of the center. "It's been used extensively," Harstad said. "We go through over 4,000 minutes worth of calls a month." The phone has also been in stalled in three dormitories at St. Cloud State, he said. However, Opatz isn't as optimistic. Although he said the Orange Phone waas initially popular at the student center, use of the phone has declined. "The last report for March was about $66," Opatz said. "I don't see long lines waiting to use it." But Bob Albertson, creator of the Orange Phone, is expecting lines to grow. Albertson, an inventor from Minnetonka, got the idea for an inexpensive pay phone following his 1980 success in breaking up the AT&T monopoply on long distance service. As a result of Albertson's dispute with the Minnesota Public Utility Commission, the monopoly was dissolved. Other competitors were then able to bid for services in April 1989 -- including Albertson, who bought $60 million in long-distance service from the company. Because long-distance service is now offered by more than one pay-phone company, Albertson siad, he was able to offer lower rates by buying bulk amounts of time. Increased competition, technological breathroughs and computer advances also contributed to the low rates. Albertson said he anticipates that the inexpensive longn-distance services will be a boon -- especially on college campuses. "We want to get these phones at the U of M," Albertson said. "And the students want the phones." [Moderator's Note: I must point out I an NOT employed by Orange Comm- unications, I am merely an independent contractor for their new service called the Orange Card, a no-surcharge calling card which bills in six-second increments *including the first minute* at 25 cents per minute flat rate for calls all over the USA, using an 800 number for access to their switch. I think perhaps I shall also have something to do with the placement of the Orange Phones; that is not resolved yet. Thanks to everyone who helped me reconstruct the list of brochure requests following the horrifying debacle on Tuesday morning. A couple hundred of the brochures and applications were put in the mail Tuesday afternoon. I'll mail more on Wednesday; everyone who wrote should have it by the end of the week. Consider this like an 'affinity calling card' in our case: profits will offset the increasing costs I face in moderating the Digest with its growing mailing list. This calling card is best suited for SHORT calls of one to ten minutes from phones where a surcharge would normally apply. To answer a couple of technical questions brought up several times by people who requested an application: yes, they offer actual supervision, not just 'guesstimates' as to if/when your call connects. The first minute is also broken into six-second intervals. Yes, you can make local calls via their switch. No, they do not require you to use their 1+ service, and they do not 'slam' or play games. At the present time, their 800 number is *not* well known to hotels, thus it is likely your call to their switch would pass unnoticed. If a calling card like this would meet some requirements of yours, then please order it through me. :) Send your snail-mail address to me at ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu or via fax 312-743-0002. Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joe Smooth Subject: Novatel Accessory Needed Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 22:42:44 GMT I am looking for the plastic "S" insert that is used in the Novatel transportable bag phones ... I have called Novatel, and they don't make them anymore. If anyone knows where I can get one, or has one to sell, please let me know! Thanks a lot! ------------------------------ From: Joe Smooth Subject: Uniden Cell Phone Handset Question Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 22:34:44 GMT I was wondering if there was a way to modify a normal Uniden mobile phone handset into one of the special 'programming handsets' used by Uniden? I have heard that you can do so by grounding a test line in the handset or something like that, but I wanted some feedback first. If you know how it can be done, PLEASE let me know! (I'm also interested in any information you have on Uniden mobile phones at all. Thanks) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 20:47:05 EST From: gls@windmill.att.com Subject: A Pager For Jughead Organization: AT&T In , mc!Brad_Hicks@mhs.attmail.com writes: > I am at a total loss to imagine what legitimate need a high school > student or younger has for to have a pager or cellular phone with him > or her at school. They are there to learn, period. ... A voice from the past! As we enter a world in which we can talk together just by wishing it, we still isolate young people in institutions dedicated to the principle that whatever we need to tell one another can be told with books. No, pagers and schools don't mix. But now that interaction matters very much, and training people to serve as interchangeable parts for the dying age of machines can only hurt us -- let's keep the pagers and get rid of the schools. Even if only to reduce drug use ...! Col. G. L. Sicherman gls@windmill.att.COM [Moderator's Note: That does it! Now for sure I am killing this thread once and for all. I'm sorry I started it! Further messages with 'pager' in the subject go straight to /dev/null! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #129 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07403; 25 Feb 93 3:59 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05178 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 25 Feb 1993 01:38:16 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19588 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 25 Feb 1993 01:37:33 -0600 Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 01:37:33 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302250737.AA19588@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #130 TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 Feb 93 01:37:30 CST Volume 13 : Issue 130 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson AT&T's China Deal, and Comments (Paul Robinson) TRT Being Bought/What is IDB Communications? (Paul Robinson) ESF B8ZS and Clear Channel (Albert Lopez) Message Waiting Lights (Matthew Waugh) Call For Papers: Technology: Whose Costs, Benefits (Jackie Hunter) Ameritech Asks For Local Competition (John R. Levine) A Pager Question [or Does This Get Killed?] (Paul Robinson) Re: A Pager For Jughead; Discussion Moves to aus.acs (Tom Worthington) Costs to Telco: Leased vs Dial (Nick Sayer) Re: Multi-Line Answering Machines (Paul Robinson) 3DO Platform and Base Unit (Robert L. McMillin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: Tdarcos@MCIMAIL.COM From: Paul Robinson, Contractor Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 18:17:52 EST Subject: AT&T's China Deal, and Comments On Page D1 of the 2/24 {Washington Post} is an article titled "AT&T To Modernize China's Telephones". It's going to be a joint venture between Communist China and AT&T in an attempt to expand that country's "fledgling telecommunications system through an unprecedented investment in new factories and research ventures." There are two phones per 100 people now, by 2020 the Mainland Government wants to raise this to 40 per 100. (Compare this to Washington, DC, which has a current count of 112 phones per 100 people.) The country has a population of 1.2 billion people and is expanding at the rate of 1 1/2% per year. This task will require billions of dollars; by the year 1996, it is estimated that the Government of Mainland China will be spending $2 Billion a year on technology. In order for AT&T to be able to make the equipment there, the U.S. Government will have to approve the transfer of the technology needed to build it. AT&T expects to build about twice as many switches in China as it does in the United States. AT&T would own 51% of the Joint Venture. The Chinese Government agreed to fix copyright and Patent laws after the Bush Admininistration investigated it for unfair trade practices. Suspicion is that the venture is part of the commitment to that agreement. This agreement cancels the prohibition on foreign companies making telephone equipment there by the Chinese Government. General Comments: This, of course, is the typical thinking of a "First World" country which is still heavily using peasant labor for agricultural development. Based on current equipment costs and distances, they could probably install enough cellular towers to provide phone service anywhere in the country for a lot less. Let's see: China is aproximately 3500 x 3000 miles in size (it's smaller some spots and larger in others, so it will even out), and let's estimate that one tower can reach an area of 7.5 miles in each direction, meaning you need one every 15 miles (which makes this exhibit trivial), then you need to have a matrix of 300 x 200 switches, or 50,000 cellular switches. If, in these large quantities and the well-educated prison labor (courtesy of Tianamen Square) they can bring the price down to say $100,000 per cellular switch, the total cost to provide cellular phone service -- which would give the entire country telephone service at once -- would cost in the neighborhood of $5 billion dollars. Based on the figures that are talked about, the service could be installed in four years. AT&T almost certainly would make more money selling wireline switches to that country. Also a communist country would find it much more attractive to have people only able to use physical wired connections that tie them to a certain specific, easily identified spot. And it's a lot harder to monitor or track the calls of dissidents on a cellular phone or the Irridium scheme from Motorola (the satelite might not even be in China, thwarting their ability to collect information), than it would be to just instruct a local switch to record the incoming and outgoing numbers of all calls going in and out of a particular dissident's phone, often without the dissident even being aware of the monitoring until they come for him, or her. Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM These (uninformed) opinions are mine alone, no one else is (stupid enough to be) responsible for them. ------------------------------ Reply-To: Tdarcos@mcimail.com From: Paul Robinson Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 18:41:40 EST Subject: TRT Being Bought/What is IDB Communications? I have to ask a question about something, but first I'll give some information about the transaction in question. The office I work out of gets telex service from a company called TRT, which had, a few years ago, bought the FTCC telex company and merged with it. We recently received a press release from them dated 2/9, which said: On January 25, 1993, IDB Communications announced that it had entered into an agreement for the acquisition of all of the stock of TRT communications. The letter and a subsequent reprint from the 2/1 issue of {Telecommunications Reports} indicate that: - IDB has been in this business since 1985; - IDB bought World Communications (Worldcom) which gives it a satelite broadcast operation; - IDB paid only $1 million in cash, the rest of the deal is a stock swap of 4.5 million of its shares, worth $80 million at the price when the deal was announced (the stock has gone up in price.) - IDB currently has 90 E-1 (2.048 Megabit) submarine fiber optic cables, the deal will increase this to 190 in use or available for use; - TRT has two-way voice traffic with about 25 countries, including "significant return traffic" of which IDB has very little return traffic; - Pacific Telecom, Inc, TRT's owner, will immediately get 1.3 million shares of stock which it will keep even if the deal fails, so that it isn't left holding the bag as it was when Cable & Wireless discovered it couldn't get regulatory approval to buy TRT back in 1991; - For the 1.3 million shares, IDB immediately got some non-TRT telecom assets owned by Pacific Telecom including the 347 acre Niles Canyon earth station operated by Bay Area Teleport, and includes two Imarsat earth stations, and that they wanted the satelites more than the telco bypass capability; - France Telecom owns almost 15% of TRT, this deal doesn't affect that part; - IDB will take about a $35,000,000 loss to do this deal, the company expects, by the time the smoke clears, to be having about $350,000,000 in annual revenues; - IDB sees that there might be room for a fourth international voice carrier after AT&T, MCI and Sprint they think they can operate cheaper; - Since the deal was announced, the value of the stock to be issued has risen by about $30,000,000. So here's the whole point of this request: one of the people in the office asked me to find out if anyone on TELECOM Digest knew anything or had ever heard of IDB before. So, has anyone heard of IDB before? Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM ------------------------------ From: albert.lopez@Corp.Sun.COM (albert lopez) Subject: ESF B8ZS and Clear Channel Date: 24 Feb 1993 23:56:39 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems Reply-To: albert.lopez@Corp.Sun.COM Can someone help to clear up my mis-understanding? I know that B8ZS allows for clear channel transmission because it eliminates the max zeros problem by using BPV, but what I don't understand is how clear channel is accomplished using B8ZS when using extended super frame (ESF). Since ESF uses frames 6, 12, 18, and 24 for robbed bit signalling on all 24 channels, doesn't this prevent clear channel transmission? ... or do you just not use those frames for clear channel transmission. Thanks for any explanations. Albert ------------------------------ From: waugh@rtpnet05.rtp.dg.com (Matthew Waugh) Subject: Message Waiting Lights Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 20:42:37 GMT Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC. You've heard this story before: We bought a new PBX, too cheap to buy phones with message waiting lights on them. We've been working on upgrading phones by swapping out the whole faceplate on a 500 set for one with a MWL installed. We'd been using Allen-Tel units, but they changed the design, and for some reason the new design is very dim, and in an office lit with bright lights you just don't see them flash. Graybar denies knowledge of an alternative supplier. Can anybody help me out with alternative makers of the full faceplate replacement (we don't really want to get into drilling holes in faceplates if we can avoid it)? Maybe this "dim light" problem is common, and we're doing something wrong and somebody can help us out with that. Any help appreciated. Thanks, Matthew Waugh waugh@dg-rtp.dg.com RTP Network Services Data General Corp. RTP, NC. (919)-248-6034 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 15:04:21 EDT From: HJ#5@LAFAYACS.bitnet Subject: Call For Papers: Technology: Whose Costs, Benefits CALL FOR PAPERS TECHNOLOGY: WHOSE COSTS?..WHOSE BENEFITS? Areas of Concentration: Computers and Communications Health Care Energy and the Environment The International Symposium on Technology and Society 1993 (ISTAS '93) The International Symposium that links Technology and Social Effects Sponsors: The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Inc. (IEEE) Society for the Social Implications of Technology The IEEE National Capital Area Council The IEEE Technology Policy Conference Committee Washington DC October 22-23, 1993 Technology is constantly changing the our world. New ways of doing things bring benefits undreamed-of just a few years ago. These technologies also have their price. The costs can be financial, but also less freedom, more risks, more stress. How do we balance benefits and costs? Do those who enjoy the benefits bear their fair share of the costs? How can we determine a fair share? If we can, and don't like the results, what do we change? Is the Government always the best way to change things? ISTAS '93 invites significant contributions on these issues from a wide spectrum of scholarly and concerned individuals. The contributions can be papers, proposals for a session or panel of invited experts, or proposals for "poster" or discussion sessions. Please send a 100 word summary for papers or a 1000 word proposal for sessions, to the General Chair: Dr. William J. Kelly Attn. IEEE MITRE Corporation m/c Z568 7525 Colshire Drive McLean, VA 22102 E-mail: wjkelly@mitre.org Deadline for Submission: March 12, 1993 Notification of Acceptance: April 12, 1993 Camera Ready Copy: June 30, 1993 For information call Jackie Hunter (703)-803-8701 ------------------------------ Subject: Ameritech Asks For Local Competition Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 15:17:57 EST From: John R. Levine According to the {New York Times} Ameritech has asked regulators to allow local exchange competition in the areas it serves in exchange for the right to offer inter-LATA long distance service. It is the first of the Baby Bells to do so. They'll need permission from the Justice Department and also from Judge Greene. Competitors, particularly AT&T, said they should be allowed into LD only after it has been established that local competition is really there, since it would be easy for Ameritech, with its 100 year head start, to continue to be at an advantage in a nominally level field of competition. Nobody expects anything concrete to happen for several years. Have readers in the Ameritech area seen any response? Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 12:33:44 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Robinson Subject: A Pager Question [or Does This Get Killed?] Our Esteemed Moderator said: > [Moderator's Note: That does it! Now for sure I am killing > this thread once and for all. I'm sorry I started it! > Further messages with 'pager' in the subject go straight > to /dev/null! PAT] That's too bad. Now I won't get to ask the readers of the Digest a question someone asked me. :) A customer of mine asked if there was a way for her to be able to page one of her associates without having to spend money on an activation fee and a monthly charge. All the customer wants is a means to send someone a page signal such as a tone to tell them to call into their number. Radio Shack was selling them about two years ago for $50, $10 activation plus the $4 a month number fee and 10c per page rate. (I had it for a month or two but didn't use it enough to justify keeping the service.) Now paging companies in this area are offering $39 pagers, $25 activation and $9 a month for the service. And these allow the person to indicate the call-back number; the Radio Shack ones were strictly for a single tone. I know that when Citizens Band radios had to be licensed, there were two classes: Class D for voice and Class C for "remote activation of devices used to attract attention." I want to know if there are still short-distance devices available for paging people without having to pay monthly service charges. Any device available commercially would have to have some kind of selectable code so that it's not readily triggered by false alarms. I would appreciate responses. If there are several, I'll summarize. If there's a lot of interest, maybe I can sell some! :) Oh wait, I forgot this message is never going to be seen. Never mind. Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM [Moderator's Note: Actually, I only meant 'pagers and school' messages, not pagers generally. But this gives me a good chance to lead into the next message in this issue received from someone who feels there is still room for more discussion. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tomw@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Tom Worthington) Subject: Re: A Pager For Jughead; Discussion Moves to aus.acs Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 01:41:15 GMT This topic appears to be of general interest. I invite people to continue the discussion in the ACS's newsgroup "aus.acs". Someone might like to post a summary of the discussion so far, to inform others on aus.acs. Tom Worthington Director of the Community Affairs Board Australian Computer Society Incorporated G.P.O. Box 446 Canberra A.C.T. 2601 Australia Ph: +61 6 2856209 Fax: +61 6 2496419 Internet e-mail: tomw@adfa.oz.au [Moderator's Note: Long time readers will recall that two of the most popular mailing lists available today had their origins here in the telecom group: Computer Underground Digest began from a discussion here on hacking which turned a bit acrimonious and Dennis Rears' very popular e-journal on privacy topics was started here as an offshoot of a discussion pro and con on Caller-ID which overran my queue with several hundred messages. If Mr. Worthington believes the topic of pagers in schools warrants continued discussion in a forum more appropriate, I certainly give my imprimateur to his plan; not that he requires it by any means. Best wishes! :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us (Nick Sayer) Subject: Costs to Telco: Leased vs Dial Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'. Date: 24 Feb 1993 18:07:32 UTC Let's pretend that Joe and Fred have Unix boxes and that they live across town from each other (but still in range of zum 0 dialing). They get a modem line each and set it up so that a connection is permanently dialed from one to the other. If they get disconnected, it dials right back. Thus, they effectively have an analog leased line for about $20/mo (unmeasured service presumed). How much does this cost the telco? What if Joe and Fred instead went to the telco and the telco sold them an analog leased line? How much does this cost the telco relative to the situation in the first paragraph? Why is it that the price charged by the telco for this situation is so much higher than in the first paragraph? Remember: Joe and Fred aren't businesses, they just got a good deal on an expensive disk drive and decided to buy it jointly and have Fred NFS mount it over the phone. :-) Nick Sayer N6QQQ @ N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest' PGP 2.1 public key on request [Moderator's Note: Much of the additional cost would come from the expense of having certain common equipment in the central office unavailable for other customer's use. With dialup, telco is gambling you won't be tying up the CO resources that much; you are gambling you will be. By continually holding the line, you'd win and telco would lose. With leased lines, telco assumes from the beginning you'll keep the wire packed and they price their bottom line accordingly. And if the dialup would be zero message units and unlimited time per call, you'll need *many thousands* of minutes of traffic each month on a leased line to amortize or spread its cost in such a way that it becomes less expensive per minute than manual dialup on a call by call basis on demand. If dialup are measured and timed, then you won't need quite as much traffic to justify leased, but you'll still need plenty. Just how good of a deal did you get on that disk drive, anyway? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 12:21:48 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Robinson Subject: Re: Multi-Line Answering Machines I thought I had posted a response to his request, but since he didn't have it I guess I forgot. If this woman already has five lines, couldn't she use something like that device we saw here that bridges two lines? I was going to suggest that what is needed is a cheap device that lifts the hook on receipt of ring current, and drops it when the line is disconnected. Have the part that picks up sound be a jack port, perhaps instead of a handset. If they can make cheap phones for ten bucks, something like this should not be that expensive. Now, running the speaker output to all of these devices, wired onto the same line so that all of them hear the announcement. (If you don't accept the voice output from any of them, they can't be heard or hear each other.) Now if she's going to do this and doesn't already have the lines installed, I've got a simpler and cheaper solution: Rent a voice mail box for fifteen bucks a month. Check the voice mail companies in the area for one that offers the ability to disable the taking of messages. Most of these systems will allow as many as ten or more simultaneous callers on the same box. This rate might, in some areas, be less than the price of ONE phone line. Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 10:49:08 -0800 From: rlm@indigo2.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: 3DO Platform and Base Unit A friend of mine got to see the new 3DO platform at the American Film Institute last night... very nice. Supposedly, it's powered by the same CPU that Apple will use in its Newton box -- that, and four graphics engines. From a CD, the 3DO base unit will play full-motion NTSC video, among other things. The base units will be priced at around $700 initially when they come out in October. My friend didn't say how much they expect the software to cost, but he estimated about $50/unit. The machine demonstrated was a prototype. The engineers from 3DO brought what they claimed was a working production prototype, but this they did not use. Part of the demo consisted of a "jello sheet" type display with transparent texture mapping on the jello. Another demo was a rotating texture-mapped earth that slid on several surfaces, each with differing viscosities. The results my friend likened to the output from SGI's Reality Engine graphics processor -- very fast, and very slick. All of the above was controlled by an Apple Macintosh (Quadra?), not a CD in the 3DO. Developers will pay the 3DO people $3 per unit shipped for the privilege of developing on the platform (sounds like something to be contested in court, if you asked me). When the platform ships, there should be something like 50 titles available. The present authoring platform is the Macintosh. However, 3DO will complete development of an operating system for their box, enabling authors to dispense with the Mac and use the 3DO directly (presumably, on some special mastering machine). AT&T, one of the 3DO founding members, has plans to send digital video from your digital switch to your 3DO box. This will be slightly lower quality than that you get from the CD, probably 250-275 lines of resolution compared to 425 lines from the CD. Stay tuned ... Robert L. McMillin | Voice: (310) 568-3555 Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc. | Fax: (310) 568-3574 Los Angeles, CA | Internet: rlm@indigo2.hac.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #130 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10606; 25 Feb 93 5:14 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30449 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 25 Feb 1993 03:00:29 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05069 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 25 Feb 1993 02:59:46 -0600 Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 02:59:46 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302250859.AA05069@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #131 TELECOM Digest Thu, 25 Feb 93 02:59:45 CST Volume 13 : Issue 131 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (Andy Sherman) Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (John Higdon) Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (Laurence Chiu) Re: Quirks and Questions on International Dialing (David E A Wilson) Re: Quirks and Questions on International Dialing (John R. Levine) Re: Quirks and Questions on International Dialing (Christopher Davis) Re: Quirks and Questions on International Dialing (Liron Lightwood) Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan (Richard Pauls) Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan (Jeffrey Jonas) Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Steven King) Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Graham Toal) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 16:29:38 EST Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening? From: andys@internet.sbi.com (Andy Sherman) On 19 Feb 93 07:23:09 GMT, jack_decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) said: > In message , John Higdon wrote: >> And advanced signaling? Calls on AT&T complete in a split second; in >> about eight seconds with Sprint. Yes, it is because AT&T is connected >> via SS7 to my telco and Sprint (for whatever reason) is not. But it >> goes to illustrate the stupidity of the advertising and how >> intelligence is not to be gained by listening to it. > Again, I wonder if this call completion advantage isn't due to the > more direct connections to the telephone central office, that aren't > available to other carriers? Tell me why, for example, an AT&T > operator can hold my line open until she releases the call, while OCC > operators cannot? Have these superior connections been made available > to other carriers? I think not. Again, once AT&T has to compete on a > totally level playing field, I think a lot of these so-called > advantages will disappear (when was Feature Group C supposed to be > discontinued, anyway?). AT&T completes calls so quickly because a) its network is 100% internally connected via SS7, b) because it has SS7 interconnections with the local network wherever possible, and c) the routing algorithms used in its network have been redesigned and reimplemented TWICE since divesture. SS7 is a postdivestiture technology. Any carrier can use it, but they have to be willing to invest money to do so. I doubt the two routing algorithms, DNHR and RTNR, are for sale, since they were invented by Bell Labs well after divestiture. But any carrier can choose to invest or not invest in R&D. AT&T chooses to do so. Is there a "McGowan Labs" doing world-class R&D? Andy Sherman Salomon Inc Unix Systems Support - Rutherford, NJ (201) 896-7018 andys@sbi.com or asherman@sbi.com "These opinions are mine, all *MINE*. My employer can't have them." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 16:22 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening? On Feb 24 at 16:29, Andy Sherman writes: > But any carrier can choose to invest or not invest in R&D. AT&T > chooses to do so. It is my opinion, and the opinion of many in the industry, that the OCCs are more "sales driven" than "engineering driven". Where AT&T had an infrastructure, history, and a vast R&D mechanism, MCI and the others had loads of venture capital and a lot of MBAs whose goal it was to scoop up some of the vast amounts of money in the long distance industry. Recall that the usual "post monopoly" pattern took place: MCI (and Sprint) carried calls between the largest of the markets ONLY. It was the cream -- lots of volume and relatively little investment. These companies view engineering and technology as an unavoidable expense; a banana peel in the road that leads to making money. AT&T actually has an R&D arm. It has entire departments dedicated to no other purpose than the improvement of the state of the art of telephony. (Friends and Family, The Most, et al, are not exactly milestones in telecommunications development.) Of course, that "market savvy" can pay off. Sprint took technology pioneered and developed by AT&T and designed an historic marketing plan around it. The results were so impressive that it forced AT&T to phase in digital transmission well ahead of its original schedule. It really needs to be emphasized that there is a key premise in MCI's and Sprint's marketing strategies. The OCCs would have you believe that long distance service is simply a commodity such as wheat or gold. The only difference between one company and another is the price one pays. Mr. Decker first seemed to buy into this reasoning, criticizing AT&T for making claims to the contrary. Then he quickly turned on himself, mentioning about a dozen ways that AT&T service IS actually better. But then he moderated that stance by suggesting reasons (making excuses for the OCCs, actually) that would explain AT&T's techological edge. So it comes down to a matter of "to each his own". There are many who prefer a "sales and marketing" approach. These are people with relatively simple and straightforward requirements. Others, such as myself, are more interested in technical and engineering solidity. AT&T is well aware that the days of not having to compete are over forever. But sometimes, AT&T's marketing ineptitude can be overwhelming. I would be willing to bet that many who read this forum are completely unaware of the unbeliveably vast array of services that are offered by AT&T. And even when one becomes aware of a particular AT&T product, ordering it can sometimes present an exercise in frustration. But let us see if we can abandon the blanket assertions. All of the players have products that are useful to someone. Everyone is marketing aggressively. It is time we take the outdated restrictions away so that we customers can really reap the benefits. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: LCHIU@HOLONET.NET Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening? Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 04:07:06 GMT This is a followup to my original post where I bemoaned the fact that I could not get discounts on calls to both China and NZ on ATT but could on MCI but was reluctant to switch carriers for a variety of reasons. This seemed to have generated much traffic about the relative merits of the carriers. Those who argue that AT&T's service is a cut above the competition and cite experiences to support those experiences, are expressing viewpoints that I have always felt, but did not have the experiences (expertise?) to backup. For example, someone from AT&T labs replied to me saying he would get in touch with a friend in customer service to call me. That person did call me and expressed her concern that AT&T were not able to meet my calling needs but that they would keep my name on file, and should appropriate tariffs appear that would suit my needs, they would call to let me know. That is service above and beyond the call of duty I feel. It's a pity they could not do anything at this time, citing tariff approval procedures etc. (As an aside, do the other carriers have an easier time introducing new tariffs etc?) Anyway I decided in the end to open an account with MCI but accessed via 10222, enrolled in their Around the World (?) plan as well as designating two numbers (one in NZ and one in China) as F&F numbers. This way I can get up to 35% discount on calls to China (sorely needed given the high cost of calling that country) and to one number in NZ (which reduces the rate to about 62c/minute for one number and 79c for the others) while keeping AT&T my 1+ carrier for the present. Interestingly, and I don't know if this is a harbinger of things, once I found out whom to call at MCI, I was on hold for a while (relatively speaking I suppose), and this was at night time. Laurence Chiu lchiu@holonet.net ------------------------------ From: david@cs.uow.edu.au (David E A Wilson) Subject: Re: Quirks and Questions on International Dialing Date: 24 Feb 1993 10:09:21 +1100 Organization: University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia. martin@cod.nosc.mil (Douglas W. Martin) writes: > Calling Australia: (61) 5-900-xxxx gets the "telecom announcement" > "Subscriber trunk dialing is not yet available to this region." This is not surprising when you realise that this number really should be formatted +61 59 00 xxxx (or if dialed within Australia (059) 00 xxxx). Thus the exchange prefix is 00, which is not valid for regular phone numbers. I only have 4x xxxx through 9x xxxx as being valid numbers in the 059 area code. What xxxx did you use? David Wilson +61 42 213802 voice, +61 42 213262 fax Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong david@cs.uow.edu.au ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Quirks and Questions on International Dialing Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 24 Feb 93 21:49:37 EST (Wed) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) > I understand Scott and Casey bases in Antarctica are > now direct dialable. I have no idea what the country code is. Hey, there was an article in the Digest on this very topic at the time they became dialable. (I remember, because I sent it in.) They share the code 672 with other Australian External Territories. I don't know what any actual working numbers are. Perhaps they have directory assistance down there. Someone at an Antarctic base was on NPR Talk of the Nation on New Year's Day, and said that they get a lot of e-mail, being on the net. Didn't give her e-mail address, though. Bummer. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) Subject: Re: Quirks and Questions on International Dialing Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 21:38:15 GMT > [Moderator's Note: [...] I understand Scott and Casey bases in > Antarctica are now direct dialable. I have no idea what the country > code is. PAT] Interestingly enough, McMurdo Base is on the Internet. (I believe the connection is even supposed to be a year-round one now, though it was turned off last (Southern Hemisphere) winter.) Naturally enough, it's a satellite connection rather than a cable :) * Christopher Davis * * * [CKD1] * MIME * RIPEM * 226 Transfer complete. 17512509 bytes received in 5.2e+02 seconds (33 Kbytes/s) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 01:15:49 +1100 From: Liron Lightwood Subject: Re: Quirks and Questions on International Dialing > Just some quirks of international dialing: > Calling Australia: (61) 5-900-xxxx gets the "telecom announcement" > "Subscriber trunk dialing is not yet available to this region." In This number translates to 00-xxxx in the 059 area code, which is an invalid number. You shouldn't be getting that recorded message however, as 059 is certainly dialable. > I was unable to connect to either Wallis and Futuna (681) or Papua New > Guinea (675); all attempts got the American intercept, "your > international call cannot be completed as dialed." What LD carrier did you use? It could be that that particular carrier does not provide direct dialing to those countries (there was previous discussion in this group on not being able to call Fiji with AT&T, I think). > Finally, has anyone successfully called the Australian Antarctic > Territories? If so, please supply a working number. See below for country codes. > [Moderator's Note: Regarding Antarctica, for some reason a call from > thirty plus years ago stands out in my memory. The old 'Rate and > Route' bureau in Morris, IL told the local operator to hand me off to > the overseas operator in Oakland, CA. That operator in turn looked > into the matter and reported that contact with Antarctica was made by > the Sydney, Australia radiotelephone operator, and that " ... they > allow calls from the USA on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday" at some > time of day I've long since forgotten. I remember her saying there was > some time available "a couple days from now if you want me to book > you for it ..." I understand Scott and Casey bases in Antarctica are > now direct dialable. I have no idea what the country code is. PAT] According to a newspaper article I once read, in the 1950's or thereabouts, international operators weren't available 24 hours a day in Australia. Various countries were only available at certain times of the day. Calls to England and the US were available for about 12-16 hours a day (I can't remember the exact times) and the times for each destination were quite different. The times didn't have anything to do with business hours in Australia though, I don't know what they related to. According to the article, this was in the days when calls to Europe or the US from Australia cost a fortune, and required the call to be set up in several stages along the route, with each operator asking the next operator to place the call and set up their part of the route. How things have changed. And now, here are the details for dialing the Australian Antarctic Territory. Country code: 672 Area codes: Casey 12, Macquarrie Island 13, Davis 10, Mawson 11 [Moderator's Note: What about Scott and McMurdo? Carl and David, are you taking notes on this for the next country.codes update in the Telecom Archives? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Richard Pauls Subject: Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 12:31:49 -0500 In article Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) writes: > I thought I saw something in the Digest about 813 (Florida) possibly > being split by using one of the NNX area codes. It's apparently too > soon to be announcing a new area code in Florida (which now has 1 + > NPA + 7D statewide for all toll calls, and I personally saw this > posted near Pensacola in area 904). I've just started reading this newsgroup and I've noticed a lot of postings discussing area codes and exchanges. It seems there are some conventions for acceptable combinations of numbers in these codes. For example requiring an area code to have 0 or 1 as the middle digit. What other conventions are there regarding area codes, exchanges or phone numbers in geneal for that matter? Thanks, Rich [Moderator's Note: I'll yeild to Carl Moore, our resident area code expert and historian for more details to you in mail, but area codes do not have '1' or '0' as the first digit, nor do they have '11' or "00' as the second and third digit. Three digit codes ending with '11' are local telco services (information or repair), and three digit codes ending '00' are special services (800 toll free, 900 premium) rather than area codes. Until quite recently, area codes did not have '0' as the third digit; now where '0' is the third digit, '1' is always the second digit, as in 810, 910, or our mysterious and beloved 710. These latter-day area codes ending in '10' were formerly 'TWX area codes' dating back forty years to when AT&T owned a 'telegraph' network called TWX (yperiter Echange -- got it?) which they had to turn over to Western Union in the 1960's when WUTCO sued them for invading their territory. WUTCO bought AT&T's TWX network, but by and large all the equipment stayed in the Bell central offices where it had always been, using the 'area codes' AT&T had given it. They named it TELEX II (as in egraph change -- got it?) to differentiate it from TELEX I, their original product before AT&T went into the business, got sued and had to get out. In those days, TWX machines and telephones operated on the same network, like modems and phones do today, but TELEX had its own network. As telephone area codes became in short supply, Bellcore reclaimed all the X10 codes from WUTCO or AT&T or whoever owned/operated TELEX II, nee TWX at the time and now they are being used in the voice telephony network. With local exchanges or prefixes, it *used to be* the first and second digit was always two through nine and the third digit was one through nine. Zeros were not used in any position in prefixes until a few years ago when otherwise the supply ran out. Carl Moore will tell you lots more, I'm sure. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 18:27:03 EST From: jeffj%jiji@uunet.UU.NET (Jeffrey Jonas) Subject: Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan > In January 1995, there will be a new "interchangeable" area code format, > where area codes are no longer restricted to having 0 or 1 as the > middle digit. > Are there any hints yet about who the lucky winners will be who get > the very first interchangable area code? I imagine that they may find > themselves hard to call for a while. Oh lovely -- there can now be area code 666 which many numerologists will never dial under any circumstances, and will certainly move before getting stuck with that number. Perhaps it'll be allocated to only pagers, faxes and modems. This also opens the opportunity for "vanity" area codes and numbers where all ten digits spell a name. ex: 328 533 3739 is "fat jeffrey", which is certainly not me! Jeffrey Jonas jeffj@panix.com [Moderator's Note: *Of course* it isn't you, we all know that. The rules say that 666 will not be assigned to pagers, faxes or modems. It will be assigned to telemarketers and bill collectors, all a bunch of Great Satans. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: king@rtsg.mot.com (Steven King, Software Archaeologist) Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones Reply-To: king@rtsg.mot.com Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 19:40:55 GMT walsh@optilink.com (Mark Walsh) publicly declared: > In article , by jeh@cmkrnl.com (Jamie > Hanrahan): >> Can someone explain why cellphones couldn't gain increased security >> simply by channel-hopping *within a cell*? Say, every five seconds or >> so? > Do you realize what you are suggesting? Why, this would cause the > cellular phone industry to spend several dollars more per phone! It > is far, far cheaper for them to continue to buy off our elected > officials, and make them pass laws which give the cell phone user an > illusion of security. I mean, an illusion is as good as the real > thing, isn't it? :-( I'm all for a good dose of healthy cynicism, but I think you've taken it a little far. Better reasons for not having phones channel-hop every five seconds are: 1) Noise on the circuit. Under ideal conditions a handoff is barely perceptible to the user, but we all know conditions aren't always ideal. Would you like to hear an audible "pop" every five seconds? Besides, the mobile can only tune to one frequency at a time. This means that to tell the mobile to handoff the cell must blank voice momentarily and send a burst of data. Even if the handoff were quite smooth you'd still notice a choppiness in the conversation. (And you thought it was tough to use a modem over cellular *now* ...!) 2) Processing overhead. Not in the mobile phone, but in the switch. Frankly, I suspect that today's phones could handle handoffs this frequently without getting too frazzled. The cell site and the switch, on the other hand, would be spending gobs of processor time just coordinating all of these little hops. Let's face it, the only way to get security when you're broadcasting is to encrypt. I'd love to see encrypted phones become the industry standard, but it didn't start out that way and the industry certainly can't change its entire installed base now. Hopefully someone will see the light and add encryption as standard to the next generation of digital cellphones. You realize, of course, that I'm just a grunt programmer and I don't make policy. Flames about the direction of the industry should be sent to /dev/null, not to me ... Steven King, Motorola Cellular (king@rtsg.mot.com) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 21:13:49 GMT From: Graham Toal Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones > Or worse yet (better yet for the criminals), what about a cellular > phone that automatically monitored for valid ID's and then > automatically used a new one for each fraudulent call? Already been done I hear. Phone phreakers are already using heavily modified phones which use different IDs for every call, to spread around the damage and make their misuse harder to spot. They're also selling them to dubious people for several thousands of dollars. (I can't vouch for any of this of course, just what I've heard from some US phreakers. These idiots *love* to boast.) G ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #131 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00478; 26 Feb 93 3:40 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02164 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 26 Feb 1993 01:10:25 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17584 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 26 Feb 1993 01:09:40 -0600 Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 01:09:40 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302260709.AA17584@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #132 TELECOM Digest Fri, 26 Feb 93 01:09:30 CST Volume 13 : Issue 132 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson History of Area Code Splits, 25 Feb 1993 (Carl Moore) Infocom '93 (Mike Hluchyj) White House: A Computer Nerdville (New York Times via Eric De Mund) Help Wanted (Hannu Komulainen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 93 10:37:50 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: History of Area Code Splits, 25 Feb 1993 [Moderator's Note: Carl updates this file in the Telecom Archives on a regular basis (where it is filed as 'history.of.area.splits' and also as 'areacode.history'), but I only print it here in the Digest once a year or so after several revisions have been incorporated into it. This file, and others in the archives are accessible using anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu. PAT] ------------- Generalizing prefixes from NNX to NXX (i.e., allowing N0X/N1X) is an alternative to splitting an area which has had only NNX up to this point. When an area has NXX (not NNX) prefixes, its long distance dialing instructions usually are: 7D or 1 + NPA + 7D within area (can no longer use 1 + 7D); 1 + NPA + 7D to other areas (can no longer use NPA + 7D); for 0+ calls, try 0 + NPA + 7D (some 0 + 7D would require timeout). In other words, the leading 1 (or 0) means that what follows is an area code. These instructions can, without further revision, accommodate area codes of form NXX, not just of form N0X/N1X, and thus I believe they will become universal when area codes must generalize to NXX, for which the deadline is January 1, 1995 (had been July 1, 1995). But since the first batch of NNX area codes will be of NN0 form, some areas might be able to keep 1 + 7D for intra-NPA long distance by disallowing prefixes of NN0 form; I do not know if this will be affected by use of 52x codes (x not necessarily 0) for Mexico. It is unclear how generalizing area codes to NXX would affect the policy of not using N0X/N1X prefixes until NNX starts running short. An exception to the above dialing instructions was discovered in Feb 1992 for 215-267 (Denver) and 215-484 (Adamstown) in Pennsylvania. These exchanges are served by Denver & Ephrata Telephone & Telegraph, which also serves a part of the 717 area, and which is keeping the old instructions (1 + 7D and 0 + 7D within area code), even though this will necessitate timeout resolution for some calls from the 215 portion of their service area. This will change only when it is about time for the NXX area codes. The suggestion (at least from Bellcore) has been seen that ideally, all calls should be makeable as 1+NPA+7D (this does not necessarily forbid shorter forms). These areas have N0X/N1X prefixes: 213, California, July 1973 (7D on all calls within it) (later 213/818, now 213/310/818) (this area continued to publish 0+7D instruction for within-NPA 0+ calls) 212, New York, some days after 24 Nov 1980 (7D on all calls within it) (later 212/718, now 212/917/718) 312, Illinois, Oct 1982--but got 1st N0X/N1X spring 1983? (7D on all calls within it) (now 312/708) 201, New Jersey (7D on all calls within it; also applies to 609) (now 201/908) 214, Texas, 1986 or 1987 (by July 1987) (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls; also applies to 817, at least in Fort Worth area) (now 214/903) 301/202/703, Maryland/DC/Virginia, 1987, due to DC area growth (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) (301 now 301/410) 415, California, Feb 1989? (7D on all calls within it) (now 415/510) 404, Georgia, Oct 1989? (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls; also applies to 912) (now 404/706) 919, North Carolina, 2 Mar 1990 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls; also applies to 704) (to become 919/910) 416, Ontario, 3 Mar 1990 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) (to become 416/905) 602, Arizona, 1 July 1990 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) 313, Michigan, 1990? (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) (to become 313/810) 512, Texas, 9 Sept 1990 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) (now 512/210) 205, Alabama, Dec 1990 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) 215, Pennsylvania, 20 May 1991 (7D on all calls within it; exception noted above, but the new instructions were also applied to: 717-354,355 New Holland 717-656,661 Leola 717-768 Intercourse) (to become 215/610) 206, Washington, 12 Jan 1992 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) 813, Florida, 7 Mar 1992 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls; also applies to 305,407,904) 713, Texas, 8 Mar 1992 (permissive dialing 8 Dec 1991) (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) 714, California, 1992? (7D on all calls within it) (now 714/909) 503, Oregon, 10 July 1993 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) No note about N0X/N1X prefixes, but instructions are being changed to accommodate the coming of NXX area codes: 207, Maine; 413,508,617, Massachusetts; 603, New Hampshire; 401, Rhode Island; 802, Vermont (all New England areas except Connecticut); 1993-1994 (7D on all calls within area code) 303,719, Colorado; other U.S. West areas; 1993-1994 (1+NPA+7D on all toll calls) Areacode splits: If no date appears, the split may not have been announced publicly due to lack of direct-dial facility at the time, or may never have occurred. Early splits 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 1 areacode. (The reverse, if it was ever true, is now obsolete.) If an areacode is in a state or province with only 1 areacode, it is of form N0X. (The reverse, if it was ever true, is now obsolete.) what?/209 California what?/707 California what?/805 California 305/813 Florida 404/912 Georgia, 1953 or 1954 December 1991 Greater Atlanta call guide, in discussing 404/706 split, said "It's been 38 years since Georgia added an Area Code." what?/309 Illinois 502/606 Kentucky 504/318 Louisiana 616/906 Michigan, sometime after Nov 1960 612/507 Minnesota 402/308 Nebraska what?/607 New York 704/919 North Carolina 405/918 Oklahoma what?/519 Ontario, 1953 901/615 Tennessee what?/806 Texas 206/509 Washington what?/608 Wisconsin what?/705 Ontario, 1957 201/609 New Jersey, late 1950s what?/807 Ontario, 1962 415/408 California, 1960 305/904 Florida, July 1965 703/804 Virginia, 24 June 1973 at 2:01 AM 714/619 California, Nov 1982 713/409 Texas, Mar 1983 (full cutover 90 days later) 213/818 California, Jan 1984 212/718 New York, 2 Sept 1984 (full cutover 31 Dec 1984) Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island became 718; Manhattan & Bronx stayed in 212; Bronx switched from 212 to 718, 1 July 1992 (full cutover 15 May 1993; but until then, calls from Bronx to Brooklyn/ Queens/Staten Island must still be dialed 1+718+7D, and effective 25 Sept 1993 must be dialed 7D) 303/719 Colorado, 5 Mar 1988 305/407 Florida, 16 Apr 1988 617/508 Massachusetts, 16 July 1988 312/708 Illinois, Nov 1989 (full cutover 9 Feb 1990) 202 District of Columbia & vicinity, 1 Oct 1990 This behaved somewhat like a split despite no new area code. 202 area code, previously useable for all but the outermost Maryland and Virginia suburbs, was restricted to DC proper. (Use 301 or 703, as the case may be, to reach the suburbs.) As a result, government offices (now including the Pentagon) using zipcodes starting with 200,202,203,204,205 and located in Md. or Va. can no longer be listed in area 202. Prefixes in the Pentagon, which is in Virginia, were previously in area 202 (not 703), and in 1990 were moved to area 703. (Local calls across area code border changed from 7D to NPA+7D.) 214/903 Texas, 4 Nov 1990 (full cutover 4 May 1991) 201/908 New Jersey, 1 Jan 1991 (full cutover 8 June 1991) 415/510 California, 2 Sept 1991 (full cutover 27 Jan 1992) 301/410 Maryland, 1 Nov 1991 (full cutover 1 Nov 1992) 213/310 California, 2 Nov 1991 (full cutover 16 May 1992; was to be 2 May 1992, but was postponed indefinitely because of riots just before then) (all GTE plus some PacBell went into 310) 212/718/917 New York, 1 Jan 1992 (917, to be overlaid on 212 & 718, is to be used for cellular & pagers) 404/706 Georgia, 3 May 1992 (full cutover 3 Aug 1992) 512/210 Texas, 1 Nov 1992 (full cutover 1 May 1993) 714/909 California, 14 Nov 1992 (full cutover 14 Aug 1993) (Riverside and San Bernardino counties go into 909; Orange County remains in 714) 416/905 Ontario, 4 Oct 1993 (full cutover 10 Jan 1994) 919/910 North Carolina, 14 Nov 1993 (full cutover 13 Feb 1994) 313/810 Michigan, 10 Aug 1994 215/610 Pennsylvania, 1994 On Feb 1, 1991, area codes 706 and 905, which had been used in the U.S. for calling parts of Mexico, were discontinued. Country code 52, already available for such calls, was to be used. 706 and 905 thus became available for use elsewhere, and were later announced for use in Georgia and Ontario respectively. ------------------------------ From: hluchyj@merlin.dev.cdx.mot.com (Mike Hluchyj) Subject: Infocom '93 Organization: Motorola Codex, Canton, Massachusetts Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 19:40:12 GMT * * * * * * * * * * Announcing . . . . IEEE INFOCOM '93 The Conference on Computer Communications March 28 - April 1, 1993 Hotel Nikko, San Francisco, California Now in its 12th year, IEEE INFOCOM is the premier international technical conference devoted to computer communications and networking. Papers presented at INFOCOM represent the leading edge of understanding and development in this fast moving field, and are accepted only after a rigorous review process. Half-day and full-day tutorials are given by leading experts and afford the participant an opportunity to stay current with the latest directions in communication networks. IEEE INFOCOM '93 is sponsored by the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies. The major themes of INFOCOM are shaped each year by the papers submitted and the directions set by the Technical Program Committee. This year, as in recent years, a major theme is multimedia and integrated networking. In particular, many aspects of ATM transport are explored. Modelling of multimedia traffic (including video), admission and congestion control, switching, optical networking, and quality of service guarantees are prominent in this year's program. There are also sessions on routing, wireless networks, and local and metropolitan area networks, along with sessions on conformance testing and interoperability, protocol design and evaluation, protocol specification and verification, protocol implementation and analysis, and high speed protocols. The panels this year cover formal methods and telecommunication system software, all-optical networking, and the future of network theory. We are especially fortunate to have Prof. Robert G. Gallager of MIT deliver the plenary address on "Network and Communication Research in the Information Age." The first two days of the conference (March 28 and 29) are devoted to tutorials, and this year one can select from among the following outstanding tutorials: Quality-of-Service Control and Management for Broadband Networks, Aurel A. Lazar, Columbia University Theoretical Aspects of Multi-Stage Networks for Broadband Networks, Gaylord W. Richards, AT&T Bell Labs Design of Local ATM Networks, Jonathan Turner, Washington University Multimedia Communications and Services, Sid Ahuja, AT&T Bell Labs Advanced Topics in Broadband Systems: ATM Switches and Optical Networks, Anthony S. Acampora, Columbia University Wireless Information Networks, David Goodman, Rutgers University * * * * * * * * * * To receive an electronic copy of the INFOCOM '93 Advance Program send Email to: infocom@ecse.rpi.edu To receive a printed copy of the INFOCOM '93 Advance Program call Gerry Hansen at (617) 821-7404 or send a FAX to Michael G. Hluchyj, INFOCOM '93 General Chair at (617) 821-4218. ------------------------------ From: Eric De Mund Subject: White House: A Computer Nerdville Reply-To: Eric De Mund Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 21:41:24 GMT [NYT, Saturday, February 20, 1993] White House: A Computer Nerdville By STEVE LOHR Special to The New York Times WASHINGTON -- In policy and practice, this is supposed to be a high-tech Presidency. Bill Clinton's vision of America's future is of a nation linked by a "data superhighway" -- a web of fiberoptics wizardry able to bring everything from libraries to movies to blueprints into every home, school and office at the touch of a button. On the campaign trail, his people regarded laptop personal computers as casual tools of everyday life, plugging them into computer bulletin boards and firing off electronic-mail messages around the country. Big Job for 2 Mavens And through electronic town halls and electronic mail, President Clinton pledges to bring the Government to the people. Perhaps, but the White House itself seems trapped in the technological dark ages. And it is the job of Andrew Aultz and Bill Krause, two technology mavens, to bring the telephones and computers in the Executive Offices into the modern world -- no small order, given the budget squeeze. "We'd love to give this place all the latest toys, but we can't," Mr. Krause said, sitting beneath a freshly framed picture of President Clinton and leafing through a computer magazine. Many phone calls in the White House are still connected manually by operators plugging cords into a switchboard. Mr. Aultz, a 35-year-old telecommunications specialist, says its archaic inefficiency is one reason callers cannot get through to register their views on the Presidential comments line, generating up to 50,000 busy signals a day. Mr. Krause, a 42-year-old computer expert, complains of a chronic shortage of personal computers and tells of young staff members appalled to find typewriters on their desks. The PC's that are there are a couple of generations old -- four years or more -- and are arrayed in a hodgepodge of 21 networks that cannot talk to one another. One result: the President's daily schedule is still printed on paper and distributed by hand instead of by computer, so some people get it a couple of hours late. In many ways, the challenge at the White House is similar to that confronted daily in corporate America as companies try to tailor fast- changing technology to their organizational needs. "The White House is like a small holding company -- and a very important one," said Warren McFarlan, a professor at the Harvard Business School. "And it is grappling with the same technology issues that companies must address every day." The Clinton staff got used to high-speed technology on the campaign trail, scouring the news wires constantly by computer and reacting almost instantly with statements, position papers and rebuttals to charges or controversies. These messages were distributed through an elaborate electronic mail system linked to campaign offices in all 50 states. "Our motto on the campaign was that speed kills," explained Jeff Eller, the White House director of media affairs. The technological hurdle for the White House is magnified by the generation gap between the Clinton and Bush Administrations and very different styles of government. It Worked in the Campaign The use of modern technology to speed reaction times and deal with the public directly, whether in televised town meetings or a program for electronically distributing White House statements nationally, is a central tenet of the Clinton Administration. As much as possible, the President wants his message delivered as he presents it, not filtered, or analyzed, by the news media. The catch phrase, used by White House officials, is that Mr. Clinton intends to speak "to people" instead of speaking "through people." It worked in the campaign, they say, and it will be used in the White House, especially to rally support for ambitious programs like the Clinton economic policy. "Clinton plans to run his Government like a campaign," said Raymond Strother, a Democratic political consultant, "To do that, you need the technology to run at that speed." The demand for technology by the young White House staff members is running well ahead of supply. Personal computers are being rationed and the backlog of PC's ordered but not yet delivered is 50, though that is down from 100 two weeks ago. "Our people are hooked on the flow of information," Mr. Krause said, "so everybody wants his or her own PC." A Flood of Daily Calls The jammed phone lines at the White House are apparently a result of the higher volume of calls from the public. During the Reagan and Bush years there would be about 5,500 calls to the White House general number on a busy day, though the numbers would rise in crisis periods like the Persian Gulf war. By contrast, there are 40,000 to 65,000 calls a day now to the general number alone, according to Mr. Aultz. The steady flood of calls, White House officials say, is explained by the new Administration's more open, informal style. "Where people might not have dared call when Reagan or Bush were in the White House, they will call here now," Mr. Aultz said. While the White House phone service how badly needs upgrading, Mr. Aultz concedes it met the requirements in the past. Working With Phone Company "In fairness, we found a telephone system that was suited for the way they did business," Mr. Aultz said. "But it is terribly inefficient for the way we do business." The White House is working with the local phone company, Chesapeake & Potomoc, and American Telephone and Telegraph to streamline and expand the White House phone systems. On the computer front, Mr. Krause plans to replace many of the White House PC's, mostly I.B.M. models dating to 1988 and 1989, with more powerful machines that run faster and can handle graphics and possibly even information in both video and audio form, so-called multimedia. No Substitute for Decisions The Iran-Contra affair put a dent in the White House computer budget because all the hard disks had to be removed and replaced after a Federal panel ruled last month that all E-mail messages from the Bush Administration had to be saved. The Clintonites insist that the precedent for opening up E-mail messages to public scrutiny will not deter them from using the technology freely. For the moment, the bigger problem is bringing the White House computer systems up to speed. ------------------------------ From: komulha1@tkk.tele.fi (Hannu Komulainen) Subject: Help Wanted With Development Project Date: 24 Feb 93 08:35:24 GMT Organization: Telecom Finland I would appreciate your help on our (Telecom Research Centre, Finland) new development project concerning "Remote-Line-Activation" or as we call it "INSTANT-service". Here is short description what it is all about. Introduction: Every now and then people move from one residence to other and of course want to move their telephone lines there too. Or perhaps the customer wants to get some new service in his/her telephone line. So, what happens? Customer goes to Telecom Finland's public service point and makes agreement about that previous mentioned service. Personnel at the service point give customer timescedule when order is ready. And then custom have just to wait! What if the customer can get right away new service activated or new residence telephone line activated instantly, too, and old residence telefone line deactivated at the same time? Or perhaps these events can be made timed. Our goal is to get this process more easy and faster. The main problem here in Finland is that we have several types of switches e.g. Nokias DX200, Ericssons AXE and Siemens EWSD. And every one of those needs specific MML -commands. Question: So, we need to get connection between our customer service host (ATLAS, Unix) and our switches to put MML commands on switches automatically. Moreover we are interested about interface between customer service host and it's users, in the other words what information customer servicer put in the system (customer home address, switch card number, ...). I would be most grateful if you could give me some or any information that kind of (commercial or your own developed) software or hardware. Please sent this request forward if you can't answer it yourself. Or if you know some person/persons who might can answer, sent his/her e-mail address or telephone number to me, so I can contact to them. Yours sincerely, Hannu Komulainen Telecom Research Centre, Finland x.400: g=Hannu s=Komulainen ou1=Tkk o=Tele p=Inet a=Mailnet c=Fi Hannu.Komulainen@tkk.tele.fi Telecom Research Centre, Finland ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #132 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05200; 26 Feb 93 5:44 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21938 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 26 Feb 1993 02:34:53 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14238 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 26 Feb 1993 02:34:15 -0600 Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 02:34:15 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302260834.AA14238@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #133 TELECOM Digest Fri, 26 Feb 93 02:34:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 133 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson TOPS Birthday (Charles Hoequist) Beep! The Baby's Coming! (Harold Hallikainen) Pregnancy and Pagers (Robert J. Woodhead) 40th STC Annual Conference -- Preliminary Program (Binion Amerson) Help Becky With Her 900 Bill (Tad Cook) Speech Recognition Press Announcement (AT&T Press Release via N Tiedemann) Fiber Optics Comes to Cable, Telco Screams Unfair (Dave Niebuhr) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 08:34:00 +0000 From: Charles (C.A.) Hoequist Subject: TOPS Birthday The following birthday announcement made the rounds here in January; I thought Digest readers might find it interesting. First, some acronym decipherment: TOPS = Traffic Operator Position System, a hardware and software system that supports operators from a toll switch. MSS = Member of Scientific Staff; a grunt. I believe this is equivalent to AT&T's MTS (Member of Technical Staff?). Protel = NT/BNR's switch programming language. PLS = Product Library System. Source code and document control system. BCS = Batch Change Supplement. A system of tracking features from feature proposal to customer release. ------------------ TOPS is 20 years old this month, and I thought some of you might like to know a little about how it came to be. TOPS started officially in January 1973. Bell Northern Research was three years old and had a few hundred employees, most of them located in Ottawa. BNR and NT (then called Northern Electric) had recently installed their first stored program switch, the SP-1. Bell Canada had asked BNR to investigate the possibility of using the SP-1 to replace their manual cordboard operator exchanges. The official study concluded that the idea was impractical, but in the middle of 1972 one of the software design groups decided to do some skunk work development. They demonstrated it to senior management, who said very nice but stop wasting time and get back to doing something useful. NT marketing, however, knew a good thing when they found a customer willing to buy it. The design manager was called from his Christmas 1972 vacation in Mexico to go straight to Alaska, and inspired by the bracing weather he helped to sell the idea. When he got back to Ottawa in January, he was put in charge of the newly approved TOPS project by the same people who had reprimanded him for the bootleg work. He formed an interdisciplinary group of 9 or 10 people drawn from hardware, software and human factors. I joined the team as a new hire in mid 1973 to work on TOPS software. We also had a couple of people from Bell Canada Operator Services to advise us. Our design methodology was a lot less formal than it is today. We discussed how it should work and then coded it. Design reviews consisted of having them come and look at it in the lab to see if they liked it. In two and a half years, we wrote call processing software and built NT's first ASCII terminal, the TOPS-1 position. The SP-1 processor was capable of about 0.1 MIPS, and the software we wrote, mostly in assembler, could handle about 100 positions. The TOPS-1 position used an Intel 8008 processor and had furniture designed to move telephone operators into a modern office environment. The first TOPS office went into service in Alaska in mid 1975. NT thought it would take about another year to finish development. As far as I know, there's still an SP-1 TOPS software group at NT. TOPS was a success on SP-1. It was installed on about 30 of the 200 SP-1 switches that were eventually sold in Canada, the US and Puerto Rico. The TOPS-1 terminal was replaced by the TOPS-2 and TOPS-3, which used 8080 microprocessors and more integrated electronics but kept the original keyboard, screen and furniture. In 1979, as the first DMS was going into service, the SP-1 TOPS team moved over to DMS. There was a fair degree of culture shock. We had a whole new system to learn, and Protel enforced a degree of structure that was quite new to us. It wasn't the DMS environment we know now, because PLS and the BCS (among other things) had not been invented. We persevered, and put the first DMS TOPS into service in Kingston Ont. about the beginning of 1981. It used the TOPS-3 position, and reproduced the feature set and the look and feel of SP-1 TOPS almost exactly. DMS TOPS sold well for the next few years in Canada and to the independent telcos in the US. Then came the divestiture of the Bell system in the US, which led to rapid growth of DMS switch sales to the new Bell Operating Companies to meet requirements for equal access. Under divestiture, the BOCs were required to provide operator services, but the necessary equipment was allocated to AT&T. Most of the BOCs chose to buy DMS TOPS. We upgraded our position to the TOPS-4 which used the Intel 8086 and could be installed in either our own or customer provided furniture, and we developed equal access translations, rating and signaling. During 1986 we almost tripled the installed base of TOPS positions, which certainly put a strain on our support organization. At about the same time, we started to design a new workstation, TOPS MP. Certain important design elements such as shared high speed datalinks were not available at first. The design concept is being extended now with the MPX, which will introduce an enhanced switch to position protocol among other things. If you're working on TOPS today, perhaps you might like to think back to 1973 and ask yourself what you were doing while the events that sealed your fate were taking place. -------------- Charles Hoequist |Internet: hoequist@bnr.ca BNR Inc. | 919-991-8642 PO Box 13478, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3478 ------------------------------ From: hhallika@tuba.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Beep! The Baby's Coming! Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 19:28:40 GMT In article sbrenner@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (scott.d.brenner) writes: > I'd like to get a pager just for a month or so. Since they've always > just been given to me at work when my employer wanted me to carry one, > I've never actually procured one myself. Is it possible to get one > for such a short period of time? Where would I get one; who would I > contact? And what should I expect it to cost? Is this a poor > solution to my situation; are there any better alternatives? Years ago I loaned a pager to a friend whose friend was about to give birth. I now hear that it is standard practice for our local hospitals to give pagers to their maternity patients. All part of the package. Harold ------------------------------ From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Pregnancy and Pagers Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 09:34:35 GMT sbrenner@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (scott.d.brenner) writes: > Now for my question: Although I used to carry a pager for work, I > don't anymore (I'm *not* upset by this!). My wife is due to give > birth to our first child in June. As the due date approaches, I'd > like for her to be able to get in touch with me instantly. We did this for the birth of James (12/12/92) and it worked well. Here in Japan you can get a pager over the counter, about $25 a month plus a refundable deposit. Some advice: You need to distinguish between a "call me" page and a "call me because things are starting to happen" page. Trust me, the closer you get, the more your wife will page you to do things on the way home, etc; you want to be able to know BEFORE you answer the page whether or not it's baby-related, as this will save you from freaking out whenever the damn thing goes off. Solution: Get a display pager, and use a code system. Here is (adjusted for America) the one we used: phone number non-home number, non-emergency call 0+phone number non-home number, baby-related, call asap 000 Call home, non-emergency 111 Call home, baby may be on the way. 222 MEET me at home, baby may be on the way. 333 GO home, get baby stuff, meet me at clinic. 444 FORGET the junk, just get to the clinic ASAP! 555 IN delivery room, where are you, you jerk? 666 YOU are now a father, soon to be a DIVORCED one! Good luck. When it's all over, you'll understand which of the sexes is the weaker one. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@forEtune.co.jp AnimEigo US Office Email (for general questions): 72447.37@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: aba@hp835.mitek.com (Binion Amerson) Subject: 40th STC Annual Conference -- Preliminary Program Organization: OpenConnect Systems, Dallas, TX Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 13:29:17 GMT 40TH STC ANNUAL CONFERENCE: PRELIMINARY PROGRAM SUMMARY AVAILABLE ON USERGROUPS MISC.WRITING AND NEWS.ANNOUNCE.CONFERENCES Anyone interested in the communication of technical, scientific, and medical material -- writers, editors, managers, illustrators, educators, and students (experienced and entry-level alike)--should attend the Society for Technical Communication's (STC's) 40th Annual Conference, Post-Conference Workshops, and Exposition to be held at the Loews Anatole Hotel, Dallas, Texas, June 6-10, 1993. For a summary of the Preliminary Program for this Conference, see the posting on the usergroup misc.writing under the title "TECHNICAL: 40th STC Annual Conference -- Preliminary Program" or the posting on the usergroup news.announce.conferences under the title "40th STC Annual Conference -- Preliminary Program." Binion Amerson, Senior Technical Writer, OpenConnect Systems, 2711 LBJ Frwy, Suite 800, Dallas, TX 75234; 214/888-0447; 214/484-6100 (fax); aba@oc.com General Manager: 40th STC Annual Conference, June 6-10, 1993, Dallas, TX ------------------------------ Subject: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill Date: Thu, 25 Feb 93 10:19:21 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) (I am posting this for my pal Becky, who does not read Usenet. Folks who have any ideas or want to help should respond to her at bbullock@ u.washington.edu, or I will forward anything that gets posted on TELECOM Digest. I understand AT&T's position ... it looks like the call was dialed from her line. But what does one DO when they are reasonably certain that their line and equipment are secure, they haven't called 900 numbers, and one of these charges shows up? Her letter follows. (tad@ssc.com) --------------- Can you help us with a phone company problem? We got charged for a $15 900 call on our January bill that my S.O. and I are 99% sure we didn't make. It's to a sports line in Florida, and we show no faxes sent that day or even similar phone numbers in our address books. No one was visiting and the cats don't like sports. The call was made at 11:22 a.m. on Saturday, January 9, 1993. The number was 900-884-8048. The 900 line is called SPORTS and is run by ICN in Florida. The charge was $15 for one minute! If I was going to pay that much, I'd at least want something titillating, not a stupid sports line! I called AT&T and they gave us the spiel about 900's being direct dial only and that their equipment is '100% accurate"! The company this is charged for doesn't give AT&T a forwarding address or phone. Apparent- ly, even if AT&T takes the charge off our bill, the 900 company (ICN) can send us to collections, and we have no recourse with them until they do, according to AT&T's 900 Specialist. As I said before, we show no fax or modem calls to any number at that time, and no errored transmissions either. We do not keep a computer telephone log unfortunately. Seems like there should be some sort of mechanism to protest this sort of charge, but AT&T doesn't seem anxious to tell me about it. Any suggestions from the telecom world would be helpful. Do you have any insight? Could someone have gotten thru our computer when it was in modem/fax mode? Is AT&T ever wrong (ha, ha)? Is it worth $15? Should we just accept it and move on? Thank you very much. Becky Bullock Office of Risk Management, AD-76 University of Washington Seattle (206) 543-0183 bbullock@u.washington.edu -------------------- Tad Cook | Phone: 206-527-4089 (home) | MCI Mail: 3288544 Seattle, WA | Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA | 3288544@mcimail.com | Internet: tad@ssc.com or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad [Moderator's Note: One possibility is that some third party unknown to you did camp onto your line outside your premises at some multiple on the cable and placed the call. There are also instances when for some reason or another the equipment fails to capture the calling number and an operator will come on the line to ask 'may I have the number you are calling from please ...' and the information at that point was entered inaccurately, either because of operator error or by the deliberate design of the calling party. (This does not happen just with 900, it can be on any long distance call and is rare, but it does happen.) The call won't be released until the operator punches in the calling number quoted to her. There is also the possibility of an 800 to 900 conversion, but you say you did not make any calls at the time in question. I would suggest you ask telco to remove the charge, which most will do *one time* for any subscriber. Telco may suggest or insist you have premium (900/976) blocking put on the line to prevent further occurences of this sort. I've never heard of an instance where telco insisted that credit for a call *had* to be tied with blocking, but that may be the case. If the Information Provider chooses to place you with a collection agency (which is doubtful in my opinion, but it has been done), only a feeble attempt at collection will be made. There is a bottom line to be considered after all. Despite threats which may be made, this will not reflect on your credit in any way. And finally, before you give either telco or the IP too much lip or back-talk and sass, bear in mind that *nearly always* (note how I cover myself! :) ) the billing records are correct in this sort of situation. Have you any children who may have made this call and will not admit it? Was anyone else in your home who might have made the call? Are you certain you did not misdial and abandon the call after a recording answered? Telco has no legal obligation to remove the charge (they can wait until the IP issues credit back through the system, which would likely be the same day that Hell freezes over), but most (and certainly AT&T) will do so one time to maintain customer goodwill. But if credit is issued and the IP winds up eating the charge, which is likely, then you later discovered a child had seen the number on the television and called it or your neighbor in your home doing it again, you'd feel kind of silly with egg on your face, wouldn't you ... PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 93 18:33:39 EST From: normt@ihlpm.att.com Subject: Speech Recognition Press Announcement Organization: AT&T A couple of weeks ago I responded to a question about speech recognition in the public switched network. Here (finally) is a press release which directly addresses that. (I had to wait until the marketing people said it was OK, before I could talk about it.) This also follows the thread that has been going on about the "dial one" prompt at the beginning of the 1-800-CALLATT interaction to handle dial pulse callers. Now you can say the number you want (if the end customer subscribes to "AT&T 800 Speech 4RD0l Recognition") and be routed like DTMF. If there are any questions about this (technical ones), feel free to e-mail them to me. I will compile a list of questions (if there are any) and answers (if they're not propriatary) and submit that to the Digest sometime in the future. Norm Tiedemann AT&T Bell Labs normt@ihlpm.att.com or n_tiedemann@att.com --------------- Thursday, February 25, 1993 -- 11:15 a.m. EST AT&T today announced an innovative 800 Service feature that makes it easier for all callers, including those with rotary and non-touch-tone telephones, to obtain information from businesses by simply "speaking." Called AT&T 800 Speech Recognition, this new capability enables callers to respond verbally to that allow them to select automatically the information or assistance they want. AT&T is the first long- distance company to provide voice-activated call routing in an 800 service network. Past technology only enabled callers using touch-tone telephones to direct their calls after responding to menu prompts with their keypads. AT&T Speech Recognition is a network-based, advanced 800 Service innovation that prompts callers to speak a number -- from "one" to "nine" -- corresponding to a menu of options that identifies the department or location they wish to reach within the company they're calling. Supported by state-of-the-art technology from AT&T Bell Laboratories, AT&T Speech Recognition is able to recognize the spoken number, process the information and route the call through the AT&T network to the appropriate destination. During field tests, AT&T Speech Recognition correctly identified the spoken number 97.8% of the time. This high completion rate is achieved even taking into account the many dialects and accents that exist across the U.S. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 93 10:10:46 EST From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Fiber Optics Comes to Cable, Telco Screams Unfair This is mostly about a cable company but I'm keeping it legit by bringing in NYTel - Dave Today's {Newsday, Feb. 25, 1993} has as it's head article the use by Cablevision of Long Island (a large regional cable company) of fiber optics to connect to its subscribers. It will be fully deployed on Long Island by late 1994 and by 1995 subscribers in Brooklyn and Queens will also be hooked up (I'm not affected since I have TCI and at much cheaper rates). The initial point of entry of this service will be near the border of Nassau and Suffolk Counties (in and around Levittown in Nassau). The system will grow from there to connect all of it's current hubs and subscribers. Services that could be offered are: Medical Imaging, Telecommuting, Video-Conferencing, Distance Learning, Video-on-Demand and Personal Communications Networks (using pocket telephones bypassing NYTel (I knew I could stick a telecom related item in this article somehow). Cablevision of Long Island caused a big uproar recently in Huntington Township (one of the over 660 taxing entities on Long Island) when it attempted to upgrade it's system; when it arrived, it infuriated many customers who found they could no longer use their remote controls or VCRs to record cable shows. The system will cost $300 million and it is hoped that it will pay for itself through per-service pricing, rather than through higher subscription rates and program package deals. Charles Donlan, chairman of Cablevision said: "In fact, rates for some basic-service subscribers could actually decrease;" -- a key consideration since average Cablevision bills are considered to be the highest cable bills in the country. My cable company, TCI, currently has seven miles of fiber installed and it, too, is going to upgrade during 1994. NYTel, as expected, is squealing like a stuck pig over this since they can be cut out of the equation somewhere along the line. Pat Davidson, a NYTel spokesman, complained, however, that cable companies, largely unregulated, enjoy an unfair advantage over telcos. Federal statues say telcos can only own cable companies outside their operating regions; ain't that a shame. The fun starts on tax-happy, high-utility-rate (you name it and it's overpriced with one exception, my public water company) Long Island. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #133 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05449; 26 Feb 93 19:20 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10416 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 26 Feb 1993 16:19:41 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00835 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 26 Feb 1993 16:18:40 -0600 Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 16:18:40 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302262218.AA00835@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #134 TELECOM Digest Fri, 26 Feb 93 16:18:40 CST Volume 13 : Issue 134 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson History of TWX Area Codes (Bob Clements) China's Largest Cellular Order Ever (Terence Cross) A.T.&T. and Taiwan Sign A Joint-Venture Agreement (NYT via Eric De Mund) ISDN Info (ISDN Mailing List via James Gorak) Switching LD Carriers (Phydeaux) Rochester Tel's Open Market Plan: Similar Proposal Rejected (L. Lightwood) Australian Phone Numbers Online? (u1066579@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au) Multimedia/Multicast Using ATM (George Smiley) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 11:17:53 EST From: Bob Clements Subject: History of TWX Area Codes In article PAT notes: > Until quite recently, area codes did not have '0' as the third > digit; now where '0' is the third digit, '1' is always the second > digit, as in 810, 910, or our mysterious and beloved 710. These > latter-day area codes ending in '10' were formerly 'TWX area codes' > dating back forty years to when AT&T owned a 'telegraph' network > called TWX [...] Let me add a bit of history on these things. First, it wasn't as long ago as forty years that the x10 area codes were put in use as TWX numbers. I'm not THAT old. In fact, the anecdote I'm about to relate happened only about twenty-six years ago. There was an earlier TWX network already in existence. Machines on that network had ordinary telephone numbers, from the regular number pool, just like FAX machines do today, though they were typically assigned a restricted class of service if they were served from a central office which could do that, so people couldn't call between ordinary phones and TWX lines in most cases. These TWX machines were the old clunkers that used 5-bit codes (generally known as Baudot codes, though many strongly claim that that name is incorrect). They ran at a blazing six characters per second. The most rugged of these machines were the old Model 15 and the newer Model 28 teletypewriters. ["Teletype" is a trademark of Teletype Corp.] They were known as "3-row machines" because the keyboards had three rows of keys. The digits 1 through 0 were the "shifted" versions of "QWERTYUIOP". Newer, faster machines came into existence: The Model 33, made out of plastic and old beer cans, and the Model 35, which was pretty rugged. They ran at ten characters per second and used the seven-bit code ASCII, though without any lower case letters. These became known as "4-row" machines. They had four rows of keys on the keyboard. To allow the 4-row machines to be deployed and interoperate with the 3-row machines, there had to be translation of codes, speed conversion and flow control. This was accomplished by assigning the 4-row machines to new area codes which were handled specially. The area codes assigned were x10. My notes are at home, but I think x ran from 3 through 7. I know the entire northeast part of the country was in 710. And office codes 710-3xx were the Boston area. [The xx was only used for billing. You could call a "farther away" 710-3xx by dialing your local 710-3yy with the distant machine's last four digits and it would go through but be billed as a local call.] So this should roughly pin down the date of the first creation of the x10 area codes. It would have been about the time the model 33 and 35 machines came out, roughly 1963-1964? When a TWX call was made between two 3-row machines, or between two 4-row machines, the call went through directly. But whenever a 3-row machine called a 4-row machine or vice-versa, the call was routed to a translator in [Kansas City or St Louis - the grey cells are fading]. This translator did the necessary conversions. In particular, when the call was destined for an x10-nnn-nnnn number, it re-placed the translated call to area code 01x-nnn-nnnn. I.e., the area code was flipped around. So, e.g., area code 017 was the same as area code 710 except that it never was shipped to the translator. The translator converted between Baudot and ASCII, and also generated an additional tone called "restraint", for flow control, in addition to the normal modem tones. When a 4-row machine received "restraint", it turned on a yellow light (in case you were typing too fast) and paused the paper tape reader. All the above machines ran in half-duplex, by the way. You could also rent from telco a Model 35 TTY with a built-in modem. And you could rent a type 103 modem for the TTY to call, and hook up the modem to your computer. Both of these would be given ordinary phone numbers (not x10) and ordinary class of service. They were basically the same machines as the new TWX machines. But you couldn't call between the two universes, e.g., between new model 35's in area code 710 and those in area 617, because you would be routed through the translator and the call would fail. We proved that the units would interoperate by browbeating a poor long-distance operator one time. We had a modem/TTY on a 617 number, located near a TWX machine, say 710-321-9999. We called the operator and asked for assistance in dialing to 017-321-9999. The operator naturally told us there was no such area code as 017. The argument went on for a while and she finally put the call through, mainly to get us off her case. Sure enough, it worked fine. This was later verified by use of blue-boxes, but of course I know nothing about that sort of thing. We also eventually got a computer connection to a TWX machine on the 710-3xx-xxxx exchange. That was a major hassle that I won't go into here. All this occured at a then-small computer company that will remain nameless, (but it was in Maynard MA). Bob Clements, K1BC, clements@bbn.com [Moderator's Note: To the best of my recollection, Bob's details are all correct, but what he describes was in existence prior to 1967. I recall using a 'four row machine' (they were the TWXs; the 'three row machines' were the Telexes) when I was employed in the University of Chicago phone room about 1959-60. It was not new then; that would put it back 33 years at least. I do not remember the entire layout of area codes, but 910 covered Chicago and everything west of here. 610 was (and still is) all of Canada, 810 was Mexico. 310/410/510/710 covered the eastern half of the USA. AT&T published a TWX directory. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 10:20:29 GMT From: eeitecs@eeiuc.ericsson.se (Terence Cross) Subject: China's Largest Cellular Order Ever Ericsson has been awarded a contract worth over USD 150 million for a large expansion of the mobile telephone network in the Guangdong province, China. The equipment, to be delivered in the third quarter of 1993, will give the network capacity to serve 240,000 additional subscribers. This will more than double the capacity of today's network. The contract, which is the largest ever from China for a cellular telephone system, includes radio channels, mobile switching centers, data bases and radio link equipment. The network is operated by Guangdong Mobile Communications Corporation. Ericsson is the sole supplier of cellular telephone systems to Guangdong, which is the province in China with the highest penetration of mobile telephony and the strongest economic growth. Other regions in China have also recently awarded several contracts for cellular systems to Ericsson. For example, Beijing, Tianjin, Guangxi and Hebei as well as Shanghai which in the first half of 1993 will increase its capacity by about 28,000 subscribers. The total value of these orders is USD 45 million. With this new order Ericsson's mobile telephone systems in China will have a total capacity to serve about 500,000 subscribers. Terence Cross ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 93 19:44:30 -0800 From: Eric De Mund Subject: A.T.&T. and Taiwan Sign A Joint-Venture Agreement Reply-To: Eric De Mund Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services [NYT, Thursday, February 25, 1993] A.T.&T. and Taiwan Sign A Joint-Venture Agreement TAIPEI, Taiwan, Feb 24 (AP) -- The American Telephone and Telegraph Company and Taiwan's Economic Ministry signed a letter of intent today to set up joint ventures that would improve telecommunications in Taiwan. Under the agreement, Taiwan investors and the United States company would form two ventures to manage technology transfers, product contracts and financing. Officials said they expected the ventures to earn about $100 million from helping other countries modernize their telecommunications systems. The two sides expect to work out details of the business plans by the end of this year, the officials said. Called `Crucial' to Taiwan "The joint ventures are crucial to Taiwan's plans to become a major Asian center of finance, transportation and high-technology manufacturing," the Vice Economics Minister, Yang Shih-chien, said. "Complementary strengths are the key to this international alliance," said Randall Tobias, vice chairman of A.T.&T. Taiwan would gain advanced technology and global market access from A.T.&T. while supporting the United States company with engineering and financial resources, he said. Mr. Tobias said the joint ventures would cost millions of dollars, but he declined to elaborate. Follows Partnership with China On Tuesday, A.T.&T. entered into a broad partnership with the mainland Chinese Government when Mr. Tobias signed a memorandum with the State Planning Commission. Although no details were included in the memorandum, the first joint project was expected to open factories to manufacture advanced telephone switches in China, the two sides said. The two sides also plan to make telephones and microelectronic parts in China and set up a research operation run by A.T.&T.'s Bell Laboratories. A.T.&T. reported total revenues of $64.9 billion in 1992. The company's Taiwan branch, which produces telephone switching systems and transmission equipment, had revenues of $300 million. ------------------------------ Subject: ISDN Information Date: Thu, 25 Feb 93 23:56:53 CST From: James Gorak Reply-To: 3735974@mcimail.com I received this via the ISDN mailing list and I think it will be of interest to some TELECOM Digest readers. Jim Gorak 3735974@mcimail.com Forwarded message: From: maryl (Mary G. LaRoche) Subject: Re: Is ISDN Offered in this area? Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 11:12:56 EST Is Bell Atlantic offering ISDN in this area (Matawan/Aberdeen or Red Bank)? Yes. Without your area code and exchange, can't say anything more specific. If so, what is the rate? Call either Patrick D'Innocenzo, 301-236-1885, or Robert Buehler, 201-649-6167, of Bell Atlantic. Note that people in other regions would need other contact numbers: Ameritech: 1-800-432-ISDN (4736) BellSouth: 1-800-428-ISDN NYNEX: 1-914-644-5152 (Roy Ray) Pacific Bell: 1-510-823-5118 (Wayne Purves) Southwestern Bell: 1-314-235-1567 (Basic Rate; Cyd McInnery) 1-314-235-1952 (Primary Rate; Jim Brooks) US West: 1-303-896-0793 (Louise Walsh) Do I get an equivalent of two phone lines? You get two phone lines, plus another that can be used for slow-speed data. What kind of equipment do I need to connect? An ISDN-capable PC card and/or ISDN telephone set. Is there an IBM PC card (comercially available) to handle to data or maybe even voice? Yes. Is there an ISDN phone (commercially available)? Yes. Can I dial and speak as I can do now with the rest of the world? Yes. Is there a flat rate (unlimited local) service the same as for POTS? How do I get charged? Depends on the state's tariff. Are there published answers to the questions above? Sort of. You can call COS or Bellcore at the numbers listed below for prices of some materials, although you could probably get some info free from the contacts listed above. There are also 1-800 numbers for general information: COS: 1-800-759-COSI (2674) Bellcore: 1-800-992-ISDN (4736) See, I am a potential customer willing to try new technology. If this service IS available and the provider cannot reach me, I wonder how they can do with it the other customers! Very good point! Mary La Roche, Corporation for Open Systems Intl (COS) X400: /G=Mary/S=LaRoche/O=COS/PRMD=COS/ADMD= /C=US/ Internet: maryl@cos.com Telephone: +1 703 205 2741 Fax: +1 703 846-8580 --------------- James.Gorak@mixcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 11:45:42 PST From: reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux) Subject: Switching LD Carriers The following appeared in misc.consumers and I thought it would be of interest here ... reb From: schwartz@ces.cwru.edu (David G. Schwartz) Newsgroups: misc.consumers Subject: Switching Long Distance Companies Date: 24 Feb 1993 16:36:48 GMT So I get this offer in the mail - "Switch to Sprint and get $35 credit on your next phone bill" I figure, "Why not? $35 is good money for a phone call." So I call Sprint and make the switch. Two weeks later I get an offer from AT&T - "We want you back - switch and get $25 credit" Thinking, "Sure, why not", I put the offer aside, but forget to follow up. A week later a $75 check arrives from AT&T - "Endorse and cash this check, and we switch you back" Can't argue with that. So I cash it and we're back with AT&T. Another two weeks pass and I get a call from Sprint - Sprint Lady: "We want you back at Sprint" Me: "What incentive are you offering" Sprint Lady: "Better service and prices than AT&T" Me: "But AT&T just paid me $75" Sprint Lady: "I can't give you any money, but listen, SWITCH BACK TO SPRINT NOW AND THEN AT&T WILL SEND YOU ANOTHER $75 - THEN GO BACK TO AT&T! WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE AT&T SPEND THEIR MONEY ON YOU." Really, that's what she said. I gave her full points for creative marketing and agreed to go back to Sprint. Sure enough, yesterday a check arrives from AT&T - but only for $25. Then that night I get a "please switch back" call from AT&T. Me: "I got your $25 check today - what's the best you can offer me?" AT&T Guy: "The screen says I can offer $75" Me: "Make it a hundred and you've got a deal" AT$T Guy: "I can't go over $75, but I'll tell you what - GO AHEAD AND CASH THE $25 CHECK ANYWAY AND I'LL ALSO SEND YOU $75 IN CREDIT CERTIFICATES" Really, that's what he said. So, you guessed it, we're back with AT&T. So I'm thinking, this is a great business. Why not install a few dozen phone lines and earn a living just swapping long distance carriers? On average I could probably net $50 per line per month. But why stop there? How about starting a company that handles long distance company switching for the public? I could sign people up giving me discretion of which LD company to use, and take 20% of the incentive fee, passing 80% back to the consumer. Of course, then some enterprising soul will start a competing company and offer my switchers an incentive to switch to his switching company ... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 17:55:09 +1100 From: Liron Lightwood Subject: Rochester Tel's Open Market Plan: Similar Proposal Rejected > ** New Opportunities for Telephone Customers ** > :: Rochester Telephone's "Open Market Plan" is Important to Everyone > Our plan calls for creating two distinct companies. One company, > temporarily referred to as R-Net, will be regulated by the New York > State Public Service Commission and act as a wholesale "network" > company. It will let competitors use our network services. These > competitors will resell these telephone services to area customers. > The second company, temporarily referred to as R-Com, will be a real > competitive company. It will offer a complete package of telephone > products and services to the general public -- directly competing with > all other companies which enter the market. Our competitive company > will buy from the wholesale network company at the same prices paid by > all competitors. A similar proposal was considered in 1990 as a model for competition in telecommunications in Australia. Under the Australian proposal, the network, and those parts of the then monopoly telecommunications carrier, Telecom Australia, which operated the network, would remain a monopoly. Competition would be in the form of other companies (including Telecom Australia) competing to resell these network services to customers. However, the proposal was rejected in favour of across-the-board competiton (actually a duopoly) in all areas of telecommunications, from long distance to the local loop, with other companies allowed to resell network services from the two carriers. From memory, it was felt that under such a proposal, the monopoly network operator would be forced to reduce prices to the absolute lowest possible, resulting in little or no incentive (or money) for it to properly invest in network infrastructure, e.g. to modernize the network, expand the network, meet increasing demand, maintain network performance, etc. the result would be an ageing and second rate network infrastructure, which would have a negative impact on everyone. It would lead to a situation analogous to, as one politician put it, "Turbo charged carrier pigeons". Whether the above would apply to Rochester Tel's proposals depends on whether Rochester Tel will have a monopoly on the local network. Does anyone know if this is so? Just my $0.02 worth. Liron Lightwood Internet : r.lightwood@trl.oz.au Telecom Research Laboratories Phone : +61 3 253 6535 770 Blackburn Road Snail : P.O. Box 249 Clayton 3168 Australia Clayton Vic. 3168 Australia Disclaimer : My views are not my company's ------------------------------ From: u1066579@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au Subject: Australian Phone Numbers Online? Date: 26 Feb 93 11:18:15 +1000 Organization: University of New South Wales Hi, I just wondered if there is an ftp site with the Australian telephone directory archived. I have seen that there is a CD-rom available with all the Australian phone numbers, is this available online? Best Wishes, Henry ------------------------------ From: bb08176@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (George Smiley) Subject: Multimedia/Multicast Using ATM Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 19:19:53 GMT Does anyone know the current status on mulitcasting in an ATM network? What about synchronisingdifferent multimedia strands? Say I have voice and data from one source but want reliable Xfer for data and not for voice,is there a way of doing this? Could anyone recommend any articles on this stuff? Thanks a lot. email: bb08176@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #134 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21875; 27 Feb 93 3:01 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16746 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 27 Feb 1993 00:29:36 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18928 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 27 Feb 1993 00:29:04 -0600 Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 00:29:04 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302270629.AA18928@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #135 TELECOM Digest Sat, 27 Feb 93 00:29:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 135 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Things Really Went BOOM! (Jeffrey Jonas) Ohio Bell Making Your Life Easier (Stephen Friedl) Free Long Distance? (Richard Osterberg) GTE, Almost a Real Phone Company (Todd Lesser) Gotta Love GTE (Justin Leavens) Cellular + Cancer = Lawsuit? (Arun Baheti) Mini PBX on PC Card? (Simon Townsend) "Aggregater" Experience Sought (Eric Pearce) Gene Green: A CWA Member in Congress (Nigel Allen) Caller ID in Portland, Oregon (Kevin Fowler) Correction to Post About Cable Company Going Fiber (Dave Niebuhr) Another AOS Sleaze Trick (Stan Krieger) 800 Number Flooded (Carl Moore) Using Videoconferencing in the U.S. (Denise Hsiung) Fax Mail Equipment/Software (Mark Whitton) Phone Company Writes to a Public Telephone (Warren Burstein) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 19:23:58 EST From: jeffj%jiji@uunet.UU.NET (Jeffrey Jonas) Subject: Things Really Went BOOM! At about noon today (Friday February 26), there was an explosion at the NY World trade Center. The entire complex was evacutated. Power and gas was shut off (so all TV broadcasting went to alternate sites). One fatality and 200 injured were reported about 4PM. Several exchanges and markets were shut down. The TELECOM repercussions will be felt soon enough. The only thing that annoys me is that I take the PATH trains via the WTC (World Trade Center) station, and that suffered extensive damage. The PATH train system suffered considerably from the east coast hurricane (Hoboken was hardest hit) and today's snow was causing switching problems. This run of bad luck isn't ending. PATH has an 800 number for information. Of course, it's always busy during a crisis like this. This is the TELECOM issue that steams me. It takes several seconds for my call to get to the busy. It's 800 234-PATH, so you can figure the carrier. Why can't PATH get a decent carrier with the necessary bridging announcement so they don't block so many calls? I don't care how much money they're saving -- in situations like this the system isn't worth a dime if it isn't getting the announcements out and is blocking too much. Jeffrey Jonas jeffj@panix.com [Moderator's Note: The fatality count was up to five on this evening's news. Apparently this was a deliberate arson; authorities are claiming a bomb was in the underground garage. Regards traffic jams on the 800 number, it has been suggested the City of Chicago is considering a 900 number with no charge attached to calling it to be used for announcements to the citizens on a mass-calling basis. That night be a very good idea for the public transit system also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mtndew!friedl@uunet.UU.NET (Stephen Friedl) Subject: Ohio Bell Making Your Life Easier Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 11:54:54 PST I had a phone installed in my parents place in Ohio so I can use it when I am in town, so now am getting bills from Ohio Bell every month. This time (2/93) they have an insert that offers "Expertise to Homeworkers". "Forget rush hour. Many people are setting up an office at home and avoiding the commute. "Now Ohio Bell's new Work-At-Home Center makes life easier for full- or part-time homeworkers. The center is staffed by a team of eight service representatives who have been specially trained to understand the unique communications needs of the work-at-home professional. [ looks good so far, but not sure what's in it for them ] "These home office specialists can answer questions about installing a business line in your home or setting up a computer modem or fax machine." Aha, now we see it. Not only do these trained specialists try to get people to sign up for business rates, but this insert starts *every* customer thinking that you need a business line for these above things. Glad they're here to help. Stephen J Friedl | Software Consultant | Tustin, CA | +1 714 544-6561 3b2-kind-of-guy | I speak for me ONLY | KA8CMY | uunet!mtndew!friedl [Moderator's Note: You *do* need a business line if you conduct *business* on the telephone, as I suppose a home worker would be doing. And I don't read anything in the above message which indicates OBT expects people to have a business line because they have a modem or fax machine ... only if they conduct *business* using the modem or fax machine. I play chess with a friend across town by using our fax machines to transmit a picture of the board and our moves, etc. This is hardly a business application. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Free long distance? From: osterber@husc8.harvard.edu (Richard Osterberg) Date: 27 Feb 93 00:01:37 GMT Once ... a friend of mine discovered a neat little trick. I think we were in Alabama. It involves third-party charging. We placed a call from a payphone, and selected third-party billing. Well, it happened to be one of those automated services, so we selected the payphone next to us. Well, the next phone rang, said "If you would like to pay for this call, push 1 on your touchtone phone"... we did, and the call went through. I found it hard to believe. Most places I've been to either have a restriction on billing to payphone numbers, or payphones simply can't accept calls. Rick Osterberg osterber@husc.harvard.edu 617-493-7784 617-493-3892 2032 Harvard Yard Mail Center Cambridge, MA 02138-7510 USA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 16:37 PST From: todd@silo.info.com (Todd Lesser) Reply-To: Todd Lesser Subject: GTE, Almost a Real Phone Company Just when THEY think they are a real phone company ... I called GTE Northwest today at 3:30 and TRIED to order two lines in hunting. I called the same number I called last time I ordered phone lines. This time I was referred to another office. I called them, the rep started to take the order. She asked me what I was using the phone lines for. I told her they were going to be incoming fax lines. She told me that fax machines won't work with lines that have hunting on them. The hunting somehow (I tried not to laugh) screws up the data connections. (For fun) I asked her if I was going to use the lines for modems would that be a problem. She said it wouldn't. I told her I wanted to order them anyway. She referred me back to the first office/number that I called. Feeling dizzy, I hung up the phone and called the first office again. This person tried to refer me back again. I convinced her to take the order. The service rep is going to call me on Monday to give me the phone numbers and due date. I told her I want the lines installed next week. She said she will TRY to get them installed by Friday. She didn't sound hopeful. Times like this I am so greatful that my house is in a Pacific Bell territory and I know I can call them up at 4:50 on Friday and they would give me a due date of Monday if I asked. Todd Lesser Info Connections (619) 459-7500 Voice (619) 459-4600 Fax or ------------------------------ From: leavens@mizar.usc.edu (Justin Leavens) Subject: Gotta Love GTE Date: 26 Feb 1993 14:08:58 -0800 Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Although I've been lucky enough to move out of GTEland, my girlfriend has not, and once again they've proven their lack of customer service, maybe even bordered on fraud. She called GTE and explained to them that there was a credit due from her LD carrier (MCI) and that she was going to pay all of the bill, minus about $7 because of the credit. The GTE Op said her account was noted as such. For whatever reason, the credit didn't come through in time. So GTE cashed her check for the FULL AMOUNT of the bill, despite the fact that the check was written for the bill minus the $7. GTE claimed that when the credit came through from MCI, the $7 would then be applied to her account. What kind of racket is this that companies can just cash your check for whatever amount they deem necessary? And why should GTE get to keep her money, money that they essentially stole from her (they certainly took it without her authorization) without any compensation for her? Granted, it's only $7, but if they do this to enough customers, it's a nice little sum of money. Nice scam, GTE, very nice. Justin Leavens Microcomputer Specialist University of Southern California ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 1993 14:32:40 -0500 (CDT) From: Arun Baheti Subject: Cellular + Cancer = Lawsuit? {New York Magazine} reports that friends and relatives of Lee Atwater, the Republican National Committee chair who died in 1991 from a brain tumor, are looking into whether or not the tumor could have been caused by his use of cellular phones. "He practically lived on the phone," the magazine quotes a friend. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 15:57:33 +0100 From: st@bbl.be (Simon Townsend) Subject: Mini PBX on PC Card? Dear All: I've searched the FAQ, the archive index and my press clippings to no avail. I'm looking for a PC (ISA) based card that would provide a mini PBX - say 1/2 external and four internal lines, preferably with some added functionality / programmability via the PC. Either references to specific equipment or likely manufacturers would be appreciated. If you email, I'll summarise to the list. Simon ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 21:01:07 -0800 From: eap@ora.com (Eric Pearce) Subject: "Aggregater" Experience Sought I'm supposed to meet with a salesperson from First Federated Communications later this week. Does anybody have any good/bad experience with them? They claim they will lower our long distance costs by turning over billing to them. They claim to be the first to sign up with PacBell and one of their biggest customers. My concern is adding another party to the "soup". Right now, if I have a problem, I have to deal with PacBell, Sprint, AT&T, NET, Fujitsu and my CPE vendor. They all blame each other and it takes eight hours of yelling on the phone to find the guilty party. Our primary cost is 800 service over a T1, but we also have dedicated 56k and SW56k in addition to outgoing long distance. Thanks, Eric Pearce | eap@ora.com | O'Reilly & Associates Publishers of Nutshell Series Handbooks and X Window System Guides 103 Morris St, Sebastopol, CA 95472 1-800-998-9938 or 707-829-0515 ------------------------------ From: Nigel Allen Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 19:00:00 -0500 Subject: Gene Green: A CWA Member in Congress Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto Gene Green, a newly-elected member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas, is a member of the Communications Workers of America. His membership card is issued by CWA Local 14632, formerly local 87 of the International Typographical Union. He didn't work for a telecommunica- tions company; ITU local 87 represented employees at the {Daily Court Review} in Houston. (The ITU merged with the CWA a few years ago. U.S. Senator Paul Simon, a Democrat from Illinois, also once belonged to the ITU.) I suppose there must be some U.S. politicians who were management employees of telecommunications companies, but I don't know of any. I can only think of one Canadian politician who was a manaager at Bell Canada, and her name escapes me. Nigel Allen nigel.allen@canrem.com Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario 416-629-7000/629-7044 ------------------------------ From: kevinf@agora.rain.com (Kevin Fowler) Subject: Caller ID in Portland, Oregon Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 1:57:41 PST U.S. West communications has announced that it will start offering Caller ID services from Vancouver WA, to Salem OR on April 1, 1993. Here's a quick list of the services: Caller ID Last Call Return Call Rejection Priority Call Continuous Redial Per Call Blocking (*67) Per Line Blocking (Service must be ordered) Call Trace (*57) I assume that the first set will all require the Caller ID box. The Call Trace function is used to forward the forward the ID of harassing calls to US West (whether the number was blocked or not). After three successful traces, "deterrent action may be taken." Namely, the number may be forwarded to the police, or US West can send a letter to the caller. Kevin Fowler / kevinf@agora.rain.com [Moderator's Note: The only feature in the above list which requires a Caller-ID display unit is Caller-ID itself. All the other features listed are independent. The central office switch will be able to redial busies and make call-backs without you having knowledge of the number being called. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 10:41:05 EST From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Correction to Post About Cable Company Going Fiber The following paragraph in one of my posts about Cablevision of Long Island entering the fiber field must be corrected. I apologize for passing incorrect and/or misleading information. Dave I said: > Pat Davidson, a NYTel spokesman, complained, however, that cable > companies largely unregulated, enjoy an unfair advantage over telcos > pointing out that federal statues can only own cable companies, > outside their operating regions; ain't that a shame. I should have said: Pat Davidson, a NYTel spokesman, complained, however, that cable companies largely unregulated, enhoy an unfair advantage over telcos pointing out that federal statues say phone companies can only own cable companes outside their operating regions; ain't that a shame. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 [Moderator's Note: I caught this error and edited it to the best of my understanding of what Dave meant ... but it should have been as he wrote it above. PAT] ------------------------------ From: stank@cbnewsl.att.com Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 12:08:27 EST Subject: Another AOS Sleaze Trick Organization: Summit NJ This is only speculation and second-hand info, but it looks like the AOS's have figured out a new way to separate us from our money. On an internal AT&T newsgroup, someone reported that they had used their AT&T Universal Card to call home from a payphone that defaulted to an AOS (it wasn't clear if it was NY Telephone or a COCOT). In any event, the way they got billed for the call was that it showed up as a collect call on their home phone bill (so it looks like the AOS takes any calling card number, and if they can't bill to it, they just bill the receiving phone number). I'll warn again, this is just speculation, but it's the most logical explanation of what happened. Stan Krieger All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even UNIX System Laboratories if related to my employment, are my own. Summit, NJ smk@usl.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 16:08:46 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: 800 Number Flooded This may have appeared in the New York area media; I saw it in Wilmington, Delaware a little less than a week ago today (message written Feb. 25). The owner of a vacation-home-rental business in Hackensack, NJ has filed suit against Howard(?) Stern over a skit he did regarding Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the "suicide doctor" in Michigan. Apparently Mr. Stern used a make-believe 800 number not on the 555 prefix; the number he chose was 800-M D DEATH, which turned out to be the number of the above-mentioned business, which then got flooded with calls, many of them obscene. PLEASE DO NOT CALL THAT NUMBER UNLESS DOING BUSINESS WITH THAT FIRM. (After seeing the story, I thought 800-555-I-DIE might have been a better choice.) ------------------------------ From: Denise Hsiung Subject: Using Videoconferencing in the U.S. Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 21:41:12 GMT Organization: University of Illinois I want to do a report on the development of videoconferencing in the U.S. The purpose of this report is to introduce the U.S.'s experience of using videoconferencing to my country Taiwan as a reference for developing Taiwan's telecommunication networks. I need information about: 1) The latest survey of videoconferencing users in the States. --Who or what kind of corporations use videoconferencing most? --How the frequent videoconferencing users comment on the videoconferencing they used or are using? 2) The development of videoconferencing technology. --What are the most popular videoconferencing tech, their features and costs? --What are the new technology which will be available in the near future, their features and costs? 3) The status quo of the development of international videoconferenc- ing, and the U.S.'s plan for the future development of international videoconferencing. I'll appreciate your help very much for providing me with the information I need or related information. My e-mail address: ddhg1690@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu Denise Hsiung ------------------------------ From: whitton@bnr.ca (Mark Whitton) Subject: Fax Mail Equipment/Software Reply-To: whitton@bnr.ca Organization: Bell-Northern Research Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 15:42:39 GMT Can anyone suggest sources for fax mail equipment and software? I am looking for something that can answer multiple fax lines, store the faxes, then send them out on command (like AT&T's advertised fax mail). Mark Whitton, BNR, Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4H7, CANADA Dept 5S01 613-763-2137 whitton@bnr.ca ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 4:30:02 EST From: warren@itexjct.jct.ac.il (Warren Burstein) Subject: Phone Company Writes to a Public Telephone The August 14 edition of Yerushalaim (a Jerusalem local newspaper) contains a copy of a letter that Bezeq, the Israeli telco, mailed to a phone booth which it owns. The form letter is addressed to "Bezeq, Inc." at the address at which the phone booth is located (155 Costa Rica Street), and informs the subscriber that while in the past, its bill was computed by reading a meter, which made it impossible to obtain a listing of calls made, this will now be possible (at a fee, of course, something that Bezeq did not mention to the phone booth). The letter-carrier delivered the letter by placing it inside the phone booth. Bezeq responded that the program that sends out mailings will be corrected. The phone booth was unavailable for comment. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #135 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26756; 27 Feb 93 5:05 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05569 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 27 Feb 1993 02:46:05 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12604 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 27 Feb 1993 02:45:24 -0600 Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 02:45:24 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302270845.AA12604@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #136 TELECOM Digest Sat, 27 Feb 93 02:45:20 CST Volume 13 : Issue 136 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson 4th Maryland Workshop on Very High Speed Networks (Deepinder Sidhu) Inquiry Regarding Teleconference Bridges (Jeannette Lanier, NRC) Telnet Dialout Wanted (Anthony Beecher) Question About IXC and LEC (dhirmes@hamp.hampshire.edu) Looking for Distinctive Ring Discriminator (Greg Trotter) Information Wanted Regards 800 --> 900 Scams (Frank Carey) 1-800 Collect Callbacks Scam (Richard B. Dervan) Need Information on Telecom in China (Jian Huang) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 01:14:24 -0500 From: "Dr. Deepinder Sidhu (CMSC)" Subject: 4th Maryland Workshop on Very High Speed Networks Agenda for the 4th Maryland Workshop on Very High Speed Networks March 15-17, 1993 -------------------------------------------------- Monday, March 15, 1993 7:30 - 9:00 Registration and Coffee 9:00 - 9:15 Introduction Dr. Freeman Hrabowski Interim President, UMBC Dr. Deepinder Sidhu Director, Center for Telecommunications Research (CTR) Dr. Larry Davis Director, University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Studies (UMIACS) 9:15 - 10:00 David Sincoskie (Keynote Speaker) - Bellcore Ruminations on the Future of the Internet as it Incorporates both Broadband Technology and Commercialization 10:00 - 10:30 Tom vonDeak - NASA Lewis Reseach Center NASA ACTS Program and Broadband ISDN Developments 10:30 - 11:00 Coffee Break 11:00 - 11:30 Paul R. Rupert - Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Current Status of LLNL's Gigabit/Sec Fibre Channel Circuit Switched LAN 11:30 - 12:00 Robert J. Aiken - US, Dept of Energy The IINREN 12:00 - 12:30 Bill Edwards - Sprint The MAGIC Testbed 12:30 - 2:00 Lunch Break 2:00 - 2:30 Tom Rodeheffer - Digital Equipment Corporation A Self Configuring Local ATM Network 2:30 - 3:00 Mark Karol, Kai Eng, and Richard Gitlin - AT&T Bell Labs Resource Sharing Techniques in ATM Networks 3:00 - 3:30 Joseph Hui - Rutgers University Methods for Traffic in High Speed Networks 3:30 - 4:00 Coffee Break 4:00 - 4:30 Baruch Awerbuch - Massachusetts Institute of Technology The Cost/Benefit Framework for Competitive Allocation of 4:30 - 5:00 Robert Olsen - University of Wisconsin, Madison Experiments with the XUNET Switch 5:00 - 5:30 Jim Hughes and Bill Franta - Network Systems Corporation Extending HIPPI Using STS12c over OC12 SONET ----------------- Tuesday, March 16, 1993 8:30 - 9:00 Coffee 9:00 - 9:30 Lee Hammarstrom - DDR&E Global Grid - A Communication Network 9:30 - 10:00 Henry Dardy - Naval Research Laboratory High Speed Optical Network 10:00 - 10:30 Nick Kowalchuk - Rome Laboratory Secure Survivable Communications Network 10:30 - 11:00 Coffee Break 11:00 - 11:30 Fred Goeringer - US Army Medical Diagnostic Imagery Support 11:30 - 12:00 Peter Sjoedin - Swedish Institute of Computer Science The DTM Gigabit Network 12:00 - 12:30 Andre Danthine - Systemes et Automatique A New Transport Service for the High Speed Environment 12:30 - 2:00 Lunch Break 2:00 - 2:30 Abhay K. Parekh - IBM Corporation - Watson Laboratory A Generalized Processor Sharing Approach to Flow Control in Integrated Services Networks 2:30 - 3:00 Jim Kurose - University of Massachusetts Providing Performance Guarantees to Real-Time Traffic in High-Speed Networks 3:00 - 3:30 Rene L. Cruz and Hai Ning Liu - Uni California, San Diego Non-recursive Identities for Tandem Queueing Networks 3:30 - 4:00 Coffee Break 4:00 - 4:30 Brad Makrucki - Bell South Telecommunication Pricing as a Traffic Management Mechanism in Public B-ISDN/ATM Network 4:30 - 5:00 Raj Jain - Digital Equipment Corporation ATM and FDDI 5:00 - 5:30 Raymond Miller and Zafar Choudhry - Uni Maryland, Collge Park Bounding the Performance of FDDI ---------------- Wednesday, March 17, 1993 8:30 - 9:00 Coffee 9:00 - 9:30 Zygmunt Haas - AT&T Bell Labs Gigabit Connectivity with the "Staggering Switch": An Electronically - Controlled Optical Packet Switch 9:30 - 10:00 David W. Butler - Fore Systems The Design of a Practical ATM Network 10:00 - 10:30 Bob Felderman - USC/Information Science Institute Mapping and Routing in Atomic LAN 10:30 - 11:00 Coffee Break 11:00 - 11:30 Sudhir Ahuja - AT&T Bell Labs Multimedia Communication for Collaboration 11:30 - 12:00 Dhadesugoor R Vaman - Stevens Institute of Technology Source Rate Adaption Based on a Unified Optimal Control Parameter for Flow Control in High Speed Multimedia Networks 12:00 - 12:30 Hemant Kanakia - AT&T Bell Labs A Performance Comparison of various Congestion Control Schemes 12:30 - 2:00 Lunch Break 2:00 - 2:30 Bharat Doshi - AT&T Bell Labs Deterministic Rule Based Traffic Descriptors for Connection Acceptance Control in Broadband Networks 2:30 - 3:00 Allison Mankin - Mitre Corporation Testbed Measurement Experiments: NRL HSON and CNRI BLANCA 3:00 - 3:30 Amarnath Mukherji - University Of Pennsylvania On the Dynamics and Significance of Low Frequency Components of Internet Load <<<< END OF WORKSHOP >>> 4th Maryland Workshop on Very High Speed Networks March 15-17, 1993 The Center for Telecommunications Research (CTR) at the University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC) campus and the University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Computer Studies (UMIACS), in cooperation with Center of Excellence in Space Data and Information Sciences (CESDIS), ACM SIGCOMM and the Internet Society and in participation with IEEE Communication Society, Gigabit Networking Technical Committee will hold the 4th Maryland Workshop on Very High Speed Networks on March 15-17, 1993 at the Campus of the University of Maryland Baltimore County. The Workshop will be held in the Lecture Hall 5 of the new EE/ECS Building on the UMBC Campus. The goal of the workshop is to bring together experts in related areas to discuss progress and research issues in the design and implementation of very high speed (gigabit rates) communication networks. Each of previous workshops attracted approximately 165 researchers representing academia, industry and government. The three day meeting will include invited speakers and some contributed presentations. Selected papers will appear in a special issue of the "Journal of High Speed Networks." A $135.00 registration fee will include three lunches, a proceedings and conference materials. Please return the attached pre-registration form as soon as possible to reserve space. If additional information is needed, please contact the workshop organizer, Prof. Deepinder Sidhu, at sidhu@umbc3.umbc.edu, 410-455-3028 (voice), 410-455-3969 (fax). 4th Maryland Workshop on Very High Speed Networks Registration Form Name: __________________________________________________ Affiliation: __________________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Phone: ____________ Fax: ___________ E-mail ___________ Dietary Restriction: Vegetarian ___________ Kosher ___________ Make checks payable to the VHSN 4. Mail check and registration form by February 28, 1993 to: Raghu Vallurupalli, Dept. of Computer Science, UMBC, Baltimore MD 21228 PLEASE NOTE: Do NOT include hotel accommodation expenses in your payment for the Workshop Registration. Room payment should be made directly to the hotel you selected for stay. Here are some hotels which are 10 - 20 minutes from the UMBC campus. These hotels have agreed to provide limited number of rooms at a discount rate for workshop attendees. Be sure to identify yourself as an attendee of the UMBC Workshop on Very High Speed Networks. 1) Sheraton International Hotel - BWI Airport. Closest to Airport and UMBC Campus. Rate $75/night. Tel: 410-859-3300 or 800-638-5858. 2) Holiday Inn BWI Airport. Close to Airport and UMBC Campus. Rate $69/night. Tel: Inn-BWI at 410-859-8400. 3) Omni Inner Harbor Hotel. Close to downtown Baltimore/Inner Harbor. About 20 min. drive to UMBC Campus. Rate $79/night. Tel: 410-752-1100 or 800-843-6664. ------------------------------ From: wu/O=NUCLEAR_REGULATORY_COMMISSION/DD.ELN=62868951@mhs.attmail.com Date: 26 Feb 93 21:01:40 GMT Subject: Inquiry For Teleconference Bridges This is in the nature of a preliminary inquiry by me personally for information relating to telephone systems. This is not -- at this time -- an official inquiry by this agency and I am not acting as their official spokesperson. As stated in an earlier message, The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission operates a main switchboard that never closes, and in approximately two years the U.S. NRC will be consolidating its remaining national capital area offices into the Two White Flint Building, which will include the Telephone Operator service. One of the features we provide is "meet me" conferences on AT&T Quorum conference bridges. These bridges allow up to seven telephones (any of which could be a speakerphone) to share the same dial-in trunk and talk to each other. (When people ask for a conference line assignment and don't know how it works, the operator will ask them if they've heard of those 900 numbers you can call into; then they tell them it works the same way.) If eight people call into a trunk, the eighth person gets a busy signal. Each bridge has four trunks coming into it, and two, three or four trunks can be linked together, so that one, two, three or four different conferences can simultaneously operate without interference with each other on the same bridge. We could, by issuing four numbers, link up to 28 different telephones on a single conference. We want to find out if there is any newer or better equipment to handle lines. We have three of these bridges and as a result we can have 75 incoming trunks used for conferences if needed. Our Centrex system permits standard three-way conference by adding an additional caller, and if someone is authorized they can dial the code and set up a five-party conference from their desk, so using the centrex to handle large conferences isn't an answer. What we'd like is either (1) a bridge that can be assigned a certain number of lines to a trunk number dynamically so that if one conference has to have 12 lines we can give it 12 or whatever the next multiple of whatever the bridge uses, and not have to assign them two or more telephone numbers, or (2) if two lines are marked as linked together, if someone dials the first trunk line number, it will roll over to the next linked line, or the third or fourth. We're also interested in bridges having ten trunks (or more) instead of just seven due to the amount of overloading. (On one particular day of the week, if you want a conference during the middle of the day, if you haven't booked it at least a week early, forget it; ALL of our lines are in use. We'd like to try to partially alleviate this congestion.) Again, my superiors have expressed interest in discovering if there is any form of "upgrade" or anything better than what we are using. I would like anyone who has information about this to respond to me either in the Digest, or by an E-Mail reply to this message. If you do respond directly to this message, please place TO: Jeannette Lanier In the text of the reply, or change the "O=nuclear_regulatory_commission" field at the top to read "G=jeannette_lanier". If that fails, try: USNUCLEAR2@ATTMAIL.COM. If *that* fails, try: 62868951@eln.attmail.com (You should see what it takes to *send* a message to Internet from a telex number!) You may also respond to this message by facsimile to +1 (301) 492-7371. If you have color brochures or items which don't facsimile well, you may mail them instead to: U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jeannette Lanier, P-612 Washington, DC 20555 This is not a contract proposal or official request but is a preliminary inquiry to determine exactly what, if anything, is out there which may enable us to process telephone communications better. Thank you for your cooperation, Jeannette Lanier ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 21:06:33 EST From: ADB103@PSUVM.PSU.EDU Subject: Telnet Dialout Wanted Does anyone know how to find and use sites that offer dial-out, so that one could call BBSs in that site's area code w/o long distance fees. (Probable FAQ but I couldn't find it). Anthony Beecher [Moderator's Note: No, actually it is not an FAQ. This has come up in the past and I don't think anyone keeps a specific list of sites which welcome outsiders passing through to use their phone lines. Some do; I just don't think there is a directory for it. You'll get some reply mail, I'm sure. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dhirmes@hamp.hampshire.edu Subject: Question About IXC and LEC Date: 26 Feb 93 01:25:10 EDT Organization: Hampshire College Could someone explain the purpose/function of IXC (interexchange carriers) and LEC (local exchange carriers) in relation to RBOCs? An e-mail reply would be great. Thanks, dhirmes@hamp.hampshire.edu [Moderator's Note: An interexchange carrier is a long distance company such as Sprint, AT&T or MCI. They carry traffic between exchanges such as between Chicago and New York. A local exchange carrier is just that: a telephone company which operates in a local area. By the requirements of divestiture, a Regional Bell Operating Company is a local carrier, but not all local exchange carriers are Bells. There was at last count about a thousand small independent telcos in the USA. They are all local exchange carriers. You can count the number of RBOCS on one hand, yet they have what? about 80 percent of the local telco business in the USA. The other thousand-odd telcos between them share the other 20 percent. The largest of the independents is GTE and its various telco subsidiaries, and it has the lion's share of the part Bell doesn't have. Then come Centel and United, which a few years ago was the fourth largest telco in the USA after (what was then) the Bell System, GTE and Centel. Contel (Continental Telephone) -- not to be confused with Centel -- has a good piece of the action as far as indepedents go, and that leaves around a thousand others sharing a tiny portion of the business between themselves, each in their own little community for the most part. They are all LECs. In years past before the divestiture of AT&T, AT&T (aka Bell System) handled almost all the inter-exchange traffic between these independent telcos and GTE handled the rest. As the majority player in the industry, AT&T handed out the area codes, the numerical prefix assignments, and ran the directory assistance bureaus (555-1212) for any telcos which wanted to participate and in some cases, even the operator services for the independents. Only the RBOCs (Bells) and GTE (because of its size, the government indicated it would commence divestiture action against GTE as it did AT&T; it was not necessary) are oligated to hand off their IXC (long distance) traffic in a non-discriminatory, arms-length way. The other indeoendents are free to funnel their IXC traffic however they please; many continue to give it exclusively to AT&T as they have done since they went into business 90-100 years ago. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Looking for Distinctive Ring Discriminator From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) Date: 26 Feb 93 11:10:21 -0600 Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords I subscribe to the distinctive ring service from my telco. Does anyone know of a device that can identify these different rings and separate the calls? I'd like to have a separate line for incoming calls to my computer; the traffic doesn't warrant another line. Any help is appreciated. Greg Trotter Norman, Oklahoma Internet: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu Fidonet: 1:147/63 Treknet: 87:6012/8009 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 16:36:13 EST From: fec@arch2.att.com Subject: Information Wanted on 800-->900 Scams Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories I spoke to the Communications Fraud Control Association (CFCA) in Washington this morning. They have been trying to interest the FCC in the problem of consumers getting billed for calling 800 numbers that somehow turn into 900 numbers or, by some other means, cause a charge to the caller. CFCA now has the attention of the Deputy Chief of the Enforcement Division and is working to help them fully understand the problem. CFCA apparently has some victims and some phone bills but they would like to have some scenarios -- both of how this might happen but -- especially -- how it actually did happened. (It shouldn't surprise anybody that most victims don't know.) I know this subject was discussed here not too long ago but I wasn't really following the discussion at the time and our news server doesn't keep stuff long enough for me to retrieve them. If you know how any of these scams are being run I'd like to hear from you. And even if you have no knowledge of actual schemes used, I'd like to hear any theories or scenarios describing ways that such scams might be run. I'll compile this info and get it to the CFCA for their use in supporting the FCC. Frank Carey at Bell Labs f.e.carey@att.com 908/949-8049 [Moderator's Note: Hi Frank! We haven't seen you around these parts since the Randy Borow scandal. You may need to question your own employer about some of this scamming since the deal with {USA Today} and their phone information service (dial an 800 number, get billed for a 900 call to the same number was obviously an inside job at AT&T. Both the 800 prefix and the 900 prefix involved were assigned to AT&T for toll free and premium service, respectively. I imagine you'll get email from readers here real soon, and in quantity. You might also want to check out the next message in this issue from Richard Dervan on 'collect callbacks'. BTW, is Randy still fighting his discharge from the company? We haven't heard from him in ages. NvPAT] ------------------------------ From: rdervan@orac.holonet.net (Richard B Dervan) Subject: 1-800 Collect Callbacks Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 13:52:54 GMTI I read in yesterday's {Atlanta Journal-Constitution} that there was new federal legislation pending against the 1-800 'sex lines' that use a collect callback and bill you at outrageous prices. Seems that some services begin billing as soon as the phone is picked up. One lady interviewed said she had been billed for over $400 by Integratel for collect calls she never accepted. Some of them were billed while the family was out of town! Her answering maching is the prime suspect. Although law requiers an affirmative action by a called party to accept a collect call (press # or something like that), some still begin billing as soon as the phone is answered. Also mentioned were unsolicited calls. Somehow her number got on a computer calling list and she would get calls every three or four days asking if she wanted to have phone sex and to press '1' if she did. The GA PSC is having a field day, but can't really do a whole lot since the calls cross state lines. Has anyone else heard about this latest 'scam'? Richard B Dervan rdervan@holonet.net System Support Programmer/Analyst 70007.6230@compuserve.com Information America, Inc [Moderator's Note: Oh, sure. All the gay and other sexually oriented adult papers run ads for those things, giving an 800 number and empha- sizing 'no credit cards needed; not a 900 number'. So how do they bill you? They call you back collect then send the charges through Integretel on a billing tape to your local telco. Integretel keeps its own database of payphone numbers and cranky customers; they don't bother to consult the same one AT&T/Sprint/MCI/local telcos use for 'billednumber screening' but they will add you to their own database for this purpose on request. Sign up today! 800-736-7500. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jhuang@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Jian Huang) Subject: Need Information on Telecom in China Reply-To: jhuang@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Jian Huang) Organization: City College of New York - Science Computing Facility Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 05:22:57 GMT Hi, Does anyone know the status of digital telecommunication in China (e.g. the availability of ISDN or swith 56)? Thanks for any information. JIAN HUANG jhuang@sci.ccny.cuny.edu jhuang@ccnysci.uucp jhuang@ccnysci.bitnet [Moderator's Note: There have been some exciting developments in China this past week with the new AT&T contract over there. See earlier issues of the Digest this past week for details. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #136 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09648; 27 Feb 93 22:36 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20509 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 27 Feb 1993 19:26:33 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12108 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 27 Feb 1993 19:26:01 -0600 Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 19:26:01 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302280126.AA12108@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #137 TELECOM Digest Sat, 27 Feb 93 19:26:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 137 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: ESF B8ZS and Clear Channel (Fred Goldstein) Re: ESF B8ZS and Clear Channel (Ken Becker) Re: ESF B8ZS and Clear Channel (William H. Sohl) Re: ESF B8ZS and Clear Channel (rfranken@cs.umr.edu) Re: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill (Eli Mantel) Re: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill (John Higdon) Re: Gotta Love GTE (Graham Toal) Re: Gotta Love GTE (rfranken@cs.umr.edu) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: goldstein@carafe.dnet.dec.com (Fred Goldstein) Subject: Re: ESF B8ZS and Clear Channel Reply-To: goldstein@carafe.dnet.dec.com (Fred Goldstein) Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 20:51:08 GMT In article , albert.lopez@Corp.Sun.COM (albert lopez) writes: > I know that B8ZS allows for clear channel transmission because it > eliminates the max zeros problem by using BPV, but what I don't > understand is how clear channel is accomplished using B8ZS when using > extended super frame (ESF). Since ESF uses frames 6, 12, 18, and 24 > for robbed bit signalling on all 24 channels, doesn't this prevent > clear channel transmission? ... or do you just not use those frames > for clear channel transmission. You do understand the problem! Indeed there are two reasons why the common switched data speed in the US is 56 kbps and not 64 kbps. One is fixed by B8ZS, but if you use in-band bit robbed signaling, you're still stuck. End users can't tell ahead of time which frames will be bit-robbed, because you may pass through various intermediate multiplexers etc. So you're stuck. BUT if common-channel signaling is in use (i.e., Signaling System No. 7, or for that matter European out-of-band bit- oriented signaling), then you can get "64 clear". Thus SS7 is specified for ISDN, though not yet deployed in some areas (like Boston). Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com k1io or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice:+1 508 952 3274 Standard Disclaimer: Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 16:14:04 EST From: kab@hotstone.att.com Subject: Re: ESF B8ZS and Clear Channel Organization: AT&T From article , by albert.lopez@Corp. Sun.COM (albert lopez): > I know that B8ZS allows for clear channel transmission because it > eliminates the max zeros problem by using BPV, but what I don't > understand is how clear channel is accomplished using B8ZS when using > extended super frame (ESF). Since ESF uses frames 6, 12, 18, and 24 > for robbed bit signalling on all 24 channels, doesn't this prevent > clear channel transmission? ... or do you just not use those frames > for clear channel transmission. O,K, Let's get started. First of all, let's hit up with the "thou shalt not." On a domestic T1 line, thou shalt not send more than 15 zeroes in a row -- it mucks up the receiving phase locked loop, which drifts off frequency, resulting in bit errors and other such nasties. So, how do you prevent such things from happening in a T1 line? Case #1: It's your T1 line, you do what you wanna do. You don't care about signalling. In this case, you're given a pipe. All you do is put 1.544 Mb/s data into it - it's your look-out on making sure that you meet the 15-zero limit. This is (usually) called clear DS1. It doesn't typically have nifty stuff like channels or framing, although you can put 'em in there if you like. Ma Bell only checks for bipolar violations and too many slips, since that's all that can be checked for. Case #2: It's your T1 line, and you don't want to fuss with zero limits. You still don't care about signalling. In this case, you do Case #1 - only, you ask for B8ZS, a method of taking 8 zeroes in a row and sticking in a pair of back-to-back BiPolar Violations. The encoding hardware at your end puts in the back-to-back BPVs and downstream equipment knows what to do with the line coding. Result: at the final B8ZS-to-normal conversion at the terminating end of your 1.544 Mb/s line, you get back what you put in. Even if it has 1000 zeroes in a row. Case #3: A full T1 line costs too darn much, or you need channels. Zeroes are your problem. You still don't care about signalling. In this case, you channelize your data, but you make sure that you don't put 15 zeroes in a row. Kinda hard to do, unless one channel knoweth what the other is doing. D4 or ESF formatting gets you there. You get 64 kb/s in each channel, but you have to watch your zeroes. (Not to mention false framing patterns, but we'll leave that for another day.) Case #4: You want channelized data, you still don't want signalling, and Ma Bell is giving you the evil eye about too many zeroes - it keeps their techs up at night chasing Red CGAs. They tie your arm back and you get Zero Code Supression (ZCS). In this case, you don't have to worry about 15 zeroes - all you have to worry about is 8 zeroes in any one channel. If you do happen to do this, the equipment sticks a "1" in bit D7, the next-to-least significant data bit. Note that this gives you an effective data rate of around 48 kB/s, since the next-to-least as well as the least significant bits are out of your purview. Case #5: You fight back, ask for (and get) B8ZS. Ma Bell calms down. You still don't want signalling. This is Case #4, but B8ZS keeps too many zeroes from appearing on the line. You can have ZCS if you want it, but why? Case #6: You want signalling. Oops. You have two options: RBS or DMI/BOS. With RBS, the least significant bit in every sixth frame is blasted to make way for a signalling bit. In D4 mode, the "superframe" (i.e., the length of the framing sequence in the framing bit) is 12 frames long; this allows you to get either 2 or 4 state signalling. This is because you can send one signalling bit during the 6th frame and a different (or the same, if so inclined) during the 12th. Two bits gives you four states. In ESF mode, the superframe is 24 frames long; you can then have (optionally) 2, 4, or 16 state signalling. Note, however, that superframe integrity is not carried over between different pieces of equipment. This means that the bit that got robbed on frame 6 coming out of one piece of equipment is going to be "not customer data" on, say, frame 3 coming out of the next piece of equipment. Since you can't trust the least significant bit, you end up with 56 kB/s per channel. Note that ZCS and/or B8ZS may or may not be operative in this case. Typically, you would either guarantee at least one "1" in the first 7 bits of each channel (since you can't depend upon that signalling bit) and avoid the penalty of ZCS, or opt for B8ZS and not worry. Now we talk about DMI/BOS. This nifty scheme takes all the signalling for time slots 1-23 and dumps them into time slot 24. So, if you look at total data rates, this is a winner for those owners of computers renting a whole T1 line: 23 * 64 Kb/s > 24 * 56 Kb/s. If you use B8ZS, you get 64 Kb/s clear channel with signalling. Note that DMI/BOS is useable with both D4 and ESF mode and it supports 2, 4, and 16-state signalling. (Your mileage may vary with different vendors.) The disadvantage is you end up with one less channel, since it's now reserved for signalling. So, as to answer your question: ESF can be formatted for 2, 4, 16, or >>no<< signalling on a per-time-slot basis. You can use either RBS or DMI/BOS if you want signalling, and DMI/BOS gives you signalling without mucking about with the data in time slots 1-23. B8ZS and AMI (Alternate Mark Inversion) are the line formats; if you want clear channel, you need B8ZS to take care of your zeroes. If you can restrict the number of zeroes to less than 8 (some HDLC protocols do this anyway), you don't need B8ZS or ZCS. Good luck! Ken Becker DACS II Hardware Design ------------------------------ From: whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) Subject: Re: ESF B8ZS and Clear Channel Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 14:43:29 GMT B8ZS is only part of the solution to obtaining 64 clear channel. The other element as you note is eliminating the robbed bit signaling" where it is used. Thus to obtain 64 clear, one must implement "out- of-band" signaling using clear channel signaling (CCS) such as Signaling System 7 in network trunking or ISDN D channel signaling on an access configuration. Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.) Morristown, NJ email via UUCP bcr!cc!whs70 201-829-2879 Weekdays email via Internet whs70@cc.bellcore.com ------------------------------ From: rfranken@cs.umr.edu Subject: Re: ESF B8ZS and Clear Channel Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 14:37:20 CST The ones density problem is the only real impediment to clear channel transmission. This problem is (as you stated) solved by B8ZS, which allows as many consecutive 00000000 octets to be send as needed without violating ones density for the repeaters. In D4 (or SF) framing, if signalling is needed, it is obtained by robbing bits in certain frames. Thus, the low bit can get clobbered. If signalling is not needed (and in many cases it is not), then no bits are clobbered. Thus, you can get clear channel (a full 1.536 MBPS, or a Full 64 KBPs per DS0) with only SF/D4 framing. (Assuming you had B8ZS or some other way of ensuring that there would be no problems with large amounts of 0's in the data). In ESF framing, if signalling is needed, it is obtained by using some of the framing bits (the extra bit inserted after every 192 data bits). Thus, the 'extra bit' gets some additional usage for things such as signalling, and checksums, 'yellow alarms', etc. in addition to being used for framing/ synchronization. Thus, in ESF, no bits are ever robbed, so you could get a full 1536/64 KBps even if there were signalling. (Again, assuming B8ZS...) (Its been a while since I read the ESF specs, but I believe the 6/12/18/24 that you are referring to has to do with the framing bit following those frames, as opposed to bits within the normal data stream). Brett (rfranken@cs.umr.edu) ------------------------------ From: Eli.Mantel@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Eli Mantel) Subject: Re: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 03:11:27 GMT In article tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) writes: (details regarding charge for a 900 call presumably never made omitted) ... > [Moderator's Note: Telco has no legal obligation to remove the > charge (they can wait until the IP issues credit back through the > system, which would likely be the same day that Hell freezes over), > but most (and certainly AT&T) will do so one time to maintain customer > goodwill. I am under the impression that your telephone cannot be disconnected for failure to pay for a 900 call. I have been told by the local phone company that if I dispute the charge, it will be removed (though it may take a while for this to happen). For what it's worth, the *theory* that payment is due for a 900 call is, I presume, based on an offer by the information provider, which one accepts by dialing the number (this is distinguished from a tarrifed service), thereby creating a contract. If you accept this theory, then several defenses are available, to wit, you did not accept the offer (somebody else did), the person accepting the offer was not of legal age, there was no acceptance because the number was dialed by accident, or the information provider failed to provide what was promised. The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service. internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80 [Moderator's Note: You are quite correct. Like Yellow Pages advertising, phone service cannot be disconnected for unpaid 900/976 charges. But it can remain on your bill as an unpaid item until the IP issues credit. Most of the time after a minor squabble, the credit is issued, or else telco just goes ahead and removes it anyway. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 09:|=hE58 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill Becky writes: > I called AT&T and they gave us the spiel about 900's being direct dial > only and that their equipment is '100% accurate"! Yes, that is the spiel. AT&T is completely inflexible on this point. Recall that I had month after month of bogus calls to the UK on my bill not long ago. AT&T would not even consider the possiblity that I did not dial the calls, even though I DO maintain a 100% complete computer log of every single incoming and out going call on every one of sixteen lines in the house. And I might add that AT&T was somewhat arrogant about it. Pac*Bell's position was that it was unable to remove ANY AT&T charge, PERIOD. The first month this happened, AT&T very begrudgingly removed the charge, constantly reminding me that I "really did make the calls" but in the interest of customer relations blah, blah, blah. After that, there was no credit given. Eventually Pac*Bell discovered the reason for the problem and reported both to me and to AT&T. In the meantime, I had been withholding the amounts charged for the calls from my payments to Pac*Bell. When AT&T FINALLY removed the charges (a couple of months after Pac*Bell's discovery), Pac*Bell cancelled the late charges as well. This is an incident that I will long remember. AT&T's attitude was really bad. I personally felt very betrayed and slapped in the face for my loyal patronage over the years. Frankly, if an OCC had treated me in any way approaching this, they would never see my business again, ever! > Apparently, even if AT&T takes the charge off our bill, the 900 > company (ICN) can send us to collections, and we have no recourse with > them until they do, according to AT&T's 900 Specialist. I would not worry too much about this. The 900 IP is not going to spend any money to collect $15. > Should we just accept it and move on? Thank you very much. Absolutely not. AT&T does not have a divine mandate to make mistakes and then become arrogant and enriched as a result. If you did not make the call, DO NOT PAY FOR IT! On Feb 26 at 2:34, TELECOM Moderator writes: > There are also instances when for some reason or another the > equipment fails to capture the calling number and an operator will > come on the line to ask 'may I have the number you are calling from > please ...' I do not think this has been done for decades. If there is an ANI failure, then the call is not completed. Maintaining operator positions for CAMA-style purposes in this day and age would be most silly. > I would suggest you ask telco to remove the charge, which most will > do *one time* for any subscriber. AT&T's agreements with the LECs forbid LEC adjustments to calls. AT&T will have to remove the charge. Which it may or may not do. As mentioned, AT&T is "NEVER wrong" (which is baloney). > but most (and certainly AT&T) will do so one time to maintain > customer goodwill. AT&T will probably grumble and credit you ONE TIME. You could have a telco problem and it will be interesting to see if it happens again. And then you will get to see how cooperative your telco is. Pac*Bell dogged the problem through for months until it was found. I was always given the impression by Pac*Bell that my case was just and that some problem or another needed to be solved. AT&T treated me like a scum that was simply trying to avoid paying for calls, I kid you not. After the problem was corrected, a couple of people called me and gave some weak apologies for my being treated like dirt by front line reps and supervisors (after seeing my story in the Digest). But be prepared for NO cooperation from AT&T. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 [Moderator's Note: ANI failures are not all that common, and there are no operator positions maintained just for 'CAMA-style purposes'. The call just goes to any available operator position and the tube tells the operator what is wanted. She types it in, hits a certain key and the call is released to go on its way. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 19:20:17 GMT From: Graham Toal Subject: Re: Gotta Love GTE If it is as you describe, and they actually tampered with the amount written on the cheque, it is criminal fraud and the person who did it can go to prison for it. Their supervisors could also be charged with conspiracy. I suggest you report it to the FBI. Seriously. If they *didn't* tamper with the cheque, find out what the hell your bank is playing at and insist that the bank replaces the sum, and while you're at it, try to get some compensation out of them for the time wasted chasing them up ... G [Moderator's Note: Graham, there has to be *intent*, and courts have said intent was very unlikely when the payment was handled through a remittance center getting a few hundred thousand payments daily. What do you think they do there? I mean, do you think they actually look at the check, the coupon and say let's conspire against Graham and get his lousy seven dollars? Carelessness, I'll accept. A conspiracy, criminal or otherwise is a bit much to swallow. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rfranken@cs.umr.edu Subject: Re: Gotta Love GTE Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 16:47:40 CST > What kind of racket is this that companies can just cash your check > for whatever amount they deem necessary? And why should GTE get to > keep her money, money that they essentially stole from her (they > certainly took it without her authorization) without any compensation > for her? Granted, it's only $7, but if they do this to enough > customers, it's a nice little sum of money. Well, the bottom line is a check went through for $7 more than it was written for. This is incorrect, and your girlfriend is entitled to $7 from the bank. (It is unlikely that the bank would even dispute this). Your girlfriend was a victim of the way check clearing works. Have you ever written a check and forgotten to sign it, or written a check and accidentally differing amounts in the numeric (100.00) and write-out (one hundred and 00/100) sections? I have done both before, and in both cases, the check went through (in the second case, for the numeric amount). It is simply cheaper for the bank to allow errors like this to happen and then pay the consequences, than to pay the costs associated with preventing them. I imagine that many companies that handle lots of checks (utilities, telcos, etc.) get reduced rates from their banks if they handle the printing on the checks (in magnetic ink) of the amount, which is one of the first steps in processing a check. The clerk processing the bill at GTE was very likely used to processing payments in full (most of the checks they process are), and probably didn't notice your check was for less, and just pressed the "payment in full" button resulting in the full amount being printed at the bottom of the check, and the check then cleared for that amount. Of course, if you dispute this, you will get $7, but them your account will be re-charged for that $7, and you will end up paying the same amount anyway. If you just let it go, then you will get a $7 discount when the MCI credit goes through, so it comes out the same anyway. I doubt this is really a GTE scam -- just an error that accidentally occurred. Like I said, if your girl friend pushes this, she will get the $7 back, and GTE will lose the $7. Brett (rfranken@cs.umr.edu) [Moderator's Note: People who say errors like this are 'scams' simply do not know the workings of bank/credit card/utility remittance back office operations. The volume of paper handled is such that no attention whatsoever is given to seeming irregularities. It is far more effecient to bang out the work assembly-line fashion and let customer service deal with problems. Rubber stamps for every occasion: no date or stale date on the check -- "Date Guarenteed". Check not signed? "Signature Guarenteed". Written amount differs from numerical amount? "Amount Guarenteed, We Take $___". You'll note many large remittance centers now do not even bother to endorse the check, or they do it in a very ambiguous way, "Pay to the order of the payee named within". Did you ever get the check for Telco in the envelope for the Water Works by accident, or the check for American Express in the envelope going to Diner's Club? Chances are it got cashed anyway. All those places each hire hundreds of minimum wage clerks to stack checks in one pile and remittance coupons in another. They do not pay them to *read* or *think* about what they are doing, which I guess some people here would say is GTE's whole problem in many departments. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #137 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14765; 28 Feb 93 0:52 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00119 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 27 Feb 1993 21:40:06 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22006 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 27 Feb 1993 21:39:32 -0600 Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 21:39:32 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302280339.AA22006@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #138 TELECOM Digest Sat, 27 Feb 93 21:39:30 CST Volume 13 : Issue 138 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan (stefan@stefan.imp.com) Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan (David Esan) Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan (Charles Mattair) Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan (Carl Moore) Re: Standard Dialing Plan (Tim Gorman) Re: Standard Dialing Plan (Mike Seebeck) Re: Standard Dialing Plan (John R. Levine) Re: Standard Dialing Plan (Doug Granzow) Re: Let's Do a Figure-8 (Carl Moore) Re: Let's Do a Figure-8 (Clive Feather) Re: History of Area Code Splits, 25 Feb 1993 (Eli Mantel) Re: History of TWX Area Codes (Daniel Burstein) Re: History of TWX Area Codes (Bob Frankston) Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Richard Nash) Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (sameer@atlas) Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (H Hallikainen) Re: Number Shortage ... What About "#" Sign? (Steven Leikeim) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan From: stefan@stefan.imp.com Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 14:53:15 +0100 Not being a North American and reading lots of articles concerning North America soon running out of telephone numbers, I ask with a slight smile: Why can't you just add another digit to the phone number? Why has it to be fixed length? Here in Europe, most countries have variable length numbers. In my town, we ran out of numbers about five years ago. So they just introduced a seventh digit. Now we have even six-digit and seven-digit numbers mixed in one city. Why isn't that possible for North America? Since I don't believe that we are so much smarter, there must be a real reason. I'd like to know it. Stefan Internet: or UUCP-net: ...gator!ixgch!stefan!stefan Voicenet: +41 61 - 261 28 90 Papernet: Stefan Zingg, St.Johanns-Vorstadt 19, 4056 Basel, Switzerland [Moderator's Note: It is just a matter of convention; the way it has always been done here (to have seven digits, or ten counting area code.) It would take some software changes to go with eight digits, but that has been suggested as per an article appearing here a few days ago entitled "Let's Do a Figure-8". There are some 'Figure-8' replies later in this issue you might want to read. PAT] ------------------------------ From: de@moscom.com (David Esan) Subject: Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan Date: 27 Feb 93 13:53:50 GMT Organization: Moscom Corporation, Pittsford NY In article johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: > Are there any hints yet about who the lucky winners will be who get > the very first interchangable area code? I imagine that they may find > themselves hard to call for a while. Well, as I noted the top twenty area codes in terms of numbers of exchanges are: 301: 751 * 416: 678 * 206: 642 604: 582 512: 703 * 919: 672 * 708: 634 216: 579 212: 700 * 215: 660 * 713: 627 503: 574 313: 680 * 714: 656 * 703: 610 803: 564 205: 680 602: 644 403: 605 303: 563 Now, of these top 20 we can eliminate the following because they are splitting, have split and the reduction has not caught up with me yet, or are scheduled to split: 301, 512, 212, 313, 416, 919, 215, 714. I have noted these in the list above with an asterisk. So of the top ten NPAs the prime candidates for a split are 205 (Alabama), and 602 (Arizona). We should also not ignore that 206 (Eastern Washington), 708 (suburban Chicago), and 713 (Houston) are nearly the same size. If I had to pick the first area code to go to a non-NPA format I would try to choose one with a population that is generally technically sophisticated, and has a high level of education. This would suggest 206 or 708 as the first choices in my mind. 708 is a prime choice for an overlay area code, since it is a small area compared to 206. It will be interesting to see how this turns out. David Esan de@moscom.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 10:05:46 CST From: mattair@synercom.hounix.org (Charles Mattair) Subject: Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan Organization: Synercom Technology, Inc., Houston, TX In article jeffj%jiji@uunet.UU.NET (Jeffrey Jonas) writes: > Oh lovely -- there can now be area code 666 which many numerologists > will never dial under any circumstances, and will certainly move > before getting stuck with that number. > [Moderator's Note: *Of course* it isn't you, we all know that. The > rules say that 666 will not be assigned to pagers, faxes or modems. > It will be assigned to telemarketers and bill collectors, all a bunch > of Great Satans. :) PAT] Totally off the subject but whatever. When Ronnie Rayguns left office, a group of his friends bought a house for him in California. The address? 666 something or another. The number was changed before they moved in. Charles Mattair mattair@synercom.hounix.org Any opinions offered are my own and do not reflect those of my employer. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 11:05:04 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan 200,300,400,500 are available for area codes if the need arises before Jan. 1995. The frequently.asked.questions file in the archives mentions Canadian TWX being moved from 610 to 600 so that 610 could be used for an area code (coming to PA). ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 93 13:50:14 EST From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Standard Dialing Plan Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) writes in TELECOM Digest V13 #127: > Are you saying that some areas will be going to 1 + NPA + 7D for all > toll calls in preparation for the NNX area codes? If so, please > provide specific area codes if available. There was a recent blurb > about a change (to be done for the same reason) in the New England > states except Connecticut; however, those areas will use 7D for all > calls within an area code. It is my understanding that SWBT policy right now is that all toll calls, both intraNPA and interNPA will be 1 + 10D (i.e. 1 + NPA + 7D). The adjustment dialing period would begin about July, 1994 and end January, 1995. This policy is still being discussed, however, and is subject to change until an official statement is made. Do not consider this message as the final say in any way, shape, or form. Personally, I hope this is the way we go. From a network viewpoint, simplicity is better. Tell the customer to dial 10D for all calls, translate it that way in each switch and be done with it. I realize the uproar this is going to cause with large numbers of customers. It is, however, going to have to happen someday. It makes little sense to me to try and postpone it a few years when nothing much is going to happen in the CPE environment to make it any easier. If it is going to be a bitch now or a bitch later, may as well do it now in conjunction with the INPA project and get it over with. I would be happy to entertain any opposing views. :-> Tim Gorman - SWBT *opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence* ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 08:29:18 -0700 From: Mike Seebeck Subject: Re: Standard Dialing Plan The first line (moot) was in response to an article discussing CO intercept of calls where the area code was dialed and was not needed. I mistakenly deleted the original text in total when I should have left that bit. Yes, with the new dialing plan as instituted in the US West area all toll calls will now be dialed 1-NPA-7D that was 1-NPA-7D. In the form 1-(NXX) NXX-XXX "N" is equal to any digit 2-9 and "X" is equal to any digit 0-9. This allows for ambiguity between area codes and exchanges since thay now may be the same. US West has adopted a plan where now the area code must be dialed. The alternative was to use a time out. If 1-7D were dialed the switch would wait to see if there were more digits. If not it could assume the first three digits after "1" was an exchange number. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Standard Dialing Plan Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 27 Feb 93 14:22:42 EST (Sat) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) > To deal with this the RBOC will require that area codes be dialed > with all toll calls. Numbers that are presently dialed 1-NNX-XXXX wil > now be dialed 1-(NXX) NXX-XXXX. > This will have an economic impact on many owners of phone > systems. The routing tables of many PBXs will require an update to > available memory if the PBX is using least cost or automatic routing. As has been mentioned in telecom many times before, there is no relation between inter-area-code calls and toll calls. In Princeton, NJ, for example, in the 609 area, a call to 609-799 in Plainsboro is a local call, to 609-396 in Trenton is an intra-LATA toll call, to 609-344 in Atlantic City is an inter-LATA toll call, and to 908-297 in South Brunwick is an inter-LATA free local call. NJ Bell has never made a connection between 1+ and toll: for a long time a leading 1 was ignored, then they went directly to 1+ means area code follows. You can dial all calls as 1+ NPA + number, even local calls, and all local calls can be dialed with seven digits, even across 609/908 and 908/201, which makes life much simpler. There is no requirement that you dial 1 + area code on an in-area toll call, nor will there be in the future. Philadelphia has recently switched to this scheme, too. Lest this seem like an exotic case, in New York City, all calls that start with 1-212, 1-718, and 1-917 are local. In areas at the edge of the city, some calls to 914 or 516 may also be local. The point of this is that any PBX that attempts to route calls solely based on whether a number starts with a 1 has been broken for many years, so I'd pay no attention to whining that interchangable area codes will be hard for the PBX to handle. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: dig@pro-cynosure.cts.com Subject: Re: Standard Dialing Plan Organization: ProLine [pro-cynosure] Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 09:19:04 EST Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) writes: > Are you saying that some areas will be going to 1 + NPA + 7D for all > toll calls in preparation for the NNX area codes? If so, please > provide specific area codes if available. > In MD and VA, other cases of local calls to another area code are > still seven digits. Long distance within 301,410, 703 -- not yet 804, > which still has 1 + 7D -- is 1 + NPA + 7D.) I live in MD, in AC 410. A local call to a nearby town on 301 requires that I dial 301 + 7D. Any toll call, in 410 or not, requires 1 + AC + 7D. Doug Granzow dig@pro-cynosure.cts.com or ...crash!pro-cynosure!dig Call: Cynosure BBS (Part of The Harold Network) at 410-549-2584 (it's free!) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 16:07:03 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Let's Do a Figure-8 rdippold@qualcomm.com writes: > Including the cellular system ... MINs are specifically designed for > three digits + seven digits. They would have to remain on a seven > digit system, and then the phone company (the switches?) would have to > do a seven to eight and eight to seven translation. This does remind me of making a call from an airplane phone while flying, in May 1991, from Philadelphia to Los Angeles; in that case, I only dialed (or punched in) area code plus seven digits, because it's known in advance that I MUST use an area code. But getting back to the excerpt above: I am not sure what it means! ------------------------------ From: clive@x.co.uk (Clive Feather) Subject: Re: Let's Do a Figure-8 Organization: IXI Limited Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 14:34:48 GMT In article varney@ihlpl.att.com writes: > In effect, the North American rather unique concept of NPAs will > gradually be altered to a ten-digit number whose first three digits > has a geographic association -- but a geographic location won't have a > unique NPA. What's unique about it? Most countries work the same way. On a related topic: does anyone know the current plans for the order of allocation of the new area codes? I have seen reports that the NN0 numbers will be allocated first (in essentially random order), and also reports that the order will be N2N, N3N, ... for geographical codes and N9N, N8N, ... for non-geographical codes. Clive D.W. Feather | IXI Ltd (an SCO company) clive@x.co.uk | Vision Park Phone: +44 223 236 555 | Cambridge CB4 4RZ Fax: +44 223 236 550 | United Kingdom ------------------------------ From: Eli.Mantel@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Eli Mantel) Subject: Re: History of Area Code Splits, 25 Feb 1993 Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 02:43:48 GMT Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) writes: > On Feb 1, 1991, area codes 706 and 905, which had been used in the > U.S. for calling parts of Mexico, were discontinued. Country code 52, > already available for such calls, was to be used. 706 and 905 thus > became available for use elsewhere, and were later announced for use > in Georgia and Ontario respectively. I am sitting here with the just-published February 1993 Southern Bell directory for Raleigh, NC. The area code map shows (obviously incorrectly) that 903 is the area code for both northern Mexico and Tyler, TX. Was 903 ever an area code for Mexico? Eli Mantel (eli.mantel@launchpad.unc.edu) The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service. internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80 [Moderator's Note: Yes it was. 903 was 'Northwest Mexico' and 905 was the area around Mexico City. But they were not called 'area codes'; the term was 'access code'. The parsing was actually 90 + 3 + and 90 + 5 +. These remained in use during the time when not all of the USA had IDDD. As soon as everyone in the USA could dial 011 + 52, then 903 and 905 were released for service elsewhere. By coincidence, 903 wound up almost where it started out. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dannyb@Panix.Com (Daniel Burstein) Subject: Re: History of TWX Area Codes Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 14:34:17 GMT Bob Clements put together and posted a bit of history regarding TWX machines. Just a small additional anecdote: In the NYC area , at least, it was possible to hook into the standard phone network with a 110 baud terminal, and dial a local area exchange which translated to a TWX number. I don't recall the exact prefix, but if you dialed it, then the last four digits of the TWX number, you'd hook up. This was quite helpful when trying to impress the folk you were calling, especially since this was the days (<1975) when only big businesses would have such things. It also let you dial into such services as an early version of services which provided news summaries, although I was never able to get the weather digest to work properly. dannyb@panix.com [Moderator's Note: My recollection was the 'three-row' machines always were on the regular (voice) network as far as I recall. It was only the 'four-row' machines that were ever in the X10 'area codes'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bob_Frankston@frankston.com Subject: Re: History of TWX Area Codes Date: Sat 27 Feb 1993 19:31 -0400 My memories of the TWX system date back to the mid 60's with some experience from the 70's after the great agreement in which ATT sold off the TWX network and agreed to suppress interoperation (1965, though not implemented immediately at that time). The TWX lines corresponded to actual local phone numbers so that one could call between the networks by discovering the translations from x10-nnn exchanges to the local 212-mmm exchange or other mappings. The machines on the networks were the same but, I'm not sure whether I remember this right, the Ans/Org frequencies were reversed. When calling between the networks. I don't remember running into translators since I was staying within the four-row world. The machines themselves were full duplex with jumpers among the circuit boards (well documented in the appropriate manuals) that could be used to set local echo. TWX itself eventually transformed into Western Union's Easylink service retaining arcane control codes. Now that Easylink is part of ATT Mail, I don't know if those interfaces remain. The "early TWX Network" was probably the Telex network. It was only later, I think, that the designations TWX I and TWX II were applied. Again, this is from memory of my experience using the network. [Moderator's Note: One vestige still remaining of the old system is the use of 910 as the 'area code' for EasyLink mailboxes which have telex numbers assigned to them. And I don't think the nomenclature was TWX I and II, I think it was Telex I and Telex II, with Telex II being the TWX system WUTCO picked up from Bell. 'Area code' 410 found its way into service with WUTCO's 'InfoMaster' system, and I think all the various (TWX A/C) 555-1212's eventually were merged into 410-555-1212 for the USA and 610-555-1212 for Canada. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 19:08:23 -0700 From: rickie@trickie.ualberta.ca (Richard Nash) Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones What is the frequencies that a scanner would require in order to receive Cellphones? (What scanner do I need to buy before they can't be bought anymore?) :) :) Richard Nash Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8 UUCP: rickie%trickie@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca [Moderator's Note: I don't know about Canada, if it is the same as here in the USA or not. Here, you want a scanner with 800 megs in it, and specifically the 860-890 megs range. Do you have Radio Shack stores up there? If so, I'm sure those old pirates are in tune with things ... they certainly are down here. Be sure and ask for your copy of the mods before you leave the store. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: sameer@atlastele.com Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc. Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 13:54:45 GMT Since this discussion suggests that the best way to be secure is to have digital switches for cellphones, what I want to know is: - How can one find out if the carrier in a city has digital switches - At what rate are the switches being turned digital across the US. Thanks for the info. Sameer ------------------------------ From: hhallika@tuba.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 19:57:32 GMT In article king@rtsg.mot.com writes: > Can someone explain why cellphones couldn't gain increased security > simply by channel-hopping *within a cell*? Say, every five seconds or > so? How would the channel-hop sequence be determined? Since both the cell site and the mobile unit would need to agree on the hop sequence, possibly transmitting the hop sequence during call setup would work. Someone listening in could also get this hop sequence and follow right along. Significant improvements in cellular telephone security will probably have to wait for the conversion to digital and the use of some encryption algorithm. Harold ------------------------------ From: steven@enel.ucalgary.ca (Steven Leikeim) Subject: Re: Number Shortage ... What About "#" Sign? Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 21:11:14 GMT Organization: ECE Department, U. of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada In article elana@agora.rain.com (Elana Beach) writes: > Could the # sign be used in any permutation to help alleviate the > number shortage ... i.e. have it replace the leading "1" for > long-distance phone calls or whatever? However, there is one factor that you appear to have forgetten. What about rotary dial phones? There are still many of them in use and I am not aware of any with # or * positions. :-) Steven Leikeim University of Calgary Department of Electrical Engineering Internet: steven@enel.ucalgary.ca [Moderator's Note: For that matter, the original touch-tone phones only had ten buttons, with no * or #. The * is commonly translated as '11' (I think pronounced 'eleven' rather than 'one one'), but # was never known as 'twelve', although I guess if they run out of numbers for the *NN feature codes one of these days they could start using #NN for more. Older readers will probably remember the 80-column punch cards of years past with rows zero through nine, and the two bottom rows which were called X and R, which could be punched to allow up to three meanings for each of the numbers in the column: the number only punched were letters A-J; the number punched along with X were the letters K-T; the number punched along with R (sometimes called the high punch) were the letters U-Z and a few miscellaneous things. Some voicemail systems where you are allowed to search the 'company directory' use * and # to give unique letter assignments to each button on the phone, ie 2=A *2=B #2=C, 1=Q *1=Z #1=What Follows is a phone extension number, 0=Call Operator, *0=Cancel search and start again, #0 quit and return to main menu. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #138 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01828; 28 Feb 93 19:50 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14767 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 28 Feb 1993 17:31:55 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11373 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 28 Feb 1993 17:31:09 -0600 Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 17:31:09 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199302282331.AA11373@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #139 TELECOM Digest Sun, 28 Feb 93 17:31:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 139 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan (Dave Niebuhr) Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan (Paul Robinson) Re: Gotta Love GTE (Graham Toal) Re: Gotta Love GTE (Paul Robinson) Re: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill (John Higdon) Re: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill (Graham Toal) Re: Costs to Telco: Leased vs Dial (gdw@gummo.att.com) Re: Costs to Telco: Leased vs Dial (Nick Sayer) Re: Costs to Telco: Leased vs Dial (Lars Poulsen) Re: Costs to Telco: Leased vs Dial (Vance Shipley) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 07:42:36 EST From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan Right now, area code 516 (Long Island) uses NPA + 7D for all inter-area code calls with 7D used for those that are intra-area code. the 1+ is optional and I can't see why NYTel couldn't start making 1+ mandatory for all non-516 calls as a prelude to the changeover in 1994/1995. As of this time, not that many exchanges have been created to justify moving to 1+. The latest major addition was around 1989/1990 when two communities received five between them. However, in the interests of uniformity, something is going to have to be done out here and I'm wondering how well NYTel is going to bungle the job. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 08:26:01 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Robinson Subject: Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan Stefan Zingg writes: > Why can't you just add another digit to the phone number? Why has it > to be fixed length? Here in Europe, most countries have variable > length numbers. In my town, we ran out of numbers about five years > ago. So they just introduced a seventh digit. Now we have even > six-digit and seven-digit numbers mixed in one city. Why isn't that > possible for North America? Chances are, in your country as in all of Europe except for Great Britain, the telephone company is owned by a branch of the Postal Service or a corporate entity which used to be owned by it. As such, all telephone equipment is owned by one organization. (At the switching end, that is.) When a place runs out of numbers, there are but two choices: add more digits or split the system into additional areas. Depending on whether splitting a system requires using additional equipment or not is really whether something happens. In the United States, private companies and even individuals can own their own switching equipment. All this equipment has been programmed by private companies to handle the current dialing system which has been in use for more than 25 years. Adding extra digits or making the system uneven would probably break a lot of software which could not handle the change. Why did Europe convert to the Metric system? Because it was easier for people to use than the older English system of feet, pounds, miles, etc. Converting to a new class of area code (where the area code and the prefix is indistinguishable) is the _easiest_ way to fix a problem currently without having to do much in the way of changes. Telling a system to simply accept any number from 200 to 999 as an area code (as had to be done when prefixes became NXX) is easier than saying "for area code 202 it's eight digits, for 301 it's seven, for 702 it's six ..." Or easier than changing all the equipment to handle an additional digit. Our phone numbers already are ten digits in length; changing that would require a lot of work for which few places are ready for. (Many places haven't even taken six digit dates out of service; a lot of mainframe software is going to break on Saturday, January 1, 2000, or Monday, January 3, 2000, when the date turns from 12/31/99 to 01/01/00 and the systems think the first date is later than the second.) Also, the # and * are no good for telephone numbers as other countries could not call some numbers in the U.S. since there would be no way to code an * or #. Possibly, if all subscriber calls in the future are required to be dialed as ten digits, the next step could be to allow an exchange number to start with 0 or 1. Then someone could get a phone number like "800-000-0000" and then say something like "The 8 Motel where you pay next to nothing; dial 8 then keep pressing 0. That's for the extra Z's you can take because you saved money!" [Moderator's Note: You say 'the present system has been in use more than 25 years ..."; how about 40 years where ten digits is concerned and since before any of us can remember where seven digit local calling is concerned. There were exceptions, of course. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 14:18:03 GMT From: Graham Toal Subject: Re: Gotta Love GTE I said: > If it is as you describe, and they actually tampered with the amount > written on the cheque, it is criminal fraud and the person who did it > can go to prison for it. Their supervisors could also be charged with > conspiracy. Moderator Noted: > Graham, there has to be *intent*, and courts have said intent was > very unlikely when the payment was handled through a remittance center > getting a few hundred thousand payments daily. What do you think they > do there? I mean, do you think they actually look at the check, the > coupon and say let's conspire against Graham and get his lousy seven > dollars? Carelessness, I'll accept. A conspiracy, criminal or > otherwise is a bit much to swallow. PAT] First of all, if someone changed the amount written on a cheque, there is no defence in the world can show there wasn't intent to defraud. Banks do *not* accidentally pay out a figure that is not written on a cheque. They go by what is written on the cheque, not on the pay-in slip. If you are suggesting that the cheque wasn't tampered with, then the person clearly can expect their bank to refund the money that was paid out by the bank in error. Secondly, I was using conspiracy in the legal sense of two or more people working together to perform a criminal act -- not in the layman's sense of some great secret plan to defraud millions. If a low-level worker deliberately tampered with a cheque, it's very unlikely they did it entirely off their own bat. Their supervisor must have known and given approval. In which case, if the employee who did the actual tampering was proven to have committed fraud, then the supervisor would almost certainly be guilty of conspiracy. Possibly also of 'aiding and abetting the commission of a crime', though conspiracy is usually easier to prove. G ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 21:31:13 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Robinson Subject: Re: Gotta Love GTE > Although I've been lucky enough to move out of GTEland, my girlfriend > has not...[] She called GTE and explained to them that there was a > credit due from her LD carrier (MCI) and that she was going to pay > all of the bill, minus about $7 because of the credit. The GTE Op > said her account was noted as such. For whatever reason, the credit > didn't come through in time. So GTE cashed her check for the FULL > AMOUNT of the bill, despite the fact that the check was written > for the bill minus the $7. GTE claimed that when the credit came > through from MCI, the $7 would then be applied to her account. Wait a minute? Did she write the check for the lower amount and GTE changed it, or did GTE have its bank accept the check at the higher amount? When she gets the check, look at the Magnettic code on the bottom right corner of the check, which is the actual amount the check was charged for. I have a story about why I spent four hours tracing a 1c error because we weren't sure if it was a computer error or not, and that's why I check the number the check was negotiated at, (which I'll relate privately if anyone wants it). Does she have the check back yet? If the amount written in words is different from the amount written in numbers, and the bank cashed it for an amount different from the amount written in words, have her take it back and demand it be charged as the amount written in words, and make the bank eat the difference, which they may try to get from GTE. Banks don't check the amounts of checks because they handle so many of them, but they are liable if they accept a check for more than the amount written on the check in words. The bank acts only as the agent of the account holder in accepting a check for payment; it does not have the right to issue more than the amount of the check. It may refuse a check if there is reason to question it, but it does not have authority in the absence of a court order or other government paper, to accept a check for more than the written amount without consent of the account holder. Or, she could go to the police station and file a CRIMINAL complaint charging the company with check fraud if the change is obvious. This might be better since she might be able to then sue the phone company for damages, since this would be outside the province of the tariffs, since they do immunize the company for common errors, they do not cover wilful negligence and/or fraud. She might be able to get them to waive the service charges for several years! > What kind of racket is this that companies can just cash your > check for whatever amount they deem necessary? While I have heard rumors that the Gestapo Internal Revenue Service has done this, I've never seen it in action. :) Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 01:01 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Subject: Re: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill Organization: Green Hills and Cows > [Moderator's Note: ANI failures are not all that common, and there are > no operator positions maintained just for 'CAMA-style purposes'. The > call just goes to any available operator position and the tube tells > the operator what is wanted. She types it in, hits a certain key and > the call is released to go on its way. PAT] Well, then, I guess the system out here is damn near perfect. I have not been asked for my number one single time in over thirty-five years. And I certainly make my share of long distance calls. Also, if this were EVER done anymore, it would certainly take a lot of steam out of AT&T's remarkably arrogant attitude about never making mistakes. If the accounting is EVER based upon what a caller tells an operator, all bets are off for dependable accuracy in billing. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 [Moderator's Note: But that was the point behind the massive changes in how the system operates which have been made in the past couple decades. It got to the point *everyone* knew how the old system (x-bar and other aspects) worked. By the 1960's, it got to where everyone knew they could tell the operator whatever they pleased as long as they got a few trivial details correct (such as the prefix they were calling from) and the operator had to accept it since between the time the caller dialed for a long distance operator and the operator came on to handle the call, the calling number got lost in the matrix. Bell was *not happy* with the general public knowing as much about the system as they knew. Consider the simple-minded calling cards of the 1950-70 era; your phone number, a 'key letter' and a regional accounting code. Every January, all the phreaks would get together, promise not to abuse each other's personal (legitimate) calling cards, then compare their calling cards. There'd usually be enough variety in numbers the 'key letters' for the year and the digit they were based on could be figured out in two minutes after each person showed his (legitimate card) to the rest of the group. Toll fraud against AT&T reached absolutely epidemic proportions in the 1960-70 period ... much worse than it is now, or at least as bad. I remember a hearing where IBT was applying for a rate increase; this would have been about 1965-1970. One of the commissioners asked the IBT man how much did IBT write off the year before due to toll fraud ... seven million dollars ... IBT alone. Since it had reached the point where everyone knew 'how the system worked' the decision to build the system over from scratch was an easy one to make. You surely don't think ESS was designed and implemented just so telco could market all those nice custom calling features, do you? Those are just icing on the cake ... the real reason for ESS was to enable telco to regain control of a phone network they were rapidly losing control of due to fraud and other mischief. People knew calls could not be traced in any timely way under the old system; they knew they could steal service via their neighbor's wire pair with almost impunity; make up any calling card number on the fly, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 14:24:26 GMT From: Graham Toal Subject: Re: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill John Higdon: > Eventually Pac*Bell discovered the reason for the problem and reported > both to me and to AT&T. In the meantime, I had been withholding the Don't leave us in suspense like this! What was it? G ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 08:48:59 EST From: gdw@gummo.att.com Subject: Re: Costs to Telco: Leased vs Dial Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories From article , by mrapple@quack.sac. ca.us (Nick Sayer): > What if Joe and Fred instead went to the telco and the telco sold them > an analog leased line? How much does this cost the telco relative to > the situation in the first paragraph? Why is it that the price charged > by the telco for this situation is so much higher than in the first > paragraph? > [Moderator's Note: Much of the additional cost would come from the > expense of having certain common equipment in the central office > unavailable for other customer's use. With dialup, telco is gambling > you won't be tying up the CO resources that much; you are gambling you > will be. I thought one of the big reasons why leased lines were so expensive is because they are "special service" circuits and require special procedures to install and maintain. Leased lines cannot be automatically tested with the ever present Mechanized Loop Testing system, or Automatic Line Insulation Test system since leased lines are not accessible because they are not switched circuits. Almost everything associated with special circuits is manual. Although the Switched Access Remote Test System (SARTS) tests specials, the circuit must be routed through the (expensive) test system at installation which is something you don't have to do with POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service). Leased lines also don't have phone numbers so they need special billing procedures. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 08:16:34 -0800 From: Nick Sayer Subject: Re: Costs to Telco: Leased vs Dial TELECOM Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: Much of the additional cost would come from the > expense of having certain common equipment in the central office > unavailable for other customer's use. With dialup, telco is gambling > you won't be tying up the CO resources that much; you are gambling you > will be. By continually holding the line, you'd win and telco would > lose. With leased lines, telco assumes from the beginning you'll keep > the wire packed and they price their bottom line accordingly. And if > the dialup would be zero message units and unlimited time per call, > you'll need *many thousands* of minutes of traffic each month on a > leased line to amortize or spread its cost in such a way that it > becomes less expensive per minute than manual dialup on a call by call > basis on demand. I am losing you here. If the line is unmeasured, then it doesn't matter how many minutes of traffic each month there is, the cost is the same, and is an order of magnitude lower than the equivalent leased line. By the way, the line in question would have 30*24*60 minutes of traffic and one call in a typical month. > If dialup are measured and timed, then you won't need quite as much > traffic to justify leased, but you'll still need plenty. 43200 minutes are probably enough, though on a per-call UNtimed basis it would still work since there'd be only one call per month (or even zero calls if you only count the moment of dialing and a call lasts into the next month). Hmm. The telco may not be quite so bad off. They'll never have to generate ring on the line, almost never make dialtone or use a dial register. Just burn one circuit, which a leased line would have to do anyway ... They might go so far as to someday have hueristics in the switch that let it make resource decisions based on the pattern of use of the line (I see that as the next big thing in computer technology. If a computer runs the transmission in your car, what would be more natural than for it to learn how YOU drive and taylor its actions to your driving patterns). Nick Sayer N6QQQ @ N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest' PGP 2.1 public key on request ------------------------------ From: lars@spectrum.CMC.COM (Lars Poulsen) Subject: Re: Costs to Telco: Leased vs Dial Organization: CMC Network Systems (Rockwell DCD), Santa Barbara, CA, USA Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 23:31:02 GMT In article mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us (Nick Sayer) writes: > [two residential subscribers set up modems to keep line dialed up] > Thus, they effectively have an analog leased line for about $20/mo > (unmeasured service presumed). > [Moderator's Note: > If the dialup would be zero message units and unlimited time per call, > you'll need *many thousands* of minutes of traffic each month on a > leased line to amortize or spread its cost in such a way that it > becomes less expensive per minute than manual dialup on a call by call > basis on demand. If dialup are measured and timed, then you won't need > quite as much traffic to justify leased, but you'll still need plenty. As part of the planning for our NetHopper product, we have looked at lots of call pricing. In short, there are very few places where flat rate local calling is available to businesses anymore. It is an attractive option for residences, and I certainly would not keep the line from my home to the office up for hours every evening, if I had to pay by the minute. Where there is billing by the minute, the crossover point that can justify a leased line is generally at six to eight hours per day. This holds true over a wide variety of distance bands, from within our local business park to cost-to-coast voice-grade connections. This is why a dial-up IP router makes sense, even as the old constituents of the Internet are moving up from leased 56Kbps lines to T-1 lines. [For more information about the NetHopper, please send mail to schomer@CMC.COM rather than me.] Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer Internet E-mail: lars@CMC.COM CMC Network Products / Rockwell Int'l Telephone: +1-805-968-4262 Santa Barbara, CA 93117-3083 TeleFAX: +1-805-968-8256 ------------------------------ From: vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) Subject: Re: Costs to Telco: Leased vs Dial Organization: Xenitec Consulting, Kitchener, Ontario, CANADA Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 08:22:29 GMT I have been wrestling with this problem for quite some time now. Here in Waterloo, Ontario, under the realm of Bell Canada, residential unmeasured service is $9.25/month (Touch Tone extra). Many folks I know have "leased" lines which amount to a pair of dial-up modems connected 24hrs/day. When you compare the price of this (<$20/month) to the cost of leasing copper it is amazing. I work within a block of the CO serving my home, another 5.6km away (about four miles). To lease a dry copper pair from home to work would cost about $50/month. So what is the cost to the telco? For $9.25 I get 5.6km of copper connected to a million dollar switch. For $50 I get the same 5.6km of copper connected to another .4km of copper. Go figure. Now if wanted to lease copper to my friends house across the street I would only have to pay about $4. The copper used would be two times 5.6km as the circuit would always run to the CO and back. I guess this makes sense to the average consumer because they don't know about the underlying topology. It also keeps Bell from changing real estate values by moving CO equipment :). Another interesting tariff is that for OPL (Off Premise Line). This tariff is meant for answering services. You have your line bridged at the CO to another loop which terminates at another location. This is really just an extension the same as the one in the bedroom except it is somewhere else in the city. When a call comes in it rings at both locations and either (or both) can answer it. The cost of this addition to your residential or business service is about $4 if the other location is close to the CO. So in this case the topology IS important. Now going back to my original example I can get the 5.6km copper loop from my house connected to the CO switch and carried on out to my office for about $13/mo. Do you think I could convince them to skip connecting me to the switch? What if I order this service and then not pay my bill, will they disconnect me from the switch and leave the copper in place? (Just kidding Pat :)) It makes you anxious to see what comes of PCN, etc. I believe wireless is for mobile not residential and business service but if it allows me to get connected for a more reasonable cost I'll jump on the band wagon. Vance Shipley vances@xenitec.on.ca vances@switchview.com vances@ltg.uucp ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #139 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05490; 28 Feb 93 21:15 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19651 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 28 Feb 1993 18:55:33 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07093 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 28 Feb 1993 18:55:05 -0600 Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 18:55:05 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199303010055.AA07093@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #140 TELECOM Digest Sun, 28 Feb 93 18:55:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 140 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Feature It (John Higdon) Update to: Another AOS Sleaze Trick (Stan Krieger) Re: Outrageous Hotel Phone Charges (Barry Mishkind) Re: Hotel Surcharges Again -- Survey? (Carl Moore) Hotel Phone Call Home Winds up in Malaysia! (Glen Ecklund) Re: "Aggregater" Experience Sought (John Higdon) Re: The Moderator's New Employer (Matt Healy) A Debit Card Program For Long Distance Calls (Meg Arnold) Re: I am The Stupidest Klutz Alive :( (Rob Knauerhase) Re: I am The Stupidest Klutz Alive :( (Elana Beach) Orange Card Update (Patrick Townson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 00:47 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Feature It After decades of Calling Card numbers based upon the customer's telephone number, AT&T a few years ago finally introduced the long-awaited "AT&T-only" card that is COCOT and AOS proof. But what goes around comes around. Not long ago, Sprint began touting its "new" Calling Card numbering scheme: the one that AT&T used right on through divestiture. And now MCI has its "new" number. The advantage of these "new" calling cards? The number is easier to remember. The disadvantage? None other than the same one that prompted AT&T to discontinue the scheme: any slimeball AOS can bill you for calls using that number because all the needed information is contained therein. Unlike many, I have no problem remembering numbers. But even if that were not the case, it would be worth the effort memorizing the arbitrarily assigned AT&T card number to prevent bogus billing. If someone cannot be without a number that is easily billed by ripoff AOS scum, then the LEC would be happy to provide him with one (which works just fine on AT&T AND Sprint AND MCI). The OCCs are going to a great deal of trouble and expense to convince you that their service is identical to AT&T's but that there is a big difference in the billing methods and, most importantly, the price. The reverse, of course, is true. The price differences between the carriers is now far less significant than the service differences. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: stank@cbnewsl.att.com Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 23:38:16 EST Subject: Update to: Another AOS Sleaze Trick Organization: Summit NJ > On an internal AT&T newsgroup, someone reported that they had used > their AT&T Universal Card to call home from a payphone that defaulted > to an AOS (it wasn't clear if it was NY Telephone or a COCOT). In any > event, the way they got billed for the call was that it showed up as a > collect call on their home phone bill (so it looks like the AOS takes > any calling card number, and if they can't bill to it, they just bill > the receiving phone number). The person who posted this story provided a followup. He called the AOS, and what he discovered was this: When the AOS discovered the card number was a "scrambled" number (their term), the call was routed to a live operator who asked for the phone number of the calling card holder. The person using the card (a relative of the cardholder, who was calling the cardholder) provided that info. The AOS then billed that number as a "billed to a third party" call. The AOS rep also claimed that it was "standard" in the industry to do it that way. Stan Krieger All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even UNIX System Laboratories if related to my employment, are my own. Summit, NJ smk@usl.com [Moderator's Note: Standard in the industry? Yeah, you bet. My answer to the question 'phone number of the calling card holder' would have been 'There is none. It is a miscellaneous non-subscriber account set up by AT&T.' There is such a category ... let them prove me wrong. PAT] ------------------------------ From: barry@coyote.datalog.com (barry mishkind) Subject: Re: Outrageous Hotel Phone Charges Organization: Datalog Consulting, Tucson, AZ Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 18:59:13 GMT In article edg@netcom.com (Ed Greenberg) writes: > Of course, hotel charges of all kinds are outrageous. $18.75 for an > average steak dinner? Seven-fifty for a plate of eggs and bacon? > When you want it in the room, the dining room prices are inflated by > 20-30 percent, and then a service charge is added on top of that. I heard the other day about a hospital in Atlanta that charged patients *$3.00 per FAX* when friends sent get well greetings to them. I don't currently know the name of the hospital, but it was "policy." > place it squarely on American business, especially at the CEO and > Vice President level. American executives consume most of the > business travel dollars in this country, and they sign the expense > reports of ... And are among the most pampered people in the world, with special emphasis on government stupervisors (sic). Barry Mishkind coyote.datalog.com Tucson, Arizona ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 13:14:13 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Hotel Surcharges Again -- Survey? Comfort Inn and Days Inn are separate chains. It is possible for a hotel to be switched from one chain to another, and I've even seen cases where a hotel is (at least temporarily) not part of a chain; when it leaves a chain, it must cover or remove that chain's insignia. I did see a listing for Days Inn at 646 W. Diversey Parkway in Chicago. (in the following paragraph: the area code was permissive 301/410, and has since been fully cut over to 410). In March 1992, I found a 30-cent charge for local calls in effect at the Comfort Inn at Edgewood, Maryland; BUT the local calling area was different from that of the nearby C&P pay phone, which was on 676 and which charged 25 cents for a local call. The hotel rooms were using 679, so my advice was to use the room phone for calls to Baltimore city or any suburb beyond Towson. ------------------------------ From: glen@slate.cs.wisc.edu (Glen Ecklund) Subject: Hotel Phone Call Home Winds in Malaysia! Organization: U of Wisconsin Madison - Computer Sciences Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 16:52:30 GMT I once tried to call home (Area 608) from a phone in my hotel room. I used the instructions on the phone, and got a wrong number. Then I found a different set of instructions on a sheet of paper. I called my carrier (AT&T) to credit the wrong number, but I got a bill anyway, for a call to Malaysia (country code 60). I called AT&T again and they credited me. Glen Ecklund glen@cs.wisc.edu (608) 262-1318 Office, 262-1204 Dept. Sec'y Department of Computer Sciences 1210 W. Dayton St., Room 3355 University of Wisconsin, Madison Madison, Wis. 53706 U.S.A. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 02:23 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: "Aggregater" Experience Sought eap@ora.com (Eric Pearce) writes: > I'm supposed to meet with a salesperson from First Federated > Communications later this week. > My concern is adding another party to the "soup". A very real concern, indeed. What you lose is the ability to deal directly with the entity providing your service. You are no longer the customer of a long distance carrier, but that of a third party who has no technical knowledge of or other interest in the quality of your service. The aggregator's sole purpose is to literally get between you and the carrier and collect money. It sounds as though you are much too big a deal to fool around with aggregators. I would suggest that you simply negotiate harder with the REAL carrier of your choice. I have discovered that beating on a carrier really pays off, since right now they are very hungry. Much better to get a savings that way than pay middleman scum. (Ah, c'mon Higdon, say what you really think!) John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ From: matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu (Matt Healy) Subject: Re: The Moderator's New Employer Organization: Yale U. - Genetics Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 23:01:33 GMT [rest of Pat's remarks cut...] > use their 1+ service, and they do not 'slam' or play games. At the > present time, their 800 number is *not* well known to hotels, thus it Might I suggest they change their 800 number from time to time, with advance notification to their customers. That would _really_ make it difficult for hotels to rip me off! Matt Healy matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu ------------------------------ From: meg_arnold.bic@qm.sri.com (Meg Arnold) Subject: Re: My New Venture: The Orange Calling Card Date: 28 Feb 93 19:06:10 GMT Organization: SRI International In article <93.02.20.1@eecs.nwu.edu>, ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick Townson) wrote: > I recently resigned my employment of several years and have begun a > business of my own as an independent sales agent or contractor for > Orange Communications, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota, a small but > growing long distance carrier. They offer 1+ dialing and a telephone > calling card which has *no surcharge* associated with its use. > To use it, you dial an 800 number, then the number you are calling, > the ten digit card number and your PIN. [more stuff deleted] > Orange Card charges a flat rate of 25 cents per minute, and they bill > in six-second increments rather than whole minutes. [again] On a related topic, I recently did some work for a company called World Telecom Group, which is based in Mountain View, CA. They market a calling card product similar to those in Europe and elsewhere -- a debit calling card. However, their card, unlike those abroad, is software-based, rather than hardware-based (i.e. no card-reader on the phone). This is the deal: you sign up for a card in whatever increment you want ($20, $100, etc.) and use it till it's almost gone (you're informed by a recording when that is). Then you can renew via a credit card each time, or set it up to renew automatically as you use up the money on your card. Because it's debit rather than credit, you never get a separate billing for your use of; it appears as a one-time renewal charge on your credit card (although itemized monthly billings are available). To use the card, dial an 800-number from any telephone, punch in your PIN at the tone, and dial from there. There is no per-use surcharge. Rates start at $.139/minute nationwide, and as you accumulate usage on an *ongoing* (not monthly) basis, your rate drops -- permanently. So assume one threshold is at $1000 -- if you reach that after 2.5 months use, your rate drops permanently to $.129/minute. At the next threshold, it goes to $.119. There IS a minimum, obviously, at $.089 or something (the actual numbers may vary, my memory for them is weak). The software they have developed to run this thing and track everyone's usage is, naturally, proprietary, and more interestingly, it uses real-time timing of calls. Well, I'm not going to sell you anything, since I'm no longer affiliated with the company, but it's a bit of information people out there may be interested in. Meg Arnold, Business Intelligence Center, SRI International. 333 Ravenswood Avenue, Menlo Park, CA 94025. phone: (415) 859-3764 internet: meg_arnold@qm.sri.com [Moderator's Note: Obviously, if you are willing to let them hold on to your money, the program you tell about is the best deal of all. You can get extremely inexpensive long distance calling. But if you are not willing to let a company hold on to your unused money, then there is a problem with the plan. :) For those of us who do not have any spare money to let someone hold -- those of us who live from one payday to the next (or from one trip to the post office box to the next perhaps) -- then these Trying Times in which we live don't allow the luxury of buying cheap in large quantities. Granted, the program does sound good. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rob Knauerhase Subject: Re: I am The Stupidest Klutz Alive :( Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 17:53:31 CST Organization: Department of Computer Science, Univ. of Illinois @ Urbana In <93.02.23.1@eecs.nwu.edu>, Patrick Townson writes: > I am sitting here kicking myself in the butt. For no reason other than > my own clumsiness, ALL the Orange Card requests you sent me were wiped > out .... :( > Of course, a fraction of a second after I hit the return key I > realized I had just wiped out the file and replaced it with the > one entry .... :( Pat, I'd forget this Orange alliance if I were you -- it sounds as though you have real potential for a sterling career at GTE! :-) Sorry, couldn't resist :) Rob Knauerhase, University of Illinois @ Urbana, Dept. of Computer Science ------------------------------ From: elana@agora.rain.com (Elana Beach) Subject: Re: I am The Stupidest Klutz Alive :( Organization: Open Communications Forum Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 00:10:08 GMT ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick Townson) writes: > Now I would like to go out and shoot myself or something. To paraphrase a line from the "Addams Family" movie ... Aw, Pat! Don't shoot yourself ... That's OUR job! =8) With positive thoughts from another expert on ballistic podiatry, QLLD [Moderator's Note: Listen you! Compared to my family, the Addams Family is functional, as the shrinks would say. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 16:19:26 -0600 From: Patrick Townson Subject: Orange Card Update A few hundred Orange Card brochure/applications were mailed out this week. The ones of you who responded first may have already received them in your mail Friday or Saturday. Others will receive them Monday/Tuesday. Still another batch of email which arrived since Friday is going in the mail on Monday, so those people will get them this week ahead sometime. You will receive a plain envelope with an orange colored brochure inside. I saw no reason to send along lots of other promotional stuff as most TELECOM Digest readers are too smart to be swayed by that. No need to include some of the promotional stuff since you all know the scoop anyway. Either it will work for you or it won't, and the key is short calls from phones that have surcharges, with the calls mostly made during daytime peak-traffic hours, etc. I am *very interested* in finding out any problems which develop with this card, i.e it takes a long time to get your card from Minneapolis once your application goes in, card is wrong, etc. Also, once you start getting billings, let me know if there are hassles. I'll make a final decision on this once I see how well they deal with the business you are giving them at this time. Are calls going through in a timely way without a lot of hassles or misconnections, etc? If this works out well, that is if they turn out to be a very reputable organization as I have been told, then I may start dealing with another product of theirs called the "Orange Phone". This is a COCOT which will permit calling all over the USA at the rate of 25 cents per minute; you insert the quarters in the slot and dial wherever. For those of you who missed the original message last week, the Orange Calling Card is a product of Orange Communications, Inc. of Minneapolis. I am handing out applications in the hopes a little money will be generated to offset the increasing costs of publishing TELECOM Digest. This is a no surchange, flat rate 25 cents per minute calling card which works from anywhere in the USA by calling an 800 number, inserting your card number and PIN, and the number you want to call. Obviously, the savings to callers come when SHORT (one to five) minute calls are made during the daytime from phones which otherwise would have a surcharge attached to the call, such as from a hotel, etc. There is a $10 fee to establish the account on the computer and mail out the plastic card, etc. If this sort of calling card would have any benefit for you, you can request a brochure/application from my personal email address: ptownson@eecs.nwu.edu. Consider it like an 'affinity calling card' for the telecom family on the net. But mainly, I want to hear experiences, good and bad so I can decide where I am going with this. Thanks. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #140 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16512; 1 Mar 93 1:26 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20136 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 28 Feb 1993 23:14:03 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24410 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 28 Feb 1993 23:13:16 -0600 Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 23:13:16 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199303010513.AA24410@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #141 TELECOM Digest Sun, 28 Feb 93 23:13:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 141 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson National Data Superhighways -- Public and Private Roles (NYT via A. Blau) Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? (Peter Bachman) Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? (Richard Nash) Re: Clinton/Gore Meeting With SGI Employees (Roy McCrory) Re: Clinton/Gore Meeting With SGI Employees (Robert L. McMillin) Re: AT&T's China Deal, and Comments (Lars Poulsen) Re: AT&T's China Deal, and Comments (Ang Peng Hwa) Re: AT&T's China Deal, and Comments (Garrett Wollman) Re: AT&T's China Deal, and Comments (lvc@cbnews.att.com) Re: Full Cutover Putting the Bronx in Area Code 718 Nears (Bill Garfield) Re: Full Cutover Putting the Bronx in Area Code 718 Nears (Carl Moore) Re: Switching LD Carriers (Jim Graham) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 09:39:57 -0500 From: Andrew Blau Subject: National Data Superhighways -- Public and Private Roles From the {New York Times}, February 24, 1993: Clinton's Technology Plan Would Redirect Billions From Military Research by Edmund Andrews Washington, Feb. 23 -- President Clinton's newly introduced plan to bolster industrial technology involves almost no increase in total government spending on research, but it would redirect billions of dollars from military programs to projects involving private industry. [* * *] Over all, the Government would play a supporting role rather than taking center stage in technology development. The biggest single effort outlined thus far is the $2 billion plan to build a nationwide communications "superhighway," a program that was championed by Vice President Gore while he was in the Senate and which Congress has already funded in large measure. As the project is outlined, however, the Administration would spend money primarily on developing advanced supercomputers and software that would link them over a high-speed fiber optic network, and on demonstration projects at hospitals, schools and libraries. For the most part, the actual construction of a network that is widely available to the public would be left to private companies. ------------------------------ From: pbachman@skidmore.EDU (peter bachman) Subject: Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 02:53:57 GMT I think it is clear that the access problem will get cleared up. The question then becomes what do you do with all the information and get it into a usable form; what will be your community of interest? If everyone that wants to get involved in doing multi-media over the net in fact does so I am wondering where all this media is going to come from? Peter Bachman - usual disclaimers ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 19:01:16 -0700 From: rickie@trickie.ualberta.ca (Richard Nash) Subject: Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? Andrew Blau writes: >[...Info about EDS v. AT&T "dark fiber" controversy deleted...] >> Somebody once said that the triumph of capitalism is not that it can >> produce silk stockings for the Queen, but that it makes affordable >> nylons for the secretaries. That is the approach we need to take with >> digital services: by making them available cheaply, we can spread >> their benefits widely. All we need is the capital and the vision to >> apply it. > Three cheers, then, for Robert McMillin. I could not have said it > better myself. Affordable digital service for residential users so > that the benefits of this system can be widely shared is one of the > most critical public policy issues in this area, and one that is often > overlooked. Moreover, much of the financial capital that Mr. McMillin > refers to has already been sunk over the last eight years, if we are > talking about the first level of digital services for the home. The > real capital that needs to get spent is likely to be political > capital, and, following Mr. McMillin, the vision to apply it. Well, perhaps it was better that I waited before responding to the remarks countered to those I had made, that "the telcos are not interested in monopoly services." Have we gone full circle yet? Affordable digital service for residential users is something that I have long wished for. Will the private sector have me, the lowly residential data highway user, interests, as a fundamental concern? Is competitive undercutting going to ultimately resolve data transport costs to absolute marginal profits and then as perhaps we see in the airline industry, consistant uncertianty to their solvency/dependancy to deliver? What I would be interested in hearing about from {telecom digest} readers, is how they foresee the deployment? Who is gonna do it cheap for all of us to enjoy? National (government funded) programs to develop this network, or AT&T and such interested parties, running high profile interference to prevent their overpriced technology, from being easily overcome by the technology revolution that perhaps even they cannot ultimately stonewall? Richard Nash Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8 UUCP: rickie%trickie@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca Amateur Radio Packet: ve6bon%ve6bon.ampr.ab.ca@gw-1.ampr.ab.ca VE6BON @ VE6MC.AB.CAN.NA ve6bon.ampr.ab.ca [192.75.200.15] ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 93 16:27:00 MDT From: MCCRORY, ROY Subject: Re: Clinton/Gore Meeting With SGI Employees Does anyone know where I can obtain a copy, preferably from the net, of the "printed' technology policy referred to in the address? Roy A. McCrory (505) 846-6937 FCDNA/FCTP, Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5669 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 07:29:16 -0800 From: rlm@indigo2.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: Clinton/Gore Meeting With SGI Employees Mark Boolootian published a transcript of President Clinton's visit to Silicon Graphics, Inc. Without flogging the entire transcript to death, here's why Mr. Clinton is rather dangerous for the whole telecom business: First, Jobs Are Sacred: > Ed said that you plan your new products knowing they'll be > obsolete within 12 to 18 months, and you want to be able to replace > them. We live in an era of constant change. And America's biggest > problem, if you look at it through that lens, is that for too many > people change is an enemy, not a friend. I mean, one reason you're > all so happy is you found a way to make change your friend, right? > Diversity is a strength, not a source of division, right? (Applause.) > Change is a way to make money, not throw people out of work, right? Uh huh. With thinking like this, AT&T should throw out all its digital switches and hire back millions of operators. And as Mr. Higdon would point out, there are certainly people who would relish a return to the days of the Ellie the cordbord operator. That, however, is pure nostalgia. Many times, it's not only desirable but *essential* to get rid of positions. That's not to say that the process should be done stupidly with the intent of eliminating employees as the only goal. But, if a company streamlines in an intelligent way, it will be able to turn out a product or service at a lower cost and make happier customers. Second, Symbolism Over Substance: > Example: We cut the White House staff by 25 percent to set a > standard for cutting inessential spending in the government. Does *anybody* expect Mr. Clinton to be able to cut the rest of the government by this much? I certainly don't. For starters, he has as much control over Congress as either of his predecessors did, which is to say, none. Whatever new taxes the Federal maw sucks in will have been spent last year; next year, Congress will spend 150% of that. By failing to axe superpork projects like the superconducting supercollider, Mr. Clinton has displayed less backbone than a jellyfish. Congressional Democrats by now have to figure that they've got the upper hand, and will use it. Third, What's Wrong With California? > California has to participate in the recovery in order for > America to have a recovery that is worth the name recovery. Mr. Clinton doesn't understand the basic reasons why California is having so many problems, and why businesses are leaving the state. First and foremost, the state legislature is controlled by the plaintiffs' attorneys' lobby. These vultures have staved off reform of workers' compensation insurance. The result: innumerable ads with happy leeches exclaiming "Steele, Cheatem and Robb got me $1,000,000!", and ambulance-chasing hustlers knocking around every construction site for even the tiniest (and frequently, nonexistant) injuries. But this government of, by, and for the lawyers is not the only problem. The attitude of anti-democratic government structures at all levels can only be described as autocratic: the various Air Quality Management Districts, for instance, are unelected, but pass regulations that have the force of law. Add to this the jumble of jurisdictions and incoherence of the laws, and it should come as no surprise to anyone who has had a real job (i.e., one outside of government) that plenty of people now leave California for states like Arizona, Nevada, and even Alabama. Mr. Clinton's insistence that "government should do more" will just intensify these problems, both within California and throughout the nation. Fourth, The Motivation: > We also have to pay attention to the financial environment in > which companies like this have to exist. In order for this company to > attract investors for the kind of products that you are building here, > you have got to be able to tell them that the interest rates are not > going to be too high if they're borrowing money to invest; Excuse me, but even with the huge Federal debt we've got now, we have historically low interest rates. What gives? Could it be a politically motivated excuse to grab even more in taxes? This is a ruse to let Democrats be Democrats. Future 1040: 1. What did you make last year? ____ 2. Send it in. Fifth, Let's Grab Your Digital Civil Rights: > And one of the things that this plan calls for is the rapid > completion of a nationwide network of information super highways. > (Applause.) If the employees at SGI had been thinking about this, they would have held their applause. I still say: keep the U.S. out of cyberspace. We can't afford Uncle Nosey's intrusions and the necessary presumption of guilt that would likely be the price of "driving" on such a "information super highway". Robert L. McMillin | Voice: (310) 568-3555 Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc. | Fax: (310) 568-3574 Los Angeles, CA | Internet: rlm@indigo2.hac.com [Moderator's Note: Thank you for an excellent rebuttal message. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lars@spectrum.CMC.COM (Lars Poulsen) Subject: Re: AT&T's China Deal, and Comments Organization: CMC Network Systems (Rockwell DCD), Santa Barbara, CA, USA Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 23:02:48 GMT In article Tdarcos@MCIMAIL.COM writes: >Based on current equipment costs and distances, they could probably >install enough cellular towers to provide phone service anywhere in >the country for a lot less. I don't think there is any reason to believe that cellular switches are less expensive than regular wireline switches for the same traffic capacity. In fact, isn't there a DMS-100 on the side of most cellular installations? I am also hesitant to believe that there aren't export controls on the cellular technology. Recently, it has been discovered that the GSM system has "too much privacy" and the British governement does not want it exported to the Arab Gulf countries. > [if] one tower can reach an area of 7.5 miles in each direction, > [then you need] 50,000 cellular switches. 40% of 1.2 billion people is 500 million subscribers. At 10K lines per switch, that's 50K switches. Gee, the numbers seem to be in the same range. > If, in these large quantities and the well-educated prison labor > (courtesy of Tianamen Square) they can bring the price down to say > $100,000 per cellular switch, the total cost to provide cellular > phone service -- which would give the entire country telephone > service at once -- would cost in the neighborhood of $5 billion > dollars. Based on the figures that are talked about, the service > could be installed in four years. I think ten dollars per subscriber is an unrealistically low figure. Probably low by at least a factor of ten. > than it would be to just instruct a local switch to record the > incoming and outgoing numbers of all calls going in and out of a > particular dissident's phone, often without the dissident even being > aware of the monitoring until they come for him, or her. There is no monitoring that an ESS can do, that would not apply equally to a network with wireless local loops. Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer Internet E-mail: lars@CMC.COM CMC Network Products / Rockwell Int'l Telephone: +1-805-968-4262 Santa Barbara, CA 93117-3083 TeleFAX: +1-805-968-8256 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 17:07:02 SST From: Ang Peng Hwa Subject: Re: AT&T's China's Deal, and Comments It does not surprise me in the least that AT&T will be manufacturing in China. I was at the press conference when they announced that they would be making cordless phones in Singapore. That was 1985 if my memory serves me. One question I asked was whether they had plans for China. And the country manager said yes. But no details. I suppose the Singapore experience can't hurt: they came in August and shipped the first million phones by December, a few days ahead of schedule. Some of us looking at China telecom speculate that China will try to model its telephone system after the USA -- (no, not the 900 bit) with RBOCs and IXCs. The idea is to have competition among the companies. (Lines can still be monitored for politically incorrect speech, as is done in some unmentionable countries.) Getting AT&T in would be consistent with the above hypothesis. ------------------------------ From: Garrett.Wollman@UVM.EDU (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: AT&T's China Deal, and Comments Organization: University of Vermont, EMBA Computer Facility Date: Sun 28 Feb 1993 00:34:09 GMT In article Tdarcos@MCIMAIL.COM writes: >AT&T almost certainly would make more money selling wireline switches >to that country. I find this interesting. I seem to recall that one of the Canadian government's reasons for not implementing strong sanctions against China after Tienanmen Square was admitted to be that Northern had a large contract with China to do many of the things which apparently AT&T is going to do. Does anybody remember what happened with this? Garrett A. Wollman wollman@emba.uvm.edu uvm-gen!wollman UVM disagrees. ------------------------------ From: lvc@cbnews.att.com Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 09:00:34 EST Subject: Re: AT&T's China Deal, and Comments Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc. In article Tdarcos@MCIMAIL.COM writes: > Based on current equipment costs and distances, they could probably > install enough cellular towers to provide phone service anywhere in > the country for a lot less. > AT&T almost certainly would make more money selling wireline switches > to that country. Everything I have read internally at AT&T indicates the PRC is going cellular in a /very/ big way; the reason is that the country is so vast it would be too expensive and time consuming to build an almost-all wireline system. The 5ESS switch is already installed in some parts of the PRC. Also, AT&Ts MFOS [Multi-Function Operations System -- it's an "international ized" conglomeration of OS products] has been there for three or four years, maybe longer. One thing I recall hearing about MFOS in the PRC was it is staffed by their army, as if ordinary people could not be trusted ... ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Full Cutover Putting the Bronx in Area Code 718 Nears From: bill.garfield@yob.sccsi.com (Bill Garfield) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 21:37:00 -0600 Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569 Reply-To: bill.garfield@yob.sccsi.com (Bill Garfield) Dave Niebuhr in article telecom13.128.5 writes: > NYTel has announced that full cutover to area code 718 in the Bronx is > getting closer to full implementation. > "On May 15, 1993, the adjustment period ends and the dialing changes > become permanent. Since 95% of the inbound hacker activity on my DISA port ani's back to Bronx and Queens, does this change mean what I think it does? Previously SPRINT offered to block npa 212 from inbound access to my 800 DISA service. My execs nixed that plan because it would have been blocking all of metro NYC. (God forbid blocking the Big Apple) If I interpret the above correctly, I can now say "yes" to blocking of npa 718 and finally succeed in segregating my DISA port from most of those who continually attempt to steal service from me. I say "attempt" because since I was hacked for nearly $20-G in phraud to npa 809 in Oct.91, it's been an ongoing game of 'cat and mouse.' My execs insist that we need to keep our absurd four-digit pin codes, insist on returning NA Precise DT immediately upon incoming seize, and are absolutely adamant about keeping it open 24 hours a day via an 800 number that even spells D-I-S-A!! Why don't we just hang a neon sign like the bath houses in SF? Needless to say, the system gets banged on regularly. My counter efforts have included locking down the system barring 809 outbound, blocking IXC-to-FGB/D loop throughs, blocking all IXC-inbound to both IXC and LEC outbound, and in general making the system nearly impossible to use even for the rightful owners. Surgically blocking Bronx and Queens _at the source_ would be welcomed relief. We might even save one tree a month in the reduced smdr logs. ;^) Is there a down side to this blocking? Ye Olde Bailey BBS 713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis) Houston,Texas yob.sccsi.com Home of alt.cosuard ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 14:43:46 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Full Cutover Putting the Bronx in Area Code 718 Nears I am assuming that calls from Manhattan to the Bronx can currently be made as 7D or as 1 + 718 + 7D, with the 7D going away in May. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 09:59:08 CST From: Jim Graham Reply-To: Jim Graham Subject: Re: Switching LD Carriers > The following appeared in misc.consumers and I thought it would be of > interest here ... > From: schwartz@ces.cwru.edu (David G. Schwartz) [text about switching back and forth for long distance credits deleted for space purposes.] > So I'm thinking, this is a great business. Why not install a few > dozen phone lines and earn a living just swapping long distance > carriers? On average I could probably net $50 per line per month. I know someone who did something like this ... but only with the one telephone line. he told me that he basically switches long distance companies every month, depending on who has the best "incentives" at the time. I gather he didn't ever really spend anything at all on long distance. Oddly enough, this person works for a carrier (name and company withheld for obvious reasons). You'd think that the long distance companies would catch on, but I guess in the end, most people probably don't think to do this. :-) I might do this myself, except I stick with AT&T to avoid causing problems with my AT&T EasyReach number. Just thought y'all might find that interesting. jim #include 73 DE N5IAL (/4) INTERNET: jim@n5ial.mythical.com | j.graham@ieee.org ICBM: 30.23N 86.32W AMATEUR RADIO: n5ial@w4zbb (Ft. Walton Beach, FL) AMTOR SELCAL: NIAL ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #141 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20960; 1 Mar 93 15:22 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31461 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 1 Mar 1993 12:33:02 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23077 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 1 Mar 1993 12:32:31 -0600 Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 12:32:31 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199303011832.AA23077@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #142 TELECOM Digest Mon, 1 Mar 93 12:32:30 CST Volume 13 : Issue 142 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson NY World Trade Center - Some Telecom News (David G. Lewis) How do You Connect a Four-Wire Leased Line to Telebit T3000? (Jack Stewart) Voice Recognition and Text-to-Speech from AT&T (Justin Leavens) Proofreading Volunteers Requested (Eduardo Salom) Outdial Survey (Steve Wegert) Multiple Terminals to Host Miles Away - How? (James Deibele) Room Monitor Wanted (George Thurman) Local Exchange Database Wanted (Karl Waldman) PBX Tech Information Wanted (Michael Pigg) Gas Recombination Batteries (Delavar K. Khomarlou) Ownership of 800 Numbers (Will Martin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: NY World Trade Center - Some Telecom News Organization: AT&T Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 16:30:57 GMT I just got off the phone with one of my friends at Teleport Communications, who gave me some info on how they were affected by the WTC explosion. Teleport Communications (TCG), as you may or may not know, has their main network hub in the B6 level of 2 World Trade Center. B6 is about 75 feet below street level, and holds (in addition to TCG) generators, pumps, ventilation equipment, and other physical plant. (B5 has more of the same; B4 and B3 are public parking; B2 is parking, the PATH tracks, and some offices; B1 is Port Authority offices primarily for building operations and the PATH concourse, if memory serves.) The bomb was located on the B2 level; from what I've seen in the press, the structural damage (holes in walls and floors) reached down to the B4 level. In other words, it blew holes through three 12-inch thick reinforced concrete floors. TCG was not directly affected by the blast, aside from undoubtedly scaring the people working in B6 half to death. (The comment I heard was "people felt the blast and were up to B2 before they even realized it ...") The thought of being under 110 stories of glass and steel on top of 7 stories of basement is intimidating enough in the most benign of circumstances; the thought of it all falling on top of you is, shall we say, not a pleasant one. The major impacts on TCG were power and water. Of eight Consolidated Edison power feeders coming into WTC, five were cut by the blast itself. The remaining three were shut down on order of the NYFD shortly thereafter, because of fears of further explosions (before it was known that it was a bomb blast, when it was thought that it could have been an accidental explosion.) TCG has battery backup, but its lifespan is limited; the Port Authority backup generators are to provide backup power in the event of a loss of commercial power. Unfortunately, the Port Authority and NYFD did not permit the backup generators to be started up for some time, again due to the fear of a second explosion, and until there was some confidence that the building wasn't going to fall in on top of them ... From what I can recall of the news coverage, the Port Authority backup generators started coming online at around 7:00 PM. The first priorities were to re-establish ventilation and lighting in the towers. I suspect TCG started getting power just as its batteries were at the ragged end of their charge, as my sources tell me that some circuits went down. Fortunately, this was after the close of business Friday. The second concern was water, as the blast severed a significant number of water pipes and the water from firefighting was making its way down into the subbasements. Again fortunately, the water level did not climb to the level of the raised floor on which the equipment was mounted before pumps could be brought in to bail it out. My impression is that, while some underfloor cable may have gotten soaked, no equipment was damaged. The current situation is that TCG is running at 99% or better capacity in B6; power is back online from a combination of the PA generators, some massive ConEd generator trucks that came in over the weekend, and some mobile generators brought in by Brooklyn Union Gas. The water level has subsided, and there are probably half a dozen TCG employees crawling around on the floor with hairdryers drying out cables ... The WTC complex is open on a limited basis. 7 World Trade Center, which is across Vesey Street from the rest of the complex, is open. 3WTC, 4WTC, 5WTC, and the US Customshouse, which are in the same complex as the towers, are open on a limited basis, with maybe 20% - 30% of the employees allowed in for what are viewed as critical activities (like running the Commodity Exchanges). 1 and 2 WTC (the towers) and the Vista International hotel are closed indefinitely. The mezzanine (shopping level) and PATH concourse are also closed; the command post is set up on the mezzanine level, and PATH trains, while running, are discharging passengers to the Vesey Street exit. The Port Authority has made available office space in the Teleport complex on Staten Island to WTC tenants. Additionally, there is a flurry of activity as tenants relocate temporarily to other locations they occupy in Manhattan, across the river in NJ, or in the other Boroughs. I'm certain that NYTel, TCG, MFS, and Locate are all doing a land-office business setting up new lines for the companies which have been forced elsewhere by the blast. On a more general level, the people I know who've seen the site say that what's most amazing is that so *few* people were killed. The magnitude of a blast that basically tore a 100-foot long hole in a foot of reinforced concrete, and continued downward through two more levels of concrete, is something scary. The reaction, from what I've seen and heard, has been nothing short of tremendous, from the emergency services people -- Port Authority PD, City of New York PD, FD, and EMS, even firefighters from across the river in NJ -- who were first on the scene (the NY Fire Commissioner described the response as approximately equal to a 16-alarm callout), to the NYC public works, transportation, sanitation, and other departments and Port Authority people who are working to restore some semblance of normality, to the ConEd, NYTel, and all other utility people who have contributed to the efforts. The event was shocking to everyone in the area, but the response has been amazing. David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!goofy!deej Switching & ISDN Implementation [Moderator's Note: Thanks for this virtual first hand report. As I gave much thought over the weekend to this ugly event which has now been definitly attributed to arson -- or a deliberate act -- it occurred to me we can probably expect a lot more of this in the months and years to come. I strongly believe the decade of the nineties is going to be a decade of bombings and terrorist acts in the USA. We have a lot of enemies around the world and I think we have seen just the first of a long string of these events. There will be imitators and there will be genuine terrorists; bombings and killings will become a fad. The sad part is there is no way to stop it short of imposition of martial law, which no one here will tolerate *now*. I think our middle east nemisis SH was responsible this time. We blew up his hotel, he blows up our World Trade Center. I think he is testing Clinton. As conditions worsen here, watch for previously unthinkable changes in our laws and the way we are governed to gradually become quite thinkable, in the name of national security. For example, the Second Amendment is almost completely decimated already. Regards imitators, the first thing Monday morning, Chicago's City Hall and Daley Center was closed and evacuated due to a bomb threat according to news on the television as I write this. Goodbye, America. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jack@ccsf.caltech.edu (Jack Stewart) Subject: How do You Connect a Four-Wire Leased Line to Telebit T3000? Date: 28 Feb 1993 22:36:16 GMT Organization: CCSF Caltech, Pasadena, CA I need to establish a SLIP connection using a pair of T3000 and a four- wire leased line. Another way of asking this question is can you just use two of the wires from a four-wire leased line and safely ignore the other pair? I know that the T3000's should be hooked into a two-wire leased line. Unfortunately the person that I am doing this for goofed up and ordered the wrong thing (a four-wire line). PacBell wants to charge far too much to get the equipment swapped. So I need to try to make it work as is (even though the operating cost is higher). I know that the lines work in pairs. I presume that I can just use one of the pairs (like DR/DTR/R1 and DT/DTT/T1) and ignore the other (DRR/R-DRT/T). Is this correct? Are there any special gotchas? Are there any voltage problems that I should watch out for? The only other question I have is does anyone know of a good book on leased lines? Most of the books that I have seen are very general in nature. Please send me responses via e-mail. News postings often take their time in getting here. If there is enough interest I will summarize response and my sucesses and failures ... Jack Stewart E-Mail: jack@CCSF.Caltech.EDU Caltech Concurrent Supercomputing Facilities, Phone: 818-356-2153 Mail Code # 158-79, 391 S. Holliston, Pasadena, CA 91125. #include ------------------------------ From: leavens@mizar.usc.edu (Justin Leavens) Subject: Voice Recognition and Text-to-Speech from AT&T Date: 28 Feb 1993 14:43:46 -0800 Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA An AT&T rep demonstrated a pretty impressive voice recognition system the other day, which supposedly is going to be an add-on to their call processing systems sometime in the near future. Their mock "AT&T On-line Phone Store" took an entire order with no touchtone input, sorting out the numerous "uh's" and "uhm's" and such from the important digits, the "yeah's" and "yup's" from the "nah's" and "uh, no's". In fact, the whole transaction was conducted by speakerphone. Very impressive. I was also demonstrated a text-to-speech system that wasn't as flashy, but it certainly did the job. It was generally right on target with pronunciation or at least very close to being correct. Again, this is supposed to be an add-on soon to their call-processing systems in the near future. Justin Leavens Microcomputer Specialist University of Southern California ------------------------------ From: eduardo@psg.com (Eduardo Salom) Subject: Proofreading Volunteers Requested Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 23:25:23 GMT I'm involved in a project: a database of countries/cities with a companion program to get the dialing codes. In my database there are about 9200 cities around the world, I would need some volunteers, to do the following tasks: a) check the spelling, adding the special characters needed if they are supported by the IBM-8 charset, b) check the codes assigned to each city, as my sources may be outdated and might be typing errors. c) Add any missed city you may know or even, if the impression is good enough to produce a readable fax, send me the directory pages with the access codes. Sometimes a sligthly enlarged photocopy can be faxed succesfully. e) It isn't a must but it would be desirable to append the province/state the the city name (i.e. Houston, TX) to avoid confusions between cities with the same o very close names. f) For each country add the instructions to access the international and long distance services (direct dialing and operator) g) Denomination of the country and main cities in other languages as Holland / Holanda / Pais Bas / Netherland Germany / ALemania / Alemagne / Deutschland Norway / Norge / Noruega London / Londra / Londres Wien / Vienna / Viena Each volunteer ideally should check the country where (s)he reside. Each volunteer who accomplish its task will receive a copy of the package once it's ready. Any volunteers? Eduardo J. Salom | eduardo@psg.com ..!uunet!m2xenix!eduardo Larrea 1218 - 2.A | BIX: swp CIS: [73000,74] DELPHI: swp (1117) Buenos Aires | FidoNet: Eduardo_Salom@4:900/112.7 Argentina | VMS-Mail: PSI%0311061703053::SWP [Moderator's Note: I already advised Eduardo through email that he should check out the 'country.codes' directory in the Telecom Archives for a comprehensive list of country and city codes. To see this data base, use anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu, then 'cd telecom-archives' and 'cd country.codes'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steve Wegert Subject: Outdial Survey Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 13:33:29 CST Please help me research the viability of "outdial" services in light of today's use of high speed modems and lower long distance rates. I am in the final stages of setting up a company who's charter will be to provide it's customers with "outdial" capabilities to over 600 cities in the United States. Access charges will be significantly lower than those of the traditional long distance carriers, and competitive with other services offering similar capabilities. If you feel "outdial" services still have a place, your opinions are important. Please take just a few moments and fill out the brief survey which follows. 1) What type of computer equipment do you currently use? ____ a) PC/Clone b) Atari c) Apple/Mac d) Commodore/Amiga d) other 2) In making use of an "outdial" service, rate on a scale of 1-5 (1 being of least importance), the following features : ___ data throughput ___ cost per hour ___ timely billing ___ knowledgable customer/technical service 3) What bps rate would you use most often? ___ a) 300bps b) 1200bps c) 2400bps d) 9600 and above 3a) Which of the above rates would you consider to be the slowest acceptable rate for your "outdial" needs? ____ 4) How would you most often make use of "outdial" services? ___ a) BBS messaging b) online chatting c) file transfers 5) What time of day would you most often use this service? a) 6am - 6pm b) 6pm - 11pm c) 11pm - 6am 6) What hours would would you appreciate customer/technical support? ___ a) day b) evening c) weekend 7) If other types of services could be bundled with the "outdial" package, which of the following would be of interest? (check all that apply) ___ Email ___ Usenet/Internet ___ News/Weather/Sports ___ Other (please specify) _________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ 8) What method of payment would be the most convenient? ___ a) MC/VISA b) Discover c) AE d) CheckFree e) direct bill 9) What dollar range (per hour) would you consider reasonable for the use of an "outdial" service? ____ a) $6.00 b) $5.00 c) $4.00 d) $3.00 Thank you for your input! Please feel free to attach any additional comments to the end of the survey and mail to: Steve Wegert -- steve@wuarchive.wustl.edu ------------------------------ From: jamesd@techbook.com (James Deibele) Subject: Multiple Terminals to Host Miles Away - How? Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636 Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 18:32:25 GMT I need to have some ASCII terminals in a room about ten miles away from the host computer. Purpose is to let people without computers come to a spot and be able to access job postings and other miscellanous computerized information. Goal is to keep costs as low as possible. Say four to six terminals at a maximum, representing roughly 9600 to 14400 bps. I know it would be possible to give each terminal its own phone line and modem, but this would be fairly expensive. We'd prefer to keep the number of lines down to two -- one voice line and one data line (either a standard line or a leased line). From what I understand of multiplexers, they would probably do the job. But I don't understand much about muxes. Can somebody give me an idea of what I might be looking at in terms of cost and complexity? Are used muxes readily obtainable, or have prices dropped here the way modem prices have, so that it makes more sense to buy new? Do muxes include modem-like capabilities, or would we still have to buy modems? We'd like to duplicate this, or give instructions to other people on how they could duplicate it. It would be best if the hardware wasn't too rare, therefore. One solution that I know would work be to run UNIX on a cheap 386, ethernet to a PC or AT, which would connect via modem and SLIP/PPP to the host. This should be possible for around $1000, depending on what I can find in my toy box. Problem with this is that we don't really want to support multiple copies of UNIX at remote locations, plus PCs are a little more susceptible to "walking off" than strange equipment. Thanks! jamesd@techbook.COM PDaXs gives free access to news & mail. (503) 220-0636 - 1200/2400, N81 Full internet (ftp, telnet, irc) access available. Voice: (503) 223-4245 ------------------------------ From: gst@gagme.chi.il.us (George Thurman) Subject: Room Monitor Wanted Organization: Gagme Public Access UNIX, Chicago, Illinois. Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 13:02:51 GMT A friend of mine would like a room monitor for his business. Something that you can dial into, and listen to what is going on in the office while he is not there. An answering machine will not do because these will time out after a certain amount of time. Any suggestions? Please email. GEORGE THURMAN gst@gagme.chi.il.us ------------------------------ From: kwaldman@bbn.com (Karl Waldman) Subject: Local Exchange Database Wanted Date: 28 Feb 1993 20:20:17 GMT Does a database exist that allows you to look up and see if a local call can be made from a particular place to another place? That is, if my phone exchange is 266, I know I can call 873 without charge by looking it up in my phone book, in the begining under local calls. What I want is something online, that will allow me to do this for the whole country? Does this exist? Even a hard copy version? Also is there anyplace I can get LATA maps? (almost the same info as above but in map form). Thanks, Karl kwaldman@tanstaafl.extropy1.sai.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 23:36:17 EST From: Michael=Pigg%dept%agronomy@dept.agry.purdue.edu Subject: PBX Tech Information Requested Hello, As a senior design project at Purdue University, I am part of a group that is attempting to build a small PBX-type system for use in our labs. This system will not actually have lines going to GTE's switch, so I guess it's not really a PBX. Anyway, we have a few questions that members of the TELECOM group might be able to help us with. If there is a better newsgroup or mailing list to ask these questions in, please let me know. Any replies to this message should be sent directly to me at the address below. I will then summarize in a post if appropriate. So, here goes: 1) How does one go about detecting ring-trip? Originally, we were planning to use a SLIC chip that would do this for us. However, we found that chip was not available. While I have found a couple of books that talk about ring-trip, nothing talks about how to actually do it. 2) What is the best way to get supervisory tones and DTMF decoders on a subscriber line? This is an all analog system, and we currently plan to just switch the appropriate tone generator or decoder chip onto the line needing such services. Is there a better way? 3) Are there any documents available that discuss these types of issues in a fairly practical way? Thank You, Michael Pigg mwp@dept.agry.purdue.edu ------------------------------ From: Delavar.K.Khomarlou@hydro.on.ca (Delavar K. Khomarlou) Subject: Gas Recombination Batteries Reply-To: Delavar.K.Khomarlou@hydro.on.ca Organization: Ontario Hydro Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 11:11:41 -0500 I am looking for some information on the safety of the gas recombination sealed 48 VDC batteries similar to those used in Central offices. We are thinking of changing our present lead-acid wet batteries over. I don't check this group often enough so email would be best. Delavar Khomamarlou Email Delavar.K.Khomarlou@hydro.on.ca ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 10:55:12 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Ownership of 800 Numbers Under the new 800-number scheme where the prefixes will no longer belong to specific carriers, but instead any carrier will be able to provide 800 service under any 800 number, who will "own" the 800 numbers? Does the subscriber who has had a certain 800 number (such as one that spells their company name) for some period of time now have a property right to that number? Does the length of time they've used it make a difference? Can someone pay to "register" or "reserve" unassigned 800 numbers and then sell them to the highest bidder? With whom would they do this "reservation"? Who runs the whole thing -- Bellcore? If I check a specific 800 number and find it is currently unused, as a potential subscriber who wants that number, do I call my carrier and tell them? What do they do then to find out if I can get it? Or do I have to check with some other organization and lay claim to that 800 number first, and then tell my carrier to give me service using it? Some 800 numbers are assigned but usable in only certain geographic areas. Can I get that same number for use in different region(s)? (I don't claim this would be wise! :-) Regards, Will If header address doesn't work, try: wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-04sima.army.mil ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #142 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23147; 1 Mar 93 16:13 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08751 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 1 Mar 1993 13:04:14 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24499 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 1 Mar 1993 13:03:46 -0600 Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 13:03:46 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199303011903.AA24499@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #143 TELECOM Digest Mon, 1 Mar 93 13:03:30 CST Volume 13 : Issue 143 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson GPO Access - WINDO Update (Taxpayer Assets Project via Mark Boolootian) Re: Availability of Clinton Technology Plan (Mark Boolootian) Re: Information Wanted on 800-->900 Scams (Todd Lesser) Re: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill (Tony Harminc) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: booloo@framsparc.ocf.llnl.gov (Mark Boolootian) Subject: GPO Access - WINDO Update Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 09:40:59 -0800 (PST) Taxpayer Assets Project Information Policy Note February 28, 1993 UPDATE ON WINDO/GATEWAY LEGISLATION From: James Love Re: GPO Access (Proposed legislation to replace GPO WINDO/Gateway bills) Note: the WINDO/GATEWAY bills from last Congress (HR 2772; S. 2813) would have provided one-stop-shopping online access to federal databases and information systems through the Government Printing Office (GPO), priced at the incremental cost of dissemination for use in homes and offices, and free to 1,400 federal depository libraries). Both the House and Senate are soon expected to introduce legislation that would replace the GPO WINDO/GATEWAY bills that were considered in the last Congress. According to Congressional staff members, the bill will be called "GPO Access." The new name (which may change again) was only one of many substantive and symbolic changes to the legislation. Since the bill is still undergoing revisions, may be possible (in the next day or so) to provide comments to members of Congress before the legislation is introduced. The most important changes to the legislation concern the scope and ambition of the program. While we had expected Congressional democrats to ask for an even broader public access bill than were represented by the WINDO (HR 2772) and Gateway (S. 2813) bills, the opposite has happened. Despite the fact that the legislation is no longer facing the threat of a Bush veto or an end of session filibuster (which killed the bills last year), key supporters have decided to opt for a decidedly scaled down bill, based upon last year's HR 5983, which was largely written by the House republican minority (with considerable input from the commercial data vendors, through the Information Industry Association (IIA)). The politics of the bill are complex and surprising. The decision to go with the scaled down version of the bill was cemented early this year when representatives of the Washington Office of the American Library Association (including ALA lobbyist Tom Sussman) meet with Senator Ford and Representative Rose's staff to express their support for a strategy based upon last year's HR 5983, the republican minority's version of the bill that passed the House (but died in the Senate) at the end of last year's session. ALA's actions, which were taken without consultation with other citizen groups supporting the WINDO/GATEWAY legislation, immediately set a low standard for the scope of this year's bill. We were totally surprised by ALA's actions, as were many other groups, since ALA had been a vigorous and effective proponent of the original WINDO/GATEWAY bills. ALA representatives are privately telling people that while they still hope for broader access legislation, they are backing the "compromise bill," which was publicly backed (but privately opposed) last year by IIA, as necessary, to avoid a more lengthy fight over the legislation. If the negotiations with the House and Senate republicans hold up, the new bill will be backed by ranking Republicans on the Senate Rules and House Administration Committees, and passed by Congress on fast track consent calendars. We only obtained a draft of the legislation last week, and it is still a "work in progress." All changes must be approved by key Republican members of Senate Rules and House Administration. Gone from the WINDO/GATEWAY versions of the bill were any funding (S. 2813 would have provided $13 million over two years) to implement the legislation, and any findings which set out the Congressional intent regarding the need to provide citizens with broad access to most federal information systems. Also missing are any references to making the online system available through the Internet or the NREN. WHAT THE GPO ACCESS BILL WILL DO (subject to further changes) 1. Require the Government Printing Office (GPO) to provide public online access to: - the Federal Register - the Congressional Record - an electronic directory of Federal public information stored electronically, - other appropriate publications distributed by the Superintendent of Documents, and - information under the control of other federal departments or agencies, when requested by the department or agency. 2. Most users will pay user fees equal to the "incremental cost of dissemination of the information." This is a very important feature that was included in the WINDO/GATEWAY legislation. At present many federal agencies, including the National Technical Information Services (NTIS), make profits on electronic information products and services. Given the current federal government fiscal crisis, this strong limit on online prices is very welcome. 3. The 1,400 member federal Depository Library Program will have free access to the system, just as they presently have free access to thousands of federal publications in paper and microfiche formats. Issues to be resolved later are who will pay for Depository Library Program telecommunications costs, and whether or not GPO will use the online system to replace information products now provided in paper or microfiche formats. WHAT THE GPO ACCESS BILL DOESN'T DO - Provide any start-up or operational funding - Require GPO to provide online access through the Internet - The Gateway/WINDO bills would have given GPO broad authority to publish federal information online, but the new bill would restrict such authority to documents published by the Superintendent of Documents (A small subset of federal information stored electronically), or situations where the agency itself asked GPO to disseminate information stored in electronic formats. This change gives agencies more discretion in deciding whether or not to allow GPO to provide online access to their databases, including those cases where agencies want to maintain control over databases for financial reasons (to make profits). - Language that would have explicitly allowed GPO to reimburse agencies for their costs in providing public access was eliminated in the new bill. This is a potentially important issue, since many federal agencies will not work with GPO to provide public access to their own information systems, unless they are reimbursed for costs that they incur. - S. 2813 and HR 2772 would have required GPO to publish an annual report on the operation of the Gateway/WINDO and accept and consider *annual* comments from users on a wide range of issues. The new bill only makes a general requirement that GPO "consult" with users and data vendors. The annual notice requirement that was eliminated was designed to give citizens more say in how the service evolves, by creating a dynamic public record of citizen views on topics such as the product line, prices, standards and the quality of the service. Given the poor record of many federal agencies in dealing with rapidly changing technologies and addressing user concerns, this is an important omission. - The WINDO/GATEWAY bills would have required GPO to address standards issues, in order to simplify public access. The new bill doesn't raise the issue of standards. OTHER POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS Supporters of a quick passage of the scaled down GPO Access legislation are concerned about a number of budget, turf and organizational issues. Examples are: - Congress is considering the elimination of the Joint Committee on Printing, which now has oversight of GPO. - There are proposals to break-up GPO or to transfer the entire agency to the Executive Branch, which would slow down action on the online program, and may reduce the federal support for the Federal Depository Library Program, or lead to a different (and higher) pricing policy. - The National Technical Information Service (NTIS) opposes an important role by GPO in the delivery of online services, since NTIS wants to provide these services at unconstrained prices. It does not appear as though the Clinton/Gore Administration has had much input on the GPO Access legislation, which is surprising since Vice President Gore was the prime sponsor of the GPO Gateway to Government (S. 2813) bill last year. (Michael Nelson will reportedly be moving from the Senate Commerce Committee to the White House to be working on these and related information policy issues.) Even the scaled down GPO Access bill will face opposition. According to House republicans, despite IIA's low key public pronouncements, the vendor trade group "hates" the bill. Opposition from NTIS is also anticipated. TAXPAYER ASSETS PROJECT VIEW We were baffled and disappointed the decision of ALA and Congress to proceed with a scaled down version of last year's bills. We had hoped that the election of the Clinton/Gore administration and the growing grass roots awareness of public access issues would lead to a stronger, rather than a weaker, bill. In our view, public expectations are rapidly rising, and the burden is now on Congress and the Administration to break with the past and take public access seriously. The GPO Access legislation provides incremental benefits over the status quo, but less than might seem. - The statutory mandate to provide online services is useful, but public access proponents have always argued that GPO already has the authority to create the WINDO/GATEWAY under the current statutes. In fact, GPO now offers hundreds of CD-ROM titles and the online GPO Federal Bulletin Board, a service that could (and should) be greatly expanded. - The three products that the GPO Access bill refers to are already online or under development GPO. GPO is now working on the development of a locator system and an online version of the Federal Register, and the Congressional Record is already online in the Congressional LEGIS system -- a system that is presently closed to the public, and which is not mentioned in the GPO Access bill. - The "incremental cost of dissemination" provision of the new bill is welcome, but GPO is already limited to prices that are 150 percent of dissemination costs. Several suggestions to strengthen last year's bills were ignored. Among them: - Expand the initial core products to include other online information systems that are already under the control of congress, such as the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) online database of campaign contributions, the House LEGIS system which provides online access to the full text of all bills before Congress, or the Library of Congress Scorpio system. - Create a special office of electronic dissemination in GPO. At present, GPO's electronic products and services are managed by Judy Russell, who is capable, but who is also responsible for managing the primarily paper and microfiche based federal Depository Library Program, a time consuming and complicated job. We believe that GPO's electronic dissemination program is important enough to warrant its own director, whose career would depend upon the success of the electronic dissemination program. The GPO Access bills will be considered by the following Congressional Committees: Senate Committee on Rules and Administration 202/224-6352 Chair, Senator Wendell Ford Ranking Minority, Senator Ted Stevens House Committee on House Administration 202/225-225-2061 Chair, Representative Charlie Rose Ranking Minority, Representative Bill Thomas James Love v. 215/658-0880 Taxpayer Assets Project f. 215/649-4066 12 Church Road internet love@essential.org Ardmore, PA 19003 ------------------------------ From: booloo@framsparc.ocf.llnl.gov (Mark Boolootian) Subject: Re: Availability of Clinton Technology Plan Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 09:36:32 -0800 (PST) > Does anyone know where I can obtain a copy, preferably from the net, > of the "printed' technology policy referred to in the address? The technology policy referred to by Clinton and Gore when speaking with employees of SGI is available via anonymous ftp from wiretap.spies.com as file /Clinton/prez/tech.22feb93.2. This site apparently provides an archive of much of what the White House Press Service releases. While I don't feel compelled to air my political leanings in this forum, I would like to make a single comment in response to Robert McMillin's following statement: > If the employees at SGI had been thinking about this, they would have > held their applause. I still say: keep the U.S. out of cyberspace. > We can't afford Uncle Nosey's intrusions and the necessary presumption > of guilt that would likely be the price of "driving" on such a > "information super highway". When you consider the success of the Internet and the fact that the government was (and still is, to a degree) responsible for a part of its funding, I can't see any reason for wanting to keep the U.S. out of cyberspace. The cost to the govt (i.e. the taxpayers) is dwarfed by the benefit to the country (i.e. the taxpayers). Mark Boolootian booloo@llnl.gov +1 510 423 1948 Disclaimer: booloo speaks for booloo and no other. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 23:16 PST From: todd@silo.info.com (Todd Lesser) Reply-To: Todd Lesser Subject: Re: Information Wanted on 800-->900 Scams Frank Carey of Bell Labs wrote: > I spoke to the Communications Fraud Control Association (CFCA) in > Washington this morning. They have been trying to interest the FCC in > the problem of consumers getting billed for calling 800 numbers that > somehow turn into 900 numbers or, by some other means, cause a charge I think it is time to stop all the rumors and accusations. First, it is the legislators and telephone companies fault that there is this type of billing going on. Interactive 900 numbers came to be in 1987 when Telesphere set up 900 numbers in Chicago. At that time, even though there had been 976 numbers for years and problems associated with them, the telephone companies refused to offer blocking to people who requested it. I personally feel that sex lines or any other type of communication that don't violate the constitution should be allowed. At the same time, I feel that the telephone companies, being a monopoly and a public utility, should be required to offer blocking to people who don't want to have their children or anyone else dial certain numbers from their phone. Not until there was a widespread outcry did blocking and other consumer safeguards come into place. Close to that same time, the Helms amendment passed which basically killed 900 phone sex. Instead of just enforcing the safeguards, the legislators decided to restrict people's access to information. The information providers just tried new ways to bill their callers. Granted there were and are plenty of scams with 900 numbers, but you don't get rid of the baby with the bath water. Remember, not too long ago, T.V. stations stopped accepting 800 numbers in advertisements because they felt that, "ALL" companies that had 800 numbers ran mail order scams. Second, 800 numbers don't mysteriously turn into 900 numbers. Patrick mentioned it in the last post. Companies who run some audiotex services have an 800 number. People call it -- the company gets their ANI. Sometimes they call you back collect; other times they just process the call. They then take that ANI and make a billing record. They then submit the record to the telephone company directly or to a third party company like Integretel who has agreements with the telephone companies. When these companies create a billing record with the ANI, they can create it anyway they want. For example: a collect call, a direct dialed call to a 900 number, an operator assisted call from 619-626-1234 to 202-321-5555 (Even if you are calling from Chicago instead of San Diego and have never heard of either of these numbers and all you did was call an 800 number.) Third, a lot of these examples of people getting 400 dollar bills when they are not home could be a computer/human error. *But* just as many of the human errors I have seen, I have seen a hundred times as many people who did make the call and don't want to admit it to their wife girlfriend, or mother. The example of calls from a previous post could have been the neighbor who used the phone while feeding the cat while the homeowners were out of town. Everytime somebody does a charge back for a 900 telephone call, the excuse 99% of the time is either I didn't know there was a charge for the call, even though by law you a required to say it at the being of the recording and allow people to hang up and not be charged, or they deny all knowledge and say they didn't make the call even though they called every single day for a month at all times of day and night. Instead of giving people a free ride who call the services and don't pay, why doesn't the legislators just crack down on the 1% of the information providers who don't give people what they thought they were paying for, enforce the consumer safeguards, and stop worrying about content and let people do what they want on the phone in the privacy of their own homes. I am off the soap box. TELECOM Moderator noted: > [Moderator's Note: Oh, sure. All the gay and other sexually oriented > adult papers run ads for those things, giving an 800 number and empha- > sizing 'no credit cards needed; not a 900 number'. So how do they > bill you? They call you back collect then send the charges through > Integretel on a billing tape to your local telco. Integretel keeps its > own database of payphone numbers and cranky customers; they don't > bother to consult the same one AT&T/Sprint/MCI/local telcos use for > 'billed number screening' but they will add you to their own database > for this purpose on request. Sign up today! 800-736-7500. PAT] The database they subscribe to is call LIDB. Todd Lesser Info Connections (619) 459-7500 Voice (619) 459-4600 Fax or ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 22:20:42 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) wrote: >> [Moderator's Note: ANI failures are not all that common, and there are >> no operator positions maintained just for 'CAMA-style purposes'. The >> call just goes to any available operator position and the tube tells >> the operator what is wanted. She types it in, hits a certain key and >> the call is released to go on its way. PAT] > Well, then, I guess the system out here is damn near perfect. I have > not been asked for my number one single time in over thirty-five > years. And I certainly make my share of long distance calls. Also, if > this were EVER done anymore, it would certainly take a lot of steam > out of AT&T's remarkably arrogant attitude about never making > mistakes. If the accounting is EVER based upon what a caller tells an > operator, all bets are off for dependable accuracy in billing. You just weren't trying, John! One of my earliest "playing with the phone" discoveries in the 1960s was that it was possible to cause an ANI failure (this was SxS into a 4A crossbar) by flashing just after finishing dialing. Actually something slightly longer than a flash but shorter than a hangup was needed -- just about one second of on-hook. The call would then go to ONI, and it was possible to have interesting chats with the operator (who at that time *was* on a dedicated ONI board). I got pretty good at forcing ANI failures -- I could do it about nine times out of ten, and the clicks (or rather absence of clicks) would indicate failure (that is success). I was about to add a sentence with a :-) saying that of course I never used ANI failure to the financial disadvantage of Bell, but I realize that the smilie is not necessary -- I really never did allow a call to complete using a false number given to the ONI operator. Tony Harminc ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #143 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22574; 2 Mar 93 4:50 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18305 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 2 Mar 1993 02:31:11 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25438 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 2 Mar 1993 02:30:25 -0600 Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 02:30:25 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199303020830.AA25438@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #144 TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Mar 93 02:30:15 CST Volume 13 : Issue 144 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson OSPS and ANI Failures (Andy Sherman) Re: OSPS and ANI Failures (John Higdon) Re: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill (John Higdon) Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? (Robert L. McMillin) Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? (Jeffrey Jonas) Re: Let's Do a Figure-8 (Ron Dippold) Re: Quebec Yellow Pages Controversy (Joseph P. Cain) Re: Current Switched56 (tm) DSU/CSU Vendors Needed (Eric Pearce) Comment About Terrorism (Paul Robinson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 23:23:29 EST Subject: OSPS and ANI Failures From: andys@internet.sbi.com (Andy Sherman) On Feb 26 at 2:34, TELECOM Moderator noted: > There are also instances when for some reason or another the > equipment fails to capture the calling number and an operator will > come on the line to ask 'may I have the number you are calling from > please ...' On 28 Feb 93, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) replied: > I do not think this has been done for decades. If there is an ANI > failure, then the call is not completed. Maintaining operator > positions for CAMA-style purposes in this day and age would be most > silly. To which PAT replied: > [Moderator's Note: ANI failures are not all that common, and there are > no operator positions maintained just for 'CAMA-style purposes'. The > call just goes to any available operator position and the tube tells > the operator what is wanted. She types it in, hits a certain key and > the call is released to go on its way. PAT] Well, John, for once we got you. :^) The Operator Services Position System (OSPS) is a one size fits all position that does just about anything imaginable that an operator would need to do (other than directory assistance). Your center handles calls for the LEC? No problem. OSPS tells you what company name to brand the call with. Need to count coins? No problem, OSPS will do that, too. Etc. Etc. As you will recall from our private correspondance, I trained to be an OSPS operator as part of last summers labor relations jitters. One of the things that could show up on your screen with an incoming call were the messages ONI FAILURE and ANI FAILURE. In those cases you hand to ask the customer for the number and then complete the call. The training materials also indicated that there were a few offices (probably in ICO land) where the calling number had to be collected for every toll call. Since AT&T operator services centers cover a much wider geographic are than those little end offices, nobody gets a majority of such calls, but we were all trained to handle them. The only kicker is that I don't remember off-hand whether ONI or ANI hit our consoles only for 0+ calls or also for 1+ calls. The only thing that would argue against Pat's scenario is if ANI failure bounced the call on a 1+. I just don't remember. Certainly nothing in the features of the OSPS console would preclude collecting the billing number from a customer-dialed call in the event of ANI failure. A digression: This baby is *very* flexible and *very* well designed. After the "two-phase commit" model of collect calls was adopted (operator A hears you say collect, releases the call, your party answers and operator B does the name game) these things keep operators very busy, too. What used to be holding time for an operator is now holding time for a switch. Andy Sherman Salomon Inc - Unix Systems Support - Rutherford, NJ (201) 896-7018 - andys@sbi.com or asherman@sbi.com "These opinions are mine, all *MINE*. My employer can't have them." [Moderator's Note: In my employment over the years, granted I've been on the phone more than many people. If I had to guess, maybe I've encountered an ANI failure a dozen times in 30+ years of heavy calling for my employers, etc ... like 80-100 calls per day on occassion. The ANI failures I experienced were always on 1+ calls to the best of my memory. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 20:46 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: OSPS and ANI failures On Mar 1 at 23:23, Andy Sherman writes: > As you will recall from our private correspondance, I trained to be an > OSPS operator as part of last summers labor relations jitters. One of > the things that could show up on your screen with an incoming call were > the messages ONI FAILURE and ANI FAILURE. In those cases you hand to > ask the customer for the number and then complete the call. So my question is this: What happens when it is my Trailblazer or fax modem that is making the call? Even though the Trailblazer and the Brooktrout are very fine modems indeed, I do not believe they can answer a "Your number, please" inquiry. Obviously, the call fails at that point, since the operator just dumps it--probably thinking there are some kids or a crank at the other end of the wire. Now, given that the number of calls generated on the network by automatic devices is increasing exponentially, feeble attempts to "rescue" a call via operator intervention would seem to be a complete waste of time and resources. I guess what I am trying to say is, "why bother?" Just let the call die; why take up more time? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 [Moderator's Note: *All types of calls* are increasing in volume. Fax and voice calls are the way business operates these days: no one writes letters, at least not in any quantity as they did 30 years ago. Calls from automated devices (modems, etc) are still just a small minority of the total. Yes, there are lots more such calls, but the ratio is still the same. Offices all over the USA have thousands of clerks sitting in cubicles banging away on the phone all day. So yes, calls from automated devices fail to complete and are aborted when the operator can't get a response she understands from the 'caller'. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 16:13 PST From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill Tony Harminc writes: > You just weren't trying, John! One of my earliest "playing with the > phone" discoveries in the 1960s was that it was possible to cause an > ANI failure (this was SxS into a 4A crossbar) by flashing just after > finishing dialing. You have just discovered one of the great, gaping holes in my telecom experience. I have NEVER had service provided from a SXS office. Yes, it is true, I have had no service in my name provided from anything more vintage than crossbar. Now that is not to say that I have not beat on the telephones of friends and associates that have been served out of SXS, but it is not the same thing. (Even when growing up, it was panel, then crossbar.) I lived in North Carolina for a time in an area served by Southern Bell step. There was a phone in the house that we all used and it was interesting to note that most of the time long distance calls went through without operator intervention, but occasionally an operator would come on the line and ask for the number of the calling phone. Your comments explain this little mystery. Except for some SXS on the peninsula (Mountain View, Palo Alto, Redwood City, and San Mateo), the Bay Area has been served by crossbar and panel before the electronic stuff came along. San Jose's first dial equipment was crossbar; San Fransisco's was panel. In fact, the only SXS convenient to play with anywhere near me was Los Gatos. Before GTE swallowed it up, the Western California Telephone Company had the most rickety SXS the ear has ever heard. It was so stupid that to call San Jose (a local call), it was necessary to dial '9', wait for second (tandem) dial tone, and then dial the San Jose number. When GTE moved in, it became the usual vile directorized SXS that GTE is infamous for. But back to the present. Nowadays, I would be willing to bet that ANI failures (if they occur) would simply cause the call to fail. In an age of fax machines, modems, and other automatic dialing equipment, an operator coming on the line to ask, "Your number, please", seems rather pointless. Gee, I wonder how many times any of my Trailblazers has been asked for ITS number? And, of course, it is all moot now. The face of ANI has forever changed with SS7. There can no longer be any "ANI failure". John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 [Moderator's Note: Of course there can still be a failure to capture the number and pass it along. As noted above, when that (rarely) happens -- given the huge amount of network traffic -- an operator picks up the call, punches in the quoted data and releases the call back to the equipment which then adopts the operator's forced input as its own. But I am talking about an infintesimally small fraction of one percent of all calls having this happen, which is as good as saying it does not happen, lest the average customer clutch on it as a way to resolve all billing disputes. It is like the old cliche about computers 'never making mistakes'. Of course they don't. Of course they do. Which response would you make to the average (not telecom/ computer-saavy) customer? One response recieved here when using my SS-7 features (call screening [add number of last call received], return last call, and Caller-ID) is 'I am sorry, the number is not available now' (on the ID box, the message is 'Error' or 'E') as opposed to 'I am sorry, the feature you are requesting is not available with that number' (on the ID box the message is 'Outside'). Other times when you try to add a 'last call received' number to your blocked list, the robot goes away silently for the longest time (20-30 seconds) and comes back to report "That number cannot be added *right now* ... try again in a few minutes." I assume the CO was doing something like trying to 'finger' the number in the other CO but getting no response to the finger-request. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 08:13:12 -0800 From: rlm@indigo2.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? Richard Nash writes: > [stuff I originally posted, along with embarrassingly nice things said > about same by Andre Blau , deleted] > Well, perhaps it was better that I waited before responding to the > remarks countered to those I had made, that "the telcos are not > interested in monopoly services." Have we gone full circle yet? > Affordable digital service for residential users is something that I > have long wished for. Will the private sector have me, the lowly > residential data highway user, interests, as a fundamental concern? They had better have your interests as a fundamental concern. Granted, huge corporations tend to be rather impersonal. On the other hand, they don't reach into your paycheck BEFORE you get it and grab 33%, either. The only one with enough balls to take bread off your table before you can eat it is Uncle Sam. > Is competitive undercutting going to ultimately resolve data transport > costs to absolute marginal profits and then as perhaps we see in the > airline industry, consistant uncertianty to their solvency/dependancy > to deliver? Look, if what you want is stability, go ahead and nationalize the network. Be prepared for zero customer service, high prices, and outright hostility toward installing new equipment that might eliminate paying positions. As Mr. Clinton himself pointed out, the government isn't interested in change as a way to get rid of high-paying jobs -- jobs which, if dropped, could also result in the customer getting the same service at a lower cost. We all know the two answers the Feds have about reducing the price of anything: either it gets subsidized, or they install price controls. For the former, the Feds fondle your money for a while before handing less of it back to you. For the latter, you will wait three months to get service. Almost certainly, you will get the worst of both worlds: lousy service AND high prices. Thomas Sowell recently wrote that the government is a blunt instrument and its uses should be restricted to those things blunt instruments can do well. The last time I checked, a fiber optic pipe was not blunt. > What I would be interested in hearing about from {telecom digest} > readers, is how they foresee the deployment? Who is gonna do it cheap > for all of us to enjoy? National (government funded) programs to > develop this network, or AT&T and such interested parties, running > high profile interference to prevent their overpriced technology, from > being easily overcome by the technology revolution that perhaps even > they cannot ultimately stonewall? The telcos do not have much of a choice in the matter if they want to stay alive. In the 1950's, the railroads forgot they were in the transportation business. The Interstate Highway system created the long-haul trucking industry, relegating railroads to stale markets and old technology. If the telcos now make a similar mistake with the "data superhighway," they will almost certainly face the same doom. Gore's proposal should serve as a cattle prod for telephony. So if the telcos want to keep what they have, they'd better start laying plans to lay fiber, everywhere and soon. The payoff is that they can push video through their newly laid pipes, thanks to a fortuitous court ruling. I'm not exactly happy with the telcos providing content, but the fact is that the cable companies do exactly that now. With the world going digital at picosecond speed, cable operators and telcos look increasingly like the same thing. The ones with the best capitalization, customer service, and price will win. Robert L. McMillin | Voice: (310) 568-3555 Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc. | Fax: (310) 568-3574 Los Angeles, CA | Internet: rlm@indigo2.hac.com After June 25 : rlm@mcgort.com or rlm@surfcty.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 11:21:10 EST From: jeffj%jiji@uunet.UU.NET (Jeffrey Jonas) Subject: Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? > I think it is clear that the access problem will get cleared up. The > question then becomes what do you do with all the information and get > it into a usable form; Why, Mr and Mrs. John Q. Public will use their wide screen digital HDTV surround sound Sear's/IBM TV connected to Prodigy! (Remember AT&T Sceptre, the TV terminal?) Jeesh -- just what I needed -- a combination Sega/Nintendo/Mac/PC compatible color high resolution surround sound stereophonic multimedia system with CD-ROM, keyboard, mouse, joysticks and power pad! Jeffrey Jonas jeffj@panix.com ------------------------------ From: rdippold@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) Subject: Re: Let's Do a Figure-8 Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1993 05:12:23 GMT Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) writes: > rdippold@qualcomm.com writes: >> Including the cellular system ... MINs are specifically designed for >> three digits + seven digits. They would have to remain on a seven >> digit system, and then the phone company (the switches?) would have to >> do a seven to eight and eight to seven translation. > known in advance that I MUST use an area code. But getting back to > the excerpt above: I am not sure what it means! Okay, I also got some mail on this. To elaborate, this is regarding the AMPS cellular standard (used for North America). Every phone has a MIN (Mobile Identification Number) composed of MIN2 (the area code) and MIN1 (the seven digit phone number). If you want to send a message to a phone, such as "There's a call for you!" you identify the phone by its MIN. The mobile watches for messages that contain its MIN and should respond to those. In addition, the MIN (along with the ESN) is how the mobile identifies itself to the system. Now here's where the fun begins. MIN1 and MIN2 are actually special representations of the digits in their numberical forms. In other words, 619-555-1212 isn't stored as a MIN2 value of 619 and a MIN1 value of 5551212. They each go through a "massage" of the digits that is totally dependent on the form of the data (i.e., three digits in one, seven digits in another). This is a standard, and it is not flexible. If, suddenly, MIN1 goes to eight digits, none of these phones will work. They would have no idea how to decode the numbers. If you used a somewhat compatible scheme they might be able to get the seven digits they are used to, but that's about it. And, of course, all the switches and cells that are out there are probably wired for seven-digit AMPS as well. It's not like a regular phone system where the phone company figures out which line to ring, then rings it -- in this case it's up to the phone itself to decide when to ring. The only thing I can think of on short notice that would be minimal pain would be for the switches (MTSOs) to be modified to convert from eight digit format (external world) to MIN1/MIN2 format (mobile world), and then to use an extended data field so that those mobiles that did know about eight digit format could use it. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Quebec Yellow Pages Controversy From: oldman!joe@uunet.UU.NET (Joseph P. Cain) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1993 17:07:56 -0500 Organization: Joseph P. Cain stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes: > I have a business associate in Canada who tells me that businesses in > Quebec (or some part thereof) are forbidden to answer the phone in > English. Reportedly, even a mixed French/English greeting is not > allowed -- the person answering can't use English until the caller > indicates that they want to speak English. And, (perhaps in the > "Office de la Langue Francaise) there are Phone Police (tm) that call > businesses at random in order to ensure compliance with these > regulations. I can see that if you give those separatists an inch they will take a mile. Let them get their foot in the door with a stupid sign law and they will do everything else possible to try and ruin english business in Quebec. The government rule is not to protect the French but to ruin the English language. I am no longer proud of my Quebec heritage. In the name "Office de la Langue Francaise" why is it Office and not Bureau? They might as well use every nail in the English Language coffin. Joe Cain VE3ANJ UUCP: joe@oldman Tel: (416) 499-1407 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1993 20:19:25 -0800 From: eap@ora.com (Eric Pearce) Subject: Re: Current Switched56 (tm) DSU/CSU Vendors Needed I recently bought an Adtran DSU 2AR for this purpose. I was pleased when the PacBell "Special Services" guy showed up to install the SW56k line and his "test equipment" turned out to be the same Adtran box. Eric Pearce | eap@ora.com | O'Reilly & Associates Publishers of Nutshell Series Handbooks and X Window System Guides 103 Morris St, Sebastopol, CA 95472 1-800-998-9938 or 707-829-0515 ------------------------------ Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM From: Paul Robinson Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1993 19:50:01 EST Subject: Comment About Terrorism Pat Townson's comments about the future of America were something that hit home. I was once asked by a bus driver about things to come: Count on it; the violence in the cities will not get better and will get worse. The recent incident will be just a taste of the kind of thing that will happen so often that the papers won't even report them until the body count goes above 100 or more. Count on random acts of violence without purpose or reason. And expect the imposition of Martial Law in major cities. Making a prediction like this is about as difficult as predicting an egg will crack while it's on the way to the floor. When I said it, it was *1980* and I was referring to the *Miami Riots*. The real question I wanted to ask, if you knew it, was the name of the Made for TV movie written by either Woodward or Bernstein, about a group of major terrorist attacks upon the United States, when they finally begin to take place. [Moderator's Note: I forget the name of that movie, but another one which comes to mind is 'Escape From Manhattan' which came out several years ago. As the movie starts, we are informed the year is 1993, that 'violent crime in the USA has increased 400 percent in the past two years', and that because the government had run out of prison space, the island of Manhattan had been evacuated and was now used exclusively as a penal colony, with the prisoners left to their own devices about how to survive, what to eat, etc. All bridges or other exits leaving Manhattan had been sealed or were heavily guarded. An airplane flew overhead once a week and dropped out food supplies. America changed last Friday. The land where the only battles on our own soil were those we fought amongst ourselves is gone. Expect the nineties to be the decade of random killing and violence for its own sake. And wait until next month when The Jury finds the police officers innocent ... social order in urban America will erode completely. I rather suspect we may be living under martial law by this summer. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #144 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09888; 3 Mar 93 2:33 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21414 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 2 Mar 1993 23:52:03 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09845 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 2 Mar 1993 23:51:30 -0600 Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 23:51:30 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199303030551.AA09845@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #145 TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Mar 93 23:51:30 CST Volume 13 : Issue 145 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Gotta Love GTE (Sean Malloy) RE: Gotta Love GTE (Charlie Mingo) Re: Gotta Love GTE (Ed Greenberg) Re: Gotta Love GTE (Justin Leavens) Re: Gotta Love GTE (Gene LeDuc) Re: Gotta Love GTE (Tony Harminc) Re: A Pager Question [or Does This Get Killed?] (Mike Berger) Re: A Pager Question [or Does This Get Killed?] (John Gilbert) Re: TRT Being Bought/What is IDB Communications? (Eric Weaver) Re: TRT Being Bought/What is IDB Communications? (Hank Nussbacher) Re: TRT Being Bought/What is IDB Communications? (Don E. Kimberlin) Re: Long Distance: The Next Best Thing to Praying There (Roy Smith) Re: Long Distance: The Next Best Thing to Praying There (H. Hallikainen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scm3775@tamsun.tamu.edu (Sean Malloy) Subject: Re: Gotta Love GTE Date: 2 Mar 1993 09:00:48 -0600 Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX tdarcos@access.digex.com (Paul Robinson) writes: >> What kind of racket is this that companies can just cash your >> check for whatever amount they deem necessary? > While I have heard rumors that the Gestapo Internal Revenue Service > has done this, I've never seen it in action. :) Well, I'll jump on this tangent. My uncle is a collection agent for the IRS and has told me some rather interesting stories about what the IRS can do to you if they think you owe them money ... I've heard of them seizing bank accounts, garnishing paychecks (child support payments, etc) and convincing your local banker to let you have a third mortgage on your home, but I've never heard of them changing the amount on a check. They do, however, have some questionable tactics that they use regularly. One that springs to mind is that they need no court document (warrant, or whatever) to seize private property "as long as the agent doesn't have to cross a roofline to take possession". And the roofline provision is a recent (circa 1990) addition. Agents used to grab a member of the local constabulary (presumably to prevent harm to the IRS agent from the delinquent taxpayer), enter a person's home or business and cart out valuables until they had taken the equivalent of the money owed. All without having to convince a court that you do indeed owe what the IRS says you do. Is due process dead? Looks that way. And if you're wondering what due process has to do with telecommunications, talk to Steve Jackson of Austin, TX, or read some of the documents on ftp.eff.org. Sidenote: My uncle is not a nice guy. IRS work suits him.... ;-) Sean C. Malloy - Texas A&M University - scm@tamu.edu [Moderator's Note: I think you will find most bill collectors are quite curteous and follow the law closely when compared to the IRS. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Charlie Mingo) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1993 18:11:32 -0500 Subject: Re: Gotta Love GTE gtoal@gtoal.com (Graham Toal) writes: > Moderator Noted: >> Graham, there has to be *intent*, and courts have said intent was >> very unlikely when the payment was handled through a remittance center >> getting a few hundred thousand payments daily. What do you think they >> do there? I mean, do you think they actually look at the check, the >> coupon and say let's conspire against Graham and get his lousy seven >> dollars? Carelessness, I'll accept. A conspiracy, criminal or >> otherwise is a bit much to swallow. PAT] > First of all, if someone changed the amount written on a cheque, > there is no defence in the world can show there wasn't intent > to defraud. Banks do *not* accidentally pay out a figure that > is not written on a cheque. They go by what is written on the > cheque, not on the pay-in slip. If a check has the amount to be paid encoded on the bottom in magnetic ink, the bank will go by that, usually without checking what is written above. (If they bothered to verify the accuracy of the magnetic encoding, it would be just as fast to enter the amount manually.) The GTE clerk did not "change" the amount written on the check; she just encoded a value on the bottom which was different from the amount written above. Yes, this is a mistake, and _if you could prove they were doing this deliberately and with intent to defraud_, it could even amount to a crime. > If a low-level worker deliberately tampered with a cheque, it's very > unlikely they did it entirely off their own bat. Their supervisor > must have known and given approval. That is just speculation. The burden of proof is on the person alleging fraud, and in criminal cases, the proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Simply saying "very unlikely" or "must have known" is not proof of anything. ------------------------------ From: edg@netcom.com (Ed Greenberg) Subject: Re: Gotta Love GTE Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 17:50:37 GMT Sorry, Banks most certainly go by what is written on the check, but with large depositors they go by what is INSCRIBED in magnetic ink, BY THE DEPOSITOR on the check. Thus, the depositor is supposed to read what is on the check and inscribe that number in magnetic ink on the bottom, under the signature. When we processed payments at a bank where I worked, we split the checks and payment tickets. We then inscribed the checks from the check amounts, and generated a tape and total. The date entry clerk then entered payments from the payment tickets, and created another total. When the two totals balanced the batch was in balance. IF they did not balance, the amount on the check was taken, not the amount on the payment ticket, and we did not even have access to the amount owing. We also would occasionally find a check that was mis-inscribed. This would send the batch back for correction. The only way to get an error past us, (well, one way) would be for the inscriber to make an error in the same amount as the payor had written in on his check. Edward W. Greenberg | Home: +1 408 283 0511 | edg@netcom.com 1600 Stokes St. #24 | Work: +1 408 764 5305 | DoD#: 0357 San Jose, CA 95126 | Fax: +1 408 764 5003 | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH) ------------------------------ From: leavens@mizar.usc.edu (Justin Leavens) Subject: Re: Gotta Love GTE Date: 2 Mar 1993 09:59:28 -0800 Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Thanks to everyone who responded to my story about GTE cashing my girlfriend's payment check for more than the check was actually written for. Comments were pretty much in two varieties: 1. Contact the DA, PUC, and bank authorities and see if legal action is possible/necessary, and 2. GTE processes its own checks and it was probably a clerical error (although most everyone seemed to wonder whether it really was an error) and the bank should eat the error (let them try to collect from GTE). A follow-up call to the bank (after consultation with my attorney) resulted this time in a credit to her account for the overcharge. Again, the amount was small, but as many responses pointed out: What if it resulted in a rent or mortgage payment bouncing? Legal action seems impossible since it's almost impossible to prove intent to defraud, but I think that a report to the PUC might be a good idea just in case they get enough of these to establish a pattern. Otherwise, it's just gotta be chalked up as a clerical error. Also worth mentioning, a number of responses pointed out that the IRS is the biggest perpetrator of altering checks, actually physically altering names and amounts ... Justin Leavens Microcomputer Specialist University of Southern California ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Mar 93 00:54:24 PST From: leduc@nprdc.navy.mil (LCDR Gene LeDuc) Subject: Re: Gotta Love GTE Organization: Navy Personnel R&D Center, San Diego In article Pat wrote: > Did you ever get the check for Telco in the envelope for the Water > Works by accident, or the check for American Express in the envelope > going to Diner's Club? Chances are it got cashed anyway. Reminds me of one day when I was particularly rebellious. The time was sometime before The Breakup, when Ma Bell was still Queen. I was a freshman at USC and had gotten a higher phone bill than I had expected (it was legit, I just hadn't kept track of my calls). Expecting to sabotage The System, I wrote my phone bill check out to "The Monopoly" and waited for the system to come crashing down. Not even a burp. So ended my rebel days ... Gene LeDuc (leduc@nprdc.navy.mil) Navy Personnel R & D Center San Diego, CA 92152-6800 [Moderator's Note: As you found out, they do not bother to read who the check is made payable to, nor do they pay attention to dates or signatures. They *barely* watch the amount, and as writers have pointed out, not all that closely. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Mar 93 21:52:34 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Gotta Love GTE Graham Toal wrote: > First of all, if someone changed the amount written on a cheque, there > is no defence in the world can show there wasn't intent to defraud. > Banks do *not* accidentally pay out a figure that is not written on a > cheque. They go by what is written on the cheque, not on the pay-in > slip. I had an odd one a few years ago: I saw an ad in a Canadian magazine from a company with a US address. The book that interested me was $40. I sent a cheque for this amount (in Canadian dollars, naturally), and soon after received the book. Some time later I noticed a cheque had cleared my account for an amount I didn't recognize. Investigation showed that someone (presumably the payee) had neatly typed "US" in front of the dollar sign on my cheque. My bank paid them the US dollar amount, and charged me the (larger) Canadian dollar equivalent plus a service charge of $10 or so). I complained that this was no clerical error, but was outright fraud -- no different than if they had erased the amount I had written and put in an amount of their choosing. My bank agreed, and bounced the cheque back to the California bank marked "altered". That bank sent it back again, saying there was nothing wrong with it! My bank looked into things a bit harder, and told me that there was no happy medium: either I could refuse payment on the cheque entirely (which I had no wish to do since I had bought the book), or they could charge me the larger amount, though they graciously offered to waive the service charge. I told them I considered they were assisting in a fraud and that I would be in touch with the police. They changed their tune very quickly, and sent the cheque back for one last trip through the clearing system, marked in large friendly letters "PAYABLE IN CANADIAN DOLLARS". It did clear for the right amount. Tony Harminc ------------------------------ From: mike_berger@qms1.life.uiuc.edu (Mike Berger) Subject: Re: A Pager Question [or Does This Get Killed?] Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1993 18:39:51 GMT Organization: U of Il. School of Life Sciences In article , tdarcos@access.digex.com (Paul Robinson) wrote: > I want to know if there are still short-distance devices available for > paging people without having to pay monthly service charges. Any > device available commercially would have to have some kind of > selectable code so that it's not readily triggered by false alarms. Uniden had a small system for use in buildings that could page several individual codes. I'm sure there are others. ------------------------------ From: johng@comm.mot.com (John Gilbert) Subject: Re: A Pager Question [or Does This Get Killed?] Organization: Motorola Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1993 15:22:09 GMT In article tdarcos@access.digex.com (Paul Robinson) writes: > I want to know if there are still short-distance devices available for > paging people without having to pay monthly service charges. Any > device available commercially would have to have some kind of > selectable code so that it's not readily triggered by false alarms. > Yes. There are low cost systems available that use CB frequencies. Range would be short and interference might be a problem. I think Radio Shack offered one of these systems at one time. Motorola offers a product called "People Finder." This is a low power desktop transmitter/paging encoder that can be used to set off tone/numeric/voice pagers on UHF business band frequencies. You must be licensed. Reliablility would be much better, and cost would be higher than the RS system. Motorola sales can be reached at 800-247-2346. Motorola also offers a product through the "Radius" distributor channel that signals voice pagers and has a lower cost than the "People Finder." John Gilbert johng@ecs.comm.mot.com ------------------------------ From: weaver@sfc.sony.com (Eric Weaver) Subject: Re: TRT Being Bought/What is IDB Communications? Organization: SONY Advanced Video Technology Center San Jose, CA USA Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1993 17:47:13 GMT Paul Robinson writes [Questions about "who is IDB"?]: I know IDB as a satellite broadcast service company which can send uplink trucks out to events; I had them give a quote for a concert we are thinking of doing. My rolodex lists them in Culver City. Eric Weaver Sony AVTC 677 River Oaks Pkwy, MS 35 SJ CA 95134 408 944-4904 & Chief Engineer, KFJC 89.7 Foothill College, Los Altos Hills CA 94022 ------------------------------ Organization: Bar-Ilan University Computing Center, Israel Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1993 08:41:36 IST From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: Re: TRT Being Bought/What is IDB Communications? We in Israel have been using IDB for the past two years as out satellite vendor for the USA side of our link to the NSFnet (via PSI). We started at 64kb and now have the link running at 128kb. IDB's prices have been consistently cheaper than the prices quoted to us by places like MCI, AT&T or Sprint. I am on their quarterly brochure mailing list. It would appear that IDB started out as a supplier of satellite communications for rock concerts and other one time affairs where an earth station had to be set up for a few hours of broadcast such as the Superbowl, the Olympics, etc. They are almost non-existant in the fiber area and haveso far only been in satellite communications. They appear to be aggresive and this latest deal just shows it. Hank Nussbacher Israel ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Mar 93 02:54 GMT From: Donald E. Kimberlin <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: TRT Being Bought/What is IDB Communications? In article , Paul Robinson asks: > So, has anyone heard of IDB before? Yup. Preceding that, he posted: > The office I work out of gets telex service from a company called TRT, > which had, a few years ago, bought the FTCC telex company and merged > with it. We recently received a press release from them dated 2/9, > which said: > On January 25, 1993, IDB Communications announced that it had > entered into an agreement for the acquisition of all of the stock of > TRT communications. And, he quoted a lot of the press hype for IDB, including: > - IDB has been in this business since 1985; > - IDB bought World Communications (Worldcom) which gives it a > satelite broadcast operation; and: > - France Telecom owns almost 15% of TRT, this deal doesn't affect > that part; Phew! Now, let's sort all that out. What IDB has done is to buy into significant chunks of some very old companies that most Americans never heard of ... companies that had once been called the International Record Carriers. These firms had all been international telegraph companies, some dating back to even before the turn of the century. Here's a rundown on those names: FTCC Communications had for years been the French Telegraph Cable Company, with submarine telegraph cables running between France and the U.S., the earliest routes actually running up to the Welsh coast of England, and getting repeaters in them to reach back to the U.S., dating from the late 1890's. Named for its original company manager, one Monsieur Pouyer-Quartier, French Cable was identified by the routing code "PQ" in submarine telegraphy, a moniker that stuck with it for decades after the name change to FTCC. The ultimate ownership was the French PTT's telegraph department, which ownership remains today. TRT bought what was available of FTCC, and IDB ultimately bought the resultant combination. TRT Telecommunications was originally the Tropical Radiotelegraph Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of United Fruit of Boston. Tropical innovated the placement of radio on ships before WW I, and used it to direct and divert loads of bananas to the U.S. port with the best prices. Over the years, Tropical grew with and into the Central American nations, first putting radiotelegraph operations to the plantations, then becoming the operators of the international public telegraph service, and in many of the Central American nations, the operators of the international public telephone service. Tropical operated its U.S. radio plants at Pearl River, LA (still there for ship radio, which is now fading rapidly from the scene) and Ft. Lauderdale, FL (which is today solely a wireline operation, using international satellite and cable channels). Tropical had a number of early tie-ins with RCA, due to early developments it had made in radio communications, too. World Communications is a portion of the former ITT World Communications, which had been ITT's merger of its holdings in All American Cable and Radio, Mackay Marine's ship radio operations, Press Wireless, Globe Wireless, and the Federal Radiotelegraph Company ... all historic names in early commercial radio communications. ITT had sold its ITT Worldcom to Western Union for a few years, which stripped off Worldcom's international telegraph operations, and sold the private line and special services operations to a group of Swiss investors. IDB got into Worldcom through a later investment door. Which leaves the question: Who then is IDB? Generally, it's a Houston-based group of investors who first started up with mobile satellite uplink rentals to U.S. television broadcasters ... essentially a "remote truck" for a ball game or other sports event, or some news gathering. IDB spread out into the various bits it found available, a lot of which was in the hands of the firms previously described. But, as your report indicates, IDB itself is a relative newcomer to the field. There are three other names of the "old days" of International Record Carriers (IRC's) still around, but buried: RCA Globecomm (earlier named RCA Communications, or RCAC, and originally the core of the Radio Corporation of America that was founded in 1919 to purchase the assets of American Marconi and assume control of the expropriated properties of Telefunken in the U.S. during WW I), was purchased by MCI and forms a core part of MCI International. WUI, Inc., (originally the Cable Division of Western Union and, in 1963 becoming Western Union International when WUTCo finally sold its Cable Division to the public as ordered by the FCC in 1940) has a history in submarine telegraph cables that dates clear back to the original 1858 telegraph cable across the Atlantic, laid by the former Anglo-American Cable Company, founded by Cyrus Field with British capital when Western Union would not invest in it, but bought it up as soon as it proved commercially successful. (Western Union had a grand project underway to reach Europe overland by going up through Alaska, laying a short cable across the Bering Strait, and then an overland route across the entire expanse of Siberia to Moscow, then Finland, and around the Baltic Sea to Denmark, to interface to European telegraph networks. The WUTCo plan was abandoned when Anglo-American proved it worked.) By 1940, WUTCo had a network of thousands and thousands of miles of submarine telegraph cables reaching all around the globe, as had England's Eastern Telegraph and related companies, the Siemens Brothers of Germany with Deutsche Atlantik Telegraphgesellschaft, the Great Northern Telegraph Company of Denmark, and a host of other nations and companies. WUI was also purchased by MCI to form a significant part of MCI International. The Trans-Liberia Radiotelegraph Company, a unique and wholly owned subsidiary of the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company at Akron, Ohio, was formed in the days of HF radio to provide communications between Firestone and its plantations in Liberia, as well as to handle public telegrams between the U.S. and Liberia. Trans-Liberian was rumored to have had some very interesting WW II missions carried out for the U.S. government between the U.S. and an American outpost in a prt of the world that Germany had obvious designs on. As nearly as I know, Trans-Liberian still operates from an office in the Firestone HQ building in Akron, unless it has died in the past few years. It had devolved down to largely a room with a few PC's for terminals and a rented satellite channel to Liberia. Few people seem to know it, but by the final heyday of the submarine telegraph cables, there was something in the neighborhood of 400,000 miles of submarine telegraph cable criss-crossing all the oceans of the world ... enough to reach to the moon and almost back again ... paralleled by competitive radiotelegraph to most everywhere and a few landlocked nations that had no ocean shoreline. So, the endpoint of this story is: Yes, Virginia, There were Heroes of Communications Who Stalked the Earth before Bell Labs and the telephone. However, none of them suited Ma Bell's purposes, so they were only known to international businesses that had need for their services. Today, many of their roots still lie deep in other nations, and they have established relations that a modern investor like an IDB or an MCI can use to build modern networks on ... and are doing so. If you got deep down inside "how it's done" so that a Sprint or an MCI can get telephone circuits into places like the former Soviet Union, you'd find a lot of those old International Record Carrier relationships being made use of. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Mar 93 10:04:05 -0500 From: roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: Long Distance: The Next Best Thing to Praying There Organization: New York University, School of Medicine > [Moderator's Note: When Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian > Science passed away (they prefer not to say 'died') in the early years > of this century, a telephone (live and operating) was buried with her > in her casket Where was the demarc? Hopefully in someplace easier for telco field service folks to reach in case of trouble ... Roy Smith Hippocrates Project, Department of Microbiology, Coles 202 NYU School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 ------------------------------ From: hhallika@tuba.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen) Subject: Re: Long Distance: The Next Best Thing to Praying There Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1993 20:01:45 GMT So, is there a confessions by email address? Fax seems so inefficient for text ... Harold [Moderator's Note: No, but there is a 900 service you can use, and the prescribed penance comes when you pay your phone bill. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #145 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10977; 3 Mar 93 3:01 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08156 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 3 Mar 1993 00:27:41 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22262 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 3 Mar 1993 00:27:15 -0600 Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 00:27:15 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199303030627.AA22262@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #146 TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Mar 93 00:27:15 CST Volume 13 : Issue 146 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: TOPS Birthday (Brent Capps) Re: OSPS and ANI Failures (Floyd Davidson) Re: OSPS and ANI Failures (Andy Sherman) Re: Quebec Yellow Pages Controversy (Richard Paiement) Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan (Carl Moore) Re: Help Wanted With Development Project (Wayne King) Re: Ameritech PCS Trial Update #4 (Todd Inch) Re: Feature It (Laurence Chiu) Re: Current Switched56 (tm) DSU/CSU Vendors Needed (Tim Mangan) Re: 1-800 Collect Callbacks (James Olsen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bcapps@atlastele.com (Brent Capps) Subject: Re: TOPS Birthday Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc. Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 22:02:20 GMT In article Charles (C.A.) Hoequist writes: > If you're working on TOPS today, perhaps you might like to think back > to 1973 and ask yourself what you were doing while the events that > sealed your fate were taking place. Oh wow -- TOPS. What a truly frightening creature. When I worked on SL-100/AUTOVON we had a *single* TOPS position at an Air Force Base in Alaska, I forget where. We kept telling the USAF that this solitary TOPS position was costing them a truly colossal support bill. If you think that $5000 hammers were expensive. Anyway, once of the BCS releases broke this TOPS position once. It took a dozen BNR engineers pouring over 100K of spaghetti code to figure out how in the hell it was supposed to work, let alone what had broken it. We couldn't even get our own in-house TOPS to work for long enough to recreate the problem. Finally we just quietly pushed it over into the corner hoping it would go away. The BNR motto: if we can't fix it, it's not broken. Brent Capps bcapps@agora.rain.com (gay stuff) bcapps@atlastele.com (telecom stuff) ------------------------------ From: floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) Subject: Re: OSPS and ANI failures Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 04:39:03 GMT In article John Higdon writes: > On Mar 1 at 23:23, Andy Sherman writes: >> As you will recall from our private correspondance, I trained to be an >> OSPS operator as part of last summers labor relations jitters. One of >> the things that could show up on your screen with an incoming call were >> the messages ONI FAILURE and ANI FAILURE. In those cases you hand to >> ask the customer for the number and then complete the call. > So my question is this: What happens when it is my Trailblazer or fax ... > automatic devices is increasing exponentially, feeble attempts to > "rescue" a call via operator intervention would seem to be a complete > waste of time and resources. > I guess what I am trying to say is, "why bother?" Just let the call > die; why take up more time? Routing ANI failures to an operator doesn't just result in a call completion, it also generates 1) better customer relations, and 2) trouble tickets which should lead to corrective action. And, in fact there are ONI only exchanges still out there. We (the Fairbanks Toll Center) had a trouble ticket opened by an upset customer last week because he kept getting an operator ... and in our most pleasant manner someone (NOT me) explained that in Clear, Alaska you get an operator every time because it is the last known place in the world where the telephone company won't put in modern equipment, and we expect it to always be that way ... floyd@ims.alaska.edu A guest on the Institute of Marine Science computer Salcha, Alaska system at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Mar 93 09:49:34 EST Subject: Re: OSPS and ANI failures From: andys@internet.sbi.com (Andy Sherman) I wrote, responding to John Higdon: > As you will recall from our private correspondance, I trained to be an > OSPS operator as part of last summers labor relations jitters. One of > the things that could show up on your screen with an incoming call were > the messages ONI FAILURE and ANI FAILURE. In those cases you hand to > ask the customer for the number and then complete the call. On Mon, 1 Mar 93 20:46 PST, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) said: > So my question is this: What happens when it is my Trailblazer or fax > modem that is making the call. Even though the Trailblazer and the > Brooktrout are very fine modems indeed, I do not believe they can > answer a "Your number, please" inquiry. Obviously, the call fails at > that point, since the operator just dumps it--probably thinking there > are some kids or a crank at the other end of the wire. > I guess what I am trying to say is, "why bother?" Just let the call > die; why take up more time? As you guessed, if the operator hears no voice or tell-tale fax beeps, s/he dumps the call. As I said in my original post, I don't recall if it is just 0+ calls that get intercepted by OSPS or whether it tries to recover failed 1+ calls as well. In any event, the flux is sufficiently small that the instructor said "You may never see this if the strike is short, but ...", so not much operator time is wasted. My best guess is that the feature is a) an anachronism from times when the call setup failure rate was much higher, and/or b) a last ditch attempt to keep call completion rates as high as possible, since call completion is a quality metric. But those are just GUESSES. I never heard anything about "why" only "how to". Andy Sherman Salomon Inc - Unix Systems Support - Rutherford, NJ (201) 896-7018 - andys@sbi.com or asherman@sbi.com "These opinions are mine, all *MINE*. My employer can't have them." ------------------------------ From: richard@dgbt.doc.ca (Richard Paiement) Subject: Re: Quebec Yellow Pages Controversy Organization: The Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada Date: 2 Mar 93 22:08:14 GMT stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes: >> I have a business associate in Canada who tells me that businesses in >> Quebec (or some part thereof) are forbidden to answer the phone in >> English. Reportedly, even a mixed French/English greeting is not >> allowed -- the person answering can't use English until the caller >> indicates that they want to speak English. And, (perhaps in the >> "Office de la Langue Francaise) there are Phone Police (tm) that call >> businesses at random in order to ensure compliance with these >> regulations. and oldman!joe@uunet.UU.NET (Joseph P. Cain) replies: > I can see that if you give those separatists an inch they will take a > mile. Let them get their foot in the door with a stupid sign law and > they will do everything else possible to try and ruin English business > in Quebec. The government rule is not to protect the French but to > ruin the English language. I am no longer proud of my Quebec heritage. First off, Steve, I'll excuse you for believing such crap since you don't live in Canada. That anobody could believe such a rumour is hysterically funny. Quebec has never been and will never be an Orwellian society. One can walk in any city or town in the province of Quebec and will see many bilingual as well as English-only signs defying the language law, and nobody has been killed yet. P.S. I am not a Quebecois. Richard Paiement ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Mar 93 17:33:27 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan The question was who would likely get the first NNX area code, and David Esan (de@moscom.com) showed that of the areas not yet announced for a split, 205 and 602 have the most prefixes, with 206,708,713 not far behind 602. He suggests that 708 is a candidate for overlay because of its relative smallness; I will add that 708 was only formed back in 1989 (by splitting 312, which kept only the Chicago prefixes); and of the splits from 1965 (or earlier?) onward, no place has had its area code changed twice. My comment about 703 in Virginia being a candidate for NNX area code should be qualified with "of the areas near me" (I work in Maryland); note that 703 does have N0X/N1X prefixes, but these arrived as a result of the DC area shortage, not (yet) because of shortage in 703 (which as far as I know still has no N0X/N1X outside the DC area). How far down the list are the Florida area codes? (currently 305,407, 813,904) They weren't in David Esan's top 20, although I wrote that 813 is getting N0X/N1X prefixes. Perhaps I should write instead "no indication of N0X/N1X prefixes, but change dialing instructions to prepare for the NNX area codes" in the history file w/r to Florida? ------------------------------ From: ac497@freenet.carleton.ca (Wayne King) Subject: Re: Help Wanted With Development Project Organization: National Capital Freenet, Ottawa, Canada Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 22:34:36 GMT komulha1@tkk.tele.fi (Hannu Komulainen) writes: > Question: > So, we need to get connection between our customer service host > (ATLAS, Unix) and our switches to put MML commands on switches > automatically. Moreover we are interested about interface between > customer service host and it's users, in the other words what > information customer servicer put in the system (customer home > address, switch card number, ...). > I would be most grateful if you could give me some or any information > that kind of (commercial or your own developed) software or hardware. We have developed and deployed an Operational Support System for a major Telecommunications Service Provider in Canada which may be applicable to your development project. This systems' primary purpose is to provision circuits and facilities over several different types of Network Elements using languages like MML, TL/1, PDS Snyder, as well as proprietary Network Element languages. The time it takes to get customers into service has been drastically reduced through the use of this system. In this particular system, a relationship is not maintained between customer information and the facilities and circuits configured, as this information is maintained in a higher level system. However, correlation of such information with circuit and facility data would represent a straightforward extension of the system's relational database. A brief description of the system is now presented. The NEC is a Network Management System that allows operating company staff to conveniently monitor, test, provision and query network facilities and circuits from central locations. The NEC is built around proven technology, providing functionality which cannot be achieved by users working with the Network Elements in an isolated environment. The NEC can receive its provisioning information automatically from customersU service definition systems and from provisioning staff specifying provisioning information using the NEC User Interface. Any changes that are made to the provisioning information by the provisioning staff are returned to the service definition system by the NEC. The NEC provides Configuration Management, Security Management, Fault Management, Performance Management and Internal System Management. Any intelligent Network Element may be accessed via the user interface to the NEC as long as the user has permission to access that Network Element. The underlying design of the NEC permits it to control any type of Network Element. The only requirement is that the NEC can communicate with the element. The NEC also provides Mediation functions between Network Elements and other Operational Support Systems. Should this information be applicable to you, please contact the following for additional information. Edwin Morton Tel: 1 613 226-1259 Kylain Inc. FAX: 1 613 226-6854 Ottawa, Canada Wayne King ------------------------------ From: toddi@mav.com (Todd Inch) Subject: Re: Ameritech PCS Trial Update #4 Organization: Maverick International Inc. Date: Tue, 02 Mar 93 20:47:41 GMT In article acg@hermes.dlogics.com writes: > We were ushered in via the employee entrance, through a slick > ultra-modern security checkpoint I don't suppose it scanned your PCS for a serial number and figured out who you were? > (When you're at home, you switch the PCS over to Private mode and use > your base unit anyway, plugged into your home phone line.) Seems like it should do this automatically whenever it's within range of the base unit, possibly with an override function in case the home phone line is busy or otherwise undesired. Thanks for the update! (Oops, you're getting paid for use and doing free advertising to a target market as well. I take it back. :) ------------------------------ From: LCHIU@HOLONET.NET Subject: Re: Feature It Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 01:44:51 GMT In a article to comp.dcom.telecom, John@zygot.ati.com had the following to say: > After decades of Calling Card numbers based upon the customer's > telephone number, AT&T a few years ago finally introduced the > long-awaited "AT&T-only" card that is COCOT and AOS proof. > But what goes around comes around. Not long ago, Sprint began touting > its "new" Calling Card numbering scheme: the one that AT&T used right > on through divestiture. And now MCI has its "new" number. The > advantage of these "new" calling cards? The number is easier to > remember. > The disadvantage? None other than the same one that prompted AT&T to > discontinue the scheme: any slimeball AOS can bill you for calls using > that number because all the needed information is contained therein. > Unlike many, I have no problem remembering numbers. But even if that > were not the case, it would be worth the effort memorizing the > arbitrarily assigned AT&T card number to prevent bogus billing. If > someone cannot be without a number that is easily billed by ripoff AOS > scum, then the LEC would be happy to provide him with one (which works > just fine on AT&T AND Sprint AND MCI). > The OCCs are going to a great deal of trouble and expense to convince > you that their service is identical to AT&T's but that there is a big > difference in the billing methods and, most importantly, the price. > The reverse, of course, is true. The price differences between the > carriers is now far less significant than the service differences. Well I just received my AT&T Universal card. No forms to fill out -- all done over the phone (as it should be for a phone company). It features 15.9% (not that much of an attraction since I can get 10.5% on my bank line of credit and anyway, I don't leaves balances on credit cards) plus fee-free for life if you can transfer over $1000 of debt from other cards. This may not be easy for me since I can't think what I want to buy in the next two months for $1000 (or for that matter can afford!). But it's also a calling card and has a non phone number account number on it. The advantage over a regular calling card, even AT&T's, is that the PIN is not printed on the card. I got to choose my own so remembering it is not a problem. This is all good for security purposes although I guess someone could look at your credit card voucher which would have your calling card number on it, and try out 10000 combinations of PIN to crack it. Laurence Chiu ------------------------------ From: Tim Mangan Subject: Re: Current Switched56 (tm) DSU/CSU Vendors Needed Organization: TyLink Corporation Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1993 15:27:00 GMT Ronals Thompson writes: > I am currently in search of vendors that carry Switched56 DSU/CSU > products. We are expanding our evaluation and compatibility process > and require information of current vendors. TyLink also had a line of DSU/CSUs that support Private line, Switched56, and ISDN PRI access. You should keep in mind, however, that *IF* you intend to place multiple SW56 calls and want the signals synchronized for possible different network delays, you need the additional capability of Inverse Multiplexing. An inverse mux takes a sychronous stream, breaks it into multiple smaller channels, and puts it back together at the other side, accounting for any diffenence in signal delay. Even though you dial both calls from the same CSU/DSU to a similar CSU/DSU on the other side, you can't be sure that the signal delay will be the same for each call! There are a number inverse mux's on the market. Most of the key players are part of a group called BONDING (Bandwidth ON Demand INteroperability Group) which has come up with a vendor independent interface. Interoperability testing to the BONDING spec for "MODE 1" is currently under way. TyLink is located in Norton, MA and may be reached at 508-285-0033. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Mar 93 17:31:27 -0500 From: olsen@hing.LCS.MIT.EDU (James Olsen) Subject: Re: 1-800 Collect Callbacks Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science rdervan@orac.holonet.net writes: > I read in yesterday's {Atlanta Journal-Constitution} that there was > new federal legislation pending against the 1-800 'sex lines' that use > a collect callback and bill you at outrageous prices. I agree that such services are extremely slimy, and I wouldn't mind it a bit if they were outlawed, but I hope people realize that the FCC regulations on 900 numbers also apply to such collect calls as well. In particular, telcos are prohibited from disconnecting your service for non-payment of interstate information-provider bills, whether via collect calls, 900 numbers, or any other number. Here are some excerpts from the FCC's "Interstate 900 Telecommunications Services" rulemaking (56 FR 56160): ...Collect information calls, to the extent they are permitted by these rules, are included in the definition of "pay-per-call" services. When a consumer takes affirmative action clearly indicating that it accepts the charges for such a collect call, the consumer's action changes him or her from the called party to the calling party for the purposes of this rule. ... The 900 exchange has all the attributes necessary for the provision of information services to the public, and the record shows no valid technical or legal reason why the public would better served by allowing interstate pay-per-call services to be free of regulation simply because they are on an exchange other than 900. ...Part 64 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: Sec. 64.714 No Disconnection for Failure to Remit pay-per-call Service Charges. No common carrier shall disconnect, or order the disconnection of, a telephone subscriber's basic communications service as a result of that subscriber's failure to pay interstate pay-per-call service charges. Sec. 64.715 Automated Collect Telephone Calls. No common carrier shall provide transmission services for pay-per-call services originated by an information provider and charged to the consumer, unless the called party has taken affirmative action clearly indicating that it accepts the charges for the collect pay-per-call service. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #146 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14661; 3 Mar 93 4:51 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26527 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 3 Mar 1993 02:11:36 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16928 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 3 Mar 1993 02:11:00 -0600 Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 02:11:00 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199303030811.AA16928@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #147 TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Mar 93 02:11:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 147 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: OSPS and ANI Failure (Tim Gorman) Re: Curious Local Exchange Problem (Brent Capps) Re: Costs to Telco: Leased vs Dial (Paul Ebersman) Re: Costs to Telco: Leased vs Dial (Dave Gellerman) Re: Ohio Bell Making Your Life Easier (Gary W. Sanders) Re: China's Largest Cellular Order Ever (Daniel E. Ganek) Re: Another AOS Sleaze Trick (Scott D. Brenner) Re: Availability of Clinton Technology Plan (Robert L. McMillin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 02 Mar 93 12:15:40 EST From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: OSPS and ANI failure Several messages have been written concerning operators and ANI failures. In SWBT, and I assume most everywhere else, the use of a CAMA operator on direct dialed toll traffic is slowly disappearing. For those of you to which this is old info, pardon the following but it may be useful info to some: 1. For regular direct dialed calls there are two types of AMA recording offices, Local Automatic Message Accounting (LAMA) and Centralized Automatic Message Accounting (CAMA). CAMA offices, as the name denotes, provide billing for a number of subtending offices. It does this by having the subtending offices forward ANI as well as the called number. Please note that this type of operation is not compatible with SS7. ANI offices can be provided equal access by maintaining a lookup table in the CAMA office with everyone's PIC. We tried this for a while and it worked well for providing equal access to a limited customer base. The effort and cost for a large customer base would have been extremely expensive. When the CAMA office thinks the ANI is bad or missing, it will attach to an operator system via a set of specialized trunks. The operator will request the calling number and key it back into the CAMA office. These subtending ANI offices were generally the older switch types, primarily SXS. It just wasn't economically feasible to install LAMA in these offices. As these offices disappear, the use of the CAMA operator to resolve ANI problems on direct dialed toll calls will gradually disappear. It should probably also be noted that for these cases, it is economical to try and save the call. The trunk has already been tied up between the ANI office and the CAMA office and CAMA operator work time is minimal, usually between six and nine seconds. The other case where these CAMA operators are used is in providing toll service for four-party and eight-party customers. We, in Kansas, still have some four-party customers even out of some of our digital offices. There are CAMA Operator Number Identification (ONI) trunks from these four or eight party serving offices to our CAMA toll offices. These are translated to access the specialized CAMA operator trunks and have an operator request the calling number. This service is scheduled to disappear out of SWBT offices by 12-31-94. As far as I know, there will still be some Independent Company offices retaining both CAMA and multi-party service for some time so we plan on keeping the CAMA operator trunks in service for the foreseeable future. The load, however, will become extremely small. I suspect the PUC will continue pushing for multi-party service to disappear. I know that our CAMA billing services will get more expensive as the base gets smaller so that will push the replacement of the ANI offices. My guess is that by 1996, we will no longer need to provide this service. 2. Operator dialed calls work much like CAMA calls in that ANI must be passed to the operator services system using MF signaling on a per call, per trunk basis. The operator system then makes the AMA record for the call. The ANI transmission can get garbled between the end office and the operator system. When this happens the operator will interrupt on the call to ask for the originating telephone number. As was noted in an earlier message the operator gets a different indication on screen in this case than on an ANI failure on a CAMA call. This is primarily used to trigger different operator challange routines. It is rare when this happens so it would not suprise me that people can go through their entire life and never have it happen. I've only had it happen once. Tim Gorman - SWBT *opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence* ------------------------------ From: bcapps@atlastele.com (Brent Capps) Subject: Re: Curious Local Exchange Problem Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc. Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 17:52:24 GMT In article Tim Mangan writes: > More strange phone setups -- > I had a phone in college that was set up to not have a dial tone. > This prevented anyone from making an outside call from the phone; you > could only receive calls. So far so good ... > If someone left the phone off the hook when the caller hung up, the > next caller would get connected without the phone ringing. As there > were several extensions to this phone it would happen quite often. > When you gave anyone your phone number, you had to add the > instructions that after dialing if they hear hall noises instead of a > ring, yell like crazy until someone notices that you are on the line. It sounds like the lines in your dorm used ground start instead of loop start supervision. In this case a loop start set will be able to receive calls but not originate or trigger dial tone, and if left off hook the next caller will be immediately connected instead of receiving a busy signal. This is the lazy man's way of setting up an inbound-only line, but it's far from foolproof. I've used it myself in certain situations where guaranteeing a forward disconnect signal was more important than the ability to originate a call. Brent Capps bcapps@agora.rain.com (gay stuff) bcapps@atlastele.com (telecom stuff) ------------------------------ From: ebersman@cfmartin.uu.net (Paul Ebersman) Subject: Re: Costs to Telco: Leased vs Dial Date: 2 Mar 1993 00:07:51 -0500 Organization: UUNET Technologies Inc, Falls Church, VA, USA > [Moderator's Note: Much of the additional cost would come from the > expense of having certain common equipment in the central office > unavailable for other customer's use. With dialup, telco is gambling > you won't be tying up the CO resources that much; you are gambling you > will be. By continually holding the line, you'd win and telco would > lose. With leased lines, telco assumes from the beginning you'll keep > the wire packed and they price their bottom line accordingly. And if > the dialup would be zero message units and unlimited time per call, > you'll need *many thousands* of minutes of traffic each month on a > leased line to amortize or spread its cost in such a way that it > becomes less expensive per minute than manual dialup on a call by call > basis on demand. In several areas of the country where toll calls (or even local business calls) are charged per minute, 50 hours a month is about the break even point for getting a leased line. If you do more than 50 hours, you're better off with a leased line. For folks doing dialup IP, like SLIP or PPP, this is easy to do. (Actually, a good news feed and UUCP would do it B^) PacBell and NET are two telcos for whom this is a pretty good rule of thumb. Paul A. Ebersman @ UUNET Technologies, Inc. uunet!ebersman or ebersman@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ From: gelerman@access.digex.com (Dave Gellerman) Subject: Re: Costs to Telco: Leased vs Dial Date: 2 Mar 1993 10:18:08 -0500 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA In article gdw@gummo.att.com writes: > From article , by mrapple@quack.sac. > ca.us (Nick Sayer): >> What if Joe and Fred instead went to the telco and the telco sold them > I thought one of the big reasons why leased lines were so expensive is > because they are "special service" circuits and require special > procedures to install and maintain. Leased lines cannot be > automatically tested with the ever present Mechanized Loop Testing > system, or Automatic Line Insulation Test system since leased lines > are not accessible because they are not switched circuits. Almost > everything associated with special circuits is manual. Although the > Switched Access Remote Test System (SARTS) tests specials, the circuit > must be routed through the (expensive) test system at installation > which is something you don't have to do with POTS (Plain Old Telephone > Service). Leased lines also don't have phone numbers so they need > special billing procedures. Actually, what you mean is full-period data circuits must be routed to dedicated test systems ... most specials are actually switched services like FX or PBX trunks, and these are often tested by MLT (though this is BOC dependent). I can also argue that the routing to the test system (actually the access, system ala SMAS) is almost free, since channel banks have been shipped with unitized SMAS for years. Also, almost all new specials are routed through DCSes for bandwidth management etc, and test capability exists at most DCSes these days (RMS-D, HLI etc ...) I think PAT is right, specials cost more because they tie up network bandwidth on a full time basis, rather than relying on the TDM nature of switched service. Also, the political structure of the BOCs often resulted in duplicate networks, one for switched/POTS service and one for full time specials. Since the circuit count is significantly lower for specials, the cost per circuit will be higher. Also, let's be reasonable, the VALUE of a full time connection is far higher than a switched service, so the customer will pay more :). David R. Gellerman (301) 590-3414 Hekimian Laboratories, Inc. gelerman@digex.com 15200 Omega Drive Rockville MD 20850 USA ------------------------------ From: gary.w.sanders@att.com Date: Tue, 2 Mar 93 16:19:36 GMT Subject: Re: Ohio Bell Making Your Life Easier Organization: AT&T > [Moderator's Note: You *do* need a business line if you conduct > *business* on the telephone, as I suppose a home worker would be > doing. And I don't read anything in the above message which indicates > OBT expects people to have a business line because they have a modem > or fax machine ... only if they conduct *business* using the modem or > fax machine. I play chess with a friend across town by using our fax > machines to transmit a picture of the board and our moves, etc. This > is hardly a business application. PAT] Mr Moderator, Where do you draw the line as to business use? If I am a salesman and work out of an office, but some west coast clients call me at home to place an order is that a business call? What if I just need to fax an order for the office into a supplier but forget to do it at work and do it from home, is that a business call? What if my boss calls me to work over a few details of tomorrows meeting is that business, should I have a business line? What if I run a business out of my home but only make/receive a couple calls a month related to business. Do I need a business line? Gary W. Sanders (N8EMR) gary.w.sanders@att.com AT&T Bell Labs 614-860-5965 [Moderator's Note: Everything has to be taken in context. If you normally use a business line to conduct business and there is some spillover to a residential line, I don't see where there is any problem. When I was working for the attornies, I frequently had to contact their international clients from home during the night because of the difference in time. If you conduct business from your home phone but do not solicit business calls there (i.e. yellow pages advertising or business name listed in directory) then there is no big deal, and very few telcos will make an issue of it. They certainly will not listen in on the line to detirmine the nature of the calls, so they have no way of proving it either way. But if you list the phone under a business-like phrase or name and use the phone exclusively (or most of the time) for business calls, then you should pay business rates. Some people who work exclusively from home have a 'business line' and a 'residential line' both installed, and they make all their outgoing calls on the line with the most advantageous rates which is usually the residential one. Telco isn't going to squawk as long as you pay at least some kind of lip service to the tariffs. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Daniel E. Ganek Subject: Re: China's Largest Cellular Order Ever Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 15:37:41 GMT Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA In article eeitecs@eeiuc.ericsson.se (Terence Cross) writes: > Ericsson has been awarded a contract worth over USD 150 million for a > large expansion of the mobile telephone network in the Guangdong > province, China. Can a US cellular phone be used in China? If so, how difficult is it to setup an account or set-up some sort of roaming aggreement? dan ganek ganek@apollo.hp.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Another AOS Sleaze Trick Organization: AT&T Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 20:55:12 GMT sbrenner@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (scott.d.brenner) writes: > This is only speculation and second-hand info, but it looks like the > AOS's have figured out a new way to separate us from our money. > On an internal AT&T newsgroup, someone reported that they had used > their AT&T Universal Card to call home from a payphone that defaulted > to an AOS (it wasn't clear if it was NY Telephone or a COCOT). In any > event, the way they got billed for the call was that it showed up as a > collect call on their home phone bill (so it looks like the AOS takes > any calling card number, and if they can't bill to it, they just bill > the receiving phone number). > I'll warn again, this is just speculation, but it's the most logical > explanation of what happened. Hi. I'm that "someone" who reported the AOS sleaziness on the internal AT&T newsgroup. Stan is more or less correct in his speculation. The AOS is ONCOR Communications. I spoke to one of their customer service reps. Here's what happened: My father-in-law called my home number using my Universal Card number. Although he's been trained to hang up if he doesn't hear the AT&T jingle after the 'boing,' he was in a hurry and let the call go through. The AOS took the Universal Card number, but sent the call to an operator because they classified the card number "scrambled." (This was the term the rep used. He said any number NOT beginning with a valid NPA is considered scrambled.) Since the AOS knows it can't bill to this card number, they duped my f-i-l into providing the area code and number of "the owner of the card." That happened to be the number he was calling, but it didn't have to be. Somehow, the AOS obtained billing info based on my home number, and was able to get NJ Bell to put the call on my LEC bill. (Although it showed up on its own page, just like AT&T charges.) I asked the rep if this procedure wasn't illegal or at least unethical, since they're essentially putting through a third number call without authorization from the third number. He mumbled something about "that's the same thing that AT&T does ..." I didn't tell him I work for AT&T, and I'm not sure about this, but I *thought* that AT&T eliminated the practice of putting through third number calls without authorization a while ago. I disputed the call with him (it was $8.98 for a three-minute call from Staten Island, NY to Bedminster, NJ) and he agreed to issue a credit. NJ Bell also agreed to take it off my bill and make sure the credit comes through. If anyone else can shed some light on the legalities and ethical issues here, I'd be interested. In the meantime, I believe there *are* some AT&T network fraud and security people looking into this matter. Scott D. Brenner AT&T Consumer Communications Services sbrenner@attmail.com Basking Ridge, New Jersey [Moderator's Note: You are correct that the matter is under review by security representatives of AT&T. Just a few days ago, Frank Carey wrote the Digest asking for responses from people who had knowledge of or ideas about the problem of calls to 800 numbers being converted into 900 numbers; calls to 800 numbers being converted into collect callbacks and similar. I think they are looking into all the various ways these AOS people are still trying to leech a free ride at the expense of AT&T and other legitimate telcos. Apparently Integretel has worked things around in such a way the local telcos cannot refuse to do business with them; Integretel would run screaming to the court about violations of the MFJ. I think AT&T figured that once they scrambled the card number, that would be the end of the parasites, since it is assumed they would never go to the expense and trouble of building a legitimate calling card database of their own like Orange Communications is doing or AT&T and the telcos have done. Maybe they should think again. Bear in mind it is perfectly legal for any carrier to charge whatever amount it wants (tariffs however, should be on file) for a call; collect, third party or otherwise. But -- big BUT -- no deliberate choosing of names which sound like 'AT&T' when announced over the phone; no submission of unauthorized third party or collect calls to the billing offices; no misuse of historical 800 billing arrangements; no use of AT&T's data base without permission; no collect calls where the calling party was the 'telco' itself; no refusal to interconnect with AT&T when the AOS is the sole gateway available at a given phone (i.e. phone cannot reach 10xxx). Readers with factual information about schemes like this should probably write Frank Carey to discuss it; he invited such email at fec.arch2.att.com. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Mar 93 13:45:35 -0800 From: rlm@indigo2.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: Availability of Clinton Technology Plan Mark Boolootian writes: >> If the employees at SGI had been thinking about this, they would have >> held their applause. I still say: keep the U.S. out of cyberspace. >> We can't afford Uncle Nosey's intrusions and the necessary presumption >> of guilt that would likely be the price of "driving" on such a >> "information super highway". > When you consider the success of the Internet and the fact that the > government was (and still is, to a degree) responsible for a part of > its funding, I can't see any reason for wanting to keep the U.S. out > of cyberspace. Yes, yes, I've heard this before. First and foremost, I have never liked the Internet as a governmentally run operation, in no small part because the NSF among others restricted freedom of commercial speech with their use policies. As a governmentally funded operation, perhaps this was a reasonable approach. However, it has no place in a network for a free society where people make transactions based on the desire for profit. Granted, the NSF's no-commercial-messages policy should disappear soon, but that's not the point: the idea is that the government can stifle some kinds of speech because it wants to. Furthermore, digital links into commercial sites and universities are one thing; digital links into peoples' homes are quite another. It would be quite easy to move telephony onto the "data superhighway." Once there, the Feds would have a far easier time attacking the civil rights of average Americans than they presently enjoy. Imagine: if Uncle Sam owned the network, would the FBI and the DoJ have even bothered to ask for customer-paid digital wiretaps? I rather doubt it. Likely, they would have barged right in, created the software under some black budget, and installed it. And we, the taxpayers, would have gotten stuck with the bill. By allowing the State to create the digital environment, we silently cede our constitutional rights. No amount of gee-whiz technology is worth that price. Robert L. McMillin | Voice: (310) 568-3555 Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc. | Fax: (310) 568-3574 Los Angeles, CA | Internet: rlm@indigo2.hac.com After June 25 : rlm@mcgort.com or rlm@surfcty.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #147 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19101; 3 Mar 93 7:23 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30018 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 3 Mar 1993 04:22:57 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30621 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 3 Mar 1993 04:22:01 -0600 Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 04:22:01 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199303031022.AA30621@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #149 TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Mar 93 04:22:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 149 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson A Little More TWX History (Jim Haynes) Tell Me About Your Pager (Molly Geiger) Telecom Advice For the Lovelorn (Jeff Hibbard) NYNEX Voicedialing (Boston Globe via Monty Solomon) Remembering the Old Punch Cards (Gordon Burditt) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: haynes@cats.UCSC.EDU (Jim Haynes) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 93 14:26:39 -0800 Subject: A Little More TWX History Well of course the original TWX goes back to about 1930, used 3-row machines, and manual switchboards. In fact the introduction of TWX was what caused AT&T to buy the Morkrum-Kleinschmidt Corp. and rename it Teletype. At the time the service was provided using telegraph-grade circuits. You'll occasionally see a picture of an old TWX switchboard, maybe in an old encyclopedia. The switchboard operators used tape-strip printers to communicate with the customers. Telex was in use in Europe in about the same time frame, and used SXS switching technology and telegraph-grade circuits. Western Union introduced Telex to the U.S. in the early 60s. This was probably a bad mistake for them. 1) They had to buy a lot of electromechanical switching equipment which was soon to be obsoleted by electronic switching. 2) AT&T was about to move TWX to the voice switched network, where the enormous volume of voice service had driven the cost of connections and bandwidth way down. The telegraph-grade lines were no longer cheaper than voice circuits; they were in fact more costly to AT&T. 3) It put W.U. into practically head-to-head competition with an AT&T service; and AT&T was a much stronger company financially. 4) W.U. was usually dependent on the telephone companies for local loops between customers' offices and the nearest W.U. office. Thus W.U. was at the mercy of its competitors rates for these private lines. As an aside, European Baudot machines tended to have four-row keyboards. The digits were on the fourth row, like a typewriter. There were blocking bars such that if the machine was in FIGS case the digit keys were unblocked and the corresponding letters keys were blocked. So the user still had to send FIGS and LTRS as in the U.S.; it was just that the European machine design took a slightly different direction from that in the U.S. The European machines also tended to have built-in paper tape facilities of the limited sort that Teletype introduced into the Model 32 and 33 machines. In previous Teletype designs the paper tape equipment was mechanically independent of the keyboard and printer. You could, for instance, be punching a tape from the keyboard at the same time you were receiving a message on the printer; and you could be sending from tape at the same time you were punching another tape from the keyboard. In the European machines, and later in the Teletype 32 and 33, the tape punch had some parts in common with the printer and the tape reader shared some parts with the keyboard. Hence you couldn't use the keyboard while sending from tape; you couldn't punch a tape from the keyboard while printing something else, etc. The Teletype Model 15 has been mentioned as a heavy-duty machine dating from 1930. In the late 1930s some of the Bell companies asked for a less expensive machine for TWX service, recognizing that a lot of offices could use TWX but didn't need the heavy-duty machine. (The Model 15 is what was used for AP and UP news wires through the 1950s. It could stand up to the around-the-clock printing that occurs in that service.) The answer to this request was the Model 26. The 26 used a rotating type cylinder holding individual slugs of type. The cylinder stayed in one place and the paper platen moved from side to side as in a typewriter. (In the Model 15 and the later machines the paper platen is stationary and the printing element moves across the page.) The Bell System phased out the Model 26 machines in, oh, the late 40s and 50s. The machine didn't save enough in first cost to be worth supporting both it and the Model 15 in terms of parts and maintenance training. Lots of Model 26 machines wound up in amateur radio service. The hams formed organizations to plead with the Bell companies to sell their used machines to hams rather than breaking them up (to prevent their falling into the hands of those who would use them in competition with Bell services). Hams had to sign a legal form to the effect that they would not use the machine outside the hobby, and would not sell it to anyone without requiring a similar promise. In the late 50s and early 60s came all the work that resulted in ASCII -- first the upper-case-only 1961 ASCII and then the up/low 1968 ASCII. Prior to ASCII there were lots of codes floating around. Teletype made the Model 29, which was an eight-level four-row machine working on one of the IBM BCD codes. I believe this was used only internally in Western Electric; AT&T was scared to put an IBM coded machine out to the public lest non-IBM computer makers complain that the AT&T giant was favoring the IBM giant at their expense. The Model 35 was based on the 29; in fact I'm aware of some people converting 29 printers to ASCII by changing just a few parts. Many parts were common between the five-level Model 28 and the eight-level Model 35. The Model 32 and 33 machines actually started as a project to develop a light-weight machine for the military. The light-weight project didn't get very far; but a lot of the ideas wound up being used in the low-cost printer project. Again the Bell companies and Western Union saw a need for a machine that would cost a lot less than the heavy-duty machines, for use in offices that didn't have a lot of traffic. I might mention that Western Union dabbled in making its own teleprinters from time to time; occasionally one will see a sample of their Model 100 family. I believe W.U. was the main customer for the 32, for Telex service and the Bell companies were seen to be the main customers for the 33 for the new four-row dial TWX service. These machines had most of the parts in common. They were available with and without paper tape; where paper tape was present it followed the European style, so you couldn't do all the things with these machines that you could with a 28 or 35. The design objective for the 32 and 33 was that they would be used on an average two hours per day. Cost was held down by not heat treating and hardening and nickel plating the parts; some adjustments were made by bending parts rather than by moving parts on elongated holes and that sort of thing; assembly was designed for high volume with a die cast base and self-tapping screws and parts that snapped together without bolting. Meanwhile along came the minicomputer companies who adopted the 33 as a console device, where it often ran around the clock (and generated a lot of cursing about the frequent need for maintenance). For manual TWX Teletype supplied a basic machine to the phone company, which added some kind of Western Electric box on the wall for line interface. This might be a carrier channel terminal or some relays for a D.C. line; and there were schemes where ringing was used to control the motor on the Teletype machine, and schemes for cutting off current in the line when it was not in use. Telex and dial TWX required additional components for setting up and controlling the call. The Model 32 for Telex had a built-in Call Control Unit with a dial and line relays, all ready to connect to the D.C. local loop. For dial TWX there was a Western Electric modem stashed in the Teletype stand and a variety of call control units (pulse dial, tone dial, card dialer, loudspeaker vs. earphone, etc.) made by Teletype and connecting to the modem. This was a source of considerable annoyance to Teletype, as the interface involved 99 wires, each of which was negotiated between the modem designers at Bell Labs and the call control unit designers at Teletype. A little later some of the Bell companies would save money by furnishing a Bell modem with built-in telephone connecting over a few-wire cable to a Teletype private-line-version machine having no call control unit. There is a lot of weird and interesting (perhaps) lore connected with the modems. Since dial TWX used a voice-bandwidth connection they could afford the luxury of full duplex modems using two different frequency pairs for the two directions of transmission. This introduced the complexity that a modem had to know whether it was originating or answering a call to know which pair of frequencies to use for which purpose. Even after Bell began supplying modems for connection of customer-provided data equpment (just before Carterfone) these modems could function in either originating or answering roles. After Carterfone the suppliers of modems for computer time sharing could take advantage of the fact that the terminal always originated and the computer always answered; so we got reduced cost originate-only and answer-only modems. It always seemed to me that the TWX section of Bell Labs was controlled by old geezers who had been around since 1930 and couldn't imagine that a TWX machine would ever want to talk to anything except another TWX machine. If you wanted to use the same kind of Teletype machine to talk to a computer, well that was another matter entirely. The modems had separate originate and answer frequency pairs, each binary FSK. This permitted two options for which frequency pair would be originate and which would be answer, and four possiblities (two for each pair) of which frequency would be mark and which would be space. Thus it was possible by wiring options to set modems up for as many as eight mutually-incompatible services, all using the same voice switched network without any restrictions on area codes and numbers. I remember hearing about TWX, and TWX-prime, and WADS (wide area data service) and WADS-prime, all of which were to use the same modems and switched network without any of these being able to communicate outside its own service. I guess they had in mind different tariffs for TWX machines talking to TWX machines versus terminals talking to computers, versus some other things. Practically all of this was swept away by Carterfone. ------------------------------ From: Molly Geiger Subject: Tell Me About Your Pager Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 05:00:45 GMT Organization: University of Illinois In article Molly Geiger, geigermk@ uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > I am looking for information on radio pagers. I've read about wristwatch pagers and pen-sized pagers, but I'd like to hear from someone who uses them. Have you used pagers before and experienced the technological changes? Tell me. Would you rather use another form of communication than the pager? Would cellular phones be better? Any information would be appreciated. Thanks! Molly Geiger University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana geigermk@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ From: jeff@bradley.bradley.edu (Jeff Hibbard) Subject: Telecom Advice For the Lovelorn Organization: Bradley University Date: Wed, 3 Mar 93 08:21:48 GMT I live in Peoria IL, and this June I'm planning to marry a woman who now lives in Decatur IL. Although making the 95-minute (one way) drive between our homes a couple of times per week for the last 1.5 years hasn't been that bad, that's a bit far for a daily commute to work. I don't particularly want to leave the job in Peoria I've had for 21 years, nor do I want to move that far away from my adorable five-year-old son whom I see practically every day (he lives in Peoria with his mother). My friend in Decatur has equally strong reasons for wanting to remain near Decatur. She suggested that we both move to Normal IL (about half way between Peoria and Decatur). This sounded like a fine idea until I discovered that Normal is in GTE territory! Both Peoria and Decatur are served by Illinois Bell, and I have never lived in an area that wasn't served by Illinois Bell. I only have one friend who lives in Normal, and talking to him hasn't been encouraging. His stories of dealing with GTE repair service (something he's had to do fairly often) bear an amazing resemblance to those of John Higdon. It also took him years to get a second line in his home due to lack of cable pairs in his neighborhood. The only other cities I can find that would appear to be geographically acceptable are also "served" by GTE. Please tell me, O great omniscient Telecom readers: what should I do? Can I afford FX service from Peoria (roughly 40 miles), or would GTE screw up their end of that anyway? Would having to drive 3+ hours per day be less annoying than having GTE as my phone company? Is it better to remain single the rest of my life, if getting married requires a move into GTE territory? :-) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1993 20:21:21 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: NYNEX Voicedialing From the 2/11/93 {Boston Globe}: Let your voice do the dialing. That's what a new service from New England Telephone will soon let callers do for an additional monthly fee. Called Voicedialing, the service enables subscribers to dial a number by simply speaking a name into the receiver. Nynex Corp., parent of New England Telephone and New York Telephone, plans to offer the service in the Boston area by the end of this year. Nynex is the first Bell phone company to offer Voicedialing, the latest service made possible by new computer technology. Others include call waiting, call forwarding and phone-company provided answering services. "We feel that Voicedialing is as revolutionary to the telephone network as remote control was to the television industry," said Wayne Zuckerman, view president of marketing at the White Plains, NY-based telecommunications company. But consultants said VoiceDialing's success isn't assured. The advantages it provides over voice-activated and single-button dialing, already available on phones, are unclear. And local phone companies are not known as savvy marketers. Peter Hampton, director of consumer communications for The Yankee Group, a Boston consulting firm, said voicedialing [sic] will be useful for car phones, which present difficulty in dialing while driving. But many customers will be put off by the prospect of having to program their phones for the service. "These are the same kinds of people who haven't programmed their VCRs - it's the same issue," Zuckerman said. Voice-activated computers are already used in a variety of applications, and their popularity as a telephone service has been "unmatched" in markets where Nynex has tested it, he said. Other regions of the country may have Voicedialing soon: US West has signed a contract to use Nynex's computer software and Bell Atlantic has tested the service on its own employees. Here's how it works: To store a number, the caller dials *99, says a name -- for example, "Fred" -- into the phone, dials Fred's number and hangs up. Each caller -- or "voice" -- in a household can store up to 30 voice-activated numbers in the phone company's central computers. To place the call, the caller picks up the receiver, waits for a beep after the dial tone and repeats "Fred" into the mouthpiece. The central computer, matching the voice and the name to the previously stored speech pattern, dials the number. Any number can be stored, and the computer recognizes accents and foreign languages -- even a dog's bark, as one boy found when his family tested the service. Nynex plans to introduce the service in some New York markets by May and in some New England states by 1995. A trial program in Salem is scheduled for April. ------------------------------ From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) Subject: Remembering the Old Punch Cards Organization: Gordon Burditt Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1993 20:11:23 GMT > for more. Older readers will probably remember the 80-column punch > cards of years past with rows zero through nine, and the two bottom > rows which were called X and R, which could be punched to allow up to > three meanings for each of the numbers in the column: the number only > punched were letters A-J; the number punched along with X were the > letters K-T; the number punched along with R (sometimes called the > high punch) were the letters U-Z and a few miscellaneous things. The way I remember it, the rows were, from top down, numbered 12, 11, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. I've still got some cards which clearly show 0-9 as being the bottom 10 rows. From my handy "IBM System/360 Reference Data" Card of about 1970 vintage: Character Hex Punches 0-9 F0-F9 0-9 Numbers were, of course, the most used. A-I C1-C9 12 + 1-9 J-R D1-D9 11 + 1-9 S-Z E2-E9 0 + 2-9 a-i 81-89 12 + 0 + 1-9 Lower case was rarely used. j-r 91-99 12 + 11 + 1-9 s-z A2-A9 11 + 0 + 2-9 They got 256 combinations out of a maximum of 6 punches (250 of them with 5 or less). Many combinations used 8 + 2-7 or 9 + 2-7 or 8 + 9 + 2-7 in conjunction with various combinations of 12, 11, and 0. The character 0xFF was represented by 12 + 11 + 0 + 7 + 8 + 9. "Ventilator cards" (with all 12 x 80 holes punched out) were supposed to cause a "validity check" going through the card reader, but usually they just jammed. At one point I could actually take IBM 360 object deck cards, disassemble the code if it stuck to the more common instructions, and patch it without using reference cards, manuals, or scratch paper (The computer center was stingy with CPU time and the assembler was slow. Also, if you were lucky, turnaround time was a few hours). Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon [Moderator's Note: So you remember when programmers used to write their programs via punch cards. They'd then turn these cards in to the computer room, the cards would be run through the computer, and as you point out, a few hours or a couple days later the programmer would get the cards back with a print out of what took place so he could fix the bugs. Then the erroneous (bug causing) cards would be repunched and sent back to the computer room, the process would be repeated and he would get the work back eventually with a print out so he could fix the bugs he failed to fix or catch before. Programming was a long, very tedious process in the 1950's. When I was with Amoco/Diners back in the late 1960's we did all our accounting and customer service work on punch cards. We got our first video display terminals in, I think, 1968. What time-savers they were! Even though our input in the terminals was held for 'batching' each day, it was still quicker than before, and eventually we went directly 'on line'. I remember it very well! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #149 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20769; 3 Mar 93 8:28 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28995 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 3 Mar 1993 03:44:28 -0600 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11995 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 3 Mar 1993 03:43:35 -0600 Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 03:43:35 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199303030943.AA11995@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V13 #148 TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Mar 93 03:43:30 CST Volume 13 : Issue 148 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson The Future of Videophones (Paul Robinson) Internet Radio Program, "Geek of the Week" (Brian Erwin & Carl Malamud) Quick Cellular TIA Spec Summary (Greg Boop) Residential Phone Problem (Robert Smith) Call Waiting / Three Way Call Ring Back (Randy Gellens) Toll Stations in California (David Esan) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 13:24:19 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Robinson Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM Subject: The Future of Videophones I responded to a question in alt.dcom.telecom about the future of Videophones and I thought I'd pass on my response: Stefanie D. Horwitz (sdh0076@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote: > I am working on a research project concerning the future of videophones > and videoconferencing. Is there a future at all? I'll give you a future: Vice President Ozone Boy gets his "didn't inhale" associate and their Junketeers on Capital Hill to pass an energy tax so stiff that the fares on plane trips have to rise substantially. This would give an incentive for people in smaller companies that can't afford the higher prices to install video phones if they normally do some traveling. > Will these technologies ever become obsolete in the business or home > environment? I think the term you want is "available" not "obsolete". They can't become obsolete until the technology becomes available or some substitute does. Right now, telephone service from coast to coast is 25c a minute or less; that is badly damaging first-class delivery of letters because at 29c or higher, it's getting cheaper to fax something across country and get 30 second response than it is to mail a letter over three or four days, or even Federal Express / Express mail in one day. A large percentage of travel is done face-to-face because we negotiate in this manner and we examine the person's body language and gestures. And some of it is done in order to take a junket at company expense. But you can't negotiate a contract without visual contact (generally because you need proof of signatures.) You can get around this by facsimile, notarization and authentication, but the software to provide real-time authentication just really isn't out there yet. I've heard enough requests for it that it makes me think I should write one. What the issue right now amounts to is cost. I don't know what a 56KB line across the country leases for, but I'm certain it's considerably more than the $15.00 per hour that a cross-country telephone call costs (AT&T at 25c per minute). Plus you need the compression equipment to do compressed video which is probably a few thousand dollars. But if you (or several groups) use it for several hours a month, it's a lot cheaper than plane travel. > What new uses for these technologies are being/will be created? If you > have any information regarding this subject and the related topics, or > you know where I can find some, please post it or send it to me via > e-mail. Thank you very much. - People calling to check on loved ones; - People calling to see an item they are interested in purchasing; - Deaf people being able to use sign language directly; - Being able to see the person who is talking to you, and making it much harder for someone to simulate the caller; - An ad agency can show clips of a commercial to the client directly without him having to come down to the viewing room, or having to risk transporting videotapes by courier; - An architect can show drawings (which they can fax now) or they can do a model of the building and show it by TV and do a 360 degree slow scan around the model; - If you create computer generated images, you can run them on the visual at the other side to show what they look like; - Running X and MS-Window applications on a distant terminal, including "Carbon Copy" or "PC-Anywhere" type applications on GUI terminals - Remote diagnostic and remote help desk operation of GUI terminals to show the user what he should be doing; - Virtual Reality simulations for training; - Games. And then there's the sleaze applications which currently can be left to the imagination. :) The 900 Area Code and 976 dial-up telephone services are a $1 billion a year business, of which I'm sure that a nice chunk of this is in the "X Rated" class (and I don't mean stuff running under X-Windows!) Anyone want to guess how much this stuff is worth with full video and sound? Paul Robinson TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM [Moderator's Note: Interesting you should mention it. There is an adult service in Pompano Beach, FL which makes extensive use of the little slow-scan (is that what they are called?) video things you can buy from Sharper Image -- the one where you need two such units, one for your phone and one for grandma or whoever. These have the little screens where it takes about two minutes to get an image. Someone help me with the exact name and technical specs here ... Anyway, this guy in Pompano Beach rents them by the month to his good customers (or maybe he sells them outright, I dunno) and the customer gets to call in on a POTS line to speak with and view the creature of his choice doing certain things I cannot mention in a family-oriented Digest such as this. Admittedly, the pictures are slow and clunky, and I am not sure how much success he has had at marketing this. I'd think to some extent videophones would NOT be a very good idea where the sex lines are concerned because heretofore, as 'they' say, one did not have to look one's best regardless of which end of the sexphone line you were connected on. (Ain't it the truth! You should *see* some of the slobs working in the phone rooms of a million fantasy trips. They'd have to change their shirt, shower and shave before going to work ... what a quaint custom!) The flip side of this is imagining the obscene calls of the next century. Instead of picking up a phone and hearing heavy breathing, you'd flip on the viewing device and see -- well, I'll let you think about it! :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 16:45:26 -0600 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Internet Radio Program, "Geek of the Week" I got this message in the mail today, and find it quite exciting. PAT From: Brian Erwin Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 14:08:18 PST To: ptownson@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: Internet Radio Patrick: I'd like to alert you to a potentially important new application of the Internet. Internet Talk Radio will begin airing a weekly half-hour interview program, "Geek of the Week," over the Internet in late March. Taking advantage of sound support offered by Sun Microsystems, Apple, NeXT, IBM, Silicon Graphics, DEC, and many other vendors, and of the Internet's electronic mail protocols' support for multiple data types, Internet Talk Radio will use encoding formats and conversion programs to support audio playback of the interviews on all major environments. Journalist and author Carl Malamud is the program's executive producer and it is sponsored by Sun Microsystems and by us, O'Reilly & Associates. Its first program, "Geek of the Week," will feature interviews with notable members of the Internet community, such as author and programmer Dr. Marshall T. Rose, NASA Science Internet manager Milo Media, and Interop Company founder Daniel Lynch. Later programs will air more frequently and feature book reviews, short features, and even non-technical features, such as restaurant reviews from exotic locations. The interviews are mastered onto Digital Audio Tape. A typical 30-minute program occupies 15 Mbytes of disk space. UUNET Communications in Virginia serves as the initial spool area with several gigabytes. From there, the data moves to the IIJ network in Japan and EUnet in Europe. These three sites -- UUNET, EUnet, and IIJ -- serve as the primary distribution points for the world. From there, regional and national networks move the data closer to the users. Eventually, a network manager takes the files and broadcasts them on a local area network or stores them on a file server. We have a further involvement in that listeners wanting the interviews on audiocassettes or audio CDs will able to purchase them by contacting us at "radio@ora.com." If you'd like more detailed information, contact Carl Malamud at 703/548-1126 or info@radio.com. Brian Erwin, brian@ora.com Public Relations, O'Reilly & Associates 103A Morris Street, Sebastopol CA 95472 707-829-0515, Fax 707-829-0104 ------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Mar 93 17:41:15 EST From: carl@malamud.com (Carl Malamud) To: ptownson@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: Re: Internet Radio Cc: brian@ora.com Org: Internet Talk Radio Please put info@radio.com down as the 'for more information' address. To be a distributor, there are no terms. The data is not copy protected in any sense (although we prohibit resale and derivative works). We are trying to get the regional networks to grab the files from UUNET so we don't kill the net with large file distribution. If you want to get involved with distribution, what I would do is contact my regional network and say "I want my geeks!" Have them send me a request, and we'll add that regional to the UUNET access control list. They, in turn, will distribute to their own customers. Carl info@radio.com [Geek's Note: Thanks for sharing this news with telecom. I think you will have a lot of listeners to your 'radio program'. Best wishes for success ... I wish I'd thought of it first! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Mar 93 09:23:18 -0500 From: aurs01!aurxcf!boop@concert.net (Greg Boop) Subject: Quick Cellular TIA Spec Summary Thank you for your responses to my cellular standards inquiry. I have received a number of responses indicating which EIA/TIA documents to take a look at. I am now getting my hands on a number of these documents including: EIA/TIA IS-19-B Recommended Min Standards for 800MHZ Cellular Subscriber Units. EIA/TIA IS-20-A Recommended Min Standards for 800MHZ Cellular Land Stations. EIA/TIA IS-41-B Cellular Radiocommunications Intersystem Operations - 5 Volumes EIA/TIA IS-52 Uniform Dialing Procedures ... in Cellular Radio Telecom. EIA/TIA IS-53 Cellular Features Description. EIA/TIA IS-54-B Cellular Dual-Mode Mobile/Base Station Compatibility Standard. EIA/TIA IS-55 Recommended Min Performance Standards for Dual-Mode Mobile Stat EIA/TIA IS-56 Recommended Min Performance Standards for Dual-Mode Base Stat. EIA/TIA IS-85 Cellular Standards for Full-Rate Speech Codes. EIA/TIA IS-553 Cellular System Mobile Station-Land Station Compatibility Std. EIA/TIA IS 88/89/90 NAMPS Standards. The IS-553 spec and the IS-41 set covers the AMPS (Advanced Mobile Phone Service) standard. The IS54-IS56 documents cover the operation of dual-mode analog AMPS and Digital (TDMA) cellular phones. The IS88-IS90 specifications cover NAMPS (Narrow Band AMPS). The standards (as always) are a very good place to start. However I still hope to find some books or papers that provide a technical in-depth look at the processing of cellular calls and any references to cellular network management. I already have a number of references to RF related material (site planning etc.), but my focus is not on this type of information (even though it brought back fond memories of Smith Charts). Customer documentation (Command Summary Manuals) regarding the user interfaces to Cellular Switches sold by major manufacturers will probably help me out. Any references to books, articles, or manuals will be greatly appreciated. I am trying to obtain a broader view of the technical side of the cellular US market. I already have a strong background in mobile communications. My former employer, Spectrum Communications and Electronics (now Spectrum Ericsson), manufactured paging terminals. In the past, I have also have been involved in field trials of CT2 technology (borrowed from England) up in Rochester, New York. My role involved writing and evaluating PCS Network Management Software. A small fraction of my recent activity has involved evaluating and providing input on the GSM speech coding used in Europe. As the wireless trend in telecommunications continues to explode, I want to be properly informed in order to correctly represent the American viewpoint on any cellular issues (even though the US and EC cellular standards are quite different) within my firm. Thank you and best regards, Phone # 919-850-6373 Fax # 919-850-5131 Internet: boop%aurfs1%aurgate@mcnc.org UUCP ...!mcnc!aurgate!aurfs1!boop Greg Boop, Alcatel Network Systems, Raleigh, N.C. ------------------------------ From: ROBERT SMITH Subject: Residential Phone Problem Date: 2 Mar 93 16:21:30 GMT Reply-To: ROBERT SMITH Organization: Stakeholder Relations, NCR Corp in Dayton,OH