From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Sat Dec 2 08:53:12 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA05279; Sat, 2 Dec 1995 08:53:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 08:53:12 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512021353.IAA05279@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #501 TELECOM Digest Sat, 2 Dec 95 08:53:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 501 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Whose Phone was This? (Andrew C. Green) Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance? (Sany M. Zakharia) Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance? (Dave Hsu) Rockwell Entering the BIG LEO Game (Fermin Da Costa Gomez) Re: BellSouth's Caller ID Deluxe (Al Varney) Re: Sending Files via FAX (Ry Jones) Re: Sending Files via FAX (Sany M. Zakharia) Re: Sending Files via FAX (Steve Cogorno) Competitive Telecommunications Assn Responds to Bell Canada (Nigel Allen) Old Radio Shack "Answering Machine 2-Line Adapter" (Michael Ayotte) Re: Wireless Solutions for Roaming a Facility (Steve Schear) Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (Steve Cogorno) Re: Bandwidth Over POTS/Twisted Pair - Shannon (Gareth Evans) Re: Last Laugh! Award Recipient Report (Jeff Bamford) Re: Campus-Wide Cable (Fiber) White Papers Wanted (George DeVaux) OK, it's December 1st...? (andy@clark.net) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 01 Dec 1995 10:56:52 -0600 From: Andrew C. Green Subject: Whose Phone was This? I was spending a pleasant Saturday afternoon rummaging through the huge antique store "mall" (their term for it) at the Volo (IL) Antique Auto Museum when I came across an old desk telephone for sale. It was a standard black model, murder-weapon-heavy quality, black metal rotary dial, round black buttons in the cradle, straight handset cord and "Western Electric F-1" (I think it was) on the handset. Let's call it World War II vintage; I'm assume collectors can identify the model I'm talking about. Anyway, the interesting part was that in the middle of the dial was the original, neatly printed (typeset) number: ARmitage 6-2xxx. (I can email the whole number on request.) Just for yucks, I'd like to look up the number. I _assume_ that is a Chicago exchange; what I'm hoping for is that old phone books would be on-line (right :-), but general pointers would be helpful: Is it a Chicago exchange? Judging from the model of phone and format of number, what era (e.g. decade) can I narrow the search down to, or start from? What policy did the phone company of years past have regarding reusing numbers when service was cancelled? Ameritech's namefinder service lists this number now in use at a billiard hall (!) on West Fullerton Avenue, though the 2xxx pattern doesn't correspond to the traditional pay phone pattern of 9xxx. I don't want to bother whoever's now at the number unless I can verify that it's the same person who had it way back when... at which point perhaps I'll offer to sell them their phone back. ;-) Andrew C. Green (312) 266-4431 Adobe Systems, Inc. (formerly Frame Technology) Advanced Product Services 441 W. Huron Internet: acg@frame.com Chicago, IL 60610-3498 FAX: (312) 266-4473 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ARMitage is a Chicago exchange known now as 312-276. It serves the northwest side of the city. Long ago when a phone was installed, telco did supply a very nice round tag for the window in the dial with the phone number typset there with the complete exchange name, etc. I think the only thing you could do in trying to trace this back to someone in that era (middle 1940's or earlier perhaps) would be to go to the library and *hope* that they had criss-cross books around from that long ago. The library does have the alphabetical phone books on microfilm going back to 1878-79, and they have actual copies of the Haines Cross Reference Directory going back a number of years, but I don't know about that far. Haines started publication sometime in the 1930's but I don't know if they were in the Chicago area market in those days. Our local library here in Skokie has actual paper directories and cross reference books back to 1967; they have no cross reference books from before that. Chicago is probably about the same. Another alternative would be to visit the Municipal Reference Library at Chicago City Hall. They have something called the 'Chicago City Directory' there. They quit publishing the City Directory in 1921, and the final edition is still there in book form with issues prior to 1921 on microfilm. It was organized by section of the city and you might try scanning through it. Also you could probably ask Haines (I think they are headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio) if they have any cross reference books from this area for fifty years ago, but I doubt that they do. Good luck! PAT] ------------------------------ From: zakharia@WPI.EDU (Sany M. Zakharia) Subject: Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance? Date: Sat, 02 Dec 95 00:12:57 GMT Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute In Article , TELECOM Digest Editor responded to zakharia@WPI.EDU (Sany M. Zakharia): > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So are you saying merely that my timing > is off (regards when the price will come down) or are you saying it > never will get that low? Prices will surely come crashing down, but I think not as drastically within the time window you state. But hey, if you are correct, my pockets can't complain! > My first Apple ][+ computer in 1979-80 cost me over a thousand dollars. It > used its own flavor of Microsoft Basic which it called Applesoft Basic. I had one of these as well, until I upgraded to the powerful Apple //e with a whopping 128K of ram, a mouse, duo disk drive, joystick, sound card, and an Image Writer I printer :) Does anybody remember those Profile HDs Apple used to market for use with the Apple II series? I think I remember them being advertised as "able to hold as much data as TEN floppies". Can anyone verify? > for the manufacturers. Remember Commodore and the C-64 among their > other products? Commodore Amiga, a computer that was definetly decades ahead of its time (as well as the Atari series). Sany - *sigh* a trip down memory lane. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering zakharia@wpi.edu 1 508 831 6784 P.O. Box 3321, Worcester, MA 01609-2280, U.S.A. ------------------------------ From: hsu@va.pubnix.com (Dave Hsu) Subject: Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance? Date: 01 Dec 1995 19:44:30 -0500 Organization: AlterNet -- Falls Church, Virginia, USA In article , Brian Brown wrote: > shoppa@altair.krl.caltech.edu (Tim Shoppa) wrote: >> Sorry, I have to disagree here. Memory is *dirt cheap* these days. >> Anyone who says otherwise wasn't buying memory two decades ago; my >> first 4kbytes of RAM cost me $200 back then. $200 will buy you 6 >> megabytes now, easily. > For over five years now, memory has stayed within a few percent of the > "40 bucks a meg" rule. All other components have fallen in price. Not true. Memory had been falling from the $40/MB point (late 1990) right up until the Sumitomo fire (July 1993) when it was around $29/MB. It remained high for nearly two years following, I think due to a combination of hype, and due to exploding demand as Windows 3.x proved to be viable, popular, and resource-intensive. Only in the past year has it fallen again to around $32/MB today. Cases, power supplies, and floppy drives had largely bottomed out years ago. Monitor prices have also remained high; although you can get sub-$700 17" units today, this is primarily due to the introduction of cost-reduced models. A good 17" unit will still set you back $900+, which isn't much lower than the $1100+ it would have cost you two years ago. PAT's summary of calculator and PC costs is dramatic, but glosses over the fact that in both examples, the product and its underlying technology made a transition from a laboratory instrument/curiosity to a mass-market item. His $500 calculator didn't sell in the hundreds-of-thousands-per-year, nor did its manufacturer expect it to. Only when TI dropped the bottom out of its IC prices in '75 or so (permitting me to buy my four-function Commodore for less than $50 in 1976) did calculators become as ubiquitous as they are today. The OSI Challenger and Apple II+, both dear to my heart, were constructed in modest quantities out of discrete components. While I have to discredit the comparison with the $50 price of the Sinclair ZX-81 (that was the going rate _after_ it had failed), it DID sell new for around $200, and Sir Clive clearly had mass-marketing on his mind. It seems to me that the closest recent product curve for an information appliance to target is the RCA DSS video receiver. Its launch ran a bit steeper than the VCR did in 1976, somewhere around 800K-1M units in the first year, which is in line with other consumer electronics of this type, notably video game consoles. While the price will certainly go down, it won't be the same kind of dramatic fall. Dave Hsu Systems Programmer Std disclaimers apply Product Development Group / UUNET Technologies http://www.va.pubnix.com ------------------------------ From: fermin@knoware.nl (Fermin Da Costa Gomez) Subject: Rockwell Entering the BIG LEO Game; Competition to Iridium Date: Sat, 02 Dec 1995 10:34:44 GMT Organization: Knoware Internet Could anybody at all verify the following in any way: Is it correct that a few days ago The Communications Daily (Washington DC area) ran an article stating that ROCKWELL INDUSTRIES is joining the BIG LEO game through the funding (or part thereof) of the Ellipso system of MCHI (Mobile Communications Holding Inc.), which would make MCHI elligible for a FCC feeder link license. It sounds quite plausible but it is rather hard to get verification of this so if anybody out there reading this could verify it, it would really be appreciated. Supposedly Westinghouse has been (or still is) involved in this venture as well but that has also been very hard to verify. fermin@knoware.nl ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp5.ih.att.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: BellSouth's Caller ID Deluxe Organization: AT&T Date: Fri, 01 Dec 1995 21:42:44 GMT In article , Ronell Elkayam wrote: > On Mon, 20 Nov 95 15:21:00 EST, klein@snt.bellsouth.com > (email: klein@snt.bellsouth.com) posted: >> I would be happy to answer any questions (or find out the answers) >> about the BellSouth Caller ID Deluxe service. > Also: Why on earth is there a 15 character limit? My hardware can > support much larger name fields than that... Why should I suffer if > some Caller ID Box manufacturers can't figure out how to scroll name > fields larger than their LCD can hold? (I'm assuming that's the > reason...) Is this going to change anytime soon? As I understand it, the 15 character limit has several reasons -- the primary one being that the analog FSK signaling period between ring cycles has very little room left, after sending 10 digit calling number and a 15 character name. The limit wasn't imposed by any box manufacturer. Al Varney ------------------------------ From: rjones@coho.halcyon.com (Ry Jones) Subject: Re: Sending Files via FAX Date: 2 Dec 1995 00:13:32 GMT Organization: Northwest Nexus, Inc. - Professional Internet Services Stephen Primost (0007466483@mcimail.com) wrote: > The disc fax facility is a very fast means of transmitting the > complete contents of a floppy disc. > I asked why this was necessary in view of the internet facility to > import files and was advised that it was for speed of data transfer > (eg for many files on a floppy), and greater security. Having used > Internet I think the speed thing is probably correct but is it worth a > separate capital outlay particularly when you need to rely on other > users having the facility? I can't see how speed can be an issue. If you want dedicated transfer facilities, use an old 386 with a 28.8 or a matched pair of 33.6 modems and a high density floppy drive of both types. You could write a batch file to drive (say) DSZ or GSZ or some other protocol to copy the files over. You could also use PGP to encrypt a zip file of a disk, transfer it, and do the reverse on the other end. I just can't see the value here ... fax speed is limited to 14.4. The unit could be a fax machine with a 28.8 fax/modem that's using a propreitary trasfer protocol or some such. I still can't see how a fax could exceed a dedicated trasfer system. rjones@halcyon.com finger hayden@vax1.mankato.msus.edu ------------------------------ From: zakharia@WPI.EDU (Sany M. Zakharia) Subject: Re: Sending Files via FAX Date: Sat, 2 Dec 95 00:40:22 GMT Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute In article , Stephen Primost <0007466483@mcimail.com> wrote: > import files and was advised that it was for speed of data transfer > (eg for many files on a floppy), and greater security. I don't see the utility of such a device unless you wish to exchange data with locations in the world that do not have Internet facilities. In that case I think the speed will be limited to that of the phone lines, no? Sany Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering zakharia@wpi.edu 1 508 831 6784 P.O. Box 3321, Worcester, MA 01609-2280, U.S.A. ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: Sending Files via FAX Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 00:29:55 PST Stephen Primost said: > Has anyone heard of this? What company makes this unit and is it really > worth the price of admission? Maybe I am missing something; why not just use a modem? Steve cogorno@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 01:12:07 -0500 From: Nigel Allen Subject: Competitive Telecommunications Association Responds to Bell Canada Organization: Internex Online Here is a response by the Competitive Telecommunications Association to Bell Canada's announcement that it was appealing a CRTC decision requiring it to reduce its long distance rates further. I fund this press release on the Canada NewsWire web site at http://newswire.flexnet.com COMPETITIVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION TORONTO, Nov. 30 -- The Competitive Telecommunications Association (CTA) came out squarely opposed to today's appeal of CRTC Decision 95-21 by the Stentor members. ``There is no public policy or regulatory merit to the appeal. This is simply telco management's attempt to grab the local monopoly revenue increase. The effect of the appeal is to change rate rebalancing to a disguised rate increase,'' claimed Don Braden, Executive Director of CTA. ``Consumers and small businesses will be big losers if the appeal is accepted by Cabinet. These groups will face monopoly rate increases without any offsetting long distance rate relief,'' stated Braden. ``Decision 95-21 gave the telco's the key items they argued for, rate rebalancing and a split rate base. Now they don't like the results because it exposes their strategic conduct in the competitive markets. To the extent that their company-wide financial returns are low, it is caused by the mis-management of their competitive business sector,'' stated Braden. ``The Decision certainly did not give new entrants all they sought, but we consider the Decision to be a good balance of interests. It also represents a tight intertwining of several important issues and should not be tinkered with to suit any particular interest group. The Decision is also a key component in the transition to a fully competitive telecommunications market,'' said Braden. CTA is a national trade associations representing new entrants in the interexchange and local access markets. For further information: Don Braden, Executive Director, (416) 620-5391; For consumer and small business reaction contact: Michael Janigan - PIAC (613) 562-4002, Ted Mallet - CFIB(416) 222-8022 ------------------------------ From: michael@ayotte.com (Michael Ayotte) Subject: Old Radio Shack "Answering Machine 2-Line Adapter" Date: Fri, 01 Dec 1995 23:41:01 -0700 Organization: Ayotte Radio Shack used to carry an "Answering Machine 2-Line Adapter". Basically it was a small box into which (if I remember correctly) you plugged two separate phone lines and your answering machine. When one of the lines would ring, the answering machine would get switched over to that line. When the other line would ring, it would get switched to that line. Essentially it was an "auto-switch". Apparently RadioShack (at least the ones near me) have stopped carrying this device. Does anyone know where I could get such a device and how much it would cost? And does anyone know weither it passed CNG fax tones through the switch or blocked them (I want to hook it to my Fax modem, which detects the tones, and my answering machine). Any help would be greatly appriciated. Thanks in advance. michael@ayotte.com (Michael Ayotte) http://www.ayotte.com/personal/ayotte/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It was a two line auto-switch which could be used for various things. I used to have one and I used it for two lines funneling calls into a single phone instrument. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Dec 1995 23:25:48 -0800 From: azur@netcom.com (Steve Schear) Subject: Re: Wireless Solutions for Roaming a Facility On Tue, 14 Nov 95 08:13:00 PST, Robohn Scott wrote: > We're looking for a solution to the following situation: tech support > staff roam about an office and need easy access to their incoming > phone calls. They can forward their calls, but this gets bothersome > and tedious after you have to reset forwarding the second, third, > fourth time that hour. Cellular reception is very poor in some areas > of the building, so that doesn't look like an option. > One option could be a 900 MHz cordless phone with multiple base > stations and a single handset; does anyone sell these? Web pages for > Panasonic and Sony are no help on this option, but I'll try some > others. I've also heard about special internal wiring in situations > like this, but this sounds like a pretty expensive solution. > Any ideas on specific products and/or services? We'll entertain all > options. The basic requirement is for a person within the office to > have continuous access to a single incoming phone line as they roam > about the office. A lightweight, small handset would be nice; a > headset option would be even nicer. Approximate cost information > would also be appreciated. One solution is to install a 'private' cellular system in your building. Many local carriers offer this option. This is, however, not a cheap solution. Or you might contact Uniden America. They have a line of 900 MHZ Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum phones, both consumer and commerical models which attach to PBX. A model with roaming capability has been discussed. I don't know if they ever manufactured it. Contact: Tony Mirabelli VP Marketing Uniden America 4700 Amon Carter Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76155 817-858-3553 ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 00:37:31 PST Keith Jarett said: > time? When I called the CHP later, they said that you should find a > regular phone and dial 911 in case of a *real* emergency. Your tax > dollars at work ... The roadside boxes are not to be used for emergency calls. They are connected directly to the CHP Dispatching Center in Sacramento; NOT the PSAP that would normally handle 911 calls. It would have taken the CHP much longer to get ambulance service than by calling 911 directly. THe CHP dispatcher would have to call the PSAP center (using the ten digit number, not 911) and relay the info to them. It's easier to just do it yourself. Steve cogorno@netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well excuse me if I am missing something, but if a person's call was not an emergency, why would they stop and use one of those roadside phones? What are they for, if not for use in emergencies? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gareth Evans Subject: Re: Bandwidth Over POTS/Twisted Pair - Shannon Date: Sat, 02 Dec 95 10:06:06 GMT In article is written: > I've been trying to figure out what it is about POTS that limits the > usable BW to around 3400 Hz, which ultimately, according to Shannon, > limits the capacity of the channel to around 35 Kbits/sec. Since > twisted copper pair has a much higher BW, I presume that there is some > device on the line that limits the BW to the voiceband (someone > mentioned loading coils). The bandwidth limitations traditionally came from the subscriber's relay set in the exchange and were a combination of the shunt inductance from the relays and the series capacitors used as the transmission bridge - this I know cannot be the whole story because the circuit is a high and not a low pass filter in outline. Loading coils were a feature of the long lines in the States but not, I understand over here in Brit land. 73 de Gareth G4SDW ------------------------------ From: aa423@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Jeff Bamford) Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Award Recipient Report Date: 1 Dec 1995 14:11:07 GMT Organization: Hamilton-Wentworth FreeNet, Ontario, Canada. > And get across to your employees > the message that we do NOT dial 900/976/540 and/or other odd combin- > ations of numbers just because someone tells us to. Is 540 really a premium exchange in some areas? Here it is just a normal exchange. In fact the local freenet is on the 905-540 exchange. Quite a bit different from a 976 number. I think it's a cellular exchange in 416. I wish these things were standardized. Jeff [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well in New York City, 540 was (is?) being used for premium charge services. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 09:13:31 -0500 From: devaux@econnect.ca (George DeVaux) Subject: Re: Campus-Wide Cable (Fiber) Plant White Papers Wanted John Brassil wrote: > We're looking for relatively bias-free studies/recommendations on what > kind and how many strands of fiber to pull for the enhancements we are > planning for our network here at Vandy. You might want to contact Telco Systems (800) 221-2849 for a copy of "Asychronous Transfer Mode: Bandwidth for the Future." The price is about $10. I have no connection with Telco Systems. ------------------------------ From: andy@clark.net (andy) Subject: OK, it's December 1st ...? Date: 1 Dec 1995 10:45:04 GMT Organization: clark.net Given that it is now Dec 1, will we be seeing less "UNAVAILABLE" notes on our CID boxes and more actual names and numbers? Isn't today the beginning of the requirement for all LD companies to start passing CID data? Please correct me if I'm wrong ...! Thanks, andy [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, yesterday was December 1. Let's have some reports submitted to the Digest please of your experiences with this over the next week or so. How well are the telcos complying with the new requirement. Maybe for once, our caller-id boxes will actually be fully functional, eh? It is about time! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #501 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Dec 4 18:41:00 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id SAA25698; Mon, 4 Dec 1995 18:41:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 18:41:00 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512042341.SAA25698@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #502 TELECOM Digest Mon, 4 Dec 95 18:41:30 EST Volume 15 : Issue 502 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson CDMA/GSM Tech Course Offered Prior to CTIA Wireless '96 (K. Zsigo) Book Review: Information Superhighways: Multimedia Users & Futures (Slade) List: PictureTel Users (Neale Banks) Old Billing Practices (Mike Hyman) Internet Reaches Benin ... At Least For A Few Days (Nigel Allen) Cable Executive Sues Comcast (cablenj@aol.com) Sprint PCS ad in USAToday (Mike Miller) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: kzsigo@ix.netcom.com (Konstantin Zsigo) Subject: CDMA/GSM Tech Course Offered Prior to CTIA Wireless '96 Date: 2 Dec 1995 16:09:57 GMT Organization: Netcom Due to high demand, we've decided to repeat our CDMA course one more time in Dallas, TX, just prior to the CTIA Wireless '96 tradeshow. The instructor for the program has accepted an offer to help construct the GSM cellular network in Shanghai, China, so it may be some time before this course is offered again. Based upon feedback from the first session, the course outline has been expanded to cover selected topics on GSM to allow for comparison to CDMA. CDMA and GSM System Design, Engineering and Implementation Workshop Wireless Technology Series March 21-23, 1996 Dallas, Texas Sponsored by Zsigo Wireless Data Consultants in conjunction with the Wireless Institute of Technology. Edward Lu, Instructor --------------------------- Edward Lu is a leading expert on wireless communications systems. Under Dr. William Lee's guidance, he was previously in charge of developing and operating AirTouch Communications CDMA Test Bed and Advanced RF Technology program. Currently the Director of Network Planning & Engineering for McCaw International and Chief Engineer of Shanghai McCaw Telecommunications, he is developing the Shanghai GSM system in an area with very high population density. A frequent speaker on IEEE and International technical forums, Edward Lu brings his solid R&D background, CDMA & GSM field operation experience, and system design experience to this seminar. His previous three-day wireless communication seminars have trained engineers and managers from more than fifty-five US and Canadian wireless companies. He has been involved in PCS business development, CDMA & GSM system and subscriber unit testing, cellular and PCS system design, wireless data technology, microcell technology, optical fiber communications, and electromagnetic wave propagation for more than thirteen years. A well-respected wireless communication strategist, Edward Lu will also share his views on smart antennas, different PCS technologies (GSM, TDMA, CDMA, etc.), high rate CDMA & low rate GSM vocoders, CDMA & GSM system development directions, PCS system deployment strategies, microcells, mobile satellite services (Iridium, Globalstar, Odyssey, etc.), GPS, Phone-Print Anti-Fraud technology, and wireless vehicle location technologies. Zsigo Wireless Data Consultants -------------------- Zsigo Wireless is considered a leader in providing sales training, technical consulting, and related services to wireless service providers and manufacturers throughout the United States and Canada. The company is committed to providing top notch educational seminars that provide professionals a broad technical understanding of wireless fundamentals. This education is invaluable to any organization seeking to capitalize on the wireless opportunity within cellular or PCS. Who should Attend This Workshop? --------------------- This three day seminar is designed for network engineers, RF planners, technicians and others wishing to learn how CDMA works and how best to implement the technology. By attending this seminar, you can better plan your deployment of CDMA systems either in the 850 or 1900MHz band. This is the place to get all of your questions answered on the latest advancements in CDMA so you can shorten your learning curve and build a better system. Continuing Education Unit (CEU) certificates are available upon request. Seminar Fees --------------------------- The cost of the three day seminar is $1195 for regular registration (after February 29), or $995 for early registration on or before February 29, 1996. Schedule of Topics to be addressed: GSM Error detection & correction coding GMSK modulation; Time delay spread Adaptive equalization ;SM system design GSM coding scheme Authentication system and smart card system GSM system link budget GSM system coverage planning and system design Coverage reliability calculation GSM system capacity long term planning method PCS system design case study MTA system design case study How to collect demographic data Pre-design noise & RF propagation measurements In-car, portable & in-building coverage design 10 year capacity planning and transceiver count Cell coverage and system coverage based on reliability probility Capital busget planning based on coverage and capacity CDMA The Principles of Operation Shannon’s Information Theory A discussion on cellular system frequency reuse & capacity issue Characteristics of human speech PN Codes PN code generation; Properties of PN code PN code autocorrelation function Spread Spectrum System Spread spectrum communication system Processing gain; Near-far problem for a multiple access system IS-95 CDMA System Architecture CDMA System Timing & Timing Sources CDMA Forward Link Structure Pilot Channel; Sync Channel; Paging Channel Slot Mode Operation Forward Traffic Channel frame structure Long Code Mask; Power Control Sub-channel Codes Used in CDMA System; CDMA Signaling CDMA Reverse Link Structure Access Channel; Access Probe Reverse Traffic Channel structure Orthogonal & Non-orthogonal Coding Overview of Two Way Orthogonal CDMA System Variable Vocoder 14.4 kbps vocoder and its impact on capacity and coverage Markov call statistics Convolutional Coding Frame quality indicator Coding gain Symbol Repetition Block Interleaver Fast fading duration Interleaver performance vs. mobile speed Data Scrambling & Randomizer QPSK & OQPSK RAKE Receiver RAKE receiver at base and subscriber receivers Multipath fading profile Why there is up to 3 cell soft hand-off Optimize CDMA performance for in-building and tunnel system CDMA Power Control Reverse and forward link power control Closed loop, outer loop, and open loop power control Power control speed Power control and access probe Optimize power control parameters Power control dynamic range Power control rule in soft hand-off region CDMA Hand-off Process Which channel power strength control CDMA hand-off process? Soft Hand-off; Softer Hand-off; Hard Hand-off Soft Hand-off process Optimize Soft hand-off parameters: T_ADD, T_DROP, T_TDROP Search window impact on system performance Setting and optimizing search window size for CDMA microcell Pilot set management; Pilot strength measurements Soft Hand-off message and optimization CDMA to CDMA or Analog Hard hand-off CDMA System Engineering CDMA Antenna Structure Erlang and trunking efficiency Multiple sector cell and smart antenna system Multiple sector equipment sharing mechanism How to optimize CDMA sector cell antenna system CDMA Coverage and Capacity Modeling & Calculation Pole capacity; CDMA system link budget Soft Hand-off coverage gain Does soft hand-off reduce capacity? Forward link coverage & capacity Reverse link coverage & capacity Frequency reuse efficiency calculation Receiver noise figure and sensitivity Loading: the link between capacity and coverage Cell breathing and soft capacity Noise rise above thermal noise floor RF propagation model; Fade margin calculations 90% or 95% coverage reliability Ambient Noise Effect on CDMA Capacity and Coverage Based on co-authored paper with Dr. William Lee: "Ambient Noise and Its Impact on CDMA Capacity and Coverage." Ignition noise & ambient noise measurements CDMA System Performance Matrix CDMA system performance under different speed, multipath delay, etc. AMPS to CDMA Transition System capacity planning issues CDMA capacity gain for partial AMPS spectrum conversion CDMA frequency planning and guard band AMPS intermodulation components impact on CDMA system Tolerable external interference to CDMA system Methods to alleviate the AMPS interference effect Deploying Second CDMA carrier When 2nd CDMA carrier should be deployed Complication and strategy of deploying 2nd CDMA carrier System design with more than one CDMA carriers A CDMA Mobile Satellite System: Globalstar Apply CDMA to wireless local loop Workshop on CDMA Microcell: Problems & Solutions CDMA Repeater; Tunnel and In-building CDMA Microcell Imbedded CDMA Microcell for Coverage CDMA Microcell with Long Optical Fiber Time Delay Coordination of micro & macro CDMA cells Workshop on CDMA System Planning Ten-year system planning based on population, traffic, and coverage Design system at minimum front-end cost Equipment planning Workshop on CDMA System Design Major differences of Analog and CDMA system design PCS CDMA system design case study CEU credits will be awarded Every workshop/training course Zsigo Wireless conducts or organizes carries CEU credits according the accepted formula of in-class time. We provide the certificates and keep the information on file! You can use these credits towards obtaining a masters or other degree by substituting CEUs for elective college credits within those programs. Class Schedule for the course Thursday: 8:30am - 5:00pm, Friday: 8:30am - 5:00pm, Saturday: 8:30am - 4:00pm Travel and Hotel Accommodations The seminar will be held at the Fairmont Hotel located at 1717 N. Akard, Dallas TX 75201. Group room rate is $126. Mention Zsigo Wireless/WIT to receive this discount. Phone 214-720-2020 or 800-527-4727. Workshop hours will be 8:30am - 5:00pm on Thursday and Friday, 8:30am - 4:00pm on Saturday. Breakfast and lunch will be provided. CTIA Wireless 96 begins on Monday, March 25th, and the Fairmont Hotel is on the shuttle route. For More Information Contact Zsigo Wireless Data Consultants at kzsigo@ix.netcom.com, or call 800-594-5102. In Canada/outside of US, call 517-337-3995. Fax number: 517-337-5012. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Dec 1995 01:49:40 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: Information Superhighways: Multimedia Users & Futures BKISMUAF.RVW 951110 "Information Superhighways: Multimedia Users and Futures", Stephen J. Emmott ed., 1995, 0-12-238360-5 %A Stephen J. Emmott, ed. sje@bigthink.demon.co.uk %C 525 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101-4495 %D 1995 %G 0-12-238360-5 %I Academic Press %O 619-699-6362 fax: 619-699-6380 app@acad.com 800-321-5068 %P 278 %T "Information Superhighways: Multimedia Users and Futures" Having read a great number of infommercial supercliche books, I approached this one with trepidation. Add in the multimedia buzzword, and it was almost guaranteed to be a copy of any of the prevailing crop of blue-sky, ill- informed, and trivial productions attempting to milk current preoccupations. Instead, what I found was the most practical and useful guide to the future communications technologies I've yet seen. Part one is an excellent and clear-eyed introduction by Emmott. Part two looks at the issues of information and communications in work, domestic and social life. The studies in part three concentrate primarily on the use of video, but in functional work situations. The fact that this is primarily a collection of academic and research papers will likely cause some from industry and the general public to dismiss it out of hand. This is a pity, since I found more realistic help and advice in this than in a year's worth of business seminars and any number of popular works. (Some of the papers seem to be in esoteric areas of study, but even they provide valuable suggestions in areas such as the necessary level of video quality.) copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995 BKISMUAF.RVW 951110. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slades book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest. Vancouver ROBERTS@decus.ca Institute for rslade@cln.etc.bc.ca Research into Rob.Slade@f733.n153.z1/ User .fidonet.org Security Canada V7K 2G6 ------------------------------ From: Neale Banks!Communications Engineer Subject: List: PictureTel Users Date: Mon, 4 Dec 95 18:13:06 EDT Integration Design of Melbourne Australia and Communications III of Columbus Ohio USA are pleased to launch the PictureTel Users' Mailing List as a forum for discussion of issues related to PictureTel products. The Charter of the list is appended. The WWW Home Page is at http://www.idesign.com.au/vc/ptel-users To subscribe to the list, send an email message to ptel-users-request@planet.net.au with the word subscribe in the *body* of the message. Anyone prefering a digest version of the list should similarly send an email to ptel-users-digest-request@planet.net.au with the word subscribe in the *body* of the message. The list discussion address is ptel-users@planet.net.au All other requests should go to ptel-users-owner@planet.net.au ----------------------------------------------------------- The PictureTel Users' Mailing List (ptel-users) exists to: * Provide a discussion forum for: * users of PictureTel systems, * other interested parties. to exhange ideas and discuss issues informally. * Provide an archive of postings. * Complement, rather than compete with: * Existing PictureTel user groups * PictureTel and Dealer support arrangements. * Existing Newsgroups and Mailing lists covering videoconferencing generally (e.g. comp.dcom.videoconf, videophone@es.net). Postings should be confined to issues specifically related to PictureTel products. There may be occasions where it is appropriate for a cross-post, but followup discussion should be directed to one particular forum. It will, at least initially, be an unmoderated mailing list jointly sponsored by Integration Design of Melbourne Australia and Communications III of Columbus Ohio USA and hosted by Planet Internet. Integration Design and Communications III are both PictureTel resellers actively involved in sales and support of viideoconferencing systems. Planet Internet is the wholly-owned ISP business of Integration Design. Planet Internet will also host a World Wide Web page summarising the list and providing forms for (un)subscription. A Frequently Asked Questions with Answers (FAQ) document is not initially proposed. This point will be reconsidered as the nature and level of traffic becomes apparent. There will be no pre-requisite for participation nor any proscriptions on participation save that the list manager reserves absolute discretion to remove any participants or postings which are considered disruptive or otherwise undesirable. The list is being established independently of any PictureTel resources or support. However, it is hoped that PictureTel will participate and contribute where appropriate. It is also hoped that PictureTel and the existing user groups will promulgate the existence of the list. ------------------------------ From: mhyman@netcom.com (Mike Hyman) Subject: Old Billing Practices Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 13:56:11 GMT I have always been curious about what old phone bills looked like before computers existed. Did they bill just a flat rate for service, or did they in some way itemize the calls. If so, how did they track calling and create the bills. Please help answer this long burning question!! Thanks, Michael Hyman Quickturn Design Systems Senior Network Administrator 440 Clyde Ave. mhyman@qcktrn.com Mountain View, Ca. 94043 (415) 694-6409 Voice (415) 967-3199 Fax [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Like the banks, the credit card companies, the department stores and other businesses, telco bills prior to computerization were typed out on typewriters, and prior to typewriters being commonplace they were written out by hand. Since it was easier to write things out by hand rather than try to type columns of numbers and amounts usually letters were typewritten but accompanying statements of account, etc were handwritten. Single inovices would usually be typewritten. Around here in my collection of artifacts somewhere I have a telephone bill issued to my grandparents around 1930. It is printed on stationary from Illinois Bell Telephone Company; it is written in very exquisite penmanship (in those days, the public schools taught children how to properly write and print letters, etc) and it states that they owed two dollars and something for the current month's service along with another couple dollars for long distance and toll calls. They kept track of all the calls then, just as they do now, but they used legions of bookeepers and ledger posting clerks, all of whom knew how to add and subtract and do other common arithmetic processes. There was a lot more flat rate local calling in those days. Generally the record keeping procedure was thus: As customers finished their calls, the operators 'stamped out' the handwritten toll tickets in the clock which was attached to their switchboard. It was like a little time clock that would print on the back side of the paper with the operator number which handled the call and the starting and ending time. About every ten or fifteen minutes ledger posting clerks came past with something like a grocery shopping cart and collected the tickets from each operator's position. Those with special conditions like needing time and charges called back were marked as such. The tickets went to people who calculated the time and charges and sorted them out by phone number, etc. As this part was finished, other ledger posting clerks began microfilming the tickets. The microfilm machine added its own stamped endorsement to the back of the toll ticket saying what day and what reel of film it could be found on, etc. As the tickets came out the back side of the microfilm machine they were collected and carried off to the file room for posting on the customer file jackets. The file room was a big barn-like place with row after row after row of filing cabinets. An 'accelerated index' told where to find each customer's file. For example phone number 1234 would be found in aisle 17, cabinet 34, drawer 3, row 2. With their work arranged for easy posting and filing, the clerks with their shopping carts would move up and down the aisles from one cabinet to the next. On the front of the individual file folder they would write in the latest charges, reference the position on the microfilm should the ticket itself get lost or mis-filed, and drop the ticket in the customer's folder. Then they would move along to the next one, etc. There were three or four hundred ledger/file clerks doing the same job repeatedly all day long. When customers called the business office to discuss their account, the process was similar. The service rep would say just a minute while I get your account. She would put the call on hold, unplug her headset from wherever she was plugged in, walk to the appropriate area in the files, plug her headset into a jack there, press the button for the line her call was being held on, and resume the conversation with the proper folder in hand. They had little lecture stands where they could put the folder and stand to do writing on the files, etc. When finished, she put the folder back in the drawer where it belonged and took her next call, etc. The pecking order was that ledger posting clerks were considered very important, and their work took priority over the customer service reps. So if a service rep was standing at a lectern with a file and a ledger posting clerk came along at the same time and looked in the drawer and did not find the file desired, she would look at the lecterns nearby. If a service rep had the file in question, the posting clerk would take the file away right in front of her, make the required notations, insert the new toll ticket, and toss the file back on the lectern to the service rep who was still talking to the customer. Not a word would be spoken, since it was under- stood the posting clerks could have any file they desired at any time they desired it. The service rep always got the semaphore wait signal. On a daily basis, twenty-two times per month, entire aisles of file cabinets would be emptied out with the contents carried away in shopping carts; it was said these files were 'in bookeeping' and they would return to their normal resting place three days later with a new fresh folder, permanent records back in place in each jacket, etc. One day 'in bookeeping' was spent tallying all the bills; a second day in microfilming the bills and moving the toll tickets into permanent storage at the warehouse, and a third day in mailing out the newly prepared invoices, preparing new jackets for the coming month and getting the files back in place. Most large companies had dozens of bookeepers assigned to these tasks. The pecking order was the bookeepers took precendence over the file clerks, the service reps, and even the supervisors to a large extent. When a file went 'to bookeeping' no amount of of begging or pleading got it back until they were ready to send it back. A high-up supervisor could 'borrow' the file from bookeeping if absolutely needed but had to return it within an hour or so. As the files passed through bookeeping they stayed in the same order as they were in the filing cabinets so the file clerks would have an easy time getting them all put back in place later on. If a service rep got a call from a customer whose file was 'in bookeeping' the service rep had to wing it; play it by ear and engage in a general conversation with the customer and a promise to call back in a day or so 'once I have checked your file, which is not available to me right now.' Ledger posting clerks would just re-cycle the toll tickets they could not post and file until the file folder got back in the cabinet. If a service rep was at a lectern speaking with a customer on the phone, file in hand, and the book- eepers came along with their shopping carts collecting everything in that aisle, they *could* under the rules just take the file out of the service rep's hands and walk away with it. Usually they were nice enough to say 'hurry up I want that,' and collect the rest of the aisle and then come back for the leftovers a couple minutes later as the reps finished up last minute hasty notes for themselves or the files, etc. Only a few employees were allowed to carry files away from the filing cabinets more than a few feet. The bookeepers of course could do so, and the service reps who worked with walk in customers to the business office could do so, as could various 'assistants to the chairman', special auditors, supervisory personnel, etc. In real practice though, files did wind up all over the place, on desks everywhere. The collectors would have stacks of files on the customers they were calling to get payment, etc. The bookeepers and ledger posting clerks could pull files away from the collectors, but the service reps could not. Now and again a customer would come into the business office in person and the rep would go to pull the file and it would not be where it could be found. A customer in the business office was a valid reason to get a file out of bookeeping if needed but sometimes it could not be found there either. The public address system would announce, "Please check your desks for file XXXXXXXX which is urgently needed by the business office at this time." Everyone would stop and look through piles of stuff all over their desks and whoever found it took it to wherever needed. If no results were forthcoming, the person behind the PA would repeat the message in a little more irritated tone of voice a second or third time as needed. Sometimes a 'file searcher' (a clerk with a sheet of paper called a 'hot list' of misplaced files which had not been located for a few days) would come around and start looking at every file on your desk. You did everything but drop your pants for them. What would have happened typically was that files got stuck together, or the papers from one tossed in another jacket by accident. The file searchers were good and very sharp with their eyes. Of course for a company with over two million active files at any given time like telco, it was necessary to have about two thousand employees administering them. Illinois Bell at one time had over six hundred 'bookeepers' each handling the monthly billings for a couple hundred accounts daily, day after day, on a cycle billing basis. Where 'customer service' in general got a very bad reputation was in the early to middle 1970's as computers were being phased in. It had gotten to the point most large companies were absolutely getting strangled in their paperwork. More and more customers, more and more daily activity, yet harder and harder to find people willing to work for very low wages -- even for those days -- who were smart enough to work accurately and quickly. As Viet Nam became more of an issue, more and more people began protesting. They looked at large companies -- often times their own employers -- as evil participants in the society in which we lived, and they adopted an attitude that the computer was going to put them out of a job before long anyway, so why care how the job got done. But, somehow we managed without computers, thousands of clerks passing millions of pieces of paper back and forth to each other, and it worked remarkably well. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 14:23:24 -0500 From: Nigel Allen Subject: Internet Reaches Benin ... At Least For A Few Days Organization: Internex Online Here is a press release from Teleglobe Canada Inc. I found the press release on the Canada NewsWire web site at http://newswire.flexnet.com/ FRANCOPHONE SUMMIT: BENIN ACCESSES INTERNET THANKS TO TELEGLOBE CANADA INC. AND VIDEOTRON MONTREAL, Dec. 2 - ``Today in Benin, we successfully demonstrated that African countries can access the Internet with wireless phone technology,'' stated Serge Fortin, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Market and Network Operations at Teleglobe Canada Inc. He made the comment in reference to the ongoing Francophone Summit, whose theme is the information highway. Teleglobe Canada and Le Groupe Videotron Ltee - PC Services Division worked together to establish a satellite hookup and a terrestrial fiber-optic link that enabled Summit participants from Africa's French-speaking nations to access the Internet. Thanks to the 64-kbps link, the Canadian delegation in Benin was able to have the contents of various training courses transmitted to the African country via the Internet, which also supports such applications as universal e-mail, file transfer and high-resolution image transmission. Carried out under the direction of Jacques Lyrette, President of Industry Canada's Communications Research Centre, the demonstration involved the use of Inmarsat satellites (International Maritime Satellite Organization), an Inmarsat B terminal, and ISDN technology (Integrated Services Digital Network). The Right Honourable Jean Chretien, Prime Minister of Canada, was among those in attendance. He emphasized Canada's keen interest in the development of the information highway and, more generally, in technology transfers between francophone countries. Groupe Videotron is an international telecommunications company which is active in cable television, telephone services and interactive multimedia services in Canada, England and the United States. Teleglobe Canada is a recognized world leader in the field of intercontinental telecommunications. Its satellite and submarine cable netwok extends to more than 230 countries and territories. For further information: Maryse Sauve, Teleglobe Canada Inc., (514) 868-8503 forwarded to the TELECOM Digest by Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ndallen@io.org http://www.io.org/~ndallen ------------------------------ From: cablenj@aol.com (CableNJ) Subject: Cable Executive Sues Comcast Date: 4 Dec 1995 01:44:22 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: cablenj@aol.com (CableNJ) The former Vice President and General Manager of Suburban Cablevision of New Jersey filed a Federal Employment Discrimination complaint against Comcast Cable Corporation of Philadelphia alleging age and disability discrimination. The charge was filed by Frank DeJoy, 56, of West Orange, New Jersey, a fourteen year manager of the cable systems and a member of the Cable Pioneers. The complaint alleges that executives of Comcast, including Mike Doyle, Regional Vice President for New Jersey and Tom Baxter, President of the Comcast Cable Division, violated the federal age and disability laws by removing him from his position while he was critically ill and in a hospital intensive care unit in December of 1994, replacing him with two younger men. The complaint alleges that over the months prior to the aquisition of Maclean Hunter's US operations, DeJoy and all of the Suburban staff were repeatedly and publicly assured by Doyle that he (DeJoy)would continue to manage the cable system following the closing of the sale and would, in fact, be promoted to the position of Area Vice President with responsibility for all of the northern New Jersey properties. According to DeJoy, there was no indication whatsoever from anyone at Comcast that he would be removed from his position until he was notified by telephone at his home while recovering from his near-fatal and unexpected medical emergency. Although he has completely recovered, DeJoy was not returned to his former position by Comcast and the appointment of the two younger men with less experience was not recinded. DeJoy, a twenty nine year cable veteran was President of the New Jersy Cable Television Association (1991-1993) and is a member of the National Cable Pioneers. He is now employed as an executive with another cable operator. ------------------------------ From: mikemiller@dsm1.dsmnet.com Subject: Sprint PCS ad in USAToday Date: 4 Dec 1995 03:01:03 GMT Organization: DES MOINES INTERNET, DES MOINES, IA Reply-To: mikemiller@dsm1.dsmnet.com You might want to check out Sprint's full page advertisement in the November 30 {USA Today}. Apparently they are formally announcing availability of the service in Washington, DC, Fairfax Co. Virginia, and along the I95 corridor to Baltimore. The service operates in the 1900 Mhz band, with phones available from Nokia and Ericsson. Mike Miller Des Moines, IA mikemiller@dsmnet.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #502 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Dec 5 01:07:24 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA24857; Tue, 5 Dec 1995 01:07:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 01:07:24 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512050607.BAA24857@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #503 TELECOM Digest Tue, 5 Dec 95 01:07:30 EST Volume 15 : Issue 503 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Keith Knipschild) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Eric Ewanco) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Louis Judice) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Bill Michaelson) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Mark Musante) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Paul S. Sawyer) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (John C. Fowler) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (mbarton@smtplink.ram.com) Re: CNID in 314/Call Blocking (Steve Uhrig) Re: CNID in 314/Call Blocking (Timothy Brown) Caller ID via 1-800-COLLECT! (Ronell Elkayam) Nationwide Caller ID Anecdotes (Jim Derdzinski) National Caller ID in Puerto Rico (Sherman Hall) "Caller ID Day" Undesired Side Effects (bkron@netcom.com) Roadside Boxes and Caller ID (John M. Sullivan) Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (Steve Cogorno) Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (Paul S. Sawyer) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 21:29:22 -0600 From: keith@unix.asb.com (Keith Knipschild - L.I.,NY) Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? andy@clark.net (andy) wrote: > Given that it is now Dec 1, will we be seeing less "UNAVAILABLE" notes > on our CID boxes and more actual names and numbers? Isn't today the > beginning of the requirement for all LD companies to start passing CID > data? Please correct me if I'm wrong ...! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, yesterday was December 1. Let's > have some reports submitted to the Digest please of your experiences > with this over the next week or so. How well are the telcos complying > with the new requirement. Maybe for once, our caller-id boxes will > actually be fully functional, eh? It is about time! PAT] Well if anyone wants to call me, and let the phone ring 1.5 - 2 times, I'll post the NPA and NXX of the calls I recieve ... so if you see your Area Code and exchage posted, please let us know who you are using for Long Distance. My number is 1-516-979-5348 Please call between 9am - 11pm ET Thanks, Keith ------------------------------ From: rishab@infinity.c2.org (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Date: 4 Dec 1995 18:49:31 GMT Organization: Community ConneXion: http://www.c2.org/ 510-658-6376 I was curious to know how exactly do names appear in CID. Is the name drawn from the telco's billing records, or from a user-created directory in the CID box (like similar features in, for instance, the Nokia 2110 cellular phone)? The Indian Techonomist - newsletter on India's information industry http://dxm.org/techonomist/ rishab@dxm.org Editor and publisher: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh rishab@arbornet.org Vox +91 11 6853410; 3760335; H 34 C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: From telco billing records, such as they are. We have read some rather funny 'names' here in recent weeks as this thread has progressed, such as Mr. Pay Phone. PAT] ------------------------------ From: eje@xyplex.com (Eric Ewanco) Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Date: 04 Dec 1995 09:42:39 -0500 Organization: Xyplex > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, yesterday was December 1. Let's > have some reports submitted to the Digest please of your experiences > with this over the next week or so. How well are the telcos complying > with the new requirement. Maybe for once, our caller-id boxes will > actually be fully functional, eh? It is about time! PAT] I did some testing with a friend. It works over AT&T between AC 201 (NJ) and AC 508 (MA), but not over LDDS Worldcom (even between the same two lines). I'm tempted to call LDDS and ask them why they are in violation of the law. I'd be curious to see how WATS lines come across. I'm looking forward to being able to determine if a call is likely a telemarketing call before I pick it up. Eric Ewanco eje@world.std.com Software Engineer, Xyplex Inc. Littleton, Mass. ------------------------------ From: ljj@esr.hp.com (Louis Judice) Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Date: 4 Dec 1995 16:24:55 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard Well, everytime the phone rang this weekend, I jumped over to check the Caller-ID box (pretty sad isn't it??)... Only a couple of out of state calls. My brother-in-law's call generated an out-of-area message - he was calling from the Philadelphia area on Sprint. However, at 5:00pm Sunday, my mother-in-law called from the Philly area on AT&T, with her 215 number displayed in all it's glory. Actually, we've been receiving 212 calls from NYC on AT&T for a few weeks. We'll keep watching the box! Cheers, Louis J. Judice | Voice: 908-562-6287 Hewlett-Packard Company | Fax: 908-537-6627 20 New England Avenue | Piscataway, NJ 08854 | E-Mail: ljj@seneca.esr.hp.com ------------------------------ From: Bill Michaelson Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Date: 4 Dec 1995 23:31:59 GMT Organization: COS, Incorporated OK ... I'm in central NJ -- Bell Atlantic area. Doesn't work yet. Called the telco and asked when it would. First, of course, I had to explain to the clueless rep about the Dec 1 deadline. He dithered and babbled for awhile, until I convinced him to go ask someone who knew what was going on. He did, and came back and told me I was indeed right -- it is supposed to happen, but he doesn't know when it will. I'll post when it works. ------------------------------ From: miles@roundlake.baxter.com (Mad Milesman Musante) Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Reply-To: olorin@world.std.com Organization: Zippo Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 19:01:55 GMT Not quite fully functional. :-( I'm *still* getting "Out Of Area" messages from both local and long distance calls. Mark Musante olorin@world.std.com http://world.std.com/~olorin/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It looks like a lot of the telcos are simply ignoring the legally mandated deadline doesn't it? I wonder if some will have to be sued to get them to come into compliance? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Paul.Sawyer@unh.edu (Paul S. Sawyer) Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Date: 4 Dec 1995 18:26:39 GMT Organization: University of New Hampshire - Durham, NH I have had three or four calls on my home CID boxes since December 1 showing "Out of area", with corresponding non-messages on the answering machines (held on long enough to listen to the message and beep), so I assumed them to be telemarketing slime. I will also be glad when these numbers are passed along. Paul S. Sawyer Paul.Sawyer@UNH.edu UNH Telecommunications Voice: +1 603 862 3262 FAX: +1 603 862 4545 50 College Road Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3523 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 95 19:06 EST From: John C. Fowler <0003513813@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Sure enough, caller ID is travelling interstate, over AT&T at least! I don't have caller ID myself, but I do call a BBS in Gainesville, Florida (I'm in St. Louis, Missouri). My calls to the BBS have traditionally shown up there as "OUT OF AREA," but when I called on December 2, the sysop broke in and proudly announced that yes, his caller ID box was showing my real number! However, it was not showing my name, just the city I was calling from. I'd be interested to know if caller ID is being passed by Sprint. They were the ones who wanted to put it off a few months longer, right? Also, are operator-assisted calls now passing caller ID? What if I made my call via 1-800-CALL-ATT and charged it to my calling card? If that passes the caller ID, how can they tell if I dialed *67 first? John C. Fowler, 3513813@mcimail.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The answer to that very simply is you cannot dial *67 when calling the operator, or certain other numbers such as 911. That is, you can dial it, but it is null and void. It means nothing. Ditto using *67 in front of 800, 900, etc. I don't know if operator assisted calls are passing the ID or not; it used to be they did not which always was a bother for the 911 call-takers when calls would come into them via the operator. But whether or not your ID is passed on calls through the operator, it has nothing to do with whether you enter *67 on the front or not. And by the way, I have seen a couple cases where someone wanted to both block their ID *and* cancel call waiting on the same call, as in *67*70-number. That's fine, but make sure the *67 -comes first- before the *70; two people have reported that *67 won't stick if it is entered as anything other than the first part of the string. That may not be the case in all generics; I don't know. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mbarton@smtplink.ram.com Reply-To: mbarton@smtplink.ram.com Date: Mon, 04 Dec 95 09:34:55 EST Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Just to let you know, I have deluxe caller ID and it still does not display any numbers or information outside of my local calling area (770 - 404). ------------------------------ From: suhrig@bright.net (Steve Uhrig) Subject: Re: CNID in 314/Call Blocking Date: Mon, 04 Dec 1995 23:39:59 GMT Organization: BrightNet tb@Walden.MO.NET (Timothy Brown) wrote: > I have CNID on one of my lines here in 314 (St. Louis, MO, served by > Southwestern Bell). Recently, I got a "courtesy call" and > the number showed up without a hitch. It was from out of state (916? > 917?), but local numbers from not-so-distant locales (suburbs) are > listed as out of area. If the call came from a mechanical switch in your area it would show out of area because these switches are not capable of sending the CNID information to your switch. This would be true even if the other switch was in the same room with the digital switch that serves you. > Even worse, an SWB Operator I talked to said that, given that I had > the number of the party I wished to block, I couldn't do so, because > "their area doesn't have that service yet." Asking her why I can't do > it even if I have the service, she didn't have an answer. Once again you can't block the call because your serving switch has no way to tell what number the call came from. If it doesn't know the calling number it can't block it. Steve Uhrig suhrig@bright.net Chillicothe, Ohio USA ------------------------------ From: tb@Walden.MO.NET (Timothy Brown) Subject: Re: CNID in 314/Call Blocking Date: 4 Dec 1995 15:00:21 GMT Organization: MVP-Net, Inc. [St. Louis Area] > If you can see a number on your caller ID display (or the word 'private') > then you can deal with the number like any other. I have experimented [snip] > now, try again in a few minutes'. PAT] But the number didn't show up on my CNID; that's my point. Why can't the phone company block numbers that _DON'T_ show up on CNID? If you know the calling party's number, then what's the problem? It wasn't private -- although that shouldn't matter either; it was out of area. Timothy Brown netSolutions, L.L.C. PGP Key Available; Encrypted Email Preferred 2733 McClay Valley Blvd UNIX, MS-DOS, Windows 95, Win3.1 St. Peters, MO 63376 Internet Connectivity Consultant Office: [+1 314 303 2949] HTML Design and Web Publishing BBS: [+1 314 928 5250] http://walden.mo.net/~tb/ Pager: [+1 314 670 9464] http://www.netsolutions.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'Out of area' is telco's way of saying they do not know what number is calling you. You may know, but they do not know, therefore they cannot block what they do not know about. If they give it to you, they obviously know about it and can block it. If your box says 'private', telco still knows about it and can block it. 'Out of area' is not a geographical place. As Mr. Uhrig points out in the message before this one, on older phone switches the number simply is not known without a lot of hassle, i.e. tracing it, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: relkay01@fiu.edu (Ronell Elkayam) Subject: Caller ID via 1-800-COLLECT!!! Date: 4 Dec 1995 23:55:50 GMT Organization: The People's Voice, 305-937-6468 Do you have friends (or family) that use pay-phones to call you on a regular basis? Try telling them to call you 1-800-COLLECT from now on. Your phone will ring, and LOW AND BEHOLD -- their number will show up on your Caller ID! If it's a pay-phone, you'll see "PAY PHONE". If they called from a COCOT, it will sometimes show the name of the place, such as "HOME DEPOT". Just refuse the call and dial back the person directly instead. Save them a quarter, and in case the caller really did intend a collect call, save yourself the outrageous charges of collect calls. BTW, it even works for *69 ... if you're being called 1-800-COLLECT by someone and you have *69, you can connect back to them that way (and if you have the announcing *69, you'll hear the number that just tried to call you collect). If you want to call me via 1-800-COLLECT, or you want me to call you via 1-800-COLLECT to see how well it works with TRUE long distance calls, drop me email. If I call you, you'll see my last name and a 305-6XX-XXXX number so you'd know it's me calling. Just refuse the charges (naturally). If enough people respond, I'll post the interesting findings. Oh, BTW, *67 has no effect when dialing 1-800-COLLECT. I thought it would at least protect the name of the person calling -- but no, it shows name and number, just like when dialing w/o *67. Take care. W/love, | Owner & Programmer: The People's Voice BBS @ 305-937-6468 | No pregnant women or heart-conditioned senior citizens are Ron | allowed. Under 42 must get parents' permission to call. Miami, FL | "THIS IS WHAT YOUR MOTHER ALWAYS WARNED YOU ABOUT" [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I see your point. Defraud 1-800-COLLECT by getting them to deliver half the message for free, then you call back via some other network you like better. Sorry, I do not support toll fraud in this Digest, and any scheme which allows for the deliv- ery of a message using coded words or phrases, or a pretirmined ringing cadence ('let it ring once and hang up') or now in the latest twist, delivery of the calling number for callback purposes is just fraud. And people wonder why the surcharge for operator handling of calls, person to person calls, and collect/bill third number calls is so expensive. I suspect all the chislers out there has a lot to do with it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 04 Dec 95 21:07:16 EST From: Jim Derdzinski <73114.3146@compuserve.com> Subject: Nationwide Caller ID Anecdotes I live in California, so I can't get Caller ID (at least not for another six months -- no thanks to "CPUKE"). However, many of the CLASS-related custom calling features are available here. I subscribe to Call Return (*69), Repeat Dialing (*66), and Priority Ringing (*61) from Pacific Bell here in San Francisco. I make and get long distance calls regularly to and from friends in Chicago. I still show up on their Caller ID boxes as "OUT-OF-AREA". Regarding my custom calling features: I noticed that Call Return and Repeat Dialing do not work on these calls (nothing new here). However, I can now add long distance numbers to my Priority Ringing list. But I have to do it in a backwards way. I can't just add the numbers directly (*61 then #area code and number#). I have to wait for them to call me and then immediately after we hang up, add the number via the "last call received" method (*61 and then #01#). The funny thing is, if I go to add the number directly, after using the above method, the system will announce the number and advise that it is already on my list. The Priority Ringing will work with these numbers just as it does with local ones. So, apparently calls placed to me in California via Ameritech and AT&T are sending the number to me to kind of make use of. I have not tried this with other friends who use other carriers yet. Calls I make to Chicago via Pacific Bell and AT&T are apparently not sending the number. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is odd you say this, because I have gotten calls from 415 where the area and number was shown, and some where it was 'private'. Maybe some carriers are free-lancing out there and doing things the way they want. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Sherman Hall Subject: National Caller ID in Puerto Rico Date: Mon, 04 Dec 1995 09:46:13 -0800 Organization: CompuServe Incorporated I received several "Out Of Area" calls this weekend from parties in the USA. The CID information is not being passed to (or, is being blocked by) the Puerto Rico Telephone Company. I have seen nothing in the local newspapers regarding CID going national here. Seems that they should, since the PRTC is accountable to the FCC ... ------------------------------ From: bkron@netcom.com Subject: "Caller ID Day" Undesired Side Effects Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 01:52:30 GMT It may have been "Caller ID day" over the weekend, but our inbound 800 calls which terminate on a POTS line with Caller-ID have the wrong idea! Until today, we were passed caller-ID data on most of our inbound 800 calls (Wiltel) -- usually name plus number, sometimes just number (if they have the call blocked, I suppose. We still get ANI if nothing else), and sometimes "unavailable" (probably areas not yet caller-id'd). Today, calls we get from clients who, in the past, had their calls show their name and number, now show "unavailable." In fact ALL our inbound 800 calls are passing "unavailable" on caller-ID! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 15:32:49 -0500 From: sullivan@interramp.com (John M. Sullivan) Subject: Re: Roadside Boxes and Caller ID cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) wrote: > Keith Jarett said: >> When I called the CHP later, they said that you should find a >> regular phone and dial 911 in case of a *real* emergency. Your tax >> dollars at work ... > The roadside boxes are not to be used for emergency calls. They are > connected directly to the CHP Dispatching Center in Sacramento; NOT the > PSAP that would normally handle 911 calls. It would have taken the CHP > much longer to get ambulance service than by calling 911 directly. THe > CHP dispatcher would have to call the PSAP center (using the ten digit > number, not 911) and relay the info to them. It's easier to just do it > yourself. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well excuse me if I am missing something, > but if a person's call was not an emergency, why would they stop and > use one of those roadside phones? What are they for, if not for use > in emergencies? PAT] Steve appears to be saying that they are intended for people driving along the highway who are just sort of moved by the spirit to chat with someone at the CHP dispatching center in Sacramento. I wouldn't have thought there would be enough demand for this to justify the infrastructure cost, but this IS California and we are talking about public funds, so who knows? Maybe it's a phenomenon engendered by CHiPs, that horrid old cop show with Erik Estrada. I understand its fondly remembered in some circles. I've also heard that people used to think there really was a branch of the Hawaiian police called Five-O, and that even years after the show went off the air tourists would show up at the station wanting to talk to Steve McGarrett and were really disappointed when they learned that McGarrett was a fictional character and there was no Five-O. Maybe the roadside boxes connect to an operator who explains to hundreds of motorists a day that Ponch and Jon were just make believe. I prefer to think however that, like the current occupant of 221-B Baker St. in London who answers mail to Sherlock Holmes in the guise of his personal secretary, the operators instead say that Ponch and Jon can't be reached at the moment because they're out on the road rounding up bad guys and chasing fluffy haired disco babes while they listen to Fleetwood Mac in a sweet, sunny late 1970s that never ends. Sorry, I'm bored at the moment and I get really whimsical when bored. Let me try to make up for it with something more serious. andy@clark.net (andy) wrote: > Given that it is now Dec 1, will we be seeing less "UNAVAILABLE" notes > on our CID boxes and more actual names and numbers? Isn't today the > beginning of the requirement for all LD companies to start passing CID > data? Please correct me if I'm wrong ...! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, yesterday was December 1. Let's > have some reports submitted to the Digest please of your experiences > with this over the next week or so. How well are the telcos complying > with the new requirement. Maybe for once, our caller-id boxes will > actually be fully functional, eh? It is about time! PAT] I haven't been able to get confirmation on anything since my publication deadline was just BEFORE Dec. 1 and I've been out of the office since then, but the odds weren't looking too good as of Nov 29. The California lawsuit had been in the hands of the panel of judges since Nov. 16 and they hadn't ruled. California had asked for an emergency stay from the court pending their decision, but that hadn't been acted on yet either. California carriers had also asked FCC for a temporary waiver since California hadn't approved anybody's consumer education plans and so they were not allowed to pass CPN under CA law. Unless somebody did something the carriers were between a rock and a hard place as of Dec. 1. Either they didn't pass CPN and were in violation of the FCC order or they did and were in violation of state law. I can't imagine them letting this happen, although I certainly can imagine FCC waiting until the last instant in hopes that the court would rule before Dec. 1 in their favor. There were also about 20 to 30 other petitions before FCC, according to Kathy Levitz, who is Deputy Bureau Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau, many of which had been submitted in the last week. The long distance carriers basically tried to swamp FCC with waiver requests based on technical problems which I think have already been discussed in the digest. They all basically claimed the Sprint problem regarding sending ANI when they didn't get CPN from the LEC. Given the mess things were in then, I can't imagine what FCC could have done by the deadline short of staying the whole mess temporarily - probably until the court rules on their preemption. Assuming it rules in their favor, I'm guessing they will say very impolite things to the IXCs while rejecting their petitions, and we can finally get down to business. (total speculation there, of course) As of Thursday, somebody else in my office had talked to Levitz and gotten something like "if we release anything it will probably be around 5:30 today," but I don't know if they finally did. I did get a call today that showed up as out of area on my display though, for what that's worth. John Sullivan ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 13:16:01 PST Earlier I said: > The roadside boxes are not to be used for emergency calls. They are > connected directly to the CHP Dispatching Center in Sacramento; NOT the > PSAP that would normally handle 911 calls. It would have taken the CHP [deleted] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well excuse me if I am missing something, > but if a person's call was not an emergency, why would they stop and > use one of those roadside phones? What are they for, if not for use > in emergencies? PAT] Perhaps I should clairify what I meant by emergency. The boxes are in fact intended for emergency use, but not LIFE-THREATENING emergencies. The call boxes are intended to be used by stranded motorists to call for a tow or other assistance. Steve cogorno@netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How interesting. If my car runs out of gas or stalls on the highway, I can use one of those phones. On the other hand, if there is a collision and a four-car pileup with a couple of dead people and a couple of severely injured people I am not to use those phones and instead am to walk or drive for a couple miles looking for a 7/Eleven with some phones in the parking lot. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Paul.Sawyer@unh.edu (Paul S. Sawyer) Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement Date: 4 Dec 1995 18:18:50 GMT Organization: University of New Hampshire - Durham, NH > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well excuse me if I am missing something, > but if a person's call was not an emergency, why would they stop and > use one of those roadside phones? What are they for, if not for use > in emergencies? PAT] They are for various contractors and state agencies to get Federal money for installing them. Some states even maintain them afterwards. :-) Paul S. Sawyer Paul.Sawyer@UNH.edu UNH Telecommunications Voice: +1 603 862 3262 50 College Road FAX: +1 603 862 4545 Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3523 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There you go ... probably the most honest answer on the subject yet. I am reminded of how the Chicago Transit Authority had subway and elevated train cars equipped as 'handicapped accessible' (meaning special sideways seats near the front of the car and a place with no seat at all where a wheel chair could sit) for *years* before they had any handicapped accessible stations (meaning stations equipped with escalators and/or elevators to convey the handicapped people to track level). For years the handicapped accessible cars did only one thing: they caused a few more riders to have to stand up for lack of seats where they had been removed to provide for wheel chair riders who did not exist. The CTA (locally we call it the Transit Atrocity) blamed it on the federal government's demands; everyone else blamed it on the stupidity of the politicians here who run the busses and trains. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #503 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Dec 6 15:11:07 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id PAA06844; Wed, 6 Dec 1995 15:11:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 15:11:07 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512062011.PAA06844@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #504 TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Dec 95 15:11:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 504 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "How Local Area Networks Work" by Kosiur/Angel (Rob Slade) Microsoft Announces Unimodem/V Driver for Voice Modems (Toby Nixon) Downloadable GLU (R. Jagannathan) WWW: Doing Business as a Telco in Washington State (Glenn Blackmon) Frontier Offering Cellular Service (TELECOM Digest Editor) "Abuse" of 800/888 Numbers? (Bob Izenberg) Is SoftRAM95 a Scam? (Tad Cook) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 05 Dec 1995 22:40:18 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "How Local Area Networks Work" by Kosiur/Angel BKHLANWK.RVW 951114 "How Local Area Networks Work", Kosiur/Angel, 1995, 0-13-185489-5, U$26.95/C$36.95 %A David R. Kosiur %A Jonathan Angel %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 %D 1995 %G 0-13-185489-5 %I Prentice Hall %O U$26.95/C$36.95 201-236-7139 fax: 201-236-7131 beth_hespe@prenhall.com %P 282 %T "How Local Area Networks Work" This is, quite simply, an excellent guide to LANs for the non-technical manager, or for the technical professional with no networking background. It introduces the concepts, components and more sophisticated aspects of LANs without either drifting into impenetrable technicalities or getting cute. Chapter ten, a contact listing of network product vendors, is worth the price of the book alone. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995 BKHLANWK.RVW 951114. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest. DECUS Canada Communications, Desktop, Education and Security group newsletters Editor and/or reviewer ROBERTS@decus.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca DECUS Symposium '96, Vancouver, BC, Feb 26-Mar 1, 1996, contact: rulag@decus.ca ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Microsoft Announces Unimodem/V Driver for Voice Modems Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 16:12:01 -0800 Microsoft announces the availability of "Unimodem V". Unimodem V is Microsoft's newest release of Unimodem, the Windows universal modem driver/telephony service provider for data/fax modems. Unimodem V provides the driver support that sits between telephony applications and voice modems and allows them to work together. This driver adds the most-requested features to support data/fax/voice modems, including wave playback and record to/from the phone line, wave playback and record to/from the handset, and support for speakerphone, Caller ID, distinctive ringing, and call forwarding. IHVs and OEMs can include Unimodem V with voice modem hardware so that telephony applications can run on their hardware. ISVs may want to ship it with telephony applications so that their applications can run on voice modems that may not already include Unimodem V. End Users can use Unimodem V with telephony applications or a voice modem if neither includes Unimodem V. The driver is distributed as a self-extracting ZIP archive file ("UNIMODV.EXE") that is approximately 468K bytes in size. It is available for download from the following online sources: Internet: ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/Softlib/MSLFILES/UNIMODV.EXE http://www.microsoft.com/windows/software/drivers/unimodem.htm CompuServe: GO WINNEWS, library 4 GO WINEXT, library 3 GO MSL Microsoft Download Service: +1 (206) 936-6735 Here is an extract of key information from the README file included with the Unimodem V software: UNIMODEM V FUNCTIONALITY ======================== This release provides .inf files for some specific modems; however, Unimodem V provides base support, with the addition of an .inf file, for any voice modem based on one of the specific supported chipsets (Rockwell, Cirrus, AT&T) or any other AT+V/AT#V standard modem. Support for Sierra chipsets is in progress and will be available soon. Information on the process for creating .inf files can be found on ftp.microsoft.com in the developr\drg\modem directory. The Unimodem V specification, which describes new features and what you need to know about wave drivers, is located on CompuServe? on the WINEXT forum, Library Section 3 (TAPI SDK), and on the Microsoft ftp site (ftp.microsoft.com or 198.105.232.1) in the \Developer\Tapi directory. The Unimodem V software consists of the following parts: 1. The Unimodem V Telephony Service Provider (TSP) and VxD. The TSP handles program requests, such as dialing and answering, which are passed down from TAPI. The TSP hides modem-specific details of how telephony operations, such as dialing, are handled. The VxD is called by the TSP to send command strings to the modem. It is called by the VCOMM VxD to change modem settings and send/receive data to/from the modem. 2. Operator Agent, a program that identifies whether an incoming call is from a person, a fax machine, or a data modem. It then forwards the call to the appropriate program, such as the answering machine or fax program. If Operator Agent can't automatically determine the type of call, it asks the caller to identify it. If the caller cannot identify it, Operator Agent forwards the call to a program specified by the user. 3. A wave driver for serial port modems that supports the following formats: IMA ADPCM at 4800 kHz, 7200 kHz, or 8000 kHz; and Rockwell ADPCM. 4. A wave wrapper for use with modems with a separate audio hardware interface, where synchronization is needed between the modem and audio via AT commands. The wave wrapper is called by MMSystem, and it calls Unimodem V to send any needed AT commands to the modem. After the AT commands are complete, the wave wrapper calls back into MMSystem, and MMSystem then calls the modem wave device. The modem wave device interfaces only with the audio hardware interface. 5. A wave driver for the Compaq Presario, which uses the wave wrapper. 6. The following .inf files for modems currently supported by Unimodem V: mdmcpq.inf Compaq Presario models 520, 720, 820, and 920 tamwrap.inf Presario wave driver and wrapper mdmdsi.inf Creative Labs Phone Blaster mdmrock.inf Logicode 14.4 data/fax/voice PCMCIA mdmrock2.inf Diamond Multimedia TeleCommander 2500 mdmrock2.inf Cirrus Logic mdmrock3.inf Aztech Systems mdmrock4.inf Rockwell PCMCIA reference design ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Dec 95 14:15:45 PST From: R. Jagannathan Reply-To: Subject: Downloadable GLU The latest release (version 951201) of GLU (Granular Lucid) is now available over the Web under: http://www.csl.sri.com/GLU.html Several Unix systems are supported including SunOS4, SunOS5, IRIX5, AIX, and FreeBSD. The executables generated by GLU can either run in the single-generator/multiple-workers mode or the multiple-generator/worker mode. Process interaction can be configured at runtime to be based on TCP/IP or PVM (relatively untested). We encourage you to download and use the GLU system and provide us (glu@csl.sri.com) with feedback. Thanks! Regards, R. Jagannathan phone: +1-415-859-2717 SRI International fax: +1-415-859-2844 Computer Science Laboratory email: jaggan@csl.sri.com 333 Ravenswood Avenue www: http://www.csl.sri.com/~jagan Menlo Park, California 94025, U.S.A ------------------------------ From: Glenn Blackmon Subject: WWW: Doing Business as a Telco in Washington State Date: 6 Dec 1995 01:15:39 GMT Organization: Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission http://www.washington.edu/wutc and the site includes information on how to register as a telecommunications company in Washington State. A company can also apply for competitive classification, which relieves it of many of the usual regulatory requirements, and the web site tells how that works as well. Glenn Blackmon - glenn@wutc.wa.gov Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission http://www.washington.edu/wutc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 10:29:27 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Subject: Frontier Offering Cellular Service Frontier Communications is now offering cellular service around the USA in an interesting arrangement or service package. You buy the phone at full price, wherever you want to get one. They of course have some for sale if you like. There is no free phone subsidized by the service under their plan. Get whatever phone you like and report it to them. If you already have one, use it instead. They assign you a cellular number. Program the phone yourself or they have techs on contract who will come out and do it for you for free. No long term contracts of any sort. Call waiting, three-way calling, call forwarding, forwarding on busy/no answer, and roaming are free of charge (except you pay tolls when roaming, based on your home site). They charge a ten dollar per month service fee, and rates of 35 cents per minute during peak times and 18 cents per minute off-peak/weekends. They bill you on your existing account with them each month and offer discounts of four to ten percent monthly based on volume of usage. For example, from $50 to $125 per month in usage gets a four percent discount. $125 to $250 per month gets a six percent discount. The service is month by month; charges are placed on your credit card each month a couple weeks after the bill has been sent to you. No credit check, no formalities. Quit whenever you want by telling them to turn it off. If you buy one of their phones, the prices seem about average, and you get the usual warranties, etc. The 35/18 pricing is not the best, and for the ten dollars per month service charge I am sure they can afford to give you 'features' for free. I am told however they charge 'double air' when using the three-way/call waiting features, and that they charge airtime on call forwarding even when the switch forwards the call to a landline number without even hitting the air. Still it might be a good deal for a very limited user or someone who wants absolutely no service contracts. It is national in scope; you can sign up from anywhere in the USA, but you need to otherwise have at least some account with Frontier. It can be one or more lines defaulted to Allnet long distance; it can be an 800 number from their subsidiary Call Home America. The exact name of the service is Frontier Mobile Line; you can reach them at 800-594-5900. In turn they will refer you to a couple of places: 1-800-TALK-NOW (825-5669) if you want to buy a phone from them via Cellular World, and 1-800-783-2020 to get a cellular number assigned. You then either report the number assigned back to the Cellular World people who program the phone and send it out overnight Federal Express, or you program it yourself into your own phone. They won't give you a cellular number however unless you already have an account with Frontier, as noted above. Their literature encourages you to drop your existing cellular service if you can do so without penalty and sign up with them instead. If a 'significant' penalty would be incurred, they suggest you wait until the contract is about to expire and then call them. As always, anyone who tries it out is welcome to report their experiences here. PAT ------------------------------ From: bei@dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob Izenberg) Subject: "Abuse" of 800/888 Numbers? Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 13:50:07 CST Reply-To: bei@io.com I was asked an infamous Kid's Question the other day, and as I don't know the answer I'm putting it out to the Digest readership. If you have an 800 number that receives nuisance calls or wrong numbers, do you still pay for the calls? In pondering this procedural matter, I wondered how prevalent this sort of thing might be. We have every other sort of irresponsible, money-driven behavior these days. Surely this is a natural for the true Creatures of (Darkness in) the Nineties among us... :-( Bob bei@dogface.austin.tx.us home: +1 (512) 442-0614 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All an 800 number is, quite simply, is your authorization to telco to automatically hand you collect calls without requiring you to verbally authorize each one. You are saying to telco, 'anyone who wants to call me is free to do so, you need not ask my approval to bill me for the call.' That is it: automatic reverse charge calling. Just as you agree to pay for calls from people who wish to call you and whatever foolishness they wish to talk about, you agree to pay for their errors in dialing just as they would pay for their errors in dialing if they were calling 'sent paid'. Just as they can go to the business office and plead their case and get out of paying for wrong numbers in some reasonable amount, you likewise can plead your case and get a few things here and there removed. This depends on how liberal is the attitude of your carrier. In the olden days, AT&T -- when they they were the only one -- used to be quite liberal about removing charges due to customer dialing errors. They were not interested in helping you with customers who in fact did dial your number correctly even though you were not interested in talking to them. That, they said, was your problem getting rid of callers. Dialing errors was another matter, and those they credited 'within reason'. One of the most infamous cases of 800 number abuse and Creatures of Darkness happened about ten years ago, and the perpetrator was severely punished afterward. The victim in that case was Jerry Falwell's organization in Lynchburg, Virginia. The four parts of his organization were 'Moral Majority', 'The Old Time Gospel Hour', Thomas Road Baptist Church, and Liberty University. They all share a common phone room, and quite a few telecom functions such as outgoing WATS lines, etc. A staff of several dozen people staff the phone room around the clock, seven days per week. Incoming calls came in on various lines, separated by what the caller was trying to reach along with quite a few 800 lines. In other words, callers to the University might dial xxx-1000; callers to OTGH might dial xxx-2000; persons watching his television show who wished counseling or other services might dial in on 800-xxx-xxxx, etc. All incoming calls were piped through an Automatic Call Distributor and out to the floor for handling, transfer to a counselor, an extension or whatever. They were logging about 8000-10,000 calls per day through the ACD. Operators answered the call and got rid of it. Either they outdialed to an an extension; passed it to a counselor, an administrative office, etc. A fellow in Georgia got very annoyed with Dr. Falwell and his percieved attacks on the gay community. So this fellow set up his computer and modem so it would dial Falwell's 800 number over and over, repeatedly once a minute. The ACD would hand the call to an operator who responded to dead silence. Once a minute, around the clock. This went on for *several weeks* before it was noticed. Then two things happened at about the same time. The operators began reporting to their supervisor about an unusually high number of 'hangup' calls. They were quite accustomed to, and trained for handling obscene calls which arrived in droves some days along with the wrong number callers who would just hang up without speaking, etc. But after a few weeks of getting this fellow's calls with such regularity, even an overloaded phone room with an automatic call distributor which rocked around the clock could detect some kind of pattern. They first thought it was problems with the ACD; either that it was getting calls but losing them in the process of passing them out to the operators, or perhaps that there was no call at all but something made the ACD think there was and causing it to hand null traffic -- traffic which did not exist -- out to the operators. Repair guys from Southern Bell spent three days there looking at it and getting nowhere. The trouble with trying to repair any large ACD is that you can't get a line idle long enough to test it. The repair guy would stand there waiting for a trunk to come down; it would and then there was another seizure instantly. They finally were able to show conclusively however that the ACD was indeed getting those calls; it was not 'falsing', it was not making anything up. The incoming calls were all traced to a certain group of lines used for 800 calls into the center. I think he had fifteen or twenty lines in a hunt group on which calls to the 800 numbers were sent. Those lines were always the ones with the bogus calls. The other thing that happened about that time was the phone bill came for the 800 lines. Normally fifty to sixty thousand dollars per month, this time the bill was much, much higher. They were not previously bothering to analyze it as well as they should, but this time they decided to. Bingo ... *lots* of one minute calls, 1440 of them per day in fact, or about 44,640 of them in the prior month. All from one number in Georgia ... gee. And it was not just the disgruntled fellow in Georgia; there were others doing the same thing, but none with quite the vigor of the Georgia guy. Now it was time to get AT&T involved since they carried the 800 traffic. AT&T and Southern Bell put equipment on the line to specifically record the activity and they let the guy have his fun for a couple more days while they collected all the evidence they knew they would need. Then they got a federal grand jury to issue an indictment and with the same in hand went out and whacked the guy hard in an old- fashioned raid, i.e. seizure of all computer equipment, modems, phones, disk drives, you name it. You know the routine. The charges against him dealt with the use of interstate phone lines to harass someone. He was found guilty in federal court, and then AT&T turned around and sued him civilly for the cost of the calls. AT&T and Southern Bell had jointly shared a goodwill write off to Falwell, so he was out nothing except the time of the operators and people on his staff who worked on identifying the problem. His is an excellent account where telco is concerned, and naturally they wanted to appease him. It went on though for about two months before finally being stopped, to the tune of about fifty thousand dollars in harassing 800 calls. It only went that far because of the size of Falwell's phone room; those calls literally got ignored in the process of handling thousands of otherwise legitimate calls. Because the {Advocate}, a newspaper in the gay community had covered the affair rather extensively, Falwell changed his 800 number in the hopes a lot of the harassing and obscene calls his operators were otherwise getting would go away. And the volume of those calls did subside quite a bit for a month or so, until the {Advocate} printed his new 800 number and encouraged their readers to once again call up and place bogus orders for literature, Bibles, and similar. When that happened, Falwell took them to task one day on his tele- vision program and asked rhetorically, 'would you like it if all the Christian people started calling and polluting *your* 800 number the way you did ours? The trouble is, I don't know any Christian people who would be interested in pornographic magazines, inflatable male mannequins, battery operated devices alleged to be used for massage, metal rings for attachment to bodily appendages other than fingers, or subscriptions to your newspaper. Nor would they be interested in poppers or potions and pills alleged to improve their sex life and ability to lure others into sex.' The {Advocate} apparently gave that favorable consideration and responded editorially that 'he does have a good point there.' They discretely hid their own 800 number for a few weeks until the stink had gone away and retaliation was unlikely. For several months afterward a group calling itself the 'Oral Majority' kept urging phone harassment via Falwell's 800 number, but the campaign finally died out. Short form answer to your question: yes and no. The circumstances and context are all-important. Technically telco owes you nothing except, I suppose, the peaceful and unhindered use of your phone line. In practice, they will help you out sometimes. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Is SoftRAM95 a Scam? Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 09:13:25 PST Forwarded FYI to the Digest: Lab Tests Find SoftRAM95 Software Useless for Windows Users By Dwight Silverman, Houston Chronicle Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Dec. 5--Growing evidence suggests the best-selling software program SoftRAM95, which claims to double the memory on a personal computer, does not do what it purports to do. Syncronys Softcorp, which makes the program, already has said it has no benefits for users of Microsoft Corp.'s Windows 95 operating system. But several software testing labs also have found SoftRAM95 does not do anything for users of Windows 3.1, despite Syncronys officials' insistence to the contrary. And Microsoft has issued a cease-and-desist letter to Syncronys, saying the company illegally placed the "Designed for Windows 95" logo on SoftRAM boxes. SoftRAM also includes Microsoft code that was used without the software giant's permission, a Microsoft spokesman said. Rainer Poertner, Syncronys' chief executive, on Monday defended his company against the growing barrage of criticism, saying SoftRAM95 does what it promises for users of Windows 3.1. Poertner characterized the lack of benefits for Windows 95 users as a bug. A "software patch" intended to fix the Windows 95 problems goes into the testing phase this week and will be released before Christmas, Poertner said. The patch also will provide improvements for Windows 3.1 users, he said. SoftRAM95 was the second-best-selling Windows program in the country during October, with the Windows 95 Upgrade being No. 1, said Ann Stephens of PC Data, which tracks software sales. Other sales indexes, such as a list from wholesale distributor Ingram Micro, have put SoftRAM95 at No. 1. Industry observers say the program is popular because it promises to do for a few dollars what would normally take hundreds of dollars in hardware: effectively double the random access memory of a personal computer, allowing the computer to run faster and open more programs. This memory, or RAM, typically costs about $50 per megabyte, while SoftRAM95 sells for about $30. The {Houston Chronicle} first reported in a Sept. 24 product review that SoftRAM95 appeared to have no effect on the performance of IBM-compatible personal computers running either Windows 95 or Windows 3.1. Since then, there's been mounting evidence: The National Software Testing Laboratory, a division of McGraw-Hill, conducted a study of SoftRAM95 and determined it did nothing for either Windows 95 or Windows 3.1 systems. The study was commissioned by Connectix, a Syncronys competitor. The NSTL is considered one of the most reputable of the independent software evaluation facilities Syncronys responded that the testing conditions were flawed. Microsoft, in a document posted on the Internet's World Wide Web, said that Syncronys used the "Designed for Windows 95" logo without permission and that some of SoftRAM95 contains early, test versions of Windows 95 code distributed to developers and also used without permission. Microsoft issued a cease-and-desist letter on those points, a spokesman said Monday, adding Syncronys had indicated it will comply. Poertner dismissed the logo issue on Monday as a "bureaucratic snafu" and said the code it used was freely available for use by developers. PC magazine's software laboratories conducted two separate tests and found SoftRAM95 did nothing for Windows users. A respected German computer publication, Magazine fur computer technik, took the SoftRAM95 code apart and determined the program did nothing. The German distributor of SoftRAM95 sued the magazine, trying to prevent its editors from using words "Placebo Software." Poertner said the magazine has a "vendetta" against the German distributor and wrote the articles as a result. Mark Russinovich, a professor of computer science at the University of Oregon, conducted a series of tests on SoftRAM95 after installing it on his computer and noticing no benefits. He determined the Windows 95 version indeed did nothing. Russinovich later retracted his statements after learning Syncronys had already conceded that point -- and after Poertner threatened Russinovich with a lawsuit. But Russinovich a few days later retracted the retraction -- he'd taken apart the Windows 3.1 version and determined it, too, did nothing. "The thing is a fraud," he told {Time Magazine} in a Nov. 27 article. He confirmed that statement on Monday. "I find it totally impossible to believe that they would be shipping software that didn't do anything and that no one in Syncronys' engineering department -- or higher up -- knew about it," Russinovich said. Russinovich also said he found a small part of the code "that looks like it might do compression," but that part of the program is never activated. Poertner said Russinovich's story "changes here from day to day." "First he said it does no compression, now he said he's found some," Poertner said. He said Russinovich was unable to find the trigger for the code because "we hide it so well." In response to the negative studies, Syncronys commissioned its own study by XXCal, a Los Angeles-based software testing lab. It found that SoftRAM95 provides benefits for Windows 3.1 users. But in a clarification issued Nov. 29, XXCal also said its tests were conducted using strict parameters set by Syncronys -- settings which some critics have said are unrealistic. "We believe this is the average configuration for most of the users out there," Poertner said. Some critics of the program have gone so far as to use the word "scam" to describe SoftRAM95. Bill Machrone, vice president for technology at computer magazine giant Ziff-Davis Publishing Co., wrote in a column published Monday in {PC Week} that a part of SoftRAM95's code "bears a striking resemblance to a popular, copyrighted {PC Magazine} utility ..." "Is 'scam' too strong a word?" Machrone wrote. Poertner said he had not yet seen Machrone's column. As a result of the controversy, Washington-based Egghead Software, which operates two stores in Houston, has pulled the program from its stores' shelves. But other major computer retailers, such as the Tandy Corp.-owned Computer City, continue to sell SoftRAM. Computer City President Alan Bush said he had not heard of the controversy surrounding SoftRAM95 when initially contacted by the Chronicle. But Bush later called back to say he had spoken with a computer City buyer who was knowledgeable about the issue. Bush said the buyer told him Syncronys "denies all of it." Bush said SoftRAM95 will continue to be sold in his stores. "We have no reason to do anything otherwise," he said. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #504 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Dec 6 20:06:12 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA02321; Wed, 6 Dec 1995 20:06:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 20:06:12 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512070106.UAA02321@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #505 TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Dec 95 20:06:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 505 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Accessing The Internet By E-Mail (Kelly Breit) Long Distance CID (John Mayson) Book Review: "Digital Cash" by Wayner (Rob Slade) Details of Split: New NPA 330 From 216 (Stan Brown) Clarifying the FCC Order on Calling Number Services (Lynne Gregg) MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users (D. Burstein) New Telecom Information Web Site (Peter Polishuk) Voice Mail Features We Would Like to See (Michael Franz) Need Quick Advice on Coax Wiring of Home for TV, etc. (Jon Noring) 10.9 Cent/Min StarQuest/IntelliCommunications? (Mike Wengler) Australia's Largest On-Line Computer Shop (pcs@powerup.com.au) What is Ameritech Selling? (Tom Allebrandi) Digital Transmission of Video Signal Over the Air (Toyo Kondo) Announcement: Marcwell MobyMail(TM) (Marcwell) TNPP CAP Page Function Code (Morris Wong) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 06 Dec 1995 13:02:09 -0600 From: kelly.breit@netalliance.net (Kelly Breit) Subject: FYI> Accessing The Internet By E-Mail Accessing The Internet By E-Mail Doctor Bob's Guide to Offline Internet Access 3rd Edition - December 1994 Copyright (c) 1994, "Doctor Bob" Rankin All rights reserved. Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this document provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all copies. Feel free to upload to your favorite BBS or Internet server! How to Access Internet Services by E-mail If your only access to the Internet is via e-mail, you don't have to miss out on all the fun! Maybe you've heard of FTP, Gopher, Archie, Veronica, Finger, Whois, WAIS, World-Wide Web, and Usenet but thought they were out of your reach because your online service does not provide those tools. Not so! And even if you do have full Internet access, using e-mail servers can save you time and money. This special report will show you how to retrieve files from FTP sites, explore the Internet via Gopher, search for information with Archie, Veronica, or WAIS, tap into the World-Wide Web, and even access Usenet newsgroups using E-MAIL AS YOUR ONLY TOOL. If you can send a note to an Internet address, you're in the game! This is great news for users of online services where there is partial or no direct Internet access. As of late 1994, there were 150 countries with only e-mail connections to the Internet. This is double the number of countries with direct (IP) connections. I encourage you to read this entire document first and then go back and try out the techniques that are covered. This way, you will gain a broader perspective of the information resources that are available, an introduction to the tools you can work with, and the best methods for finding the information you want. Finding the Latest Version This document is now available from several automated mail servers. To get the latest edition, send e-mail to one of the addresses below. To: listserv@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu (for US/Canada/etc.) Leave Subject blank, and enter only this line in the body of the note: GET INTERNET BY-EMAIL NETTRAIN F=MAIL To: mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu (for Eastern US) Leave Subject blank, and enter only this line in the body of the note: send usenet/news.answers/internet-services/access-via-email To: mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk (for UK/Europe/etc.) Leave Subject blank, and enter only this line in the body of the note: send lis-iis e-access-inet.txt You can also get the file by anonymous FTP at one of these sites: Site: ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu get NETTRAIN/INTERNET.BY-EMAIL Site: rtfm.mit.edu get pub/usenet/news.answers/internet-services/access-via-email Site: mailbase.ac.uk get pub/lists/lis-iis/files/e-access-inet.txt Acknowledgements This document is continually expanding and improving as a result of the daily flood of comments and questions received by the author. The following individuals are hereby recognized for their contributions. (If I forgot anyone, let me know and I'll gladly add you to the list.) Miles Baska Sylvain Chamberland Roddy MacLeod - Engineering Faculty Librarian, Heriot Watt University George McMurdo - Queen Margaret College Jim Milles - NETTRAIN Moderator, Saint Louis University Glee Willis - Engineering Librarian, University of Nevada Herman VanUy ------------------------------ From: jmayson@p100dl.ess.harris.com (John Mayson) Subject: Long Distance CID Date: Wed, 6 Dec 95 14:07:32 EST I called BellSouth about my Caller ID Deluxe. NONE, that is ZERO, of the long distance calls I've received since Dec 1 have shown up on my caller ID box with the name and number of the caller. All I get is "OUT-OF-AREA". BellSouth said it should work and repair is checking my line. I know there's nothing wrong with my line. I don't have my hopes up about getting long distance caller ID any time soon. :-( John Mayson | Palm Bay, Florida | john.mayson@harris.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Dec 1995 20:00:41 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Digital Cash" by Wayner BKDGTCSH.RVW 951112 "Digital Cash: Commerce on the Net", Peter Wayner, 1996, 0-12-738763-3 %A Peter Wayner pcw@access.digex.com %C 1300 Boylston Street, Chestnut Hill, MA 02167 %D 1996 %G 0-12-738763-3 %I Academic Press Professional %O 619-699-6735 fax: 619-699-6380 app@acad.com 619-231-0926 800-321-5068 %P 271 %T "Digital Cash: Commerce on the Net" Wayner's book actually covers much more territory than simply commerce on the current Internet. There is an overview of current and developing implementations and technologies. More than that, however, the author provides a very thought provoking look at what cash is: the aspects of confidence (trust), confidentiality (privacy), commitment (non-repudiation), divisibility and so forth that are part of any non-barter system of commerce. The review concentrates on existing technologies and gives a realistic appraisal of the strengths, weaknesses and uses of each. Closing chapters provide an interesting look at money past, and possibly future. The foundational chapters, although they exist, are the weak point of the book. It isn't quite accurate to say that they are non-technical. It is likely that they are *too* technical. DES, RSA and other forms of encryption are described with pages of mathematics. What is missing, though, is any assessment of the reliability or strength of encryption systems for those who don't live and breathe number theory. The lack of straightforward discussion of the United States government policy on encryption is also a weakness. Combined, this allows misleading statements such as the one that "full 768 bit RSA as well as DES encryption ... can't be used to keep secrets." For those who are planning to think about online commerce, this provides considerable food for thought. For those planning to work with online commerce, additional background is needed. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995 BKDGTCSH.RVW 951112 Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest. Vancouver ROBERTS@decus.ca Institute for rslade@cyberstore.ca Research into Rob.Slade@f733.n153/ User .z1.fidonet.org Security Canada V7K 2G6 ------------------------------ Subject: Details of Split: New NPA 330 From 216 Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 18:35:09 EST From: stbrown@nacs.net (Stan Brown) Reply-To: stbrown@nacs.net In the mail yesterday (Wednesday, 29 November) I received the long-awaited information on the split of new NPA 330 from 216, which presently covers northeast Ohio. (Ohio's other NPAs are 419 in NW including Toledo, 513 in SW including Cincinnati, and 614 in SE and central Ohio including Columbus.) Anything quoted below is taken verbatim from Ameritech's mailing. Ameritech's information package is called "get to know 330" (lower case in original). It was addressed to my small-business phone number; nothing at all has yet come to my residence. Ameritech's package was actually rather informative: there's a good map, a complete exchange list, a list of Ameritech phone directories and their new area codes, the usual checklists of things to do, sample letters to customers and press releases for businesses to announce their new area codes, and an offer of a thousand free "Our area code will change to 330 on March 9, 1996." stickers. The brochure calls this the "first new Area Code in Ohio since Area Codes began in 1947." The letter gives the usual reason for the split: "An unprecedented demand for new telephone numbers -- for pagers, cellular phones, fax machines, computer modems, and additional phone lines -- has depleted the supply of available numbers in the current 216 area code, requiring the introduction of a new area code." My comment: Nowhere is there mention of considering any plan other than a split, such as an overlay. We're going to end up dialing 1+NPA+7D for most calls eventually anyway; why not do it now and avoid changing any existing phones' NPA? (end comment) Here's a summary of the change: The southern chunk of NPA 216 (details below) will be assigned to NPA 330 on 9 March 1996, the new NPA becoming mandatory on 29 June 1996. There will be no change in what telephones can be reached as a local call or in the cost of toll calls. All toll calls (including those within the same area code) will be dialed 1+NPA+7D. Later, there will be a second split of the remaining NPA 216: "The second phase is scheduled to take place in 1997-1998 where [sic] the remaining 216 area code will be subdivided. The area code number, exact date and geographic boundaries have not yet been determined." The letter claims that the two-phase "plan ensures that Northeast Ohio won't run out of phone numbers for at least 10 years, and each of your existing numbers will only experience one area code change." "For general information about the area code change or to verify codes based on the first three digits of a phone number, call 1-800-330-Info (1-800-330-4636)." I dialed that number and got "Thanks for calling Ameritech. The next available representative will be with you shortly." I didn't hang on. The lists of prefixes staying in 216 and moving to 330 are given, but there are too many for my fingers to type. I'll be happy to mail the brochure to anyone who has a scanner and wants to scan them in for Digest subscribers. Details by Ameritech directory region ===================================== 216: Cleveland; the following directories for Cleveland suburbs or groups of suburbs: Brecksville (S), Chargin (SE), Euclid (NE), Fairview (W), Heights Area (E), Lake County (far NE), Lyndhurst (E), South Suburban, Southeast Area, Southwest Area, West Shore. Lorain is not listed, which leads me to believe it's not in Ameritech-land. 330: Akron, Alliance, Barberton, Canton, Cuyahoga Falls, East Liverpool, Kent, Massillon, Niles, Salem, Youngstown. ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Clarifying the FCC Order on Calling Number Services Date: Wed, 06 Dec 95 13:49:00 PST > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It looks like a lot of the telcos are > simply ignoring the legally mandated deadline doesn't it? I wonder > if some will have to be sued to get them to come into compliance? PAT] To clarify the FCC Order: telcos who are EQUIPPED to transport Calling Party Number MUST DO SO. They also, at minimum, must support *67 and *82 as standard per call options (blocking, unblocking). In states where Per Line Blocking is permitted, telcos may continue to offer that service. Unfortunately today, there are plenty of telcos out there who are NOT equipped with SS7/ISUP or switch software needed to deal with transport of Calling Party Number. The FCC Order won't result in immediate gratification here, but will result in significant improvements in Caller ID service going forward. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ From: danny burstein Subject: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 16:12:37 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC The following text appeared in a legal advert ("tombstone") in the {NY Post} a couple of days ago. A friend of mine was kind enough to type it in as a favor for my faxing it to him ... Here it is. Notice to All AT&T Long Distance Customers On November 29, 1995, AT&T filed with the Federal Communications Commission to: 1) increase interstate sent-paid coin service charge and transport rates with an overall increase of 9.7%. 2) increase selected interstate charges for AT&T reach out america plans, AT&T anyhour saver plans, and AT&T selectsaver plans, with increases ranging from 2-6% per plan. 3) Apply a non-subscriber service charge of $.40 per message to domestic Interlata interstate dial station calls originated from residential lines which are presubscribed to an interexchange carrier other than AT&T, or not presubscribed to any interexchange carrier. This charge is in addition to the inital period charges applicable to calls from points in the Mainland and Hawaii to points throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. These charges are effective on December 1, 1995. Also on November 30, 1995, AT&T filed to modify the rate schedules for cellular and PCS-originated, interstate long distance calls. Such calls will have two rate periods, peak (8:00 AM to but not including 11:00 PM, Monday through Friday) and off-peak (all other times). This change is effective on December 1, 1995. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 20:53:25 +0000 From: Peter_Polishuk@nt.com Subject: New Telecom Information Web Site Organization: Nortel (Northern Telecom) New info site: Information Gatekeepers Group Publishers and consultants in Fiber Optics, ISDN, ATM, Wireless. Tons of newsletters, market reports, etc. http://www.igigroup.com/ Peter Polishuk Nortel Marketing Communications Switching Networks ESN 255-4295 or (919)992-4295 Peter_Polishuk@nt.com ------------------------------ From: franz@inf.ethz.ch (Michael Franz) Subject: Voice Mail Features We Would Like to See Date: Wed, 06 Dec 1995 15:18:24 +0200 Organization: Institut für Computersysteme, ETH Zürich I travel a lot and can get to my email from many places in the world via the internet, for a relatively low local access charge. However, when I want to check my answering machine at home, I need to make an expensive long distance call. Wouldn't it be a nice option if some of the answering machine software packages that are available for PCs could compress incoming voice messages, encrypt them, and then send them out again as email? This would probably even be practical for every-day life, as I could get the messages from my home phone at work over email, instead of having to call home and check. Any phone software developers listening? Michael Franz, Computersysteme ETH, Zurich, Switzerland ------------------------------ From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) Subject: Need Quick Advice on Coax Wiring of Home for TV, etc. Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 17:45:02 GMT (Note that followup discussion has been set to rec.video.cable-tv and sci.electronics.misc) Hello, We're in the process of finishing our basement, and before it is finished and everything sealed up, I want to install coax lines to many of the rooms in the basement as well as upstairs rooms (from the basement line). The coax lines of course will be used for television, maybe FM, and who knows, maybe even a computer line. For TV/FM, the source would either be cable, an antenna, or a satellite dish (right now we're using an attic antenna). Being a mechanical and not electrical engineer, I'd like advice as to how to wire it properly. What type/size of coax to use, fittings, etc., as well as the layout of the wiring. My engineering sense tells me that if I don't design it properly, the signal could be adversely affected throughout the whole house. Or am I being overly-cautious here? Any advice would be most appreciated, and do post to the followup-to newsgroups as I think others contemplating doing something similar may be interested in your words of wisdom. Thanks, Jon Noring OmniMedia Electronic Books | URL: http://www.awa.com/library/omnimedia 9671 S. 1600 West St. | Anonymous FTP: South Jordan, UT 84095 | ftp.awa.com /pub/softlock/pc/products/OmniMedia 801-253-4037 | E-mail: omnimedia@netcom.com OmniMedia Electronic Books -- http://www.awa.com/library/omnimedia/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Dec 95 10:32:35 EST From: wengler@ee.rochester.edu (Mike Wengler) Subject: 10.9 Cent/Min StarQuest/IntelliCommunications? I'm wondering if anyone out there has any information on the following entities or calling plan. I have signed up as a rep for this plan, and want to know what I might be getting into. StarQuest Corporation (of Oregon?) sells the plan. IntelliCommunications (of Nevada?), a reseller of MCI, does the billing. MCI is the underlying network. The rates are spectacular! 10.9 cent/min flat rate interstate, six-second billing. Really good intrastate rates, also flat, six-second. There will be a $1/month fee if ordered after 1/1/96, but this is trivial to even a $20/month customer. StarQuest will pay to switch customer in, and pay to switch them back within 90 days if they don't like it. Marketing is MLM, I think, which is to say I can sign up reps who have the same deal I do, but I get money based on how much business they sign. However, it seems much more oriented to signing up straight customers than other MLM's I've read about on the net. There is a half-page form asking minimal info to sign up someone as a pure customer, with no reference to the MLM part built in. This doesn't strike me as too good to be true, but it certainly is the best I've seen. Its good enough that as soon as I get the sign-up forms, mom, my fiancee, and my sister are on the plan, whether they like it or not! Don't worry FCC, I won't slam them, I'll MAKE them sign the forms first. Anyway, if anyone knows what I should be warned about here, I'd like to know. Thanks, Mike Wengler http://www.he.net/~wengler/StarQuest [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As soon as you get the complete package -- the Full Disclosure you might say -- you perhaps will kindly share more details on this with us. PATTTT] ------------------------------ From: pcs@powerup.com.au (Personal Comuter Supplies Pty Ltd) Subject: Australia's Largest On-Line Computer Shop Date: 6 Dec 1995 03:06:54 GMT Organization: Power Up Reply-To: pcs@powerup.com.au Personal Computer Supplies Pty Ltd a Brisbane-based discount supplier, announces the launch of Australia's largest on-line retail ordering service. Located on the Internet and with over 2000 products available for purchase, the PCS Web site has something for everyone: from floppy disks to notebooks, over 500 printer consumables and software from many leading vendors. http://www.odyssey.com.au/wtc/pcs You can also download dozends of net shareware, games & demos software and can listen to James Brown and find the cockroach on one for our pages (listen to the sound file). ------------------------------ From: Tom@Tass.Com (Tom Allebrandi) Subject: What is Ameritech Selling? Date: Wed, 06 Dec 1995 05:16:23 GMT Organization: TA Software Systems/Frontline Test Equipment Hi! When in Indianapolis over the Thanksgiving holdiay, both my father and my wife's brother in-law were talking about the big push that Ameritech Cellular is making in the Indianapolis market. Apparently, they are offering really good deals on airtime and service packages. And, they are advertising like crazy. But, what are they selling? Cellular One is the A side carrier in Indy and GTE Mobilenet has the B side. Does Indy now have a C side cellular carrier? Or, is Ameritech simply reselling one of the other two in a competitive manner? Just curious, Tom Allebrandi | Tom@Tass.Com TA Software Systems/Frontline Test Equipment | Tom@Mcs.Com Valparaiso, IN USA | +1-219-465-0108 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In an issue of the Digest earlier today I mentioned that another company starting to make a big push for cellular customers on a national basis. Frontier Mobile Line, run by the folks at Allnet is trying to cut into the territory of the big established carriers in various city markets. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tkondo2937@aol.com (TKondo2937) Subject: Digital Transmission of Video Signal Over the Air Date: 6 Dec 1995 02:45:38 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: tkondo2937@aol.com (TKondo2937) Hi. Is there anyone who can explain how digital transmission of video signals over the air work? I think digital transmission is only possible in guided media, such as twisted pairs, coax, and fiber optic. Digital transmission of video signal via unguided media is already underway, i.e. USSB and DirecTV. Are they transmitting digital signal as an analog as modem does for sending digital signal via analog circuit of telephone network? Thank you in advance, Toyo ------------------------------ From: Marcwell Subject: Announcement: Marcwell MobyMail(TM) Date: 6 Dec 1995 10:04:54 GMT Organization: Uniplus Internet Access STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Dec. 4, 1995 - Marcwell today announced the Marcwell MobyMail(TM) mobile message transport provider for the Windows 95 and Windows NT operating systems. GSM cellular phones and pagers has become very popular today. The cellular phones transfers data/fax reliable and can send and retrieve short messages (SMS) and with a pager you can be reached without being disturbed. Marcwell MobyMail lets you send and retrieve short messages to cellular phones and pagers. It is even possible to send messages from a cellular phone to a recipient within a local area network via the MobyMail workgroup server. Only the imagination limits the possibilities, except for sending an e-mail to the cellular phone/pager you can communicate with text commands or text data between applications or between an application and a person (transparent messages is a fortcoming feature). For example could the communication between an application and a person be used for a delivery firm, the driver receives the collect address and when he has delivered the parcel he sends an acknowledge back into the network/application. Another example would be to use it together with an application to send alarm messages or to send news updates, stock-exchange quotations etc. Marcwell MobyMail makes it easy to communicate to mobile units and is based upon a messaging standard - MAPI. Instead of having to use a separate program MobyMail integrates into the operating system as an extension and can be used from many types of applications, including old DOS-applications using a file interface. Currently supported SMS providers are; Cellnet, Comviq, DeTeMobil, Europolitan, Mannesmann Mobilfunk, NetCom, PC-Card (direct phone connection), Radiolinja, Sonofon, Tele Danmark Mobil, Telecom Finland, Telia Mobitel, Telenor Mobil, Vodafone and supported paging providers are; Telia Mobitel, Telenor Mobil. MobyMail Key Features * 32-bit: Implemented as a true Win32 MAPI transport provider with multithreading for performance and stability. * Many service providers: Many of the today available European message service providers are supported. * Workgroup server: Send and retrieve messages from within a local area network through the Marcwell MobyMail workgroup server. * Third-party interface: Either use OLE Messaging or the file interface for DOS- and non-OLE applications. * Upgradeable: Easily upgraded from a single user version to a workgroup server with a new license key. Pricing and Availability ------------------------ Marcwell MobyMail for Windows 95 is available now and the Windows NT (Intel) version will be available as soon as MAPI is released for Windows NT. Download MobyMail for a 30-day evaluation and trial period or a technical whitepaper from either CompuServe (go MSWIN95, library "Mobile/PCMCIA") or via Internet from our web with address http://www.marcwell.se. Our e-mail address is helpdesk@marcwell.se. MobyMail is available in a single user version for 595 SEK and a 50 user workgroup server version for 4.995 SEK. For the server a special LAN client is available for 195 SEK each. The LAN client can only operate via the server, the single version that can operate both stand-alone and as a LAN client. All prices are excluding VAT. ######### Marcwell, MobyMail are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Marcwell. Microsoft, Windows, Windows NT are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corporation. Intel is a registered trademark of Intel Corporation. CompuServe is a registered trademark of CompuServe Inc. ------------------------------ From: ac91@Comp.HKBU.Edu.HK (Applied Computing 91) Subject: [Qn] TNPP CAP page function code Date: 6 Dec 1995 11:46:54 GMT Organization: Hong Kong Baptist University Hello netters, Here's a question about TNPP CAP page function code field. If a pager has four tones from A to D, how can it map to the CAP page function code field. The format of function code is 01P0ABCD where ABCD has the following meaning. 0000 - default pager address/function 0001 - address/function 1 0010 - address/function 2 0011 - address/function 3 0100 - address/function 4 Here's two mapping. mapping 1 mapping 2 0000 Tone A ---- 0001 Tone B Tone A 0010 Tone C Tone B 0011 Tone D Tone C 0100 ---- Tone D Could someone tell me which is correct? Thank you in advance. Morris Wong ac91@comp.hkbu.edu.hk ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #505 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Dec 7 08:21:32 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA06888; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 08:21:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 08:21:32 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512071321.IAA06888@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #506 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Dec 95 08:21:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 506 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson What Will Technological Future be Like? (LA Times via John Nestoriak) Call Me Cards (Tony Harminc) Want to Buy Predictive Dialers (phoneroom@aol.com) Re: PCS Service of Sprint (hassan@access5.digex.net) Re: Digital Transmission of Video Signal Over the Air (John R. Grout) Re: "Abuse" of 800/888 Numbers? (Hovig Heghinian) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (William Kucharski) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Jim Hebbeln) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Keith Knipschild) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Kevin Paul Herbert) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: john@telecnnct.com (John Nestoriak) Subject: What Will Technological Future be Like? Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 17:01:22 -0500 (EST) The following is copyright {The Los Angeles Times} and forwarded to the TELECOM Digest with the permission of the author. A very interesting take on telecomm competition and the building of the NII. Date: 01 Dec 1995 06:32:51 From: gary.chapman@mail.utexas.edu Subject: L.A. Times column, 11/30/95 The following is my column that appearned in {The Los Angeles Times} today, November 30, 1995. It will appear in other newspapers in the next week, including {The San Jose Mercury News} and {The Boston Globe}. Gary Chapman, Coordinator The 21st Century Project LBJ School of Public Affairs Drawer Y, University Station University of Texas Austin, TX 78713 (512) 471-8326 (512) 471-1835 (fax) Electronic mail: gary.chapman@mail.utexas.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------- It is largely taken for granted today that "market forces" will determine our technological future. But what the market is likely to deliver in telecommunications may not be what we need, nor what we could have. Assumptions about the benefits of a specific kind of competition lie at the heart of the mammoth telecommunications deregulation bill now being considered by Congress. That bill, if passed, will largely determine the architecture of the fabled information superhighway. But it's based on the notion that the public good will be served by competition in wires, while we should really be trying to foster competition in services. The large telecom companies have billions of dollars invested in their wires and switches -- either in copper wire and fiber, for the telephone companies, or coaxial cable and fiber for the cable companies, with both sectors using satellites. Deregulation of these industries means that each will be able to use their wires and switches to encroach on the other's business -- telephone companies will start to offer video services, like movies on demand, while cable companies are gearing up to offer telephone service. Consumers, according to the theory, will get better and cheaper service with these industries competing against each other. But how many consumers will be able to make a reasonable choice between cable or telephone companies, when both will start offering similar services and for roughly comparable prices? Most people are already baffled trying to sort out the claims of long-distance providers like AT&T, Sprint, and MCI. And a lot of people are angry about the constant harangues of these companies, especially their dinner-time telemarketing calls. Try multiplying those by ten. A completely different arrangement is possible. If people were given access to a universal, public network, especially one based on fiber optic cables with virtually limitless carrying capacity, we'd see an explosion of entrepreneurial energy instead of more marketing appeals. We'd build an entirely new economic sector instead of divvying up the current telecom business differently. The city of Austin, Texas, where I live, is pursuing an innovative and controversial plan that many communities around the nation are watching with intense interest. Austin reportedly has the highest Internet usage, per capita, of any major metropolitan area in the U.S. The city is home to a booming home-grown multi-media industry, largely made up of small, start-up firms, some of them run on kitchen tables. It's also a growing world center of semiconductor manufacturing. To serve this population, city officials have proposed an unusual public-private partnership to wire all Austin homes and businesses with high-speed fiber connections within two years. The private partner gets to manage the network and collect leasing fees in exchange for its investment in the hardware. The City offers its rights-of-way, permission to tear up the streets, and an exclusive arrangement with the contractor, in exchange for some important public interest principles. These include universal service, interoperability of components, and open systems, which all add up to a public network infrastructure open to all users with maximum available bandwidth available to everyone. What the city officials hope will result from this kind of arrangement is an Internet-like network model, but with bandwidth that can carry video, data, voice, and sound all at once. With new technologies appearing that make the World-Wide Web more and more capable of exploiting this capacity, entrepreneurs could blossom all over town. And the network could carry conventional cable TV, telephone, and online services as well, producing true competition between large companies instead of a zero-sum scramble for market share. This plan is especially important for low-income neighborhoods, because what typically obstructs economic development in those communities is the reluctance of people with money to shop or do business in poor areas. A network presence would remove that barrier -- geography would no longer matter. Southwestern Bell and Austin Cablevision, a subsidiary of Time Warner, oppose the City of Austin's plan. They envision a model in which they own the wires and lease their bandwidth to content providers that they select and then market to consumers in "bundles," the way cable TV, America Online, Prodigy, or CompuServe work now. Their networks would not be open, and it's likely that their interactivity would be highly constrained -- enough for users to send e-mail and a credit card number, but not enough to have a full-blown, interactive video presence on the network that could rival their own offerings. This is a battle that will be waged all over the country -- it is already apparent in the telecommunications reform bill passed by both houses of Congress, which reinforces the model preferred by large corporations. Unfortunately, most citizens don't understand the first thing about this debate, either what's at stake or what alternatives are feasible. This is true even in Austin. Television commercials from the large telecom companies are now filled with encomiums to the "information superhighway." But our concrete highways are a genuine public resource, and, at the same time, the arteries of our economy. They carry all vehicles, old and new, commercial and private, sleek and homely. Is it too late to start thinking about the "information superhighway" in the same way? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Dec 95 19:36:20 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Call Me Cards I got two similar items in yesterday's mail: four calling bird... ah, cards from Bell Canada, and an application form for one from BT in the UK. The four Bell ones are Call Me cards, consisting of my phone number and a four digit PIN (the same on all four cards). These were accompanied by a letter suggesting that I give these out to my friends and relatives so they can call me *for exactly what it would cost me to call them*. The implication is that there is no transaction charge, i.e. if I use my regular PIN to call home there will be a $.75 or whatever charge, but if I use the Call Me PIN there won't be. Strange, if true. The fine print says that this identical charging does not apply to calls originated outside the country, though it doesn't say what the charge will be. The obvious question that comes to mind is what happens if someone tries to use this card to call other than my number? Clearly Bell's own database will reject such attempts, but what about the various lesser foreign telcos (Integratel?) who accept the card? If I posted the PIN publicly, would I be liable for charges made to other than my number? The BT application invites me to apply for one of their calling cards. They say nothing whatever about rates -- they're trying to sell the card based on the convenience of dealing with BT operators when calling from a foreign country. Based on my experiences with surly BT operators in the past, I'd say this is not the wisest sales pitch! They want me to give them a credit card number to bill to, and they will send an itemized statement each month. No charge for the card, no minimum billing. I can't tell what mailing list BT got my name from, but the application form comes with a postpaid envelope supposedly good for the USA, Australia, and South Africa - "other countries please apply proper postage"! Can anyone think of a good reason for having one of these cards? Tony Harminc ------------------------------ From: phoneroom@aol.com (PhoneRoom) Subject: Want to Buy Predictive Dialers Date: 7 Dec 1995 01:57:17 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: phoneroom@aol.com (PhoneRoom) Does anyone know of a used predictive dial system that is available for sale? I am most interested in a Melita Phoneframe but would consider others. Any info would be appreciated. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: These devices are an extreme nuisance for the people being called. Anyone who has one of these devices be forwarned that when one of them calls me, if you are not on the line *immediatly* and ready to talk when I pick up the phone, I hang up without waiting for you. I do not know how many times I have answered the phone only to be told, "We have an important message for you, please hold the line until an agent becomes available." It seems to me to be very arrogant to call someone and then expect them to hold on until you find time to talk to them. It is not like I called you, after all. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Hassan Subject: Re: PCS Service of Sprint Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 00:13:16 -0500 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, USA All that a PCS service will or can provide, cellular service providers can provide too. Short messaging service will soon be available to the Cellular customers. GSM has a flaw and it's priority calls would not be handend off to other sites, which is the case for cellular at present time. So what else is better in PCS which is not available in cellular. Quality of service, size and weight of phones, battery charge holding time, any other that you can think of is either same or better in cellular. Hasan ------------------------------ From: j-grout@glibm8.cen.uiuc.edu (John R. Grout) Subject: Re: Digital Transmission of Video Signal Over the Air Date: 07 Dec 1995 03:19:45 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Reply-To: j-grout@uiuc.edu In article tkondo2937@aol.com (TKondo2937) writes: > Hi. Is there anyone who can explain how digital transmission of video > signals over the air work? I think digital transmission is only possible > in guided media, such as twisted pairs, coax, and fiber optic. No. > Digital transmission of video signal via unguided media is already > underway, i.e. USSB and DirecTV. Are they transmitting digital signal as > an analog as modem does for sending digital signal via analog circuit of > telephone network? No, they use moderately sophisticated techniques for encoding digital signals directly. By comparison, the new USA HDTV standard, just certified by the FCC for terrestrial digital TV broadcasting, uses extremely sophisticated techniques. The major problems with direct digital encoding of any signal sent through the air are multi-path distortion (e.g., reflections off buildings, trees, airplanes, etc.), rejection of signals on adjacent frequencies, and rejection of distant signals on the same frequency... because, without sophisticated technology, these problems cause total decoding failure instead of gradual signal degredation... the "ghosting" encountered in terrestrial analog TV reception is the most familiar example of such degradation. As far as I understand the situation, at the frequencies used by DBS services, multi-path distortion and signal rejection aren't much of a problem for _satellite_ broadcasting ... and the band used for DBS is large enough to allow use of only moderately sophisticated video compression techniques (I think they're just getting into newer ones which will allow footballs flying through the air to not leave "digital artifacts" behind on the screen). However, multi-path distortion for _terrestrial_ digital broadcasting is a far more serious problem ... so much so that all fully-implemented terrestrial high-definition TV (HDTV) standards (e.g., the Japanese standard) use analog encoding. However, an unexpected breakthrough in research several years ago in the USA led to techniques which can overcome this problem. These new techniques, along with significant (if less serendipitous) new techniques for video compression, are the cornerstones of the new USA HDTV standard, which packages HDTV signals into narrow-enough channels to meet the original political objective for HDTV... to allow each existing TV broadcaster an equivalent HDTV broadcast license (at a different, higher frequency) to serve the same broadcast area. As I understand it, such an HDTV transmitter foils multi-path distortion by sending out extra analog data in a special pattern as part of a digital signal ... this allows a matching HDTV receiver to figure out (from time and frequency shifts, etc., when analyzing the telemetry) what the analog errors are in the signal it is receiving, and, within realistic conditions (i.e., the user has an antenna which allows one version of a signal to be received stronger than a reflected version of that signal arriving at a slightly different time, transmitters on adjacent frequencies aren't nearby, transmitters on the same frequency are far away), the receiver can reconstruct the original digital signal with no degredation whatsoever. How all the components of the new HDTV standard will be _used_ is anyone's guess. If affordable flat-screen technology finally takes off (and there's been lots of progress in the last two years or so ... from digital micromirrors to arrays of microscopic picture tubes), HDTV as it was originally envisioned ... terrestrial broadcast transmission to receivers with large screens with a 13 by 9 aspect ratio ... may still take shape. However, there are lots of political details to work out. For example, most Republicans want to auction off HDTV licenses to raise money for the U.S. Government, while most public TV stations want not only to receive a free HDTV license, but want HDTV receivers to be taxed to pay for public television's HDTV transmission equipment and converters for poor people with old TV sets. If large, relatively inexpensive wide-angle displays aren't available soon enough, the video parts of HDTV may be used in computer monitors (there were changes in the standard to handle them a while back), or with cable, satellite or fiber-optic transmission instead of broadcast transmission. There was an issue of the IEEE Spectrum in the last year or two focusing on digital video. Several of those articles probably would be within the reach of c.d.t readers with a general technical background. John R. Grout Center for Supercomputing R & D j-grout@uiuc.edu Coordinated Science Laboratory University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ------------------------------ From: hovig@ai.uiuc.edu (Hovig Heghinian) Subject: Re: "Abuse" of 800/888 Numbers? Date: 6 Dec 1995 20:37:46 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Reply-To: hovig@cs.uiuc.edu bei@dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob Izenberg) asked: > If you have an 800 number that receives nuisance calls or wrong numbers, > do you still pay for the calls? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All an 800 number is, quite simply, is > your authorization to telco to automatically hand you collect calls > without requiring you to verbally authorize each one. ... PAT] Allow me a follow-up question: Are you, the one with the 1-800 number, charged at your own carrier's rates, or at the calling party's rates? I know that you can specify different carriers for different conditions, such as day of week, time of day and/or call volume, but what about silly things like calls from PBXs, pay phones and cell phones? And is this the same as a collect call, then? Hovig Heghinian | Open your mind too far, Department of Computer Science | and your brain may fall out. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign | [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your selected carrier is the *only* one that matters in 800 calls. As soon as someone dials an 800 number, the telephone company receiving the call for processing hands it to the carrier *you* have designated. PBX, pay phone, cell phone, no difference. As soon as the call reaches the phone company central office, it is handed over to the carrier you have chosen. Therefore you are only billed at the rate your carrier charges. If someone chooses to call you 'collect', then the traffic is up for grabs. The originating carrier is entitled to (and usually does) handle it all the way to your end. Not so with 800 numbers, which are still 'collect' strictly speaking, but rather limited authorization to automatically call you collect via the carrier you have chosen. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kucharsk@drmail.dr.att.com (William Kucharski) Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Denver, CO Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 01:49:20 GMT If your friends are complaining about your calls being received as "Out of Area" (or if you are receiving such calls yourself), one big factor may be Sprint. Specifically, I've confirmed with Sprint (my LD carrier) that the following extract from FCC Docket #91-281 is the case, and they are operating under a waiver until March 31, 1996: On October 24, 1995, Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) filed a petition requesting a waiver of Sections 64.1601(a), 64.1603 and 64.1604 of the Commission's rules until March 31, 1996. Sprint requests a waiver to defer the CPN requirement until modifications in its software delivery of CPN can be corrected. Sprint indicates that during testing of its switch software, it identified certain instances in which its switches would pass Automatic Number Identification (ANI) (billing number information) when CPN information was not available. Sprint requests a waiver to allow time for it to correct this problem. Personally, my Sprint calls are still showing up on friends' boxes as "Out of Area"; the same call made using a 10288 prefix (AT&T) shows my number quite clearly. Funny how every other IXC can manage to get their act together, but even given eight months' lead time from the decision Sprint is still clueless. I remember when I first subscribed to them they were the most advanced network ... On a related subject, has anyone seen any out of state names? It's my understanding that this will likely not work for various technical reasons, and at current only the "number" phase of CID is mandated. (Name delivery being considered a number-related "additional feature.") For those of you who may be curious, the two other major waivered carriers are GTE and Pac*Bell in California: On October 13, 1995, GTE Service Corporation (GTE) filed a petition for limited waiver or, in the alternative, a limited suspension of Section 64.1601(a) of the Commission's rules in the State of California until June 3, 1996. GTE contends that it will not be able to meet the December 1, 1995 deadline for passage of CPN because it cannot lawfully pass CPN in California as it has been unable to obtain approval from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for its customer notification and education plan (CNEP) on caller ID services. GTE states that under California law, all local exchange carriers (LECs) must first comply with the CPUC's customer education and notification requirements, before they can pass any CPN. GTE asserts that despite its numerous efforts to design a CNEP to meet the guidelines of the CPUC, it has been unsuccessful. On October 25, 1995, Pacific Bell (Pacific) filed a petition requesting a temporary and limited waiver of Section 64.1601(a) of the Commission's rules in the State of California until June 1, 1996. Like GTE, Pacific contends that it will not be able to meet the December 1, 1995 deadline for passage of CPN because it cannot lawfully pass CPN in California as it has been unable to obtain approval from the CPUC for its caller ID services. Pacific asserts that despite proposing a CNEP, which it estimates would cost $33 million, it has been unsuccessful in its attempts to receive CPUC approval. William Kucharski, contractor, AT&T Bell Labs Work Internet: kucharsk@drmail.dr.att.com Fun Internet: kucharsk@netcom.com Ham: N0OKQ President, "Just the Ten of Us" Fan Club ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Dec 95 8:23:27 MST From: Jim Hebbeln Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Pat, Sunday I received three CallerID test calls: Calling from: 608-233-xxxx Madison, WI DMS-100 Calling to: 970-224-xxxx Fort Collins, CO 1AESS (still) Via: AT&T (10288+1+970-224...) received 10-digit calling number* MCI (10222+1+970-224...) received 10-digit calling number* Sprint (10333+1+970-224...) received "OUT OF AREA" (* calling name is not displayed) Sprint doesn't seem to be passing through the calling number to U S West. Both they and MCI use Nortel DMS-250 switches; MCI works, Sprint doesn't. Hmmm ...) I thought I might add "how CallerID works" internally within the networks, and some history: The CALLING NUMBER (and the privacy Presentation Indicator bit) is transported to the terminating central office within the Signalling System #7 (SS7) Integrated Services Digital Network User Part (ISUP) Initial Address Message (IAM) sent between switches that initiates setup of the trunk between them. (The IAM contains the 24-bit Originating Point Code and the Destination Point Code of the switches at each end of the trunk, the trunk circuit number, the calling number and display Presentation Indicator, the called number, the Bearer Capability (speech, 56k/64k data), and other miscellaneous info such as a 64K data call is ISDN end-to-end.) However, the calling customer's NAME that appears in the CallerID display is not contained (now) either in the CO's database, nor, therefore, in the SS7 IAM message. The calling party's name, once the IAM's calling number is received in the called party's CO, is obtained by the terminating CO by using SS7's Transaction CAPability (TCAP) to query the RBOC's Line Information DataBase (LIDB), which usually responds back in ~300-500 milliseconds with the 15-character name that is transmitted to the CallerID unit (if the Presentation Indicator doesn't block it). The LIDB is the same database that keeps track of each line's Calling Card PIN (if any), the line's class (Residence, Business, Coin,...), Collect and Third Number Billing blocking, and now CallerID name. Why is the name field fixed at 15 characters? I don't know for sure, but perhaps this might be some insight: U S West was probably the biggest instigator of CallerID with Name. Using a DMS-100 central office that served an entire town in the Dakota's (Grand Forks, I believe) in 1990-91, U S West performed working market trials/studies that indicated that CallerID would sell twice as well if the caller's name was included. The DMS-100 has a **15 character** NAME field that can be associated with each Directory Number's Attributes (data table DNATTRS) for use in DMS-100 Centrex applications with Electronic Business Sets with Display. I would guess the CallerID display units were, therefore, designed to accomodate these 15 characters, and the design spec carried forth ... Grand Forkers loved CallerID with Name. Therefore, U S West delayed their CLASS/CallerID implementation programs for a large portion of a year, while AT&T/Nortel/Ericcson developed the SS7 TCAP query software that would obtain the calling name from the LIDB database (memory was available for 15 characters), instead of keeping the names in each CO's database. (RAM and hard disk memory in a CO switch is notoriously expensive.) This is not as good a story as "where OCTOTHORPE came from", but I hope it adds to the discussion and perspective. (By my choice I don't work for U S West anymore, but I did translations (data base) work for SS7 and CLASS implementation in Colorado in 1991-92. Now, I have "my own" ISDN switch rather than sharing it and 700 other switches with an army of technicians.) Perhaps another time, I'll write on the RBOC/switch vendor technical trial of "Whose Calling" in 1990 in Fort Collins -- a computer that announced the caller's name in a synthesized voice (it enunciated pretty well -- even my name). When you pressed 1, the caller was connected. Else, you hung up and the caller got no answer. The Whose Calling user didn't have to buy a CallerID unit, and it worked from all the DTMF phones on your line. Jim Hebbeln, Telecommunications Specialist, Nortel SL-100 tech Telecommunications Department Voice: 970-491-1014 E-100 Glover Building Fax: 970-491-2179 Colorado State University (NEW AREA CODE 970 ON APRIL 2, 1995) Fort Collins, CO 80523-2009 Email: JHebbeln@Vines.ColoState.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 18:38:24 -0600 From: keith@unix.asb.com (Keith Knipschild - L.I.,NY) Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ... ? andy@clark.net (andy) wrote: > Given that it is now Dec 1, will we be seeing less "UNAVAILABLE" notes > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, yesterday was December 1. Let's > have some reports submitted to the Digest please of your experiences > with this over the next week or so. How well are the telcos complying > with the new requirement. Maybe for once, our caller-id boxes will > actually be fully functional, eh? It is about time! PAT] I responded: >> Well if anyone wants to call me, and let the phone ring 1.5 - 2 times, >> I'll post the NPA and NXX of the calls I recieve ... so if you see your >> Area Code and exchage posted, please let us know who you are using for >> Long Distance. Well I got many phone calls today 12/5/1995. There were alot (10+) of calls that said " OUT OF AREA " Some callers did not allow the phone to ring 1.5 - 2 times, So there was no CID info avaiable. As for those who called, here is the list as of 6pm ET - 12/5/95 : Area Code NPA Time 404 727 9am ET 206 885 11am ET 206 328 3pm ET 403 531 3:30pm ET And TODAY (December 6,1995), I received the following calls: 970 493 10am ET 810 651 11:30am ET 804 850 6pm ET ------------------------------ From: kph@cisco.com (Kevin Paul Herbert) Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Date: Wed, 06 Dec 1995 14:13:04 -0800 Organization: Cisco Systems, Ashland, OR Here is an interesting way to test for interstate caller ID: call up a caller ID test number in another LATA and see what happens. I've been using 413-447-8214; there are plenty of others out there. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #506 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Dec 7 15:11:18 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id PAA06068; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 15:11:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 15:11:18 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512072011.PAA06068@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #507 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Dec 95 13:34:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 507 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson What Has *NOT* Yet Changed With Areacodes (Mark Cuccia) South Carolina (864) Test Number Correction (Michael Fumich) Re: Old Billing Practices (Andreas Pavlik) Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (David Whiteman) Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (Keith Jarett) Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (David Whiteman) Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (Steve Cogorno) Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (Raymond Hazel) Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (Edward A. Kleinhample) Re: Roadside Boxes and Caller ID (Carl Moore) What's Wrong With Shielded Cable? (David McCord) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Cuccia Subject: What Has *NOT* Yet Changed With Areacodes Date: Mon, 04 Dec 95 10:55:00 CST In January of this year, 1995, we saw the actual implementation of `interchangeable' areacodes into the North American Numbering Plan, more-or-less right on schedule with AT&T's predictions made sometime in the late 1950's or early 1960's, of when the N0X/N1X areacode format would exhaust. We have had several NPA's of the new format take effect this year, with many more planned for introduction in 1996 and 1997. Just take into account the number of NPA's which have gone into effect or have been assigned since 1988-on, and we have already added more NPA's than the 1948-65 time frame when some 35 NPA's were added to the original 86 assigned codes in 1947. Excluding any special areacodes for TWX, Mexico, or other special services (800, 900, etc), there were no new geographic areacodes to take effect between 1965 and 1982, except when Virginia's single 703 areacode split off 804 in 1973. It wasn't until around 1982/83 when 619 split from 714 (southeastern CA) and 409 split from 713 (southeastern TX). And then again in 1984 when Los Angeles County (213) split off 818 for the northern part and New York City (212) split off 718 for Brooklyn/Queens/Staten Island (and now includes the Bronx since 1992). But since 1988, we have seen at *least* one new areacode take effect every year -- with no end in sight! Many states/provinces which had only ONE areacode in 1947 (and back then, a state/province with a single NPA and the N0X format were identical) have been split into two since then -- some have been split even several times! The following list identifies those states/provinces which *still* have only ONE areacode -- that single code which was assigned in 1947, and as of yet, there have been no announcements of any additional *specific* areacodes for that state/province. 207 Maine 603 New Hampshire 802 Vermont 401 Rhode Island 302 Delaware 304 West Virginia 601 Mississippi (*) 501 Arkansas (*) 701 North Dakota 605 South Dakota 406 Montana 307 Wyoming 505 New Mexico 801 Utah (*) 702 Nevada 208 Idaho 204 Manitoba 306 Saskatchewan 403 Alberta (*) (*) according to the Bellcore IL-95/01-018 (31 Jan. 1995), NANPA's 1995 annual report on NPA's, these are *projected* to exhaust, but there have been no new codes nor boundaries of any future splits/ overlays yet announced: 501 AR projected to exhaust by the 1st Quarter of 1999 601 MS projected to exhaust by the 1st Quarter of 2004 801 UT projected to exhuast by the 3rd Quarter of 1999 403 AB projected to exhaust by the 1st Quarter of 2005 -- but it *does* seem that 403 is using up NXX exchange codes rather fast, however, and could probably need a split earlier. I have a few more notes about 403 further down, since 403 also presently serves YK and the western/southern NWT. Nova Scotia (and Prince Edward Island) also still has its single 1947 assigned 902 areacode. Back then, 902 was assigned to the *entire* Maritime Provinces region (including Newfoundland/Labrador which didn't become part of the Dominion of Canada until 1948). New Brunswick split from 902 in 1955, but this province still has its single areacode 506. Newfoundland/Labrador split from 902 in 1962, and this province as well still has its single areacode 709. The District of Columbia (Washington DC) still has only 202, which was part of the original 86 assigned codes in 1947, and I haven't seen any projections of a *second* areacode strictly for DC, but prior to 1990, all central office codes of DC were `protected' in both 703 Virginia and 301 Maryland. There was full permissive dialing among the three areacodes when calling to the Washington DC metro area -- which includes the Northern VA and Southern MD suburbs of DC. If I'm not mistaken, the southern MD suburbs' 301-NXX codes were *also* `protected' in all of 703; likewise the northern VA suburbs' 703-NXX codes were `protected' in all of 301. This was terminated in 1990, and the boundaries between these three NPA's are now fixed and rigid. Hawaii and Alaska had areacodes assigned to them in 1957, ten years after the North American Numbering Plan was introduced. But even those two states still have the same *single* areacodes (808 and 907 respectively) assigned to them. The Caribbean Islands (at least most of them) were assigned areacode 809 in 1958. We have seen Bermuda assigned its own NPA 441 this year, and the Bahamas will have NPA 242 take effect next year. Although these new NPA's have actually *split* from 809, Bermuda and the Bahamas will still each have only *one* NPA assigned. And even if *every* country or island group is assigned its *own & unique* NPA, they would all *each* still have a *single* areacode (at least for many years to come). When 403 eventually *does* split, Yukon and the western/southern NWT will probably still have a single shared NPA, probably a new one *just* for them. Probably the eastern/northern parts of the NWT (which presently shares 819 with part of Quebec) will `join-in' with the southern/western parts of the NWT in a *new single* YK/NWT areacode. The northern part of Alberta could probably be assigned its own NPA separate from the YK/NWT code -- i.e. 403 might actually be split into three areacodes -- a smaller 403 (southern Alberta) and two new codes. BTW, Alberta's 403 was `extended' in 1972 to include CN's Northwestel operations in Yukon and the southern/western parts of the NWT; 819 (which covers part of Quebec) was similarly `extended' in 1975 to include Bell Canada's operations in the eastern/northern part of the NWT. The holding company BCE (Bell Canada Enterprises) purchased Northwestel from CN in 1988, and in 1992 the Bell Canada operations in the NWT were transferred over to BCE's Northwestel which has merged togather the two operations even though they presently have two geogrphic areacodes. Also, the only states with *multiple* areacodes but having the *same* areacodes as they did in 1947 are: Kansas (316 & 913) Iowa (712-515-319) So far, there haven't been any announcements of additional codes for these two states, although Bellcore NANPA projects that both of Kansas' areacodes could need additional areacodes sometime in 2004. And prior to recent splits or announcements of splits, Ohio and Pennsylvania had also been the only other multi-NPA states which were able to get along with just their original areacodes assigned in 1947. PA had their 215/610 split in 1994; it has been announced that OH will have their 216/330 split in March 1996 -- and even after that, yet *another* split of 216 to take place in 1997. Bellcore NANPA also projects two other Ohio NPA's to need additional areacodes over the next ten years- 513 by 4Q 2001 and 614 by 1Q 2003. There are also some other states/provinces which had additional areacodes assigned in the 1948-65 timeframe -- some are only *now* getting (or just recently had) more additional areacodes (TN, WA, NC, MI, MO, MN, ON). Others (such as Nebraska) still haven't had any new areacode announcements, although Bellcore has projected the following states/NPA's as needing additional areacodes over the next ten years: KY's 502 by 3Q 2005 LA's 318 by 3Q 1998 LA's 504 by 1Q 1999 OK's 405 by 4Q 1999 IN's 317 by 3Q 1999 WI's 414 by 2Q 2003 Quebec originally had two areacodes assigned in 1947 -- 418 and 514. About ten years later, 819 was added (around 1957). 514 (Montreal area) is not indicated in Bellcore's lists as projected to exhaust, but since 514 serves a major metro area, it could need another areacode over the next five years (IMHO). Finally, the following are states/provinces which had only one NPA since 1947 but their second areacode has only been added or announced recently -- AL, AZ, OR, CT, BC, SC. It seems like the mainly rural states/provinces identified earlier will probably remain with their single areacode and Iowa will probably continue to be the only multi-NPA state having just its three original 1947 areacodes for quite some time. The North American Numbering Plan has held up quite well for about a half of a century. `NNX' format interchangeable areacodes just generalize the NXX format for both areacodes and exchange codes. The only probelms are with those PBX systems, 'other' common carriers, private payphones, and other CPE systems which didn't forsee what many of us already knew was going to occur, and the regulatory agencies and others which don't see the benefits of overlays and 10-digit local dialing. We will still be using standard ten-digit continent-wide telephone numbers for what is projected to be another 50 or so years. Hopefully, the INC/ICCF and NANPA future plans for longer than 10 digit NANP telephone numbers will be observed and *adhered* to by all players in the industry. It may be the middle of the 21st Century when this will happen, but those who forget problems of the past are always doomed to repeat it! MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@law.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Dec 95 18:28 EST From: North Coast Communications <0005082894@mcimail.com> Subject: South Carolina (864) Test Number Correction It has been pointed out to me today (several times!), that the test number for new South Carolina area code (864) is 864-242-0070. ^^ The number that got published in my list was 864-242-0040 , a rollover number at a business in SC. ^^ My apologies to those affected. Again, the proper test number for the new South Carolina area code is: -------> 864-242-0070 <------- ^^ Michael L. Fumich / E-Mail: <3311835@mcimail.com> / V-Mail: 708-461-5770 ------------------------------ From: pavlik@apap4.pap.univie.ac.at Subject: Re: Old Billing Practices Date: 7 Dec 95 10:38:06 GMT Organization: Vienna University Computer Center In article , mhyman@netcom.com (Mike Hyman) writes: > I have always been curious about what old phone bills looked like > before computers existed. Did they bill just a flat rate for service, > or did they in some way itemize the calls. If so, how did they track > calling and create the bills. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Like the banks, the credit card > companies, the department stores and other businesses, telco bills > prior to computerization were typed out on typewriters, ... In Austria long distance calls were billed of course in the same (or a very similar way) as Pat had described. But also locals calls were billed and this was done by metering the time one used the phone. We had a wall-mounted phone with a built-in scaler which metered the time when the phone was off-hook. I think desk-top phones had the meter in a small wall-mounted box. And in addition to the man from the utility company every two months sombody from the Postal and Telegraph Authority showed up to read the meter. That meant that also incoming calls were metered, which sometimes made my mother upset when her eight years old son got long phone calls from his friends. For long-distance calls of course you had to pay the charge for phone usage plus the charge on the (itemized) phone bill. Around 1966 we got what was called an "active" phone. Now long-distance calls to the most parts of Austria (and a little time later also to Western Germany and Switzerland) could be dialled directly and were billed by the pulse method. The rate for outgoing local calls was twice the previous rate for phone usage (and my mother was only upset when I called my friends). As the metering pulses were simply added up in a scaler in the CO this meant also the end of intemized phone bills. I think it was about the same time when the PT started to print the bills on standard punched cards. The left side of the card showed the bill, which had three items (basic charges, metered charges and other charges). The "other charges" were operator assisted calls, telegram fees etc., which were itemized on a separate sheet. The right side of the bill showed some punches. The bill had to be paid at the post office, the left side was stamped and signed by the clerk and returned to the customer and the right side was teared off and finally read into a computer (or at least some kind of bookkeeping machine). Andreas Pavlik University of Vienna Vienna, Austria pavlik@pap.univie.ac.at ------------------------------ From: dbw@ucla.edu (David Whiteman) Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 03:23:18 -0700 Organization: ViaNet Communications > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well excuse me if I am missing something, > but if a person's call was not an emergency, why would they stop and > use one of those roadside phones? What are they for, if not for use > in emergencies? PAT] The roadside phones can also be used for requesting assistance for a disabled vehicle, such as an overheated radiator, or a flat tire etc. That is why roadside phone calls are not treated with as high as priority as a 911 call. ------------------------------ From: Keith Jarett Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement Date: 6 Dec 1995 23:58:44 GMT Organization: TCSI As the originator of this thread, I'll contribute what I have learned from a dispatcher who replied rather irately to my post in ca.driving: First of all, had this been a deserted road in the middle of the night, I probably would have gotten right through. Given that it was not, and given that cellular calls have priority, many of them got through ahead of me with information on this accident. It is not unusual for the dispatchers to receive dozens of calls on an accident, each caller thinking he is the first one to call in. I suggested that the phone system be upgraded to allow dispatchers to record a brief announcement to the effect that "the following incidents have been reported and help dispatched: location1, time1, location2, time2, etc." The idea is that redundant callers then drop off, freeing the dispatchers to handle new nonredundant reports. This proposal is under consideration, and may have been so even before I suggested it. The particular dispatcher I talked to says that he tries to qualify each new call before putting it on hold, but that is obviously not a universal practice. The automatic priority to cell calls over roadside box calls may make it impossible to do currently. keith@tcs.com Keith Jarett ------------------------------ From: dbw@ucla.edu (David Whiteman) Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement Date: Wed, 06 Dec 1995 08:14:41 -0800 Organization: ViaNet Communications From a pamphlet printed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) 818 West Seventh Street Ste 100, Los Angeles, CA 90017: Car failure is always a hassle. If that, or any other emergency does occur, motorists can find comfort in the knowledge tthat help is right at the other end of a cellular phone located inside a Los Angeles County Metro Call Box. ... Call boxes were first installed in Los Angeles County in 1962 as a roadside emergency system to report flat tires, road hazards, mechanical breakdowns, or other emergencies. ... Using the Metro Call box ... Personal calls cannot be made from the Metro Call Box; it can only be used to call the CHP when you have car trouble, or to report an accident or hazard. Another posting on this thread implied that the call boxes were a Federal requirement and subsidy. Another pamphlet that I received with my car registration invoice stated that the Metro call boxes are funded entirely by a $7/year surcharge to my registration fee. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This would seem to imply that *any emer- gency* is eligible to use the call boxes wouldn't it? PAT] ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 03:42:03 PST TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to my posting: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How interesting. If my car runs out of > gas or stalls on the highway, I can use one of those phones. On the > other hand, if there is a collision and a four-car pileup with a > couple of dead people and a couple of severely injured people I am > not to use those phones and instead am to walk or drive for a couple > miles looking for a 7/Eleven with some phones in the parking lot. PAT] Well what would the alternative be? If the call boxes were routed to the local 911, the PSAPs would be flooded with motorist wanting to contact a garage. Obviously that would be a bad situation, because life threatening 911 calls are getting pushed by the wayside. Perhaps the CHP center should have an option saying "If this is a life-threatening emergenty press 1 now." Oh that won't work; the call boxes don't have dials (rather a TouchTone pad). CHP could hire more operators to answer the calls, but with all of the budget problems going on, I doubt that it's a priority. In all honesty, what did people do before the call boxes were installed? (They're only three or so years old.) I live in Santa Cruz, and pretty much the only way to get anywhere is via Hwy 17, through the Santa Cruz Mountains. There are parts of this road that are quite dangerous. In fact, there are more than 400 accidents a year in a signle 12 mile stretch of the road. If there is an accident, I'll guarantee you that the CHP is on the scene very quickly; the roads back up immediately, and someone invariably calls on a car phone or from one of the pay phones at the turn-outs. Steve cogorno@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: razel@unet.net.com (Raymond Hazel) Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 08:34:20 -0800 Organization: N.E.T. In article , cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) wrote: > Keith Jarett said: >> time? When I called the CHP later, they said that you should find a >> regular phone and dial 911 in case of a *real* emergency. Your tax >> dollars at work ... > The roadside boxes are not to be used for emergency calls. They are > connected directly to the CHP Dispatching Center in Sacramento; NOT the > PSAP that would normally handle 911 calls. It would have taken the CHP > much longer to get ambulance service than by calling 911 directly. THe > CHP dispatcher would have to call the PSAP center (using the ten digit > number, not 911) and relay the info to them. It's easier to just do it > yourself. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well excuse me if I am missing something, > but if a person's call was not an emergency, why would they stop and > use one of those roadside phones? What are they for, if not for use > in emergencies? PAT] The signs say "Call Box", have an id number for location, and are blue in color. The original reason was to counter "rubber-neckers" going by a disabled, slowing traffic down while waiting for assistance. And usually, the first one to come by was the Highway Patrol. If the callboxes were used to summon vehicle help, the CHP could then drive on by, persuing more pressing needs. I don't recall the boxes promoted as "for emergencies"; I don't think they've been promoted at all. Just the fact that they're there is information enough. However, after hearing about the current process for handling calls, I'm glad I bought my cell phone. Ray Hazel [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: However, note the quotes from the pamphlet written by the MTA quoted earlier in this issue and its use several times of the phrase 'any emergency'. This reminds me of the bozos in charge of police communications here in the Chicago area: Call 911 for emergencies only! say the posters and the press releases from the police, etc. So some of us take that to heart and try to be helpful by staying OFF 911 lines for anything but dire emergencies, that is, a situation where immediate inter- vention is required by police or fire personnel. But when we call the district police station to discuss a NON-emergency what are we told? Hang up and call 911 if you want a policeman to stop by your house to see you. A total contradiction. I wonder if anyone at CHP has considered the possibility of having the call boxes answered immediatly with the statement, "Is this an emergency which requires immediate police assistance?" If the caller says yes, the dispatcher would tape a couple of keys on the console which would bring the appropriate emergency response agency on line. This would function much the same way as 911 does now. If you call 911 to report a fire, as soon as the dispatcher hears 'fire' s/he immediatly cuts the call over to the Fire Department, usually staying on line at least long enough to find out if Fire will need police assistance on location. Why couldn't CHP do the same thing? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 07 Dec 95 11:54:17 EST From: Edward A. Kleinhample <70574.3514@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How interesting. If my car runs out of > gas or stalls on the highway, I can use one of those phones. On the > other hand, if there is a collision and a four-car pileup with a > couple of dead people and a couple of severely injured people I am > not to use those phones and instead am to walk or drive for a couple > miles looking for a 7/Eleven with some phones in the parking lot. PAT] Assuming of course that the 7/Eleven that you find does indeed have pay-phones, that the phones will allow outgoing calls (there are pay phones in Tampa, FL that won't -- to prevent drug trafficing), that they do not block calls to 911, that the phones still have cords and receivers (many in Tampa don't). I witnessed a traffic accident while driving through northern Tampa the other night. Being a good citizen, I pulled into a convenience store to call the police on a pay-phone (not a GTE phone), picked up the receiver and started dialing 9-1-... Before I could push the 1 key, a recorded voice stated that "outgoing calls are not permitted from this phone". I then preceeded to dial the operator, to which I received an automated recording instructing me how to dial various calls from this phone, or "hold for an operator..." About this time, a Tampa Police officer appeared on the scene and began sorting out what had happened. After about 30 minutes when things where about wrapped up, I spoke to the police officer and told her about the incoming-only payphone. He stated that this had been done to curb drug trafficing in the area. Please explain to me the logic in a pay-phone that allows INCOMING calls only! I don't imagine that the operator of the phone is seeing much revenue from this phone. It's a strange world that we live in! Ed Kleinhample 70574.3514@compuserve.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Ed, as I was reading your message and editing it for publication, I thought to myself surely that must be a typographical error; he must mean no INCOMING calls allowed. I was all set to write an Editor's Note asking you to sort this all out for me, and then I finished reading your message: you beat me to the punch. What kind of payphone does not allow OUTGOING calls? Perhaps they meant no outgoing COIN calls. That makes 'sense' in a non-sensical sort of way as part of the War on Drugs. There are lots of payphones in Chicago which are restricted to 'no coins after dark'. At the 7/Eleven here in Skokie the payphones outside all work normally at any hour of the day or night, but then this is sort of an upper-crust village. Everyone around here either buys their drugs from a fellow trader at the Commodities Exchange or the Board of Trade in downtown Chicago, or else they get them from a co-worker at the Federal Building there. Folks around here don't have to stand in the cold at an outside payphone waiting for a callback and some teenage guy to show up a few minutes later with their purchase. The other major outlet for drug selling and buying here is the Cook County Criminal Courts Building, where the sellers hawk their wares in the hallway right outside of 'Drug Court' and in the nearby men's room. On the 'Wanted by the Police' bulletin board in the lobby there, someone defaced the board by *gluing* on a picture of Al Capone with a caption reading, "The War on Drugs is the best thing to happen in America since Prohibition. I supported Prohibition and I support the War on Drugs. You should also!" But back to your payphone scenario: Some of those COCOT operators really don't have a clue do they ... first off, I don't think under the law any phone is supposed to be blocked from 911, and second, it does not require coins anyway. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 95 08:43:46 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: Roadside Boxes and Caller ID Pardon me for sending non-telecom material (although I will mention telephones later in this paragraph, but I did see you mention Hawaii Five-O. In a similar vein, I have heard (courtesy of the Nickelodeon cable channel) that the Dragnet series which originally aired 1967-70 was so realistic (*EVEN DOWN TO THE TELEPHONES ON THE DESKS*) that people would stop in at the real-life Los Angeles police department and ask to see Sgt. Friday! (According to Nickelodeon, the standard reply was "sorry, it's his day off".) (The main characters on Dragnet were Sgt. Joe Friday, played by Jack Webb; and Officer Bill Gannon, played by Harry Morgan, whom I remember from the earlier Pete and Gladys series.) Anyway, most (or all?) of these TV shows have the notice that the persons and events depicted in them are fictitious, and that any resemblance to actual ones is coincidental. However, I don't see this notice on the shows carrying the Desilu name, which was set up by Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz when they were still married to each other. It's a long story to explain that I Love Lucy took some things (not all) right out of real life. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, you have your dates wrong on Dragnet. It was on the radio originally, and I remember it on television in the early to middle 1950's. It was still Sgt. Friday of course, of the LAPD, and it was based entirely on true cases from police files. At the end of each program, after the bad guy had been put away, a gong would sound, and a solemn voice would tell us that " was found guilty on of by and sentenced to 85 years in prison (or something equally outrageous) in San Quentin, California. Then the gong would sound once or twice more. Now and then the solemn voice would tell us instead that the criminal had been sentenced to death and that on his punishment had been carried out in the gas chamber at San Quentin. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 09:41:50 -0800 From: david_mccord@ins.com (David McCord) Subject: Re: What's Wrong With Shielded Cable? In Telecom Digest #500 drhall@ix.netcom.com (David Hall ) writes: > In my reading about home ISDN they recommend catagory 3 or greater > unshielded twisted pair. Some warn against shielded cable (even for > POTS wiring). But I've seen no explanation of what's wrong with > shielded cable. I suspect you're puzzled why unshielded cable is recommended over shielded, even though unshielded is demonstrably inferior in several electrical test categories. This is generally because the marketplace contains much more unshielded than shielded. More products and services have been developed which use it. Also, if it is installed properly unshielded does have acceptable noise immunity. In the marketplace real-world large-scale structured cabling systems either a) include both types, or b) contain unshielded only. There are few (if any) systems that are unshielded only. Also, ISDN was engineered to work with POTS wiring. david_mccord@ins.com | This |International Network Services + 1 510 831 4743 voice| space for | San Ramon, California, USA + 1 510 743 3777 fax | rent | Network Systems Consultant ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #507 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Dec 7 17:49:59 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id RAA20500; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 17:49:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 17:49:59 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512072249.RAA20500@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #508 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Dec 95 17:50:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 508 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Law Enforcement Taking a Byte Out of Crime (Knight-Ridder via Tad Cook) AT&T vs. BellSouth InTRA-Lata Rates (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: PCS Service of Sprint (Garrett A. Wollman) PacBell and Ascend Present ISDN Seminar, Jan 17, SF (Cherie Shore) Re: Need Quick Advice on Coax Wiring of Home For TV, etc. (Al Mc Lennan) Re: Wireless Solutions for Roaming a Facility (Myron Jackson) Computer Network Survey (Linda Hergenhahn) Book Review: "Internet File Formats" by Kientzle (Rob Slade) Siemens S3COM Users Wanted! (Alex van Es) "Quick Quote": The National ISDN Availability/Pricing Database (E Seyfried) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Cook Subject: Law Enforcement Taking a Byte out of Crime Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 09:39:56 PST Law enforcement taking a byte out of crime BY JULIO OJEDA-ZAPATA Knight-Ridder Newspapers ST. PAUL, Minn. -- When Detective Chuck Esposito switched on his home computer and logged on to America Online last summer, he wasn't looking to catch any cyber-criminals. Like hundreds of other law enforcement officers around the country, he merely wanted to learn about the on-line universe and the range of illegal activities that are occurring with growing frequency there. Esposito -- who investigates crimes against children in Clearwater, Fla. -- had heard stories about pedophiles who enter electronic "chat rooms" to entice minors into sex. He planned a leisurely exploration of those live-conversation areas in the guise of 14-year-old "Karen." But within a week, the detective was thrust into a major on-line investigation involving federal and Minnesota authorities. The case culminated Nov. 16 with the arrest in Clearwater of 47-year-old Steven Stanley of Coon Rapids, Minn., who had allegedly traveled to Florida to have sex with "Karen." Esposito says he was shocked at how quickly events unfolded. "On the first day, (the suspect) asked me if I liked to `talk dirty' and described in graphic detail the sex acts he wanted to do with me," he says. "About a week later, he started sending me pictures of young children engaged in sex. "When he sent me child porn, he crossed the line." Esposito and his counterparts in other agencies also have crossed a threshold in the past year -- shedding their reluctance to adopt high-tech investigation methods and plunging into the rapidly evolving field of computerized law enforcement. From police departments and state attorney general office to the FBI and Federal Trade Commission, dozens of organizations are playing catch-up with criminals who have used computers and online-access methods for years. Computer-related crimes range from on-line pedophilia and electronic child-porn peddling to Internet scams, hacking attempts, industrial espionage and other forms of white-collar crime. All of these activities have been on the rise, says Scott Charney, head of the U.S. Justice Department's computer crime unit. "When you think about the rapid growth of the Internet, you have to expect a similar increase in the number of people who are abusing the Net," Charney says. "Historically, criminals have flocked to new technologies. That's what has happened here." Just as computers have expanded in the workplace, for instance, so has computer crime. A recent Michigan State University survey found that 98.5 percent of companies that responded had been the victims of a computer-related crime. "This is happening because of the phenomenal growth in computer networking and the (resulting) availability of information," says study co-author David Carter of the university's school of criminal justice. "Right now these incidents are happening more from within than without ... but I expect more hacking and `cracking' in the next couple of years." Minnesota -- partly by accident, partly by design -- has been heavily involved in efforts to combat computer crime. In the past month alone: Twin Cities authorities have helped investigate two unrelated cases involving on-line pedophilia. In addition to the Steven Stanley case, Kevin Mahoney, a St. Paul Cos. investment manager, allegedly tried to solicit sex from a minor -- this time, an actual teen-ager in Davenport, Iowa. Mahoney was arrested near his Burnsville home Nov. 6 after he made two trips to Iowa, allegedly to meet the girl. Iowa authorities are now seeking to extradite him. An Apple Valley teen-ager went on trial last week on charges that he used a computer to "hack" and damage the systems of the Greater Detroit Free-Net, a Michigan community on-line access provider. The youth -- who allegedly penetrated the Detroit system and others in Minnesota and around the world via an unauthorized University of Minnesota Internet account -- was charged with two felony counts of computer damage in April. Court proceedings in the case wrapped up Thursday. A judge's verdict is expected sometime this month. The Minnesota attorney general's office has continued its high-profile pursuit of on-line con artists. In July, Attorney General Hubert H. Humphrey III filed suit against six individuals and companies he claimed were operating scams on commercial on-line services and the Internet. Four of the suits have been settled. Another suit -- involving a Las Vegas businessman who had announced plans to operate an electronic sports bookmaking service, WagerNet, on the Caribbean island of Belize in an alleged attempt to circumvent U.S. laws -- is now winding through the Ramsey County civil court system. In an opening salvo on Thursday, Minnesota lawyers argued that they are entitled to records and other evidence from Kerry Roger's Las Vegas company, Granite Gate Resorts. The attorney general's office has called WagerNet "an illegal bookie operation." The lawsuit is apparently the first involving authorities in one state who claim they can sue a company in another state because of its electronic services, which can be accessed by computer users anywhere. According to WagerNet's Web page, customers in Minnesota or elsewhere will pay a fee for special hardware and software that will link their PCs to the service. "What constitutes `in Minnesota' is the key issue to be decided here," says Deputy Attorney General Tom Pursell. The pursuit of alleged on-line con artists has taxed the resources and ingenuity of state and federal investigators. The WagerNet case points to a troubling development: Because the Internet extends around the country and the world, Minnesotans are vulnerable to hundreds of inexpensively concocted scams perpetrated from faraway bases, often with impunity. "Because there's so much activity on the Internet, the attorney general's office has to set priorities," Pursell says. "We won't be able to investigate every fraud and right every wrong." The attorney general's office has another problem: It can't resolve its sixth and final cyberspace lawsuit because it can't find the plaintiff, who allegedly operated an illegal "credit repair" company via the America Online commercial network. Customers had requested the company's bogus credit repair kit by sending money to a private post office box, "which is the only way we even found out the guy was in Georgia," Humphrey says. "A suspicious clerk at the mail drop got a look at his license plates, but the plates didn't match the car -- they had been stolen or switched from another car." On-line anonymity will be one of the greatest hurdles for enforcement agencies that attempt to investigate cyberspace crime in coming years, Pursell says. "Many (criminals) can still be found because they publish a toll-free number or an address," he says. "But that will soon change. Transactions will occur entirely over the Internet, and it will become much harder to locate people who don't want to be located." For that reason, state and federal agencies are learning to share information about such cases. The Minnesota attorney general, for instance, has formed a national task force of attorney general offices that is studying computer crime and its ramifications. Meanwhile, Pursell and his colleagues have cultivated contacts at federal agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission, a civil agency that looks into fraudulent commercial practices. The commission is relatively new to on-line enforcement: It announced its first case, an investigation of another credit repair company, in September 1994. "That was a test case for us," says Lucy Harris, an assistant director for credit practices. "There's a learning curve when doing this kind of work. But the funny thing is, the scams don't change." Other agencies have been scrambling to keep up with computer-savvy criminals. Both the U.S. Justice Department and the FBI set up computer crime units in the early 1990s, for instance. The units initially focused on business-related crimes involving corporate computer networks, says Charney of the Justice Department. But in recent months, they have broadened their scope to include electronic crimes involving the Internet and commercial on-line services. In September, the FBI searched 120 homes and made several arrests as part of a two-year child porn and pedophilia investigation of America Online users. The raids marked the first time federal agents investigated the exchange of illegal materials on such networks. The FBI's computer crime squad even has its own page on the Net's popular World Wide Web (http://www.fbi.gov/compcrim.htm). "Kids coming out of school have an amazing degree of computer literacy, while many of our older agents are new to this area," Charney admits. "That's why we are recruiting graduates with computer science and telecommunication backgrounds." State agencies such as the Florida Department of Law Enforcement -- the equivalent of Minnesota's Bureau of Criminal Apprehension -- have been pioneers in computer-assisted law enforcement. The FDLE was the first in the country to establish a computer "forensics" department, which extracts data from confiscated computers, according to Merle Manze, an FDLE special agent based in Tallahassee. The agency also has set up regional task forces to nab computer criminals, including would-be pedophiles who use the pretext of a Florida vacation to seek out minors they have "met" online, according to Al Danna, a crimes-against-children investigator in Tampa and vice president of the Florida Association of Computer Crime Investigators. Danna, who has worked in law enforcement for 15 years, remembers a 1982 seminar in which an FBI agent "was telling us that pedophiles would soon be using computer record keeping and getting on computer bulletin board services. I remember thinking, `Yeah, right."' But a short time later, Danna was part of a Baltimore law enforcement team that apprehended an Air Force sergeant who had been luring teen-age boys into sexual encounters and keeping elaborate records on a computer. Because of their ignorance about electronic record keeping, the investigators needed the help of an Air Force technician to extract data from the sergeant's equipment, Danna recalls. A mastery of electronic skills is particularly vital when investigating pedophilia and child pornography cases because most now involve computers or on-line services in some fashion, says Donald Huycke Jr., head of the U.S. Custom Service's child pornography unit. "Pedophiles feel safer online because it's harder for law enforcement to track them down," says Huycke, who has seen an alarming increase in the frequency of such cases. "These guys spend big money on equipment and use all the latest methods, such as encryption and anonymous `re-mailer' services" to mask their identities. As a result, "law enforcement agencies are constantly playing catch-up," Huycke says. He laments the fact that child pornography investigations are considered "collateral" duties at the custom service's 150 offices around the country. Some agencies have been cutting back on such investigations. Frank Clark, an investigator at the Fresno, Calif., police department and a nationally known expert on computerized crimes against children, expressed dismay last month when his employer instructed him to focus primarily on white collar crime. "It's really sad because ... the number of (on-line pedophile) cases is increasing astronomically," he says. Minnesota's largest law enforcement agencies have yet to make computer crime a priority. The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension has investigated reports of on-line child porn peddling "on a situational basis" but does not systematically pursue computer criminals, says Michael Campion, the agency's director of investigations. "We're too short-handed with homicides and sexual assaults to monitor that kind of activity," Campion says. "It's very labor-intensive, and we simply don't have enough people." The Minneapolis police department, which has seen a record number of homicides this year, also steers clear of high-tech criminal investigations, according to spokeswoman Penny Parrish. "We get reports of computer-involved porn cases ... but we don't have any computers hooked up online," Parrish says. "We're too busy working immediate cases. We don't have the luxury of logging on and playing that game for weeks and months." But agencies such as the Minneapolis and St. Paul police departments are anything but technological backwaters. In the next two years, several Twin Cities enforcement agencies will make striking improvements to their electronic record keeping systems that will help them put more criminals behind bars. The St. Paul police department, for instance, is working with Hennepin County to create a metrowide "master name" database of information about criminal suspects, victims and witnesses. When the system becomes operational in 1996, it will help solve criminal cases more quickly because St. Paul investigators will have acce ss to information from several other departments, says Lt. Joe Polski, head of the department's records division. "In the past, we had to call each agency on the phone and ask them to look up the information," Polski says. "Now that the number of (law enforcement agencies) in the Twin Cities is well into the double digits, that just isn't practical." The St. Paul police department also is planning to equip squads with portable computers. Street officers would tap out their reports, "dock" their laptops at their neighborhood offices and upload the information to the department's network, Polski says. "But we have to make sure the laptops will hold up in our harsh climate," he adds. "It makes no sense to buy a bunch of stuff that won't work because of Minnesota winters." In Minneapolis, police are assembling an "automated pawn system" database that would collect information from city pawn shops, which would be required to submit data via modems on items they purchase. If approved, the system would "dramatically improve our ability to investigate property crimes and identify stolen items that move through pawn shops and second-hand dealers," says Lt. Phil Hafvenstein, commander of the department's license inspection unit. Other departments would be invited to subscribe to the service, he says. Minneapolis police would collect the information from pawn shops in participating jurisdictions and forward it to the appropriate enforcement agencies. Hafvenstein sees a day when the system goes metrowide and even statewide. Such cooperation among law enforcement agencies will be crucial in coming years as criminals become increasingly sophisticated, and as computers and on-line accounts become as common as televisions and cable television subscriptions, experts believe. Huycke of the U.S. Customs Service predicts that even mid-sized agencies such as the Minneapolis police department will eventually devote resources to computer-related crimes and forensics, and will collaborate with neighboring departments and federal agencies on on-line investigations. "Change is coming and we have to be prepared for it," Humphrey says. "State and federal law enforcers have to work with private consumer agencies and industry groups (to establish) safe, reliable and honest computer networks. If ever an issue calls for putting our collective heads and resources together, this is it." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 11:52:27 -0600 (CST) From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: AT&T vs. BellSouth InTRA-Lata rates Recently, AT&T (and other IXC's) has been on a marketing campaign stating that you can *save* over the local telco for inTRA-lata calls by using their 10-XXX/101-XXXX fg.D codes. (10-288/101-0288+ is AT&T's). The 504 areacode is composed mainly of two LATA's: New Orleans and Baton Rouge. The town/ratecenter of Pearlington LA (504-531, I think) is part of the Gulfport MS LATA, and the town/ratecenter of `South Osyka LA' (also in 504) is in the Jackson MS LATA. The New Orleans LATA also contains Crossroads MS (601-772). If I dial 1/0+601-772-XXXX, my call routes over BellSouth, since I didn't prefix it with a 10-XXX/101-XXXX code, even tho' it is out-of-state, and AT&T is my chosen carrier. We don't (yet) have a choice for primary carrier for inTRA-LATA calls here in Louisiana. Prior to 1991, we couldn't use 10-XXX fg.D codes for inTRA-LATA points. South Central Bell would block the call with "it is not necessary to dial a long-distance company access code when calling this number ...", but this only applied to fg.D forms of access. 1-800- and 950- forms of access via non-AT&T carriers would go thru that carrier at their rates okay; when AT&T established 800 access, sometimes they allowed inTRA-LATA calls but at Bell's rates, and the charges showed up on the Bell page- so I assume Bell would get the revenue, but sometimes AT&T refused to handle the call. In 1991 when the La.PSC permitted inTRA-LATA competition and ordered Bell to unblock 10-XXX+inTRA-lata toll, AT&T also completed the calls at AT&T's rates & revenue. Initially, I could dial 10-XXX+local seven digits. That only lasted for a few months in late 1991. I can *not* dial that combination now. I do subscribe to Bell's LOS (Local Option Service), a form of Extended Area Service. The first band outside of the *traditional* local calling area is `capped'- almost like monthly flat rate, while the outer band has large per-minute/mile discounts, but is *not* capped. LOS points are (presently) dialed as seven-digits without a 1+ nor with the 504 areacode, but *only* if you *choose* to subscribe to LOS. I am *not* permitted to dial LOS points as 1-504-NNX-XXXX (altho' I can dial them 0-504...). I am also not allowed to dial them 10-XXX/101-XXXX+1-504...), but I *can* dial them 10-XXX/101-XXXX+ seven digits! Of course, I will be paying an IXC rate. There are points in my LATA which still *are* toll. While LOS is available throughout the state, each coverage area is *not* LATA-wide. LOS bands also do *not* cross LATA-lines. A call from New Orleans to Morgan City is in the LATA, but is outside of *my* LOS coverage. I choose to dial Morgan City from home as 10-288+1-504... via AT&T. The rates are cheaper, and I also subscribe to AT&T's True Savings plan. I wouldn't place calls to LOS capped or uncapped points via 10-288+ (seven-digits), since while I do subscribe to AT&T's True Savings, the Bell LOS package is even cheaper. Local calls will always be dialed by me via Bell, since I don't pay per-minute charges. I only wish that I could access Bell with an 800 number for use at COCOT payphones where the COCOT dials out to *their* AOSlime carriers even if I entered 0+504+seven-digits local. In Louisiana, Bell's calling card rates for traditional local area calls are 88 cents FLAT. AT&T (and the other IXC's charge _by_the_minute_ for card, opr.assisted, and if Bell continued to allow it- 10-XXX-1+ access). So, while it does appear that AT&T (and other IXC's) *are* indeed less than Bell for inTRA-LATA toll- and Bell is better for local, and LOS if you subscribe to it, you would think that AT&T would be cheaper than Bell for a call to Crossroads MS from New Orleans LA. Not so -- I called a Bell operator (single 0-) last night and inquired to the rate (all three time-periods) for a 1+ call from 504-241 to 601-772. At first, I was told that this was a call handled by a long-distance company. I told the Bell operator that Crossroads MS *is* in my LATA, and it is identified as such in the front of the phone book. When she still didn't even *try* to look up the rate or see if it was in the LATA, I asked for a supervisor. The supervisor did eventually try to get the rate -- and Bell's rate is approx. 19 cents/minute for day. When I asked an AT&T operator (10-288)-00, I found out AT&T's 1+ day rate is 26 cents/minute! AT&T's evening/holiday and night/weekend rates are also about 7 cents more than Bell's are! Incidently, prior to the PSC order in 1991 to unblock 10-XXX intraLATA toll, I was always able to dial 10-XXX+1/0+601-772-XXXX for Crossroads MS, ever since we had equal access dialing (1984/85 timeframe). The call always did route and bill over the dialed 10-XXX carrier, with them getting the revenue! This is an inTER-State but inTRA-LATA situation. It also happens to be a different NPA. It is the only one with respect to my home exchange. There are many other situations like this all over -- BTW, Bogalusa LA (NPA=504, in the New Orleans LATA, but toll to me -- not even in my LOS) is Bell *local* with respect to Crossroads MS. Lata lines, state lines, NPA boundaries, and local calling boundaries do not necessarily fit into neat patterns. There is all kinds of overlap. Switch/wirecenter boundaries and their assoicated NPA-NXX codes and local calling areas, and state/political boundaries didn't always fit neatly prior to the breakup of `The Bell System'. It seems like it will get even more confusing with local competition, as well as with continual splitting of areacodes. These days, it might be necessary to call various LEC and IXC operators or customer service centers to determine the cheapest rates -- prior to dialing -- and Bell can *even* be cheaper than AT&T for actual toll (non-local) calls! and then know the right access codes/prefixes to dial! MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@rs6.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ From: wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett A. Wollman) Subject: Re: PCS Service of Sprint Date: 7 Dec 1995 12:53:59 -0500 Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Hassan wrote: > So what else is better in PCS which is not available in > cellular. Quality of service, size and weight of phones, battery > charge holding time, any other that you can think of is either same or > better in cellular. Umm, you forgot about the most obvious and important one: privacy and security. Garrett A. Wollman wollman@lcs.mit.edu ------------------------------ From: cashore@PacBell.COM (Cherie Shore) Subject: PacBell and Ascend Present ISDN Seminar, Jan 17, SF Date: 7 Dec 1995 18:13:21 GMT Organization: Pacific Bell Pacific Bell and Ascend Communications will jointly present an ISDN seminar, on the evening of January 17, from 6:30-9pm. The seminar will take place at the Pacific Bell facility at 370 3rd St, San Francisco, and will include an overview of ISDN services and applications, a review of Ascend's ISDN products, and a demonstration of Internet access using the Ascend Pipeline 25 at 128kbps. To reserve seats, call Linda at 408-493-7732. Cherie Shore cashore@pacbell.com ISDN Technology Manager, PacBell ------------------------------ From: ljm3@lehigh.edu Subject: Re: Need Quick Advice on Coax Wiring of Home for TV, etc. Date: 7 Dec 1995 13:22:24 -0500 In article , noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes: > (Note that followup discussion has been set to rec.video.cable-tv and > sci.electronics.misc) > We're in the process of finishing our basement, and before it is > finished and everything sealed up, I want to install coax lines to > many of the rooms in the basement as well as upstairs rooms (from the > basement line). The coax lines of course will be used for television, > maybe FM, and who knows, maybe even a computer line. For TV/FM, the > source would either be cable, an antenna, or a satellite dish (right > now we're using an attic antenna). > Being a mechanical and not electrical engineer, I'd like advice as to > how to wire it properly. What type/size of coax to use, fittings, > etc., as well as the layout of the wiring. My engineering sense tells > me that if I don't design it properly, the signal could be adversely > affected throughout the whole house. Or am I being overly-cautious > here? Don't put splitters behind walls, i.e., run uninterrupted cable from each outlet to a central accessible place where you can connect amplifiers or splitters at leisure. Go to Radio Shack, where they will sell you what you need and tell you how to do it. Al McLennan ------------------------------ From: epgg66@email.mot.com (Myron Jackson) Subject: Re: Wireless Solutions for Roaming a Facility Organization: Motorola Derivative Technologies Division Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 18:26:02 GMT In article , Robohn Scott wrote: > We're looking for a solution to the following situation: tech support > staff roam about an office and need easy access to their incoming > phone calls. They can forward their calls, but this gets bothersome > and tedious after you have to reset forwarding the second, third, > fourth time that hour. Cellular reception is very poor in some areas > of the building, so that doesn't look like an option. Check out or Site Call solution on Motorola Derivative Technologies Division at: http://www.mot.com/MIMS/PPG/org/dtd/index.html Click Products and Services/SiteCall. This software product was developed specifically for the roaming on-site employee. Myron Jackson Motorola Inc. ------------------------------ From: Linda.Hergenhahn-1@pp.ksc.nasa.gov (Linda Hergenhahn) Subject: Computer Network Survey Date: 7 Dec 1995 18:47:29 GMT Organization: NASA - KSC I have been asked to create a survey to send to all network users in the organization I work for. The survey is supposed to elicit information about how network users feel about the network, what needs they have, what problems they have, etc. Unfortunately, I know very little about networks. Can any of you computer/network literate readers suggest good questions to ask and/or topics to address? Any help would be sincerely appreciated! E-mail to: linda.hergenhahn-1@kmail.ksc.nasa.gov Thank you! Linda ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 11:51:51 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Internet File Formats" by Kientzle BKINTFLF.RVW 951128 "Internet File Formats", Tim Kientzle, 1995, 1-883577-56-X, U$39.99/C$54.99 %A Tim Kientzle kientzle@netcom.com %C 7339 East Acoma Drive, #7, Scottsdale, AZ 85260 %D 1995 %G 1-883577-56-X %I Coriolis %O U$39.99/C$54.99 800-410-0192 602-483-0192 fax 602-483-0193 sbounds@aol.com %P 397 %T "Internet File Formats" Most Internet guides give a passing reference to archive file types with which the author may be familiar. And most (70%, if the studies can be believed) Internet users stick to plain, readable text. But MIME and XXencode happeneth to all accounts, and the variety of different types of files can be bewildering, even to seasoned Internauts. Kientzle has arranged this work into sections dealing with text and documents, graphics, compression and archiving, encoding (binary to printable), audio, and video. While not exhausting all possibilities, he covers the most widely used formats, and everything that all but the most specialized user is ever likely to see. Each chapter, usually covering a single format, gives some background; advice on when to use (or not to use) the format, and how; some details on the algorithms and/or data structure. Where the format is not universal, pointers are generally given for programs on alternate platforms, although the directions in these cases could be more specific. For the average Internet user, this book may be bigger, and more technical, than desired. Advanced Internauts will likely find it both interesting and handy. For the Internet trainer or support person, it is "must have" information. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995 BKINTFLF.RVW 951128. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest. DECUS Canada Communications, Desktop, Education and Security group newsletters roberts@decus.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca Rob_Slade@mindlink.bc.ca Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94311-0/3-540-94311-0 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 17:31:12 GMT From: Alex van Es Subject: Siemens S3COM Users Wanted! Hi all, I am looking for people that are currently using the Siemens S3-COM phone for the GSM network. When I plug the phone into the charges, the display starts flashing when the phone is online, is this normal? The salesguy told me so when I called him.. but a guy at Siemens wasn't so sure of it (but couldn't give a sure answer) ... so ... anyone outthere? Alex Alex@Worldaccess.NL, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands Phone:+31-55-5421184 Pager:+31-6-59333551 (CT-2 Greenpoint) Voicemail: +31-6-59958458 GSM:+31-6-53398711 ------------------------------ From: Eric Seyfried Subject: "Quick Quote": The National ISDN Availability/Pricing Database Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 13:47:01 -0800 Organization: INfax Services, Ltd. "Quick Quote" is a National ISDN and Switched 56Kbps availability and pricing database available from Network Implementation Services Corp. If you're interested in finding out whether or not ISDN is available to your office or residence NIS's "Quick Quote" can tell you. Check out the NIS Web Site at http//www.insgroup.com/nis/qwikquot.htm. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #508 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Dec 8 08:15:01 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA04978; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 08:15:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 08:15:01 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512081315.IAA04978@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #509 TELECOM Digest Fri, 8 Dec 95 08:15:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 509 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson When the LD Network Went Down (Lawrence M. Casse) BellSouth and the Local Competition Follies (Tom Horsley) Stock Market in Computer Parts (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Re: PCS Service of Sprint (Paul Judge) Re: PCS Service of Sprint (Shane M. Potter) Re: PCS Service of Sprint (lr@access5.digex.net) Re: Voice Mail Features We Would Like to See (Brian Brown) Re: Want to Buy Predictive Dialers (Brian Brown) Re: 800 and 888 Number Abuse (Nicholas Spill) Re: Call Me Cards (Steve Forrette) Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users (E. Ewanco) Re: What's Wrong With Shielded Cable? (Bud Couch) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: resonanc@terraport.net (Lawrence M. Casse) Subject: When the LD Network Went Down Date: Thu, 07 Dec 95 19:35:58 GMT Organization: TerraPort Online Inc. (416) 392-3050 It was in January 1990 that the AT&T network went down for several hours in the afternoon. I believe there was also a second incident in 1991 when part of the east coast went down. The first incident was blamed on bugs in switching software from DSC Communications, I believe. I have heard several conflicting versions of the story, one of which was that a colon was missing in somes lines of software, another that a Capital A had been substituted for a lower-case a in some lines of code-a common problem in Unix. It seems that the incident has achieved the status of an "urban legend" with conflicting versions of the story. My questions are: What were the real causes of the incidents? What in the opinion of experts is the likelihood of this happening again, if not to AT&T, then to another LD carrier? I understand that the FCC keeps records of carrier's "downtimes": where can I obtain this info? Lawrence Casse Resonance Capital Corporation resonanc@terraport.net ------------------------------ From: tom@ssd.hcsc.com (Tom Horsley) Subject: BellSouth and the Local Competition Follies Date: 05 Dec 1995 13:12:24 GMT Organization: Harris Computer Systems Corporation Reply-To: Tom.Horsley@hawk.hcsc.com The Headline: AT&T and MCI have just sued BellSouth because BellSouth has decided to give Floridians a good deal. The background: With local competition just around the corner in South Florida, BellSouth recently got approval (with massive public support, I might add) for a new rate structure. Instead of charging outrageous prices billed per minute (as they have done for years with short haul long distance charges), they will now charge a flat 25 cents per call for long distance calls within the South Florida area (regardless of the time the calls take). Without question, they did this because they knew Floridians have felt ripped off for years (its hard not to feel ripped off when it is cheaper to call New York than West Palm Beach :-) and were anxiously awaiting the opportunity for local competition so they could dump BellSouth em-masse. (The state of Florida has passed its own telcom deregulation bill which implements local competition -- the state got tired of waiting for the feds to get their act together :-). With this new plan, people still resent the past, but an awful lot of them (me included) are willing to forgive and forget because it is such a good deal. The lawsuit: Today, the Palm Beach Post reports that AT&T and MCI have just filed suit against BellSouth trying to block implementation of the new plan. They claim that the prices BellSouth charges them for access to the local lines would make it impossible for them to compete. It wouldn't surprise me if that were true (although I note that Sprint hasn't joined the suit), but consumers (like me) want to know why they are suing to block our good deal instead of suing to make BellSouth give them a better deal on local access? Could it be that they only want to compete if that means they can split outrageous profits and they aren't interested in competition that means giving consumers a good deal? Anyway, all the local activists who fought so long in favor of the 25 cent plan are really annoyed at AT&T and MCI. It wouldn't surprise me to find large numbers of Floridians switching from AT&T or MCI to Sprint or some other carrier that isn't involved in the lawsuit (in fact, the other carriers might want to get some ads on the air quick promising not to sue :-). Tom.Horsley@mail.hcsc.com Home: 511 Kingbird Circle Delray Beach FL 33444 Work: Harris Computers, 2101 W. Cypress Creek Rd. Ft. Lauderdale FL 33309 ------------------------------ From: rishab@infinity.c2.org (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Subject: Stock Market in Computer Parts Date: 3 Dec 1995 19:14:55 GMT Organization: Community ConneXion: http://www.c2.org/ 510-658-6376 > In article , bill@interactive.ns.ca > (Bill McMullin) wrote: [angst elided] >> How could anything produced in such mass quantity cost so much? If >> they are trying to make use believe it is a commodity subject to >> supply and demand, why isn't it traded on the stock market? (Maybe it >> is, help me here.) Why aren't computer parts traded as on the stock market? Well ... there's one place I know they are. In India, a "grey market" in smuggled computer parts accounts for over a third of total hardware sales. The parts are bought from factories in Taiwan, Singapore or Malaysia, and smuggled into the country to avoid very high import duties. As the smugglers have an advanced form of just-in-time delivery, demand and supply rule the prices. Last week, I traded in my two drives -- 440 and 540Mb, about six months old -- for a brand new gigabyte drive, and MADE $100 in the process. How? Well, 1Gb drive prices have crashed over the past several months, leading grey market operaters to stock up on them. However, the buyers don't know this yet, and are perhaps intimidated by the large storage capacity, and still want 540Mb drives. The price of these drives had also fallen, but now there aren't any of them on the market, so the price has shot up. The result is that the difference between 1Gb and 540 is only $80 -- for a few weeks. I timed my purchase well, so I made money! Incidentally, 1Gbs go for a little above $300 here. See http://dxm.org/techonomist/palegrey.html for an analysis of India's grey market in computer hardware. The Indian Techonomist - newsletter on India's information industry http://dxm.org/techonomist/ rishab@dxm.org Editor and publisher: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh rishab@arbornet.org Vox +91 11 6853410; 3760335; H 34 C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 19:14:21 -0800 From: pjudge@ix.netcom.com (Paul Judge ) Subject: Re: PCS Service of Sprint In the article submitted yesterday (Re: PCS Service of Sprint), Hassan incorrectly stated that 'Quality of service, size and weight of phones, battery charge holding time, any other that you can think of is either same or better in cellular.' Though I recognize that PCS can be viewed as simply up-banded cellular, there are a few important distinctions which need to be pointed out. Lets look at the issues Hassan raised: Quality of Service - Everybody has their own definition of quality of service. The mobile phone salesman is going to try to convince you to buy a digital handset because DIGITAL is 'better quality.' The heavy user of cellular service who tried DIGITAL will tell you that much of the tone (some people call it voice recognition) of a conversation is lost. They are both right. A properly configured digital system should provide a cleaner stream of voice information, but some of the tone is lost due to the voice sampling rate of digital. Though some may prefer the subtleties of voice over analog cellular, many will appreciate the added capacity of digital PCS at those peak busy hours in those most congested spots. If you try to compare digital cellular to PCS, you will also find that the higher frequency range of PCS affords marginally better quality of service while both suffer from a similar voice sampling degradation. Size and weight of phones -- I have been told that the higher frequency range of PCS allows for smaller circuitry, but if the PCS phone is a dual mode with cellular, the difference may be nil. However PCS phones should be able to have a smaller battery for the same talk time. Battery charge hold time -- Because of the air interface techniques used in digital cellular/PCS, battery life is significantly extended for both standby and talk time. There are differences between technologies (CDMA, TDMA, GSM/DCS1900) and due to the tendency to have more cells in a PCS network, a PCS phone should have longer a longer life then both its analog and digital cellular cousins. Any other that you can thing of -- Cellular is hindered by their legacy network, systems, and customer equipment. PCS gets a fresh start with all the new technologies and does not have to be concerned with backwards compatibility. It is kind of like Windows and Macintosh. Also, a small note to add regarding the reference to GSM and Sprint. Sprints overall plan is reported to be the deployment of a CDMA technology standard, and the use of a GSM standard in the Washington DC -- Baltimore region is due solely to the acquisition of American Personal Communications (APC) from {The Washington Post.} Paul F. Judge The Walter Group, Inc. 140 Lakeside Ave., Suite 100 Seattle, WA 98122 (206) 328-0808 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 15:52:51 +0000 From: shane potter Subject: Re: PCS Service of Sprint Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd. In article , Hassan wrote: > GSM has a flaw and it's priority calls would not be handend off to > other sites, which is the case for cellular at present time. > Hasan Can you explain what you mean by this sentence? Not only do I not understand the basic premise of what you're trying to say (GSM not handing over priority calls correctly?), but the construction of your sentence implies that current cellular service suffers from the same flaw (which I'm certain is not what you were trying to say). Thanks, Spotter Shane M. Potter spotter@bnr.ca GSM Field Support ------------------------------ From: lr@access5.digex.net (Sir Topham Hatt) Subject: Re: PCS Service of Sprint Date: 7 Dec 1995 16:01:43 GMT Organization: Intentionally Left Blank Speaking of PCS ... Has anybody heard news of an attempt by the PCS industry to get federal pre-emeption of state and local zoning/planning review on siting of towers? Originally, PCS was sold with the idea of lots of relatively low towers, even more so than existing cellular. I've been watching a lot of the 456 reviews (a process labeled after the section of the state code that deals with the siting of utilities and other "public" here that one of the PCS providers has been submitting and it would seem that they are engineering the system pretty damn similarly to existing cellular strategies. ------------------------------ From: brianb@cfer.com (Brian Brown) Subject: Re: Voice Mail Features We Would Like to See Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 16:16:07 GMT Organization: ConferTech, international franz@inf.ethz.ch (Michael Franz) wrote: > Wouldn't it be a nice option if some of the answering machine software > packages that are available for PCs could compress incoming voice > messages, encrypt them, and then send them out again as email? ------stuff deleted --------------- > Any phone software developers listening? Yes. I see a problem: Typical (large) email message: 4Kb. download time for 4K on 14.4 modem: 5 seconds Typical (small) phone message: 30 seconds. 6KHz 8bit ADPCM compression (pretty tight, poor quality): 100K. download time for 100K on 14.4 modem: 80 seconds. Note: It takes longer to download the files than to listen to them! I have some questions: A) Your PC must stay on and must either be always connected to the internet (expensive!) or have a way of dynamically connecting when it has messages to send (e.g. UUCP) Does it delete the messages after it sends them to the internet? If so, then you run the risk of being forced to rely on the internet to get your messages, even if you're standing next to your PC. B) Do any providers in your area already offer voicemail-email transmission? Just wondering. Finally, a suggestion: In the states several telcos offer voice messaging, which is basically voicemail for your home phone. If you are indeed travelling this often, you may want to investigate options like this. Even if the local PTT doesn't offer it, busy and na forwarding to a voicemail box is a great way to handle it. Then you can get your "voice mail" (really home messages) via a (potentially) cheaper call. Just my thoughts, Brian Brown ConferTech, International ------------------------------ From: brianb@cfer.com (Brian Brown) Subject: Re: Want to Buy Predictive Dialers Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 16:29:13 GMT Organization: ConferTech, international phoneroom@aol.com (PhoneRoom) wrote: > Does anyone know of a used predictive dial system that is available > for sale? I am most interested in a Melita Phoneframe but would > consider others. Any info would be appreciated. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: These devices are an extreme nuisance > for the people being called. ---- stuff deleted ------ I would refer both of you to the article on page 48 of {Computer Telephony} magazine, Volume 3, Issue 11 (November 1995) entitled "Predictive Dialers (Not Just Collections Anymore)". It is an interesting article describing the true goal of predictive dialing. If you are willing to pay the big bucks and staff accordingly, the dialer puts the call through _as soon as it hears "hello"_ so you can't tell. If you've gotten telephone solicitations that sounded like the person called you from large companies recently, there's a good chance that was the case. There are other uses besides the annoying "cold calling" telesales agenda: credit card companies may use it to call lists of folks who haven't paid their bills; sales followup ("how do you like our product so far") calls can be done this way as well. Admittedly, however, the vast majority of uses of these dialers are used for nuisance calls. Brian Brown ConferTech, International ------------------------------ From: ntp@netrunner.net Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 12:28:04 -0500 Subject: Re: 800 and 888 Number Abuse Your recent article by Bob (bei@dogface.austin.tx.us) prompts me to report my latest solution to multiple repeat callers who are abusing or harassing inbound telemarketing staff. I have coordinated the telethon COMIC RELIEF for the last nine years; all seven of them and this year was the first time we have OCDD/RT. I have gone away to AT&T for training on this service when it foirst came out and have used it for almost two years on other clients to great effect. This time for COMIC RELIEF VII (it airs again this month on HBO one and and as repeats) we had OCDD/RT set up with all RNs loaded. (I used call allocation RCS2 and other features with multiple call centers - all of which worked superbly). Every 1/2 hour I would pull a report on 'prank calls/multiple callers' and give the phone numbers to a specially trained staff (thankfully we only needed one person this time) who would then call each number and in a very calm tactful manner identify herself as calling from COMIC RELIEF and ask if the caller had a problem gaining access to an operator to make a donation. (Because HBO subsidizes the live show -- all monies raised, 100% -- from the live show goes to Health care for the Homeless.) This 'soft' approach worked wonders and I will expand it for future telethons I organize. The 'culprits' all apologized for the multiple attempts but complained about the content of the show -- yes the show had some raunchy aspects but the idea is to keep the phone lines open for bona fide donors -- if you want to complain about bad language -- write a letter to HBO. Or if you don't like a particular performer for whatever reason change the channel! One young lad was discovered by his mother making repeat prank calls to COMIC RELIEF when she swore he was tucked up in bed. (She checked and found out he wasn't!) Use of ANI for call backs to question callers why they are calling so many times is to some people controversial (and I am sensitive to these issues) but if these multiple callers are using up valuable resources (in effect stealing dollars from the homeless) -- then such efforts to stop them are justified. If this approach, level headed, non threatening and very controlled, is spread, then we should see a reduction of such prank callers. However bear in mind I grew up reading Orwell's 1984 and Kakfa -- so I am paranoid about goverment and 'big brother' interfering in what I do in the pricvacy of my own home -- hence I hit these callers with a velvet glove -- it worked -- using infomration from OCDD/RT for a positive change in behaviour from such callers. The other advantage to this approach is that we got these callers to express why they were doing this behaviour and this had the efect of stopping such dialing. Thanks, Nicholas Spill Telemarketing consultant Email address: ntp@netrunner.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for your report. We have long known that when callers/users know that *we know* who they are, the amount of trouble caused is virtually zero. Someone I know who runs a BBS here makes extensive use of Caller-ID to keep track of his users. When his line first answers, the first question it asks of new users (after getting their name) is 'please enter your full ten digit phone number'. Now, he has the caller-ID on most of these people already but he wants to see if they are basically truthful or not. He does not tell them he has it. He waits to see if they enter the same number he sees or not. If they enter a number that is different than what the caller-ID says, he asks them a second time more firmly, 'please enter the phone number you are actually using right now to place this call.' If they still lie a second time then he responds, 'sorry, I don't have resources to take you on as a new user at this time. Try one of several other popular BBS lines in the area.' He then disconnects them. If they call in as 'private' and their name is not otherwise recognized as an established user, he gives them the same response. In the event the call shows up as 'out of area', he asks them for their phone number, and compares it against a list of what phone numbers should and should not 'look like', i.e. 123-4567 is not a valid number, nor are all zeros, etc. He does accept these 'out of area' new users provided they pass the phone number 'litmus test' in those instances. He says it is fun to be there when a new caller tries to gain ad- mission and watch how they lie. Once a new member is accepted on his BBS he gives them a short text file which says essentially that he allows complete freedom of speech, etc. He said that once new callers become aware that he has Caller-ID, they behave themselves marvelously. And that is all he really wants; not to censor them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Forrette, Steve) Subject: Re: Call Me Cards Date: 7 Dec 1995 20:15:16 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn In article , EL406045@BROWNVM.BROWN. EDU says: > I got two similar items in yesterday's mail: four calling bird... ah, > cards from Bell Canada, and an application form for one from BT in the > UK. > The four Bell ones are Call Me cards, consisting of my phone number > and a four digit PIN (the same on all four cards). > The obvious question that comes to mind is what happens if someone > tries to use this card to call other than my number? Clearly Bell's > own database will reject such attempts, but what about the various > lesser foreign telcos (Integratel?) who accept the card? If I posted > the PIN publicly, would I be liable for charges made to other than my > number? There are indeed security holes with the "Call Me" cards (at least there have been in the past). In particular, ComSystems (10555 in the US I believe) did not honor the restricted nature of the Call Me cards. So, anyone who got a hold of your PIN could call anywhere they wanted to on ComSystems, and the charge would appear on your bill. I went around and around on this issue a few years ago with Pacific Bell. Although technically I suppose you're not responsible for unauthorized charges on your bill, the problem was that Pacific Bell had no way of knowing which PIN was used to place a particular calling card call. So, since I had both a Call Me and a regular (unrestricted) PIN on the same line, the billing department said "Well, you must have used the unrestricted one to place these calls, since the Call Me one wouldn't have worked!" Just to see what would happen, I ordered a Call Me card only on one of my data lines, then placed a test call via ComSystems. When the bill came, I disputed it. This time, customer service could see that there was no unrestricted card on the line, and looked into it further. The issue got escalated, and I ended up talking with some person in "carrier relations" at Pacific Bell that handled issues with the independent carriers that sign up with Pacific Bell to bill charges on the customer's Pacific Bell bill, and also subscribe to the shared calling card database. She said that the contractual requirement is that any carrier that they bill calling card calls for must validate the PIN against the database at the time the call is placed. (earlier, they had problems with some carriers not subscribing to the calling card database, and letting calls go through with *any* four- digit PIN -- they put a stop to this). This particular issue of validating the PIN (which they were doing, because any PIN other than the unrestricted one or the Call Me one didn't work), but not honoring the "Call Me" restriction, was a grey area. The conclusion we came to was that they were supposed to honor it, and they were violating their contracts by not doing it, but in reality, nobody was policing it and nothing was likely to get done about it unless it became a large problem. Also, you should be aware that with a Call Me card, it can be very expensive to receive calls. Consider that a Call Me card in the shared LEC database (which Bell Canada participates in) can be used to call the restricted number from, among other places, the in-flight telephones on commerical airlines, at $2.50 per call and $2.50 per minute. Also, it may be possible to use it with the Bell Canada's equivalent of CallUSA(tm) from any number of foreign countries. If you really want to be able to control your costs and minimize the fraud potential, 800 service is the best option, IMHO. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: eje@xyplex.com (Eric Ewanco) Subject: Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users Date: 07 Dec 1995 15:45:37 -0500 Organization: Xyplex In article danny burstein writes: > 3) Apply a non-subscriber service charge of $.40 per message to domestic > Interlata interstate dial station calls originated from residential lines > which are presubscribed to an interexchange carrier other than AT&T, or not > presubscribed to any interexchange carrier. This charge is in addition to > the inital period charges applicable to calls from points in the Mainland > and Hawaii to points throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. > Virgin Islands. These charges are effective on December 1, 1995. This is so bogus! It really angers me how they are trying to evade the whole purpose of equal-access dialing by imposing arbitrary restrictions on those who do not presubscribe. I really don't understand why they want to do it, because it brings them more business. It is like they are attempting to discourage people from choosing AT&T freely. And why does it only apply to residential lines, not business lines? (Incidentally -- what is a "message"? A minute? Is there any information on filing objections with the FCC or other authorities over these changes? Are these approved, or still under consideration? Can anyone point me to something on the FCC web site (http://www.fcc.gov) that might have this notice and information on what we can do about it? Eric Ewanco je@world.std.com Software Engineer, Xyplex Inc. Littleton, Mass. ------------------------------ From: bud@kentrox.com (Bud Couch) Subject: Re: What's Wrong With Shielded Cable? Organization: ADC Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 20:59:16 GMT In article david_mccord@ins.com (David McCord) writes: > In Telecom Digest #500 drhall@ix.netcom.com (David Hall ) writes: >> In my reading about home ISDN they recommend catagory 3 or greater >> unshielded twisted pair. Some warn against shielded cable (even for >> POTS wiring). But I've seen no explanation of what's wrong with >> shielded cable. > I suspect you're puzzled why unshielded cable is recommended over > shielded, even though unshielded is demonstrably inferior in several > electrical test categories. Actually, except for the test categories of "emi radiation/susceptablity" and "crosstalk", unshielded cable is superior. > This is generally because the marketplace contains much more unshielded > than shielded. More products and services have been developed which use > it. Also, if it is installed properly unshielded does have acceptable > noise immunity. Shielded cable has a big problem for high-speed data transmission: the capacitance loading per foot is *lots* higher. At T1 rates, for instance, acceptable line lengths are more than an order of magnitude *lower* for shielded cable, which is why it is used only for short runs within buildings. Because of this factor, ISDN data equipment has been designed (translation: the manufacturers have busted their pick) to work acceptably with unshielded wires. > In the marketplace real-world large-scale structured cabling systems either > a) include both types, or b) contain unshielded only. There are few (if > any) systems that are unshielded only. That's funny, I could have sworn that the entire telephone network running T1 used unshielded cables. May not be what you were thinking of, but it certainly qualifies as a "real-world large-scale structured cabling system". > Also, ISDN was engineered to work with POTS wiring. *Both* types; basic and primary.;-). Bud Couch - ADC Kentrox bud@kentrox.com (192.228.59.2) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #509 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Dec 8 08:58:06 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA07464; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 08:58:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 08:58:06 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512081358.IAA07464@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #510 TELECOM Digest Fri, 8 Dec 95 08:58:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 510 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Need Help in Modem Bank Capacity Planning (Robert Wolf) Re: Bandwidth Over POTS/Twisted Pair - Shannon (Rupert Baines) Re: Bandwidth Over POTS/Twisted Pair - Shannon (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: Bandwidth Over POTS/Twisted Pair - Shannon (Mark McAllister) Re: Hotel Long Distance Charges (Stephen Tell) Re: Oldest 1AESS Cuts (was: Re: Limits to Redialing?) (Al Varney) Re: Sprint Spectrum PCS System (kriston@ibm.net) Re: PCS Service of Sprint (David Boettger) IVTTA Workshop - Call For Papers (Murray F. Spiegel) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Wolf Subject: Re: Need Help in Modem Bank Capacity Planning Date: 7 Dec 1995 22:14:53 GMT Organization: Millennium Telecom jlnichol@ffx.mobil.com (Jeff Nichols) wrote: > I'm looking for a formula or software tool to calculate the number of > modems and phone lines that should be allocated for peak usage. The > scenario would be that the users dial in to a modem bank for ten > minutes each, three times a day. The total number of users is 600. How > many modems/lines should I have so the caller would not get a busy > signal more than one time in five minutes? Which formula or where can I > find a utility to do this calculation. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I assume you are unable to specifically > assign them their time periods. For example, User 309, you call in > at 8:10 AM, 2:40 PM and 7:55 PM. Are you going to have to deal with > them calling at their pleasure, as 'things' occur which prompt them > to call? PAT] The scenario you described sounds like the traditional telephone facility requirement scenario. If you assume a call holding time of 10 minutes (as specified), you have 18,000 call minutes per day. You did not specify how long the day is. The longer the day, the fewer facilities you need. Several tables have been developed to determine these facility requirements, based on what happens to blocked calls (calls that receive busy signals). Erlang B tables assume that blocked calls go away, Poisson tables assume that blocked calls wait for a while, then go away, Retrial tables assume that some percentage (usually 70%) of blocked calls retry, with the remainder going away. Your scenario sounds like Retrial tables would be most appropriate. Blocking in these tables is usually specified as a percentage of all calls. For example, assuming an eight-hour day a Retrial table specifies that you need: for 1% blocking 66 lines for 2% blocking 63 lines for 5% blocking 60 lines The number of lines is not linear. Assuming a 16-hour day: for 1% blocking 49 lines for 2% blocking 47 lines for 5% blocking 44 lines All tables assume a random distribution of call arrivals. Robert Wolf Millennium Telecom http://www.keyconnect.com/millennium 818-790-7339; Fax 818-790-7309 !robertwolf@attmail.com Consulting in Voice, Video, and Data Communications ------------------------------ From: Rupert Baines Subject: Re: Bandwidth Over POTS/Twisted Pair - Shannon Date: 8 Dec 1995 01:06:21 GMT In article michael petsalis, petsalis@bnr.ca writes: > I've been trying to figure out what it is about POTS that limits the > usable BW to around 3400 Hz, which ultimately, according to Shannon, > limits the capacity of the channel to around 35 Kbits/sec. Since > twisted copper pair has a much higher BW, I presume that there is some > device on the line that limits the BW to the voiceband (someone > mentioned loading coils). > Is this device on every POTS line? How is it that we can take that > same copper pair and put ISDN on it at 144 Kbits/sec or more? Do these > devices need to be removed? How is it that we can put Mbits/sec over > the same copper pair with ADSL? I'm clearly missing something here ... You are on the right lines, but there's one extra piece of information you'd overlooked. There is a big difference between the circuit created by the network and the *physical* bandwidth of the wires. The network hierarchy builds on a 4kHz bandwidth (ish); a dial up modem that fits into that space is limitted to about 30Kbps (depending on conditions etc) but then it can travel across the world "transparently" as the system treats it just as if it were a voice call in the same BW (Oversimplifying a bit, but roughly true). On the other hand the *physical* BW of the copper pair connection between you and the network -- whether you define that as the exchange (Central Office) or kerbside unit is very much bigger -- Megahertz. Depending on how far you go (attenuation is severe as you go up, RFI is a problem), if the network knows about it (so it can select switching with right capacity)then you can use that bigger BW to carry more data. ISDN is 80KHz, HDSL uses much more, ADSL uses 1.1MHz to get 6Mbps a few miles, and VDSL ("ADSL on steroids") will use several MHz to get up to 51Mbps a few hundred yards. So it isn't so much a "device" as the "system" that sets your 4kHz. And that can, and will, change. But Shannon still applies of course :) Incidentally, one of the neast things of ADSL is that it deliberately avoids the POTS bandwidth, so your existing phone and fax co-exist smoothly with the higher rate. Rupert Baines ADSL Product Marketing Analog Devices ------------------------------ From: fgoldstein@bbn.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Bandwidth Over POTS/Twisted Pair - Shannon Date: 8 Dec 1995 05:37:41 GMT Organization: Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc. In article , gareth@sectel.com says... > In article is written: >> I've been trying to figure out what it is about POTS that limits the >> usable BW to around 3400 Hz, which ultimately, according to Shannon, >> limits the capacity of the channel to around 35 Kbits/sec. Since >> twisted copper pair has a much higher BW, I presume that there is some >> device on the line that limits the BW to the voiceband (someone >> mentioned loading coils). The copper wire isn't the limiting factor. It's a *network design* issue. The telephone network is designed for voice, which requires up to 3.4 kHz or so to be intelligible. Everything else falls out of that. So on the old analog (FDM) multiplexors used on microwave, coax and even some twisted pair, channels were 4 kHz apart, using single sideband transmission. On modern digital systems, voice is sampled at 8 kHz, which per the Nyquist limit guarantees that nothing above 4 kHz will go through. Given the need for actual filters to prevent 4 kHz and above from going into the coders, the bandwidth slopes down pretty steeply beginning around 3.4 kHz, though some newer filters go closer to 3.7 kHz. > Loading coils were a feature of the long lines in the States but not, > I understand over here in Brit land. Loading coils also set a limit, of course. They essentially turn the line into a low-pass filter tuned to 4 kHz. This dramatically improves performance in the 2-4 kHz range and of course wipes out everything much above 4 kHz. That's a design feature, not a bug. Loaded wires are used for pairs beyond around 18000 feet, which is why ISDN was designed for that distance (it works on most old unloaded pairs). Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein@bbn.com +1 617 873 3850 ------------------------------ From: mmcallister@tri.sbc.com (mark mcallister) Subject: Re: Bandwidth Over POTS/Twisted Pair - Shannon Date: 7 Dec 1995 23:06:51 GMT Organization: sbc tech. resources In article , michael petsalis wrote: > I've been trying to figure out what it is about POTS that limits the > usable BW to around 3400 Hz, which ultimately, according to Shannon, > limits the capacity of the channel to around 35 Kbits/sec. Since > twisted copper pair has a much higher BW, I presume that there is some > device on the line that limits the BW to the voiceband (someone > mentioned loading coils). > Is this device on every POTS line? How is it that we can take that > same copper pair and put ISDN on it at 144 Kbits/sec or more? Do these > devices need to be removed? How is it that we can put Mbits/sec over > the same copper pair with ADSL? I'm clearly missing something here ... Good question - I was confused myself on this for a while. At COs, POTS lines are treated as voice lines. The signals are digitized in channel banks at 8 kHz sampling rate, based on Nyquist and a presumed 4 kHz maximum frequency. To avoid aliasing the lines must be low-pass filtered. This is where the bandwidth limitation occurs; loading coils are not that commmon. Mark McAllister Southwestern Bell Technology Resources ------------------------------ From: tell@cs.unc.edu (Stephen Tell) Subject: Re: Hotel Long Distance Charges Date: 7 Dec 1995 13:56:45 -0500 Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill In article , rob.m.saiter wrote: > While staying in a hotel in Chapel Hill, NC last week, I was charged a > _long distance surcharge_ to call a number in near by Research > Triangle Park, NC. The hotel's number is 919-909-xxxx while the > number I called is 919-558-xxxx. According to the front desk manager, > the hotel has no choice but to impose this outrageous fee since the > local phone company considers calls within the 919 area code but > between different counties to be long distance. I was finally able to > have the charge removed from my bill by arguing that because I was > only required to dial 9, 558-xxxx without using the area code, I was > not aware that the call was long distance. In short, I think the hotel manager was feeding you a line and trying to make a buck. If the hotel wanted, they could just charge the measured rate listed below. 919-909 is not listed at all in my 1994-95 Chapel Hill phone book (the 1995-96 one just came out, and mine isn't handy). The 1995-96 university phone book lists 919-909 as "Raleigh". But whatever, for the past few years there has been a "Triangle Regional Calling Plan," with six bands based on distance. Originating from Chapel Hill, these bands with the measured rate are: band distance 1st minute/each additional daytime rate. home exchange $.03/$.02 * band 1 0-10 miles (no cities in this band) band 2 11-16 $.10/$.07 band 3 17-22 $.12/$.08 band 4 23-30 $.14/$.09 band 5 31-40 $.19/$.12 band 6 41-55 $.23/$.14 The prefixes for each band are listed in the front of the phone book; 919-558 in RTP is band 2 from Chapel Hill. * "home exchange" is all of the Chapel Hill prefixes, and is measured at $.03/.02 with the "thrifty caller" plan, which is $5.50 per month residential, $14.80 business non-key, $15.35 for key system, $26.35 PBX, and $13.45 ESSX. Home exchange is flat rate with the "community caller" plan. Per month: $10.83 residential, $29.10, $29.65, $51.89, and $26.69 business, respectively. Also, the Durham 408 prefix and RDU airport 840 prefixes are unlimited flat rate with this plan. As for dialing plan, all of these "band calls" are dialed with seven digits, at least from a residential line. Here at work, on a PBX behind a university Centrex line, all but the "home exchange" prefixes have to be dialied 1+10 digits, (or with a calling card for personal calls). I'm not sure if this dialing plan difference is a function of the phone company or of our PBX. Steve Tell tell@cs.unc.edu W: +1 919 962 1845 Research Associate, Computer Science Department, UNC@Chapel Hill. Who needs 3-D television when you've got live theatre? -me ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp4.ih.att.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: Oldest 1AESS Cuts (was: Re: Limits to Redialing?) Organization: AT&T Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 00:07:17 GMT In article , Les Reeves wrote: > Ed Ellers (edellers@shivasys.com) wrote: >> (A side note: I was told by an AT&T person on comp.dcom.telecom.tech a >> few months ago that the Succasunna 1ESS was replaced with a 5ESS a >> couple years ago. That switch was designed to last forty years in >> service; it remains to be seen if any 1ESSes will be in that long.) Two points: 1) There are no TELCo-operated No. 1 ESS switches left in service anywhere. Frontier (nee Rochester Tel) turned off the last one last year. Or was it early January of this year? I know it was a few months before May, 1995, because that would have made the 1 ESS lifetime an even 30 years (Succasunna cut over in May, 1965). The 1A ESS will be lucky to make 25 years (2001). 2) Succasunna went to 1A ESS several years ago, prior to replacement by a 5ESS switch. Maybe 1983?? Both No. 1 and 1A ESS switches were designed with forty-year service lives. It's likely even the 1A ESS (and the remaining 2B ESS switches) will be gone in ten years, but that's not due to any fault of the switches. (Maybe I'm just another in a long line of folks predicting the "end of the 1A ESS is near".) The economics of switching have changed, and that drives system life more than anything else. If I recall correctly, one of the hardest forty-year objectives was in assuring that contact resistance would remain low, and contact force stable, for several hundred circuit pack insertions over time. This had to address the relaxation characteristics of the string contacts on the circuit boards and the creep in plastic housings. These are not zero-force insertion MIL-spec connections -- hence the need for 24K gold plating on the contacts. And it forced the circuit board to have the spring connector, not the backplane. (Circuit boards don't have to last 40 years -- the backplane connector is much harder to change, and so must last longer.) The 1 ESS switch could use the older mechanism of putting the springs in the connector because of much wider contacts and contact spacing requirements. >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The first ESS in Chicago was on the >> near north side in the Chicago-Superior office in 1972. Then the >> downtown area was converted in a couple parts during 1974-75. It >> was installed throughout the city by 1983. PAT] Chicago-Franklin was the first 1A ESS switch in service (Oct. 15, 1976). And it's also been replaced (subsumed into an existing 5ESS switch, if I remember correctly). As have most of the first 12 1A ESS switches I helped install (actually, I was mostly doing on-site training of the installers). > On Saturday, Nov. 11, the 1AESS in Peachtree Place in Atlanta, GA was > cutover to a 5ESS. This switch was originally installed as a #1ESS in > the second or third quarter of 1969. It was upgraded to a #1AESS in > 1978. It has been in continuous operation since 1969. Was this a new 5ESS switch, or did you just add the 1A customers to an existing switch? My understanding was that some of the Courtland St. 5ESS switches are huge, replacing two or three other switches in the building. > This was the first #1ESS installed in Atlanta. I believe it holds > the record for longest continuous operation of a #1ESS in the US. That's only about ten years (1969-1978). Succasunna cut over on May 30, 1965, and couldn't have converted to 1A ESS until 1978 (cause that's when we retrofitted the first 1A processor at Folsum Street in San Francisco). So Succasunna was a 1ESS for at least 12.5 years -- more likely 18 years or so. Al Varney - just my opinion [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You mentioned the conversions in downtown Chicago in the middle 1970's. Were you around this area then doing some of the work? Wasn't Chicago-Superior cut over before anything downtown? Maybe my memory is failing me after twenty years. I do know it was wonderful the day my phone (312-939 in the Wabash office) went ESS. The old panel system or whatever it was absolutely was awful near the end of its life. Rumors were that knowing it was on the way out, they did absolutelty no routine maintainence on it for the last several months it was in service. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kriston@ibm.net Subject: Re: Sprint Spectrum PCS System Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 02:32:26 GMT Organization: Nut Screws and Bolts - Film at 11 Reply-To: kriston@ibm.net Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Mobile has taken on an interesting negativity campaign against the new Sprint Spectrum digital cellular service. The advertisements mock the Sprint digital service primarily because you can't use it outside of the greater Washington/Baltimore area. They don't mention the unique features of Sprint Spectrum, such as text messaging, two-way paging and others mentioned in the previous post, plus the competive rates. They do have a point, but they don't try to address the other differences between the service. I guess the campaign was either a rush job or perhaps they could only find one problem with the new Sprint service? One new service that Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Mobile just implemented was service in the subway (the Metro, as we call it), though it's not clear if the service is in the stations or in the tunnels themselves. Quotes from the ads: "[When roaming] you may as well be talking into a banana." "Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Mobile has a very open system..." Open system? I guess they must be talking about cloners and scanning eavesdroppers. Through all this, I'm waiting for radio stations in the tunnels, myself. Kriston Kriston@IBM.Net Washington, DC http://152.163.199.22/kjrehberg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 06:27:00 -0600 From: david boettger Subject: Re: PCS Service of Sprint Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd. In article is written: > Today, I went to a local electronics shop (Best Buy) and saw about > Sprint Spectrum (Personal Communication System) Is this service > what we call PCS? The salesman told me it only covers DC and Baltimore [...] > and Paging services. It sounds very good to me. But before I start, I > would like to hear from you about the pros and cons of this service. > Are other phone companies offering this service? > In case of Sprint service, the only disadvantage is the service doesn't > cover wide area like normal cell service. It seems to be no roaming > service. The salesman told me the service is only available DC area > now. The service you describe is offered by APC - "American Personal Communications", which is partially owned by Sprint, and marketed under the Sprint name. APC was the first "PCS" operator to go live in the US (last month). The technology is upbanded GSM/PCS1900. Currently, you won't be able to use the phone anywhere but in the Baltimore/DC area, but as more GSM-based 1900 MHz systems go live, you'll be able to roam farther. Something to consider is that GSM will not be the dominant standard at 1900 MHz. CDMA and IS-136 (DAMPS with digital control channel) will cover more of the US than GSM (including Baltimore/DC), so if roaming is of prime concern, GSM might not be the best choice. If you're not going to roam much, the features are better than AMPS, and the cost is the same as or lower than AMPS, go for it. David Boettger Richardson, TX boettger@bnr.ca BNR 214.684.1750 ------------------------------ From: spiegel@din.bellcore.com (Murray F Spiegel) Subject: IVTTA Workshop - Call For Papers Date: 8 Dec 1995 10:52:11 GMT Organization: Speech Technology Research Group (Bellcore) Reply-To: spiegel@bellcore.com CALL FOR PAPERS THIRD IEEE WORKSHOP ON INTERACTIVE VOICE TECHNOLOGY FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS APPLICATIONS =-=-=-=-=-=-=-= September 30 - October 1, 1996 The AT&T Learning Center 300 N Maple Ave Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 USA Sponsored by the IEEE Communications Society The third of a series of IEEE workshops on Interactive Voice Technology for Telecommunications Applications will be held at the AT&T Learning Center, Basking Ridge, New Jersey, from September 30 - October 1, 1996. The conference venue is on 35 semi-rural acres and is close enough (one hour) for side trips to New York City. Our workshop will be held immediately before ICSLP '96 in Philadelphia, PA, approximately 80 miles from our location. The IVTTA workshop brings together application researchers planning to conduct or who have recently conducted field trials of new applications of speech recognition, speaker indentity verification, text-to-speech synthesis over the telephone network. The workshop will explore promising opportunities for applications and attempt to identify areas where further research is needed. Topic areas of interest: - ASR/verification systems for the cellular environment - User interface / human factors of applying speech to telecommunications tasks - Language modeling and dialog design for "audio-only" communication - Experimental interactive systems for telecommunication applications - Experience in deployment & assessment of deployed ASR/verification systems - Text-to-speech applications in the network - Speech enhancement for telecommunications applications - Telephone services for the disabled - Architectures for speech-based services Prospective authors should submit one-page abstracts of no more than 400 words for review. Submissions should include a title, authors' names, affiliations, address, telephone and fax numbers and email address if any. Please indicate the topic area of interest closest to your submission. Camera-ready full papers (maximum of 6 pages) will be published in the proceedings distributed at the workshop. Due to workshop facility constraints, attendance will be limited with priority given to authors with accepted contributions. For further information about the workshop, please contact: Dr. Murray Spiegel, Bellcore, 445 South Street, Morristown, NJ 07960 USA Phone: 1-201-829-4519; Fax: 1-201-829-5963; E-mail: spiegel@bellcore.com For full information, visit our web page: http://superbook.bellcore.com/IVTTA.html Send abstracts (fax or email preferred) to: Dr. David Roe IEEE IVTTA '96 AT&T Bell Laboratories Murray Hill, NJ 07974 USA Phone: 1-908-582-2548; Fax: 1-908-582-3306 E-mail: roe@hogpb.att.com SCHEDULE Abstracts due (400 words, maximum 1 page): Mar 15, 1996 Notification of acceptance: May 1, 1996 Submission of photo-ready paper (maximum 6 pages): Jun 15, 1996 Advance registration to be received before: Jun 15, 1996 Late registration cut-off: Aug 30, 1996 IVTTA '96 Evening welcoming reception: Sep 29, 1996 IVTTA '96 Conference: Sep 30 & Oct 1, 1996 WEB PAGE Check our web page for late breaking news and developments: http://superbook.bellcore.com/IVTTA.html REGISTRATION INFORMATION Early registration (prior to June 15, 1996): Day-only: $390 Full: $650 Late registration (Jun 15 - Aug 30, 1996): Day-only: $465 Full: $725 IEEE members: charges are $25 less Additional proceedings: $25 Day-only registration includes all technical sessions, welcoming reception, lunches, snacks, banquet, and a copy of the proceedings. Full registration includes all of the above plus: dinner on evening of arrival, breakfast both days, two nights lodging at the conference center, and use of the center facilities (jogging track, exercise center, pool, etc). WORKSHOP COMMITTEE GENERAL CHAIR REGISTRATION & FINANCE Candace Kamm Dick Rosinski AT&T Bell Laboratories AT&T Bell Laboratories cak@research.att.com rrr@arch4.att.com PROGRAM CHAIRS PUBLICITY David Roe Murray Spiegel AT&T Bell Laboratories Bellcore roe@hogpb.att.com spiegel@bellcore.com George Vysotsky LOCAL ARRANGEMENTS NYNEX Science & Technology David Pepper george@nynexst.com Bellcore dpepper@bellcore.com INTERNATIONAL STEERING COMMITTEE Sadaoki Furui, NTT PROCEEDINGS Matthew Lennig, BNR Jay Naik David Roe, AT&T Bell Laboratories NYNEX Science & Technology Christel Sorin, CNET naik@nynexst.com George Vysotsky, NYNEX ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #510 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Dec 8 09:52:02 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA10883; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 09:52:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 09:52:02 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512081452.JAA10883@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #511 TELECOM Digest Fri, 8 Dec 95 09:52:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 511 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Nevada Bell to Eliminate Flat Rates! (Mike P. Storke) Re: Voice Mail Features We Would Like to See (Hendrik Rood) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Mark J Cuccia) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Tony Harminc) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Scott Plichta) Re: Ok, it's December 1st ...? (John Sullivan) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Jack Adams) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Ron Schnell) Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (Steve Forrette) Area Code 904/352 Split (raltpa@aol.com) Re: Citibank Screen Phone Pilot (Christoph F. Strnadl) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: storkus@heather.greatbasin.com (Mike P. Storke) Subject: Nevada Bell to Eliminate Flat Rates! Date: 8 Dec 1995 07:53:41 GMT Organization: Great Basin Public Access UNIX, Reno, NV (Little brother to Pacific Bell, and still under the umbrella of Pac Telesis) can't be the only intra-lata telco to be thinking about this. Have fun with the hysteria and paranoia! I heard from a reliable source at Nevada Bell today (I'm not gonna say who because I have the feeling this likely shouldn't have leaked out, though it's importance to all dial-up data users is too much to keep quiet about) that over the next couple of years, they will be eliminating flat rate access. The reason given is that data users tend to tie up the switches too much. Normal design on a switch traditionally has been a four to one ratio. That is, a maximum of 25% of the lines coming into an office can be switched before busy-out occurs. However, lately, a three to one ratio (i.e., 33%) has been being used, according to my source, mainly because of switch load by dial-up data users. This is logical: not only do true dial-up users spend at least, typically, an hour MINIMUM on line, but there are many circuits used like leased lines, and thus are on ALL the time -- thus eliminating a switch that could be used for other, voice traffic. My understanding is that business (of course) flat rate billing will be phased out in a year to a year and a half, with residental following some time later. While this may seem a long way away for you, in reality, it's probably much closer than you think. As soon as businesses (all internet providers, and most bbs's fall under this classification on their phone lines) have to pay by the minute, guess what -- SO WILL YOU!! Furthermore, think how outrageously high your phone bill will get. BBS'S AND DIAL-UP INTERNET PROVIDERS WILL BE ELIMINATED (or seriously cut back) BECAUSE PEOPLE WON'T BE WILLING TO PAY THE HIGH RATES!! Now I've been thinking about this for a while today. My source has the suggestion that tariffs for leased lines be reduced (he pointed out the price of a T-1 is cheaper than a 56K line right now!) to eliminate people using switched lines in a dedicated mode, and I agree. However, I'd go a little further by doing the following: 1. 2 wire full-duplex leased lines. Most all modems are designed for this, and ISDN is, too. My knowledge of ISDN protocols is limited, but I'd say that if the ability for 2 NT-1's to talk directly exists, tie them together with "dark copper" (i.e, nothing but battery on the line). Same for modems. If the loops are on different central offices (CO's), do the necessary trunk terminations. If a bank of these devices (I'll call them "battery" and "trunk terminators", respectively) can be installed, it's basically a "set and forget" setup, and is certainly cheaper than installing new switches. 2. Raise flat rate tariffs. I know no one likes this idea, but dial-up will always be around, and metering data communications will kill the industry for all but business customers (and even they will be seriously affected, especially internet providers). This flat-rate line can be renamed a "modem line" or something, and, in bad areas, can be conditioned. Since most internet providers are probably using Centrex, maybe making it some sort of "Classic Centrex" offering (the same way ISDN is done now) would be the way to go -- a small, dedicated switch for data and any other essentially non-switched, high-use traffic. The bottom line here is something that no telco anywhere in the world can ignore: Using dial-up for data will not go away -- in fact, it will only get worse. Trying to make it go away by eliminating flat-rate tariffing will only hurt or even shut down industries that revolve around it, not to mention creating one of the biggest public relations scandals since Intel's Pentium FPU bug. It must be worked around and dealt with. *Mike P. Storke N7MSD Snailmail: 2308 Paradise Dr. #134 * *Inet: storkus@heather.greatbasin.com Reno, NV 89512-2712 * ------------------------------ From: hrood@xs4all.nl (Hendrik Rood) Subject: Re: Voice Mail Features We Would Like to See Date: Thu, 07 Dec 95 21:15:20 GMT In article , franz@inf.ethz.ch (Michael Franz) wrote: > I travel a lot and can get to my email from many places in the world > via the internet, for a relatively low local access charge. However, > when I want to check my answering machine at home, I need to make an > expensive long distance call. > Wouldn't it be a nice option if some of the answering machine software > packages that are available for PCs could compress incoming voice > messages, encrypt them, and then send them out again as email? This > would probably even be practical for every-day life, as I could get > the messages from my home phone at work over email, instead of having > to call home and check. This looks as a good idea but just remind the costs. Sending out a one Mbyte file over the international part of the Internet costs around $1 here via various IP-providers (we do have competition in that area!). A phone converation of one minute on a voice mail system results in a compressed file of 60 seconds * 8 kbit/s = 60 kByte. This means it is indeed cheaper than calling international over continents (USA is around $1 pro minute via call-back resellers). But just look at your connect times (local calls are metered). And you see it is not so much cheaper than voice. > Any phone software developers listening? I have heared rumours in the market about voice mail systems that can do this type of messaging and distribution lists too. I think there is not so much difference in costs between an Internet-solution and a voice-mail system solution. I just do not see voice-mail providers yet doing the store and forwarding of voice mail on a nation-wide basis, but that might come faster to the market than a lot of people think now. Because this is a really useful feature for the travelers market. ir. Hendrik Rood Stratix Consulting Group BV, Schiphol NL tel: +31 20 44 66 555 fax: +31 20 44 66 560 e-mail: Hendrik.Rood@stratix.nl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 10:41:23 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Over the weekend (Fri.Dec 1st thru Sun.Dec 3rd), I had several people out-of-LATA/state (and even within the LATA but toll) try to call me via AT&T, MCI, etc. For the most part, I got `out-of-area' on my ID Box. When I tried to call others via AT&T, MCI, etc. I was also coming up as `out-of-area'. If I used *67 (11-67) to make my number `private', I would still ring a line even if they had Anonymous Call Rejection, aka `Block the Blocker' as well as come up `out-of-area'. In early November, I had someone call me from Minneapolis via AT&T, MCI, etc. MCI *was* delivering the number, and something like MNNSTPMNZN1, MN for the name part of the ID box. AT&T just had out-of-area. Sunday afternoon, I called AT&T's repair dept (800-222-3000), and was told that it was not them, but it was BellSouth that was not delivering CID info to or from AT&T's switches. The repair rep. said that she was getting complaints all weekend from people all over the country but it was only for calls originating and/or terminating in a BellSouth area. Last night, I *did* receive the number, and the ratecenter (city) for the name on the Minneapolis call, via AT&T & MCI. WilTel (or whatever reseller is associated with WilTel, 10-555), Allnet, Sprint, and others just came in as out-of-area. There was a report on the local newsblock on WTIX Radio Monday morning about inter-LATA/state Caller-ID. A BellSouth spokesman stated that if the call *both* originated *and* terminated in BellSouth territory (where CID is available on both switches), the *name* of the caller would be displayed, but if both ends of the call weren't in BellSouth, only the number would show (with the city/state displayed in place of the name). It seems that a BellSouth database *is* checked for name if inter-LATA but only if both ends of the call is BellSouth. I would hope that all RBOC/LEC's would *eventually* allow each other to access each other's LIDB databases for CID name, regardless of the IXC or LEC's involved in the call. BTW, while BellSouth told me that `Block-the-Blocker' should eventually be available to me at *no* additional charge, I am still getting a `reorder' tone when I try to activate it with *77 (11-77), or enter the deactivate code *87 (11-87). Usually, if a Custom-Calling /CLASS/Vertical *XX code is not available in my switch (altho' the code may have a `standard' Bellcore assignment), my #1AESS switch gives me a recording "call cannot be completed as dialed -- please check your _instruction_manual_ or call the _business_office_ for assistance" and not a reorder. MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@rs6.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Dec 95 13:53:47 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Jim Hebbeln wrote: > The calling party's name, once the IAM's calling number is received in > the called party's CO, is obtained by the terminating CO by using > SS7's Transaction CAPability (TCAP) to query the RBOC's Line > Information DataBase (LIDB), which usually responds back in ~300-500 > milliseconds with the 15-character name that is transmitted to the > CallerID unit (if the Presentation Indicator doesn't block it). The > LIDB is the same database that keeps track of each line's Calling Card > PIN (if any), the line's class (Residence, Business, Coin,...), > Collect and Third Number Billing blocking, and now CallerID name. How many LIDBs are there? I've been getting calling numbers on many calls from the US for over a year, but never a name. But I routinely get names and numbers on calls from other telcos in Canada, e.g. on calls from Vancouver and Calgary to my home in Toronto. So is there one US LIDB and one Canadian? Is there no facility for a terminating CO in one country to talk to the LIDB in the other? If the same LIDB holds calling card PINs, then it would seem doable, since international calling card use generally works fine. Are there separate Presentation Indicators for number and name? Bell Canada's tariff has the option of displaying PRIVATE NAME while still transmitting the calling number. Are they simply setting the name in the LIDB to "PRIVATE NAME", or is there actually a presentation indicator that would in theory allow the name through while blocking the number? On the timing, does the terminating CO overlap the LIDB lookup with starting the first ring ? If it doesn't, then presumably calling name delivery effectively adds 300-500 ms to call setup time. Tony Harminc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 95 09:03:31 EST From: splichta@instalink.com (Scott Plichta) Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? I live outside of Philadelphia (Bell Atlantic). I still get local caller-ID, they didn't break anything. When I call from work and force the call using 10ATT, the caller ID shows up. Calls from Maryland (301)371-xxxx over AT&T, get the dreaded "NO CID NMBR", as well as calls from Salt Lake City over MCI. I know both switches are SS7. OK, so when is the next date that we can try this and watch it fail??? (and these guys want to deliver me 500 channels and pay-per-view .... no thanks.) Scott Plichta Western Interactive Media Wayne, PA 19087 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Someone wrote me and said the date for full compliance had now been set forward to next June! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 95 09:22:44 GMT From: John Sullivan Subject: Re: Ok, it's December 1 ..? Well, once again I showed myself to be a lousy prophet. FCC apparently did exactly what I didn't think they'd do. Instead of issuing a blanket stay, they issued a series of narrow waivers. (I have to stop doing this sort of thing in public before my subscribers realize I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, and I'm out of a job). This is from the 12/1 edition of my "sister publication" {Communications Today} since, as I previously noted, I took 12/1 off. (To celebrate Nationwide Caller ID Day, of course!) ====================== NOT ALL CUSTOMERS WILL SEE INTERSTATE CALLER ID PASS-THROUGH At 5:30 p.m. yesterday (11/30), the FCC announced several limited stays of its CC Docket No. 91-281 rules requiring the pass through of Caller ID information between carriers beginning today (12/1). Customers will have to check with their local exchange and long-distance carriers to see if interstate calling-party numbers (CPNs) can be received at their Caller ID display units. Availability may have been affected by one of the following stays: (1) Interexchange carriers with certain DSC Communications Corp. [DIGI] and Northern Telecom [NT] switches have until March 31, 1996, to comply; (2) California local exchange carriers (LECs), still embroiled in state regulatory negotiations regarding effective consumer education programs on Caller ID privacy options, have until June 1, 1996, to comply; and (3) Telcos with switches lacking "custom local area signaling service" capabilities have Jan. 1, 1997, to upgrade those switches to recognize CPN blocking and unblocking requests. In the meantime, these telcos must suppress CPN transport to interconnecting carriers from these switches. Other limited stays, including one delaying the effectiveness of the rule requiring the recognition of the *82 unblocking code for carriers with Siemens Stromberg Carlson DCO switches, also were granted. ===================================== So basically, interstate Caller ID is now in place, but with so many loopholes that it may be hard to tell for a while. I haven't yet dug into this with anyone from FCC yet, but part 1 interests me. I'm not sure if this means they can just skip the whole thing, or if they're supposed to pass it where they can but are off the hook for a given call if that call happens to pass through one of these switches. I would think that all the major IXCs could point to an example of just about any switch you care to name _somewhere_ in the network. BTW, our esteemed editor said, regarding getting numbers on calls from California: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is odd you say this, because I have > gotten calls from 415 where the area and number was shown, and some > where it was 'private'. Maybe some carriers are free-lancing out there > and doing things the way they want. PAT] CPUC is in fact currently investigating one of the smaller IXCs (I _think_ it's Wiltel, but I may be misremembering) for passing the numbers of customers in the state. This apparently was taking place well before 12/1. John Sullivan ------------------------------ From: jacka@ffast.ffast.att.com (Jack Adams) Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Organization: AT&T Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 10:20:39 GMT In article , Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote: > I was curious to know how exactly do names appear in CID. Is the name > drawn from the telco's billing records, or from a user-created directory > in the CID box (like similar features in, for instance, the Nokia 2110 > cellular phone)? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: From telco billing records, such as > they are. We have read some rather funny 'names' here in recent > weeks as this thread has progressed, such as Mr. Pay Phone. PAT] Rishab, Pat, and others, The name actually comes from each originating LEC's Line Information DataBase (LIDB for you acronym fans). Jack Adams AT&T Bell Labs:Rm 3E-137:185 Monmouth Parkway W. Long Branch, NJ 07764-1994:jacka@ffast.ffast.att.com 908.870.7051 908.870.7286 [FAX] AN EXPERT: Anyone >50 miles from home...Alan Ableson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Dec 95 08:52:09 EST From: Ron Schnell Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Well, here in BellSouth land (Miami, FL) I have been receiving out-of-state CID properly from all of the majors except Sprint. I've had people call from several different states, through several different carriers, and Sprint definitely isn't working. Ron ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Forrette, Steve) Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement Date: 7 Dec 1995 20:24:42 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn In article , PAT wrote: [ original message about incoming-only payphone deleted ] > Perhaps they meant no outgoing COIN calls. That makes 'sense' in a > non-sensical sort of way as part of the War on Drugs. There are lots > of payphones in Chicago which are restricted to 'no coins after dark'. There was a pair of payphones (genuine US West no lesS) at a local gas station here in Seattle that were disabled after dark for a period of time. And I mean completely disabled. There was even a sign posted above the phones in the booth that said "These phones disabled after 10pm. If you have an emergency and need to call 911, please see the gas station attendant inside." I couldn't believe it! Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am going to take a wild guess and suggest US West had nothing to do with that at all ... that the phones were being killed by the proprietor of the gas station for whatever reason. I doubt that US West has any tariff on file at all which calls for that situation and a sign hanging over the phone telling people that 'if you need to call 911, see the attendant inside.' It sounds like some monkey-business with the phones by the people who run the station. PAT] ------------------------------ From: RALTPA@aol.com Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 01:12:17 -0500 Subject: Area Code 904/352 Split A Bellsouth ad on 12-3-95 in the Tampa paper announces that the split of 904 into 904 and 352 is effective that date (12-3-95) with the transition period extending thru 5-20-96. Test calls can be made to (352) 848-0517 toll free. Pretty standard ad except that in the list of 904 NXX's changing to 352 they show an NXX of 065. My attempts to call (352) 065-xxxx from (813) 689 result in the recording: We're sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialed ... Any idea what 065 is or is this a goof from Bellsouth Public Affairs? Dick raltpa@aol.com ------------------------------ From: cstrnadl@austria.cp.philips.com (Christoph F. Strnadl) Subject: Re: Citibank Screen Phone Pilot Date: Fri, 08 Dec 95 11:12:29 GMT Organization: Philips C&P Austria/VAN Services rmorse@qds.com (Robert D. Morse) wrote: > Does anyone have any information on Citibank's screen phone banking > application in New York? I know that they are using the Philips > P100-A screen phone but little else. I would like to know: You may try to contact either Citibank or PHS Inc. (Philips Home Services) directly: Citibank: Ms Laurie A Fettinger, Director Access Services New York, NY, (212) 559 0580 PHS Inc: Ms S. Vladeck, Director Marketing 8 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803 (617) 238 3440 Christoph F. Strnadl, Product Mgmt/VANS PHILIPS C&P / VAN Services Tel: +43 1 60101/1752 FAX: +43 1 6023568 cstrnadl@austria.cp.philips.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #511 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Dec 8 17:18:16 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id RAA17219; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 17:18:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 17:18:16 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512082218.RAA17219@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #512 TELECOM Digest Fri, 8 Dec 95 17:17:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 512 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson You Ought to be in Pictures (Kelly Breit) Wireless Solution for Roaming a Facility (Robert Wolf) New Wiring Suggestions (Barry Roomberg) Re: Sprint Spectrum PCS System (Shri Balachandran) Re: Sprint Spectrum PCS System (Michael G. Reed) Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users (J. Grout) Re: "Abuse" of 800/888 Numbers? (Robert Wolf) Re: 800 and 888 Number Abuse (Roger Wells) Re: What's Wrong With Shielded Cable? (Kevin Paul Herbert) Re: Clarifying the FCC Order on Calling Number Services (Mike Morris) Re: Wireless Solutions for Roaming a Facility (Tayeb Damerji) Re: Wireless Solutions for Roaming a Facility (Robert Wolf) Re: What Has *NOT* Yet Changed With Areacodes (Scott Robert Dawson) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 14:54:01 -0600 From: kelly.breit@netalliance.net (Kelly Breit) Subject: You Ought to be in Pictures For further information, contact: "You Ought to be in Pictures" Rick Smolan and the team that created the "Day in the Life", "From Alice to Ocean" and "Passage to Vietnam" photography books, want to shoot you and your friends! They're looking for the best examples about how Cyberspace is changing peoples lives all over the world and if they like your story they may send one of the world's top photographers to shoot pictures of you on Thursday, February 8, 1996. On that day over 1000 photographers armed with digital cameras will be dispatched around the globe to show how Cyberspace is beginning to reach out and affect peoples lives. It's going to be one of the largest photographic projects ever done and certainly one of the biggest collaborative internet projects. The Focus of "24 Hours in Cyberspace: Painting on the Walls of the Digital Cave" will be on the human stories behind the technology; the new ways in which we work, play, learn, conduct business and interact. These photographs will be transmitted digitally back to project headquarters in San Francisco that same day, where an international team of 80 editors (representing {Time, Newsweek, Life, National Geographic} etc), plus designers and programmers will assemble a unique "instant" 24-hour World Wide Web site. The goal is to produce unprecedented online, real-time photojournalism on a global scale. The idea is to use the power of the Internet to let people around the world both contribute and view images and stories of things that happened since they woke up that day. The goal here is NOT to show people sitting at computer terminals and it's not about collecting lots of random "bits". The project is driven by carefully researched assignments and is both photograpic and edit driven. The goal is to show in photographs and words how peoples lives are being affected as a results of being wired. The leads can be about you, a friend, something you read about that was cool, etc. A team of professional journalists on the 24 Hours staff will follow up any interesting leads. If you think you've got a great story to tell and would like to either submit an assignment idea or learn more about how you can participate in this cool project please send your ideas to: Stories@Cyber24.com or check out: http://www.Cyber24.com. Please also feel free to pass this along to people you know. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 10:50:53 -0800 From: Robert Wolf Subject: Wireless Solution for Roaming a Facility A couple of weeks ago you posted a request for information about equipment that will permit your tech support staff to roam about the office and receive incoming calls. Several companies make wireless systems that work specifically with their own telephone systems. Some of the companies that provide this type of equiment include AT&T, Northern Telecom and Ericsson, among others. There is at least one company, SpectraLink, that manufactures a wireless system which works with most installed telephone systems. All the above wireless systems consist of three components (1) Controllers that connect to the host telephone system, (2) Base Stations that are hard-wired to the Controller and are distributed throughout the facility, and (3) Portable Telephones which are light and typically small enough to fit in a pocket. Most of these systems are a bit pricey, but the specific cost of the system will depend on the size of the facility, how many Base Stations you need to cover the building(s), and the number of Portable Telephones you need. I sent this via e-mail since Patrick Townson screens all postings to the newsgroup and seems reluctant to post short replies to people who request information. Robert Wolf Millennium Telecom Consulting in Voice, Video, Data URL: http://keyconnect.com/millennium Voice: 818-790-7339 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wish it were possible to print more of the shorter replies which come in, but these days it is not even possible to print all the original material which arrives. I may be a victim of my own success with this Digest; two hundred pieces of mail daily with submissions is not uncommon, and of necessity I hope that people who can answer questions for other readers with a very short reply (such as providing a contact name at a company or an address) will do so directly to provide the fastest response. I am looking at ways to be able to print more here, but there is no immediate solution. If you send something in and it is not published, but you really feel it would be of interest to a large number of readers, *please resubmit it clearly marked *duplicate posting* and ask for reconsideration. I will try to accomodate everyone I can. Seriously, the volume of mail here has become horrendous. PAT] ------------------------------ From: barry_roomberg@iacnet.com (Barry Roomberg) Subject: New Wiring Suggestions Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 18:58:51 GMT Organization: Information Access Center We are about to move to a new location and it will be wired from scratch. Current proposal: Everyone get a four jack outlet. Jacks will be RJ-11. Each Jack will have four wires, ie: two twisted pairs. 1 Jack - Telephone 1 Jack - RS232 serial to Unix system. 1 Jack - Token ring - Novell 1 Jack - free for future use . Parent corporation says to use Level 3 for the Telephone and RS232 jacks, Level 5 for others. We really have no plans to "use" level 5 for high speed, but it'll be nice to have it. Also, while everyone SAYS that the cost difference between 5 and 3 is minimal, would there be a reason to use ALL level 5 as opposed to eight wires? We'd like ALL jacks to come into a patch panel, and then patch to phone/Unix serial/Token ring panels. We'd like all the in-wall wiring to be the same, ie: no 2-3 pin switches for serial, and then handle any differences in either the hoods at the PCs or patch panel cables. This way we could use a single wall outlet for four of the same type of connections, as long as we are not relying on the Level 5 aspect. We gonna start cheap (most likely) concerning wall panel jumper blocks, and if we ever really use the Level 5 we'll upgrade those as needed. Anything I should be looking for from the contractor, cable type, distances, twist type (??), or whatever? Are there any FAQs for this group that'll answer these question and educate a newbie? ------------------------------ From: Shri Balachandran Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 11:44:54 -0600 Subject: Re: Sprint Spectrum PCS System A few points cellular providers would definitely NOT want to tell you in their advertisement. * GSM gives terminal mobility using a unique concept called SIM (Subscriber Identity Module) card. Pick up any GSM phone and it becomes u'r subscriber id. * GSM uses encryption. So security is excellent. Saves phone company and subscribers millions. * APC's current PCS cost is less than what the cellular providers advt. No wonder the RBOCs without an active GSM n/w are *mad*. * FCC has currently auctioned out only 2 bands. C and D band operators would cover up the rest of the areas to probably give seamless GSM roaming. * In addition Ericsson and Nokia will be coming out with dual mode phones which will act as a GSM phone in the GSM area and as a DAMPS phone in other cellular area. This will also abet seamless roaming (all over US and even internationally, especially Europe). Shri Balachandran Ericsson Inc. ------------------------------ From: reed@usonian.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Michael G. Reed) Subject: Re: Sprint Spectrum PCS System Date: 8 Dec 1995 17:59:28 GMT Organization: Naval Research Laboratory kriston@ibm.net wrote: > Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Mobile has taken on an interesting negativity > campaign against the new Sprint Spectrum digital cellular service. > The advertisements mock the Sprint digital service primarily because > you can't use it outside of the greater Washington/Baltimore area. I noticed this also ... not being a big fan of BA (for reasons of their ISDN tarrif), I was not impressed with their PCS bashing. I'm currently a BA cell user, but am rapidly considering a PCS phone replacement. > One new service that Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Mobile just implemented was > service in the subway (the Metro, as we call it), though it's not > clear if the service is in the stations or in the tunnels themselves. Both (at least for some of the metro lines -- I know red line is covered end to end and I think orange is as well) -- they ran a pair of split coax cables through the system to external transmitters/receivers to act as a waveguide. Look for a pair of thick (about 1") white wires in the metro lines/stations (usually on the walls around human level). Michael ------------------------------ From: j-grout@glibm8.cen.uiuc.edu (John R. Grout) Subject: Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users Date: 08 Dec 1995 18:16:16 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Reply-To: j-grout@uiuc.edu In article eje@xyplex.com (Eric Ewanco) writes: > In article danny burstein > writes: >> 3) Apply a non-subscriber service charge of $.40 per message to domestic >> Interlata interstate dial station calls originated from residential lines >> which are presubscribed to an interexchange carrier other than AT&T, or not >> presubscribed to any interexchange carrier. This charge is in addition to >> the inital period charges applicable to calls from points in the Mainland >> and Hawaii to points throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. >> Virgin Islands. These charges are effective on December 1, 1995. > This is so bogus! It really angers me how they are trying to evade > the whole purpose of equal-access dialing by imposing arbitrary > restrictions on those who do not presubscribe. I really don't > understand why they want to do it, because it brings them more > business. It is like they are attempting to discourage people from > choosing AT&T freely. And why does it only apply to residential > lines, not business lines? When a non-subscriber makes his/her _first_ call using AT&T in a billing period, which would include both 10-288 calls _and_ calls to AT&T-provided 900 numbers, the back-office cost involved i.e., generating a monthly bill for them and sending it to the LEC is _far_ greater than that for subsequent calls. However, since AT&T gets something like $.50 for handling a one-minute call to a 900 number (to cover network services, billing, etc.), a $.40 surcharge on non-subscriber calls sounds like more than is needed to recover the costs of billing casual users. Perhaps a $.25 surcharge would be fairer. John R. Grout Center for Supercomputing R & D j-grout@uiuc.edu Coordinated Science Laboratory University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ------------------------------ From: Robert Wolf Subject: Re: "Abuse" of 800/888 Numbers? Date: 8 Dec 1995 17:31:13 GMT Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. bei@dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob Izenberg) wrote: > I was asked an infamous Kid's Question the other day, and as I > don't know the answer I'm putting it out to the Digest readership. If > you have an 800 number that receives nuisance calls or wrong numbers, > do you still pay for the calls? > In pondering this procedural matter, I wondered how prevalent > this sort of thing might be. We have every other sort of > irresponsible, money-driven behavior these days. Surely this is a > natural for the true Creatures of (Darkness in) the Nineties among > us... :-( There are more Creatures of Darkness thay you might suspect who are actively involved in getting someone else to pay for their phone calls. The typical approach is something like this: They dial in on a business' 800 number, trick the company's phone system into transfering them to an outside line, and then dial a number (usually an international call). This "service" is sold as discount international calling to people without phone service or people of limited means. The charge for the 800 number and outbound calls is billed to the business. This type of activity currently costs business about $4 Billion annually. The long distance carriers have included in their tariffs (making it enforceable in court) that calls originating frpm a business' phone system are the responsibility of the business. This clause includes 800 number calls. Is AT&T serious about collecting for these illegal calls? It has sued its customers (and won). Occassionally, AT&T and MCI and Sprint will write off these illegal charges the first time they show up on a phone bill, if the amount is not too large. Robert Wolf member: Society of Telecommunications Consultants Millennium Telecom http://www.keyconnect.com/millennium 818-790-7339; Fax 818-790-7309 Consulting in Voice, Video, and Data Communications ------------------------------ From: rwells@usin.com (Roger Wells) Subject: Re: 800 and 888 Number Abuse Date: 8 Dec 1995 18:43:56 GMT Organization: U.S. Intelco Networks, Inc. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Someone I know who runs a > BBS here makes extensive use of Caller-ID to keep track of his users. > When his line first answers, the first question it asks of new users > (after getting their name) is 'please enter your full ten digit > phone number'. Now, he has the caller-ID on most of these people > already but he wants to see if they are basically truthful or not. > He does not tell them he has it. He waits to see if they enter the > same number he sees or not. If they enter a number that is different > than what the caller-ID says, he asks them a second time more firmly, > 'please enter the phone number you are actually using right now to > place this call.' Does he assume nobody ever calls from a private PBX? Roger Wells (speaking only for myself) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: He makes allowances for that. If the ID given is 'out of area' or 'unavailable' he simply takes their word for whatever they give as long as it 'looks like' a phone number based on examples he has given the computer of things that cannot be a legitimate phone number such as '911' or 000-0000. After getting your note, I asked him again about this and he said he no longer flatly rejects them as users. He tells them they will be contacted by phone at the number *they gave* -- not the number the caller-ID displayed -- and given their password verbally. Of course the truthful ones get their password later the same day or the next day; the liars get to sit there with egg on their face, or else wait a discrete period of a few days and call back giving honest numbers for his records. Very clever ploy, I think. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kph@cisco.com (Kevin Paul Herbert) Subject: Re: What's Wrong With Shielded Cable? Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 12:32:39 -0800 Organization: Cisco Systems, Ashland, OR In article , bud@kentrox.com (Bud Couch) wrote: > That's funny, I could have sworn that the entire telephone network running > T1 used unshielded cables. May not be what you were thinking of, but it > certainly qualifies as a "real-world large-scale structured cabling system". Interesting you would bring this up. I just had a T-1 circuit installed yesterday. The circuit was delivered via HDSL (via a ADC box), and the Telco used CAT-3 STP for the HDSL side of the circuit (incoming drop to HDSL interface), and used CAT-3 UTP for the T-1 side (HDSL interface to junction box for my wiring). I did my own internal wiring using CAT-5 UTP to extend the demarc up to my office. When Sprint came out to install their FT1 CSU/DSU (also an ADC/Kentrox unit), the installer used Cat-3 STP between the RJ48 that I installed and the CSU/DSU, and told me that I really should have used STP for the premises wiring. Well, who's right? US West used UTP for the two-foot run to the demarc (T-1 side), although they used STP for the HDSL side. Sprint says that they (and I) should have used STP everywhere. I've always thought that you were only supposed to use STP when you had a specific problem with AC noise. The six-pair drop that carries my HDSL service (and other things) is also shielded, as is all underground drop wire (my service entrance is underground via 2" conduit). My circuit checks out clean, so it is obviously happy with this mix of STP and UTP. The extension from the demarc is about 60', doesn't run parallel to any power, and runs parallel to some 10-base-T ethernets, digital telephones, and analog telephones. Kevin ------------------------------ From: morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Mike Morris) Subject: Re: Clarifying the FCC Order on Calling Number Services Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 18:30:38 GMT Lynne Gregg writes: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It looks like a lot of the telcos are >> simply ignoring the legally mandated deadline doesn't it? I wonder >> if some will have to be sued to get them to come into compliance? PAT] > To clarify the FCC Order: telcos who are EQUIPPED to transport Calling > Party Number MUST DO SO. They also, at minimum, must support *67 and > *82 as standard per call options (blocking, unblocking). In states > where Per Line Blocking is permitted, telcos may continue to offer > that service. > Unfortunately today, there are plenty of telcos out there who are NOT > equipped with SS7/ISUP or switch software needed to deal with > transport of Calling Party Number. > The FCC Order won't result in immediate gratification here, but will > result in significant improvements in Caller ID service going forward. I called Pacific Bell yesterday about a billing glitch, and in the process I asked about Caller ID here in the Los Angeles area (specifically 818-447-xxxx and 818-445-xxxx), and the customer dis-service rep giggled and said "The technical people are working on it, we hope to have it working by June of '96". I didn't have time to push it. Mike Morris morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us #include I have others, but this works the best. This message assembled from 100% recycled electrons (and pixels). ------------------------------ From: tayeb@maestro.intertel.net (Tayeb Damerji) Subject: Re: Wireless Solutions for Roaming a Facility Date: 8 Dec 1995 16:53:54 GMT Organization: Interactive Telecom, Inc. (613) 727-5258 Myron Jackson (epgg66@email.mot.com) wrote: > In article , Robohn Scott > wrote: >> We're looking for a solution to the following situation: tech support >> staff roam about an office and need easy access to their incoming >> phone calls. They can forward their calls, but this gets bothersome >> and tedious after you have to reset forwarding the second, third, >> fourth time that hour. Cellular reception is very poor in some areas >> of the building, so that doesn't look like an option. You should check the PCS products from Northern Telecom. I don't rememeber the exact name of the product but I know that it has been used in some hotels and hospitals to do the same functions that you describe. Tayeb Damerji Tel.(613) 727 5258 Interactive Telecom Inc. Fax.(613) 727 5438 204 -190 Colonnade Rd Email: tayeb@intertel.net Nepean , Ont K2E 7J5, Canada Web: http://www.intertel.net ------------------------------ From: Robert Wolf Subject: Re: Wireless Solutions for Roaming a Facility Date: 8 Dec 1995 17:02:29 GMT Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. azur@netcom.com (Steve Schear) wrote: > On Tue, 14 Nov 95 08:13:00 PST, Robohn Scott wrote: >> We're looking for a solution to the following situation: tech support >> staff roam about an office and need easy access to their incoming >> phone calls. They can forward their calls, but this gets bothersome >> and tedious after you have to reset forwarding the second, third, >> fourth time that hour. Cellular reception is very poor in some areas >> of the building, so that doesn't look like an option. >> One option could be a 900 MHz cordless phone with multiple base >> stations and a single handset; does anyone sell these? Web pages for >> Panasonic and Sony are no help on this option, but I'll try some >> others. I've also heard about special internal wiring in situations >> like this, but this sounds like a pretty expensive solution. >> Any ideas on specific products and/or services? We'll entertain all >> options. The basic requirement is for a person within the office to >> have continuous access to a single incoming phone line as they roam >> about the office. A lightweight, small handset would be nice; a >> headset option would be even nicer. Approximate cost information >> would also be appreciated. > One solution is to install a 'private' cellular system in your > building. Many local carriers offer this option. This is, however, > not a cheap solution. > Or you might contact Uniden America. They have a line of 900 MHZ > Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum phones, both consumer and commerical > models which attach to PBX. A model with roaming capability has been > discussed. I don't know if they ever manufactured it. > Contact: > Tony Mirabelli > VP Marketing > Uniden America > 4700 Amon Carter Blvd. > Fort Worth, TX 76155 > 817-858-3553 Several companies make wireless adjuncts to in-place phone systems. The major phone system manufacturers, Northern Telecom, AT&T, Ericssonn all make wireless adjuncts that are compatible with their particularr systems. SpectraLink makes a generic wireless system that works with most in-place systems. All of them tend to be a bit pricey at this time. Robert Wolf member: Society of Telecommunication Consultantss Millennium Tele http://www.keyconnect.com/millennium 818-790-7339 Fax 818-790-7309 Consulting in Voice, Video, and Data Communications ------------------------------ From: srdawson@interlog.com (Scott Robert Dawson) Subject: Re: What Has *NOT* Yet Changed With Areacodes Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 05:20:27 GMT Organization: InterLog Internet Services Mark Cuccia wrote: [snip] > Quebec originally had two areacodes assigned in 1947 -- 418 and 514. > About ten years later, 819 was added (around 1957). 514 (Montreal > area) is not indicated in Bellcore's lists as projected to exhaust, > but since 514 serves a major metro area, it could need another > areacode over the next five years (IMHO). [snip] Quebec may not need a new NPA as quickly as might be thought ... the separatistes may not have won the referendum on 30 October, but it was _very_ close. Bouchard and the Parti Quebecois fully intend to try again. I have seen a number of reports in the Toronto papers (the Star, the Sun, and the Globe & Mail) about continued tension there. Apparently there is a continuing outflow of Anglophones (that is, English-speaking Quebeckers), mostly in the direction of Toronto. Some companies, too, are still leaving. The national railway (no longer state-owned), for instance, has announced plans to move its headquarters to Calgary. I would not be surprised if the metropolitan Montreal area actually loses population. As late as (I think) the 1960s, Montreal was larger than Toronto and has a greater proportion of large national company headquarters and population. After the 1976 election, in which the Parti Quebecois was elected for the first time, a lot of companies and Anglo people left. The headquarters of the Bank of Montreal is the tallest building in Toronto (ignoring the CN Tower). They've been trickling out ever since ... now The Greater Toronto Area is 4.5 million plus and the metropolitan Montreal area is almost certainly under 3.5 million. (Correct me if I'm wrong ...) Scott Robert Dawson Life is a learning ground... srdawson@interlog.com http://www.interlog.com/~srdawson/scothmpg.htm [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What a shame that whole scene is up there. I can easily sympathize with both sides, and understand the positions of both sides. If as you point out, people are moving out of Montreal and Quebec, that is unfortunate also. On its own merits, regardless of where one might stand on the politics involved, the city of Montreal is a beautiful place, and Quebec is likewise very, very lovely. If they cannot resolve their differences, not only will the people of Quebec lose, but so will all of Canada; indeed North America as well. I've said before and will reiterate my own position again that this is an issue for the people of Quebec to resolve with their (existing) federal government. It is not some- thing for the people in the USA to stick their noses into or get involved in ... still, it hurts to think about it, even on this side of the border doesn't it ... Do have a nice weekend one and all ... we will meet here again on Monday I suppose. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #512 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Dec 13 16:37:51 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id QAA04264; Wed, 13 Dec 1995 16:37:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 16:37:51 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512132137.QAA04264@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #513 TELECOM Digest Wed, 13 Dec 95 14:26:53 EST Volume 15 : Issue 513 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Country Codes History (Dave Leibold) Group Member Publishes International Telecom Primer (Rob Frieden) Shame Telstra Shame (Peter Charles Tonoli) Cellular Airtime Resellers (Michael B. Chernoff) Re: Frontier Offering Cellular Service (Charles Buckley) Programming Information Needed For NEC P-110/120 (TELECOM Digest Editor) New Area Code in San Francisco in 1997 (Linc Madison) Phone *XX Codes? (John Wilkerson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 12 Dec 95 21:46 EST From: dleibold@else.net (Dave Leibold) Subject: Country Codes History Country Codes History 10 December 1995 David Leibold (aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca) This is an attempt to trace the development of ITU's (formerly CCITT's) country codes assignments over the years. Information was gleaned from vintage ITU/CCITT "Books" (i.e. the Recommendations which are the international telecommunications standards), and whatever else was available. There will be numerous details to be filled in (dates of changes, introductions, circumstances etc). Additional or updated information to this end would be welcome. Document History... 10 December 1995 - inaugural edition Format... This file is ordered first by time (when country codes were established, changed, deleted, etc) then within each particular time by country code. The initial list of 1964 is shown; only the changes are listed therafter. ------- 1 9 6 0 ------- The 1960 CCITT Red Book listed a set of codes for Europe that was the precursor for the international telephone country codes. Whether this was ever available for subscriber use is unknown; this could have been intended for operator dialing (such as was the case initially within the North American Numbering Plan, prior to the introduction of automatic direct dialing). That list went as follows (* represents a code that remains in use in today's country code plan): 00 to 19 - special codes - special routings, semi-automatic services, direct routes between countries, situations where digits of a destination number are not analysed, etc. 20 - Poland 21 - Algeria (Fr.) [* today is 213] 22 - Belgium 23 - Austria 24 - (unassigned) 25 - Finland 26 - Arabia 27 - Cyprus 28 - Bulgaria 29 - Gibraltar 30 - Greece * 31 - Egypt (U.A. Rep.) 32 - (unassigned) 33 - France * 34 - Israel 35 - Hungary 36 - Turkey 37 - Lebanon 38 - Norway 39 - Italy * 40 - Libya 41 - Jordan 42 - Portugal 43 - Malta 44 - Great Britain * 45 - (unassigned) 46 - Sweden * 47 - Rumania 48 - Morocco 49 - Germany * [presumably West Germany at that time] 50 - Spain 51 - (unassigned) 52 - Ireland 53 - (unassigned) 54 - Syria (U.A. Rep.) 55 - Netherlands 56 - (unassigned) 57 - Czechoslovakia 58 - (unassigned) 59 - Albania 60 - Luxembourg 61 - Denmark 62 - Tunisia 63 - Yugoslavia 64 - Iceland 65 - (unassigned) 66 - Switzerland 67 - (unassigned) 68, 69 - USSR 70 to 79 - European Republics / USSR 80 to 89 - spare codes 90 to 99 - intercontinental traffic ------- 1 9 6 4 ------- The 1964 CCITT Blue Book listed the initial country codes list for international dialing, arranging the codes according to their world zones. These corresponded to the initial digit of the one- to three-digit country codes; Europe got two zones (3 & 4) due to a high number of countries requiring two-digit country codes. The initial listing was referred to as Recommendation E.29. That initial country code list was as follows (country codes not listed were spare at the time): World Zone 1 (North America - country code 1 - note some of the nations that were to be included, but were since assigned World Zone 5 country codes): Bahamas, Bermuda, British Honduras, Canada, Costa Rica, El Salvador, French Antilles, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Netherlands Antilles, Nicaragua, Panama, Puerto Rico, USA, US Virgin Islands. World Zone 2 (Africa): 20 - United Arab Republic 21 - Maghreb (integrated numbering plan): Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia 220 - Gambia 221 - Senegal 222 - Mauritania 223 - Mali 224 - Guinea 225 - Ivory Coast (Cote d'Ivoire) 226 - Upper Volta 227 - Niger 228 - Togolese Republic 229 - Dahomey 231 - Liberia 232 - Sierra Leone 233 - Ghana 234 - Nigeria 235 - Chad 236 - Central African Republic 237 - Cameroon 238 - Cape Verde Island 239 - St Thomas & Prince 241 - Gabon 242 - Congo (Brazzaville) 243 - Congo (Leopoldville) 244 - Angola 245 - Portuguese Guinea 249 - Sudan 250 - Rwanda 251 - Ethiopia 252 - Somalia 253 - French Somaliland 254 - Kenya 255 - Tanzania 256 - Uganda 257 - Burundi 258 - Mozambique 260 - Northern Rhodesia 261 - Malagasy Republic 262 - Reunion 263 - Southern Rhodesia 264 - Territory of SW Africa 265 - Malawi 266 - Basutoland 267 - Bechuanaland 268 - Swaziland 269 - Comores 27 - South Africa World Zone 3 & 4 (Europe): 30 - Greece 31 - Netherlands 32 - Belgium 33 - France 34 - Spain 350 - Gibraltar 351 - Portugal 352 - Luxembourg 353 - Ireland 354 - Iceland 356 - Malta 357 - Cyprus 36 - Turkey 37 - [Note: not assigned until 1966] 38 - Yugoslavia 39 - Italy 401 - Finland 402 - Hungary 403 - Bulgaria 404 - Romania 405 - Albania 41 - Switzerland 42 - Czechoslovakia 43 - Austria 44 - Great Britain 45 - Denmark 46 - Sweden 47 - Norway 48 - Poland 49 - Germany (West) World Zone 5 (South America): (50, 51, 52 - unassigned in 1964) 53 - Cuba 54 - Argentina 55 - Brazil 56 - Chile 57 - Colombia 58 - Venezuela 591 - Bolivia 592 - British Guiana 593 - Ecuador 594 - French Guiana 595 - Paraguay 596 - Peru 597 - Surinam (Netherlands) 598 - Uruguay Zone 6 (Oceania, Australia, etc): 60 - Malaysia 61 - Australia 62 - Indonesia 63 - Philippines 64 - New Zealand 65 - (unassigned in 1964) 66 - Thailand 672 - Portuguese Timor 675 - Papua New Guinea 676 - Tonga 677 - British Solomon Isles 678 - New Hebrides 679 - Fiji 682 - Guam 683 - Western Samoa 684 - American Samoa 685 - Cook Islands 687 - New Caledonia 688 - Niue 689 - French Polynesia 69 - (unassigned in 1964) World Zone 7 - USSR (only country code 7) World Zone 8 - Eastern Asia 80 - (unassigned in 1964) 81 - Japan 82 - Korea 83 - (unassigned in 1964) 84 - Vietnam 852 - Hong Kong 853 - Macao 855 - Cambodia 856 - Laos 86 - China 87 - (unassigned in 1964) 88 - (unassigned in 1964) 89 - (unassigned in 1964) World Zone 9 (Western Asia, Middle East): 90 - (unassigned in 1964) 91 - India 92 - Pakistan 93 - Afghanistan 94 - Ceylon 95 - Burma 961 - Lebanon 962 - Jordan 963 - Syria 964 - Iraq 965 - Kuwait 966 - Saudi Arabia 967 - Yemen 969 - Aden 972 - Israel 975 - Hadramut 977 - Nepal 98 - Iran ------- 1 9 6 8 ------- Changes in the 1968 CCITT White Book ... the list is now listed as Recommendation E.161 / Q.11. Changes listed in order of country code: 1 - Antigua (territory added) - Barbados (territory added) - British Virgin Islands (territory added) - Cayman Islands (territory added) - Dominica (territory added) - Grenada (territory added) - Montserrat (territory added) - St Kitts (territory added) - St Lucia (territory added) - St Pierre & Miquelon (territory added) - St Vincent (territory added) x Guatemala (CHANGED to country code 500) x Mexico (CHANGED to country code 52) x Netherlands Antilles (CHANGED to country code 599) 240 - Equitorial Guinea (NEW) 243 - Congo (Dem. Rep. of the) (Name change) 259 - Zanzibar (NEW) 260 - Zambia (Name Change) 263 - Rhodesia (Name Change) 266 - Lesotho (Name Change) 267 - Botswana (Name Change) 269 - Comoro Islands (Name Change) 355 - Albania (NEW - changed from 405) 358 - Finland (NEW - changed from 401) 359 - Bulgaria (NEW - changed from 403) 36 x Turkey (CHANGED to 90) 36 - Hungary (NEW - changed from 402) 37 - East Germany (added - announced in ITU Notification #980 of 10 March 1966) 40 - Romania (NEW - changed from 404) 500 - Guatemala (NEW - changed from 1) 52 - Mexico (NEW - changed from 1) 599 - Netherlands Antilles (NEW - changed from 1) 65 - Singapore (NEW) 681 - Wallis and Futuna (NEW) 686 - Gilbert & Ellice Islands (NEW) 90 - Turkey (NEW - changed from 36) 968 - Sultanate of Muscat & Oman (NEW) 969 - Southern Yemen (Name Change) 971 - Trucial States (NEW) 973 - Bahrain (NEW) 974 - Qatar (NEW) 976 - Mongolia (NEW) [Notes: ITU Notifications 992, 995 and 998 of 1967 announced the new country codes 968 (Muscat & Oman), 971 (Trucial States), 974 (Qatar); ITU Notification #984 of 10 July 1966 announced 973 (Bahrain). No official reasons were found for the many country changes between 1964 and 1968 information.] ------- 1 9 7 2 ------- Changes in the 1972 Green Book for E.161/Q.11: World Zone 1: 1 x British Honduras (CHANGED to 501) x Costa Rica (CHANGED to 506) x El Salvador (CHANGED to 503) x Honduras (CHANGED to 504) x Nicaragua (CHANGED to 505) x Panama (CHANGED to 507) 21 x "Maghreb" integrated numbering plan divided into separate country code assignments that follows ... 210 - Morocco 211 - Morocco 212 - Morocco [only this country code used today for Morocco] 213 - Algeria [only this country code used today for Algeria] 214 - Algeria 215 - Algeria 216 - Tunisia [only this country code used today for Tunisia] 217 - Tunisia 218 - Libya [only this country code used today for Libya] 219 - Libya 243 - Zaire (Name Change) 253 - Afars Alssas (Fr. Terr) (Name Change) 500 x (CHANGED to 502) 501 - British Honduras (NEW - was in 1) 502 - Guatemala (NEW - changed from 500) 503 - El Salvador (NEW - was in 1) 504 - Honduras (NEW - was in 1) 505 - Nicaragua (NEW - was in 1) 506 - Costa Rica (NEW - was in 1) 507 - Panama (NEW - was in 1) 51 - Peru (NEW - changed from 596) 596 x Peru (CHANGED to 51) 671 - Guam (NEW - changed from 682) 682 x Guam (CHANGED to 671) ------- 1 9 7 6 ------- In the 1976 Orange Book, these changes appear: 248 - Seychelles (NEW) 509 - Haiti (NEW) 590 - Guadeloupe (NEW) 596 - Martinique (NEW - originally assigned to Peru) 673 - Brunei (NEW) 674 - Nauru (NEW) 87x - (NEW - reserved for mobile/maritime assignments) 880 - Bangladesh (NEW) 978 - Dubai (UAE) (NEW) 979 - Abu Dhabi (UAE) (NEW) ------- 1 9 8 0 ------- The Yellow Boo in 1980 had this: 253 - Djibouti (Name Change) 672 x (Portugues Timor DELETED) 682 - Cook Islands (NEW - originally assigned to Guam) 683 x Western Samoa (CHANGED to 685) 683 - Niue (NEW - changed from 688) 685 x Cook Islands (CHANGED to 682) 685 - Western Samoa (NEW - changed from 683) 688 x Niue (CHANGED to 683) 688 - Tuvalu (NEW) 960 - Maldives (NEW) 978 x (Dubai DELETED) 979 x (Abu Dhabi DELETED) [Notes: no reasons found for the shuffling of 6xx series country codes; no information on the deletions of 978 (Dubai) and 979 (Abu Dhabi) although these probably became part of 971 (UAE, originally listed as "Trucial States").] ------- 1 9 8 4 ------- The 1984 book made some further changes: 1 x St Pierre & Miquelon (CHANGED to 508) 246 - Diego Garcia (NEW) 298 - Faroe Islands (Denmark) (NEW) 299 - Greenland (Denmark) (NEW) 500 - Falkland Islands (NEW - originally assigned to Guatemala) 508 - St Pierre and Miquelon (NEW - was in 1) 670 - Marianna Islands (NEW) 672 - Australian Territories (NEW - originally assigned to Portuguese Timor) 680 - Palau (NEW) 690 - Tokelau (NEW) 691 - Federated States of Micronesia (NEW) 692 - Marshall Islands (NEW) 850 - North Korea (NEW - South Korea retains 82) ------------------- A f t e r 1 9 8 4 ------------------- The following country codes were added, changed, had country names changes, or were otherwise noteworthy since 1984. Dates were included if they were available. The country codes are presently assigned under Recommendation E.164 (formerly E.163, in turn E.161/Q.11, in turn E.29). 226 - Burkina Faso (Name Change) 229 - Benin (Name Change) 230 - Mauritius (NEW - year of introduction unknown) 239 - Sao Tome & Principe (Name Change or use of domestic language form) 245 - Guinea-Bissau (Name Change) 247 - Ascension (NEW - year of introduction unknown) 259 - Zanzibar (although assigned in 1968, routing via Tanzania country code 255 had been in effect for many years, and may still be in effect) 261 - Madagascar (name change from Malagasy Rep.) 263 - Zimbabwe (name change from Rhodesia) 264 - Namibia (name change from Territory of SW Africa) 269 - Comoros & Mayotte (Mayotte added - year unknown) 290 - St Helena (NEW - year of introduction unknown) 291 - Eritrea (NEW - seceded from Ethiopia in 1993) 295 - San Marino (NEW then CHANGED - was assigned, but became 378) 296 - Trinidad/Tobago (apparently assigned then removed) 297 - Aruba (NEW - became autonomous of Netherlands Antilles as of 1 Jan 1986 - dates of country code assignment and implementation are unknown) 37 - East Germany (DELETED - with German reunification, numbers are under country code 49 now) 370 - Lithuania (NEW - split from 7 announced Jan. 1993) 371 - Latvia (NEW - split from 7 announced Jan. 1993) 372 - Estonia (NEW - split from 7 announced Jan. 1993) 373 - Moldova (NEW - split from 7 announced Jan. 1993) 374 - Armenia (NEW - announced Jan. 1995, in effect 1 May 1995; this was split from country code 7) 375 - Belarus (NEW - announced Jan. 1995, in effect 16 Apr 1995; this was split from country code 7) 376 - Andorra (Principality of) (NEW - in effect Dec. 1994; formerly reached via France (33)) 377 - Monaco (Principality of) (NEW - in effect late 1995; formerly reached via France (33)) 378 - San Marino (NEW - split from Italy 39; formerly assigned 295) 379 - Vatican City (NEW - implementation dates/details unknown; formerly reached via Italy (39)) 38 - Yugoslavia (DELETED - 1 Oct 1993, due to Yugoslav break-up) 380 - Ukraine (NEW - announced Jan. 1995; in effect 16 Apr 1995; this was split from country code 7) 381 - Serbia and Montenegro (former Yugoslav areas) (NEW - formed from old Yugoslav country code 38 - in effect 1 Oct. 1993) 385 - Croatia (NEW - split from old Yugoslav country code 38 - in effect 1 Oct. 1993) 386 - Slovenia (NEW - split from old Yugoslav country code 38 - in effect 1 Oct. 1993) 387 - Bosnia (NEW - split from old Yugoslav country code 38 - in effect 1 Oct. 1993) 389 - Macedonia (NEW - split from old Yugoslav country code 38 - in effect 1 Oct. 1993) 41 - Liechtenstein (probably always was part of Switzerland system (country code 41)) 42 - (Czech & Slovak Republics now separate - country code remains for now) 501 - Belize (Name Change - was British Honduras) 592 - Guyana (was (or officially still is?) British Guyana) 678 - Vanuatu (Name Change - was New Hebrides) 686 - Kiribati, Gilbert Is (Ellice moved to 688 - year unknown) 688 - Tuvalu, Ellice Is (Saipan?) (Ellice added - year unknown) 800 - International "freephone" services (NEW - as of 1995) 870 - Inmarsat "SNAC" service (NEW - 1995) 871 - Inmarsat Atlantic East (NEW - originally assigned to all of Atlantic) 872 - Inmarsat Pacific (NEW) 873 - Inmarsat Indian (NEW) 874 - Inmarsat Atlantic West (NEW - formed from split of 871 Atlantic) 878 - Reserved for national mobile purposes (NEW) 879 - Reserved for national mobile purposes (NEW) 886 - Taiwan (Mainland China has reserved +86-6 for access to Taiwan) 94 - Sri Lanka (Name Change - was Ceylon) 95 - (Current regime refers to itself as Myanmar; some nations only recognise it as Burma.) 967 - Yemen Arab Republic (Name Change?) 968 - Oman (Name Change? Short form for Muscat & Oman?) 969 - Yemen Democratic Republic (DELETED? Wity Yemen unification, 967 would be the single country code; this territory was formerly called Aden) 971 - United Arab Emirates (Name Change - was Trucial States) 975 - Bhutan (Name Change - was Hadramut) 994 - Azerbaijan (NEW - split from former USSR (country code 7)) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 10:08:51 -0500 From: rmf5@psu.edu (Rob Frieden) Subject: Group Member Publishes International Telecom Primer I have written a comprehensive primer on many facets of international telecommunications that may interest participants in this group. I attempt to provide a desk reference tool for students, practitioners, business executives and academics. The topics include: explaining the "rule of the road" in international telecommunications; current and developing models, e.g., PTTs and privatized shareholder-owned enterprises; technologies used; the ITU; standard setting; submarine cables; IVANs; accounting rates; trade policy; development; satellites (including Intelsat; separate systems and Low Earth Orbiting space stations); deregulation; liberalization; privatization; spectrum management; case studies and developing trends. For further information please refer to my publisher's Web Site: http://www. artech-house.com/artech.html or contact me at rmf5@psuvm.psu.edu. Thanks, Rob Frieden Consultant and Assoc. Professor, College of Communications, Penn State University ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 19:13:37 +1100 (GMT+1100) From: Peter Charles Tonoli <071836@edna.cc.swin.edu.au> Subject: Shame Telstra Shame Originally from: lucy.swin.edu.au Shame Telstra Shame... BBS Operators all over Australia will be receiving a letter like the one below. This affects people who run any sort of Online service that make use of telephones. Voice your concern now. I have set up an email address which can be used to send email letters of complaint. These will be forwarded to Telstra and to the Federal Government. I am also in the process of setting up a WWW page. NOW IS THE TIME TO FIGHT THIS! Send letters of protest to: shame@grumpy.apana.org.au Today I received this letter: Dear Customer, Telstra is committed to providing a full rage of phone services at prices that are fair and equitable to all Australians. At present your Bulletin Board Service lines are being charged at our Non Business rate of $139.80 per line per year. However, as part of a review of Section 4.2.2 of the Basic Carriage Service tariff filed on July 1, 1995, our Business rate of $274.80 per line was confirmed as appropriate for all Bulletin Board Services and information providers. Telstra is obligated under Section 197 of the Telecommunications Act to charge all customers strictly in accordance with its filed tariff. Therefore, we must now adjust your phone service charges to reflect this change which will result in an increase of $11.25 per line per month. Please note that there is no change to your call charges. This adjustment will take effect on 1 February, 1996. Being classified as a Business customer has some real advantages for Bulletin Board Services such as yours. For example, from the time your Bulletin Board is classified as a Business Customer for Telstra billing pursposes: * You will have access to Telstra special commercial maintenance team, which guarantees a fast response whenever you report a service fault to our business fault reporting service on 13 2999 * You will automatically receive a free Yellow Pages Directory listing * You can also make use of our special Business Customer Service by calling FREECALL 1800 068 133 between 9am and 5pm Monday to Friday should you require information about Telstra business services, or wish to arrange connection of any additional Telstra services. Bearing in mind the technical requirements of operating a Bulletin Board Service, your organziation may well benefit from some of the many service enhancements we can offer such as Line Hunt which will direct calls to your next available line or distribute calls equally across every line in your group or even super fast ISDN services. If you have any questions or require further details about your telephone charges, just call one of our Business Customer Support Representatives on FREECALL 1800 068 133 and quote extension number 4392, Monday to Friday between 9am and 5pm (EST). Call before 12 January 1996 and we'll answer any queries you have in time for the preparation of you Frebruary 1996 account statement. We Look forward to continuing to be of service to your organization. Yours faithfully Simone Semmens Director Community Relations Peter Tonoli anarchie@edna.cc.swin.edu.au t3jk022@seinfeld.cc.swin.edu.au ------------------------------ From: mchernof@gmu.edu (Michael B. Chernoff) Subject: Cellular Airtime Resellers Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 16:36:43 GMT Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA I am currently looking for a cellular airtime plan which doesn't charge me a subsidy for a "free" phone since I already have a phone. I've seen ads in the paper for monthly rates as low as $10.00/month (if you don't need a phone) and reduced airtime charges, but these are offered by "no-name" cellular re-sellers. My question is, what are the risks in using a cellular airtime re-seller? Also, I am looking for suggestions for airtime providers in the Washington/Baltimore cellular calling area. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Michael [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would say check out Frontier Mobile Line, aka Allnet, aka Call Home America, aka Frontier Communications. That is who I signed up with just recently (about a week ago in fact, and so far they are *very good* at least here in the Chicago area. Their customer service people seem a little confused, but the service itself is good. I made some errors in my original report on them last week and will correct those in the mext message here today. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 95 02:41:45 -0800 From: Charles Buckley Organization: Mauto Subject: Re: Frontier Offering Cellular Service ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) wrote: > Frontier Communications is now offering cellular service around the USA > in an interesting arrangement or service package. > They charge a ten dollar per month service fee, and rates of 35 cents > per minute during peak times and 18 cents per minute off-peak/weekends. > They bill you on your existing account with them each month and > offer discounts of four to ten percent monthly based on volume of > usage. For example, from $50 to $125 per month in usage gets a four > percent discount. $125 to $250 per month gets a six percent discount. > The 35/18 pricing is not the best, and for the ten dollars per month > service charge I am sure they can afford to give you 'features' for > free. I am told however they charge 'double air' when using the > three-way/call waiting features, and that they charge airtime on > call forwarding even when the switch forwards the call to a landline > number without even hitting the air. Gee, from the Bay Area point of view, these prices seem pretty competititive. Do you know of better deals? I have an acquaintance who still just signed up for one of those .90/min peak rate accounts, at a higher monthly rate, but she did get a $50 two-year-old analog Motorola flip clunker in the bargain. I wonder how Frontier get access to infrastructure, and why it would be in the local A or B carriers interest to let them undercut in price. Might this be some sort of come-on to encourage people to join their landline services? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Here is the story, as best as I have been able to sort it out. **I was in error on some of my statements last week.** They not only 'encourage' you to use their landline services, I think you *must* use them on at least one line for long distance, etc. I have an 800 number via Call Home America (four dollars per month or so, rarely used). When I called to sign up for the cellular service, their first question was 'what is your account number with us now?' Having an 800 number from them got me past that hurdle. They get their infrastructure from all the other carriers, based on whatever part of the country it is. Apparently they cut whatever deals they can with the A or B carrier and go from there. Here in this area they use Ameritech, the B carrier. *They never admit to that unless you ask them*. They keep it pretty well disguised as their own product, and I guess actually it is their own product. Very rarely in the course of using the service will you ever hear any reference to Ameritech except in occassional recorded intercept messages, etc. For example, they gave me my number a couple days before it was actually turned on. When I dialed it, I got a 'number not in service' message tagged at the end by Ameritech. But you know me: I try all the odd and bizarre things I can think of; when the phone was turned on, I tried 'star 611' figuring I would get Ameritech customer service. But nope, a recording came on saying I had reached 'Frontier customer service, please hold for a repre- sentative ...' etc. It is well enough disguised that I doubt the average user would know he was on Ameritech (or whatever carrier they are reselling for in your part of the country.) Things allowed and not allowed: 900/976 is not allowed. 1-500 is not allowed, but 0-500 is allowed. 1 plus long distance goes to Allnet/Frontier, but zero plus on my phone goes to AT&T. 10xxx is not allowed. 800 is allowed. 011 and 01 international are allowed, the latter via AT&T. 0-700 is given a fast re-order. 1-700 (or just 700) has some kind of bug at the present time; no matter what 700 or 1-700 number dialed, you ALWAYS get the voicemail box of a Mr. John Failex (Phallex? Felix?) 'Star 711' which is frequently used to obtain roaming information goes to an intercept telling me that the number I dialed, 708-something is not in service at this time. So they were clever about intercepting *611 from their customers, but have apparently overlooked *711 even thought their user instruction book does refer to it as the way to get roaming information. They may or may not offer voicemail. I did not ask because I have enough of it already. I suppose since John has voicemail on any and all 700 numbers, they apparently do offer it. Most important, I made a SERIOUS mistake in quoting their rates and for that I apologize. It *is* 35/18 per minute as mentioned, however they do NOT charge 'double air' on call-waiting or three-way calling. They do NOT charge airtime on calls forwarded which go to a landline phone without hitting the air at all. On calls forwarded which do not go over the air, they apply something called the 'telco pass-thru charge', meaning apparently whatever local rates the serving telco gets for call forwarding stuff. They get a ten dollar per month service charge in this market (I have found out from others that their rates vary around the country) and for the ten dollars, Frontier gives for free: Call waiting (hear beep, press send, press it again, etc); Three way calling (enter the digits, press send, etc); Immediate call forwarding (*72 plus number to activate and *73 to cancel); Transfer on busy/no answer (*68 plus number to activate and *73 to cancel); Frontier Roaming Service aka 'Follow Me' aka Ameritech 'Fast Track' (*18 while in other than home market to turn on, and *19 to turn off in other than home market, or *73 at home); Standard roaming service using the roaming phone numbers; Detailed monthly billing reports. Where roaming in general is concerned, they were very vague about what charges would apply, and how the billing was done as you might expect, and their booklet had a disclaimer saying that Frontier could not be responsible for 'charges or conditions of service imposed by carriers' in whose territory you roamed. The example copy of the monthly bill they sent along seemed very detailed and concise, showing times of day, numbers called, etc. Best of all for some people, no contracts, no minimum service periods, and a way to avoid the tyranny some claim is unavoidable using the 'established' carriers. No credit checks since it is all billed to your credit card a couple weeks after you get the bill. I'd say it is probably worth giving them one of your lines for default long distance purposes in order to qualify as a customer for their cellular service. If you already have an account with Frontier/Allnet/Call Home America to get a cellular number assigned to you call them at 800-783-2020, which is their 'cellular department'. They assign a number, take the ESN information, etc. If you need help programming, they send you to some local technician at no charge. If you want an 800 number call 800-594-5900, or otherwise call Allnet and set something up with them, *then* get back to the cellular side afterward. Beleive me, they won't talk to you unless you can give them an existing account number or a phone number they recognize. You asked why would the existing carriers let a reseller undercut them on prices, etc. I suppose because the risk is so little to the carrier. He no longer has to worry about fraud, he no longer cares about trying to collect the bills each month, and he no longer has to listen to cranky, complaining customers who know too much for their own good. All he has to do is maintain the system. Regardless of who the carrier is or how much they charge, don't you think that if you had a market of million or more ready-made customers and you went to the cell carrier saying, "I have quite a few people here who want to sign up for cellular service, but they will be working through my office instead of yours, and here are the terms I am willing to offer you if will accomodate these folks ..." if you went to a cell carrier with that easily verifiable and bonafide message, don't you think the carrier would immediatly drop to their knees and begin worshipping? About 25 years ago, when the Diner's Club credit card service was so poorly mismanaged, hit with fraud and millions of dollars in uncollectibles from deadbeat customers that they were literally on the verge -- days, maybe a month away from filing bankruptcy -- they were approached by Amoco Oil Company who asked them 'how would you like ummm .. about thirteen million pre-qualified card holders of ours ... the Amoco list at that point had about twenty million credit card holders, but a good portion of those were deadbeats also, or not the best when it came to paying on time. Amoco skimmed the cream, the best of theirs and dangled it right in front of Mr. Bloomingdale at Diners and told him 'sooey! sooey! come and get it!" The resulting deal was a new program for Amoco card holders called 'Torch Club' which had full Diner's Club privileges and acceptance. Diners got a nice piece of the action, and Amoco made out nicely also. I think we may see more cellular resellers come along with ideas on how to market it better, and as the existing traditional carriers get more and more tangled up in their own messes, they'll gladly let the resellers put their heads on the chopping block for awhile instead. Just my opinion. PAT] ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Programming Information Needed on NEC P-110/120 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 15:13:00 CST Well, you guessed it! The NEC-120 is the phone I bought to go with cellular service from Frontier. I called their tech support line in Texas asking for advice and they said take it to a dealer here. I already have it programmed; it came all set to use when Federal Express delivered it last week. But I may need to -- you know -- reprogram it at some time in the future. NEC apparently does not like people doing that. They'd rather have you pay for it. On the other hand, I do not like paying for things if I can avoid it. All help available on this phone will be appreciated. Thanks. PAT ------------------------------ From: lincmad@netcom.com (Linc Madison) Subject: New Area Code in San Francisco in 1997 Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 08:49:11 GMT I was watching CNN Headline News this evening, and, during the segment where they have a local station produce the local news blurb, they mentioned that Pacific Bell has announced that 415 will either split or overlay (not yet decided, nor has the new area code been decided) some time in 1997. That's all I've heard so far, and this is the first I've heard of it, but I certainly will be watching. As for a geographic split, it would almost have to be a three-way split, with Marin County, San Francisco, and San Mateo County (plus the little bits of Santa Clara County that are 415) going into separate area codes. Marin County doesn't have nearly the population to warrant having its own area code, but it would be insane to move Marin and San Mateo both into the same new area code. I suppose Marin could be left in 415 with San Francisco, but that would advance the date of the next split. There's actually enough capacity in 707 to accommodate Marin County, but there is a problem with a number of duplicated exchanges (mostly in San Rafael on the 415 side), so they'd have to take the highly unpopular step of moving several thousand subscribers to new local numbers if they wanted to move Marin into 707. The other obvious question is, what's up with 510? At the time of the 415/510 split, it was an almost perfect 50/50 split, and there's certainly been plenty of growth in the East Bay. A geographic split there would be much more difficult, without the obvious clean lines. Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * LincMad@Netcom.com ------------------------------ From: jwilkers@freenet.columbus.oh.us (John Wilkerson) Subject: Phone *XX Codes? Date: 13 Dec 1995 10:30:11 -0500 Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet I am in search of a list of all of the *XX codes, such as *67, *57, *69 and the like. Does anyone have a complete list, so I can see if they work in my area? Thanks... John L. Wilkerson Jr... jwilkers@freenet.columbus.oh.us johnw@right.net 71140,77@compuserve.com http://www.right.net/~johnw ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #513 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Dec 14 11:39:07 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA29957; Thu, 14 Dec 1995 11:39:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 11:39:07 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512141639.LAA29957@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #514 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Dec 95 11:39:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 514 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson New York Suffolk County Proposes Non-Emergency 811 Number (Robert Casey) Inet Addresses in the Phone Book (Frank Atkinson) Wide-Screen Television (Toyo Kondo) Americas Telecom 96 - Call for Speakers (Fernando Lagrana) Cellular CID - It's Here! (Kevin Autrey) Wire Management (Ian Macdonald) GTE Rate Restructuring for Washington State (Ry Jones) BellSouth Has *Olympic Fever*! (Eric Friedebach) No LD --> No LD ?? (Glenn Foote) Beta Tester Wanted For GSM SMS (Kent Skagvik) KSU Needed (Jim Youll) Last Laugh! Recent Telecomics (Dave Leibold) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) Subject: New York Suffolk County Proposes Non-Emergency 811 Number Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 18:59:11 GMT Saw on the news last night (Dec 12) that New York state's Suffolk County (at the end of Long Island) wants the 911 emergency number to be off loaded with non-emergency police business (paperwork reports, barking dog reports, noisy parties, and other non-life threating problems) and to establish 811 for that non emergency stuff. Leaving 911 free and open for the important emergencies. People are getting recordings on hold on 911 now there. One of the county politicians got put on hold on 911 personally, and so thought up the non-emergency police number idea. 811 isn't being used for something else now, is it? ------------------------------ From: fratkins@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Frank Atkinson) Subject: Inet Addresses in the Phone Book Date: 13 Dec 1995 11:22:16 -0500 Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Ameritech in Columbus has announced that their next business yellow pages will include Internet addresses. A company spokesperson said that addresses would be handled as a second line in the yellow pages listing. The release says that by 1997 or 98 they expect the white pages to also include email addresses. 'Spose they know the difference between an email address and a url. I would rather have my home page rather than a street address, if I was to chose. I'm sure some single women would also rather not have street addresses listed. Will caller id return a URL so you can pull up their home page as you speak to them. Frank Atkinson fratkins@freenet.columbus.oh.us frank@han1.hannah.com http://han1.hannah.com/frank/frank.html ------------------------------ From: tkondo2937@aol.com (TKondo2937) Subject: Wide-Screen Television Date: 13 Dec 1995 15:50:13 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: tkondo2937@aol.com (TKondo2937) It seems that wide-screen television -- I think it has 9 to 16 aspect ratio, which is the same as HDTV -- is popular in Japan. My question is how the wide-screen program production, transmission, and display are coordinated. It is true in the United States that many feature films are made with 3-4 aspect ratio television audience in mind by positioning actors at the center of the screen, or they modify the original films to fit them into smaller display unites unless those films are shown as cinema scope with both the top and bottom of the TV screen blacken out. When you are showing conventional television programming in 3-4 aspect ratio television, the situation is opposite. You have to blacken out the both right and left edge of the television screen to display the conventional television programming, or use a production method that is compatible with the display units from the beginning. However, modifying all the production method is an expensive process. I wonder how they actually work. Is there anyone familiar with these issues? Thanks, Toyo ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 09:39:00 CET From: fernando.lagrana@itu.ch (Fernando Lagrana) Subject: Americas Telecom 96 - Call for Speakers AMERICAS TELECOM 96 FORUM Rio de Janeiro, 10-15 June 1996 CALL FOR SPEAKERS After the tremendous success of TELECOM 95 (over 150,000 visitors, 850 speakers, 6000 delegates to the Forum), the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is organizing its next event: Americas TELECOM 96, to be held in Rio de Janeiro from 10 to 15 June 1996. As usual, this event will encompass an exhibition and a set of confer- ences (the FORUM). The FORUM at Americas TELECOM 96 will comprise two Summits to address vital issues on the future of telecommunications in the region. The Strategies Summit will give the floor to highlevel speakers on policy and regulatory issues, regional alliances, finance and trade, risk assessment, political challenges and other strategic considerations. The Technology Summit will consider the technical means by which the Americas region can achieve its leap forward, including the latest advances in hardware, software and networking concepts, taking particular account of regional needs. The two Summits will run in parallel throughout the whole week. The Forum Advisory Committee has begun identifying topics and we are now making a call for speakers (based on tentative proposals -- subject to change). If you wish to be considered as a speaker at either of the two Summits -- which will both include Workshop Sessions please forward a synopsis (not more than 300 words) on one of the following topics, before 15 January 1996, indicating the Summit for which your paper is intended and including a professional biography. STRATEGIES SUMMIT * American geopolitical challenges * Between fragility and growth - international financing entities - trade opportunities and perspectives - foreign direct investments and ownership - private initiatives, investment prerequisites * Assessing risks, maximizing growth potential * New market paradigms - entertainment & broadcasting - mobile trends - cultural diversity * Regional alliances, market globalisation * From Regulator to Trend-Setter - challenging the "traditional" regulators - privatising for growth - fair competition * Regional standards, international integration * Political challenges - telecommunications and the environment - research & development - accounting rates * Narrowing the knowledge gap * Managing by example: American success stories * From development to growth - the new trade environment - regional cooperation - Americas, a broad perspective: a solutions review * The Information Age - electronic democracy - cybertrade - educational perspectives * The Information Highway: the missing link or a new frontier? * Upsizing for growth - human resources development - new trends - wireless is fine - investing in inflationary economies * Interacting towards the global information society TECHNOLOGY SUMMIT * Wireless telecommunications * Universal Personal Telecommunications (UPT) * Broadband telecommunications * Transport Network Evolution * Multimedia Applications * American Realities * Information Highway Technologies * TV in progress WORKSHOPS * Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) * Mobile Standards * The World Wide Web * Human resources and tele-education * Telemedicine * Maintenance * Emergency telecommunications NOTE TO THE APPLICANTS: Sales/product promotion papers will not be accepted. Material must be original and previously unpublished. For further information on the FORUM, please contact Elizabeth A. Lake at the International Telecommunication Union in Geneva, on tel: +41 22 730 5680, fax: +41 22 730 6444 or e-mail: forumcfp@itu.ch or consult our WWW home page at http://www3.itu.ch/TELECOM. I wish you a busy and studious Christmas! Fernando Lagrana FORUM Coordinator, ITU/TELECOM ------------------------------ From: exukev@exu.ericsson.se (Kevin Autrey) Subject: Cellular CID - It's Here! Date: 14 Dec 1995 13:30:58 GMT Organization: Ericsson North America Inc. AT&T Wireless (formerly known as Metrocel) -- a cellular carrier in the Dallas/Fort-Worth area has begun delivering Caller-ID data on calls from a cellular phone to a non-cellular number. It's kind of got some kinks that they are working out at this point (see below), but it does indeed deliver my cellular number to my CID box at home when I call home from my mobile phone. For now, all cellular numbers in the system are apparently set to a default value of "Per-Line Blocking ON". When I call home -- just dialing my seven-digit number, and where I have "Anonymous Call Rejection" turned ON, I got the reject message that the phone company plays to anonymous callers. In order to turn off Per-Line Blocking for a given call, you dial *82, then the number you are dialing, and then . Just like you would on a regular land-line (well, except for that button). Hopefully, there will be a way for a user to toggle the Per-Line Blocking setting in the future. The recorded message at AT&T Wireless indicates that the *82 is just a "temporary measure" to get around the Anonymous Call Rejection message. But the message also indicated that the eventual goal of their work is to deliver CID data on Cellular calls as a default. I know that AT&T Wireless switched out their entire system last year - pulling out their old switches and putting in brand new Ericsson switches. I honestly don't know if other cellular switch manufacturers have the capability to deliver CID data. Let me see - MCI can get it right. AT&T can get it right. Cellular providers are working towards delivering CID - but Sprint can't... Hmm. Kevin Autrey | exukev@exu.ericsson.se | +1 214 997-6865 Ericsson Inc. (USA), Richardson, TX Radio Systems - Research & Development EUS/RD/KD Design Services - Design and Verification Tools ------------------------------ From: polygon@portal.ca (IAN MACDONALD) Subject: Wire Management Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 05:39:23 GMT Organization: Online at Wimsey VELCRO HARNESSES PUTS THE REIGNS ON DATA CABLE NIGHTMARE VANCOUVER, October 25, 1995 - Microsoft's head office is stuck on it, so are Northern Telecom and Georgia Tech, numerous phone companies and other businesses across North America. Polygon Wire Management Systems of Port Coquitlam, B.C., manufactures a line of Velcro wire management products for organizing and securing the disarray of cables on telecommunication racks, work stations, computer networks and cabling systems. A major problem setting up telecommunication and computer networks is the tendency for wires, most notably category five and fiber optic cables, to bend beyond their specified bend radius. This bending through tray sections and to relay racks and storage cabinets can cause serious kinks, thus changing the shape of the cable core. This results in deformed designed symmetry and distorted or canceled data transmission. Cables can also be pulled from their connectors due to excessive strain causing permanent and costly damage. Polygon's Velcro systems are designed for instant installation using self-adhesive or screw mounts. Unlike nylon tie wraps and rigid systems, these proven secure systems are sensitive enough to avoid crushing category five wire or glass fibers. Company President Ian MacDonald explains that, "In the 90's there has been a tremendous rush to set up computer and telecommunications networks. With that rush it appears cable management was often neglected. That is now being addressed. After assessing the market, we designed and now supply products to organize existing and new locations. Network engineers now specify our line into planned networks." Polygon offers a number of devices that are adaptable to most network setups worldwide. Polygon also encourages customized solutions for more challenging situations. Their products are available through Anixter, a major international data product distributor. For further information contact: Ian MacDonald, President , Polygon Wire Management Systems 407-1952 KINGSWAY AVE., PORT COQUITLAM, B.C. CANADA V3C 6C2 Phone: (604)941-9961 Fax: (604)941-1721 email polygon@portal.ca Internet Home page http://www.portal.ca/~polygon ------------------------------ From: rjones@coho.halcyon.com (Ry Jones) Subject: GTE Rate Restructuring for Washington State Date: 14 Dec 1995 06:47:39 GMT Organization: Northwest Nexus, Inc. - Professional Internet Services My bill from GTE today had an insert that reads: "IMPORTANT NOTICE Recently, GTE has filed a proposal with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) to consolidate existing Washington tariffs with those of the former Contel telephone company. Contel became a part of GTE in 1993. The company has filed tariffs with the WUTC that, if approved, decrease some rates while increasing others. Some charges have been eliminated and some services restructured. This new tariff is designed to eliminate certain inequities that have existed since GTE merged with Contel and to simplify the terms, conditions, and services to all customers." Later, a table breaks out two charges as an example: GTE Contel Proposed Busy Line Interrupt: $0.40 $2.10 $2.10 Busy Line Verify: $0.20 $1.37 $1.35 Returned check fee goes from $7.50 GTE to $15.00 Contel. Call waiting goes from $2.81 to $3.25 (res) and $3.31 to $4.00 business. ISDN is renamed Digital Single Line Service and is restructured. It in amazing to me that the only tariff that went down was the Busy Line Verify, which went down two cents. However, since the DSLS and the new CentraNet/ISDN-BRI services aren't broken out into price ranges, I can't say what happened with those prices. From the looks of the insert, GTE is taking an opportunity to rake in some more dough. Which is fine, they're a business, they're allowed to make money. Since I don't use BLV or BLI, it doesn't seem to really affect me, but I fear that If I don't speak up, I'll end up like this fellow: "First they came for the hackers. But I never did anything illegal with my computer, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the pornographers. But I thought there was too much smut on the Internet anyway, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the anonymous remailers. But a lot of nasty stuff gets sent from anon.penet.fi, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the encryption users. But I could never figure out how to work PGP anyway, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for me. And by that time there was no one left to speak up." - anon And then my rates will go up, and I'll have no moral ground to stand on. So I don't know where I stand. A $15.00 fee is in line with what other businesses charge for a bounced check, so I just don't know. The address to comment is: Secretary WUTC PO Box 47250 Olympia WA 98504 1-800-662-2967 Ry http://www.wicker.com/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All I can say is whoever took that quote from Martin Neimoller and *perverted* it to apply to Internet had a lot of nerve. First of all, I disagree with the idea that because 'they' come for one person or group of people 'they' will soon return for another person or group of people. The one does not absolutely follow the other at all. Second, Neimoller made it clear *which groups* he was speaking about. People quote him now as though it was an all-purpose catch-all thing, and that is *not* what he was saying. I am too young to remember him in person but people older than myself who did see him (for instance, an elderly aquaintence who passed away a few years ago heard him in person twice at the Chicago Sunday Evening Club in the late 1930/early 1940's) were always annoyed that modern day usage of his quote only includes less than half of the whole thing. To compare the present day gov- ernment of the USA -- as bad as it is in some respects -- to the Nazi movement in 1930/40 Germany, and users of the Internet today to the Jewish victims of Hitler is absolutely ludicrous. To further compare them to people who are likely to see some increases in their phone bill as a result of tariff realignments is obscene. Where are the GTE gas chambers located? Where are their concentration camps? You begin by saying you did not speak up when 'they' first came for people who had committed crimes with computers (what crimes had the Jews committed?) and then reach the conclusion that when your rates go up you won't have any moral ground to stand on. Huh??? PAT] ------------------------------ From: aerostar@ccia.com Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 21:57:25 -0800 Subject: BellSouth Has *Olympic Fever*! I was making a flight connection at the Charlotte Douglas Intl. Airport in Charlotte, NC today when I noticed that about one in five of the BellSouth payphones in the terminal have a special coin box installed in them with a full color Olympic logo with the words *Official Sponsor of the 1996 U.S. Olympic Team*. Very colorful and unique! I don't think an Olympic Sponsor is allowed to display such promotional tie-ins after the games are over, unless they are a long term sponsor (and I doubt BellSouth is). So the question is; what's going to happen to all those special coin boxes after the 1996 Games? Maybe some BellSouth employees will have a neat little bookend on their shelves in 1997 ... Eric Friedebach aerostar@ccia.com ------------------------------ From: glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Glenn Foote) Subject: No LD --> No LD ?? Date: 14 Dec 1995 02:45:12 -0500 Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet A friend of mine has two kids in different cities. Right now they are both out of work, and have gotten a little behind on their bills, including that important one, the telephone. He had both of their long distance accesses turned off, until things get better. (Daddy has deep pockets, but he does believe in being ... well cheap.) He asked me, and I didn't know ... can the kids call each other by reversing the charges? Can anyone with the long distance access turned off recieve collect calls? Just how extensive is that data base anyway? Just a small question to pass the time ... Glenn "Elephant" Foote ...... glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, they can call each other collect. What 'Daddy' needs to do is have Billed Number Screening added to all phone lines, then when attempting to call to the number collect, the call will be bounced back to the caller with a response that, 'collect calls are not accepted. Please choose some other billing method to pay for the call.' PAT] ------------------------------ From: Kent Skagvik Subject: Beta Tester Wanted For GSM SMS Date: 14 Dec 1995 13:36:51 GMT Beta tester Wanted for GSM/SMS Meum is a Swedish company specialised in Mobile computing and communication. One of our products, an application called ShortCut sends SMS (Short Message Service) to GSM phones. A SMS is a small text message (160 character) which could be sent from a PC running MS Windows. ShortCut has been a hit in Sweden and we are now delivering 100 - 200 samples per day. Shortcut is a UseWare. It means that the customer pays when he is using it, not when he is buying it. We are now releasing an UK version and an US version of ShortCut. We know that the US market is not GSM based but we belive that there is an interest to be able to send SMS to GSM phones all around the world. ShortCut handles today 27 different GSM operators from Australia, South Africa to the European countries. The great advantage of the product is that a message will be sent to the GSM phone even if the recepient is using his phone or he has forward his calls to the company Switchboard. We are now looking for beta testers both in the UK and US. If there is anyone that want to test the product, please send us email. Since we also have products like Email/SMS gateway we also want to come in contact with companies both in UK and US which can help us marketing our other products. Email address: meum@algonet.se ------------------------------ From: jyoull@cs.bgsu.edu (Jim Youll) Subject: KSU Needed Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 08:17:06 -0500 Organization: Bowling Green State University I have a Panasonic KSU and I like it a lot. One of my clients needs a KSU for his new office and I'm suggesting a Panasonic ... So: I'm looking for people who sell them, either new or USED (at a good price). He needs ~6 CO lines, ~12-16 inside extensions, nothing larger than that and 1-4 feature phones depending on price. I've heard that the newest digital Panasonic units have problems with 28.8K modems so I'd appreciate any comments about that. Also, if you carry something that's not a Panasonic but which will do the trick (primarily, allowing POTS devices and feature phones in any combination, and which is easily programmable) then let me know about it. New or used ... Purchase will be made within four weeks. Please email at this address for more information or if you carry this stuff. Thanks, Jim Youll jyoull@wcnet.org jim@answerfactory.com ------------------------------ From: Dave.Leibold@superctl.tor250.org (Dave Leibold) Date: 13 Dec 95 19:17:34 -0500 Subject: Last Laugh! Recent Telecomics Here's the latest summary of some of the daily funnies dealings with the phone system over the past several months, as listed in comic name and date order. - - - Adam 15 Oct 95: Clayton invites a classmate over to check out some "cool toys". His classmate proceeds to check with his parents right away by pulling out a cell phone ... Clayton then wonders who should be going to who's place. Animal Crackers 10 Dec 95: Lyle phones Lana ... but goes on indefinite hold: "I have 'call waiting' without paying for it". Beetle Bailey 16 Nov 95: Sergeant yells expletive-ridden shot through the phone ... the other party shoots back with an even more-expletive-filled response. Sergeant hangs up: "Gee, no matter how bad I get I keep falling behind". Bound & Gagged (appeared Toronto Star 26 Nov 95 - probably had actual earlier date): One Prisoner is #161125 ... the other is #60180 ... Fax #40112. Broom Hilda 1 Oct 95: Broom Hilda keeps answering a wrong number callers. After enough calls, BH gets ready to administer the air-horn treatment, only to be pre-empted when the "wrong number caller" uses the same strategy first, saying, "Electronic mail will never replace the true joy of good old-fashioned personal communication." Dave (July 95 ... actual date uncertain): Attempts to enter an e-mail for golf@chat.com are hindered by typos ... first goof@chat.com, then golf@chet.com ... wife wonders why "mandatory typing skills" aren't mentioned in the infobahn-mania. Family Circus 26 Nov 95: The kids make a tin can and string phone ... actually, a three-way "conference call" network. Friends (apparently just a local Toronto Star comic): Of all the pages in a phone book, "why is it always the page that I need?" that gets tore out. The Fusco Brothers (date in 1995 uncertain): Rolf's idea of "a non-dedicated telephone line" is something one says, rather than what one plugs into the telco lines. Hi & Lois 28 Jul 95: Chip chats extensively with a girl on-line ... even though she's in a different end of the nation, they can still get into trouble ... to the tune of a $300 phone bill. (Must be long distance to reach an access port unless telcos are doing more 'net services that we thought ...) Hi & Lois 9 Sep 95: Plumbing repair is needed, but messages via answering services, machines, faxes, pages, etc. are to no avail ... Lois: "I'm reaching out, but I'm not touching anyone." Hi & Lois 16 Sep 95: Hi visits as Thirsty goes on-line ... Thirsty has met some on-line folks ... "Littlebit" who was over 400 pounds, a bald netter named "Hairguy", a 4'10" tall "Skyscraper"... Thirsty himself goes as "Mel Gibson". Marmaduke 23 Sep 95: Marmaduke gets beeped instead of yelled for dinner. Non Sequitur 25 Sep 95: As an incentive to get the older guys on-line, a company realises savings in training by using cyberporn. On The Fastrack 29 Jun 95: Bud gets a fax coming in through his mobile phone ... his car explodes with paper ... back at the office, Art's "in" basket seems to be relieved of its enormous stack. On the Fastrack 9 Oct 95: Bud: "I knew this would happen once they started regulating the net" (that is, install customs procedures into cyberspace). On the Fastrack 6 Nov 95: 20 years earlier, Wendy is seen redialing through to a radio contest line ... that experience comes in handy today as she faces that "all operators are busy, please dial again later" syndrome. Sherman's Lagoon 14 Oct 95: Hawthorne gets Sherman's answering machine, says some not so nice things for his message ... Sherman's Lagoon 26 Oct 95: Sherman is kidnapped to Oceanworld ... but manages to send an e-mail home. (This comic has the website http://www.slagoon.com) Shoe 5 May 95: Wizard seeks a way to make money fast on the 'Net, so he buys a book ... for $35.95 ... Shoe to Wiz: "There's your answer." Shoe 23 Jul 95: Cosmo's idea of what happens when the infobahn technologies are mixed with a nation of couch potatoes: "A nation of couch fries." Shoe 28 Jul 95: A waiter takes a customer to a smoking booth ... a telephone booth, that is. Shoe 22 Sep 95: The 'Net is described as "people with computers talking to other people with computers about computers ... behold, the information beltway." ["beltway" refers to a highway that goes around a city in circles] Shoe 28 Sep 95: "Last warning ... no more wake-up calls from the switchboard." Shoe 19 Oct 95: describes the pressing of ties with a fax machine ... as long as it's a local call. Walnut Cove 24 Sep 95: News stories can come via computer, but someone can't download the news with the software at hand ... "the electronic equivalent of having the morning newspaper thrown on your roof". Walnut Cove 26 Oct 95: A girl figures her brother Andrew is very low on the social food chain ... "He calls women on 1-900 lines and they hang up on him." Walnut Cove 10 Dec 95: A computer setup is ready to go on-line, but one of the boys is hesitant to go on-line: "I'm not sure I want a bunch of weirdos to know my address." Fidonet : Dave Leibold 1:259/730@fidonet.org Internet: Dave.Leibold@superctl.tor250.org ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #514 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Dec 14 20:08:52 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA10033; Thu, 14 Dec 1995 20:08:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 20:08:52 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512150108.UAA10033@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #515 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Dec 95 20:09:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 515 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Internet Access via RF/Infra-Red? (Pete Kruckenberg) Timing Cryptanalysis of RSA, DH, DSS (Paul C. Kocher via Dave Farber) Frontier Cellular Service and Resellers (Clifford D. McGlamry) Frontier Cellular Service Requiring LD (Stacy Sherman) Cell Phones: "None of the Above" is Not a Choice (A. Padgett Peterson) Re: BellSouth Has *Olympic Fever*! (Carl Moore) Re: Want to Buy Predictive Dialers (Elana Beach) Telemarketing Issues and This Forum (PhoneRoom@aol.com) Recent Experiences With BellSouth Caller ID (Paul Selig) Programming Information For an ATT 8130 Phone (Marc Wiz) How Do You Reach A Local Operator From Out Of State? (Jodi Weber) Re: Reactions and Rebuttal to Internet Day of Protest (Hovig Heghinian) Data/Voice Call Center 'Discriminator' (Bill Moynihan) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pete@inquo.net (Pete Kruckenberg) Subject: Internet Access via RF/Infra-Red? Date: 14 Dec 1995 06:09:36 GMT Organization: inQuo Internet (801) 530-7160 I would like to research the possibility of providing Internet access via RF (microwave, or spread-spectrum, or other) or infrared, as an alternative to using "traditional" telecom transports such as frame-relay or leased lines (and up-and-coming ones like cable and ISDN). I'm interested in this on both a local-access (within a radius of maybe 15-20 miles line-of-site), and a state- or region-wide basis (probably using some kind of existing RF network to get over mountains, etc). Any advice, pointers, suggestions, en- or discouragement would be appreciated. In particular, I'm interested in: Equipment to use in local-access stuff, both on our side and on the customer's side. Must be able to go 28.8kb to 1.5Mb, and hopefully up to 20 miles. Recommendations, suggestions, experiences, etc. Equipment for "long-haul" (over 20 miles, or not line-of-site) connections, and what kind of providers can help haul our data over their existing RF networks. How to establish a "network" that customers can hook into (we run via RF to a remote location, then customers connect to that via RF, infrared, or copper). FCC/Federal/Regulatory requirements for doing this kind of thing and whether we should license RF space, use spread spectrum, etc. Pointers, FAQs, books, magazines, etc on how a system like this would work, what we'd need, costs, RF providers, etc. Possibility of using satellites instead (like digital TV)? Equipment that would let people connect via small, affordable sets (that could possibly replace a traditional modem or CSU/DSU). Any other input on other similar attempts at doing data over RF/infrared would be appreciated. We are just doing research into this now, so anything that'll help us put together a reasonable technical plan and business model would be very helpful. Thanks, Pete Kruckenberg pete@inquo.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 08:21:32 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: Timing Cryptanalysis of RSA, DH, DSS Forwarded FYI to the Digest: Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 21:48:19 -0800 From: pck@netcom.com (Paul C. Kocher) I've just released details of an attack many of you will find interesting since quite a few existing cryptography products and systems are potentially at risk. The general idea of the attack is that secret keys can be found by measuring the amount of time used to to process messages. The paper describes attacks against RSA, fixed- exponent Diffie-Hellman, and DSS, and the techniques can work with many other systems as well. My research on the subject is still in progress and the current paper does not include many of my findings. I will eventually publish a full paper, but am releasing a preliminary draft now to alert the community as quickly as possible. A copy of the abstract is attached at the end of this message and the full text can be downloaded in PostScript format from: ftp://ftp.cryptography.com/pub/kocher_timing_attack.ps ftp://ftp.cryptography.com/pub/kocher_timing_attack.ps.gz I've also made an HTML version which is accessible at: http://www.cryptography.com (The HTML uses subscripts and superscripts which aren't supported in older web browsers. The PostScript version is the "official" one and looks nicer.) The results have already been seen by Matt Blaze, Martin Hellman, Ron Rivest, Bruce Schneier, and many others. While the full significance of the attack is not yet known, I think everyone who has seen it considers it important (including Netscape who awarded me a $1000 bugs bounty prize). ABSTRACT. Cryptosystems often take slightly different amounts of time to process different messages. With network- based cryptosystems, cryptographic tokens, and many other applications, attackers can measure the amount of time used to complete cryptographic operations. This abstract shows that timing channels can, and often do, leak key material. The attacks are particularly alarming because they often require only known ciphertext, work even if timing measurements are somewhat inaccurate, are computationally easy, and are difficult to detect. This preliminary draft outlines attacks that can find secret exponents in Diffie- Hellman key exchange, factor RSA keys, and find DSS secret parameters. Other symmetric and asymmetric cryptographic functions are also at risk. A complete description of the attack will be presented in a full paper, to be released later. I conclude by noting that closing timing channels is often more difficult than might be expected. Cheers, Paul Kocher ********************************************************************* VERY IMPORTANT: If you send me e-mail, please understand that I probably won't have time to respond to all who write. Please keep messages SHORT and send them to pck@cryptography.com (**not** my netcom address -- misdirected messages will be ignored). PGP when used for e-mail is not vulnerable to the attack. Please state in your note whether you would like a reply. ******************************************************************** Paul C. Kocher Independent cryptography/data security consultant E-mail: pck@cryptography.com (please see above before replying) ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 95 13:06:39 EST From: Clifford D. McGlamry <102073.1425@compuserve.com> Subject: Frontier Cellular Service and Resellers > My question is, what are the risks in using a cellular airtime > re-seller? Also, I am looking for suggestions for airtime providers > in the Washington/Baltimore cellular calling area. Any help will be > greatly appreciated. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would say check out Frontier Mobile > Line, aka Allnet, aka Call Home America, aka Frontier Communications. > That is who I signed up with just recently (about a week ago in > fact, and so far they are *very good* at least here in the Chicago > area. Their customer service people seem a little confused, but > the service itself is good. You bring up many points in discussing this issue, but some of the conclusions reached are just flat out wrong. First of all, cellular resale is nothing new. It is mandated by Federal law. Most carriers would like to get rid of resellers, but the FCC has found time and time again that these requests were not in the best interests of the public. How do cellular resellers operate cheaper? Well, just like any other business, you have to buy at one price, sell at another, and live in the margin. By the way, the carriers only obligation to the reseller is to provide pricing equal to or better than their best retail customers. This is often a hotly contested issue, but of important note, there is NO requirement for a wholesale rate that provides any sort of guaranteed or fair margin. As a result, many areas don't have resellers as the required return can't be achieved. As far as Frontier aka whoever they are this week, I wish you luck. Every time they have tried operating as a reseller, they have failed miserably. The reason revolves around the support cellular customers require. Frontier aka Allnet is used to providing customer service reps at a ratio of about 15000 to 1 or higher. This is appropriate for the volume of calls a LD carrier/reseller would handle. However, in cellular, anything over about 3000 to 1 results in unhappy customers due to long hold times. Add in the fact that cellular problems are FAR more complex when they arise and have many more variables involved, this is where they lose the ability to satisfy the customer. As far as credit card billing, I am amused. As a cellular reseller myself, we KNOW what happens with that scheme. I have a friend with an operation with approximately 45,000 subscribers. He tried this in Mass. Six months later, after being cancelled by six different credit card processing clearing houses for unsatisfactory chargeback ratios, this program was canned. THESE WERE PEOPLE WHO HAD PASSED CREDIT CHECKS! A seller of telecommunications services has no recourse in the event of chargeback for services paid by credit card (other than collection agencies and lawyers) and the chargeback window is right at five and half months! You may be getting a "good deal" with Allnet aka whoever they call themselves this week, but I think you will find yourself very shortchanged in the long run. Why? Refer to your own Editor's Note at the end of the V15 #513 Digest. We reprogram OUR customers phones for FREE and are willing to help them do it, when necessary, over the phone. Why do we do this? Because it's good business. If you have a problem, we have a shop and can often fix things while the customer waits. Generally, we find 60% of the complaints customers have about their equipment when it malfunctions are very easy and quick to fix. We don't charge for these small repairs. If your phone has to go off for service, we provide loaners (at no charge) until yours comes back. Me thinks you get what you pay for in the long run. You are buying a fair weather supplier. I look forward to hearing what you think about them when the rain comes. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well don't confuse where I got the phone with who supplies the air ... unless they are one and the same and I don't know it. Calls to Frontier about the phones illustrated in their brochure were referred to a company called 'Cellular World' in Texas, where NEC happens to be located. What their tie-in with Frontier is, if any, I do not know. The next message in this issue is from someone who might take exception to some of what you said. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Telecom216@aol.com Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 11:17:59 -0500 Subject: Frontier Cellular Service Requiring LD I'm a new subscriber to your fine electronic journal. I'm surprised to see all the hullabaloo over Frontier reselling cellular service. There is nothing new about reselling airtime -- it's been around since the beginning of cellular service in a lot of markets. Of course the underlying carriers love their rebillers! They have a guaranteed revenue stream and are not responsible for collection, customer service, etc. It' what they call a "win/win" since Frontier gets to penetrate a bigger share of the telecom market without a lot of capital investment. Perhaps I can be of a assistance to your readers. I am an independent agent of Frontier (as well as 1/2 dozen other long distance carriers). Since you do have to have an account with Frontier before you can get their cellular service, I'd be happy to help set you up. You can e-mail me and I will call you back. Telecom 216@AOL (Stacy Sherman, Vice President/National Sales Telecom Resources, Inc.) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well now, Mr. McGlamry in the message just before yours says that the cellular carriers do not like the resellers and would be rid of them if not for laws stipulating other- wise. So who is correct here? I would agree witn you that it probably makes good sense to work with them. The carrier can greatly reduce the price he charges 'regular customers', allowing the reseller to mark it up to somewhere higher and both still make a profit. Now I cannot comment on his remarks about Frontier as a 'fair weather supplier' since I have not been on line with them long enough to form an opinion. I also have to take care when forming opinions because sometimes those people (of whom I form them) know I write this Digest and they treat me a little differently. Today in the mail from Frontier in response to my request to them, I got a complete list of all their charges, the markets they operate in at present, and a couple other things. They do indeed have a very wide range of monthly fees and charges per minute. For example, the most expensive I found on their list were: Los Angeles $40.00 per month service charge, and 35/23 per minute. Miami $27.95 per month service charge, and 37/25 per minute. Atlanta $23.95 per month service charge, and 37/25 per minute. and the real shocker, to me at least was: New York $21.95 per month service charge, and 53/40 per minute. Imagine, fifty three cents per minute, but 'only' forty cents per minute if you want to stay up all night making calls. What could *possibly* be the reason for a forty dollar per month fee in Los Angeles? Look at Boston: $15.00 per month (better, however) 45/39 per minute. Who came in least expensive? Chicago, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Detroit, Grand Rapids and Milwaukee ... all Ameritech cities and all at $10 per month and 35/18 per minute. Their custom calling features are all installed free and there is no monthly fee except for Called Party Pays; for that they still charge the cell phone user $3 per month. The one exception is Atlanta where I guess they can't make do with $23.95 per month and 37/25. In Atlanta you pay $15.00 *for each feature* as a set up fee. Talk about heaping on a little insult to add to the injury! In Los Angeles, $40.00 per month service charge is not all you pay either. To that monthly fee there is added a 'surcharge' for Universal Service Tax and a second tax to fund communications services for deaf and disabled persons. They assess those taxes on your actual calls as well. If we in Ameritech territory are getting it for $10 --> 35/18 then I wonder how much Ameritech is charging Frontier? Probably next to nothing. Any ideas *why* Ameritech territory is so much less? Also, times are rounded upward to the next minute in all markets. Time is calculated from SEND until END, including ringing, except that there is no charge for DA/BY. There is a disconnect fee of $25 per number. They also sent me some handy wallet cards reminding me how to use the Custom Calling Features, and a little wallet card entitled 'B System Roaming Directory' with numbers from all over the USA/Canada, most of which end in 'ROAM'. Anyone have experience with other resellers? Anyone gonna send me the hacks -- oops, I mean 'programming instructions' for the P-120? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 13:22:31 EST From: A. Padgett Peterson Subject: Cell Phones: "None of the Above" is Not a Choice When my wife needed an emergency phone to keep with her and concious of horror stories of being cloned, I attempted to obtain a service that did not permit any toll calls. Long distance was not anticipated as a need and is just an 800 number away if necessary (I know but as said was not anticipated to be needed). First barrier was when the service company insisted on a long distance provider. Second barrier was when I was told that blocking of toll calls was a "feature" that had to be added and not a just a service I did not want to select. Bottom line was that for $1.75 a month (which was waived for a year), only non-toll calls could be dialed. The downside which I did not understand was that roaming was also disallowed. Would like to know why roaming (making calls from a different LATA ) must be blocked if outward toll calls are blocked ? Seems like it would be easy to separate. Warmly, Padgett ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 13:31:28 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: BellSouth Has *Olympic Fever*! aerostar@ccia.com writes: > I don't think an Olympic Sponsor is allowed to display such > promotional tie-ins after the games are over, unless they are > a long term sponsor (and I doubt BellSouth is). What games are over? The 1996 Games have not taken place yet. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: He is not saying the games are over. He said *after* the games are over, and I assume is reference was to the cost of amortizing the stuff involved. It is doubtful it will have all depreciated before it is required to take it out of service. PAT] ------------------------------ From: elana@netcom.com (Elana who?) Subject: Re: Want to Buy Predictive Dialers Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 22:45:23 GMT Brian Brown wrote: > It is an interesting article describing the true goal of predictive > dialing. If you are willing to pay the big bucks and staff > accordingly, the dialer puts the call through _as soon as it hears > "hello"_ so you can't tell. Which is precisely the reason why I normally answer the phone by saying: "Hi, this is Elana" instead of "hello". If I hear dead silence even if I say my usual greeting more than once, then I hang up -- or use it as a means to have some fun. ;-) > Admittedly, however, the vast majority of uses of these dialers are > used for nuisance calls. No kidding. I have found that if I found that I've been called by a robot, and I am in a mischevious mood that day, I'll happily say "hello" just to trigger it. Then when the human phone droid says: "Mrs. Elana J. Engstrom?" (why do they always say Mrs. to a female?) I'll put on a sad voice and say: "She died in an accident last week. I'm cleaning out the apartment." This results in the human phone droid going into slight shock, and they then often say: "I guess I'll have to take her off our calling list then." Me: "Yeah, I guess you have to." I now have a nice, quiet phone. Very few junk calls. :-) Works with any type of phone solicitor, it seems ... Would this work with bill collectors? I rarely have any outstanding bills, so not much chance of me finding out firsthand ... Elana [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ... Say, aren't you the person who wrote me some time ago to tell about the phones you found at the train station in Chicago where you could place calls for free? Is that why you don't have many outstanding bills? ... Seriously Elana, messages like yours are an affront to people in the telemarketing industry, as the next message in this issue will illustrate. PAT] ------------------------------ From: phoneroom@aol.com (PhoneRoom) Subject: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum Date: 14 Dec 1995 11:34:25 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: phoneroom@aol.com (PhoneRoom) Does anyone know of a newsgroup that is dedicated to issues specific to the telemarketing field? I have found that the editor of this group has negative feelings toward the industry and therefore desire to join discussions in a more unbiased area. Please Email Phoneroom@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 16:47:49 -0500 From: paul@conterra.com (Paul Selig) Subject: Recent Experiences With BellSouth Caller ID I've had Caller-ID & Name service from BellSouth for about a year and a half now in Columbia, SC. I've watched with interest how things have changed since the December 1 deadline for nationwide Caller-ID. Alltel, which serves parts of South Carolina, has always provided a number with a city/state pair. Other non-local exchanges which are BellSouth previously reported "Out of Area". Local exchanges always provided the number and database name. On December 1st, and for about a week thereafter, all non-local BellSouth numbers reported "Out of Area", though most of my calls were coming from the Atlanta Metro area. Calls from Ameritech regions were spotty - some neighborhoods in Cleveland, OH came through with the number and city/state, while others still showed "Out of Area". Finally, on Dec. 12, calls from other BellSouth areas started showing the number and database name. Calls in both directions in Columbia, Atlanta, Charlotte, and Birmingham are now working properly. As has been reported earlier, all calls from Sprint are showing up as "Out of Area". An interesting note: As part of BellSouth's Touchstar(R) "Deluxe Caller-ID" package ($7.50/mo), I also get Anonymous Call Reject. It simply routes all callers who have blocked their number to an intercept which states that I don't accept calls when the number has been blocked. As an experiment, I toggled that service off for about a week. During that week, calls from telemarketers more than quadrupled (13 calls in one week!) , with most showing up as "private call". Of course, I've had people call me at work to tell me that they tried to get ahold of me at home and thought that my line was out of service. It turns out that they had recently installed one of those "in-line" boxes which automatically dials the number blocking code before every call. The anonymous reject message is the typical low-quality scratchy telco recording, so it does sound like a "line out of service" message to callers if they don't listen carefully. Paul Selig [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In my phone bill which arrived yesterday was an insert from AT&T saying, "As of December 1, we are required to pass your telephone number and name to the party you are calling. To prevent this from happening, dial *67 at the start of your call." PAT] ------------------------------ From: marc@wiz.com (Marc Wiz) Subject: Programming Information For an ATT 8130 Phone Organization: Wizywyg Software Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 12:17:34 GMT I just saw an ATT 8130 phone at an ATT store today. This looks like a wonderful toy to me. It's a two line speaker phone that can also display caller id. What's even better is that the phone has an RS-232 port that allows a computer to obtain the caller id info. But the real kicker is that you can control the phone via the RS-232 port. The phone comes with software for Windows but I want to use the phone with my Unix box at home. Does anyone know if the "protocol" the phone uses is available and where I might get it? Thanks, Marc Wiz marc@wiz.com Yes, that really is my last name. ------------------------------ From: jweber@cbnews.att.com Date: Wed, 13 Dec 95 14:30:46 EST Subject: How Do You Reach A Local Operator From Out Of State? Organization: AT&T Can anyone tell me how to reach the local operator if I'm not in the same state? I'm not trying to dial the AT&T operator ("00"). I've been trying to dial the local operator in NV (specifically Contel, the LEC for the Lake Tahoe area) from NJ, and so far the only way I've been able to get connected is by calling Contel's business office, who put me through. Any suggestions much appreciated! Jodi Weber jodiweber@attmail.com or jweber@cbnews.cb.att.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The short and simple answer is, you don't. Under almost all circumstances, there is nothing the 'local' operator in some community not your own can do for you. Anything which requires some local 'presence' in a distant community should be initiated with a call to *your* long distance operator who will attempt to resolve the problem, or lacking the ability to do so place a call to 'inward' in the desired location. If you must speak with someone at the phone company in the distant location, then you do exactly what you did: you call the business office in that town and work through them. If you are asking is there some magical code to dial which will get you through, the answer is no. Not any codes that you as a customer can dial from your line. Things like AC+121, AC+131, etc do not work from customer lines. Neither does 702+181 which reaches an operator handling Nevada toll stations, although they sometimes answer saying 'Reno Microwave'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hovig@ai.uiuc.edu (Hovig Heghinian) Subject: Re: Reactions and Rebuttal to Internet Day of Protest Date: 14 Dec 1995 21:39:05 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Reply-To: hovig@cs.uiuc.edu In reply to PAT's question, of why so few are "involved" in this Great Censorship Debate: Because we don't care all that much. This is why we have three branches of government and elections all the time. The Senate can pass any law they so choose. So let them. They can even pass a flag-burning amendment if they want, since they apparently have too much time on their hands to worry about stupid things like the economy or maintaining foreign alliances -- which are probably better off without them, anyway. (This is what happens in a spoiled and philosophical society like ours, where everybody is an expert on everything, yet skilled at nothing.) But then the Supreme Court says, Um, sorry, but, like, dumb law. And no matter who screams -- or how loud -- in the words of Aesop, "Nature will out." These laws and protests are all short-term bumps in the unummerable turnings of the world. We're all going to live a century or so in this, the freest and most comfortable society ever, and senators like Exon, who have brought very little credit to their names otherwise, need something to keep their aging and imminently- retiring blood boiling. So be it. And the ACLU, who turns every molehill they find into a mountain, needs issues like this to validate their existence. So be it. Liberals, conservatives: who cares? Most of us have work to do, families to raise, and taxes to avoid. This is usually the best cure for infantile paranoia and a general lack of confidence in life. Rantingly yours (thanks for the venting space =), Hovig Heghinian | Open your mind too far, Department of Computer Science | and your brain may fall out. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign | [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you for the good reply. Like you, I have about reached the point I say 'who cares' any longer where our national politics are concerned. You would not believe how much stuff I get here for publication from 'those people', i.e. the ones who are doing battle with Exon and the others this week. I get easily five or six huge mailings each week from people wanting me to publish something in the Digest decrying the 'religious right' and other 'right wing' organizations, people, etc. I could fill up the Digest day after day with their stuff. Admittedly, there *are* some problems on the net these days, and things may come to a boiling point before long, but then, we have been hearing that for years haven't we? I guess when you live under the sword of Damocles long enough, you eventually learn to ignore it. After 'they' have come for the rest of you and taken you all away and there is no one left to protest on my behalf, then maybe I will start worrying; or maybe at that point I will just call it quits. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bmoynihan@mcimail.com (Bill Moynihan) Subject: Data/Voice Call Center 'Discriminator' Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 23:46:49 GMT Organization: campusMCI Hello, I need a little help defining some equipment for an application. The application requires a single 800 number with a box behind it that will: a) Route to a modem pool for a <=28Kbps dial-up session, or; b) If no carrier is detected within a couple of seconds, decide it is a voice call and direct callers to a VRU/menu application for user- directed assistance. The modem pool/terminal server and the VRU applications are not part of an integrated chip/box, and are stand-alone applications today. The mystery box would simply 'discriminate' between call types and route appropriately. I've seen this in small applications (i.e., the call center software on ThinkPads and on Packard Bell machines at Best Buy), so I have to think that someone has implemented this on a larger scale (e.g., a real call center with multi-line/multi-T1 terminations with concurrent sessions). Any recommendations, suggestions, etc. would be appreciated. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Bill SGUS TC Madison, WI ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #515 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Dec 14 21:27:52 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA15199; Thu, 14 Dec 1995 21:27:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 21:27:52 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512150227.VAA15199@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #516 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Dec 95 21:28:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 516 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Radio as Science Fiction in 1888 (Old Time Radio via Andrew C. Green) Pacific Bell Files Final Plan on 619 Area Code Split (Mike King) Three New Area Codes in 1997 (Mike King) Prime Dime Long Distance (Richard Thomsen) New Beeper Numbers (Jonathan A. Solomon) Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users (Tom Peters) Re: Reactions to Congress and Indecency on Net (Stanley W. Henson) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 17:17:44 -0600 From: Andrew C. Green Subject: Radio as Science Fiction in 1888 The following first appeared in the {Old Time Radio Digest}, and I think it's a fascinating example of how people of the late 1800's viewed the possibilities of their new technology. Having read Bill Gates' effort in {Newsweek} recently, I found this excerpt from the _last_ century to be just as interesting ... if not more so. Notice below how the telephone system, then a fledgling industry, is worked into the future vision in an intriguing way. It is reprinted here with the permission of Prof. Bensman, the original poster. Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 18:12:29 -0600 From: bensmanm@msuvx2.memphis.edu (Marvin R. Bensman) Subject: Radio as Science Fiction in 1888 Radio in 2000: The View From 1888 Edward Bellamy was born in Chicopee Falls, Massachusetts, March 26, 1850. He trained as a lawyer and journalist, but soon he devoted himself to his major interest: writing. He wrote three novels and several short stories before he married Emma Sanderson in 1882. In 1888 Looking Backward was published. It aroused considerable interest and Bellamy toured lecturing on the book. He died of tuberculosis on May 22, 1898 after writing several other novels and founding a Boston newspaper that failed. In April 1888 in response to a review in the Boston Transcript Bellamy wrote: Looking Backward, although in form a fanciful romance, is intended, in all seriousness, as a forecast, in accordance with the principles of evolution, of the next stage in the industrial and social development of humanity, especially in this country; and no part of it is believed by the author to be better supported by the indications of probability than the implied prediction that the dawn of the new era is already near at hand, and that the full day will swiftly follow. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Looking Backward was written in the belief that the Golden Age lies before us and not behind us, and is not far away. Our children will surely see it, and we, too, who are already men and women, if we deserve it by our faith and by our works. Looking Backward is the story of Julian West, who falls asleep in an underground chamber on May 30, 1887. He wakes to find that it is September 2000. He is the guest of a Dr. and Mrs. Leeta and their daughter, Edith. His house had burned the night he had fallen asleep, but hypnotized he had slept all these years until he was discovered in his chamber. Throughout the book he is told what transpired in the 20th century. Business had merged into giant combinations, and since about 1925 there had been few small businesses left. Stores have only showrooms and send out all their goods by pneumatic tubes directly from warehouse to home. Women had achieved equality, no money was used but payment (credit) cards, relations between men and women were more frank and open, there is no war, etc. It was utopia. Bellamy in the novel predicts radio-or at least a music room. Certainly he was not the first with such a prediction, but his explanation and detail are interesting. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - When we arrived home, Doctor Leete had not yet returned, and Mrs. Leete was not visible. "Are you fond of music, Mr. West?" Edith asked. I assured her that it was half of life, according to my notion. "I ought to apologize for inquiring," she said. "It is not a question that we ask one another nowadays; but I have read that in your day, even among the cultured class, there were some who did not care for music." "You must remember, in excuse," I said, "that we had some rather absurd kinds of music." "Yes," she said, "I know that. I am afraid I should not have fancied it all myself. Would you like to hear some of ours now, Mr. West?" "Nothing would delight me so much as to listen to you," I said. "To me!" she exclaimed, laughing. "Did you think I was going to play or sing to you?" "I hoped so, certainly," I replied. Seeing that I was a little abashed, she subdued her merriment and explained. "Of course, we all sing nowadays as a matter of course in the training of the voice, and some learn to play instruments for their private amusement; but the professional music is so much grander and more perfect than any performance of ours, and so easily commanded when we wish to hear it, that we don't think of calling our singing or playing music at all. All the really fine singers and players are in the musical service, and the rest of us hold our peace for the main part. But would you really like to hear some music?" I assured her once more that I would. "Come, then, into the music room," she said, and I followed her into an apartment finished, without hangings, in wood, with a floor of polished wood. I was prepared for new devices in musical instruments, but I saw nothing in the room which by any stretch of imagination could be conceived as such. It was evident that my puzzled appearance was affording intense amusement to Edith. "Please look at today's music," she said, handing me a card, "and tell me what you would prefer. It is now five o'clock, you will remember." The card bore the date "September 12, 2000," and contained the longest program of music I had ever seen. It was as various as it was long, including a most extraordinary range of vocal and instrumental solos, duets, quartets, and various orchestral combinations. I remained bewildered by the prodigious list until Edith's pink fingertip indicated a particular section of it, where several selections were bracketed, with the words "5 P.M." against them; then I observed that this prodigious program was an all-day one, divided into twenty-four sections answering to the hours. There were but a few pieces of music in the "5 P.M." section, and I indicated an organ piece as my preference. "I am so glad you like the organ," she said. "I think there is scarcely any music that suits my mood oftener." She made me sit down comfortably, and, crossing the room, so far as I could see, merely touched one or two screws, and at once the room was filed with a music of a grand organ anthem; filled, not flooded, for, by some means, the volume of melody had been perfectly graduated to the size of the apartment. I listened, scarcely breathing, to the close. Such music, so perfectly rendered, I had never expected to hear. "Grand!" I cried, as the last great wave of sound broke and ebbed away into silence. "Bach must be at the keys of that organ; but where is the organ?" "Wait a moment, please," said Edith. "I want to have you listen to this waltz before you ask any questions. I think it is perfectly charming." And as she spoke the sound of violins filled the room with the witchery of a summer night. When this had also ceased, she said: "There is nothing in the least mysterious about the music, as you seem to imagine. It is not made by fairies or genii, but by good, honest, and exceedingly clever human hands. We have simply carried the idea of labor-saving by cooperation into our musical service as into everything else. There are a number of music rooms in the city, perfectly adapted acoustically to the different sorts of music. These halls are connected by telephone with all the houses of the city whose people care to pay the small fee, and there are none, you may be sure, who do not. The corps of musicians attached to each hall is so large that, although no individual performer, or group of performers, has more than a brief part, each day's program lasts through the twenty four hours. There are on that card for today, as you will see if you observe closely, distinct programs of four of these concerts, each of a different order of music from the others, being now simultaneously performed, and any one of the four pieces now going on that you prefer, you can hear by merely pressing the button which will connect your house wire with the hall where it is being rendered. The programs are so coordinated that the pieces at any one time simultaneously proceeding in the different halls usually offer a choice, not only between instrumental and vocal, and between different sorts of instruments, but also between different motives from grave to gay, so that all tastes and moods can be suited." "It appears to me, Miss Leete," I said, "that if we could have devised an arrangement for providing everybody with music in their homes, perfect in quality, unlimited in quantity, suited to every mood, and beginning and ceasing at will, we should have considered the limit of human felicity already attained, and ceased to strive for further improvements." "I am sure I never could imagine how those among you who depend at all on music managed to endure the old-fashioned system for providing for it," replied Edith. "Music really worth hearing must have been, I suppose, wholly out of the reach of the masses, and attainable by the most favored only occasionally, at great trouble, prodigious expense, and then for brief periods, arbitrarily fixed by somebody else, and in connection with all sorts of undesirable circumstances. Your concerts, for instance, and operas. How perfectly exasperating it must have been, for the sake of a piece or two of music that suited you, to have to sit for hours listening to what you did not care for! Who would ever dine, however hungry, if required to eat everything brought on the table? And I am sure one's hearing is quite as sensitive as one's taste. I suppose it was these difficulties in the way of commanding really good music which made me endure so much playing and singing in your homes by people who had only the rudiments of art." "Yes," I replied, "it was that sort of music or none for most of us." "Ah, well," Edith sighed, "when one really considers, it is not so strange that people in those days so often did not care for music. I dare say I should have detested it, too." "Did I understand you rightly," I inquired, "that this musical program covers the entire twenty-four hours? It seems to on this card, certainly; but who is there to listen to music between, say, midnight and morning?" "Oh, many," Edith replied. "Our people keep all hours; but if the music were provided from midnight to morning for no others, it still would be for the sleepless, the sick, and the dying. All our bedchambers have a telephone attachment at the head of the bed by which any person who may be sleepless can command music at pleasure, of the sort suited to the mood." ************************************************************************ *Professor Marvin R. Bensman, J.D., Ph.D. * *Department of Communication; Office Phone: (901) 678-3174 or 678-2565 * *University of Memphis Fax: (901) 678-4331 * *Memphis, TN 38152 * *E-mail: BensmanM@cc.Memphis.edu * * * * See: http://www.memst.edu/radio-archive/radio-archive-homepage.html * ************************************************************************ Andrew C. Green (312) 266-4431 Adobe Systems, Inc. (formerly Frame Technology) Advanced Product Services 441 W. Huron Internet: acg@frame.com Chicago, IL 60610-3498 FAX: (312) 266-4473 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you very much for passing along this interesting article. I found it fascinating, and hope other readers enjoyed it as well. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mk@TFS.COM (Mike King) Subject: Pacific Bell Files Final Plan on 619 Area Code Split Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 15:36:32 PST Forwarded FYI... Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 14:43:00 -0800 From: Teresa.Ruano@pactel.com (TELESIS.EA_SF_PO:Teresa Ruano) Subject: NEWS: Pacific Bell Files Final Plan on 619 Area Code Split >>>>NEWS FROM PACIFIC BELL<<<< Pacific Bell Files Final Plan on 619 Area Code Split December 5, 1995 Contacts: Pacific Bell: John Britton, 619-237-2430 GTE: Larry Cox, 800-227-5556 Contel: Al Sabsevitz, 619-243-0210 Pacific Bell has filed the final plan for the splitting of area code 619 with the California Public Utilities Commission. The plan represents the consensus of more than 20 telecommunications companies. A second area code is needed because 619 is rapidly running out of phone numbers. The new 760 area code will begin operation March 22, 1997. There will be a six month permissive calling period where you will be able to get through by dialing either area code. The new area code will not affect the price of telephone calls. The cost of a call will be the same, even if you dial into a different area code. With the new plan, the existing 619 area code will start at the Mexican border and include the following cities and communities: Chula Vista, National City, Coronado, Del Mar, Solana Beach, Rancho Santa Fe, Poway, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, El Cajon, Rancho San Diego, Santee, Lakeside, east to the Imperial County line, and all of the city of San Diego, except the San Pasqual Valley. The new 760 area code will include Encinitas, Carlsbad, Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos, Escondido, Ramona, Julian and all the other communities in San Diego County. Phone customers living in the counties of Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, Inyo, Mono and Kern who currently have area code 619 will change to area code 760. People who change to area code 760 will keep their existing 7-digit telephone numbers. It's also important for customers to know that PBX's, auto-dialers and other telecommunications equipment will have to be re-programmed to recognize the new area code. "Announcing the exact date now gives business and individuals a chance to plan for changes in stationary and advertising," said Sweet. The only change to the previously announced plan is that the San Diego East County communities of Alpine, Pine Valley, Jacumba, Dulzura and Campo will remain in area code 619, instead of transferring to the new 760 code. "At the public meeting we held in East County, we heard from many people who felt that Alpine and the rest of East County should remain in 619," said Area Code Relief Administrator Tom Sweet. "The industry agreed that would simplify the boundary line. We were able to include these prefixes because of the small number of telephone lines in these rural areas." Mike King * mk@tfs.com * Oakland, CA, USA * +1 510.645.3152 ------------------------------ From: mk@TFS.COM (Mike King) Subject: Three New Area Codes in 1997 Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 15:38:21 PST Forwarded FYI... Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 13:08:47 -0800 From: tltinne@legsf.PacBell.COM Subject: NEWS: Three New Area Codes in 1997 >>NEWS FROM PACIFIC BELL<< Three New Area Codes To Be Unveiled In 1997 916, 415 And 714 Running Out of Numbers, Need Relief FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 8, 1995 CONTACT: Dave Miller (Sacramento) 916 974-2811 Beverly Butler (San Francisco) 415 542-9468 John Britton (Orange County) 619 237-2430 San Francisco - Due to increased demand for telephone numbers, new area codes will be introduced in some or all of the areas that now use the 415, 916 and 714 area codes in California. The telecommun- ications industry expects to start using the three new area codes as early as December 1997. A group comprised of representatives from the telecommunications industry is currently developing and evaluating different options for introducing the new area codes. Under California law, public participation and comment must be obtained before the industry can submit proposed area code relief plans with the California Public Utilities Commission and administrators at Bell Communications Research (Bellcore), the organization that administers the North American Numbering Plan. Bruce Bennett, numbering plan administrator for Pacific Bell and coordinator of the industry area code relief efforts for the 415, 916 and 714 area codes, said a series of meetings will be held before the end of June 1996 to seek public comment and input on potential area code introduction options and proposals. Locations, dates and times of the public meetings will be announced at a later time, Bennett said. Boundaries for the new area codes, as well as the actual three-digit number, will be announced later next year after customers have an opportunity to evaluate various boundary proposals in the upcoming public meetings, he said. The 415 area code currently serves all of Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties and the northern portion of Santa Clara County. The 916 area code currently serves an 18-county portion of Northern California from Sacramento north to the Oregon border, except the North Coast. The 714 area code currently serves most of Orange County. Mike King * mk@tfs.com * Oakland, CA, USA * +1 510.645.3152 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 09:08:54 -0700 From: rgt@lanl.gov (Richard Thomsen) Subject: Prime Dime Long Distance I received an advertisement in the mail for Prime Dime Long Distance. They advertise guaranteed $0.10 per minute, 24 hours a day, *without* canceling your existing service ($0.14 in-state). Plus a $5.00 monthly access fee per telephone line for each month you use Prime Dime. There is a three-minute minimum billing. Has anyone heard about this place, and have any comments? Richard Thomsen Network Engineering rgt@lanl.gov CIC-5, MS B255 Voice: 505.667.4210 Los Alamos National Laboratory FAX: 505.665.7793 Los Alamos, NM 87545 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 12:12:34 -0800 From: jsol@netcom.com (Jonathan A. Solomon) Subject: New Beeper Numbers My beeper has been set up so I can receive pages in NYC and Hartford/Springfield. I am going to be setting it up for Boston too. Right now my beeper has four numbers; three in Hartford, and one in NYC. It's neat that I can get a fex line to NYC to ring on my beeper while paying for a beeper with four local numbers (it costs no more to do Hartford/NYC/Boston ...). The only thing that costs a lot is to have the beeper ring me in NYC and Boston for any of the above beeper numbers (and in Hartford). The NYC number is 917-953-1849. The Hartford numbers are 860-939-5573, and 860-842-7811. The fourth line will be released when I set up the Boston number, so its area code should be 617. I am thinking of a Chicago number too, but that will either require me to remove one of the Hartford numbers, or purchase a new beeper. This plus my calling cards will allow me to live without toll calling from my home phone (that's another story). I made about $1k of toll calls when I was in the rest home, and paid it off, but now the phone company wants $600 ... as a deposit. Right now my lines are toll restricted (I can use my roommate's line to make toll calls, or my ATT MCI and Sprint calling cards, or my SNET prepaid calling card.) So much for fascism ... These numbers (except one of the Hartford numbers) are for my consulting business. It's neat to be able to carry your phone numbers (with voice mail ... :) anywhere. Two or three beepers doesn't faze me. It's even better than cellphones, which can only have two numbers. It's also cheaper for me than purchasing a cellphone; rates for calling card calls are much lower than cellphone airtime rates. Looking forward to those who are in the areas my beepers cover to call me whenever. I get 300 calls per month per line. Voice mail lets you enter your number (with area code) or a message (which will cause the beeper to display the number you dialed). I have decided not to use an 800 number, because of the insecurities involved. Believe it or not, these lines combined cost less than an 800 number. Cheers, jsol [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Jon Solomon, or 'jsol' as he is known to many users was the founder of TELECOM Digest, and the moderator for about seven years in the early 1980's. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tpeters@hns.com (Thomas Peters) Subject: Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users Date: 14 Dec 1995 19:21:14 GMT Organization: Hughes Network Systems Inc. >> 3) Apply a non-subscriber service charge of $.40 per message to domestic >> Interlata interstate dial station calls originated from residential lines >> presubscribed to any interexchange carrier. This charge is in addition to >> the inital period charges applicable to calls from points in the Mainland >> and Hawaii to points throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. >> Virgin Islands. These charges are effective on December 1, 1995. > This is so bogus! It really angers me how they are trying to evade > the whole purpose of equal-access dialing by imposing arbitrary > restrictions on those who do not presubscribe. I really don't Like many people who read this Digest, I subscribe to a small carrier and only use AT&T for special occasions, so this change may impact me. I point this out because I don't want to sound sanctimonious when I say that most 10288 dialers are cream skimmers who are taking advantage of AT&T's regular customers. I don't like price increases either, but it is silly to pretend that AT&T has done something *wrong*. A free market in long distance has to include the right to raise prices and to give better prices to frequent customers. Most non-subscribers are infrequent customers who tend to use AT&T only for the difficult calls that other carriers don't do. From a business point of view, why shouldn't AT&T want to make this type of customer pay more? They provide minimum revenue and maximum headache. ------------------------------ From: shenson@uiuc.edu (Stanley W. Henson) Subject: Re: Reactions to Congress and Indecency on Net Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 12:59:03 -0600 Organization: University of Illinois, CCSO-Communications In article <12.13.95.5667tf@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > The actions in the United States Congress this past week regarding the > Internet and 'indecency' has spurred a considerable protest by many on > the net. A "Day of Protest" -- which actually is going on all this > week -- has been called. The articles below discuss it in detail. > From: ROGOR@delphi.com > Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 13:23:48 -0500 (EST) > Subject: *** URGENT ACTION ALERT - Stop Net Censorship *** > Do you oppose censorship? Of course, I oppose censorship -- practically everyone does! But that's the wrong point. Any restrictions can be considered 'censorship' from the appropriate point of view. Even copyright laws could be argued to be censorship of a person's right to information. The problem is that some people are taking advantage of the freedom of the Internet to put inappropriate information in public places, and the hard issue is how to protect children (and adults, too, for that matter) without undue restriction of free communication. Instead of one more knee-jerk reaction of thousands of people screaming about the infringment of their rights, it would seem that the Internet community would be better served by offering positive suggestions of ways of preserving the public's Right to Decency. There are still a few behaviors that most of us would agree could and should be restricted from public display for any and all ages. The hard part is how to define these and impose appropriate 'censorship' on these behaviors while preserving as much individual freedom as possible. I do not think that a few hundred thousand email messages and phone calls will contribute much to solving this social dilemma. But then -- email is cheap and easy, and it doesn't take much thinking to blast off a few flames to our leaders who are struggling with these issues. Stan Henson [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good points you raise. I suggested earlier that in view of the email flood going into Congress right now on this issue -- apparently most of it very, very negative and probably quite a bit of it extremely hostile if I know the netters like I think I know them, a very short and postive note would probably be appreciated and let our legislators know that there is far from uniform agreement on the net about the problems we face. I agree with you that email can be cheap and easy, but it doesn't have to be that way. It can be thoughtful and carefully presented. No, I don't want to see 'censorship' either; but I fear we will be forced into a reform situation by the government unless it comes to pass on its own. As I said in an article earlier this week in the {Computer Underground Digest} (you may have seen it), self-censorship is the best censorship of all. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #516 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Dec 14 23:34:03 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA25011; Thu, 14 Dec 1995 23:34:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 23:34:03 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512150434.XAA25011@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #517 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Dec 95 23:34:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 517 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Digital Cellular Service (Edward A. Kleinhample) Line Test Standards Request (Michael J. Gallo) Anyone Used NHT for T1, T3, or POTS? (Timothy H. Ohara) Re: Abuse of 800/888 Numbers (Mark D. Tenenbaum) Re: 800 and 888 Number Abuse (Lawrence Chen) Re: 800 and 888 Number Abuse (Mitch Wagner) Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users (Thompson) Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users (Rosenberg) Caller ID Information From Canada (Mark J. Cuccia) Vista 350 Phone From Northern Telecom (Johnny K. Lai) Re: New Wiring Suggestions (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Re: New Wiring Suggestions (cccef.bgriffis@capital.ge.com) Re: New Wiring Suggestions (Jason J. Kennedy) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: EDWARD.A.KLEINHAMPLE@gte.sprint.com Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 13:00:10 -0500 Subject: Digital Cellular Service I am considering the purchase of a cellular phone in the coming months. I live near Tampa, FL. where the available carriers are GTE Mobilnet and AT&T Wireless. I have heard plenty of advertising hoopla about AT&T's digital cellular service. Although I will pay more for the phone (costs start at $100 and go up), the monthly service is considerably less ($20/month as opposed to $30/month for either the A or B carrier). My immediate feeling is that the cost of a $100 phone is recouped in the first year by the $10/month difference in service prices. I have several questions that are delaying my purchase: What digital technology is in use by AT&T in Tampa? How widespread is this technology in other areas (AT&T advertises digital coverage in most of Florida)? Can a digital cellular phone roam to a non-digital area? (the phones that I have seen include the Motorola PERSONALD and MICROTACD, and several Ericson offerings -- I don't know model numbers). Is the technology likely to be obsolete soon -- should I wait? Does digital REALLY offer a significant advantage over the analog service? AT&T advertises better sound quality, better security (less fraud) -- what's the real story? What are general opinions about AT&T Wireless, GTE Mobilenet, good experiences, bad experiences, etc? Both local carriers bundle the mandatory one year service at the rates stated above. What kind of rates are typical 12 months from now when I have completed the mandatory service agreement? Am I correct in assuming that a portion of the price of the phone is ammortized into the monthly service rate for the first year? Should I expect lower rates once this period is over? Thanks in advance for any information that you can provide. Ed Kleinhample 70574.3514@compuserve.com Land O' Lakes, FL. or edward.a.kleinhample@gte.sprint.com ------------------------------ From: mjgallo@deltanet.com Subject: Line Test Standards Request Date: 14 Dec 1995 23:13:03 GMT Organization: Delta Internet Services, Anaheim, CA Request help on finding specs I can hand to local phone companies on what to test for on POTS lines. I am working with a retailer with 500 stores nationwide; we call out nightly to the stores registers and pull back the daily sales from the registers. Ten stores are consistent problems. I either lose the connection in the middle, or I can't make a connection at all. I have identified that the real problem is the phone line. On a couple of the stores when I put a standard analog phone on the line I can either crosstalk, other lines dialing, or hiss and pop. Yet when I call the local phone company they can't find anything wrong. My real question is: Are there specifications I can get hold of that I can point the local phone company to so they know what to test for, or is there a standard list of tests I can tell them to run? Thanks, Michael Gallo ------------------------------ From: tohara@acsu.buffalo.edu (Timothy H Ohara) Subject: Anyone Used NHT for T1, T3, or POTS? Date: 15 Dec 1995 01:11:00 GMT Organization: UB (State University of New York at Buffalo) I think the subject says it all. Looking for anyone with experience with NHT providing a Local Loop for T1, T3, or POTS. Please Email tohara@eng.buffalo.edu Thanks in Advance, Timothy H. O'Hara Senior, Electrical Engineering State University of New York at Buffalo tohara @ eng.buffalo.edu World Wide Web Home Page: "http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~tohara" ------------------------------ From: MARK.D.TENENBAUM@gte.sprint.com Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 20:13:10 -0500 Subject: Re: Abuse of 800/888 Numbers Bob Izenberg asked: > If you have an 800 number that receives nuisance calls or wrong > numbers, do you still pay for the calls? To which you responded, after a very interesting essay on Jerry Falwell's woes with 800: > Short form answer to your question: yes and no. The circumstances > and context are all-important. Technically telco owes you nothing > except, I suppose, the peaceful and unhindered use of your phone > line. In practice, they will help you out sometimes. PAT] Made me wonder: Suppose you have an 800 number like 800-543-2273 which if you glance at your keypad translates to being one very little slip of the finger away from being 800-THE-CARD. I suppose that this unlucky entity receives more than its fair share of wrong numbers. Same goes for the unlucky soul or entity who has 800-656-9377, just one mis-digited punch away from 800-FLOWERS. Made me wonder even further: Do 800 number providers account for this possibility or do they just hand their allotment out consecutively and buyer beware if his number is close to a very frequently dialed number? And wondering even more: What are the most common types of mis-dialings? Slipping digits? Reversing numbers? Maybe some Government agency has spent mucho dollars to find out. I'm reminded of when I lived in Raleigh, NC where almost daily I would get at least one call for the Foot Locker shoe store at a nearby mall. Why? My last two digits were the reverse of their last two digits. The rest of our numbers were the exact same. After telling Foot Locker callers to reverse the last two digits and try again, it was amazing how many times, not ten seconds later, after answering "Hello," I'd hear the same guy in my ear: "This Footlocker?" I always felt like responding "Yea sure it is, we always answer our phone, 'Hello' instead of 'Footlocker'" MARK D. TENENBAUM Plano, TX ------------------------------ From: lawrence@combdyn.com (Lawrence *The Dreamer* Chen) Subject: Re: 800 and 888 Number Abuse Organization: Combustion Dynamics Ltd. Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 23:48:16 GMT rwells@usin.com (Roger Wells) writes: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Someone I know who runs a >> BBS here makes extensive use of Caller-ID to keep track of his users. >> When his line first answers, the first question it asks of new users >> (after getting their name) is 'please enter your full ten digit >> phone number'. Now, he has the caller-ID on most of these people >> already but he wants to see if they are basically truthful or not. >> He does not tell them he has it. He waits to see if they enter the >> same number he sees or not. If they enter a number that is different >> than what the caller-ID says, he asks them a second time more firmly, >> 'please enter the phone number you are actually using right now to >> place this call.' > Does he assume nobody ever calls from a private PBX? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: He makes allowances for that. If the > ID given is 'out of area' or 'unavailable' he simply takes their > word for whatever they give as long as it 'looks like' a phone > number based on examples he has given the computer of things that > cannot be a legitimate phone number such as '911' or 000-0000. > After getting your note, I asked him again about this and he said > he no longer flatly rejects them as users. He tells them they will > be contacted by phone at the number *they gave* -- not the number the > caller-ID displayed -- and given their password verbally. Of course > the truthful ones get their password later the same day or the next > day; the liars get to sit there with egg on their face, or else wait > a discrete period of a few days and call back giving honest numbers > for his records. Very clever ploy, I think. PAT] Huh, did I miss something ... So, the user has to provide a number that can be called voice ... while the caller-ID will be providing the number they are calling from. Or do they provide the number they are calling from, and suddenly be expected to answer instead of modems to validate themselves. Here at work, we have six lines ... three for voice ... we always give out the main number (except the secretary who uses it to track her personal calls 8-), but caller-ID will show one of three possible. We have two lines for data and a fax line. There are no telephones attached to any of the data or fax lines. So, if your human ... don't bother trying to call these lines. While at home, I have five lines; only one is voice, the others are all data ... good luck trying to talk to me calling any of them. (Actually the one I called voice used to be a SupraFAXmodem on silent answer and my answering machine; now its just the answering machine). I used to track caller-Id for my BBS callers, but there were lots of cases where it didn't work; namely the ones where the voice number doesn't match the data number. Or people calling from work or their friend's place and other variations where the number to reach the person doesn't match the one they call from. And, a lot of people don't realize how to give me the number they are actually calling from. A lot of my callers are school teachers that have enough trouble figuring out how to call out from the school as it is. SNAIL: Lawrence Chen, P.Eng. VE6LKC/VE6PAQ Computer Engineer Phone: (403)529-2162 Combustion Dynamics Ltd. Fax: (403)529-2516 #203, 132 4th Avenue S.E. Email: lawrence@combdyn.com Medicine Hat, Alberta T1A 8B5 dreamer@mlc.awinc.com CIS: 74200,2431 FIDONET: 1:134/3002 dreamer@lhaven.uumh.ab.ca DISCLAIMER: All opinions expressed are mine and *NOT* my employers ------------------------------ From: mwagner@netcom.com (Mitch Wagner) Subject: Re: 800 and 888 Number Abuse Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 23:38:17 GMT There was a time when I had a line in my house that got used only for outgoing data calls. And that line was billed to my employer, too. I could never remember what the phone number on that line was -- why should I? Nobody ever called me there? So when your friend asked me the first question -- "Please enter your full ten digit phone number" -- I probably would've answered with my voice number, not the one I was calling from. The second time, I guess I just would've been disconnected. My point here is a minor one, I guess: There are times when a person might have legitimate reason not to divulge the number he's calling from. He might, simply, not know. mitch w. mwagner@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: tcs@tcs.netbox.com (John Thompson) Subject: Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 20:13:32 GMT Organization: TCS Telecommunications In article , j-grout@glibm8.cen.uiuc. edu (John R. Grout) wrote: > When a non-subscriber makes his/her _first_ call using AT&T in a billing > period, which would include both 10-288 calls _and_ calls to AT&T-provided > 900 numbers, the back-office cost involved i.e., generating a monthly > bill for them and sending it to the LEC is _far_ greater than that for > subsequent calls. > However, since AT&T gets something like $.50 for handling a > one-minute call to a 900 number (to cover network services, billing, > etc.), a $.40 surcharge on non-subscriber calls sounds like more than > is needed to recover the costs of billing casual users. But, that would mean that AT&T customers, and customers of other long distance carriers would pay different rates for the 900 number. Instead of saying "$2.99 first minute, $1.99 each additional" at the bottom of the ad, it would be someting like "$2.99 first minute for AT&T customers or 10-288 callers who have made at least one call this month or customers who have called at least one AT&T 900 number this month, or $3.39 first minute for non-AT&T customers, $1.99 each additional". 40 cents does seem like enough for AT&T to _prepare_ the bill for the LEC. But, doesn't the LEC charge AT&T for the billing? I was told by an AT&T employee about five years ago that the LEC (Bell Atlantic, anyway) charges about $5 per customer to include AT&T's (or anybody else's) bill with the local phone bill. Of course that was 5 years ago, and I could be wrong, but I know that the LEC must charge something. So, a very casual user, even if they are an AT&T Dial-1 customer could actually cost AT&T money to service, provided they get their bill through the LEC. Right? ------------------------------ From: robertr@icu.com (Robert A. Rosenberg) Subject: Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users Organization: RockMug Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 17:02:38 GMT In article , j-grout@glibm8.cen.uiuc. edu (John R. Grout) wrote: > When a non-subscriber makes his/her _first_ call using AT&T in a billing > period, which would include both 10-288 calls _and_ calls to AT&T-provided > 900 numbers, the back-office cost involved i.e., generating a monthly > bill for them and sending it to the LEC is _far_ greater than that for > subsequent calls. What back office cost? The only cost that I can see is if the person is placing a call from a LEC that is not yet on AT&T's list of LECs (one time cost to add that LEC to the Billing Cycle which is eaten by AT&T). Once there is already a billing tape going to the LEC, there is no extra cost to add new numbers to be billed (why keep track of WHO is placing the call at call PLACEMENT time?). The file is an audit trail of the phone calls and gets sorted in Phone Number Sequence by AT&T as part of cutting the billing file (so volume discounts can be applied) to be sent to the LEC. If you are not a Subscriber, the request for your account record gets a "Not a Subscriber" result and you get billed at full rate. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 20:17:45 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Caller ID Information From Canada Friday evening, I received a call from a friend in Canada. He used his chosen primary carrier, Bell Canada (a Stentor member), dialing 1+504+my number. His full telephone number showed up on my CID box. The NPA-NXX was 905-842, which is Oakville, ON. But for the name portion of the CID box, I received `ONTARIO' (left-justified) spelled out, followed by 8 spaces. Probably when BellSouth checked its LIDB, it didn't have the full town/ratecenter name for Canadian NPA-NXX codes, and rather only the province name for Canadian NPA's. I asked my friend to redial me using the Unitel's 10-XXX carrier code. I received an Out-of-Area message on that try, however. MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ From: laijk@charon.engga.uwo.ca (Johnny K Lai) Subject: Vista 350 Phone from Northern Telecom Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 11:43:26 GMT Organization: ITS, UWO Hi, I just wonder, is anyone here in Canada is using the Northern Telecom Vista 350 Phone with Bell Canada, which provides Visual Call-Waiting (allows you to see the CID number even for call-waitings), and CallMall? I wanna to have some technical information on this phone. (It is quite a wonderful phone to me.) Regards, Johnny K LAI Electrical Engineering '98 & CompSci. E-Mail: jlai@mustang.uwo.ca or an054@torfree.net Homepage: http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~stevenl/johnny.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What is 'CallMall', or did you mean 'Call Mail', as in another name for voicemail? PAT] ------------------------------ From: sewilco@fieldday.mn.org (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Subject: Re: New Wiring Suggestions Date: 14 Dec 1995 07:40:32 -0600 > We are about to move to a new location and it will be wired > from scratch. Current proposal: > Everyone get a four jack outlet. Jacks will be RJ-11. > Each Jack will have four wires, ie: two twisted pairs. Anyone have experience with 25-pair Cat 5? Bring up a spreadsheet on the screen and do a cost comparison between using separate cables compared to 25-pair cables. Last time I did that, it was cheaper to use separate cables for six RS-232 terminals when the terminals were no further than three feet from the wiring closet. The wire cost per foot and installation time easily exceeded the extra costs for harmonica or other modular wiring components, and to have the 50-pin connectors put on each end of the 25-pair cable. Also note that a cable in one wall can often service two rooms. If you'll be using Token Ring, I think Cat 5 is a good idea both for speed and reliability. You don't want to lose tokens often. Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@fieldday.mn.org Laws are society's common sense, written down for the stupid. The stupid refuse to read. Their lawyers read to them. ------------------------------ From: cccef.bgriffis@capital.ge.com Subject: Re: New Wiring Suggestions Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 13:43:55 PDT Organization: GE Capital News Server Barry, You may want to re-post to the cabling newsgroup. Basically, your plan looks pretty solid, with a few minor items: 1. Verify from your PBX vendor what is required for voice. Specifically, determine the number of pairs required, the jack type and the block type. 2. Check distance limitations for your RS-232 connections. You can easily run into trouble. 3. Token Ring should be RJ45, not RJ11. CAT5 will help you meet speed requirements. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: New Wiring Suggestions From: jjkenne2@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca (Jason J Kennedy) Date: 14 Dec 95 14:23:58 PST Organization: Ministry of Social Services In article , barry_roomberg@iacnet. com says: > We are about to move to a new location and it will be wired > from scratch. Current proposal: > Everyone get a four jack outlet. Jacks will be RJ-11. > Each Jack will have four wires, ie: two twisted pairs. > 1 Jack - Telephone > 1 Jack - RS232 serial to Unix system. > 1 Jack - Token ring - Novell > 1 Jack - free for future use . Just FYI: we recently rewired one of our premises, and have found a system that works quite well for us is as follows: 2 4pr. Cat 5 runs to each w/s, terminated at w/s in AMP ACO duplex. First Cat5 run split (using AMP ACO modular inserts) to: 1 RJ12 for voice (single pair) 1 RJ45 for 3270 (only needs single pair) Second Cat5 run terminated in Cat5 ACO insert RJ45 for TR LAN attachment. The modular inserts allow us to mix and match our terminations, and the two sheaths allow us some flexibility as well. We found this solution minimizes our installation costs, and allows us some room for change in the future. Just food for thought. Opinions are those of Jason J Kennedy, not necessarily BC Systems, Ministry of Social Services, or Province of British Columbia. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #517 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Dec 15 01:14:13 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA01469; Fri, 15 Dec 1995 01:14:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 01:14:13 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512150614.BAA01469@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #518 TELECOM Digest Fri, 15 Dec 95 01:14:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 518 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular CID - It's Here! (Lynne Gregg) Re: Cell Phones: "None of the Above" is Not a Choice (Steve Granata) Re: Wireless Solution for Roaming a Facility (Lynne Gregg) Re: New York Suffolk County Proposes Non-Emergency 811 Number (D Burstein) Re: You Ought to be in Pictures (Dr. Peter Beill) Re: Nevada Bell to Eliminate Flat Rates! (Stan Brown) Fax --> E-mail (Robert Speirs) Re: Need Quick Advice on Coax Wiring of Home for TV, etc. (Roger Kennealy) Re: New Wiring Suggestions (Robert Vietzke) Re: Hotel Long Distance Charges (Joe Hearn) Information Wanted; Legislation on Telephone Recording (David Steurn) Nikko CID Unit Chokes on Name Display (Tim Meehan) New PCS Networks Online? (Brian Isherwood) Re: Need Satcomm Help (Dr. Peter Beill) Telecommunications Programs Wanted (Joe Biernat) Digital Music On Hold Device (Jack McGee) Looking for Worried Reps and Resellers (IbssTelCom@aol.com) Urgent - North American Modem in Australia? (Toby Weir-Jones) Wanted: POTS Designer/Consultant (Bill Shields) Need Info on Online Configuration (Fardad Vakil) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: Cellular CID - It's Here! Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 14:38:00 PST exukev@exu.ericsson.se (Kevin Autrey) commented on AT&T Wireless. Thank you, Kevin for your comments about AT&T Wireless Caller ID. I think you read the situation well. Our Dallas market is in process of ISUP migration (MF to ISUP trunks needed to deliver CPN and offer Caller ID). For your benefit and those of other AT&T Wireless cellular subscribers, let me just run down what occurs throughout our network as we equip ourselves to deliver CPN. -ISUP INSTALL/TEST phase - Until such time as all ISUP trunks are in and tested in a metro area, we apply a default line block as a matter of practice. This default ONLY is applied while we're in the install/test phase. The purpose is to protect our customers from our transporting their cellular numbers without their awareness or consent. Our cellular customers generally are a tad sensitive about distributing their numbers. Charges are incurred for inbound calls that could be generated as a result of publicizing the cellular number. Once the trunks are in and all's well, we send a notice (bill message page) to all active subscribers and release the block. -AT&T WIRELESS CUSTOMER options on blocking - Once customer notification occurs, we fully comply with the FCC Order: Customers who request Per Line Blocking (in those states where it is available), may order this feature at no charge from AT&T Wireless. When a customer orders this block, *82 may be used on outbound calls to unblock on a per call basis (i.e., *822068288077+SEND). Per Call Blocking is accomplished by pre-pending *67 to the dialed number (i.e., *672068288077+SEND). - THE 'MOBILITY FACTOR' AND PRIVACY- When roaming occurs, the cellular operator may *not* have visibility to whether the roamer has Caller ID on their home network or whether they have chosen Per Line Blocking or not. The FCC Order states that default line blocking cannot be applied in areas where Caller ID services are offered (consumers must affirmatively choose Line Blocking). In this case where we have no visibility to what's in the home market, we must SEND THE NUMBER. Therefore, if roamers want to ensure blocking of the cellular number, they should use *67. We are in process of adding support for *67 to our entire network in order to consistently process calls. If *67 support is offered in an AT&T Wireless city with no Caller ID service (no ISUP), the CPN can't be sent and NO ID or OUT OF AREA appears on the equipment. Kevin and other AT&T Wireless customers: if you want to have the temporary block removed from your cellular lines, place your request with Customer Care or email me (lynne.gregg@attws.com). We'll take care of it for you. AT&T Wireless now offers Caller ID services to digital (TDMA) subscribers throughout Washington, Oregon, and Florida. Other cities will offer Caller ID during the first half of 1996. Regards, Lynne Gregg Product Manager, Personal Services AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. Headquarters 5000 Carillon Point, Kirkland, WA 98033 ------------------------------ From: sgranata@ix.netcom.com (Steve Granata ) Subject: Re: Cell Phones: "None of the Above" is Not a Choice Date: 15 Dec 1995 04:03:27 GMT Organization: Netcom In A. Padgett Peterson writes: > Would like to know why roaming (making calls from a different LATA) > must be blocked if outward toll calls are blocked? Seems like it > would be easy to separate. With a cell phone there actually is very little difference between making an interLATA seven-digit-dial (NXX-XXXX) call and making an outbound toll call. If you dial NXX-XXXX from your roaming location -- across LATA bounds -- back to your home service area, you'll be charged the long distance toll for the call. As far as the switching sequence is concerned, it makes very little difference whether you dialed NXX-XXXX or 1-NPA-NXX-XXXX. The switching system still must haul the call across LATAs from the cellular servicing switch to the terminating phone number. Furthermore, depending on the technology available at the switch servicing your cell phone, your cellular long distance PIC may not be available. In that case you are at the mercy of whatever is the switch's carrier of choice. In rural areas there often is only one IXC to which the servicing switch is connected. To add insult to injury, when you make the NXX-XXXX roaming call between LATAs, most cellular providers bill you your standard roaming rate, in addition to the toll you'll have to pay from the IXC. Steve Granata Reston, Virginia ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: Wireless Solution for Roaming a Facility Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 15:53:00 PST Robert Wolf stated that "Several companies make wireless systems that work specifically with their own telephone systems. Some of the companies that provide this type of equipment include AT&T, Northern Telecom and Ericsson, among others." AT&T Wireless's Cellular Office solution works with most major PBX's and most analog or digital cellular phones. For more info, write to mary.anawalt@attws.com or reply to me. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ From: dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein) Subject: Re: New York Suffolk County Proposes Non-Emergency 811 Number Date: 14 Dec 1995 18:52:55 -0500 Organization: mostly unorganized In wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) writes: > Saw on the news last night (Dec 12) that New York state's Suffolk County > (at the end of Long Island) wants the 911 emergency number to be > off loaded with non-emergency police business (paperwork reports, barking > dog reports, noisy parties, and other non-life threating problems) and > to establish 811 for that non emergency stuff. Leaving 911 free and > open for the important emergencies. People are getting recordings on > hold on 911 now there. One of the county politicians got put on hold > on 911 personally, and so thought up the non-emergency police number idea. Let's see now. Based on this concept and other events going on in NYS, a 'deaf-tty' caller uses 311, a minor emergency uses 811, a serious emergency uses 911. Oh, let's not forget the campaign in NYC to call 999-1111, 999-2222, 999-3333, 999-4444, or 999-5555 to reach the fire dispatcher (depends on which of the 5 boroughs you're in) so as to 'reduce' the load on the general 911 operator andcut down on the delay. Hmm, sounds to me like it would be much simpler, safer, and effective to finally simply staff 911 centers with the right number of people and with decent equipment. In the famous words of a former NYC City Council President (Andrew Stein), who, when questioning why 911 (ambulance) response was so slow was told it was the middle of the summer and call volume was higher beacuse it was so hot, replied: "It was hot last July, it's hot this July, and it'll be hot next July." It's not like stochastic probability and queuing theory are anything new. It's a simple (???) matter of assigning (paying for) appropriate resources. dannyb@panix.com ------------------------------ From: jdrintel@aol.com (Jdrintel) Subject: Re: You Ought to be in Pictures Date: 14 Dec 1995 19:04:00 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: jdrintel@aol.com (Jdrintel) I would like to discuss how videoconferencing is changing the shape and the way we communicate and do business. If interested call me, at: Dr. Peter Beill 814-946-4505 3037 Broad Avenue Altoona, Pa. 16601 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Nevada Bell to Eliminate Flat Rates! Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 02:07:09 EST From: stbrown@nacs.net (Stan Brown) Reply-To: stbrown@nacs.net Mike P. Storke (storkus@heather.greatbasin.com) wrote in article : > My understanding is that business (of course) flat rate billing will > be phased out in a year to a year and a half, with residental > following some time later. While this may seem a long way away for > you, in reality, it's probably much closer than you think. As soon as > businesses (all internet providers, and most bbs's fall under this > classification on their phone lines) have to pay by the minute, guess > what -- SO WILL YOU!! Why? A BBS doesn't make a significant number of outgoing calls. The duration of incoming calls is irrelevant -- unless Nevada Bell is going to start charging on both ends of the call, and you didn't say anything about that. Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio USA Can't find FAQ lists? http://www.nacs.net/~stbrown/faqget.htm for instructions, or email me. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What about the Fido BBS which spends an hour or two every night polling other systems for mail and news? They are going to get hit hard aren't they? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 02:15:18 -0400 From: Robert Speirs Subject: Fax --> E-mail In your opinion, what is the potential of a company which offers the service of enabling people to receive their faxes at their e-mail addresses? Robert Speirs, 12 Briarwood Cres, Halifax, NS, B3M 1P3, Canada tel/fax:(902)443-3965, tel:(902)452-6392 cellular e-mail:ab304@ccn.cs.dal.ca http://www.ccn.cs.dal.ca/~ab304/Profile.html 44.39 N, 63.36 W time zone: AT = ET + 1 hr 29/10/95 - 06/04/96: AT = GMT - 4 hr; 07/04/96+: AT = GMT - 3 hr [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How do you like the above .signature? I don't think I've seen anything quite like it before. To answer the reader's question, I think we should call on Doug Reuben. He is involved with a company doing just that, or perhaps it is in reverse with email out to faxes, etc. He has not contributed anything here in awhile now, so perhaps this will prompt him to write. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "aeo452::kennealy_r"@annecy.enet.dec.com Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 10:20:25 MET Subject: Re: Need Quick Advice on Coax Wiring of Home for TV, etc. > We're in the process of finishing our basement, and before it is > finished and everything sealed up, I want to install coax lines to > many of the rooms in the basement as well as upstairs rooms (from the > basement line). The coax lines of course will be used for television, > maybe FM, and who knows, maybe even a computer line. For TV/FM, the > source would either be cable, an antenna, or a satellite dish (right > now we're using an attic antenna). > Being a mechanical and not electrical engineer, I'd like advice as to > how to wire it properly. What type/size of coax to use, fittings, > etc., as well as the layout of the wiring. My engineering sense tells > me that if I don't design it properly, the signal could be adversely > affected throughout the whole house. Or am I being overly-cautious > here? > Any advice would be most appreciated, and do post to the followup-to > newsgroups as I think others contemplating doing something similar may > be interested in your words of wisdom. Even the best crystal ball gazers of the world are unable to tell you how to cable your house for the next five years -- never mind for the longer term! I would therefore suggest installing flexible conduit throught (making sure the pull-wires are all intact). I would have them all 'joined' together by occasional empty wall sockets which can be covered with a blank plate. I would use lots of conduit all over the place 'interconnecting' all conceivable future equipment sites (let's face it, flexible conduit is cheap enough to be able to overdo it a bit). I would then pull through the coax that is in current use. Next time there is the need for it, be prepared to use the existing wires to pull through the next generation of wiring. Coax for 1996, twisted pair for 1997, category 3 for 1998, category 5 for 1999, and fibre optic for 2000! Regards, Roger Kennealy Telecommunications Consultant International Projects Inc. Tel : +33 50 02 18 36 74230 Dingy-Saint-Clair, FRANCE Fax : +33 50 64 01 39 ------------------------------ From: vietz@rm42.UCC.UConn.EDU (Robert Vietzke) Subject: Re: New Wiring Suggestions Date: 15 Dec 1995 03:14:32 GMT In article , barry_roomberg@iacnet.com says: > Current proposal: > Everyone get a four jack outlet. Jacks will be RJ-11. > Each Jack will have four wires, ie: two twisted pairs. Think about using RJ-45's instead of RJ-11's. Also, run a separate cable to each RJ-45. Don't break-out a four-pair to multiple jacks. Some high speed LAN products require all four pairs. If you need 11's, you can just use the appropriate pairs on the 45's. Rob ------------------------------ From: hearn Subject: Re: Hotel Long Distance Charges Date: 15 Dec 1995 04:52:52 GMT Organization: GTE Intelligent Network Services, GTE INS rob.m.saiter wrote: > While staying in a hotel in Chapel Hill, NC last week, I was charged a > Anyone from this area (Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill) of NC that can > substantiate either side of this argument ... I am no longer from the area, but my distinct memory is that all three areas have toll free dialing into the Research Triangle Park and RTP has free dialing to Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill. Joe Hearn (214) 893-3777 ------------------------------ From: 0002071920@mcimail.com (David Steurn) Subject: Information Wanted: Legislation on Telephone Recording Date: 14 Dec 1995 20:28:38 -0500 Organization: Yale CS Mail/News Gateway What are the rules at the _Federal_ level about recording of telephone conversations by one of the two parties to a call ? I understand that if both parties agree to the recording there is no issue. What about if one party is recording while the other is not aware that the conversation is being recorded? Also, does anybody know which are the relevant piece(s) of legislation (or rule making by an agency such as FCC) about this? TIA, David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 22:32:39 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Meehan Subject: Nikko CID Unit Chokes on Name Display A few questions for TELECOM Digest readers: I have had a Nikko NCID 20, Industry Canada approved CID unit for about two years now. It works fine, except with Name Display. When Bell Canada started offering it last year, the unit would briefly display the name and then 'reset', losing all saved data in the memory and would not work until the batteries were physically removed. I eventually called Bell and removed the feature from the line. Nikko has told me 'it should work' but won't fix it as it's now out of warranty. I think that perhaps Nikko was working with draft specs when they designed the unit, and the actual implementation varies. Questions: Does anyone else have this problem, is there a solution, and when was the Name Display standard implemented? The date of manufacture on the unit was August, 1993. Thanks, Timothy John Meehan - Toronto - Ontario - Canada - M3A 2P5 - duke@interlog.com tim.meehan@utoronto.ca - http://www.interlog.com/~duke/index.html "'Dog bites man' isn't news. 'Man bites dog' is news. And 'Dog bites man on the Internet' is a weekly 12-page section." -- Greg Boyd, eye Weekly ------------------------------ From: briani@circon.com (Brian Isherwood) Subject: New PCS Networks Online? Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 19:01:30 GMT I have been told that Western Wireless in Hawaii and Microcell 1-2-1 have PCS networks up and running commercially. Can anyone confirm this, and perhaps provide me with a contact telephone number for either? Thanks. brian isherwood ------------------------------ From: jdrintel@aol.com (Jdrintel) Subject: Re: Need Satcomm Help Date: 14 Dec 1995 18:53:12 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: jdrintel@aol.com (Jdrintel) Why the expense of satellite communications, when there are many popular videoconferencing solutions to those same issues? I cannot think of very many situations where videoconferencing cannot provide a superior solution. Correct me if I am wrong. ------------------------------ From: jbier10575@aol.com (JBier10575) Subject: Telecommunications Programs Wanted Date: 14 Dec 1995 09:18:17 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: jbier10575@aol.com (JBier10575) I am a Telecommunications Manager looking for traffic engineering programs that will help me better manage my 300 line PBX. Programs such as calculating grade of service, CCS, and erlangs are my immediate interest, but am also interested in any programs that will help in managing my telecommunications responsibilities. Can anybody tell me where I can find such files or programs on the Internet? Thank you in advance. Joe Biernat e-mail JBier10575@aol.com ------------------------------ From: jmcgee@mail.orion.org (Jack McGee) Subject: Digital Music On Hold Device Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 02:19:17 GMT Organization: Orion Reply-To: jmcgee@mail.orion.org I'm looking for a device to play music on hold, from digital storage, so I don't have to fool with a tape wearing out. Probably two or three minutes would be good. Anyone got any ideas for specific machines, and where they can be purchased? ------------------------------ From: ibsstelcom@aol.com (IbssTelCom) Subject: Looking for Worried Reps and Resellers Date: 14 Dec 1995 22:08:14 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: ibsstelcom@aol.com (IbssTelCom) We are looking for industry people who may be interested in joining a loose knit confederation of telco reps and resellers who have pooled to weather the storm of the coming dereg. This will allow participants to write paper for many tariffs, and give you "off tariff" negotiation clout. The pool is already over $22,000,000.00 in monthly traffic. We do not are how small your client list is at this time. This program may help you to keep the ones you have during the coming price war. If you are interested email "ibsstelcom@aol.com" or call 708-637-1234 and ask for Jeff. ------------------------------ From: tew2@cornell.edu (Toby Weir-Jones) Subject: Urgent - North American Modem in Australia? Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 23:49:05 -0500 Organization: Cornell University Greetings folks, Are there any problems taking a North American-spec modem and plugging it into a phone line in Australia? Any particular adapter that's needed? Anything else I should know? Will it even work? Thanks in advance, Toby Weir-Jones Cornell University tew2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ From: bshields@cts.com (Bill Shields) Subject: Wanted: POTS Designer/Consultant Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 16:30:26 GMT Organization: CTS Network Services Consulting position available for experienced POTS engineer: Knowledge of Belcore and International Telco Standards Line and Ringer equivalents, etc. Some experience with ISDN a plus. The project involves the design of a low-cost POTS interface (SLIC/SLAC based) suitable for use in a variety of ISDN Modem, NT1 type products. If you've been through this before and have design expertise, we have an immediate requirement for a part-time or short-term consultant. Interested parties, please E-mail a brief description of your background and contact details (i.e. phone number) to: Bill Shields bshields@cts.com ------------------------------ Reply-To: mfv@pcsi.cirrus.com From: Fardad Vakil Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA20755; Fri, 15 Dec 1995 09:57:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 09:57:36 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512151457.JAA20755@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #519 TELECOM Digest Fri, 15 Dec 95 09:57:30 EST Volume 15 : Issue 519 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson 800 Ration Update (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum (Peter Simpson) New Draft AUSTEL Standard on End-to-End Network Performance (Arthur Marsh) Re: Line Test Standards Request (Stephen Satchell) Re: Abuse of 800/888 Numbers (Steven Lichter) North American Area Codes (Hardy Rosenke) Norstan Communication Customers? (Mark P. Beckman) Re: Digital Transmission of Video Signal Over the Air (Steve Cogorno) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (John Thompson) LD Carrier Confirmation Number (Keith Bergen) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: producer@pipeline.com (Judith Oppenheimer) Subject: 800 Ration Update Date: 15 Dec 1995 07:31:12 -0500 Organization: ICB The FCC has notified DSMI that the reporting procedure implemented upon the June 14th rationing has been modified. Only the largest eight RespOrgs have to provide weekly reports to DSMI, and only in summary form. The rest no longer have to report each week on their 800 activity. Also of interest: During a meeting of DSMI and SNAC this week to discuss SMS software changes, DSMI representatives emphasized concern over potential carrier abuse surrounding the impending 888 launch. Specifically, the SMS software provides carriers with a "now" function that allows for immediate processing of an order. This is supposed to be used for fixing routing errors and other immediate necessities for servicing existing 800 customers. It appears that some carriers abuse this function by using it for number reservations and other non-emergency orders. Because the SMS system contains no technical safeguard to block phony "now" orders, larger RespOrgs in particular were repeatedly implored to self-police with an "honor system" in this regard, so that the system would not crash. A more formal appeal is to be put forth by DSMI at the January SNAC meeting in Orlando. Judith Oppenheimer, President, Interactive CallBrand A leading source of information on 800 issues. producer@pipeline.com, (ph) 1 800 The Expert, (fx) 212 684-2714 http://www.users.nyc.pipeline.com:80/~producer/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As you probably know Judith, many of the very, very small carriers are still continuing to issue 800 numbers to new custoers from their supply. What is the legality of this based on your understanding of present FCC instructions? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Dec 95 09:04:06 EST From: peter@isis.ST.3Com.COM (Peter Simpson) Subject: Re: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum In article , phoneroom@aol.com (PhoneRoom) writes: > Does anyone know of a newsgroup that is dedicated to issues specific to > the telemarketing field? I have found that the editor of this group has > negative feelings toward the industry and therefore desire to join > discussions in a more unbiased area. Dear Mr. Phoneroom: Most of us have negative feelings toward the telemarketing industry. For some unknown reason, the telemarketing industry is surprised by this. You know, there's something about a phone call around dinner time that's very annoying. That's why my name is on a list of people who have registered with NYNEX as not wishing to be called by automatic diallers. Unfortunately, there is no such national list. It's currently against Massachusetts law for a telemarketer to dial a number on that list. This is a very good idea, because it saves telemarketers the time and effort of calling people who don't want to hear their message. As a telemarketer, you should encourage your fellow telemarketers to push for a national list, and encourage the FCC to make it illegal for telemarketers to call anyone on that list. Just think of all the goodwill you'd gain! Telemarketing is advertising, plain and simple. Invasive, annoying and poorly timed advertising. Many of us don't like it at all, and rank telemarketers with politicians, used car dealers, insurance salesmen and lawyers in our hierarchy of esteem. Regards, Peter Simpson, KA1AXY Linux! Peter_Simpson@3mail.3com.com 3Com Corporation The free Unix (508) 264-1719 voice Boxborough, MA 01719 for the 386 (508) 264-1418 fax ------------------------------ Subject: New Draft AUSTEL Standard on End-to-End Network Performance Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 23:32:43 +1030 From: Arthur Marsh On 13 December, Standards Australia issued AUSTEL Draft Technical Standard TS 027 (95), End-to-end Network Performance. As well as providing minimum end-to-end performance levels for parameters relevant to conventional voice telephony over the fixed PSTN in Australia, it also specifies maximum values of line impairments relevant to voice-band data applications (modem, facsimile and TTY) such as Attenuation/Frequency Distortion, Continuous Random Noise, Impulse Noise, Transmission Loss, Group Delay Distortion, and Signal-to-Total Distortion Ratio. Austel DR TS 027 (95) is available for inspection and purchase from Standards Australia (email sic@saa.sa.telememo.au) with a closing date for comments of 28 February 1996. The Chairman of the AUSTEL Working Group 12/1 that developed this draft is Mr. Ken Bell, who can be contacted as kdb@austel.gov.au. As far as I know, there has not been a similar standard published elsewhere, and as a member of the working group, I recommend that other telecommunications regulators undertaking similar work make use of this document. Arthur Marsh, telephone +61-8-370-2365, fax +61-8-223-5082 arthur@dircsa.org.au ------------------------------ From: ssatchell@BIX.com (ssatchell on BIX) Subject: Re: Line Test Standards Request Date: 15 Dec 95 06:01:22 GMT Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation mjgallo@deltanet.com writes: > Request help on finding specs I can hand to local phone companies on > what to test for on POTS lines. > I am working with a retailer with 500 stores nationwide; we call out > nightly to the stores registers and pull back the daily sales from the > registers. Ten stores are consistent problems. I either lose the > connection in the middle, or I can't make a connection at all. I have > identified that the real problem is the phone line. On a couple of > the stores when I put a standard analog phone on the line I can either > crosstalk, other lines dialing, or hiss and pop. Yet when I call the > local phone company they can't find anything wrong. > My real question is: Are there specifications I can get hold of that I > can point the local phone company to so they know what to test for, or > is there a standard list of tests I can tell them to run? ANSI IEEE 743 -- 1995, "IEEE Standard Methods and Equipment for Measuring the Transmission Characteristics of Analog Voice Frequency Circuits" The newest version of this, and the equipment that supports it, can read out line characteristics in 30 seconds or less. In your case, though, you can get those lines fixed by showing that fax machines can't send over them. Except in California, you will get some guff from the local exchange carriers about using modems over phone lines. The tariffs don't require switched voice circuits to carry data, period. In California, they only have to handle speeds to 4800 bps. Also, one or more of your stores could have a line which has "pair gain" on it, which will hurt speed, AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. Here's a way to limit the effect of pair gain and the noise and brack on the lines: tell your modems to operate either V.32 or V.34 at no faster than 4800 bps. If the volume of data is small (4000 characters or less) drop back to V.22bis 2400 -- in the time it takes for V.32, V.32 bis, or V.34 modems to echo-range the connection, you can be *finished* with the data transfer. If you need more direct consultation, send me e-=mail. Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations Publisher of SEPTeL, THE Modem Testing Journal Testing modems for publication since 1984 ------------------------------ From: slichte@cello.gina.calstate.edu (Steven Lichter) Subject: Re: Abuse of 800/888 Numbers Date: 14 Dec 1995 22:02:15 -0800 Organization: GINA and CORE+ Services of The California State University MARK.D.TENENBAUM@gte.sprint.com writes: > Made me wonder: > Suppose you have an 800 number like 800-543-2273 which if you glance at > your keypad translates to being one very little slip of the finger away > from being 800-THE-CARD. I suppose that this unlucky entity receives > more than its fair share of wrong numbers. Same goes for the unlucky > soul or entity who has 800-656-9377, just one mis-digited punch away > from 800-FLOWERS. My having an 800 number on my BBS for my personal use and that of our net has brought some interesting problems with wrong numbers, which are almost always under 30 seconds and AT&T will remove them if I ask. They did have me set off just the area codes I use for incoming and that helped a lot. My only real problem was when someone in New York found it and used the number to call my board and racked up some major time. I was stuck with the charges and the person who's number was on my bill claimed they never called; right!!. I had New York blocked as well as others that are not used. They did offer me passcode protecton, but that would be a pain since it is computer to computer in the middle of the night. I could also get some programming dome for my BBS that will check a person's phone number against my systems records and drop them off if they call using the 800 number since the ANI would be detected, but not many programs like that for the Apple II right now and I don't have the time to write one now. I get about three a month and that amounts to less then 50 cents with tax so I don't worry about it much now. The above are my ideas and have nothing to do with whoever my employer is. SysOp Apple Elite II and OggNet Hub (909)359-5338 2400/14.4 24 hours, Home of GBBS/LLUCE Support for the Apple II. slichte@cello.gina.calstate.edu ------------------------------ From: hardyr@lynx.bc.ca (Hardy Rosenke) Subject: North American Area Codes Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 21:24:02 GMT Organization: Home HARDware (!) BBS Reply-To: hardy@lynx.bc.ca I know that there are various listings out there of the area code splits that are occuring, and that there are some gopher sites that have (RATHER) outdated listings ... I was wondering if anyone had a complete listing of all the area codes currently in use in North America (and the Carribbean, I guess, seeing that 809 has split) ... Any information appreciated. hardyr@lynx.bc.ca [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Carl Moore and David Leibold are working on a new 1996 revision to the area codes file in the Telecom Archives which hopefully will be as accurate as it can be. Watch for it soon. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Beckman Subject: Norstan Communication Customers? Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 15:13:03 +0000 Organization: Minnesota Regional Network (MRNet) I was wondering if anyone else has had experience with Norstan Communications, and what their impressions of N.C. were. Thanks, Mark P. Beckman Network/Telecommunications Administrator DRI-STEEM Humidifier Co. beckman@sithlords.com ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: Digital Transmission of Video Signal Over the Air Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 18:02:04 PST TKondo2937 said: > Hi. Is there anyone who can explain how digital transmission of video > signals over the air work? I think digital transmission is only possible > in guided media, such as twisted pairs, coax, and fiber optic. No; digital transmission is possible over radio links as well. The ALOHA protocol is more primative form of CSMA-CD (ethernet) in that it isn't able to sense a carrier on the frequency. Satelits also send digital signals using wither the SPADE protocol or Reservation ALOHA. > Digital transmission of video signal via unguided media is already > underway, i.e. USSB and DirecTV. Are they transmitting digital signal as > an analog as modem does for sending digital signal via analog circuit of > telephone network? No. The radio signals are transmitted using a digital carrier. Shift keying is used to encode the signals. Different protocols use different encoding methods, but I would be willing to be the video signals are transmitted using Manchester encoding so that the receivers need not be clocked with the sending station. Steve cogorno@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: tcs@tcs.netbox.com (John Thompson) Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Date: Fri, 15 Dec 95 02:18:30 GMT Organization: TCS Telecommunications In article , eje@xyplex.com (Eric Ewanco) wrote: > I did some testing with a friend. It works over AT&T between AC 201 > (NJ) and AC 508 (MA), but not over LDDS Worldcom (even between the > same two lines). I'm tempted to call LDDS and ask them why they are > in violation of the law. Don't bother ... I've found that LDDS Customer Service Reps are relatively clueless, especially about Caller ID. (Customer Service, Early October -- "Of course it works. Long distance carriers have nothing to do with Caller ID. If you haven't been getting it, it's because your local phone company's equipment is broken".) Anyway, I resell WilTel long distance, and had someone call a WilTel Tech. Apparently, they're having trouble blocking the Caller ID from being displayed when the calling party uses the *67 blocking code. I was told they were granted an extension by the FCC, and Northern Telecom expects to have everything functional by January 1st. Since LDDS is WilTel's parent company, I assume it's the same story there. John Thompson TCS Telecommunications 879 West Park Avenue, Suite 275 Ocean, NJ 07712 ------------------------------ From: bergen@cmd.southam.com Subject: LD Carrier Confirmation Phone Number Date: 14 Dec 1995 23:25:08 GMT Organization: Construction Market Data, Inc. I know this has probably been posted, and is probably in the FAQ. I've watched the group for a couple of weeks only to find no FAQ. What is the phone number to call to get the automated message that tells you who your LD carrier currently is? E-mail response would most likely be appreciated by all who already know the answer. Thanks, KeItH bergen@cmd.southam.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess it is about time to publish the Frequently Asked Questions file for telecom again on Usenet. Although each new subscriber to the mailing list gets it automatically sent out as part of their new subscription, the newsgroup readers do not get to see it that often. Thanks for reminding me. Anyone else who does not have a current FAQ for this group can pick one up in the Telecom Ar- chives using anonymous ftp, ftp.lcs.mit.edu or by request. To answer your question, try 1-700-555-4141. You should get back a recorded announcement which identifies the carrier providing your long distance service. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #519 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Sun Dec 17 09:07:16 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA01250; Sun, 17 Dec 1995 09:07:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 09:07:16 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512171407.JAA01250@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #520 TELECOM Digest Sun, 17 Dec 95 09:06:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 520 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Mike Godwin on Internet Censorship (Mike King) Re: Reactions and Rebuttal to Internet Day of Protest (Clifton T. Sharp) Using an 800 Number to Get Thru to Congress! (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Reactions and Rebuttal to Internet Day of Protest (John Higdon) Censorship Protest Continues (Monty Solomon) Re: Fax --> E-mail (Robert A. Rosenberg) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mk@TFS.COM (Mike King) Subject: Mike Godwin on Internet Censorship Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 12:36:34 PST Forwarded FYI to the Digest Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 12:05:02 -0500 From: bostic@bsdi.com (Keith Bostic) Subject: Mike Godwin on Internet censorship. Forwarded-by: Phil Agre Posted-Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 03:35:33 -0500 From: Mike Godwin Thought you might be interested in the speech Mike Godwin delivered in San Francisco: ---------------------- Listen. Take a moment now and listen. (Sound of ripping paper.) That's the sound of what the United States Congress has been doing to the Constitution in the last few months, all in the name of protecting our children. But do they really care about our children? I doubt it. What they care about, for the most part, is being *seen* as pro-family and pro-children. And since the religious right has seized much of the high ground of pro-children-and-family rhetoric, guess who they're afraid of. Were their votes grounded in an intelligent appraisal of the technology and functions of the Net? Were they based on knowledge and reflection? The short answer to these questions is "No." The votes of Senators and Representatives were driven, for the most part, by fear and ignorance. Last Thursday I was sworn in as a member of the state bar of California. This is the third jurisdiction I'm admitted to practice in, but it was only the first time I'd ever attended one of the group swearing-in ceremonies. Like all the other new admittees, I echoed the words of the attorney at the front of the auditorium. In unison, we all swore to dedicate ourselves to upholding the United States Constitution. This oath is not terribly different in wording or philosophy from that taken by each member of the United States House of Representatives, or each member of the United States Senate, or the Governor of any state, or the President of the United States. We have all sworn to uphold the Constitution. Part of the Constitution is the First Amendment. And whenever you think about the First Amendment, the first thing you should remember is that it was designed by the Framers of the Constitution to protect offensive speech and offensive speakers. After all, no one ever tries to ban the other kind. And this was what I was thinking about as I stood in that auditorium and took my oath -- that I was once again swearing to uphold the First Amendment and the Constitution of which it is a part. But where are all the Representatives and Senators who have sworn to uphold the First Amendment, I asked myself? Now that we face the greatest attack on the freedom of speech of the common man that this nation has ever seen, where are the other defenders of the Constitution? Are they educating themselve about the new medium of the Net? Have they read a word of Howard Rheingold's book on virtual communities? Have they logged in themselves? Have they surfed the Web? Have made a friend on the Net? Or are they satisfied with doing something that doesn't require any online time at all -- passing bad laws? One senator from my state, Dianne Feinstein, is ready to ban information from the Net that is legal in every library -- perhaps because she's under the impression that it costs nothing to create the fiction that she's preventing another Oklahoma City. But it does cost something -- it costs us the freedom that our forefathers shed their blood to bequeath to us. Here's the sound of what Senator Feinstein is ready to do to the First Amendment. (Sound of ripping paper.) And what about Senator Jim Exon from Nebraska? Is it any surprise that Senator Exon gets all nervous and antsy when interviewers ask him whether he personally has logged on? Is it any surprise that, for Senator Exon, the Net is just another place to make an obscene phone call? Here's the sound of what Senator Exon is ready to do to the First Amendment. (Sound of ripping paper.) And the issue of shutting down free speech on the Net is hardly one that divides liberals and conservatives. Here's the sound of what Rep. Pat Schroeder, a liberal Democrat, and Senator Orrin Hatch, a conservative Republican, have already voted to do to the First Amendment. (Sound of ripping paper.) You may wonder, by the way, why I'm using the sound effect of ripping paper to symbolize what Congress is about to do to online speech, which involves no paper at all. The answer, of course, is that most of Senators and Representatives who voted for imprisoning the Net in a new censorship regime don't know enough to find the Delete key. You'd think that if they're going to legislate in cyberspace, they'd at least learn to use computers themselves, so that the sound we hear as our freedoms are whisked away would be the click of a keyboard or a mouse. But no. We may also hear, of course, the occasional voice of someone to whom the Constitution still has meaning. Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich have gone on record as opposing any broad ban of "indecency" on the Net. Which goes to show you: the cause of freedom of speech is not a partisan issue either. For the most part, the issue is one of ignorance of the Constitution and what it protects. The First Amendment, so the courts tell us, does not protect "obscenity" -- and the word "obscenity" has a special legal meaning. It doesn't mean profane language. It doesn't mean Playboy magazine. According to the Supreme Court, it has something to with community standards, with "prurient interest," and with a lack of any "serious" literary, artistic, scientific, or political value. What is the sound of obscenity? I'm not sure, but I'm told that if you dial up a certain 900 number you just might hear some of it. But Congress isn't even trying to outlaw "obscenity" on the Net -- they're banning something called "indecency," which is a far broader, far vaguer concept. Unlike "obscenity," indecency is protected by the First Amendment, according to the Supreme Court. But that same Court has never defined the term, and Congress hasn't done so either. Still, we have some notion of what the sounds of indecency are. Thanks to George Carlin and a case involving Pacifica Radio, we know that sometimes indecency sounds like these seven words: "shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker and tits." Now, this isn't the politest language in the world -- on that point I agree with the Christian Coalition. But I must say, as the father of a little girl, that I lose no sleep over the prospect that Ariel will encounter any of these words on the Net -- she is certain to encounter them in the real world, no matter how or where she is raised. What causes me to wake up in the middle of the night, whiteknuckled in fear, is the prospect that, thanks to Senator Exon and the Christian Coalition, my little girl will never be able to speak freely on the Net, for fear that some bureaucrat somewhere doesn't think their language is polite enough -- that it's "patently offensive" or "indecent." What is the sound of the indecent speech? Thanks to my friend Harvey Silverglate, a lawyer in Boston, we know part of the answer. Harvey wrote the following last week: 'As a result of the FCC's ban on "broadcast indecency", Pacifica Radio has ceased its broadcasts each year, on the anniversary of the publication of Allen's Ginsberg's classic poem, "Howl", of a reading of Ginsberg's poem by the poet. Pacifica and Ginsberg and others have sued the FCC, and while they won a small modicum of relief in the Court of Appeals, they have petitioned the U S Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court should act within the month. Meanwhile, high school kids read "Howl" in their English poetry anthologies, but it cannot be read on the radio!' What is that the FCC thought was indecent? Try the sound of these words: "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, /dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix/angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night." And if they found Allen Ginsberg indecent, is there any doubt they'd come to the same opinion about James Joyce's ULYSSES, whose character Molly Bloom closes one of the most sexually charged monologues in the English language with this passage? "... and how he kissed me under the Moorish wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then asked would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes." That's the sound of indecency for you. And it's a measure of the climate of fear created by Congress that America Online felt impelled to delete all user profiles that include the word "breast" in them -- much to the dismay of countless breast-cancer survivors. Now I ask you, don't be mad at America Online, whose management has already apologized for this gaffe -- be angry at Congress, whose crazy actions have created a world in which the word "breast" is something to be afraid of. Now at this point the proponents of this legislation will cavil -- they'll say "Look, we're not trying to ban artists or literary geniuses or brilliant comedians. We're just trying to protect our children." To which I have two answers: First, if you really want to protect our children, find a better way to do it than to force all of us who engage in public speech and expression to speak at the level of children. There are laws already on the books that prevent the exposure to children of obscene speech, and that prohibit child abuse -- before you start passing new laws, make sure you understand what the old laws do. It may be that no new legislation is required at all. Second, remember that freedom of expression isn't just for artists or literary geniuses or brilliant comedians. It's for all of us -- it provides a space for each citizen to find his own artistry, his own genius, his own comedy, and to share it with others. It also provides a space in which we can choose -- and sometimes must choose -- to say things that others might find "patently offensive." And the First Amendment protects that space most. Don't pass laws that undercut the very foundation of a free society -- the ability to speak freely, even when others are offended by what we have to say. I'm speaking now to you, Congress. If you pass a telecommunications bill with this "indecency" language in it, we will remember. And we will organize against you and vote you out. This isn't single-issue politics -- it's politics about the framework in which *all* issues are discussed, and in which even offensive thoughts are expressed. And you, Congress, are threatening to destroy the framework of freedom of speech on the Net, the first medium in the history of mankind that holds the promise of mass communications out to each individual citizen. At this point, Congress, I'm not afraid of sexual speech on the Net. And I'm not afraid that my little girl will encounter sexual speech on the Net. What scares me is what you will do to the First Amendment on the Net if we don't stop you. That's more of a perversion than any citizen of the United States should have to witness. And I'm telling you now, Representatives and Senators, we stand ready to stop you. Listen to us now, or soon you will be listening to this sound: (Sound of ripping paper.) That's the sound of what we will do to your political future if you forget the oaths you swore. Long live the First Amendment and the Constitution. And long live freedom of speech on the Net. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Dec 95 15:29:34 CST From: clifto@indep1.chi.il.us (Clifton T. Sharp) Subject: Re: Reactions and Rebuttal to Internet Day of Protest I'm one who usually stays out of this kind of thing. But the article PAT chose as representative of the pro-censorship view just rankles me beyond my tolerance. Eric_Florack@mc.xerox.com (Florack,Eric) writes: > Rest assured, the Congress, and not the liberal Democrat groups, have > my support on the matter. And yet your article takes a strangely liberal viewpoint; "more government to control the actions of others to conform to MY desires." > I'm no newcomer to the internet, or to > online services. I've been a SysOp for nearly 15 years, too. It is my > considered opinion, that given the situation, their actions, and this > bill are justified, Constitutional, and timely. The courts have universally held that the Constitution lets me say "shit" in public. I can wear it on a T-shirt in public. I can paint it on my car, tattoo it on my forehead or announce it over a public address system or cable TV show. But the bill you propound says I can't transmit it over the Internet. Hell, I dasn't even type it into my computer, lest someone find it and challenge me to prove I never transferred it to another computer. And yet you feel this bill is Constitutional? > Anyone following the usenet groups will tell you, that the vast > majority of the graphics traffic there is of a pornographic nature. Gee, Eric, I'm really sorry there aren't enough pictures of trees there for you. But people tend to post pictures that interest _them_. And the censorship that already exists because of people like you who require that the world work to raise your children keeps a lot of whatever it is you're calling "pornographic" out of the hands of a lot of people who want to have it. > Personally, I have no constitutionally based objection to the content, > where adults are concerned, although I am concerned about the > measurement of society. I do have MASSIVE problems with the free > access that under-age kids have to such material. So do I. So do many of us who denounce the use of censorship to prevent them from getting it. I have MASSIVE problems myself with the underlying cause of both the censorship and the access kids have. Unfortunately, to address the underlying cause requires that we talk about parents who refuse to participate sufficiently in their kids' upbringing. And in my experience, the worst offenders are the first and loudest to launch into a tirade about how they do soooooo much for their kids; the people who raise their kids well usually just nod and agree that discipline and training have gone the way of the Model T. > I'm fully aware of, and have experience with, the various 'net guards > out there. I do not consider these to be sufficient to the task. THE TASK. Which task? The task of keeping the universe safe from everything that anyone could possibly find offensive? Or The Task which The State should be doing (raising our kids so parents won't have to be bothered)? > Fully half of them don't understand how newsgroups work, (understanding > only the web!) and therefore I do not consider them to be even a good > stop-gap measure. Consider: Do you know of any kids who can't blow > their parent's ability to operate a computer out of the water? Do you > really think it's possible that such cracker-box technologies can't be > defeated by today's 12-year-olds? I don't. YOU don't seem to understand how the Internet works. What's here is here. If you don't like it, go play on AOL. If you don't want your kids to have it, limit them to AOL. Tom Jennings started an entire microcomputer network (FidoNet) around a concept and a simple piece of software; you can do the same. I never fail to be amazed at the attitude of such people. Hey, guys, you built a nice network; now WE'RE taking over! > Until such time as some method can be had, that will determine the > user's age and only allow access appropriate to that age, I consider > this action the only means available for keeping such material out of > the hands of kids. "I can't be bothered teaching my kids any better or supervising their activities, so until they're grown, everyone stifle yourselves." As always, the parents are the only REAL people who can determine the ages of these users. False IDs are very simple to get, even a fake birth certificate. > To those who suggest that the is censorship of the net, I suggest we > already have that; we always have. (Can you say Kiddie Porn?) What > we're discussing here is not if there should be net censorship or not, > or if not, but what will be censored. I see. We've never been able to legally distribute kiddie porn, so it's okay that we're now not allowed to use certain words? No reasonable person would equate saying "shit" with distributing kiddie porn. The proposed law does, making either punishable by severe legal sanctions. Kiddie porn REQUIRES that kids be violated, by definition. My saying "shit" on the net only violates your kids if YOU fail to prevent them from seeing it. (And if you haven't already taught them the word through your own use of it.) > The group's charges of the 'religious right running the country' are > patent nonsense. This is nothing more than an attempt of the left to > get itself back into power. It's amazing the lengths to which > desperate people will go. > > And oh, BTW; If you think this group of theirs, this coalition of > leftists, is large and powerful, consider: How many of these members > of one group, show up on the membership lists of ALL the groups? Leftists? A couple of years ago Rush Limbaugh commented on a lawsuit in California; people were suing fast-food restaurants in an attempt to force them into carrying vegetarian specialties. His comment was that these LIBERALS should be starting their own vegetarian restaurants rather than forcing the owners of successful businesses to bend to the will of a few. Matter of fact, he made mention of it in today's radio show. Now comes a group of "conservatives" who obviously can't get their own "internet" to work (else they'd be doing it), and who demand that the Internet make itself over completely in THEIR image, under THEIR rules and regulations, for THEIR reasons. Any real conservative will tell you that it's the liberals and leftists who need to legislate and/or litigate those things they know a majority of the population will not support. REAL conservatives will work to create what they want instead of forcing Government to give them someone else's. And gee, how terrible that those who decry censorship do it consistently. Just remember that famous bleeding-heart liberal who said something like "Those who would trade essential liberty for a little safety deserve neither safety nor liberty." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 11:37:38 -0500 Subject: Using an 800 Number to Get Thru to Congress! From: producer@pipeline.com (Judith Oppenheimer) With all the talk of both the Communications Decency Act, and "creative" 800 use, I thought you might enjoy this. Judith From: College Activism/Information List Subject: Christian Coalition 1-800 #'s (fwd) > I've read on Usenet that the Christian Coalition has set up two > 1-800 numbers that will allow people to make free phone calls to > Congress. The purpose of this is (obviously) for people to call in > their support for the "Communications Decency Act," but the person who > posted these numbers suggests that there is no reason why we can't use > these same numbers to call in and protest the act. > Here are the phone numbers: > 1-800-962-3524 and 1-800-972-3524 > The best of luck to all. These numbers will put you through to the Capitol switchboard, and from there, you're in contact with your Senator or representative. And they can be used to lobby for ANY subject, PREFERABLY in favor of issues that would make Robertson's cold heart explode. Judith Oppenheimer, President, Interactive CallBrand A leading source of information on 800 issues. producer@pipeline.com, (ph) 1 800 The Expert, (fx) 212 684-2714 http://www.users.nyc.pipeline.com:80/~producer/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Judith, I am **assuming** -- making a big assumption -- that as a responsible person, you have verified the above. I am **not** interested in inviting people to abuse the 800 phone numbers of others. If these are indeed established for the purpose of allowing citizens to communicate with Congress at no charge, then by all means people should use them in that way. If they are for some specific purpose, then they should not be abused. I'll let readers decide for themselves. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 19:47:08 -0800 From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Reactions and Rebuttal to Internet Day of Protest At 2:54 PM on 12/14/95, Patrick A. Townson wrote: > my feeling is the future of the net as we know it is going to be > formed in the next few days, so it would be well to express yourself > one way or the other. Unfortunately, you may be absolutely correct. My question is simple: in more than two decades of the Internet, why has pornography suddenly become a matter of overwhelming concern to legislators? Is it because such "pornography" has only just begun to appear? Is it because more people (read "children") now have access to the Internet? Is it because the Internet is now the king of buzzwords and enjoys, for better or worse, a high profile? Is there an overriding reason that those who are deathly afraid of encountering pornography need to deal with the Internet at all? As a fairly active participant on the Internet, I have yet to see any of this dreaded pornography. But then I have not gone looking for it, either. Makes me wonder about those who rail against it so hard. John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | +1 500 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 | http://www.ati.com/ati | [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is, quite simply, because of the large number of people who have just begun to discover the Internet. In the past, the use was so limited relative to the large number of people around; now with millions and millions of new users coming on board this was bound to happen. Was it me to made the analogy to CB radio a couple years ago? I hate to say "I told you so," but I did tell you so. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 14:17:17 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Censorship protest continues Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 23:35:59 -0800 From: "Audrie Krause" Subject: Censorship protest continues CPSR Activists and others - The Internet censorship protest is continuing, and appears to have a broad base of support. Please continue to write, phone, fax and send e-mail to Congress and especially to President Clinton. As you know, the Internet censorship issue is part of a larger piece of legislation that would dramatically deregulate media and communications activities in the United States. Powerful interests, including local and long distance telecommunications companies, cable and broadcast television, the entertainment industry, radio, the press and electronic communications interests, all have high stakes in this legislation. But so do all of us as citizens. Censorship of the Internet is only one of the issues CPSR is concerned about, but it is a big one. And because there is a broad base of support for free speech, there's a chance Congress and President Clinton might listen if enough of us speak up right away. Congress is expected to be in session for one more week. If deals that have been cut are not completed, signed, sealed and delivered by Dec. 22, they're likely to fall apart and not get revived again next year because of the election. Legislation like H.R. 1555 and S. 652, the telecommunications bills now being resolved by a joint Senate-House conference committee, involves numerous, complex and often ugly trade-offs, agreements and concessions. Although telecom *reform* has been a big issue this year, it is now a side issue to the bickering between Clinton and Congress over the federal budget, which in turn is related to another series of complex and often ugly trade-offs, agreements and concessions. Given all this, there's a chance we can have an impact if we act right now. Please continue to send e-mail, postal mail and faxes to President Clinton and your representatives in Congress, and if you can spare the time, phone their offices, as well. Unfortunately, while e-mail messages are certainly the easiest way to communicate our concerns to our elected officials, it seems that the easier technology makes it, the more dismissive our elected officials are of what they hear. So, to make sure they listen, contact them by phone, fax or postal mail. Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121 Connects caller to all members of Congress President Clinton: (202) 456-1414 Phone (202) 456-1111 Comment Line (202) 456-2461 Fax E-mail: president@white.house.gov CPSR's message: Just Say No to Censorship! Please also continue to share CPSR's letter to President Clinton and Congress with others. Audrie Krause * Executive Director * CPSR Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility P.O. Box 717 * Palo Alto * CA * 94302 Phone: (415) 322-3778 * Fax: (415) 322-4748 Send E-mail to: akrause@cpsr.org [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Or, just use the 800 numbers which Judith Oppenheimer provided earlier in this issue if, upon your verification, that is the intended purpose of the numbers. PAT] ------------------------------ From: robertr@icu.com (Robert A. Rosenberg) Subject: Re: Fax --> E-mail Organization: RockMug Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 20:05:54 GMT > In your opinion, what is the potential of a company which offers the > service of enabling people to receive their faxes at their e-mail > addresses? Since the Fax Message format is standardized (otherwise Faxes would not work), it would seem that providing a service to accept incoming Faxes and then Email them as MIME attachments would be feasible. There would need to be a separate number for each user AND the incoming fax raw data would need to be converted/enveloped into the format of the user's Fax Software (ie I use FaxSTF81 for the Mac and thus the raw data would need to be converted into a FaxSTF81 incoming file). An alternative would be for a RYO format and software for the different Platforms. The same applies for outgoing Faxes. You would create the Fax like normal and then Email the file to the server which would then outward dial from a local phone (just as is currently done for Text-to-Fax support such as CIS/GEnie/etc provide). Again, the Server would need to be able to extrac= t the Raw Image or a RYO Fax Driver (as opposed to a normal Fax Driver) would be required. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #520 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Dec 18 21:12:30 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA15578; Mon, 18 Dec 1995 21:12:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 21:12:30 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512190212.VAA15578@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #521 TELECOM Digest Mon, 18 Dec 95 21:12:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 521 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Network Management: A Practical Perspective, 2nd ed (Allan Leinwand) Virginia SCC Adopts Rules for Local Telephone Competition (Nigel Allen) AT&T Card Fraud (Paul O'Nolan) No Ring Voltage a Connection Setup Failure? (Arthur Marsh) Can Somebody Give us Insight For a New Vendor? (Pete Holler) Windows NT Jobs Available (Luke M. Olsen) Cellular One Phones (Rebecca Ann Ladew) Need Leads For Net Topology Softare Packages (Jennifer Mir) CFP: 4th Int'l Conf on Spoken Language Processing (Jim Polikoff) Re: Digital Music On Hold Device (Curtis Wheeler) Re: Digital Music On Hold Device (Jalil Latiff) Re: Digital Music On Hold Device (Seymour Dupa) Re: New York Suffolk County Proposes Non-Emergency 811 Number (M Fletcher) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. From: leinwand@cisco.com (Allan Leinwand) Subject: Network Management: A Practical perspective, 2nd ed Date: 18 Dec 1995 20:13:25 GMT Organization: cisco Systems Hello folks, Since the publication of "Network Management: A Practical Perspective, second edition" a month or so back we have been receiving email with basic questions about the book. So, hopefully, with one blanket email we can answer most questions. The second edition of "Network Management: A Practical Perspective" updates the first edition concerning the five areas of network management (fault, configuration, performance, security, and accounting), adds some discussion on choosing and building a network management system, explores MIB-II and RMON MIB objects in detail (i.e.: how to use these to accomplish network management), and explains SNMPv2 (or should that be SNMPv2c now? :-). Other relevant facts: ISBN 0-201-609990-1 URL == http://heg-school.aw.com/cseng/authors/leinwand/netman2e/netman2e.html Please feel free to contact myself or my co-author Karen Fang Conroy (fang@cisco.com) if you need any other details or information on our new book. Thanks, Allan Leinwand Consulting Engineer cisco Systems (510) 855-4830 leinwand@cisco.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 12:58:41 -0500 From: Nigel Allen Subject: Virginia SCC Adopts Rules for Local Telephone Competition Organization: Internex Online, Toronto Here is a press release from the State Corporation Commission (SCC) of Virginia. I found the press release on the U.S. Newswire BBS in Maryland at (410) 363-0834. I do not work for the SCC. Virginia SCC Adopts Rules for Local Telephone Competition Contact: Ken Schrad of the State Corporation Commission, 804-371-9141 RICHMOND, Va., Dec. 13 -- The State Corporation Commission (SCC) has adopted rules to allow local telephone service competition to Virginians after the first of the year. The rules, which promote and seek to assure competitive services to all customer classes in Virginia, outline minimum certification requirements. The 1995 General Assembly changed Virginia law to allow local telephone service competition (beginning Jan. 1, 1996) within what has been the exclusive service area of an existing local telephone company. Companies interested in providing local telephone service must first be issued a certificate by the SCC. While companies can submit applications immediately, it is unlikely that customers will have choices in the local telephone service market on Jan. 1. At a minimum, those seeking to provide telephone service in Virginia must: -- provide access to 911 and E911 services; -- provide white page directory listings; -- provide access to telephone relay services (service for the hearing and speech impaired); -- provide access to directory assistance; -- provide access to operator services; -- provide equal access to interLATA long distance carriers; -- provide free blocking of 900 and 700-number services (as (long as the same requirement applies to incumbent local exchange companies); -- provide interconnection on a non-discriminatory basis with other local exchange telephone service companies; -- comply with applicable commission service and billing standards or rules, and; -- provide procedures to prevent deceptive and unfair marketing practices. Under the SCC rules, telephone numbers would be portable within certain geographic areas regardless of the chosen local exchange carrier, making it possible for consumers to change providers without having to change telephone numbers. Resolving more controversial issues, such as technical interconnection between carriers and compensation for completing calls that begin with one carrier's local network and end with another's, is permitted through negotiation or through SCC hearings if needed. The commission has established two new cases to address the issues of universal service and resale. The rules allow the SCC to establish a universal service fund to assure that affordable local phone service is available to all consumers, particularly those in certain high-cost or rural areas where competitive alternatives may not exist. In the universal services proceeding, the SCC will examine its definition of basic local exchange telephone service and determine if any subsidies are necessary. Resale of local exchange telephone service is not addressed in the rules, but will be the subject of the second new proceeding. The commission will invite comments and establish procedural schedules on each new docket. forwarded by Nigel Allen ndallen@io.org http://www.io.org/~ndallen/ ------------------------------ From: Paul O'Nolan Subject: AT&T Card Fraud Organization: NLnet Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 06:14:13 GMT Season's greetings from The Netherlands. Yesterday I received a call from AT&T's card protection service asking me to confirm that I was in The Netherlands (where I live). "Unusual activity" had been noted on my card, namely a Filipino in Florida was trying to call home with what he said was his "mother's card". After confirming that I didn't have children in the US etc. I was issued a new card and pin code over the phone. I was concerned as I was told that this guy had my PIN. This was strange as I've only used this card about five or six times in the year I've had it. The number was never written down or carried by me (it was very similar to my post code and easy to remember therefore), nor was it ever printed out in a hotel as I am well aware of the risks of entering PINs via hotel phones. How did he get the number? Last month I tried to use the card in Washington DC and was told by two different operators that it was invalid. On return I called to find out what the problem was and was told it was ok. The operators to whom I spoke would not report a fault. Since I am certain that I was not overheard giving the PIN number in a public place -- as I only used the card from hotel rooms in which I was alone -- I have to wonder if the security problem was in AT&T. Unlikely? One other thing: a colleague was anxious on discovering that I had a PIN number (he didn't). He called AT&T. "You have to ask for one" Ditto for Sprint. MCI don't provide PINs. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There may have been 'leakage' in the hotel also; via someone with the ability to listen to calls made in guest rooms. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: No Ring Voltage a Connection Setup Failure? Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 01:17:36 +1030 From: Arthur Marsh One problem that can be difficult to detect is when you dial a number, hear the "ringing" tone, but the destination line doesn't receive ring voltage. This could be due to mis-routing (the call being directed to an unintended destination), or the line card for the destination line not supplying ring volatge. In the latter case, it appears that the run-of-the-mill line cards in the Ericsson AXE and Alcatel System 12 switches in heavy use in this country do not confirm outgoing line voltage before indicating back to the network that the call was successfully routed to its intended destination. The first time I was aware that the latter problem had occurred was in calling my local Telstra business office and having someone answer my call not knowing that I had dialed in. The second time was early this week when a modem line was not answering and I was able to go on site and replace the modem with a standard telephone. I could dial 19123 and have the correct number spoken back to me, call the line's number from the telephone on that line and get the engaged signal, and receive a call by picking up the handset when someone was calling, but did not get ring voltage. Can anyone explain how telephone companies can ensure (and confirm) that ring voltage is applied to lines being called, without invading the privacy of their customers? (Recording the number of the caller is not an option in Australia). Arthur Marsh, telephone +61-8-370-2365, fax +61-8-223-5082 arthur@dircsa.org.au ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 07:34:05 CDT From: Pete Holler - Quad/Telecommunications Subject: Can Somebody Give Us Insight For a New Vendor? Hello, In the wake of our maintenance vendor filing chapter 11, we are faced with the immediate task of finding a new vendor for our Astra-Phacs call accounting system. I was wondering if any subscribers out there use this system and can give some insight to helping us find a new maintenance vendor. Thanks in advance. Pete Holler ------------------------------ From: lukeo@teleport.com (Luke M. Olsen) Subject: Windows NT Jobs Available Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 01:21:57 Organization: Teleport, Inc. TelLogic Communication Systems Join a fast growing company nestled in the Pacific Northwest specializing in the billion dollar computer Telephony market. TelLogic is a dynamic and progressive company which recognizes the potential of new and integrated technologies. Become a member of a dedicated and highly motivated team. As a company committed to diversity in hiring and promoting, we are currently seeking the following individuals: Windows NT Kernel Specialist The Windows NT Kernel Specialist will be responsible for the design and writing of software which resides at the Kernel level in the Windows NT operating system. This person will be integrating various device drivers, messaging protocols, and other operating system components. This position requires a BSCS degree or equivalent, a minimum of one year working at the Windows NT Kernel level and proficiency in using Visual C++. SPOX and Computer Telephony experience is a plus. Windows NT Device Driver Programmer This person will be responsible for the engineering of device drivers for Microsoft's Windows NT. The NT device driver programmer will be working closely with the Kernel Specialist, the Project Manager and various hardware specialist. The person will need to design and document the interface between the various hardware components, handle interrupt latency issues, timing issues and make sure events are handled in real-time. This position requires a BSCS degree or equivalent, a minimum of one year working at the Windows NT device driver level, two years of device driver experience, SPOX experience, knowledge of hardware interfacing and Visual C++ proficiency. Computer Telephony experience is a plus. Software Project Manager The individual for this key position will set the direction of the various Windows NT projects that are planned. The manager will be responsible for coordinating engineers both on-site, off-site and consultants. The software project manager is also responsible for defining and maintaining timelines and communicating issues to the executive management. The manager will be expected to manage a design team of up to 50 people. This position requires a BSCS degree or equivalent, a minimum of two years managing projects and engineers. Programming experience is preferred to but is not needed. TelLogic Communication Systems offers a competitive salary (commensurate with experience), excellent benefits and a positive environment that rewards accomplishments. Please forward resume with salary requirements, to: TelLogic Communication Systems Attn: Personnel Dept. 6441 SW Canyon Court Portland, OR 97221 Fax: (503) 297-5682 or send an email resume to tlogic@teleport.com Qualified applicants only. We are an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 10:21:54 EST From: Rebecca Ann Ladew Subject: Cellular One Phones I wonder why Cellular One phones are not hearing-aid capatible? AT&T has two car phone models that are. You have to use the Cellular One phones with a TTY and a special 800 number that transfer/ translates calls for deaf and hard-of-hearing users. Who is going to carry a TTY around except maybe a 'portable TTY?' Not many of us, especially those who use TTY, are going to carry a TTY and a cellular phone. Is there a difference between Cellular One phones and AT&T 'car' phones? Thank you, Rebecca Ladew [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am not sure what you are referring to by 'Cellular One phones'. Cellular One is a tradmark name used by many cellular carriers operating on the 'A' side of the network, but I do not think they endorse or sell any specific kind of phone instrument. You purchase (or are given for free, or whatever) a phone from the dealer of your choice, and you then usually wind up on the A or B side, depending who the dealer is associated with. I should imagine that the AT&T phones you are speaking about which seem to meet your needs could as easily be used via the local Cellular One service as they could on any other system once properly programmed. Are you at present locked into some sort of deal with Cellular One? If not, or if you can break the deal, why not go shopping *first* for a hearing aid compatible phone from the many dealers around, and then second arrange to get cellular service from whatever carrier that dealer does business with. Perhaps I am missing something here, since all the carriers from time to time offer their own deals on whatever phones they are promoting at the time, but I would not actually refer to any cellular phone specifically as a 'Cellular One phone' since they are all quite interchangeable among whatever carrier you choose to go with. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 18:20:04 +0000 From: jennifer mir Subject: Need Leads For Net Topology Softare Packages Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd. Greetings, Hate to post another "Hi i'm looking for..." message, but I am looking for software packages which do network topology computations. Package can be commercial or research-oriented. Some desirable features of the package are: Telecom network buildout, optimization, development Costing of link hierarchies Computation of Grade-of-Service factors (response time for data, etc.) Center-of-Gravity Erlang-B (both finite and unbounded M) M/M/N and M/D/N computation GUI interface and PC or Mac platforms Actually, I already know of a package that exists, but was wondering if any others are out there that are close to it in functionality. J. Mir jenmir@bnr.ca ------------------------------ From: polikoff@castle.asel.udel.edu (Jim Polikoff) Subject: CFP: 4th Int'l Conf on Spoken Language Processing Date: 18 Dec 1995 14:24:55 -0500 Organization: AI duPont Institute October 3-6, 1996 Wyndham Franklin Plaza Hotel Philadelphia, PA, USA ICSLP unites researchers, developers, and clinicians for an exchange on a wide variety of topics related to spoken language processing by humans and machines. Conference presentations range from basic acoustic phonetic research to clinically oriented speech training devices to speech-based natural language interfaces for man-machine interaction. ICSLP 96 will feature technical sessions in both oral and poster format, plenary talks, commercial exhibits, and daily special sessions. In addition, satellite workshops will be held in conjunction with the conference in the areas of interactive voice technology, spoken dialogue, speech databases and speech I/O, and the integration of gestures and speech. A new emphasis for ICSLP 96 will be on the clinical applications of speech technology, including the use of speech technology based applications for persons with disabilities. Dates to Note: January 15, 1996 - Paper abstracts due for review March 15, 1996 - Acceptance notification May 1, 1996 - Deadline for papers (camera-ready, 4 pages) ______________For more information about ICSLP 96, contact_____________________ ICSLP 96 Applied Science & Engineering Laboratories A.I. duPont Institute P.O. Box 269 Wilmington, DE 19899 Phone: +1 302 651 6830 TDD: +1 302 651 6834 Fax: +1 302 651 6895 Email: ICSLP96@asel.udel.edu WWW: http://www.asel.udel.edu/speech/icslp.html FTP: zeppo.asel.udel.edu:pub/ICSLP A two-page PostScript format copy of the most recent Conference Announcement and Call for Papers can also be obtained by anonyomus ftp. Connect to host zeppo.asel.udel.edu, cd to directory pub/ICSLP96, and get call.ps.Z in binary mode. The file must be uncompressed with a unix compatable uncompress program before being printed. A plain text version of the announcement is located in the same directory as file call.txt ------------------------------ From: Curtis Wheeler Subject: Re: Digital Music On Hold Device Date: 18 Dec 1995 02:47:33 GMT Organization: CCnet Communications jmcgee@mail.orion.org (Jack McGee) wrote: > I'm looking for a device to play music on hold, from digital storage, > so I don't have to fool with a tape wearing out. Probably two or > three minutes would be good. Anyone got any ideas for specific > machines, and where they can be purchased? If you are only in reducing tape wear, why not just switch to CDs. We have been doing with our PBXs for a while now. Sure, the players eventually wear out, but the CDs themselves don't. You can get a reasonable single disk player for $100. We bought several five disc changers for $169 each. Comparing that to the cost of our Muzak subscriptions, we can afford to replace a couple of them each year if necessary. (A note on CD changers: We thought it might be cool to use the "shuffle feature" on the changers to mix up the music a bit. We have since decided that changing the discs for every track might storten the machines' life due to added wear and tear. So we just use the "continuous" selection that starts at disc one, goes through disc five and then starts over). Curtis G. Wheeler - Pleasanton, CA ------------------------------ From: jalil@pop.jaring.my (Jalil Latiff) Subject: Re: Digital Music On Hold Device Date: Mon, 18 Dec 95 06:37:44 GMT Organization: Universal Telecommunication Network Services Try Eletech in Hong Kong. E-mail me if you want the address details. Best Regards, Jalil Latiff - Universal Telecommunication Network Services Telecommunication Turnkey Systems Engineering Tel : + 60 (0)3 735 6980 Fax : + 60 (0)3 735 6978 ------------------------------ From: grumpy@en.com (Seymour Dupa) Subject: Re: Digital Music On Hold Device Date: 17 Dec 1995 16:46:31 GMT Organization: Exchange Network Services, Inc. Jack McGee (jmcgee@mail.orion.org) wrote: > I'm looking for a device to play music on hold, from digital storage, > so I don't have to fool with a tape wearing out. Why digital storage instead of a radio? I installed a message-on-hold device for one of my customers -- holds a two minute message loaded from cassette -- costs $2,500. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Haven't we been warned many times about possible copyright infringments and the need to pay royalties when we use a radio playing music over the phone line? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mark Fletcher Subject: Re: New York Suffolk County Proposes Non-Emergency 811 Number Date: 18 Dec 1995 18:32:26 GMT Organization: Planet Access Networks - Stanhope, NJ dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein) writes: > Let's see now. Based on this concept and other events going on in > NYS, a 'deaf-tty' caller uses 311, a minor emergency uses 811, a > serious emergency uses 911. Oh, let's not forget the campaign in NYC > to call 999-1111, 999-2222, 999-3333, 999-4444, or 999-5555 to reach > the fire dispatcher (depends on which of the 5 boroughs you're in) so > as to 'reduce' the load on the general 911 operator andcut down on the > delay. > Hmm, sounds to me like it would be much simpler, safer, and effective > to finally simply staff 911 centers with the right number of people > and with decent equipment. Well, Danny, I have to agree and disagree. True, staffing should not suffer in any kind of emergency service, however I hate to use 911 from my cell phone to report important, but not life threatning situations. Maybe two numbers would do just fine, 911 for emergencies and 811 for general police reports, etc. As far as the five separate numbers for the fire dispatcher, that's completely stupid! The whole concept behind 911 was to route you to the proper dispatching center! What the hell happened there! The main root of the problem is 911 is a catchall, we all needed a common number to dial for police emergencies, but people are just to darn lazy to look up the non emergency number so they just dial 911. Well, you're not going to change people, at best you might get them to modify their habits a little, and I think 811 might be a solution. A funny sidenote, that happens to be my local CO's PBX access number! Mark [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is not that people around Chicago are 'too lazy to look up the non-emergency number', although some of them might be that way. The problem here, and I suspect it is true in many other places, is what I will term the politics of 911, the local police involved and associated government agencies, etc. In Chicago, if you call the local police station direct to discuss a non-emergency matter -- indeed, much of anything at all -- you are told to hang up and dial 911 instead. The quicker they can brush off your call, the happier they are. So we call 911 to report something which happened *yesterday* or any other non-emergency event we wish to speak about to the police and we reach a very condescending dis- patcher who, if we had picturephone and could observe, sits there and rolls her eyes wondering 'why these civilians do not understand how busy and understaffed we are here without having to listen to them bellyache about a barking dog or some graffiti they found on the side of their house' ... The problem would seem to be that no one at the local police precinct wants to take responsibility for making a decision to dispatch officers. That way, if something goes wrong, it can be blamed on the communications center instead. And why no cellular 911 service in the Chicago area? Well you see none of the police agencies and/or municipal governments want to allow anyone else to handle their emergency calls. They're afraid that if something goes *right*, someone else will get the credit, but that if something goes *wrong*, they'll be the ones to catch hell. So we live with the embarassment of having no 911 service for people in cars or people walking down the street with a cell phone in their pocket like myself. That's the politics of 911 I was referring to. We have something called *999 for the interstate highway patrol, but when there is an inch or more of snow on the ground all you get dialing that number is a busy signal. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #521 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Dec 19 00:03:04 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA28028; Tue, 19 Dec 1995 00:03:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 00:03:04 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512190503.AAA28028@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #522 TELECOM Digest Tue, 19 Dec 95 00:03:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 522 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: How Do You Reach A Local Operator From Out Of State? (Steve Forrette) Re: How Do You Reach A Local Operator From Out Of State? (Jodi Weber) Re: Vista 350 Phone from Northern Telecom (Jeff Bamford) Re: Vista 350 Phone from Northern Telecom (Stephen Knight) Re: Vista 350 Phone from Northern Telecom (Scott Montague) Re: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum (Jim Youll) Re: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum (Robert Bulmash) Re: Digital Transmission of Video Signal Over the Air (Pat Martin) Re: New York Suffolk County Proposes Non-Emergency 811 Number (B Margolius) Re: Data/Voice Call Center 'Discriminator' (jsulmar@shore.net) Re: Abuse of 800/888 Numbers (Peter M. Weiss) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: How Do You Reach A Local Operator From Out Of State? Date: 18 Dec 1995 09:10:31 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn In article , jweber@cbnews.att.com says: > Can anyone tell me how to reach the local operator if I'm not in the > same state? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The short and simple answer is, you > don't.] This reminds me of a challenge I had a few years ago in trying to get a rate quote from Pacific Bell. I was in Sacramento at the time, and needed to know if a call from a certain East Bay exchange to a certain San Francisco exchange was or was not a local (untimed) call. Both Sacramento and the bay area are served by Pacific Bell, but they are in different LATAs. So, I call the local Pacific Bell operator and ask my question. Almost before I can finish my question, I am told in a somewhat condescending tone: "Sir, San Francisco is a long distance call from here. You need to call your long distance operator." I carefully repeat my question, emphasizing that I'm asking information about a Pacific Bell-handled call, with both the caller and called parties in the Bay Area. Again, I am scolded that San Francisco is a long distance call from where I am, and that I need to call my long distance company. I try a third time, asking what my long distance company would know about intra-LATA calls. I'm told, "Sir, it's *not* an intra-LATA call to call from here to San Francisco!" The best I could tell, this operator had some sort of macro running in her mind: HEAR: any mention of far-away place RESPONSE: rudely refer customer to long distance carrier, making special effort to not listen to actual question. So, I play along with the game, and call the AT&T operator. She types in the two exchanges, then says "Oh, those two exchanges are in the same area. That's a Pacific Bell call." I tell her my story, and she kind of thinks it's funny, but can't tell me what I'm supposed to do. So, I call my local Pacific Bell business office, and explain my situation. After repeating myself about four times, the rep finally understands my question, but does not know how to get the information. She checks with her supervisor. The answer is that I'm supposed to call the business office in the bay area, and they give me the number. I call them, and am told to call the Operator to get rate quote information. I explain that I have no way of doing that, because I'm not in the LATA. Again, I get a bewildered reaction. She checks with her supervisor. The solution this time is for her to take her printed White Pages off her shelf, and look up the information herself! The response was "it's a toll call." After all of that, I find out a month later that this was one of the old "Zone 2" calls under the "ZUM" intra-LATA toll scheme that California has ("Zone 2" and "Zone 3" calls were "toll" calls, but not distant enough to be called "long distance"). But, the previous year, Pacific Bell had changed the rate structure such that Zone 2 calls were now just like Zone 1 calls: unmeasured local calls. My rep had been using an out-of-date directory to quote me the rate. So, I came to the determination that there just was no way to get reliable information of this sort (i.e. intra-LATA rates from another LATA), short of having someone in that LATA call the operator for you. Also, PAT mentions that the AT&T operator can reach "inward" by dialing NPA+121. While trying to resolve a routing problem about 3 years ago, an AT&T operator told me that 121 no longer reaches an LEC operator in the distant NPA, but instead goes to an AT&T operator there. She claimed to have no way to reach an LEC operator in a distant NPA. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: jweber@cbnews.att.com Date: Mon, 18 Dec 95 11:12:23 EST Subject: Re: How Do You Reach A Local Operator From Out Of State? Organization: AT&T In article I wrote: > Can anyone tell me how to reach the local operator if I'm not in the > same state? I'm not trying to dial the AT&T operator ("00"). I've been > trying to dial the local operator in NV (specifically Contel, the LEC > for the Lake Tahoe area) from NJ, and so far the only way I've been > able to get connected is by calling Contel's business office, who put > me through. The reason I was trying to reach the local operator was to get rate information to find out if calling a certain exchange from a certain other exchange was a toll call. Except for looking at a Nevada phone book, which I didn't have access to, I couldn't think of any other way to find that out. Thanks for the reply! Jodi Weber jodiweber@attmail.com or jweber@cbnews.cb.att.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are welcome, and this is just what Steve discussed in his message in this issue isn't it ... perhaps the thinking is you don't need that information since the only way you could possibly make such a call -- and thus be subject to the rates -- would be if you were in the area in question. And of course in that case, you would be within easy reach of an operator who would be glad to stir the confusion up even further for you. PAT] ------------------------------ From: aa423@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Jeff Bamford) Subject: Re: Vista 350 Phone from Northern Telecom Date: 18 Dec 1995 22:12:14 GMT Organization: Hamilton-Wentworth FreeNet, Ontario, Canada. I know Call Mall is offered by NBTel in New Brunswick. It is some sort of "Shop-at-home" service that uses the display on the Vista 350. They were the first phone company to offer it, not sure where else it is available. Jeff ------------------------------ From: sdk@cci.com (Stephen Knight) Subject: Re: Vista 350 Phone from Northern Telecom Organization: Nortel Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 15:49:44 GMT In article , laijk@charon.engga. uwo.ca (Johnny K Lai) wrote: > I just wonder, is anyone here in Canada is using the Northern > Telecom Vista 350 Phone with Bell Canada, which provides Visual > Call-Waiting (allows you to see the CID number even for > call-waitings), and CallMall? I wanna to have some technical > information on this phone. (It is quite a wonderful phone to me.) > E-Mail: jlai@mustang.uwo.ca or an054@torfree.net > Homepage: http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~stevenl/johnny.html He's probably referring to the "Call Mall" currently being (to the best of my knowledge) operated by New Brunswick Tel. "Call Mall" is an interactive service where a caller with an ADSI-capable phone (like the Vista 350) can dial in to a "mall". Menus are presented where the caller can request catalogs and place orders with various companies/businesses (sorry, I have no idea how many companies/businesses are participating). While not having seen it in action myself, I expect it would remind people of the old CompuServe text-driven shopping areas. steve knight nortel rochester, ny ------------------------------ From: 4sam3@qlink.queensu.ca (Scott Montague) Subject: Re: Vista 350 Phone from Northern Telecom Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 15:56:35 GMT Organization: Queen's University at Kingston Reply-To: 4sam3@qlink.queensu.ca Pat, you asked: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What is 'CallMall', or did you mean > 'Call Mail', as in another name for voicemail? PAT] Nope, it's Call Mall. Our name for VoiceMail is Call Answer up here in Bell Canada territory. Here's the news release regarding the service from http://www.bell.ca/bell/eng/read/nr/95/nr950927.htm Bell offers Vista 350 telephone with CallMall to London-area customers (LONDON, September 27, 1995) -- Starting October 10, 1995, Bell Canada will offer the new Vista 350(TM) telephone set featuring free access to CallMall* Services to London-area customers. CallMall is a convenient, easy-to-use electronic marketplace, featuring banking, information gathering and personal shopping. The Vista 350** is the telephone that makes these routine tasks easier because they can be done from home. Designed by NORTEL, the Vista 350 features a large, back-lit screen that is able to display up to eight lines of text 20 characters in length; six option keys; a directory that can hold up to 50 names and numbers; scroll and cursor buttons; message waiting indicator; and handsfree/mute features. The telephone will also support Visual Call Waiting, a package of services that combines the benefits of Bell Call Display service with the name display option, and Bell Call Waiting service. This new service allows users to see the name and number of a second call waiting to be answered when a call is already in progress. Visual Call Waiting will be offered in those areas where Bell SmartTouch(TM) services currently are available. The Vista 350 telephone will also provide one-button access to other SmartTouch*** services, such as pay-per-use Last Call Return, Busy Call Return and Three-Way Calling. The most advanced feature of the Vista 350 is its ability to offer free access to the CallMall, an electronic marketplace. Easy-to-follow display prompts will navigate customers through the CallMall. They will be able to view brief product and service information, access more details delivered in both audio and video form and even connect automatically to the retailer or sponsor. By selecting merchandise or service categories of particular interest to them, customers will be able to take advantage of special offers from local retailers. These may be advertised through short, four-line messages displayed on the screen of the Vista 350 several times each day. For retailers, the CallMall will offer an alternative outlet to market their products and services. Advertisers will be able to reach their target groups very effectively and efficiently. The Call Mall is provided by Bell in partnership with New North Media, a joint venture of Bruncor (parent company of New Brunswick Telephone) and NORTEL. One offering that will be available to all London-area customers with the Vista 350 is the Bell Services electronic catalogue of products and services that will include details on special offers and rate discounts. Bell Services will also direct users to the appropriate company source for additional information or ordering. Trial participants will need Touch-Tone(TM) service and be willing to rent at least one Vista 350 telephone. To gain the full benefits of the trial package, customers should also subscribe to Visual Call Waiting. Residence customers will pay $8.50 per month for the Vista 350 telephone with CallMall and $11.00 monthly for Visual Call Waiting. The charge for individual-line business customers is $13.50 per month for the Vista 350 and $14.00 for Visual Call Waiting. Businesses wishing to participate in CallMall and the Quick Ads program should call Phil Bywater at (519) 663-7108 for more information. Rates, amounting to pennies per day, are based on the number of ads, households reached and customer access to services. Bell Canada, the largest Canadian telecommunications operating company, markets a full range of state-of-the-art products and services to more than seven million business and residence customers in Ontario and Québec. Bell Canada is a member of Stentor -- an alliance of Canada's major telecommunications companies. * Call Mall is a trademark of New North Media. ** Vista 350 is a trademark of NORTEL. *** SmartTouch is a trademark of Bell Canada ------------ Now if that doesn't sound like a press release, I don't know what does. Personally, I'd find ads rolling across my screen quite annoying, a PANBQAS (Pretty Amazing New but Quite Annoying Service). Now, if by having the advertising on the screen it would pay for a portion of LD calls or extend the Local Calling Area ... We can only dream. Scott. 4sam3@qlink.queensu.ca / Apukwa of 4th \ Scouting: Improving tommorow *Proud to be Canadian* \ Kingston Cubs / through the youth of today. <> ------------------------------ From: jyoull@cs.bgsu.edu (Jim Youll) Subject: Re: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 21:07:58 -0500 Organization: Bowling Green State University On Fri, 15 Dec 1995, Peter Simpson wrote: > Dear Mr. Phoneroom: > Telemarketing is advertising, plain and simple. Invasive, annoying > and poorly timed advertising. Many of us don't like it at all, and > rank telemarketers with politicians, used car dealers, insurance > salesmen and lawyers in our hierarchy of esteem. Just for the record, I like my insurance salesman quite a lot, and he has never once called me during dinner. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Possibly that is because he has dinner at the same time as yourself, and he hates to be disturbed while he is eating. PAT] ------------------------------ From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) Subject: Re: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum Date: 18 Dec 1995 01:20:21 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) peter@isis.ST.3Com.COM (Peter Simpson) wrote: > As a telemarketer, you should encourage your fellow telemarketers > to push for a national list, and encourage the FCC to make it illegal for > telemarketers to call anyone on that list. Just think of all > the goodwill you'd gain! When the FCC was going through its Rulemaking proceedings concerning the TCPA, a `national do-not-call database' was one of the mechanisms that was suggested to it by Congress. Sadly, but predictably, Mr. Phoneroom's telenuisance industry fought against its implimentation. The reason? Because, if their was a national list in place that was free to consumers, the telenuisance industry would have no one left to call. Robert Bulmash Private Citizen, Inc. 1/800-CUT-JUNK ------------------------------ From: pmartin@netcom.com (Pat Martin) Subject: Re: Digital Transmission of Video Signal Over the Air Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 01:29:13 GMT In article , cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) wrote: > TKondo2937 said: >> Hi. Is there anyone who can explain how digital transmission of video >> signals over the air work? I think digital transmission is only possible >> in guided media, such as twisted pairs, coax, and fiber optic. > No; digital transmission is possible over radio links as well. The > ALOHA protocol is more primative form of CSMA-CD (ethernet) in that it > isn't able to sense a carrier on the frequency. Satelits also send > digital signals using wither the SPADE protocol or Reservation ALOHA. >> Digital transmission of video signal via unguided media is already >> underway, i.e. USSB and DirecTV. Are they transmitting digital signal as >> an analog as modem does for sending digital signal via analog circuit of >> telephone network? > No. The radio signals are transmitted using a digital carrier. Shift > keying is used to encode the signals. Different protocols use > different encoding methods, but I would be willing to be the video > signals are transmitted using Manchester encoding so that the receivers > need not be clocked with the sending station. This is an interesting area, what is digital and what is not? All digital RF systems I have dealt with encode the data on to an analog. This analog modulation is often very similar to, or exactly the same as, that used by analog voice band modems, though the data rates and passed bandwidths are often much higher. In RF the only limitation to bandwidth is your allocated channel space. Its been a while but most systems I dealt with in the past used 64 QAM (Quadrature Amplitude Modulation) or 128. I suppose there are systems out there that go higher. On wide bandwidth channels with high baud rates you can get some very high bit rates. The spec for V.32 modems states that 16 QAM at 2400 baud will be supported for 9600 BPS, among other modulation specs. I am not sure about the quoted access methods above, but TDMA, GSM and CDMA are methods to allow sharing of the digital channel and do not neccesarily specify the modulation method. I am not positive about CDMA but from what I have learned CDMA takes regular RF and runs it through a 'spreader' before tranmitting and on the receive side un-spreads(?) the signal. I would assume that QAM modulation can still be used in this process, the modulator inserted prior to the spreader and the demodulator inserted after the de-spreader? The real question is, what is really digital? I suppose stuffing bits on a coax at TTL levels is probably pure digital but even T1 transmission encodes the data as AMI for better tranmission distance. What about most fiber transmission, is it digital or analog? I think in most cases you are not going very far with the data if it is not encoded as analog. Patrick L. Martin pmartin@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: bfm@pobox.com (Barry Margolius, NYC) Subject: Re: New York Suffolk County Proposes Non-Emergency 811 Number Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 17:34:34 GMT dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein) wrote: > Let's see now. Based on this concept and other events going on in > NYS, a 'deaf-tty' caller uses 311, a minor emergency uses 811, a > serious emergency uses 911. Oh, let's not forget the campaign in NYC > to call 999-1111, 999-2222, 999-3333, 999-4444, or 999-5555 to reach > the fire dispatcher (depends on which of the 5 boroughs you're in) so > as to 'reduce' the load on the general 911 operator andcut down on the > delay. > Hmm, sounds to me like it would be much simpler, safer, and effective > to finally simply staff 911 centers with the right number of people > and with decent equipment. Danny, I agree with your basic premise, but it seems reasonable to use the phone system to separate urgent/emergency calls from less urgent ones. Either using 911/811 or using a "press 9 if this call is ugent" approach. It makes performance dependent on people respecting the conventions, but I still think it's worth it. I definitely do agree, however, that it's all too easy to carry this separation of functions too far. I don't look forward to a "red pages" section of the phone book which just lists 911 type numbers. :-) Barry F Margolius, New York City bfm@pobox.com For PGP Key, finger bfm@panix.com ------------------------------ From: jsulmar@shore.net Subject: Re: Data/Voice Call Center 'Discriminator' Date: 18 Dec 1995 14:20:17 GMT Organization: North Shore Access/Eco Software, Inc; (info@shore.net) Reply-To: jsulmar@shore.net In , bmoynihan@mcimail.com (Bill Moynihan) writes: > I need a little help defining some equipment for an application. > The application requires a single 800 number with a box behind it that > will: > a) Route to a modem pool for a <=28Kbps dial-up session, or; > b) If no carrier is detected within a couple of seconds, decide it is > a voice call and direct callers to a VRU/menu application for user- > directed assistance. Bill, Have you selected your VRU system yet? If not, you can easily solve this problem by using a VRU with MVIP capability. The MVIP is a "call routing bus" that would let you route your call initially from the T1 to an analog output line (which you would connect externally to a modem) and to listen (using the voice processing capabilities of the VRU unit) to see if the handshaking tones are present. If not, the VRU could re-route the call from the T1 directly to the voice processing subsystem for normal VRU operations. One vendor that makes voice boards with this kind of capability is Natural Microsystems (508-650-1300). They make boards, not turn-key systems so you'll need to do your own system integration and write your own application software (or hire one of NMS's value added resellers to help you with it). There are some good applications generation tools on the market that you could use to write your applications if you don't want to program in C. I hope this helps. If you need more info, get in touch. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 10:27:54 EST From: Peter M. Weiss Subject: Re: Abuse of 800/888 Numbers Organization: Penn State University In article , slichte@cello.gina. calstate.edu (Steven Lichter) says: > My only real problem was when someone in New York found it > and used the number to call my board and racked up some major time. I was > stuck with the charges and the person who's number was on my bill claimed > they never called; right!!. As far as I can tell, telephone numbers and vehicle license plates do NOT identify people, but OWNERS of same. Those who use those media might not be the OWNERS. That does NOT obviate their responsibilities though, it might help explain a certain lack of knowledge e.g., when you move into an apartment and turn on telephone service and find that somehow others are using your telephone service even though you have the only key to your apartment. Pete Weiss -- Penn State ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #522 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Dec 20 12:32:47 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA29398; Wed, 20 Dec 1995 12:32:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 12:32:47 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512201732.MAA29398@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #523 TELECOM Digest Wed, 20 Dec 95 12:33:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 523 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? (Shubu Mukherjee) International Opportunities in Cellular (Lynne Gregg) What Do I Have Here? (Jim Haynes) D4 Channel Bank (Paul Reynolds) Bridging Two Worlds - Internet Voice and PSTN (Tom Bateman) New Area Code for Virginia (Greg Monti) US West Quality of Service Hearing Transcripts Available (Tim Sweeney) Howard Rheingold Urges Action on the Telecommunications Act (Monty Solomon) Re: Digital Cellular Service (Richard Kinch) Re: Cellular CID - It's Here! (relkay01@fiu.edu) Re: Cellular CID - It's Here! (Kurt Joplin) Re: Urgent - North American Modem in Australia? (David Clayton) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: shubu@cs.wisc.edu (Shubu Mukherjee) Subject: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? Date: 19 Dec 1995 23:28:23 GMT Organization: CS Department, University of Wisconsin Has anyone been recently ripped off by a Dating Service called International Telemedia Association (ITA) operating from Atlanta, Georgia? Is this a big scam? Here is our story. Suddenly, in our phone bill we found a $45 charge for VOICEMAIL_1. Our local telephone company informed us that this is a dating service operating from Atlanta. When my roommate called up ITA, they claimed that someone from our house called them up and established this service on such and such date, which is absolutely false. When he demanded that they refund our money, they refused and referred us to the Attorney General's office. Our local telephone company (Ameritech) has been equally uncooperative. They say that they cannot stop the payment to this ITA service and we have to pay them. The funny thing is though that along with the dating service charge, there was a teleconference charge of around $50 (for two minutes) with some company called Integretel. This company, however, immediately refunded our money saying that this must have been a mistake. Is there anyone out there who has suffered the same fate? Our local telephone company (Ameritech) told us that they have received similar complaints from other customers. Please email me (shubu@cs.wisc.edu) or call me up (608-255-3244) if a similar incident has happened to you and we can teach ITA a lesson. Thanks! Shubu Mukherjee University of Wisconsin-Madison, Computer Sciences ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: International Opportunities in Cellular Date: Tue, 19 Dec 95 16:38:00 PST If you are interested in exploring international opportunities with AT&T Wireless Services, please send a resume and note detailing area of interest to Marsha Alexander at marsha.alexander@attws.com. We seek individuals with the following backgrounds for positions in Latin America, India, and Europe. RF & Microwave Engineering Network Engineering and Construction Switch Engineering Financial and Business Analysis Customer Operations Marketing, Sales Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 10:10:06 -0800 Subject: What do I Have Here? I was in San Antonio last week. My cousin took me on a tour of used book stores. At one of them I was about to leave when I saw "The Telephone Book" on a shelf. And I was about to pass that up because I already have enough telephone books. But I took it down and saw it had lots of nice historical pictures - seems to be a book that was produced for the 1976 telephone centennial. So I looked at the price, and was about to decide that was too much just for a book with pretty pictures. Then I noticed on the front cover, in gold letters, "John D. DeButts" ! Could it be that I have here the president's personal copy of this book? (Of course I bought it.) And how did it get to San Antonio? ------------------------------ From: paulr@ods.com (Paul Reynolds) Subject: D4 Channel Bank Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 21:28:18 GMT Organization: Optical Data Systems, Inc. Greetings, I have a "brand-new" never installed D4 Hubbell/Pulsecom 48 port channel bank for sale to a good home ... This bad boy has over (30), 4 wire E&M cards, mulitple LIU's, & dual power supplies I'll pay the shipping ... Thanks, paulr@ods.com ------------------------------ From: Tom Bateman Subject: Bridging Two Worlds - Internet Voice and PSTN Date: 19 Dec 1995 17:50:35 GMT Organization: NBTel Has anyone out there come up with a good method of bridging between the PSTN and the internet voice world. I'd be interested in sharing info on this topic either via private e-mail or via this or other newsgroup postings. The overall objective is to come up with a cost effective configuration for a Call Center ACD agent to participate in both traditional Call Center ACD agent activities (via 800/PSTN/ACD technologies) and also participate in Internet calling activities via internet voice software congfigurations. We are looking to build or buy in this area. Tom Bateman NBTel (506)694-6283 thbateman@nbtel.nb.ca ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Dec 95 18:43:45 PST From: Greg Monti Subject: New Area Code for Virginia A friend noted a short article in the {Washington Post} and later a press release from Bell Atlantic: Virginia will get its fourth area code in late 1996. Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Suffolk, Chesapeake and Williamsburg will be in a new code. Richmond, Petersburg, Charlottesville and Lynchburg will remain in 804. The new code, the exact date, and exact border line have not been announced. 804 has started using N1X and N0X prefixes. Greg Monti Arlington, Virginia, USA gmonti@cais.com ------------------------------ From: Tim Sweeney Subject: US West Quality of Service Hearing Transcripts Available Date: 19 Dec 1995 23:27:22 GMT Organization: Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission has posted on its web page the transcript of the quality of service hearings conducted on November 9, 1995, in Olympia, Washington. The hearing was held as part of the U S West rate case. No decision has been made on this case. Hearings on quality of service continue January 8, 1996 with the rest of the case issues taken up during the following two weeks in January. Included in the transcript is the cross-examination of U S West Vice-President Dennis Okamoto and consultant Mike Bookey and testimony from about 20 members of the public including Internet service providers commenting on T-1 and ISDN access. The text file is about 400K and can be found on the WUTC page at: http://www.washington.edu/wutc Tim Sweeney WUTC Policy Office ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 00:07:12 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Howard Rheingold urges action on the telecommunications act Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Forwarded FYI to the Digest: Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 14:41:30 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Agre Subject: Howard Rheingold urges action on the telecommunications act From: hlr@well.com (Howard Rheingold) Subject: Call The White House Now The following "Tomorrow" column will be published by King Features client newspapers the week of December 25. Permission is granted to reproduce this and retransmit this column electronically. Fax it to offline friends. Last Stop Before the Censorship State By Howard Rheingold Americans have one last chance before we lose the Net. If American citizens write, call, and fax the President now and urge him to veto the telecommunications deregulation bill, we might not lose an opportunity to revitalize the democratic process and grow hundreds of thousands of small Net-based businesses. And we might not hand over a nascent native industry (the dominant industry of the twenty first century) to international competitors. The effects of this legislation (S 652) go far beyond the Internet, reaching into every aspect of American lives, undoubtedly influencing the shape of the democracy our children will grow up in. This telecommunications bill encourages the concentration of ownership of all news, entertainment, and communication media, institutes censorship provisions that will put online service providers out of business, cut off universities from the worldwide network, and turn American scientists, engineers, educators, entrepreneurs into a nation of Net-morons in an increasingly online world. This bill allows rates to rise too high and too fast, is generous with megacorporations and stingy with education, and it completely ignores the widening gap between information-rich and information-poor. Through months of committee debates and decisions, censors and monopolists have won every battle over the future of the Internet. By shamelessly exploiting legislators' and citizens' ignorance of the nature of the Internet, a small group who are intent upon imposing their brand of morality on everyone else,are about to silence a potentially powerful medium for citizen-to-citizen communication, cripple American industries trying to compete in global markets, and create a Federal bureaucracy with the power to determine what is decent for citizens to say. Congress will almost certainly send to the President a telecommunications reform bill that can send people to jail for two years and fine them $100,000 for mentioning the seven words that are forbidden from radio and television. Mention of abortion, condoms or safe sex are almost certain to be the next items forbidden. American universities, on the advice of their attorneys will turn off all Internet access for their students as soon as the law goes into effect. American citizens don't have to be electrical engineers to understand the nature of the new communication media. But we do need to have the truth told and the complexities explained, and that has not happened. Computer BBSs, e-mail, citizen networks, mean that you no longer have to own a press to benefit from freedom of the press: every desktop connected to the Net is a printing press, a place of assembly, a broadcasting station. The idea that ordinary taxpayers should have the power to publish eyewitness reports, argue policy, distribute information threatens the old power structures. Politicians and corporations whose fortunes are based on control of mass media fear their power will erode to the citizens. Legislators have failed to uphold their oath to defend the Constitution by pursuing such nonsense as flag-burning amendments to the Constitution while at the same time destroying the liberties that flag symbolizes. Internet censorship legislation is not about pornography on the Internet (which will easily move offshore). It's about who will have the power and control to broadcast words, images, and sounds, to everyone else. Citizens? Or cartels? A trillion-dollar pie is being cut up. We, the people, are getting cut out. Speak up. We still have the right to communicate with the President and demand that he hold the line. Tell him to send this back to Congress. We've been living for sixty years under the rules set forth in the Communications Act of 1934. Now the Congress is changing the rules again, determining the way our nation and its industries will communicate, educate, and do business for decades to come. We deserve better than this. Tell Clinton to tell Congress to try again, to cut the citizens of this country into the deal, and to keep their hands off the Bill of Rights. Contact the White House right now: (202) 456-1414 Phone (202) 456-1111 Comment Line (202) 456-2461 Fax. Howard Rheingold hlr@well.com http://www.well.com/user/hlr/ Fax: 415 388 3913 ------------------------------ From: kinch@toledo.emi.net (Richard Kinch) Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Service Organization: The Road Kill Cafe Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 07:24:47 GMT EDWARD.A.KLEINHAMPLE@gte.sprint.com wrote: > I am considering the purchase of a cellular phone in the coming > months. I have heard plenty of advertising hoopla > about AT&T's digital cellular service ... I've had a digital cellular in Palm Beach County, Florida for six months. Motorola Micro Tac. Good, rugged phone. > Can a digital cellular phone roam to a non-digital area? (the phones that > I have seen include the Motorola PERSONALD and MICROTACD, and several > Ericson offerings -- I don't know model numbers). A digital cellular phone is a superset of an analog phone. When in an analog-only area, the phone switches to being analog. You can also program the phone to only use analog. The unit will clearly say it is "dual mode"; to my knowledge you can't buy one that ain't dual mode. > Is the technology likely to be obsolete soon -- should I wait? > Does digital REALLY offer a significant advantage over the analog > service? AT&T advertises better sound quality, better security (less > fraud) -- what's the real story? If you want cellular and know you want it for a period where you can recoup the extra expense of the digital unit in lower monthly rates, then of course go ahead. The phone is "yours" after six months anyway. You can switch to the wireline carrier then and use your old (digital+analog as analog) phone. The security I believe only extends to eavesdropping, not cloning. The advantage is that you get lower digital rates because up to three digital conversations (I believe three is the number) can TDMA multiplex on one cellular conversation. The rates are not proportionately lower, just marginally lower (e.g., 20/month versus 30/month, same air time rates). The voice quality of the current TDMA digital is, in my experience, at best slightly POORER to a clear analog channel and often MUCH POORER to INCOMPREHENSIBLE. This is only to be expected, since you're taking bandwidth optimized for one conversation and splitting it into three. When the system is busy or you have spotty transmissions, you get the hashy digital noise instead of clear voice. Of course they still charge you full price for the air time. Of course, heh heh, you can just pay the digital rate and set your phone to analog-only operation. > Both local carriers bundle the mandatory one year service at the rates > stated above. What kind of rates are typical 12 months from now when I > have completed the mandatory service agreement? Am I correct in assuming > that a portion of the price of the phone is ammortized into the monthly > service rate for the first year? Should I expect lower rates once this > period is over? You're right about the bundling, they're not making much until the six or twelve months are over unless you use a lot of air time. I tried to dicker on rates but if you're an individual I think your stuck paying their advertised rates. > Ed Kleinhample 70574.3514@compuserve.com > Land O' Lakes, FL. or edward.a.kleinhample@gte.sprint.com Love that butter you folks make. Richard J. Kinch kinch@holonet.net Kinch Computer Company Publishers of TrueTeX (R) brand of software 6994 Pebble Beach Court Tel (407) 966-8400 Lake Worth FL 33467 USA FAX (407) 966-0962 Info at http://www.emi.net/~kinch ------------------------------ From: relkay01@fiu.edu Subject: Re: Cellular CID - It's Here! Date: 19 Dec 1995 21:58:49 GMT Organization: The People's Voice, 305-937-6468 On 13 Dec 1995 19:27:49 GMT, Gary Davis (Gary_Davis@BocaRaton.IBM.COM) posted: >> For now, all cellular numbers in the system are apparently set to >> a default value of "Per-Line Blocking ON". When I call home - >> just dialing my 7-digit number, and where I have "Anonymous Call >> Rejection" turned ON, I got the reject message that the phone >> company plays to anonymous callers. > That explains why one caller told me she got that "strange" > rejection message. She had called me from her cellular and because I > have anonymous rejection enabled, she received the message telling > her to not block her caller ID being passed. I had the same precise problem. I paged a friend of mine and he tried to call me back from his cellphone. I have Anonymous Call Rejection and so he heard "... Please hang up, do not block the delivery of your number, and call again." He didn't know HOW to do just that and so I missed a very important call. He thought I blocked "cellular phones" altogether. I'm sure most cell-users will think the same, especially those who never used *67 in their life. We gotta educate the ignorant. Why don't they change that Call-Rejected-Announcement to: "... Please hang up, allow delivery of your number by dialing *82, and call again"? Evidentally, when they originally recorded that prompt, the only way to block delivery of your number was by dialing *67. This is still generally true here and in about 20 other states which only allow per-call blocking (no per-line blocking). Today, however, cellphones block delivery of number by DEFAULT (which is the right thing to do). Whether they change the prompt or not, I'm sticking with A.C.R. I get calls from cellphones once a year anyways. I'll just temporarily disable A.C.R. by dialing *87 whenever I expect a call from someone who might have a cellphone. Won't work for emergencies, but then again, I'm not 911. ;) W/love, | Owner & Programmer: The People's Voice BBS @ 305-937-6468 | No pregnant women or heart-conditioned senior citizens are Ron | allowed. Under 42 must get parents' permission to call. Miami, FL | "THIS IS WHAT YOUR MOTHER ALWAYS WARNED YOU ABOUT" Don't bother to call... FCC disconnected the line on basis of board being "obscene". New number coming soon! Tapes avail. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 21:42:39 +0000 From: Kurt Joplin Subject: Re: Cellular CID - It's Here! Organization: Nortel To further expand on Kevin's article: I just read a brochure from Southwestern Bell Mobile stating that they are, just now, offering CID. They are offering Caller ID service that uses a digital cellular phone's display to show the phone number of the in-coming call while the phone rings. This service is only available to *certain* digital cellular phones. They only list about four vendors. Nortel (Northern Telecom) has provided Calling Number Identification (CNID) presentation (CNIP) and restriction (CNIR) on our Cellular switches for a number of years. Our first offering was CLID for Mobile to Mobile calls within our own switching network. This past year we introduced CNIP and CNIR for mobile to land calls. This service is offered on TDMA mobiles operating in either digital or analog modes. In our PCS product line we offer a customized Smart Card application that provides the name of the calling party as well as the phone number. Kurt Joplin kurt.joplin.0189484@nt.com (214) 684-2767 Nortel Wireless Networks Richardson, Texas International Wireless Product Manager ------------------------------ From: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton) Subject: Re: Urgent - North American Modem in Australia? Date: Wed, 20 Dec 95 04:47:52 GMT Organization: Access One Pty Ltd., Melbourne, Australia In article , tew2@cornell.edu (Toby Weir-Jones) wrote: > Are there any problems taking a North American-spec modem and plugging > it into a phone line in Australia? Any particular adapter that's > needed? Anything else I should know? Will it even work? Apart from the fact that we use different sockets, (but are moving to RJ-11's, and you can easily get adaptors), it is technically illegal to connect anything to the Australian Telephone Network that is not "Austel" approved, (Austel is the regulator in Australia). All that said, modems are modems, the standards are international, the problems that you have with modems in North America will most likely be the same in Australia, but it should work. Regards, David Clayton, Switchview Australasia Pty. Ltd. e-mail: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Phone: + 61-3-9558 9285 Fax: + 61-3-9558 9286 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #523 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Dec 20 22:42:48 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA16396; Wed, 20 Dec 1995 22:42:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 22:42:48 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512210342.WAA16396@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #524 TELECOM Digest Wed, 20 Dec 95 22:42:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 524 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson 2nd CFP Conf. Smart Card Research & Advanced Applications (Pieter Hartel) 411 and Information/Directory Assistance (Doug Faunt) Pacific Bell Encouraged by PUC Vote (Mike King) Distinctive Ring and *70 (Robert A. Rosenberg) Re: SMDR Data Available? (Jose Cordones) Ending Junk Calls (Doug Smith) Helping New User Select Proper Newsgroup For Posting (Lionel Ancelet) Areacode Lookup Program (Josh Hildebrand) Last Laugh! The Exon Song (funny@clarinet via Monty Solomon) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pieter@fwi.uva.nl (Pieter Hartel) Subject: 2nd CFP Conf. Smart Card Research & Advanced Applications Date: 20 Dec 1995 17:25:18 GMT Organization: FWI, University of Amsterdam CARDIS 1996 SECOND SMART CARD RESEARCH AND ADVANCED APPLICATION CONFERENCE September 18-20, 1996, Amsterdam, The Netherlands AIMS AND GOALS Smart cards or IC cards offer a huge potential for information processing purposes. The portability and processing power of IC cards allow for highly secure conditional access and reliable distributed information systems. IC cards are already available that can perform highly sophisticated cryptographic computations. The applicability of IC cards is currently limited mainly by our imagination; the information processing power that can be gained by using IC cards remains as yet mostly untapped and is not well understood. Here lies a vast uncovered research area which we are only beginning to assess, and which will have great impact on the eventual success of the technology. The research challenges range from electrical engineering on the hardware side to tailor-made cryptographic applications on the software side, and their synergies. Many currently existing events are mainly devoted to commercial and application aspects of IC cards. In contrast, the CARDIS conferences aim to bring together researchers who are active in all aspects of design of IC cards and related devices and environment, such as to stimulate synergy between different research communities and to offer a platform for presenting the latest research advances. CARDIS 1994, sponsored by the International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP) and held in November 1994 in Lille, France, has successfully brought together representatives from leading IC research centers from all over the world. CARDIS 1996 will be the second occasion for the IC card community in this permanent activity. CARDIS 1996 will be organised jointly by the Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science at Amsterdam (CWI) and the Department of Computer Systems of the University of Amsterdam (UvA). SUBMISSIONS Submissions will be judged on relevance, originality, significance, correctness, and clarity. Each paper should explain its contribution in both general and technical terms, identifying what has been accomplished, saying why it is significant, and comparing it with previous work. Authors should make every effort to make the technical content of their papers understandable to a broad audience. Papers should be written in English. Authors should submit: * 16 copies * of a full paper * typeset using the Springer LNCS format (see instructions below) * not exceeding 20 pages in length * printed double-sided if possible * addressed to Pieter H. Hartel Univ. of Amsterdam Dept. of Computer Systems Kruislaan 403 1098 SJ Amsterdam The Netherlands In addition, each submission should be accompanied by information submitted via WWW, (http://www.cwi.nl/~brands/cardis.html) or submitted via email to cardis@fwi.uva.nl that consists of: * a single postal address and electronic mail address for communication * complete title, author and affiliation information * the abstract of the paper * a small selection of the keywords that appear on this call for papers, which best describe the contribution of the paper Proceedings will be available at the conference. It is intended to publish the proceedings in the Springer LNCS series. Authors of accepted papers may be expected to sign a copyright release form. IMPORTANT DATES Submission deadline March 1, 1996 Acceptance notification May 15, 1996 Camera ready paper due July 1, 1996 Conference September 18--20 1996 THEMES Technology/hardware 1 IC architecture and techniques 2 Memories and processor design 3 Read/Write unit engineering 4 Specific co-processors for cryptography 5 Biometry 6 Communication technologies 7 Interfaces with the user, the service suppliers 8 Reliability and fault tolerance 9 Special devices 10 Standards Software 11 The operating system 12 Models of data management 13 Communication protocols IC Card design 14 Tools for internal or external software production 15 Validation and verification 16 Methodology for application design Electronic payment systems 17 Road pricing 18 Internet payment systems 19 Untraceability Algorithms 20 Formal specification and validation 21 Identification 22 Authentication 23 Cryptographic protocols for IC cards 24 Complexity Security 25 Models and schemes of security 26 Security interfaces 27 Hardware and software implementation 28 Security of information systems including cards 29 Formal verification of transaction sets 30 Protocol verification IC Cards, individuals and the society 31 IC cards and privacy 32 Owner access of data 33 IC cards: political and economical aspects 34 Is the IC card going to change legislation? 35 Patents, copyrights Future of ic cards 36 Innovative technologies 37 Moving towards the pocket intelligence 38 Convergence with portable PCs, lap tops etc ... 39 PCMCIA Innovative applications 40 Design methodology of applications 41 IC cards and the information system 42 Examples of new applications 43 Requirements for innovative cards Standards 44 Emerging standards 45 Compliance and approval ORGANISATION Steering committee chairman: Vincent Cordonnier (Rd2p, Lille) Local organisation: Pieter Hartel (Southampton, UK and Amsterdam, The Netherlands) Stefan Brands (CWI, The Netherlands) Eduard de Jong (QC consultancy, The Netherlands) General Chairman: Pieter Hartel (Southampton, UK and Amsterdam, The Netherlands) Program Chairmen: Pierre Paradinas (Rd2p/Gemplus, France) Jean-Jacques Quisquater (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium) Program committee Stefan Brands (CWI, Amsterdam) Andre Gamache (Quebec, Canada) Louis Guillou (CCETT, France) Josep Domingo-Ferrer (Univ. Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain) Pieter Hartel (Southampton, UK and Amsterdam, The Netherlands) Hans-Joachim Knobloch (Karlsruhe, Germany) Pierre Paradinas (Rd2p/Gemplus, France) Reinhard Posch (Graz, Austria) Jean-Jacques Quisquater (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium) Matt Robshaw (RSA Laboratories, USA) Bruno Struif (GMD, Germany) Doug Tygar (Carnegie-Mellon, USA) LECTURE NOTES IN COMPUTER SCIENCE Advice to Authors for the Preparation of Camera-Ready Contributions to LNCS/LNAI Proceedings The preparation of manuscripts which are to be reproduced by photo-offset requires special care. Manuscripts which are submitted in technically unsuitable form will be returned for retyping or cancelled if the volume otherwise cannot be finished on time. In order to make the volume look as uniform as possible the following instructions should be followed closely. ************ * PRINTING AREA: Using 10-point font size for the main text the printing area should be 12.2 x 19.3 cm. Manuscripts prepared in this preferred format are reproduced in the same size in the book. With these settings, the interline distance should be arranged in such a way that some 42 to 45 lines occur on a full-text page. * TYPEFACE and SIZE: We recommend the use of Times or one of the similar typefaces widely used in phototypesetting. (In Times and similar typefaces the letters have serifs, i.e., short endstrokes at the head and the foot of letters.) Please do not use a sans-serif typeface for running text, except for computer programs. The text should always be justified to occupy the full line width, so that the right margin is not ragged. For normal text please use 10-point type size and one-line spacing. Small print (abstract and affiliation) should be set in 9-point type size. Please use italic print to emphasize words in running text; bold type in running text and underlining should be avoided. Headings should be capitalized (i.e., nouns, verbs and all other words with at least five letters should have a capital initial) and should, with the exception of the title, be aligned to the left. The font sizes are as follows: ************ Heading level Example Font size and style Title (centered) Type Theory 14 point, bold 1st-level heading 1 Introduction 12 point, bold 2nd-level heading 2.1 Simple Connections 10 point, bold 3rd-level heading Typing Rules. 10 point, bold 4th-level heading Remarks: (text follows) 10 point,italic ************ * FIGURES: If possible, originals should be pasted into the manuscript and centered between the margins; if no originals of the required size are available, figures may be reduced in scale and pasted into the text. For halftone figures (photos), please forward high-contrast glossy prints and mark the space in the text as well as the back of the photographs clearly, so that there can be no doubt about where or which way up they should be placed. The lettering of figures should be in 10-point font size. Figures should be numbered. The legends also should be centered between the margins and be written in 9-point font size as follows: (bold) Fig. 3. (text follows) * PAGE NUMBERING: Your paper should show no printed page numbers; they are decided by the volume editor and finally inserted by the printer. Please indicate the ordering of your pages by numbering the sheets (using a light blue/green pencil) at the bottom of the reverse side. There also should be no running heads. * PRINTING QUALITY: For reproduction we need sheets which are printed on one side only. Please use a high-resolution printer, preferably a laser printer with at least 300 dpi or higher resolution if possible. It is desirable that on all pages the text appears in the middle of the sheets. * REMARK 1: If your typesetting system does not offer the variety of font sizes needed for the preparation of your manuscript according to these instructions, you may choose a different (larger) font size and a correspondingly scaled printing area (12-point font size for the running text, for example, corresponds to a printing area of 15.3 x 24.2 cm and to a final reduction rate of 80%). * REMARK 2: You are encouraged to use LaTeX or TeX for the preparation of you camera-ready manuscript together with the corresponding Springer style files "llncs" (for LaTeX) or "plncs" (for TeX) to be obtained by e-mail or by ftp/gopher as follows: Mailserver: Send an e-mail message to svserv@vax.ntp.springer.de containing the line get /tex/latex/llncs.zip for the LaTeX syle files or get /tex/plain/plncs.zip for the TeX style files. Sending "help" to the server prompts advice on how to interact with the mail server. The style files have to be unzipped and uu-decoded for use. In case of problems in getting or uu-decoding the style files please contact "springer vax.ntp.springer.de". Ftp: The internet address is "trick.ntp.springer.de", the user id "ftp" or "anonymous". Please enter your e-mail address as password. The (above mentioned) files reside in "/pub/tex/latex/llncs". Gopher: Point your client to "trick.ntp.springer.de". ------------------------------ From: faunt@netcom.com (Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604) Subject: 411 and Information/Directory Assistance Organization: at home, in Oakland Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 21:04:27 GMT I finally got to my local library when it was open. The first reference to 411 for Information was in 1948. There's a reference to Information (Directory Assistance) in 1967. Apparently, 211 for access to the long distance operator precedes that, but it's hard to tell since the fronts of the directories are pretty beat up. 73, doug ------------------------------ From: mk@TFS.COM (Mike King) Subject: Pacific Bell Encouraged by PUC Vote Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 14:06:56 -0800 (PST) Forwarded to the Digest FYI... ----- Forwarded Message ----- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 14:02:00 -0800 From: Teresa.Ruano@pactel.com (TELESIS.EA_SF_PO:Teresa Ruano) ** High Priority ** >>>NEWS FROM PACIFIC BELL<<< Pacific Bell Encouraged by Public Utilities Commission Vote For Immediate Release: Dec. 20, 1995 Contact: Jerry Kimata 415-394-3739 SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Public Utilities Commission today voted unanimously to change the way Pacific Bell is regulated. This decision suspends the so-called productivity factor as part of the five-year-old incentive-based regulation formula. The commission also froze prices of phone service for homes and businesses for three years. The productivity factor had reduced Pacific Bell's revenues by $690 million over the past five years. Pacific Bell issued the following statement in response to the PUC vote. It is attributable to John Gueldner, regulatory vice president. "We're encouraged by today's commission decision. The decision is clear recognition that competition in the California telecommunications market is here, and that regulation needs to change to accommodate the competitive marketplace. "It sends the right signal to companies based in California as well as those considering investing here. It will allow us to continue investing in our California infrastructure, and will encourage economic growth and jobs throughout the state." --------------------- Mike King * mk@tfs.com * Oakland, CA, USA * +1 510.645.3152 ------------------------------ From: robertr@icu.com (Robert A. Rosenberg) Subject: Distinctive Ring and *70 Organization: RockMug Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 20:01:55 GMT I am interested in knowing what (if any) interaction there is between Distinctive Ring (which allows multiple incoming numbers to be assigned to the same line with each number having a different Ring and Call-Waiting Pattern) and *70 (Per-Call Outgoing Call-Waiting disable). My question is if I place a call on a line with Distinctive Ring and use *70 to disable Call-Waiting for the period the call is in progress (for example, to prevent an Incoming Call from disrupting a Modem or Fax session), will that busy-out all the numbers or just the primary number (which is the only number that gets used for out-going calls). Thank you. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What happens around here (and seems to be pretty standard) is that *70 busies out any and all numbers which are associated with your line for the duration of the call. As you have probably noticed there are distinctive ringing patterns for the various numbers associated with your line, and likewise there are distinctive call waiting tones associated with each. You might wonder with such a short burst of tone in call waiting exactly how distinctive it can be to the human ear, but it is. PAT] ------------------------------ From: cordones@spacelab.net (Jose Cordones) Subject: Re: SMDR Data Available? Date: 20 Dec 1995 15:29:18 -0500 Organization: spacelab.net Internet Access Jeff Keller (75542.3426@CompuServe.COM) wrote: > I am interested in collecting information about different KSU/PBX SMDR > outputs for potential product development (i.e. format, field length > etc.) Aside from contacting every major manufacturer, does anyone > have this information available? Hi. I have similar interests. So far, I have looked at the format output for the AT&T Partner II PBX, but I also have noticed that PC Programs meant to work with the Partner work with other brands, such as Panasonic. One probably just needs a flexible parser for the input coming from the SMDR port, although unless told otherwise, we probably can't assume that these inputs won't be a bit contradictory across brands. I would like to know if anyone has further info on the subject, whether that is books, videos, people, ftp sites, etc. Specifically, 1. Can I talk back to the SMDR port? (most importantly, does it understand anything?) I imagine that this capability varies with brand and model. Any cases out there? I don't have my only manual on me, but I think there's also another port just for signalling/control purposes. Any interfacing info (from a PC) ? 2. If the answer to 1. is negative, what are my options for extending the capabilities of some "simple" PBX such as the AT&T Partner by connecting it to a PC. For example, if I wished to have a system where a caller is identified with CID, looked up on a database, offered a voice prompt [for a PIN #], and if they match, give clearance to call. Alas, if I wanted to impose even more restricted accounting, and say, I only allow that user to spend $N dollars and the ammount is reached, I'd like to be able to play a recording for the user, then hang up. Is that too much for those small PBXs? Would I have to re-invent one of those larger PBXs? Maybe one can build some control circuits to be driven by the PC/software, and this circuitry would the talk in the language of a "control station" telephone? Where could I learn more about this type of circuitry, specifically, the line interface between a control station and the PBX? Yikes, I have my work cut-out, but I really could use some pointers ... or I'll be going around in circles. Thanks for your help, Jose Cordones ------------------------------ From: dougs@mcs.com (Doug Smith) Subject: Ending Junk Calls Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 13:33:03 -0600 Organization: MCSNet Internet Services I understand there is a law that fines companies who call you after being told not to. Does anyone have the details on how that works? Specifically, how do you report it and how do you prove it sufficiently? Doug Smith * dougs@mcs.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A regular reader/participant here is Bob Bulmash of the 'Private Citizen' organization in the Chicago area. I imagine he will be writing you directly with details very soon. His organization does just what you are seeking. PAT] ------------------------------ From: la@well.com (Lionel Ancelet) Subject: Helping New User Select Proper Newsgroup For Postings Reply-To: la@well.com Organization: The Well Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 22:30:29 GMT phoneroom@aol.com (PhoneRoom) wrote: > Does anyone know of a newsgroup that is dedicated to issues specific to > the telemarketing field? I have found that the editor of this group has > negative feelings toward the industry and therefore desire to join > discussions in a more unbiased area. > Please Email Phoneroom@aol.com I suggest you try alt.telemarketing.die.die.die Lionel ------------------------------ From: Josh Hildebrand Subject: Areacode Lookup Program Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 02:08:06 CST TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > there is a feature of the Telecom Archives Email Information Service > called AREACODE which will return the geographic location of > an area code based on the input given. I was wondering how I can use this service ... what email address do I send my query to? Is there an online service for areacode geographic lookups yet? A CGI web script, or a telnet service of some sort? Thanks, Josh Hildebrand System Administrator of JEDI.NET Email: josh@jedi.net Pager: http://www.jedi.net/josh/pager WWW Home Page and Resume: http://www.jedi.net/josh [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The one available in the Telecom Archives is not in the best of condition right now. It is lacking many of the new area codes installed over the past year. It will be in *great shape* soon when Carl Moore and David Leibold finish working on it. It will not only include area codes in the USA/Canada, but will respond to worldwide country code and city code inquiries as well. In other words if you give it 312 it will respond Chicago, but if you give it a country and city code combination it will tell you where in the world that is also. I am hoping those guys have it ready in a few days. To use it now (or the revised updated version when available) you have two choices: if using anonymous ftp, you connect with ftp.lcs.mit.edu and login anonymous. Give your name@site as password. You must then 'cd telecom-archives/areacodes'. Pull the file 'areacode.program.in.c' and take it back to your site where you will compile it and run it as an executable. When compiled, you then enter at your command line the phrase 'areacode ' where argument is the area code and/or (in the revised version) the country-city code being requested. You'll get a response. For example, 'areacode 312' will respond 'Chicago, Illinois'. Take it now, or wait until the new version gets installed as you wish. If using ftp, you might want to pull other areacode-related files in that same sub-directory. If you take a copy back and compile it to run at your site, you might want to tell the sysadmin about it and as a public service let him install it where all users can get to it. I did that with the old version a few years ago. The second way of using it now is interactively via the Telecom Archives Email Information Service. The TAEIS is a very useful service for people without the ability to use anonymous ftp or who are just looking for a quick retrieval of a missing issue of the Digest or some other file. A help file on using TAEIS goes out to each new subscriber on the mailing list automatically, but if you don't have one, you can obtain one by writing and requesting it. I won't repeat all those instructions here except for the ones which pertain to the interactive searching part of the service. Email is sent to tel-archives@ftp.lcs.mit.edu. The subject line does not matter. In the text of the message, beginning at the left margin you enter these commands: REPLY your name@site AREACODE argument (runs the executable 'areacode' in the archives) GLOSSARY argument (greps the /glossary/* files in the archives) SEARCH string (greps the author-subject files in the archives) CARRIER xxx (greps the carrier file looking for 10xxx) ... and in each case, returns the results via email to the address specified in REPLY. The above four are just the 'interactive' commands available; that is they cause a program to executed here with the results returned to you in email. Other commands available are GET, PUT, SEND, SUBMIT, INFO, HELP, and more ... you can get back issues of this Digest going badk to August, 1981 and hundreds of other telecom- related files. Over the New Year's holiday I will be sending out an updated index to the Archives along with new help files, etc, and I do hope David and Carl have the areacodes program updated. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 23:09:55 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Last Laugh! The Exon Song Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM FYA Begin forwarded message: Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny Subject: net censorship From: hinshaw@cs.washington.edu (Kevin Hinshaw) With all the recent commotion about net censorship, and with the approach of the holiday season, I was inspired to write the following song for our department's annual holiday party skit. (Note that some of the lines are identical to the real version. I don't know if that poses copyright violations for posting purposes or not.) Kevin Hinshaw hinshaw@cs.washington.edu -------------------------- The Exon Song Sex nuts posting on an open wire Sick thoughts dripping from their prose Dirty pictures showing young girls for hire And men dressed up in women's clothes Everybody knows That mountains of pornography Have been appearing left and right Tiny tots with their eyes all a-glow May find the ones with sheep tonight We know that Satan's on the Net Along with all the creeps and perverts he could get Enticing every child to try his luck At finding pictures of people who fundamentally undermine the morals of society And so I'm offering this simple phrase To kids from one to ninety-two; Although it's been said many times, many ways "Let us censor for you." -- Selected by Jim Griffith. MAIL your joke to funny@clari.net. Attribute the joke's source if at all possible. A Daemon will auto-reply. Jokes ABOUT major current events should be sent to topical@clari.net (ie. jokes which won't be funny if not given immediate attention.) Anything that is not a joke submission goes to funny-request@clari.net ------------------------ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And a happy holiday season to all of you from myself, my family, my two cats, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #524 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Dec 21 01:24:10 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA26009; Thu, 21 Dec 1995 01:24:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 01:24:10 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512210624.BAA26009@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #525 TELECOM Digest Thu, 21 Dec 95 01:23:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 525 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson CFP: Thirteenth UK Teletraffic Symposium (Richard Gibbens) Rob Slade's Review of my Book _Digital Cash_ (Peter Wayner) Telecom Questions (Thomas Riedy) Re: Digital Music On Hold Device (Paul S. Sawyer) Re: Digital Music On Hold Device (Clarence Dold) Re: Digital Music On Hold Device (Steve Peterson) Re: Digital Music On Hold Device (Jack McGee) Re: Digital Music On Hold Device (Tom Watson) Re: Digital Music On Hold Device (Steve Cogorno) Re: Digital Music On Hold Device (Curtis Wheeler) Re: New York Suffolk County Proposes Non-Emergency 811 Number (Tom Watson) Re: Digital Transmission of Video Signal Over the Air (John Fricks) Re: Digital Transmission of Video Signal Over the Air (jwl@netcom.com) Florida ISDN User's Group Meeting (Bill Mengelson) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: R.J.Gibbens@statslab.cam.ac.uk (Richard Gibbens) Subject: CFP: Thirteenth UK Teletraffic Symposium Date: 19 Dec 1995 14:14:35 +0000 Organization: Statistical Laboratory, University of Cambridge C A L L F O R P A P E R S Thirteenth UK Teletraffic Symposium Performance Engineering In Information Systems to be held at The Strathclyde Graduate Business School 18-20 March 1996 The UKTS is held annually as a forum for the discussion of the latest analysis and performance characteristics of communication systems. Contributions are invited that review current techniques, discuss generic problems or introduce novel methods. Presentations are particularly welcome if they relate these matters to operational experience in dimensioning, capacity planning and quality of service. Areas on which we hope to attract papers include: * Radio communications; capacity planning and quality of service issues relating to cellular and wireless networks * High speed multi-media And ATM networks - wide area, LANS and MANS * Network evolution towards multi-media and ATM * AI techniques for network management and control * Network interworking, including Internet and SuperJANET * Signalling and intelligent network performance * Traffic management * Real-time service delivery - protocols, network architectures, quality of service guarantees and traffic characteristics * New mathematical methods and simulation techniques * Design tools * Software performance analysis There will be invited talks on several key issues. To avoid using parallel sessions, the committee has decided that all papers that are accepted will be published in the Proceedings, but at the Symposium they may be divided into presented contributions and poster session contributions. Prospective authors are invited to submit a synopsis of approximately 250 words to Professor D G Smith, Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Royal College, 24 George Street, Glasgow, G1 1XW by Friday 5 January 1996. In addition, it would be helpful if a statement accompanying the contribution could indicate the main subject area, the nature of the paper (survey, work in progress, new analysis testing, new results on system performance or some other category) and a brief indication of the main contribution made by the paper. >>> Richard Gibbens ............ Royal Society University Research Fellow <<< >>> R.J.Gibbens@statslab.cam.ac.uk ............... Statistical Laboratory <<< >>> http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~richard/ ..... University of Cambridge <<< ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 21:23:11 -0500 From: pcw@access.digex.net (Peter Wayner) Subject: Rob Slade's Review of My Book _Digital Cash_ Readers of the TELECOM Digest who checked out Rob Slade's review of my book, _Digital Cash_, might get the impression that I don't know much about RSA, DES and other forms of encryption. He attempted to prove that my book was filled with misleading statements by writing: The lack of straightforward discussion of the United States government policy on encryption is also a weakness. Combined, this allows misleading statements such as the one that "full 768 bit RSA as well as DES encryption ... can't be used to keep secrets." After you read this, you might believe that I really feel that 768 bit RSA mixed with DES can't be used to keep a secret. Hah. Here's the quote in context: In fact, at this writing, [Cybercash] has the destinction of being the first system to be exportable {\em and} as secure as desirable. The company writes, ``CyberCash uses full 768 bit RSA as well as DES encryption of the messages. All transactions are authenticated with MD5 and 768 bit RSA signatures.'' The software can be exported to everywhere except Lybia, Syria, Cuba, North Korea, Sudan, Iraq and Iran. This is because the software can't be used to keep secrets. It is taken from a section discussing how the U.S. government's policy on encryption affects various digital commerce systems. The software built by Cybercash, for instance, will NOT encrypt your files. It will only use the encryption to hide the transaction details. That's why the U.S. Government approved a very broad export license for their product. Mr. Slade also says that the book lacks a "straightforward discussion of the United States government policy on encryption." I'm not sure where he came up with this notion. The section that he used for his chopped quote discussed how encryption affected each system. Here's a quote from the beginning of this section: To some extent, the tension between the government and encryption systems is easing in this arena. The U.S. Government, for instance, seems willing to approve the export of strong encryption algorithms as long as it is apparent that the encryption software can't be used for anything except protecting financial transactions. Much of the debate over US Encryption policy is very important for the country, but it is not as important to the world of digital commerce. The US government seems to be quite willing to allow people to use strong encryption to protect financial transactions -- as long as that is all the software will do. But maybe this section wasn't "straightforward" enough? Finally, Mr. Slade seems to feel that there is not enough description about encryption that will help someone who doesn't have a degree in number theory. Well, I don't think that is true, but the book contains ample pointers to other books that concentrate on encryption and encryption alone. I included a description of the encryption algorithms so the new reader would have some introduction, but they can follow the pointers to other books if they're still curious. I want everyone to know that Rob Slade gave me a chance to look over the review before he posted it. When I read his chopped quote, I suggested that at the very least he could include the context. Readers could make a decision for themselves and decide whether what I wrote was misleading. After all, text is dirt cheap on the Net. He had no reason to chop it for space considerations. But he just ran it anyway. I think that this is negligent, malicious and a deliberate misrepresentation of the book. If anyone wants to bring any real errors to my attention, I would really appreciate hearing from you. An author's job is never done. In the meantime, I hope that readers will help make sure that this correction is posted to the same places that carried Mr. Slade's review. If anyone discovers a Web site that carries his review, I also hope that they'll notify me. ------------------------------ From: TRiedy@aol.com Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 21:50:40 -0500 Subject: Telecom Questions Hello, I have a question that you might be able to help me with. I am a small telephone vendor based in the Los Angeles area. Mostly I do premise wiring and small LAN installations. I was given a "universal" ANI number to use in the field by a local alarm installer. Apparently it belongs to AT&T? The number is 1073214049889664. However, I found out this past week that after dialing that number it does not return the number you are calling from any more. I have checked that number and some friends who used to work for Pac Bell recognize the digits. Now it just tells you that you are connected to a private network. Do you know this number I am referring to? At the end of the number announcement the voice would speak a series of digits, do you know what this meant? And most important do you know of any ANI numbers that are "universal" or at least good in the greater Los Angeles Area. The local exchange cariiers are not very helpful. They keep giving me the run-around and won't disclose any information. I also sort of stumbled onto a rather interesting number. When I dial 1-213-426-6058 I get a recording that announces my callback number is 01181337002114. Then is asks if the number is correct and gives the option of changing it with a authorization code. Do you know anything about this number? Thanks in advance, Thomas Riedy [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 10732 is a special network which belongs to AT&T and is used by certain customers of theirs. It is not for use by 'regular' customers. Like the number 800-MY-ANI-IS, it served a very useful purpose. Like 800-MY-ANI-IS, it most likely got abused to the point of no redemption. In the case of 800-MY-ANI-IS, the proprietor of the number (MCI) got hit with a hellish long distance bill as phreaks and others all over the USA used it to learn thier calling numbers, etc. Don't expect it back -- at least for open ended, non-discriminatory use -- any time soon. I don't know of any other services which do this at the present time. We used to have one here in the Chicago area that Illinois Bell operated: of all things, 1-200-changed-weekly; varies by central office. You never could keep up with it, but if dialed correctly at the right moment in time it would read back your number. Maybe they decided area code 200 would come along eventually so they got rid of it. That other number you found appears to be part of an international callback service. These are services which sell US dialtone to people in foreign countries due to the much higher rates for calls from other countries to the USA than the other way around. In the example you provided, it is a customer in Tokyo, Japan. When customer wants to make an international call, he dials that number in Los Angeles, lets it ring one time or maybe half of one ring, and disconnects. The service then calls him back at 011-81-337-etc in Tokyo and gives him Los Angeles dialtone for use to call wherever. If he wants to make changes in his callback setup, he stays on the line and after a few rings it answers and presents him with the message you described. In the very early days of such systems, like about three or four years ago, they were very profitable. Some foreign countries have now outlawed their use, and in any event rates on international calls into the USA from other countries have been reduced in many cases in order to counter the private competition. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Paul.Sawyer@unh.edu (Paul S. Sawyer) Subject: Re: Digital Music On Hold Device Date: 20 Dec 1995 17:23:41 GMT Organization: University of New Hampshire - Durham, NH In article Curtis Wheeler writes: > So we just use the "continuous" selection that starts at disc one, > goes through disc five and then starts over). You put people on hold for a long time, don't you? :-) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Haven't we been warned many times about > possible copyright infringments and the need to pay royalties when we > use a radio playing music over the phone line? PAT] That consideration does not go away for tapes or CDs, since it is either ASCAP or BMI that wants the royalties. There are tapes and CDs that have been "cleared" for this purpose, but most of the off-the-shelf albums have a notice to the effect of: "Copyright 1995 Foo Records, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, reproduction, hiring, lending, public performance and broadcasting prohibited." Apparently, ASCAP and BMI have been empowered to negotiate those rights on behalf of the copyright owners. When a representative of one of those groups approached me several years ago, while operating sound systems for a local fair, I simply unplugged the tuner and tape deck and said "no thanks." Paul S. Sawyer Paul.Sawyer@UNH.edu UNH Telecommunications Voice: +1 603 862 3262 50 College Road FAX: +1 603 862 4545 Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3523 ------------------------------ From: Clarence Dold Subject: Re: Digital Music On Hold Device Date: 20 Dec 1995 18:20:29 GMT Organization: a2i network Jack McGee (jmcgee@mail.orion.org) wrote: > I'm looking for a device to play music on hold, from digital storage, > so I don't have to fool with a tape wearing out. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Haven't we been warned many times about > possible copyright infringments and the need to pay royalties when we > use a radio playing music over the phone line? PAT] First, the copyright portion: Yes, one should (must?) pay royalties. My favorite way is to buy a BMI annual license, based on how many lines might be on hold simulatneously. The smallest license is "8", for $150/year. We have a single disc CD player, with an extended warranty. The cheap sleazy one lasted less than a year. The Pioneer $169 player has been running for over a year, nonstop, in shuffle mode, more for the comfort of the inhouse users, who play the music over their speakerphones (which does not count toward users in the license). The strange part of this is that the good CD player _sounds better_ than the cheap one! Over the telephone!! I thought CD was CD ... Part two: This is an advertisement, but perhaps it is an appropriate posting here. I saw it in another newsgroup, and know nothing else about it. Date: 14 Dec 1995 14:51:46 .If you have a Music On-Hold port, Viking makes a Promotion On-Hold .announcer that will record 1 - 4 minutes of digital message at 64K and .will fade individual messages in and out with an auxillary music source. .The DVA-2W uses non-volatile EEProm and will never lose its memory. ------------------------------ From: peterson@realsys.com (Steve Peterson) Subject: Re: Digital Music On Hold Device Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 23:19:25 GMT Organization: Reality Interactive, Inc. If you have a short clip that doesn't need to be changed regularly, consider burning a one-off CD and using a cheap consumer portable CD player. You could also consider this if you're using professional voice talent -- the same recording studio that you use to record the talent can likely cut you a one off CD of your master tape. Steve Peterson +1 612 996 6717 Reality Interactive, Inc. peterson@realtools.com ------------------------------ From: jmcgee@mail.orion.org (Jack McGee) Subject: Re: Digital Music On Hold Device Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 03:38:19 GMT Organization: Orion Reply-To: jmcgee@mail.orion.org grumpy@en.com (Seymour Dupa) wrote: > Jack McGee (jmcgee@mail.orion.org) wrote: >> I'm looking for a device to play music on hold, from digital storage, >> so I don't have to fool with a tape wearing out. > Why digital storage instead of a radio? I installed a message-on-hold > device for one of my customers -- holds a two minute message loaded from > cassette -- costs $2,500. Well, I've found them a lot cheaper than that, ($400), but more to the point, BMI, SESAC, ASCAP may have a small problem with using the radio, plus I want to put customized (weekly) messages on MOH, and the radio stations don't like to broadcast those for me 24 hours. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Have you considered starting your own radio station so you can have the kind of broadcasts you want? .. Or how about one large company we discussed here sometime ago which uses a *live disc jockey* to spin records and announce holding times in the queue. I found that pretty incredible, but it is true. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tsw@3do.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: Digital Music On Hold Device Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 16:18:20 -0800 Organization: The 3DO Corporation In article , Curtis Wheeler wrote: > jmcgee@mail.orion.org (Jack McGee) wrote: >> I'm looking for a device to play music on hold, from digital storage, >> so I don't have to fool with a tape wearing out. Probably two or >> three minutes would be good. Anyone got any ideas for specific >> machines, and where they can be purchased? > If you are only in reducing tape wear, why not just switch to CDs. We > have been doing with our PBXs for a while now. Sure, the players > eventually wear out, but the CDs themselves don't. > You can get a reasonable single disk player for $100. We bought > several five disc changers for $169 each. Comparing that to the cost > of our Muzak subscriptions, we can afford to replace a couple of them > each year if necessary. > (A note on CD changers: We thought it might be cool to use the > "shuffle feature" on the changers to mix up the music a bit. We have > since decided that changing the discs for every track might storten > the machines' life due to added wear and tear. So we just use the > "continuous" selection that starts at disc one, goes through disc five > and then starts over). I agree that CD's are the way to go here. In the local area one can easily obtain a five disc CD player for under $100. In addition, a CD recorder can be had for "nominal" expense (around $2000 I believe). This would allow one to do a "personal mix" for the music on hold stuff. It could include some interspersed promotional items. If you don't feel like doing the production work, a recording studio can probably do the job. This way you can have several CD that include specials of the day/week/month that you put into your "mix". Given that a five CD changer has about five hours (more or less) of playtime, this may be a suitable alternative. As mentioned above, the shuffle probably causes a bit more wear and tear on the changer, but the bigger "problem" is that there is a longer gap between the audio "segments". btw: I have a friend that did make up some "custom" music on hold CD's interspersed with "disc-jockey" intros. It sounds quite good. Tom Watson tsw@3do.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well let's hope that rather than forcing his callers to listen to gaps between audio segments, he chooses to hire enough help to answer the phone more promptly. The default here is people calling to get service, not calling to listen to music, gaps between segments, or whatever. PAT] ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: Digital Music On Hold Device Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 09:51:31 -0800 (PST) Curtis Wheeler said: > You can get a reasonable single disk player for $100. We bought > several five disc changers for $169 each. Comparing that to the cost > of our Muzak subscriptions, we can afford to replace a couple of them > each year if necessary. Just a reminder: playing CDs for Music on Hold is against the law unless you are paying subscription fees. Music on Hold constitutes a "public performance" and the musicians and songwriters expect (rightfully so, IMHO) to be paid for their work. This is why regular Music on Hold subscriptions are expensive. There have been cases of companies being sued for this; make sure you are using licensed CDs! Steve cogorno@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 12:20:18 PST From: Curtis Wheeler Subject: Re: Digital Music On Hold Device On Tue, 19 Dec 1995, John R Levine wrote: >>> I'm looking for a device to play music on hold, ... >> Comparing [the cost of a CD player] to the cost of our Muzak >> subscriptions, we can afford to replace a couple of them each year >> if necessary. > One of the reasons that Muzak costs what it does is that they pay the > royalties on the performances (such as they are) that they broadcast. > If ASCAP and BMI figure out that you're using regular recordings for > MOH, they will come after you for royalties, since MOH isn't one of > the "fair use" applications for consumer recordings. You're not the first to bring this up. We pay ASCAP and BMI directly for our use. It is not as costly as some might think -- we still save money over Muzak for our application. Curtis G. Wheeler - Pleasanton, CA ------------------------------ From: tsw@3do.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: New York Suffolk County Proposes Non-Emergency 811 Number Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 14:59:27 -0800 Organization: The 3DO Corporation In article , wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) wrote: <<>> > 811 isn't being used for something else now, is it? Here in California, the 811 prefix was used for business office routing. All Pacific Bell business locations had an 811-xxxx number. They were even listed on the phone bill. History has it that the '811' code, usually used alone, similar to '411', was used to contact the local business office. In small central offices it was usually quite easy to wire this up. The real problem (emergency/non-emergency calls) is that the '911' systems usually don't have a 'route to non-emergency' button that the operators can push after they ask "what is the nature of your emergency?". Having a multitude of numbers was THE reason for nationwide '911' service. Tom Watson tsw@3do.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 14:43:48 +0000 From: John_Fricks@nt.com Subject: Re: Digital Transmission of Video Signal Over the Air Organization: Nortel In article , pmartin@netcom.com (Pat Martin) wrote: > In article , cogorno@netcom.com > (Steve Cogorno) wrote: >> TKondo2937 said: >>> Hi. Is there anyone who can explain how digital transmission of video >>> signals over the air work? I think digital transmission is only possible >>> in guided media, such as twisted pairs, coax, and fiber optic. > This is an interesting area, what is digital and what is not? All > digital RF systems I have dealt with encode the data on to an analog. > The real question is, what is really digital?............etc. What is really digital (and what is not), in the context of digital transmission of video signals over the air? "Over the air" implies modulation and demodulation of a radio frequency carrier. Analog modulation means continuous (not discrete) variation of carrier signal characteristics (such as carrier amplitude, phase, or frequency). Digital modulation means that the carrier signal characteristics are changed in discrete steps. An analog signal, such as audio or video, must be encoded to a series of finite states, typically represented as a piece of digital data, before application to a digital modulator. Commercial digital RF transmission of audio, video, and data, began widespread use in the early 1970's in domestic and international satellite communications. John Fricks Email: John_Fricks@nt.com Nortel Inc. ------------------------------ From: jwl@netcom.com Subject: Re: Digital Transmission of Video Signal Over the Air Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 17:31:25 GMT > The real question is, what is really digital? I suppose stuffing bits > on a coax at TTL levels is probably pure digital but even T1 > transmission encodes the data as AMI for better tranmission distance. > What about most fiber transmission, is it digital or analog? I think > in most cases you are not going very far with the data if it is not > encoded as analog. I've always considered digital as an interpretation of a signal. All "digital" signals are analog -- even on a PC board with 5v ttl logic you have to worry about ringing, undershoot and other "analog" components of the digital signal. If a signal is interpreted as a continuously varying signal (i.e. volume control) it is analog. If it is interpreted as one of two or more discrete values (each value has a voltage range) then it is digital. For instance, TTL logic interprets 0.0-0.8 volts as a "0", and 2.0-5.0 volts as a "1" (note that 0.8-2.0 volts is undefined). QAM uses more than 2 logic levels (64 quam uses 64 levels). A 4 level system would give you two bits for each sample; an 8 level system gives 3 bits. Note that most data comm app's in the wide area are synchronous which means that they take a sample based on a clock (usually embedded in the data stream itself). Clocking is not a requirment for a digital system. ------------------------------ From: mengel@packet.net (Bill Mengelson) Subject: Florida ISDN User's Group Meeting Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 12:47:11 GMT Organization: PacketWorks Public Newsserver The kickoff meeting of the FIUG will be at: Half Moon Beach Club 2050 Benjamin Franklin Drive Lido Beach Sarasota, FL 34236 Tel: 941 388-3694 The meeting will be from 9 AM until noon, January 13, 1996. Directions: Take exit 39 from I-75, go west to Highway 41 (Tamiami Trail). South on 41 to Gulfstream through St. Armands Circle. Continue west to Lido Beach and Benjamin Franklin Drive. The resort is located at the southern end of Lido Key. Agenda items include: Organizational Matters Tutorial for those who haven't used ISDN Discussions of experiences with ISDN ISDN answer man with Bob Cameron You might consider making it a day with the family on Lido Key. And as far as shopping, St. Armands is hard to beat. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #525 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Dec 21 11:35:59 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA21479; Thu, 21 Dec 1995 11:35:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 11:35:59 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512211635.LAA21479@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #526 TELECOM Digest Thu, 21 Dec 95 11:35:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 526 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Canada Gets Satellite Telephone Service (Nigel Allen) Time Limits on 800 Calls From a Pay Phone? (Peter Capek) Software Maker Recalls PC Memory Program (Newsday via Stan Schwartz) Re: Urgent - North American Modem in Australia? (Dale Robinson) Re: AT&T Card Fraud (babar.elbow.org@uu.net) Re: AT&T Card Fraud (Carol Schuller) Re: AT&T Card Fraud (Steven Lichter) Re: AT&T Card Fraud (Chuck McDonald) Re: Fax --> E-Mail (Doug Reuben) Re: Fax --> E-mail (Edward T. Spire) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 22:53:00 -0500 From: Nigel Allen Subject: Canada Gets Satellite Telephone Service Organization: Internex Online Canada will be getting satellite telephone service from a company associated with the cellular affiliates of Canada's landline telephone companies. The cost of about $2.50 (Canadian) is steep compared to regular cellular, but is substantially less than the $17 (Canadian) per minute for satellite calls to or from ships at sea handled through Intelsat satellites. Here is a press release about the service from Mobility Canada Cellular. I found the press release on the Canada NewsWire web site at htt[://www.newswire.ca/ MOBILITY CANADA SATELLITE'S GOT YOU COVERED! New Satellite Telephone Service Covers Virtually Every Square Inch of North America TORONTO, Dec. 20 - Canada's first satellite telephone service will become commercially available on January 15, 1996, Mobility Canada announced today. Mobility Canada Satellite will provide phone coverage via satellite to virtually every square inch of North America, and 300 km off shore, making it easier for those in remote areas to conduct business, get help in an emergency, and generally stay in touch. ``There are about 3 million people, living and working in remote areas of Canada that aren't covered by cellular or land line phone service,'' said Louise Bissonnette, General Manager, Mobility Canada Satellite. ``Satellite was the most efficient and economical way for us to bring phone service to them. Now they'll be able to make and receive phone calls to and from virtually anywhere in the world, just like the rest of us.'' Although Mobility Canada satellite service will be available to everyone, it will be of particular benefit to those in the transportation, mining, off-shore drilling, forestry and tourism industries. To use Mobility Canada Satellite all you'll need is either a satellite phone, or a satellite-cellular phone which can be used to make calls via satellite and Mobility Canada's cellular networks. Both types of phones are expected to retail for about $5,000 to $7,500. Airtime will average $2.50 a minute, with free long distance to calls placed to Canadian and US destinations. Shortly after launch you'll be able to use Mobility Canada Satellite to send faxes and data. Both phones also pinpoint your location by providing your geographic co-ordinates. The Mobility Canada satellite is geo-stationary, remaining permanently fixed above a point on the equator and moving with the Earth as it turns. This will ensure that coverage is even and continuous. Mobility Canada Satellite will be available across the country through Mobility Canada member companies which together serve more than 1.5 million customers. Each company has a thorough understanding of the telecommunications needs of their local areas and participates in the largest network of dealers in the country. The Mobility Canada member companies are: AGT Mobility, Bell Mobility, BC Tel Mobility, Island Tel Mobility, MTS Mobility, MT & T Mobility, NewTel Mobility, NB Tel Mobility, Nortel Mobility, NorthwestTel Mobility, QuebecTel Mobilite, SaskTel Mobility, Telebec Mobility and Thunder Bay Mobility. Call 1-800-927-0125 for the Mobility Canada Satellite dealer nearest you. For further information: Angela Hislop, Mobility Canada,(416) 213-3308 forwarded by Nigel Allen ndallen@io.org http://www.io.org/~ndallen/ (no affiliation with Mobility Canada) ------------------------------ Date: 20 Dec 1995 23:29:24 EST From: capek@watson.ibm.com (Peter Capek) Subject: Time Limits on 800 Calls From a Pay Phone? I had a weird experience this morning. I was at a train station and used a pay phone to call an 800 number stock price service. The following happened four times: I was able to initiate the call, and to get a couple of quotes, but the first time I hit a touchtone key pad after about 90 seconds into the call, the call was disconnected and I got a dial tone. My train came and I didn't have time to discuss this with the operator or repair, but I will do so when time allows. What occurred to me is that NYNEX is limiting call duration because of the traditionally high usage of pay phones in train stations, when the call is an 800 call. Does this seem plausible? Peter Capek ------------------------------ From: Stan Schwartz Subject: Software Maker Recalls PC Memory Program Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 23:32:27 -0500 Forwarded from {Newsday}, December 20, 1995 SOFTWARE MAKER RECALLS PC MEMORY PROGRAM By Dan Beucke. STAFF WRITER In an unusual recall of a top-selling software product, Syncronys Softcorp yesterday said it would give full credits or refunds for customers who return its SoftRAM95 memory management program, which critics say doesn't work. Syncronys also said the New York regional office of the Federal Trade Commission has opened an "inquiry" into SoftRAM95, and said at least two lawsuits have been filed by customers. The recall is the latest wrinkle in a controversy that began when critics, including a University of Oregon computer scientist and PC Magazine, tested SoftRAM95 and claimed that it didn't double a computer's random access memory capacity, as claimed by the Culver City, Calif., company. The $30 product, which claims to use a data compression technology to increase RAM, comes with two versions on the same disk, one for Microsoft Corp.'s Windows 3.1 operating system and another for the newer Windows 95. Syncronys has acknowledged that the program doesn't work with Windows 95, and had already promised to send out a fix. But critics say the Windows 3.1 version doesn't work, either. Syncronys disputed that and pointed to the program's popularity. SoftRAM95 has been one of the top-selling Windows programs, according to PC Magazine's listings, and as of a month ago had sold more than 600,000 copies. Then, earlier this month, Microsoft said in an online newsletter that it had not granted Syncronys permission to use a "Designed for Windows 95" logo on SoftRAM95. Microsoft also claimed Syncronys had improperly copied some of its code. In an interview yesterday, Rainer Poertner, Syncronys' president, said there is no technical problem with the Windows 3.1 version of SoftRAM95. He said the company had tried unsuccessfully to relabel the product to make that clear, and thus was resorting to a recall. Poertner said the company issued the recall on its own and was not pressured to do so by the FTC. Agency officials declined to confirm or deny an investigation into the company. Syncronys said it plans to issue a repackaged version of the Windows 3.1 program -- with the same coding as the existing product -- sometime this month. A new Windows 95 version will be shipped, it said, "in the near future." For information about the recall, call (800) 691-7981. Copied from the PRODIGY(R) service 12/20/95 22:54 ------------------------------ From: Dale.Robinson@DWNPLAZA.NCOM.nt.gov.au Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 14:40:04 +0930 Subject: Re: Urgent - North American Modem in Australia? Toby, > Are there any problems taking a North American-spec modem and > plugging it into a phone line in Australia? It should work. Is it legal? Well no, any device you connect to a telephone line in Australia requires an AUSTEL permit. If you can get it past our customs service, then good luck! > Any particular adapter that's needed? New installations are RJ11 socketed. Older installations are four pin plugs (sorry, can't think of name, been too long). Either way, you can buy an adapter at a Tandy store. > Anything else I should know? Will it even work? AUSTEL & Telstra take a dim view of connecting non-approved hardware to the line. Digressing a bit: Some years ago, Telstra used the Fidonet Nodelist to find the sysop's running NON-APPROVED modems (USR's I think). This resulted in a number of cheap, high-speed modems being offered for sale, for PRIVATE LINE USE only :-). To sum it up: Yes it will generally work. No, it is not legal. You may even get your modem confiscated by Australian Customs, when you enter the country. If you would like further information, I could post a message in the aus.modems newsgroup on your behalf. Regards, Dale Robinson ------------------------------ From: BABAR.ELBOWS.ORG@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: AT&T Card Fraud Date: 20 Dec 1995 07:29:18 GMT Organization: Northern Virginia Elephant Sanctuary Reply-To: strat@horton.elbows.org In , Paul O'Nolan writes: > Since I am certain that I was not overheard giving the PIN number in a > public place -- as I only used the card from hotel rooms in which I > was alone -- I have to wonder if the security problem was in AT&T. > Unlikely? I don't know about AT&T specifically, but there has already been a documented instance of insiders in card verification services selling blocks of tens of thousands of card numbers for fraudulent use. The U.S. media didn't ever report the details in a coherent enough fashion for the average phone user to be worried, which I consider unfortunate. A few million irate callers can work wonders. Strat [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Probably the biggest concern of any organization in the business of credit granting, card-issuing and such is fraud *from the inside* among employees. Another big problem in large urban areas comes from dishonest postal service employees. I don't know how many times in the past twenty years or so the Postal Inspectors have broken up fraud rings working successfully with the cooperation of insiders at the Chicago main post office in the sorting room, etc. When Amoco Oil Company had their credit card processing office here in Chicago back in the 1960-70 era, they also handled processing of Diners Club at that location. Both Amoco and Diners were hit with a lot of fraud from the inside. About that same time, Illinois Bell was hit with a lot of insider fraud from employees who worked with their (then very flimsy, made out of cardboard paper, and very unsophisticated) telephone credit cards. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Carol Schuller Subject: Re: AT&T Card Fraud Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 06:18:18 GMT Organization: Isomedia.com, Redmond, WA We had closed our AT&T calling card account because of some billing problems several years ago. About three months after we closed our card account someone in New York (we are in Seattle area) made hundreds of dollars worth of calls on our supposedly closed account. I personally think AT&T might have some internal security problems. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the case of Amoco, someone got into several hundred inactive/supposedly closed accounts which had been around prior to the conversion to computer operations. In other words, left over from the manual days. Credit grantors usually microfilmed the source documents, i.e. the original credit application, etc and the computer had a reference number shown such as 01234567 which told the collectors they could pull the original documents for review in this case from new accounts film reel 123, frame 4567 and subsequent frames on the film. At the time of the conversion from manual to computer record-keeping some of the paperwork was not filed very well, and many old, inactive accounts with unlocatable source documents were just 'indexed' as 0000000, meaning original paperwork was very old and unlocatable. A couple of clerks went through combing the computer records looking for such 'zero index' accounts. They found all they could particularly with customers long since deceased or otherwise no longer using Amoco for whatever reason, meaning the customer would be unlikely to miss getting a bill, since he would not have gotten one for years anyway. They changed the address for these customers to a post office box under their own control at that (at the time) notorious fraud hive, the downtown postal lock box station, Chicago IL 60690. Every couple days they went and cleaned out the box of whatever customer accounts they had converted to their own use. The new plastic issued on those accounts would then get used, abused and mis-used. Sooner or later, the accounts would age out to delinquent status and the collectors would get them. Collector finds no current phone number for the 'customer' and only a post office box address. He decides to order the microfilm and try to skip-trace the customer only to get all zeros for the index, and his order returned from the file clerks in the warehouse rubber stamped with the notation, "We regret we cannot locate ...". Those dishonest employees were even smart enough that they did *not* waste the Amoco cards they misappropriated. They knew the routine well enough that they would get a car wash once a month or maybe a single tank of gas *and pay for it promptly*. It mattered not how little or how much you used the card, only that your payment history stayed in perfect, A-1 condition for 12 months, at which point the nice computer would automatically offer you a Diners Club card as a 'pre-approved, preferred customer'. A year or so after this scam got underway, all that plastic with the Diners logo started going out to the fraud customers. *That* is what they wasted ... .. to the tune of a couple million dollars. It took a long time before the collectors got wise. The fraud was scattered around through various billing cycles enough that no one collector got much of it; not enough to at first treat it as anything other than an ordinary delinquency. And remind me sometime to tell you about the very early days of Visa, back when it was known as BankAmericard. Ooooh, did they take some incredible hits before they finally learned how to administer their program. The fraud-hives took Visa/BankAmericard for millions of dollars during the first two years of operation. PAT] ------------------------------ From: slichte@cello.gina.calstate.edu (Steven Lichter) Subject: Re: AT&T Card Fraud Date: 20 Dec 1995 19:07:00 -0800 Organization: GINA and CORE+ Services of The California State University Paul O'Nolan writes: > Season's greetings from The Netherlands. > Yesterday I received a call from AT&T's card protection service asking > me to confirm that I was in The Netherlands (where I live). "Unusual > activity" had been noted on my card, namely a Filipino in Florida was > trying to call home with what he said was his "mother's card". After > confirming that I didn't have children in the US etc. I was issued > a new card and pin code over the phone. Something about the call does not sound right. First the pin in most cases is on the card unless it is requested to be left off. Second if they called I have never heard of them giving a new calling card number over the phone and giving a PIN would make no sense. You did not happen to give that person who called you the number and pin did you? When my wife lost her card they sent a new one in a few days and during that time any calls had to be verified. It just sounds strange. Maybe someone from AT&T could come forward. The above are my ideas and have nothing to do with whoever my employer is. SysOp Apple Elite II and OggNet Hub (909)359-5338 2400/14.4 24 hours, Home of GBBS/LLUCE Support for the Apple II. slichte@cello.gina.calstate.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Long ago, AT&T did not use pins. The calling cards (or credit cards as they were known then) were actually issued by the individual Bell companies using a simple, easy formula which all of them understood and agreed on. They used 'key letters' which were keyed to certain digits of the seven digit phone number. One year they might use the fourth digit; another year they might use the sixth digit, etc. Whatever digit they decided to use that year (little *paper* cards, like business cards with your number handwritten on them were issued annually in December of each year to begin the first of January), they then took letters of the alphabet and assigned one to each number. For example 1=J, 2=K, 3=L ... so if my actual telephone number was HYde Park-3-3714 and the sixth digit was the one being used that year, then my telephone credit card number was merely 4933714013-J. The final three digits (in this example 013) were the RAO, or Regional Accounting Office code. This would have been about 1955-60, in that time period. The letters and key digits changed yearly. Most people had no idea how the J came to be on the end, or what formula telco used to decide what letter to put there, so it worked out pretty well for years. All the phreaks knew of course, and by a week or two into the new year they would have the formula for the new year mastered. Picture the scene: January 1, 1960 at a New Year's Day brunch ... a half-dozen phreaks sitting at the table together. After each one solemnly promises not to abuse the credit cards of the others present, each one present takes his new 1960 telco credit card out of his pocket and lays it on the table for everyone else to observe. Everyone carefully looks for patterns. John and Bob both have a '4' as the fifth digit in their phone but they have different key letters. Therefore, telco is not keying on the fifth digit this year. Pete and Bob on the other hand both have '3' as the sixth digit of their phone number, and they both have the same key letter. On the other hand, the sixth digit of Jason's phone number is '5', or two digits higher than Pete and Bob. His key letter is two letters higher in the alphabet than theirs ... bingo! A dozen or so test phone calls just to tidy up loose ends and make sure nothing was overlooked, and the formula for the new year is established and circulated. PAT] ------------------------------ From: cmcdon1@Gateway.Uswnvg.COM (Chuck McDonald) Subject: Re: AT&T Card Fraud Date: 21 Dec 1995 13:48:04 GMT Organization: U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc. Paul O'Nolan (ponolan@inter.nl.net) wrote: > Since I am certain that I was not overheard giving the PIN number in a > public place -- as I only used the card from hotel rooms in which I > was alone -- I have to wonder if the security problem was in AT&T. > Unlikely? I received my Mastercard bill the other day... 232.62 in phony Long distance charges. The funny thing is, the AT&T person was able to tell me who made the calls, the number calling to AND from. I always thought that most vendors who accept credit card payments verify AT LEAST the name on the card. It almost sounded like the person's residential line is PIC'ed to AT&T, because they came up with the info in a matter of seconds. At least neither I nor my credit card company has to pay for the fraud. I am still plotting my actions at this time, but am open to suggestions. Chuck McDonald cmcdon1@uswnvg.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: About ten years ago I was riding on the subway in Chicago when these two creeps picked my pocket and got my wallet, including my telephone calling card from Bell. When I got the phone bill the next month, these idiots had actually placed calls using the calling card from a residence number on the south side. I rubbed my hands with glee at that point and said won't we have some fun now ... you would think they'd have known enough to make all their calls from a pay station. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dreuben@interpage.net (Doug Reuben) Subject: Re: Fax --> E-Mail Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 03:30:51 EST On Thu, 14 DEC 1995 02:15:18, Robert Speirs wrote: >> In your opinion, what is the potential of a company which offers the >> service of enabling people to receive their faxes at their e-mail >> addresses? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: [...] To answer the > reader's question, I think we should call on Doug Reuben. He is > involved with a company doing just that, or perhaps it is in reverse > with email out to faxes, etc. He has not contributed anything here in > awhile now, so perhaps this will prompt him to write. PAT] ^^^^^^ Indeed, and I apologize (if anyone's missed my voluminous posts :) ). We have been busier than ever here, and we're finally at the stage where we can higher full-time help to alleviate the workload on the principals. Anyhow ... To answer the poster's question, it depends on what you mean by "receiving" faxes at their e-mail addresses. We think there is a market, albeit a limited one, for a service which allows callers to upload a fax to a given DID, 800, or generic "port" number, and to then have the fax converted to a UUENCODED graphics format (JPEG, etc) for transmission via e-mail. We have a number of customers who use ONLY this service, but they tend to be technically inclined and are willing to take the time to get the (generally) public domain or shareware software to UUDECODE and view the graphics files, or to set up Eudora, etc. A few customers also use our basic fax to e-mail service as a "gateway" in the US in order to pass faxes to an international site, where it is automatically converted to fax and then sent out over the PSTN. This is a more specialized application which we have seen a sizeable *initial* interest in, but when the costs and maintenance of a local node, etc. are factored in, only a few firms find it very cost effective (or they can do it "in house" for less, etc.) In light of the above, we developed our FaxUp WWW(sm) service, which allows Interpage customers to receive, view, annotate, name, store, fax, and e-mail their faxes from a "WWW Account" which we create on our server. The closest approximation I can think of right now is that of laptop or PC-based fax software which allows owners to receive, manage and send their faxes out "on demand", except that ours is on the WWW and allows users to log on from any WWW browser worldwide. Our FaxUp WWW service has attracted a good deal of interest, because (I think) instead of having the customer go out and get all the software necessary to decode e-mail and then download it, it is all done for them via Netscape, Mosaic, or whatever browser (customers can even access their faxes via Lynx -- one of the text-only browsers -- but of course can not view the files online that way...) Customers who need to receive faxes as e-mail may do so as part of the FaxUp WWW service, although this is a seldom used feature. Overall, I think the "neatest" part of Interpage's FaxUp WWW product is that you can basically manage a good deal of your fax traffic directly from the WWW, which we have found is especially attrative to international customers who need to develop a US/Canada presence. Typically, a user from outside the US/Canada can have senders here upload to our server in the US. The customer abroad can be notified that a new fax has arrived by e-mail (and/or pager), and log in via the WWW to review their faxes. They can then print out the fax, re-upload it to us (as a postscript file), view it and/or annotate it from their WWW account, and re-transmit it to the customer in the US without ever having to pay an international toll charge. Additionally, they can store these faxes in order to uitilize the FaxUp WWW service as a "fax-on-demand" server, or create new text or postscript faxes to send out from our server at reduced rates. So yes, I do think there is a good deal of potential for a company offering a "fax to e-mail" gateway service. However, in my mind, it *must* be implemented in a way that is universal *and* easy to access. Our first product was universal (or as universal as e-mail gets :) ), but no one wanted to take the time to download and view their faxes unless there was a significant cost advantage to them and/or they were very interested in the technology and simply "liked" the concept. I *think* we are on the right track with the WWW-based fax mailbox, but who knows? Maybe it's just a fad...it does seem, however, that this is an untapped market, and that the more firms who get involved in this the greater degree of public awareness of such a versatile product will be, which will benefit all of us who offer it, Interpage and others alike. (Either that or we'll go out of business...:) ) Anyhow, just so this doesn't sound like a *complete* ad for Interpage, I'll end now by saying that there are a number of other firms which offer Internet-based fax services, one of which, "tpc.int", does it for free to many areas (check Yahoo, etc. for others). My next post will NOT be about Interpage! :) Doug Reuben * dreuben@interpage.net * +1 (203) 499 - 5221 Interpage Network Services -- http://www.interpage.net, telnet interpage.net E-Mail Alpha/Numeric Local/Nationwide Paging, Info., and WWW/E-Mail Fax Svcs ------------------------------ From: ets@wrkgrp.COM (Edward T Spire) Subject: Re: Fax --> E-mail Date: 20 Dec 1995 17:57:23 GMT Organization: The Workstation Group Robert A. Rosenberg (robertr@icu.com) wrote: >> In your opinion, what is the potential of a company which offers the >> service of enabling people to receive their faxes at their e-mail >> addresses? > Since the Fax Message format is standardized (otherwise Faxes would > not work), it would seem that providing a service to accept incoming > Faxes and then Email them as MIME attachments would be feasible. > There would need to be a separate number for each user AND the > incoming fax raw data would need to be converted/enveloped into the > format of the user's Fax Software (ie I use FaxSTF81 for the Mac and > thus the raw data would need to be converted into a FaxSTF81 incoming > file). An alternative would be for a RYO format and software for the > different Platforms. > The same applies for outgoing Faxes. You would create the Fax like > normal and then Email the file to the server which would then outward > dial from a local phone (just as is currently done for Text-to-Fax > support such as CIS/GEnie/etc provide). Again, the Server would need > to be able to extrac= t the Raw Image or a RYO Fax Driver (as opposed > to a normal Fax Driver) would be required. There are systems like this available on the market. I was planning to modify hylafax to do this, and I may end up just buying one that already supports this instead. As to getting the number, you can use a DID trunk to provided the originally called number and translate that number into the userid to send the email to. As to getting the DID number, exacom sells a box you can strap on the front of any fax modem to get the number from the DID line and pass it along to the fax modem as DTMF data. I was not gonna actually send the fax as an attachment, just store the fax in a central library and send a notification of receipt, and let the recipient access the fax via NFS and a viewer like xv. No reason why a more complete implementation as described above wouldn't work. =========== When you believe in things you don't understand, =========== =========================== then you suffer ============================ Ed Spire Voice: 708-696-4800 ext 69 The Workstation Group Fax: 708-696-2277 6300 River Road, Suite 501 Email: ets@wrkgrp.com Rosemont, Illinois, USA Web: http://www.wrkgrp.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #526 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Dec 21 16:57:13 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id QAA17916; Thu, 21 Dec 1995 16:57:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 16:57:13 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512212157.QAA17916@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #527 TELECOM Digest Thu, 21 Dec 95 16:57:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 527 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson A Message to Japan re Our Censorship Bill (Dave Farber via Gordon Jacobson) Agreement Reached on Telecom Bill (TELECOM Digest Editor) Four Chicagoans Indicted in Cellphone Clone Scheme (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Rob Slade's Review of My Book _Digital Cash_ (A. Padgett Peterson) Connecticut to End Local Phone Monopoly (Alan Lange) Caller ID Over AT&T (Scott Plichta) Book Review: Understanding SONET/SDH (Steve Silverman) Some Thoughts on the New NPAs (James E. Bellaire) Re: US West Quality of Service Hearing Transcripts (jwl@netcom.com) Re: Prime Dime Long Distance (Arnold Brod) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 13:30:59 -0500 From: Dave Farber (via ) Subject: A Message to Japan re Our Censorship Bill I sent the following message to some Japanese friends. I hope you find it interesting. Dave Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 11:25:48 -0500 To: japan friends From: Dave Farber Subject: the right is winning Cc: farber@central.cis.upenn.edu I am sorry that you guys did not get to hear all my talk at the Frontiers in Telecom. That final part of the speech was focused on the impact of the "Exon" bill and its descendants on the growth of the NII/GII. It talked about the catastrophe that bill could be for the evolution of the network. It was the first time I have managed to get a Japanese audience to stir and ask real questions. I believe that such a bill, if passed as part of the Telecom reform bill, will cause a shock wave that will leave debris in its path. For example, the Universities will have to face what to do when 25% of it's students are under the age of 18. Commercial services will, in my mind, have to severely restrain the free acting type of interaction that is currently encouraged. ECommerce will get stalled since at this time the major market for it is pornography and that is certainly indecent communications. Just how they can operate and how any carrier can allow them to operate is a problem. Will the law be constitutional? Who knows. Most likely no but ... if the opponents cannot get a restraining order (must show severe irreversible impact) then things will start unraveling. How will that impact the GII? It will encourage the passing of similar bills in other nations. It, due to the belief on the part of the USA that it has extra-territorial reach, slow and stop the use of facilities that might be used to carry such indecent material for fear that the US will seize their US property and even arrest their executives when they land in the US. Sound scifi? I wish it was. The spectacular growth of the network outside the commercial arena is due to the freedom and adventure it offers. If that is limited and regulated and if the model for the network becomes the broadcast/AOL model -- controlled, then I believe it will loose the drive it has and will be like many other fads that peak and die. My bet is 50/50 on this one. Those are damn poor odds given the importance of the net to the future prosperity of the planet. I for one intend to contimue to speak and warn in front of any audience that will listen. Dave [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We appear to be getting closer to it happening, if the news reports from today are to be believed. In the next article in this issue, I discuss it further. Will it happen? It seems almost assured. Will it have the far-reaching consequences some are predicting? I really just don't know. It might help to recall however that in the very early days of radio, in the first quarter of this century, there were dire predictions about the 'death of radio' if government regulation came into existence, as it did in the early 1920's via the Federal Radio Commission. Quite a few people then were convinced the government would regulate the airwaves so much radio could never survive. We have seen that proven wrong. Where will Internet and Usenet be ten or twenty years from now? Dead at the hands of Exon and Company? Or, as robust and vibrant as ever? Makes you wonder .... PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 14:50:14 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Subject: Agreement Reached on Telecom Bill The White House and Congress reached agreement Wednesday night on legislation that Vice President Gore promised would lower prices and improve telephone, broadcasting and cable television services. The massive overhaul of communications law in the USA will effect virtually everyone, but there may well be a wrenching period of change which could see some rates go up and numerous differences in how we do business with these carriers before prices come down again and anything really *improves* for the common person. As agreed upon by the White House and Congress, the new legislation will allow local telcos, long distance carriers and cable companies to all get involved in each other's business. LD carriers will offer local service without any restraints placed on them; local telcos can offer cable television service; the cable services can cut deals with the long distance carriers to provide connections for local phone service, etc. The bill also has a provision requiring manufacturers of television receivers to include a 'V-chip' that would allow the person who owns the television receiver to decide what others could or could not view. This is primarily intended to block out violent programs from being seeing by children but the 'V-chip' is non-discriminatory; you define for it what programming is offensive or unwanted. You can program it for whatever you don't wish to have appear. Of particular interest to users of the Internet is a provision in the new legislation which would outlaw transmission of pornographic or indecent material to children over computer networks. This single part of the legislation has raised considerable controversy among Internet users as we know. Congress and the White House are now in agreement on the wording and provisions of the new legislation. ------------------- Vice President Gore has committed President Clinton to signing the bill. He stated the president would execute his signature 'as soon as Congress formally sends it to him ...' A Christmas/New Year's present for netters perhaps? There does not appear to be a lot of sympathy for computer users in the various printed accounts of this which appeared in the newspapers Thursday morning. The {Chicago Sun Times} for example used several columns over a couple of pages to discuss the many things which will change as a result, but only a single sentence was given to the dilemma facing the net in these words: "The telecom measure would outlaw the transmission of smutty material to children on computer networks." While that is is true, it will do that, it seems much to me the same as saying that dropping a nuclear bomb on your neighborhood is one sure-proof way to kill the weeds growing in your lawn. So, Clinton is ready to go, and Congress is ready to go ... my question in these closing days of 1995 is, where are YOU going to go? PAT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 15:19:50 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Subject: Four Chicagoans Indicted in Cell Phone Clone Scheme US Attorney James Burns here in Illinois joined a task force of federal agents, along with representatives of Ameritech and Cellular One in Chicago on Wednesday to announce the indictments of four people charged with cloning cellular phones and selling those phones and associated equipment. Involved in the investigation which had gone on for several months were agents of the US Secret Service; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and security representatives of Cellular One and Ameritech. The government charges the four indicted trafficed 'extensively' in cellular fraud not only in the Chicago area but throughout the USA. Persons who wished to pay for the services of the ring members could do so in cash of course; cocaine was also acceptable for barter or trade as were firearms. The four persons indicted were: Martin O'Shield, 26, of 440 West St. James Place, Chicago Brenda Gomez, 23, 7500 West 62nd Street, Summit, IL Malik Thomas, 26, 600 block North Central Avenue, Chicago George Riddles, 27, 2020 West 80th Street, Chicago All were indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of conspiracy to clone cellular phones, and sell the cloned phones and equipment to do the same to other phones. In addition, Riddles is charged with possession of equipment to clone phones, firearms, cloned phones and cash to exchange for uncloned phones. O'Shield is the son of Chicago Police Commander Leroy O'Shield. He is accused of being the leader of the ring, and having recruited Gomez and Thomas. O'Shield is additionally charged with soliciting for the sale of illegal cloning equipment. Ms. Gomez is additionally charged with possession of one kilogram of cocaine, and offering to trade same to a government agent in exchange for receiving several stolen cellular phones which would then be cloned and resold 'on the street'. All have been arrested by the United States Marshall and are being held in custody pending their trials. ----------------------- I dunno ... ... when I go into a store I always ask 'do you accept VISA or MC?' ... I guess when you dealt with this bunch you would inquire, 'do you accept cocaine or sawed-off shotguns as payment?' ...... PAT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Dec 95 11:22:32 -0500 From: padgett@tccslr.dnet.mmc.com (A. Padgett Peterson) Subject: Re: Rob Slade's Review of my Book _Digital Cash_ Mr. Wayner wrote to review Rob Slade's review of his book: > Mr. Slade also says that the book lacks a "straightforward discussion > of the United States government policy on encryption." Book quote provided by author: > The U.S. Government, for instance, seems willing to approve the > export of strong encryption algorithms as long as it is apparent that > the encryption software can't be used for anything except protecting > financial transactions. Rob stated essentially that the book lacked substance. Judging from the selected quotes, I have to wonder also (realize I hold books to a different standard than postings). The "policy" in question is obviously ITAR (International Trade in Arms Regulation) and I would expect the book to provide three things: 1) Mention that the requirement stems from ITAR; 2) Cite the paragraph; 3) Specify the relevance. Now in this case I think what the book is referring to is the following (taken from an ITAR copy downloaded over the net - I did not verify it so caveat y'all) - note the word "except" in XIII(b)(1): --- begin selected ITAR extract---- Category XIII-Auxiliary Military Equipment ... (b) Information Security Systems and equipment, cryptographic devices, software, and components specifically designed or modified therefor, including: (1) Cryptographic (including key management) systems, equipment, assemblies, modules, integrated circuits, components or software with the capability of maintaining secrecy or confidentiality of information or information systems, except cryptographic equipment and software as follows: ... (ii) Specially designed, developed or modified for use in machines for banking or money transactions, and restricted to use only in such transactions. Machines for banking or money transactions include automatic teller machines, self-service statement printers, point of sale terminals or equipment for the encryption of interbanking transactions. ... (v) Limited to access control, such as automatic teller machines, self- service statement printers or point of sale terminals, which protects password or personal identification numbers (PIN) or similar data to prevent unauthorized access to facilities but does not allow for encryption of files or text, except as directly related to the password of PIN protection. ---end ITAR extract --- As can be seen from the quoted paragraphs the book seems to be mixing the exemptions provided in (ii) and (v) but I am not real sure which. Since the mechanism AFAIK was software that would seem to leave (ii) out (not a machine though possibly "equipment"). (v) relates to passwords and PINs but does not refer to transactions. The final thing that strikes me as odd is that if the whatever qualifies under any of the XIII(b)(1) exemptions then the government does not have to approve its export since export is not restricted. In short "the government seems willing" seems to me a bit weak when used as a quote to demonstrate the book's credibility. Warmly, Padgett [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If Mr. Wayner wishes to make a final response, I will print it here. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 07:01:44 EST From: Alan Lange Subject: Connecticut to End Local Phone Monopoly The headline story in {The Hartford Courant} today (12/21/95) discusses the state PUCA decision to end SNET's local phone monopoly. SNET currently provided local service to almost all residents in the state; a small number are served by the Woodbury Telephone Co. and a few others by the New York Telephone Co. Five companies have already been certified by the DPUC to provide local service (MCI, MFS Intelnet, Brooks Fiber Communications of Connecticut, Teleport Communications Group, and Cable and Wireless, Inc.) All five say they will target business customers first. Under the regulators' decision, SNET must provide service at discounted "wholesale" rate to its competitors so they can resell it. These wholesale rates are temporarily being imposed by the regulators after rejecting SNET's. Some of SNET's proposed wholesale rates were higher than it charges retail to its residential customers. Under the order, SNET must come up with new wholesale rates and cost studies to justify them, as well as a volume discount scheme. Alan Lange PGP keyID: bea6e65d Finger Print: 9edb0db4 d9acf05d b2067981 20b42201 ------------------------------ From: Scott Plichta Organization: Applied Telematics, Inc. Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 08:28:20 EST Subject: Caller ID Over AT&T I live in PA, and my parents live in Maryland. They have AT&T selected as a long distance carrier. Whenever they call me, my caller ID box is still showing "NO CID NBR". Of course, we all know that after Dec.1 this isn't supposed to happen, so I made it a point to try to find an answer. I figured I'd start with Bell Atlantic to see make sure that their were no technical difficulties at my switch. The operator who answered, properly explained that they passed along whatever the LD carrier gave them and that my box was fine. He suggested contacting AT&T and gave me 800-222-0300. This is AT&T's billing/Customer Service line. After arguing for three or four minutes with the attendant over whether it was a Bell or AT&T issue, she decided that she wasn't qualified to answer such questions (but did feel qualified to say that it wasn't AT&T's problem for two or three minutes). She pointed me to the AT&T operator. Ok, I call, 10ATT0+0. First the operator informs me that Caller ID is not available in Colorado (that's where he is), I inform him that I appreciate the information, but can't see how Colorado is important in my 300 mile phone call on the East Coast. Next he points me to Bell. After the same "discussion" as the billing rep, he checks with his supervisor to see if AT&T passes Caller ID information. He then tells me it should work and it is probably a "download" problem. I then explain the FCC ruling and that I would like a satisfactory reason that AT&T won't pass the CID (maybe the switch isn't SS7 I suggest [knowing full well that it is]). He then determines that he isn't the right person and gives me to the supervisor. She understands the questions and tells me to call 800-222-0300, which I inform her they sent me to her. She asks me why they referred me to the operator, how should I know? Anyway, she tries AT&T equipment leasing, AT&T Universal Card Center, and about three other numbers, who hear my whole story and decide it isn't their problem. She gave me a new number 1-800-222-3000; LD repair. This is my next challenge, but by this time we are at 1.5 hours. I love big companies ... I'll let you know the results, if I ever get someone who knows anything about telecom at AT&T. Scott Plichta Western Interactive Media (splichta@instalink.com) ------------------------------ From: sjs@research.att.com (Steve Silverman[smb] MT 3F-114) Subject: Book Review: "Understanding SONET/SDH: Standards and Applications" Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 19:26:00 GMT I have just learned of the existence of a new book on SONET and thought that the group would be interested in it: Understanding SONET/SDH: Standard and Applications" Library of Congress Catalog Card No.: 95-83682 ISBN: 0-9650448-2-3 Author: Dr. Ming-Chwan Chow (908-957-6829) Andan Publisher, 4 Aufra Place, Holmdel, NJ 07733 (908-946-4155) "Understanding SONET/SDH" is a book written by Dr. Ming-Chwan Chow, published by Andan Publisher. This book covers many aspects of Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) and is a product of many years of research and teachings worldwide in the topic matter. The text is written in such a way that it will attract a broad audience with diverse backgrounds. The presentation of the material in this book has been successfully delivered to an array of audiences ranging from technicians, engineers, managers, sales and marketing teams as well as university students. This book consists of ten chapters as follows. The first chapter gives a review of Plesiochronous Digital Hierarchy (PDH) characteristics and the need for SONET/SDH standards in global communications. Chapters two and three cover SONET signal hierarchy, pointers, and applications. To follow, Chapters four and five cover SDH signal hierarchy, pointers, and applications. Chapter six discusses the timing and synchronization of SONET/SDH networks. The next three chapters describe network management, optical interface specifications, and network elements, including functional descriptions. The final chapter, "Beyond SONET/SDH" describes Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) basics, transport, and ATM management. This book is structured to highlight key concepts through a series of review questions contained at the conclusion of each chapter. This book provides an excellent, comprehensive review of SONET/SDH and is highly recommended to readers of varying backgrounds with interest in the telecommunications industry. An introductory unit price of $50 is available from Andan Publisher. Steve Silverman Technical Education-AT&T Bell Labs ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 02:59:54 -0500 From: James E. Bellaire Subject: Some Thoughts on the New NPAs Steve Grandi's newest list has the three new Caribbean codes split from 809 ... 809> 441 Bermuda 10/ 1/95 - 9/30/96 All 19 exchanges!!! 809> 787 Puerto Rico 3/ 1/96 - 1/31/97 All of Puerto Rico. 809> 246 Barbados 7/ 1/96 - 1/15/97 All 27 exchanges!!! 809> 242 Bahamas 10/ 1/96 - 3/ 1/97 All 49 exchanges!!! The new 312 (after 773 breaks off) may be the most dense small NPA, but these Caribbean splits are crazy! The only bonus is that PBX administrators will know which countries are being called without getting down to the NXX level. As far as frequent changes go, the first two second level splits (both in Canada) were made within ten years of the first split ... 902> 506 (1955) New Brunswick / Newfoundland 506> 709 (1962) Newfoundland and 613> 705 (1957) Ontario 705> 807 (1962) Ontario And the first third level split is on its way... 213> 714 (1951) California 714> 619 (1982) California 619> 760 (1997) California The first ten years of the NPA system had 17 splits. But then we could pass them off as 'adjustments'. 317> 219 (? 48) Indiana 816> 417 (1950) Missouri 914> 516 (1951) New York 213> 714 (1951) California 416> 519 (1953) Ontario (Includes part of 613) 305> 813 (1953) Florida 915> 817 (1953) Texas (Includes part of 214) 405> 918 (1953) Oklahoma 507 (1954) Minnesota (218/612/507 realignment) 315> 607 (1954) New York 901> 615 (1954) Tennesee 404> 912 (1954) Georgia 704> 919 (1954) North Carolina 402> 308 (1954) Nebraska 502> 606 (1954) Kentucky 902> 506 (1955) New Brunswick / Newfoundland 608 (1955) Wisconsin (414/715/608 realignment) One question (for the history and politics minded). I noticed that the first split, estimated to have occured in 1948, was in Indiana. The 219 area leaving the 317. Most of the 219 area is served by independents and GTE. I wonder if the lack of an original area code for Northern Indiana (and other independent dominated areas) has its roots in the old interconectivity feud between the old Ma Bell and GTE and the independents. Any thoughts? James E. Bellaire (JEB6) Twin Kings Communications bellaire@tk.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh, they were having their interconnect fights back in the 1920's and prior ... nothing as late as 1948. They were all good friends by that time. Regards your 'first three level split is on the way', I think we are going to beat California on that here in the Chicago area in about a month when 847 is started. I guess it depends on your interpretation of things, but consider this history: 312 covered all of northern Illinois since whenever out to the border with 815 in the far western suburbs. 312 > 708 all the 312 suburbs of Chicago broke off into 708 in 1988. 708 > 630 beginning January, 1995 cell phones and pagers were yanked out of 708 and put into 630. 708 > 847 with only landline phones left, 708 has to split again in 708 > 630 January, 1996 *and* July, 1996. North suburbs go to 847, followed by western suburbs to 630 in July. The 'original' 708 only stays in the south suburbs. 815 meanwhile remains the same as it always has been. 630 > 847 Beginning in January with the north suburbs move to 847, 630 > 708 those north suburban people with cellphones/pagers who were forced out of 708 last year can return to their 'home' area code of (now) 847 if desired, or they can remain 630 as desired. 312 > 773 Meanwhile, 312 splits again, also late next year. So whatever they are doing in California, we are coming a close second at the least. And don't forget New York City with its 212 which lasted for years and years only to be followed in rapid succession by 718 and then 917. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jwl@netcom.com Subject: Re: US West Quality of Service Hearing Transcripts Available Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 17:41:19 GMT In Article, Tim Sweeney wrote: > The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission has posted on > its web page the transcript of the quality of service hearings > conducted on November 9, 1995, in Olympia, Washington. The hearing > was held as part of the U S West rate case. No decision has been made > on this case. Hearings on quality of service continue January 8, 1996 > with the rest of the case issues taken up during the following two > weeks in January. > Included in the transcript is the cross-examination of U S West > Vice-President Dennis Okamoto and consultant Mike Bookey and testimony > from about 20 members of the public including Internet service > providers commenting on T-1 and ISDN access. > The text file is about 400K and can be found on the WUTC page at: > http://www.washington.edu/wutc I read an interesting article in the Portland, OR {Oregonian} about this meeting. It seems that one of the US West guys left an internal "confidential" memo on the table at the end of the day. The memo gave away US West's real attitude toward customer service. Among other things it said that they did not want customer service to be overseen by a third party (regulators) and should be an internal only issue -- that competition should set the service standards. The memo said to be cordial but don't give up anything. I wish I could remember more, but the attitude was clear -- we are the phone company and don't want to be bothered by those pesky people (regulators or customers). I wish I had a choice for my local service -- I'd vote US West right out of my office and home. When US Worst asked for an example of a Bell company with good service, the response (which I love) was "US West in 1982". ------------------------------ From: Arnold Brod Subject: Re: Prime Dime Long Distance Date: 20 Dec 1995 02:59:31 GMT Organization: TeleCom Associates There are a number of variations on this theme. One is by a company carrier called Vartec. They have the same 10 cent rate but you have to use their intra state rate program. The program that you have will probably need a 800 access code or a five digit pic code to bypass your current carrier. BE CAREFUL. Check your bill for the number of calls that you have below three minutes and consider what the $5 does to your cost per minute. Good luck. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #527 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Dec 22 02:13:49 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id CAA21767; Fri, 22 Dec 1995 02:13:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 02:13:49 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512220713.CAA21767@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #528 TELECOM Digest Fri, 22 Dec 95 02:14:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 528 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Toll Fraud on French PBX's - Phreaking (JeanBernard Condat) New First Amendment Subscription Service (Chris Roth) 10-732 ANI Number (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Time Limits on 800 Calls From a Pay Phone? (Carl Moore) Ten Digit Dialing - Article From Maryland (Carl Moore) CID Passed While Call Waiting; How, When? (hisys@rainbow.rmii.com) 15th Century View - was Re: Radio as Science Fiction in 1888 (Elana Beach) Warning: SLC96 Cannot do 28.8 kbps (Thomas Grant Edwards) Telecom Financial Questions (Larry Rubin) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JeanBernard_Condat@eMail.FranceNet.fr (JeanBernard Condat) Reply-To: JeanBernard_Condat@eMail.FranceNet.fr Subject: Toll Fraud on French PBX's - Phreaking Date: 21 Dec 1995 17:14:16 GMT Organization: FranceNet In France it is estimated that PBX trunk fraud (toll fraud) costs companies over $220 million a year. Criminal phreakers figure out how to access PBXs owned by businesses and then sell long-distance calling capacities provided by these systems to the public. In European markets where PSTN to PSTN connections are illegal it has not to date been such an issue. However, for a number of reasons this is likely to change. Trunk to trunk connection barring through PBXs is expected to be deregulated throughout Europe. The telecom industry has done more this year to prevent toll fraud than any other time. Yet, toll fraud losses will top more than $2 billion again this year. If you aren't doing anything to prevent being hit, it's not a matter of if you'll be hit, it's when you'll be hit and for how much. So, here are some low-cost ways to stop toll fraud-or at least lessen the blow if you do get hit. Increasing numbers of international companies have private networks and provide DISA (Direct Inward System Access) access to employees. Such companies are prime victims for phreaking. For example, a phone hacker can access the network in the UK, France, or Germany and break out in another country where it is legal to make trunk to trunk calls, and from that point they can call anywhere in the world. Voice mail is taking off across Europe. This, together with DISA, is one of the most common ways phreakers enter a company's PBX. Raising these issues now and detailing precautionary measures will enable companies to take steps to reduce such frauds. The following looks at the current situation in France. In France a whole subculture, like a real phone underground culture, of these technology terrorists is springing up on city streets. Stolen access codes are used to run call-sell operations from phone booths or private phones. The perpetrators offer international calls for circa FF 20, which is considerably less than it could cost to dial direct. When calls are placed through corporate PBXs rather than carrier switches, the companies that own the PBXs end up footing the bill. What are the warning signs that your own communication systems are being victimized by toll fraud? In inbound call detail records, look for long holding times, an unexplained increased in use, frequent use of the system after normal working hours, or a system that is always busy. In records of outbound calls, look for calls made to unusual locations or international numbers, high call volumes, long duration of calls, frequent calls to premium rate numbers and frequently recurring All Trunks Busy (ATB) conditions. Toll fraud is similar to unauthorized access to mainframe computers or hacking. Manufacturers such as Northern Telecom have developed security features that minimize the risk of such theft. Telecommunication managers, however, are the only ones who are ensure that these features are being used to protect their systems from fraud. Areas of Intrusion Into Corporate Systems: PBX features that are vulnerable to unauthorized access include call forwarding, call prompting and call processing features. But the most common ways phreakers enter a company's PBX is through DISA and voice mail systems. They often search a company's rubbish for directories or call detail reports that contain a companies own '05' numbers and codes. They have also posed as system administrators or France Telecom technicians and conned employees into telling them PBX authorization codes. More sophisticated hackers use personal computers and modems to break into data bases containing customer records showing phone numbers and voice mail access codes, or simply dial '05' numbers with the help of sequential number generators and computers until they find one that gives access to a phone system. Once these thieves have the numbers and codes, they can call into the PBX and place calls out to other locations. In many cases, the PBX is only the first point of entry for such criminals. They can also use the PBX to access company's data system. Call-sell operators can even hide their activities from law enforcement officials by using PBX-looping-using one PBX to place calls out through another PBX in another state. Holding the Line-Steps That Reduce Toll Fraud: Northern Telecom's Meridian 1 systems provide a number of safety features to guard against unauthorized access. It is the most popular PBX phreaked in France. The following information highlights Meridian 1 features that can minimise such abuse. DISA Security: The DISA feature allows users to access a company's PBX system from the public network by dialing a telephone number assigned to the feature. Once the system answers the DISA call, the caller may be required to enter a security code and authorisation code. After any required codes are entered, the caller, using push button tone dialling, is provided with the calling privileges, such as Class of Service (COS), Network Class of Service (NCOS) and Trunk Group Access Restrictions (TGAR), that are associated with the DISA DN or the authorisation code entered. To minimize the vulnerability of the Meridian 1 system to unauthorized access through DISA, the following safeguards are suggested: 1) Assign restricted Class of Service, TGAR and NCOS to the DISA DN; 2) Require users to enter a security code upon reaching the DISA DN; 3) In addition to a security code, require users to enter an authorization code. The calling privileges provided will be those associated with the specific authorization code; 4) Use Call Detail Recording (CDR) to identify calling activity associated with individual authorization codes. As a further precaution, you may choose to limit printed copies of these records; 5) Change security codes frequently; 6) Limit access to administration of authorization codes to a few, carefully selected employees. Meridian Mail Security: Northern Telecom's Meridian Mail voice messaging system is also equipped with a number of safeguarding features. The features that allow system users to dial out; Through Dial, Operator Revert and Remote Notification (Outcalling) should be controlled to reduce the likelihood of unauthorised access. The following protective measures can be used to minimise tool fraud: Voice Security Codes - Set security parameters for ThroughDial using the Voice Security Options prompt from the Voice Systems Administration menu. This prompt will list restricted access codes to control calls placed using the Through-Dial function of Meridian Mail. An access code is a prefix for a telephone number or a number that must be dialled to access outside lines or long-distance calling. If access codes are listed as restricted on the Meridian Mail system, calls cannot be placed through Meridian Mail to numbers beginning with the restricted codes. Up to ten access codes can be defined. Voice Menus - With the Through-Dial function of Voice Menus, the system administrator can limit dialling patterns using restricted dialling prefixes. These access codes, which are defined as illegal, apply only to the Through-Dial function of each voice menu. Each Through-Dial menu can have its own restricted access codes. Up to ten access codes can be programmed. Meridian Mail also allows system administrators to require that users enter an Access Password for each menu. In this way, the Through-Dial menu can deny unauthorized callers access to Through-Dial functions, while allowing authorised callers access. Additional Security Features - The Secured Messaging feature can be activated system-wide and essentially blocks external callers from logging to Meridian Mail. In addition, the system administrator can establish a system-wide parameter that forces user to change their Meridian Mail passwords within a defined time period. Users can also change their passwords at any time when logged in to Meridian Mail. System administrator can define a minimum acceptable password length for Meridian Mail users. The administrators can also determine the maximum number of times an invalid password can be entered before a log-on attempt is dropped and the mailbox log-on is disabled. Some of the features that provide convenience and flexibility are also vulnerable to unauthorized access. However, Meridian 1 products provide a wide array of features that can protect your system from unauthorised access. In general, you can select and implement the combination of features that best meets your company's needs. General Security Measures: Phone numbers and passwords used to access DISA and Meridian Mail should only be provided to authorized personnel. In addition, call detail records and other reports that contain such numbers should be shredded or disposed of in an appropriate manner for confidential material. To detect instances of trunk fraud and to minimize the opportunities for such activity, the system administrator should take the following steps frequently (the frequency is determined on a per site basis according to need): 1) Monitor Meridian 1 CDR output to identify sudden unexplained increases in trunk calls. Trunk to trunk/Tie connections should be included in CDR output; 2) Review the system data base for unauthorised changes; 3) Regularly change system passwords, and DISA authorisation and security codes; 4) Investigate recurring All Trunks Busy (ATB) conditions to determine the cause; 5) If modems are used, change access numbers frequently, and consider using dial-back modems; 6) Require the PBX room to be locked at all times. Require a sign-in log and verification of all personnel entering the PBX room. Two Practical Cases: Bud Collar, electronic systems manager with Plexus in Neenah, Wis., transferred from its payphone operations branch. As the PBX manager, he's blocked all outside access to his Northern Telecom Meridian 1 and meridian Mail. Just in case a phreaker does gain access, Collar bought a $600, PC-based software package from Tribase Systems in Springfield, NJ, called Tapit. With Tapit, Collar runs daily reports on all overseas call attempts and completions. But the drawback to Tapit is that by itself it has no alarm features, so if a phreaker does get in, Collar won't know about it until he runs the next report. Tribase does offer Fraud Alert with alarms for $950, but Collar chose not to use it. Erica Ocker, telecom supervisor at Phico Insurance in Mechaniscsburg, PA, also wanted to block all of her outside ports. But she has maintenance technicians who need routine access, so she needed a way to keep her remote access ports open, without opening up her Rolm 9751 to toll fraud. The solution is to buy LeeMah DataCom Security Corps's TraqNet 2001. For $2,000, Ocker got two secured modems that connect to her maintenance port on her PBX and to her Rolm Phone Mail port. When someone wants to use these features, they dial into the TraqNet and punch in their PIN number. TraqNet identifies the user by their PIN and asks them to punch in a randomly selected access code that they can only get from a credit card-sized random number generator, called an InfoCard. That access code matches the codes that are generated each time the TraqNet is accessed. The TraqNet 2001 is a single-line model that supports up to 2,304 users for $950. More upscale can support up to 32 lines and run call detail reports, but they cost as much as $15,000. InfoCards each cost an additional $50. Conclusions: The ultimate solution will be, as I read in a French consultancy review, The more pleasant story directly linked with French phreaking was the night that I saw on my TV screen in Paris a luxurous computer ad for the Dell micro-computers. At the end of the ad, a toll-free number was presented in green: 05-444-999. I immediately phoned this number ... and found the well-known voice of all French Northern Telecom's Meridian Mail saying in English: "For technical reasons, your call cannot be transferred to the appropriate person. Call later or leave a message after the tune." The dial of 0* gave the open door to more than Dell information. My letter to this company already is without (free voice-) answer! Jean-Bernard Condat Computer Security and Toll Fraud Expert (Paris, France) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 15:04:58 -0600 From: Chris Roth Subject: New First Amendment Subscription Service To subscribe to The First Amendment Teach-In's newsletters, send an e-mail message to: listproc@listproc.bgsu.edu Leave the subject line blank and in the body write: subscribe FAU [your name here] [Example: subscribe FAU mary smith ] Dear Patrick: You may want to subscribe [see above]. No ads. No fees. Quality content. This is not an open-access discussion area. Kindly pass the above information on to anyone interested in freedom of expression and separation of church and state. Thank you for your time, Patrick. Cordially, Chris Roth The First Amendment Teach-In first@omnifest.uwm.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Separation of church and state, huh ... Well, I am not sure that is as great an idea as some people think, but anyway, here is your announcement and I imagine a lot of folks will want to subscribe. Most people who call for 'separation of church and state' don't really know what they are talking about and would not *really* like the results if they got their way. What they mean is, they are perfectly happy letting the church continue to carry a huge portion of the social service load i.e. the welfare and medical/hospital programs they operate and the burden of educating people i.e. the numerous church-run elementary and high schools, to say nothing of the universities. They just don't like it when the church butts into their personal lives. Imagine the chaos which would result if the churches took all that quite literally and said in effect, "okay, you want separation? Well, the job of educating children is a function of the government, so take the 400,000 children enrolled in the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago schools alone and dump them in the public system. Think of all the money we (the church) can save ... you want separation? Well okay, it is the government's job to provide medical care for indigent citizens so how about we close a dozen or so church-run hospitals and medical centers; the County Poor People's Hospital can take those clients. Think of all the money we will save without those enormous write-offs we make every year when half or more of the patients at Bethany Hospital on the west side of Chicago don't ever pay nickle one on their bill. The (state run) University of Illinois Medical Center or Cook County Hospital can handle the load, right? And I have only scratched the surface, and you know it ... the government would collapse under the weight of the social service load alone if the church were not picking up a huge amount of the burden. The public schools would collapse under the load if the church was not educating a sizeable percentage of the children instead. So you don't really want separation, you just want the church to shut up and quit reminding you of your wretched existence living in moral bankruptcy. They hurt your feelings and make you feel uncomfortable, that's the main problem. Madalyn Murray Ohare, noted American atheist commented recently on the passage of time since the famous Supreme Court decision in which she was involved many years ago. She said, "When I killed God -- what was it, over twenty years ago now -- I and other separationists sincerely believed that one could be good or moral or ethical without the church leaning over our shoulder and breathing heavily on us. I for one never anticipated having this vacuum or total void just spring up in place of where the church used to be. I thought something would take its place. Which is worse, for people in those years to have the church in every aspect of their lives it seemed; in all the public places; everywhere you went, or for people now a large number of whom seem to believe in nothing. No morals, no ethics; many never heard of such concepts; many these days seem to just wander around in a complete moral and ethical void." She did *not* say she regretted what she had helped to occur, but she did say she had underestimated the importance of the church where *some people* -- apparently, if the increasing decay and disorder in our civilization is any indicator, a lot of people -- are concerned in maintaining some semblance of decency and respect and a modicum of law and order from eras long past and largely forgotten in American history. So although it is out of character for liberals to show much in the way of tolerance -- and some liberals are downright bigots -- try to give the church a little tolerance and elbow room, okay? Anyway, your notice is printed for anyone who wishes to subscribe to your newsletter. Personally, I have always found the First Amendment to be a little irksome and a nuisance, but if you send your material, I'll read it and bite my tongue now and then trying not to badger you too much. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 14:45:49 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: 10-732 ANI Number Re: 10-732-1-404-988-9664, it seems that with the split of Atlanta's 404 into 404 and 770 that the old 404-988 went into 770-988. One now dials 10-732-1-770-988-9664. ^^^ There is also a number in 412 (Pittsburgh PA NPA) which AT&T has for their 10-732-1+ ANI number, but I don't have it handy at the moment. Maybe one of the readers knows the 10-732-1-412- number offhand. As for 1-800-MY-ANI-IS (800-692-6447): after dialing, one reaches an `OCC' dialtone. A *passcode* must be entered with DTMF (Touchtone). The passcode has been posted to some alt.* groups, but I am *NOT* going to mention it here. When calling out from the PBX here, the outgoing trunk number used for that particular call would display on a called party's CID box (along with the name `TULANE UNIVERSI' truncated at 15 characters. The outgoing trunk numbers would be quoted back on *both* the 10-732... and 1-800-MY-ANI-IS. When I use my cellphone inthe New Orleans Bell South Cellular Service area my Caller-ID shows Out-of-Area'. 10-732-1+ ANI numbers quote back my actual cellphone's number. 800-MY-ANI-IS quotes always quotes back the *same* trunk number of BellSouth Mobility for New Orleans. When I've roamed to Cellular South (Gulfport MS), I get their (single) trunk number on 800-MY-ANI-IS. I haven't tried 10-732-1+ yet, nor have I had the chance to roam there since Inter-State CID via various carriers started this month. When I roamed to MobilTel (areas south and west of New Orleans metro), I would get *their* trunk number on 800-MY-ANI-IS, but I haven't roamed there recently so I don't know what 10-732-1+ does nor have I been there since Inter-State/LATA CID started with (most) IXC's. BellSouth Mobility usually doesn't (yet) allow me 10-XXX access but I can do the 10-732-1+. I'm not yet sure if I am being charged airtime or toll for these calls, however- I've been told by others that they haven't been charged toll. MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Dec 95 17:19:36 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: Time Limits on 800 Calls From a Pay Phone? In some cases, you make a long distance call via a particular carrier by starting with an 800 (or, soon to be 888?) call. This is a way (an alternate way) of reaching the AT&T carrier, and when I use the Orange Card, I always start that way. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Dec 95 17:38:34 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: Ten-Digit Dialing - Article From Maryland 10-digit dialing Confusion will be a phone call away By Shawn Donnan, Associated Press Writer BALTIMORE -- All Susan Zelenakas knows is that soon she'll be dialing 10 numbers to make a local phone call -- and she doesn't like it. "I hate it already," the Anne Arundel County resident said Monday. Under a plan approved by the Maryland Public Service Commission last week, Marylanders will have to dial 10 numbers for all phone calls beginning in 1997 and will have to get used to two new area codes covering the same regions as the 301 and 410 codes. Bell Atlantic and the public service commission see the move as an inevit- able step toward the future as phone numbers are gobbled up by cellular phones, computers, pagers and fax machines. All consumer advocates see is confusion. "It's a big change that people are not expecting," said Michael Travieso, the state People's Counsel. Travieso, who opposed the plan on behalf of residential phone customers during hearings this year, and other opponents of the overlay plan see it as clumsy and confusing and a hindrance to competition for the local phone service market. Maryland is not the first state to use such a plan. The 281 area code went into an effect as an overlay for the 713 area code in the Houston area in March, even though debate continues in Texas over the system proposed for the Dallas area as well. Southwestern Bell has begun assigning 281 numbers to new customers in the Houston area but the plan has been challenged by the state Public Utility Counsel, which represents residential and small business custom- ers. A ruling is expected next month. Other states including Illinois and California are considering overlay plans to free up more phone numbers. According to Bell Atlantic, available numbers in the 301 and 410 area codes will run out by the end of 1997, even though they were expected to last through 2012 when the 410 area code was added in 1992. The public service commission considered adding two more regional area codes instead but after months of debate approved the overlay plan last Wednesday, which will require 10-digit dialing everywhere in Maryland. Ten-digit dialing, like it or not, is something that will be a reality nationwide in the future, according to the public service commission. ------------------------------ From: hisys@rainbow.rmii.com (HI Systems) Subject: CID Passed While Call Waiting; How, When? Date: 21 Dec 1995 19:29:59 -0700 Organization: Rocky Mountain Internet, Inc US West has been advertising that "soon" Caller ID will work during Call Waiting. Naturally, the customer service person, while sincere and diligent, couldn't really find out much for me (tho he did research it and call me back as promised). 1. How can this be done? Does the "Beep" that lets you know another call is coming in get replaced with a 1200bps unidirectional modem signal like that used for normal "between first and second ring" Caller ID signaling? 2. What caller ID presentaion units can handle this? It would seem that they would have to "listen in" on all phone calls, waiting to get an acceptable modem signal. Is that what happens? 3. How can we tell if a given Caller ID presentation unit can handle this? Buzzwords? When will they be available? 4. When will the local telcos start offering this service? "Soon" was all I could get. Thanks for any info. I'd really like such a service, even more useful than regular caller ID potentially. Zhahai [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It requires a special phone. Regular phones and regular Caller-ID boxes won't work. PAT ------------------------------ From: elana@netcom.com (Elana who?) Subject: 15th Century View - was Re: Radio as Science Fiction in 1888 Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 02:59:55 GMT In article , Andrew C. Green wrote: > In April 1888 in response to a review in the {Boston Transcript} > Bellamy wrote: > She made me sit down comfortably, and, crossing the room, so far > as I could see, merely touched one or two screws, and at once the room was > filed with a music of a grand organ anthem; filled, not flooded, for, by > some means, the volume of melody had been perfectly graduated to the size > of the apartment. I listened, scarcely breathing, to the close. Such > music, so perfectly rendered, I had never expected to hear. So this was written in 1888, huh? I can beat THAT! :) Check this out: "We have also Sound-houses, wher wee practise and demonstrate all Sounds, and their Generation. Wee have Harmonies which you have not, of Quarter-Sounds, and lesser Slides of Sounds, Diverse Instruments of Musick likewise to you unknowne, some sweeter than any you have; Together with Bells and Rings that are dainty and sweet wee represent Small Sounds as Greate and Deepe; Likewise Great Sounds, Extenuate and Sharpe; Wee make diverse Tremblings and Warblings of Sounds, which in their Originall are Entire. Wee represent and imitate all Articulate Sounds and Letters, and the voices and notes of Beasts and Birds. Wee have certaine Helps, which sett to the Eare doe further the Hearing greatly. Wee have also diverse Strange and Artificiall Eccho's, Reflecting the Voice many times, and as it were Tossing it; And some that give back the Voice Lowder than it come, some Shriller, and some Deeper; Yea, some Rendering the Voice, differing in the Letters or Articulate Sound, from that they receyve, Wee have also means to convey Sounds in Trunks and Pipes, in strange Lines and Distances." Extract from "The New Atlantis" by Sir Francis Bacon, (1561-1626) Elana Elana (elana@netcom.com) <*> Portland, Oregon - That's "Elana" not "Elena"! Please do NOT mistype my address as "elena@netcom.com" because it bugs her. Do you love Synergy, J.M. Jarre, Vangelis, TD, etc? Ask me for "The Blurb" ------------------------------ From: tedwards@Glue.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards) Subject: Warning: SLC96 Cannot do 28.8 kbps Date: 21 Dec 1995 17:43:08 -0500 Organization: Project Glue, University of Maryland, College Park I have now heard of two ISPs in Bell Atlantic territory who got burned when getting a SLC96 installed to handle their large numbers of phone numbers. Apparently the SLC96's are incapable of handling 28.8 kbps, and regularly result in 21 kbps and worse for users. This sets up the perverse situation where larger regional ISPs have worse dialup speeds that little Mom-n-pop ones who dialtone over copper. Has anyone else heard of this? I imagine there are probably many large office buildings that might also have SLC96 service which are similarly "speed impaired." Of course, we all know 28.8 kbps is a "best case" scenario, but this is sad for the future of analog dialup net connectivity (hmm - could it be the RBOCs would use this "feature" to leverage ISDN?) Thomas ------------------------------ From: larry@access.digex.net (Larry Rubin) Subject: Telecom Financial Questions Date: 21 Dec 1995 10:54:45 -0500 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA I am working on a research project and am looking for information concerning the typical expense percentages (as it relates to income) of small and medium size long-distance companies, as well as the average cost of getting a business and residential customer, and average mumber and duration of calls per month for residential and business customers. If someone could help point me in the right direction, I would greatly appreciate it. Larry Rubin larry@access.digex.net N3QGH +1-500-OSSUARY "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons." ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #528 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Dec 22 17:18:53 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id RAA19241; Fri, 22 Dec 1995 17:18:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 17:18:53 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512222218.RAA19241@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #529 TELECOM Digest Fri, 22 Dec 95 17:19:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 529 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: 411 and Information/Directory Assistance (Wes Leatherock) Re: AT&T Card Fraud (Wes Leatherock) Re: Time Limits on 800 Number Calls From Pay Phones (ntp@netrunner.net) Re: Warning: SLC96 Cannot do 28.8 kbps (Bill Garfield) Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? (Mike Stump) Re: CID Passed While Call Waiting; How, When? (Matt Gebhardt) Seasons Greetings (Djung Nguyen) Greetings of the Season (David Leibold) Last Laugh! And a Merry Christmas Was Had by All (Stan Schwartz) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: 411 and Information/Directory Assistance From: wes.leatherock@baremetl.com (WES LEATHEROCK) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 95 08:26:00 -0500 Organization: Bare Metal BBS * Oklahoma City, OK * (405) 842-3158 Reply-To: wes.leatherock@baremetl.com (WES LEATHEROCK) faunt@netcom.com (Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604) wrote: > I finally got to my local library when it was open. The first > reference to 411 for Information was in 1948. There's a reference to > Information (Directory Assistance) in 1967. > Apparently, 211 for access to the long distance operator precedes > that, but it's hard to tell since the fronts of the directories are > pretty beat up. What place are you talking about? Did you just look in the telephone directories for your town? In many cities it was 110 for access to the long distance operator and 113 for access to "Information." This was very widespread. In other cities it was 211 for access to the long distance operator and 411 for access to "Information." This also was very widespread. The 11... series of service codes were generally consistent throughout a city or metropolitan exchange or a whole state. The X11 codes were also generally consistent, usually used in large cities and the 11... series of codes might be used in other places in the same state. It normally depended on what kind of hardware was used at the time the service codes were first established (in other words, the first dial hardware that went in in that place). Then it would generally be followed throughout that area. Both systems were in common use in the 1930s; how long before that I don't know. Wes Leatherock wes.leatherock@baremetl.com wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: AT&T Card Fraud From: wes.leatherock@baremetl.com (WES LEATHEROCK) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 95 08:26:00 -0500 Organization: Bare Metal BBS * Oklahoma City, OK * (405) 842-3158 Reply-To: wes.leatherock@baremetl.com (WES LEATHEROCK) slichte@cello.gina.calstate.edu (Steven Lichter) > Something about the call does not sound right. First the pin in most > cases is on the card unless it is requested to be left off. Second if > they called I have never heard of them giving a new calling card > number over the phone and giving a PIN would make no sense. You did > not happen to give that person who called you the number and pin did > you? When my wife lost her card they sent a new one in a few days and > during that time any calls had to be verified. It just sounds strange. > Maybe someone from AT&T could come forward. Are you talking about an AT&T telephone credit card or an AT&T "Universal Card" (Visa card), which may also be used to make telephone calls. I have twice had calls from AT&T's card protection service about suspected fraud in use of my AT&T Visa card (for purchases, not for telephone calls). In both cases their explanation of why the transactions had been flagged made sense, but since I was able to confirm that the charges were legitimate, I don't know what would have ensued if fraud had been involved. Wes Leatherock wes.leatherock@baremetl.com wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 11:34:29 -0500 From: ntp@netrunner.net Subject: Re: Time limits on 800# calls from Pay Phones Dear Peter Capek: I posted an inquiry a couple of months ago about this same occurence. I was in Little Italy/SoHo and used the new yelllow NYNEX calling card payphones, but dialing with my MCI 800 Calling Card. I got cut off every time after about 90 seconds, and I used various new yellow calling card payphones in Manhattan. Not having the time to time each call and test a more scientific sampliing of such payphones, I presumed (with the natural instincts of a jaded telecommunications consultant) that this could be (repeat could be) a deliberate ploy to stop non NYNEX calling card users from using these new phones. I did notice that these new yellow calling card payphones are always next to a coin payphone. (They travel in pairs). This had effetively halved the number of available coin payphones in some areas. And there was always a line (usually rather hostile) (and I lived in Manhattan for seven years so I paid my dues and can say such things). But there was never a line at the calling card payphones. Aha! I thought this is where creative engineering meets new age marketing. I can just imagine the special task force assembled to promote these new profitable calling card payphones that another 'task force' has decreed should be next to a coin payphone, thus cutting the number of pay phones in half in the city and forcing people to get more profitable (and more convenient) NYNEX calling cards ... "Lets cut off the non NYNEX calling card user after 90 seconds." and later "If we're found out we'll say its a programming glitch -- no one will ever be able to prove this -- after all look what we've got away with for years!" (Other 'task force' members applaud -- the minutes are shredded. I presume this is what we have to live with now with deregulation. NYNEX wants to cut usage on 800 number calls on these payphones and give priority to more profitable NYNEX calling card customers. This looks bleak for the consumer. Perhaps you should write to the NY PUC or are you already laughing at me? The other alternative is use your NYNEX cellular phone for the 800 number and only pay $XXX/minute transport fee! Happy holidays, Nicholas Spill telecommunications consultant ntp@netrunner.net ------------------------------ From: bubba@insync.net (Bill Garfield) Subject: Re: Warning: SLC96 Cannot do 28.8 kbps Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 17:16:11 GMT Organization: Associated Technical Consultants Reply-To: bubba@insync.net On 21 Dec 1995 17:43:08 -0500, tedwards@Glue.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards) wrote: > I have now heard of two ISPs in Bell Atlantic territory who got burned > when getting a SLC96 installed to handle their large numbers of phone > numbers. Apparently the SLC96's are incapable of handling 28.8 kbps, > and regularly result in 21 kbps and worse for users. > This sets up the perverse situation where larger regional ISPs have > worse dialup speeds that little Mom-n-pop ones who dialtone over > copper. > Has anyone else heard of this? I imagine there are probably many > large office buildings that might also have SLC96 service which are > similarly "speed impaired." > Of course, we all know 28.8 kbps is a "best case" scenario, but this > is sad for the future of analog dialup net connectivity (hmm - could > it be the RBOCs would use this "feature" to leverage ISDN?) "Been there, done that." The issue with the SLC-96 and V.34 (28.8) modems is actually one more directly attributable to the use of D4 framing and AMI line coding than blaming the SLC itself. If the telco will cooperate in setting the SLC up to use Extended Superframe and Binary 8-zero substitution (ESF/B8ZS) then you'll miraculously begin to see lots of 28,800 bps connections. Alas, few telcos will be that cooperative ... :) But there's still a bit more to it. The additional digital-to-analog conversions involved in using the SLC-96 will have a marked negative impact on your signal-to-noise ratio. The quantizer noise introduced by the codecs at each end will also make it more difficult to achieve full speed 28.8k connections. It would help the situation if the telco can provide full "integration" of the SLC at the Central Office end (meaning the T1 channels of the SLC are switched digitally in the CO without breaking down to analog ahead of the switch). Unfortunately this isn't possible if the CO itself is an analog machine. You can improve performance too by equipping the host end with a fully integrated modem rack (one which connects directly to the T1s) - an example of which would be the USRobotics Enterprise Network Hub. Alas, these aren't cheap. There is no cheap solution that I know of, short of moving the host modem POP across the street from the serving C.O. and provisioning with conventional 1FB analog business lines. -not Centrex!- ------------------------------ From: mrs@kithrup.com (Mike Stump) Subject: Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 08:24:08 GMT Say hi to Damian for me! Below is my saga, the short of it is, refuse to pay that portion which belongs to ITA, submit the money in dispute according to your local phone company's instructions. In CA, this means sending the money to the CPUC, although CPUC claimed they couldn't resolve it, and just sent the money right back to me. But that took care of it. Once I told PacBell (my local telco) the CPUC had the money, they said, of, then we'll just axe it off the bill for you. But, I had asked them to do this for me before, they claimed before that they could not do this. While at the time it feels like your local telco is reaming you too, right there along with ITA, hold out, they will relent. After PacBell removed the charge, they told ITA that they would have to bill separately. Also, I think ITA found out I involved the CPUC, because they called within a very very short period of time, and said, oh, out of the goodness of our hearts (yeah, right!), we'll forgive that charge for you. Please, write up your story, and post it here when done. Feel free to CC me on it. Let us know how you came out. Also, we should start a web site for ITA, and all fraud shops, just so others know what a slimy company they are, and how to beat them over the head. Personally, I did it because I wanted to know how they were going to try and defraud me. Mike Stump Northridge CA ** Here is the letter sent to the California PUC ** California Public Utilities Commission State Office - Room 5109 107 South Broadway, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Commissioner, On Mar 26, 1995 I placed a call to 1 800 568 5952. When I was unexpectedly cut off the first time, I redialed the number. On my next phone bill from Pacific Bell, I received a page for `ITA' billing for a total of $99.25. I did not authorize any charges for these calls, nor was I informed of any charges for the calls, nor was any announcement made of any charges that applied for the call, nor had I entered into any agreement with ITA to be billed for these calls. I am led to believe that 1 800 calls from my home phone as free, as my phone book from Pacific Bell for the Northwestern Area dated May 1996 states on page A43, Call Some Businesses Toll-Free Long-distance calls can be made without charge when calling a business with an "800" number. Just dial: 1 + 800 + phone number Further, the phone book states on page A44: No Unauthorized Charging It's against the law for anyone to charge long-distance calls to your number or calling card without permission. Anyone placing such calls can be prosecuted under the California Penal code. I called ITA at 1 800 866 8889, on May 11th, 1995 at 8:31am to inquire about the charges. The transcript of the conversation I had with them follows. I first talked with the ITA operator, and she said should would be willing to remove the first call, but that is all she could do, so I asked to speak with her supervisor. I decided that they might not be willing to remove the unauthorized charges from my Pacific Bell bill, so I turned on my phone recording device. -------------------------------------------------- ITA: This is Damian, how can I help you? ME: I have to advise you that this telephone call is being recorded. ITA: That is fine sir. ME: Ok. On my May second bill from Pacific Bell there is a page for ITA... ITA: I have the account listed here in front of me, what can we do for you? ME: It shows two charges... ITA: Which are on the 26th... ME: For a total of 96.36... ITA: Correct, plus tax... ME: And I did not authorize these charges and I would like them removed... ITA: Ok, We are unwilling to issue credit for the calls sir. Someone has physically been at your residence. XXX XXXX is the number that accessed initiated the service. It is to an entertainment service, the company that sponsors the service is Absolute Communications, they do provide an adult oriented service, the particular call that was accessed was accessed through a live operator, reached through a 800 number, be glad to provide you will the exact times the calls where placed, the first call was initiated at 10:44 pm, the second call was initiated at 10:47 pm, the lengths of the call are 3 minutes and 33 seconds, 7 minutes and 25 seconds concurrently, and at this point, we are unwilling to issue credit for the phone calls sir, what else can we do for you today? ME: Hum, on what basis are they charged? ITA: They are direct dial calls, they do tell you at the beginning of the recording, you must be 18 years of age to participate in their service, what the the rate of the call will be, and give you the opportunity... ME: There was no such mention of the rate of the call. ITA: I am sorry, if you'll review what you just recorded, you'll say that you didn't authorize these calls. Did you make the calls yourself sir? ME: I made the calls personally. ITA: Then you have lied to me sir. Hold on just a moment, let's see if... Let me go back and review the recording that we made, just a moment. [ long pause ] ITA: All right sir, in your conversation you did say that these were unauthorized calls, you did not give your authorization, which story would you like to proceed with sir? ME: I believe I said unauthorized charges. ITA: No sir, you said that you did not authorize these calls. That's exactly what you said. Do you... Can you stop the recording, and go back and review that, I'll wait. I said that exactly. ME: Ok. ITA: If it's a recording then it should be no problem sir. We are unwilling to issue credit for the phone calls. We'll be glad to restrict your line to prevent any future calls from being dialed direct from XXX XXXX, but we are unwilling to issue credit for the calls that you have yourself made. ME: Ok, could you please restrict service from my telephone. ITA: We'll be glad to do that sir. And from now on, when you do decide to go on with the service after this maybe you can find someone that will do that for you, that does have a correct story that, you know, or that, or be consistent in the story that you're going to project, when you tripped yourself up like that, that's just not, I am unwilling to speak with you any further. You have a good afternoon. ME: Ok, bye bye. -------------------------------------------------- I think the conversation pretty well speaks for itself. ITA is not what I would consider a reputable long distance provider, nor should they be allowed to continue operations. It is fairly clear to me that they exist only to defraud people out of money, with Pacific Bell acting as an unwitting collection agent. I think if you analyzed their revenue and expenses, this fact would be borne out. I ask that you rule on whether or not they should be allowed to collect money for the two calls that I made. I have paid my Pacific Bell bill, minus the pretax amount of the ITA portion of the bill which amounts to $96.36. I have informed Pacific Bell that I would be doing this, and submitting the matter to you, for your consideration. Enclosed is the amount of $96.36 in dispute. If you do find against me, I ask that you require Pacific Bell to change the phone book, and remove the section that states that 1 800 calls are free as it would be deceptive. I hope that this would not be the case. Also, could you inform me of my options to appeal the matter. Unfortunately I did not record the original two calls to 1 800 568 5952; I wish I had. I fear that ITA and or Absolute Communications are fairly skilled professionals, and have already either changed the service, or changed the announcement in an effort to keep all the money the have collected, or to prevent any findings of wrong doing against them. In the event that you are unable to render a decision I ask that you inform Pacific Bell of this, return the check to me, and ask that Pacific Bell be required to consider my account paid in full, and have Pacific Bell inform ITA that ITA will be required to bill me separately for any outstanding charges they wish to pursue. If you do find in my favor, I think I am due a credit of $2.89 by Pacific Bell which is the tax already paid for the ITA portion of the bill. If you have any questions, or if I can provide any other details for you to fully consider the matter, please call me at the above number. Thank you. Mike Stump [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Pac Bell -- nor any other telco is being deceptive when they say that calls to 800 numbers are free to the calling party. Where the *toll charge for the call itself* is concerned, it is reversed to the called party. In other words, yes indeed, Absolute Communications did pay for the carriage of your call in an effort to get you to do business with them. This is no different than any other 800 number you call; the person owning the number *does* want to hear from you and agrees to pay for the call. But when you call an airline for example via their 800 number to reserve tickets, and you are later billed for same, do you complain that you thought it should have been free since you called via 800? There is no doubt at all that many/most of the 'adult oriented' sex lines operating are run by sleazy people, but in their defense I must say they are not trying to make you pay for the phone call to them, they are trying to make you pay for the actions they took in your behalf. That's the kindest or most discrete way I can phrase it. You call Western Union on an 800 number to convey a message. You get billed on your telephone bill if you choose. You call any one of several long distance carriers via 800 to use their direct lines to place your call. Do you complain that because you dialed 800-CALL-ATT to convey a message or cause some action to occur that it should be 'free' to you since you dialed 800 and were told by PacBell there would be no charge for your call? Even though you dialed 800 at no charge, you expect to pay for resulting services don't you? You are paying for the *consultation* with the person on the other end of the line ... NOT for the phone call itself to that person. Now it may be too bad that they are allowed to bill you via telco; for that, blame the events of the telco revolution over the past decade. Every one of the adult oriented lines operating via 800 used Western Union as their guinea pig: if WUTCO gets to accept calls on a toll free number, convey information between the caller and others, etc and charge the same to the telephone bill of the caller, *then so do we*. And you know what? They are right. Unfortunatly perhaps, telco has to treat every one of those services at arms-length, even as they hold their own noses to avoid the stench. The true solution is for telco to get out of the business of billing for anything but their own services. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gebhardt, Matt Subject: Re: CID Passed While Call Waiting; How, When? Date: Fri, 22 Dec 95 08:24:00 AST hisys@rainbow.rmii.com (HI Systems) writes... > US West has been advertising that "soon" Caller ID will work during > Call Waiting. [cut] > 1. How can this be done? Does the "Beep" that lets you know another > call is coming in get replaced with a 1200bps unidirectional modem signal > like that used for normal "between first and second ring" Caller ID > signaling? > 2. What caller ID presentaion units can handle this? It would seem > that they would have to "listen in" on all phone calls, waiting to get > an acceptable modem signal. Is that what happens? > 3. How can we tell if a given Caller ID presentation unit can handle > this? Buzzwords? When will they be available? > 4. When will the local telcos start offering this service? "Soon" was > all I could get. Believe the feature being referred to is known as Spontaneous Call Waiting Identification (SCWID) and requires the use of Analog Display Services Interface (ADSI). ADSI (TR-NWT-001273) could be used for both SCWID (TR-575) or Spontaneous Call Waiting ID with Disposition (DSCWID, TR-NWT-416), where when the call's presented to the already-on-a-call ADSI set, several options "pop up" on the ADSI set. You could choose to answer the call, or route it to your vmail, or put it on hold, or put it to busy and drop. Believe that you'll find the ADSI protocol described in BellCore document TR-1273. In a DMS, there's a CPE Alert Signal (CAS) tone that's sent down from the switch via a 202 modem signal to (e.g.) NT's "PowerTouch 350" telephone set. To borrow from NT customer product information: [[ Picture : 2113 in WINMAIL.DAT ]] In other words, you need to have either calling number display or calling name display (or both) for SCWID to work. [[ Picture : 2112 in WINMAIL.DAT ]] DSCWID then would allow you choices. You could answer the call, or "route" it to (eg) your vmail, to busy tone, to another number, or? With ADSI, will come downloadable, display-based services for ADSI compliant sets. NT refers to this as Advanced Call Management Server (ACMS). Do not know if this is a generic name nor do I have the subsequent BellCore reference. Regardless, the ADSI user would dial into the ACMS to receive a feature download that provides the soft keys and displays associated with that service. Hope this helps. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Dec 95 13:34 EST From: Djung Nguyen <0005398513@mcimail.com> Subject: Seasons Greetings Patrick, I've been on the subscription list for several months now and have enjoyed it tremendously. Keep up the great work and I look forward to hearing from you in the coming year/s. I want to wish you and your love ones a great and safe holidays. DJ Nguyen Technical Services Manager MCI Telecommunications San Francisco, CA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you for your gracious note. The success of this Digest in the past has been not so much due to my efforts as it has been the marvelous commentaries and articles sent in by the readers over the years. I love working on the Digest, and look forward to the mail I receive each day; for truly it is the mail from the readers which make the Digest what it is. Happy holidays to you as well. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 23:07:08 EST From: woody Subject: Greetings of the Season All the best for the Christmas season and for the New Year... see y'all on the 'net ... ... djcl@io.org ---> http://www.io.org/~djcl/ * * * All the best *** for the ***** holidays and *** for 1996... * * * ............ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: David Leibold's gift to the net community for many years has been his effort in preparing the Telecom FAQ, or Frequently Asked Questions file. He in turn relies on the dedication of his many correspondents in preparing it and keeping it up to date. I have the new version available now, and will be sending it out as a special mailing during the next week probably. David's other continuing contribution is in association with long-time Digest participant Carl Moore. They have done a huge amount of work in preparing area code and country/city code files for the Telecom Archives. My thanks go to both. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Stan Schwartz Subject: Last Laugh! And a Merry Christmas Was Had by All Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 00:23:36 -0500 In TELECOM Digest #526, Patrick A. Townson wrote: > And remind me sometime to tell you about the very early days of > Visa, back when it was known as BankAmericard. Ooooh, did they > take some incredible hits before they finally learned how to > administer their program. The fraud-hives took Visa/BankAmericard > for millions of dollars during the first two years of operation. Like the company that I worked for that decided to buy its pre-approved Visa card mailing list from {TV Guide}! It stands to reason that television viewers in some of the worst neighborhoods of the City of New York are a good credit risk, doesn't it? This was one step removed from buying the list from Columbia House. Needless to say, many of the addresses were kids, dogs, and empty lots. Most of the cards on that promotion were sent out during November of that year, and a Merry Christmas was had by all! About four years later, those cards whose balances hadn't yet been charged off were zeroed-out in anticipation of an upcoming system conversion. It was cheaper to write off many of the still-remaining balances than to convert them to a new system (many were under $1000). One woman, when getting a bill with a credit for $600 to clear off her balance called to ask what the item on her bill was. The phone call was fairly comical: Customer: What does "Write off for Conv" mean? Me: We've forgiven your balance so that we don't have to carry it on our records anymore. Customer: You mean I don't owe this balance anymore and I'm not past due? Me: That's right. Customer: Can I have a new card then? And I thought I had heard everything! - Stan [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A businessman once ordered a new supply of merchandise for his store from the wholesale outlet he did business with. He got back a message from the wholesaler's credit department saying, "We will not be able to fill your order until you pay for the last order you received from us." He promptly got back to them saying, "In that case, cancel the order. I won't be able to wait that long for it to arrive." So! Do have a happy and joyous holiday weekend. I extend my warmest regards to everyone, even if you have not been mentioned here by name recently ... you have not been forgotten. To those of you who have chosen to support the Digest with a voluntary subscription each year, my special thanks for what you have done, and a reminder that the bills will still have to be paid in 1996. Anyone remember the old slogan from the National Safety Council about taking care with driving and preventing accidents which went 'Death does not take a holiday at Christmas ...' Well, neither does Ameritech and neither does the landlord here. DO take care though, use prudence and caution over the next few days in your travels and activities. I'll be back on Tuesday with a few more issues of the Digest to bring the year to an end. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #529 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Dec 27 19:11:27 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id TAA03625; Wed, 27 Dec 1995 19:11:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 19:11:27 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512280011.TAA03625@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #530 TELECOM Digest Wed, 27 Dec 95 19:12:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 530 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? (Michael P. Deignan) Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? (Mike Fox) ITA Dating Service IS a Scam: Channel 5 News, Atlanta (Shubu Mukherjee) Re: AT&T Card Fraud (Tom Watson) Re: Four Chicagoans Indicted in Cell Phone Clone Scheme (Tim Shoppa) Re: CID Passed While Call Waiting; How, When? (Christoph F. Strnadl) Re: CID Passed While Call Waiting; How, When? (Stephen Knight) Intel Christmas ('94) (Jody Kravitz) Last Laugh! New Movie For Holidays (Henry Baker) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: kd1hz@anomaly.ideamation.com (Michael P. Deignan) Subject: Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? Date: 27 Dec 1995 01:23:06 -0500 Organization: Ideamation, Inc. TELECOM Digest Editor responded to article , by Mike Stump : > When you call an airline for example via their 800 number to reserve > tickets, and you are later billed for same, do you complain that you > thought it should have been free since you called via 800? This isn't an exact analogy. Would it be reasonable for me to call an airline's 800 number to make reservations, in the course of the conversation determine that their rates are more than I want to pay, and terminate the call, only to find a charge on my telephone bill next month for a "travel consultation fee"? > You call Western Union on an 800 number to convey a message. You get > billed on your telephone bill if you choose. You call any one of > several long distance carriers via 800 to use their direct lines to > place your call. Do you complain that because you dialed 800-CALL-ATT > to convey a message or cause some action to occur that it should be > 'free' to you since you dialed 800 and were told by PacBell there > would be no charge for your call? In both of these cases, you are making a call with the explicit understanding that you are dialing a service and expect to pay for that service. This is no different than when I call the 800 number of my bank to check my balance and they charge me $1.00. The same cannot be said of other "adult" services. These services thrive on perpetuating the misunderstanding that 800 numbers are not "free", but "toll free". If you watch USA or just about any other cable station after 11pm, almost every commercial break has a "Call Lonna, she's lonely -- 800-222-2222". Nowhere will you see a disclaimer saying "$99 per second" -- or, if you do, it flashes by so fast you'd need a VCR to capture the single-frame the disclaimer appeared on. > if WUTCO gets to accept calls on a toll > free number, convey information between the caller and others, etc > and charge the same to the telephone bill of the caller, *then so > do we*. And you know what? They are right. The main difference is WUTCO isn't in the business of defrauding consumers, while the same cannot be said of these adult services. Should I be allowed to set up an 800 number, 1-800-KOLLECT, and put a 30-second message on it that says: "Sorry, you have dialed the wrong number. You must be trying to call 1-800-COLLECT. Please hang up and try again", and submit bills for a $100 "consultation" fee to the telco for collection? What of incorrectly dialed numbers? Should I attempt to find a very popular company with an 800 number , and try to get my own 800 number that is very close, such that people are mis-dialing the number and getting me all the time? (You read about these cases all the time in C.D.T.) Should I be allowed to "charge" for that call. If I charge $100 per call, I can retire. MD [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess we are going to get down here to semantics and what constitutes fraud and what does not constitute fraud. I quite agree with you that the adult services are thriving on the misconceptions and general misunderstandings the public has about 'how 800 numbers work'. On 800 calls, the cost of cariage is always charged to the called party as an inducement to get you to call in the first place. What transpires *after that point, as your conversation is in progress* is what you pay for. I agree with you many of the adult services do not go out of their way to explain the charges involved, and that if their charges were completely understood in advance, they would get a lot less business than they do. Whether the method in which they explain their fees amounts to fraud or not is something judges and lawyers are paid to figure out. Whether or not Western Union, by virtue of its long standing relationship with the telcos 'is not there to commit fraud' while the newer style of information via phone providers who have an identical relationship with telco where billing and handling of calls are there solely for fraudulent reasons is something else the courts can work on. To its credit, if you dispute the presence of WUTCO charges on your phone bill, telco will remove those also and force WUTCO to bill direct, just as they do the more recent breed. I again will say I think the real problem arises when telco attempts to bill for anything other than their own services. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mike Fox Date: 26 Dec 95 13:29:43 Subject: Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Pac Bell -- nor any other telco is > being deceptive when they say that calls to 800 numbers are free to > the calling party. Where the *toll charge for the call itself* is > concerned, it is reversed to the called party. In other words, yes > indeed, Absolute Communications did pay for the carriage of your call > in an effort to get you to do business with them. This is no different > than any other 800 number you call; the person owning the number > *does* want to hear from you and agrees to pay for the call. But when > you call an airline for example via their 800 number to reserve > tickets, and you are later billed for same, do you complain that you > thought it should have been free since you called via 800? IMO you are completely off the mark here. When I call an 800 number to reserve a plane ticket, I give them a credit card number, which is explicitly giving them permission to bill me, and acknowledging that I will be billed. That's a lot different from calling an 800 number, doing nothing explicit to acknowledge that you expect to be billed and then getting a whopping phone bill a month later. People expect 800 numbers to be free. 800 numbers are advertised as free. Of course you have to pay for things you purchase over 800 numbers, but when you purchase things over 800 numbers, you give a credit card number. There is no deception, unlike calling these slimeball 900 services hiding behind 800 numbers. If you think it's reasonable to charge someone's phonebill for content delivered over an 800 number without warning the person that they will be billed, then I just have to wonder what's the point of having 900 numbers? If 800 numbers can act just like 900 numbers and that's OK with you, then let's just get rid of NPA 900 altogether and move all the 900 numbers over to 800/888 and let the caller (and PBX owner!) beware. Because people are getting a false sense of security with today's setup. Of course the 800 industry would lose a lot of its value and trust with the public, but by tolerating scams like this the 800 providers are already going down that road. That being said, it does seem to me like the original poster in this thread got his jollies over the 800 number (he was on for nearly 11 minutes anyway, according to his own post), so I guess he thought he was getting something for nothing. So he was a sucker in that sense. But I once dialed a free 800 number to be connected to a well-known free information line for the Virginia lottery. I misdailed, juxtaposing two digits and got connected to an Integretel-billed sex line. I hung up almost immediately (I had been dialing and checking back to see if I got a busy signal because the lottery number is usually busy, so it took me about 10 seconds to realize I had the wrong number), but even though that was back in September, I still haven't got my phone bill cleaned up and dealing with them has been. well, most people on this digest are familiar with Integretel. Dialing that number didn't just cost a charge for that call -- it "automatically" enrolled me in their phone sex club, with a monthly charge. I'm still fighting to get it straightened out, even though I never called that number again and never heard any of their "content." That to my mind is the kind of thing that can kill the good reputation of 800 service. It wouldn't surprise me to find those slimeball ambushes lurking behind common misdials of other well-known 800 numbers (like, say, 1-800-HTE-CARD). 900 services hiding behind 800 numbers is a serious problem and I don't think you'll get many people to agree with you that this kind of practice is anything short of (sadly) legal fraud. Later, Mike [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, the adult/sex IP's out there *claim* they give ample notification of their charges. They *claim* that if you remain on the line you do so of your volition and with full knowledge of the cost of the call, and your consent for billing. Much of this could be resolved if the IPs would tape record the first fifteen or twenty seconds of each phone call, during which time they would make a statement similar to this: "For billing purposes only, the first few seconds of this call is being tape recorded. Our records indicate you are calling from the phone number xxx-xxx-xxxx. If this is correct; if you are of majority age in the state from which you are calling, responsible for the payment of the telephone bill for this number; agree to pay $xx per minute/call for the conversation which follows, and consent to our tape recording of this billing verification, please press the 'Y' key on your phone now or speak the word 'yes' ... if any part of the above is not true then please disconnect now at no charge." (Pause for about five seconds to listen for keypress or verbal agreement). Automatically disconnect or proceed, as appropriate. After hearing key press or verbal 'yes' then system responds, "Thank you. Tape recording is turned off. You may continue." (At that point caller is cut over to program in progress or handed off to to the person they will speak with, etc.) A large number -- probably several hundred -- authorizations could be captured on a small reel of tape. The caller's phone number would be indexed as to its position on the tape (ie. which reel, which segment therein) and future disputes could be settled easily. When the caller later goes complaining to his state commission or the telco, or the Action Line column in his newspaper or this Digest or whatever, the IP can produce the pertinent twenty or thirty second segment of tape and say "here ... who is kidding who? After all, it is the World's Oldest Profession. Your complainer pays for other professional services rendered doesn't he? Why does he feel this one should come for free? Tell him to pay or get sued ..." If the caller made any false statements in the introductory greeting as to his age, his right to control the use of the phone from which the call was made, his willingness to pay for the services rendered or the information provided or his later claim that he did not know he was being taped at the time, then the onus of fraud falls on *him* rather than the IP. This is not to say a lot of the phone sex services are not scams; but to emphasize that quite a few of their customers are con-artists also who feel they can later act like the innocent victim, the poor victimized consumer, etc. 'They did not know what they were calling; they are being charged for calling a free number, etc ' ... even eleven minutes into the transaction. PAT] ------------------------------ From: shubu@cs.wisc.edu (Shubu Mukherjee) Subject: ITA Dating Service IS a Scam: Channel 5 News, Atlanta Date: 27 Dec 1995 16:52:37 GMT Organization: CS Department, University of Wisconsin ITA Dating Service is a SCAM: beware!! The Corporate Systems Security Manager at Turner Broadcasting System Inc. informed me on Dec. 21 that WAGA Channel 5 News, Atlanta (http://www.america.net/com/waga/) conducted an investigation in response to my question on the internet about the ITA dating service. Channel 5 reported that IT IS INDEED A SCAM! Channel 5 told me that this investigation was conducted by their reporter Mr. Randy Travis. I haven't been able to obtain any more details. If anyone from Atlanta has seen the Channel 5 evening news on Dec 20, can you tell us what was exactly reported? As far as my money goes, Ameritech has _now_ agreed to take the money off our bill. If ITA refuses to comply with Ameritech, they will have to deal with us directly, not through Ameritech. Shubu Mukherjee Univeristy of Wisconsin-Madison, Computer Sciences shubu@cs.wisc.edu http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~shubu ------------------------------ From: tsw@3do.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: AT&T Card Fraud Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 18:04:38 -0800 Organization: The 3DO Corporation The TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > And remind me sometime to tell you about the very early days of > Visa, back when it was known as BankAmericard. Ooooh, did they > take some incredible hits before they finally learned how to > administer their program. The fraud-hives took Visa/BankAmericard > for millions of dollars during the first two years of operation. PAT] Yes, there have been a few incidents regarding Visa cards. I was told of one (this comes by a crediable path) where someone "acquired" a whole tray of ready to mail/deliver cards. The person who eventually got them (in bulk) decided to be a little more forthcoming, and called the fraud department at Visa, and ransomed them for about $10k for 2000 cards or so. The Visa people agreed (as the story goes) because the average fraud on the card would have been close to $1000 each (the bills add up REAL quick) and they wanted to get the cards off of the street quickly. Meeting at the proverbal "dark alley" was arranged and as they say: "promises made, gifts exchanged". Mail fraud, is another story. In Chicago, where it seems that postal employees are subordinates of the mob, one of the carriers for a catalog company was opening letters that contained $1 bills. The company was wondering about the rash of complaints. Eventually they mounted a camera to spy/catch the person responsible. Everyone is not the most honest around. Most are "fairly" honest. When was the last time you told a "burger-flipper counter-person" that the change was wrong when it was in your favor!! Life! Tom Watson tsw@3do.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You have both postal employees who are dishonest, and you have people who impersonate postal employees. Let me explain the latter; the former does not need much clarification. One incident back about 1973 involved several 'trays' of Amoco Oil/ Diners Club cards which were being issued. Most of the credit card processing was one at one location but 'new accounts' and the embossing, reconciliation and mailing of new/renewed charge plates was done from a somewhat more high security location in the building next door. Now it had gotten bad at the post office ... how bad, you ask? *So* bad that in a typical month hundreds of cards were being filched by postal workers at (what they call) the 'Big House'; the sorting and work rooms at the Main Post Office. Postal inspectors constantly patrolled the work floor; workers on each shift were required to strip down in a locker room on arrival, put their street clothes in a locker and wear a baggy cloth sack like thing without any pockets in it at work -- mostly, I assume to hide their nakedness -- and then when they got off duty at midnight or eight in the morning they went back to the locker room to get their street clothes, all under the watchful eyes of the postal inspectors or a matron who looked after the female employees. Every afternoon when postal employees picked up the new batch of cards going out they had to count the number of emvelopes they were given and sign for them. When they left the sorting room and got upstairs to the dock to go out they were signed and accounted for again. Still, Amoco would come up short a few hundred cards every month and a few new fraud cases to go along. First National Bank was operating their BankAmericard (now VISA) franchise right out of the downtown main bank building at the same time, and using the same post office, so they got hit pretty hard also. The frosting on the cake though came one day when *imposters, dressed like postal employees* showed up at Amoco/Diners to get the outgoing mail for that day. They went up to the eighth floor, showed their (stolen) postal worker ID cards at the window, got buzzed in and picked up several large trays (hundreds of cards in each) of outgoing mail and absconded with them. It was not unexpected though, since apparently the postal inspectors had heard from one of their snitches that a 'big hit' was planned for Amoco and were waiting for it to happen. The postal inspectors got them as soon as they hit the dock in the alley where their van was parked. Between dishonest postal workers, thieves and fraud rings working right in the credit card office itself and outsiders who tried to jump on the bandwagon, Amoco decided to move out of town and go someplace where they hoped a bit more honesty prevailed. So they chose West Des Moines, Iowa in the hopes the farmer's wives and daughters they recruited out there to handle the more 'sensitive' aspects of their business had some smattering of a moral and ethical code. First National took the hint and split also, moving their credit card operation out to the (then) relatively rural and bucolic countryside around Elgin, Illinois. PAT] ------------------------------ From: shoppa@altair.krl.caltech.edu (Tim Shoppa) Subject: Re: Four Chicagoans Indicted in Cell Phone Clone Scheme Date: 27 Dec 1995 02:56:25 GMT Organization: Kellogg Radiation Lab, Caltech In article , Patrick A. Townson wrote: > All were indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of conspiracy > to clone cellular phones, and sell the cloned phones and equipment ^^^^^^^^^ > to do the same to other phones. In addition, Riddles is charged ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > with possession of equipment to clone phones, firearms, cloned ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > phones and cash to exchange for uncloned phones. Would anyone know exactly what "equipment" one can be prosecuted for? As of a few years ago, one necessary piece of equipment for cloning phones was a PROM/EPROM programmer, and I have one of them. Do I have to fear federal agents storming my lab for it? Or is the federal law much more explicit about what "equipment to clone phones" is? Tim. (shoppa@altair.krl.caltech.edu) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is all in the context, Tim. I've heard of people who were employed as locksmiths getting arrested for something or another and being charged in the process of being in possession of 'burglar tools'. That's the great thing about the jury system in trials. Get a bunch of jurors who are ignorant enough, and you can convince them of anything. You might assume that if 'things' get traced back to you and there appears a reasonable degree of evidence of your participation in a crime -- reasonable enough that a prosecutor will sign off on it and a judge will issue a warrant -- that 'equipment' is going to be viewed with suspicion, to say the least. It is all in the context. PAT] ------------------------------ From: cstrnadl@austria.cp.philips.com (Christoph F. Strnadl) Subject: Re: CID Passed While Call Waiting; How, When? Date: Wed, 27 Dec 95 13:11:26 GMT Organization: Philips C&P Austria/VAN Services hisys@rainbow.rmii.com (HI Systems) wrote: > 2. What caller ID presentaion units can handle this? It would seem > that they would have to "listen in" on all phone calls, waiting to get > an acceptable modem signal. Is that what happens? Yes, basically you are right: The CPE would have to "listen" for the call waiting tone and then decode the encoded CID information following that. This is described in Bellcore's TR-NWT-000575 technical reference "CLASS Feature: Calling Identity Delivery on Call Waiting". I'll try to give a summary (to the best of my knowledge!) * 1st party is engaged in a call (ie., CPE is in off-hook state) * some 3rd party calls number of 1st party: An _Alerting Sequence_ is sent from the SPCS to the CPE consisting of - an audible Subscriber Alerting Signal (SAS), the Call Waiting Tone, - immediately appended to that a CPE Alerting Signal (CAS) which signals to the CPE that a Call Waiting Event has occured. * the CPE now must signal to the SPCS whether it is able to receive the CID information. This is done by transmitting either a - DTMF D (Type 2 CPE), or a - DTMF A (Type 3 CPE) to the SPCS: * Having received such a positive ACKnowledge the SPCS now starts to transmit the CID information (in the standard 1200 bps FSK way) to the CPE. During that transmission, which may last a maximum of 1 second, the voice-path is muted. * The CPE, then, displays the CID information on its screen. > 3. How can we tell if a given Caller ID presentation unit can handle > this? Buzzwords? When will they be available? The two buzzword to look for are: * Type 2 CPE supporting (amongst other things) ========== - CND (Calling Number Delivery, in Bellcore speak) - CNAM (Calling Name Delivery) - CIDCW (Calling Identity Delivery on Call Waiting). * Type 3 CPE fully support the Analog Display Services Interface (ADSI). ========== ======================================= (see TR-NWT-001273) The ADSI provides a lot more than just CIDCW functionality. In effect, it is a standard which should provide so-called screen based features (in the sense of applications like home-bankning, running on a server system) for screen phones. On the other hand the off-line capabilities (via so-called ADSI service scripts resident on each CPE) enable the user to visually manage her calls (like CIDCW) in a convenient manner. While I do not know about Type 2 CPEs I know at least two ADSI compliant CPEs: Philips ScreenPhone P100 (Philips Home Services, Inc.) Nortel PowerTouch 3xx (Nortel) > 4. When will the local telcos start offering this service? "Soon" was > all I could get. Sorry on that one ;-) Christoph F. Strnadl Technical Manager/ScreenPhone Services Philips C&P Tel: +43 1 60101/1752 FAX: +43 1 6023568 cstrnadl@austria.cp.philips.com ------------------------------ From: sdk@cci.com (Stephen Knight) Subject: Re: CID Passed While Call Waiting; How, When? Organization: Nortel Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 16:48:35 GMT In article , Gebhardt, Matt wrote: > hisys@rainbow.rmii.com (HI Systems) writes... >> Call Waiting. [cut] >> 1. How can this be done? Does the "Beep" that lets you know another >> call is coming in get replaced with a 1200bps unidirectional modem signal >> like that used for normal "between first and second ring" Caller ID >> signaling? The "beep" is slightly different from the standard call-waiting (basically putting the device into a "data-receive" mode), then the standard caller-id mechanism is used to sent the information to the phone. >> 2. What caller ID presentaion units can handle this? It would seem >> that they would have to "listen in" on all phone calls, waiting to get >> an acceptable modem signal. Is that what happens? Standard caller-id devices will not support caller-id w/ call waiting. >> 3. How can we tell if a given Caller ID presentation unit can handle >> this? Buzzwords? When will they be available? >> 4. When will the local telcos start offering this service? "Soon" was >> all I could get. > Believe the feature being referred to is known as Spontaneous Call > Waiting Identification (SCWID) and requires the use of Analog Display > Services Interface (ADSI). It seems to go by a number of different names and, currently, the ADSI-capable phones seem to be the only devices that can support it. > ADSI (TR-NWT-001273) could be used for both SCWID (TR-575) or > Spontaneous Call Waiting ID with Disposition (DSCWID, TR-NWT-416), > where when the call's presented to the already-on-a-call ADSI set, > several options "pop up" on the ADSI set. You could choose to answer > the call, or route it to your vmail, or put it on hold, or put it to > busy and drop. > Believe that you'll find the ADSI protocol described in BellCore > document TR-1273. > In a DMS, there's a CPE Alert Signal (CAS) tone that's sent down from > the switch via a 202 modem signal to (e.g.) NT's "PowerTouch 350" > telephone set. Essentially correct, minor correction: the CAS tone signals the phone that the 202 modem signal is coming. > To borrow from NT customer product information: > [[ Picture : 2113 in WINMAIL.DAT ]] > In other words, you need to have either calling number display or > calling name display (or both) for SCWID to work. > [[ Picture : 2112 in WINMAIL.DAT ]] > DSCWID then would allow you choices. You could answer the call, or > "route" it to (eg) your vmail, to busy tone, to another number, or? > With ADSI, will come downloadable, display-based services for ADSI > compliant sets. NT refers to this as Advanced Call Management Server > (ACMS). Do not know if this is a generic name nor do I have the > subsequent BellCore reference. Regardless, the ADSI user would dial > into the ACMS to receive a feature download that provides the soft > keys and displays associated with that service. Hope this helps. The "Advanced Call Management Server" is a Nortel product. When a caller subscribes to a feature (such as call waiting), they dial into the server which then downloads software onto their phone so that all of the features they're currently subscribed to are available. So, for example, if a caller has subscribed to "3-way calling" and "caller id", the ACMS will download software onto the phone that supports those features. If the caller then adds "call waiting" to their list of features, they call the server again and the server will download software that supports all three features. > where when the call's presented to the already-on-a-call ADSI set, > several options "pop up" on the ADSI set. You could choose to answer > the call, or route it to your vmail, or put it on hold, or put it to > busy and drop. What is described in this paragraph, however, does indeed require the ADSI. As a matter of fact, things no longer are that straight forward. GR-416-CORE now discerns not only different clases of CPEs (Type 1, 2 and 3), but also different types of CWD types (1 to 5). Depending on the type of equipment the customer has locally she may be able to subscribe to different types of CWD services. > Believe that you'll find the ADSI protocol described in BellCore > document TR-1273. I heavily recommend the *full* set of ADSI related documents (or family requirements) FR-12. Bellcore has done some modifications on some documents lately (see GR-416-CORE) so you need the latest set to be up-to-date. The investment, however, pays off fairly quickly if you are really going into the ADSI business. > In a DMS, there's a CPE Alert Signal (CAS) tone that's sent down from > the switch via a 202 modem signal to (e.g.) NT's "PowerTouch 350" > telephone set. To be picky: TR-NWT-000575 specifies an _Alerting Sequence_ consisting of an audible * Subscriber Alerting Signal (SAS -- the Call Waiting Tone), and the * CPE Alerting Signal (CAS). > With ADSI, will come downloadable, display-based services for ADSI > compliant sets. NT refers to this as Advanced Call Management Server > (ACMS). Do not know if this is a generic name nor do I have the > subsequent BellCore reference. Regardless, the ADSI user would dial > into the ACMS to receive a feature download that provides the soft > keys and displays associated with that service. Hope this helps. Bellcore speaks (in SR-3034) about * ADSI Script Management Server(s) (ASMS) which would correspond to the Nortel ACMS. * feature download services * (Telephony) Service Scripts. Christoph F. Strnadl Technical Manager/ScreenPhone Services Philips C&P Tel: +43 1 60101/1752 FAX: +43 1 6023568 cstrnadl@austria.cp.philips.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Dec 95 12:04:00 PST From: xmas95@foxtail.com (Jody Kravitz Xmas 95) Subject: Intel Christmas ('94) I found this a couple of nights ago while pruning some old files. Its a bit dated, but I still find it amusing. I hope you do too. Jody (kravitz@foxtail.com) Subject: Intel's Night Before Christmas From: ibrahim@leland.stanford.edu (Nabeel Robert Ibrahim) Okay, so it's not of the same calibur as "How the Gingrich Stole Congress"... but what do you expect? I did this between studying for finals ... I tried to make fun of everyone equally. 'Twas the night before Christmas, And all over the 'Net, All the posts about Intel, Made everyone fret, The whiners were vocal, They wouldn't shut up, Complaining about Intel's, FDIV cover up, The engineers were nestled, All snug in their labs, Worrying about Intel's, Mistake in the fabs, They made up excuses, On how they're affected, They called upon Intel, And were promptly rejected, And soon IBM jumped, Right into the fray, "We'll stop shipping Pentiums, As of later today." But their statement was just, More political lies, Because they said the next day, "We're still shipping those dies!" But from where came this noise, And vindictive clatter, About a minor flaw, That should not have mattered, Well there was a math prof, Doing work in V A, He came to realize that, Divs shouldn't happen this way, So Prof. Nicely described, The bug that he found, It wasn't too long later, That news got around, Lots of people complained, Without reason or rhyme, Just because number five, Equalled four point nine nine, The media latched on, And rumors were spread, It took no time to proclaim, That Intel was dead, As I was reading more news, A thought came to me, Intel can't possibly die, The have a monopoly, So on Andy, on Craig, On Gordon and Vin, Make sure with P6, This doesn't happen again, As I logged off, I thought: "This debate is absurd." So I soon logged back in, And uttered these words, "There are too many issues, I refuse to take sides. Merry Christmas to all, And watch your divides." HO, HO, HO!! * Nabeel Ibrahim | http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~ibrahim * * ibrahim@leland.stanford.edu * Electrical Engineering ------------------------------ From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) Subject: Last Laugh! New Movie For Holidays Organization: nil organization Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 13:54:37 GMT I understand there's a new movie out: "It's a Wonderful Tariff" At the end, Zuzu (the little child) says: "Every time a Baby Bell rings, another lobbyist gets his wingtips!" www/ftp directory: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/home.html ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #530 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Dec 27 21:55:24 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA14518; Wed, 27 Dec 1995 21:55:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 21:55:24 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512280255.VAA14518@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #531 TELECOM Digest Wed, 27 Dec 95 21:55:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 531 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson CA 1+ Intralata Regulations (Bill Engel) NorTel Meridian Communications Adaptor Question (Derek Andrew) Employment Opportunity: Telecom Project Manager/LAN/WAN/ACD (Julie Love) Solid State Systems SR224 Information Needed (phoneroom@aol.com) *66 Works on Ticketmaster Type Numbers? (Bill Rubin) How Can I Test Phone Line Quality? (Bill Hensley) D3 Channel Bank Question (Raymon A. Bobbitt) New Canadian Telco Websites (Mark J. Cuccia) CT Local Competition Docket/Decision (Gerry Belanger) Re: AT&T Card Fraud (Clayton R. Nash) Re: 10-732 ANI Number (Joseph E. Norton) Re: Digital Global Roaming (Paul Boudreaux) Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users (D Tomrdle) Re: Caller ID Over AT&T (Steve Uhrig) Re: Caller ID Over AT&T (John Wilkerson) Re: Caller ID Over AT&T (Kevin R. Ray) Re: How Do You Reach A Local Operator From Out Of State? (Matthew D'Elia) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: engel2@ix.netcom.com (Engel Strategies Group, Inc. ) Subject: CA 1+ Intralata Regulations Date: 27 Dec 1995 16:35:32 GMT Organization: Netcom Arizona has just implemented intralata competition. Until April, 1996 -- the "competition" requires dialing of carrier codes. In April, we will have true 1+ intralata competition that will no longer required the codes. Question: While CA has intralata competition that requires carrier codes (which means no "true" competition) - has the CA PUC mandated any specific date by which competition must be 1+ (no codes required)? Thanks for any help. Bill Engel Engel Strategies Group, Inc. * 11414 N. 69th Street * Scottsdale, AZ 85254 E-mail: Engel2@ix.netcom.com Phone: 602-948-9768 Fax: 602-948-4788 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 19:36:52 GMT From: derek.andrew@usask.ca (Derek Andrew) Subject: NorTel Meridian Communications Adaptor Question Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon Saskatchewan, Canada There is a rather neat attachment for the M2616 type telephone attached to a NorTel Meridian SL/1. The Meridian Communications Adapter (MCA) attaches an rs232 port to the back of the phone and allows simultaneous voice and data calls. The neat part is that the MCA can also control your telephone, for example, entering ATDP1234 will dial 1234 on your voice line. Also, there is a transparent mode that you can enter whereby you can display the raw signaling messages sent between the PBX and the MCA by entering the ATTSP! command. My problem is I cannot figure out how to interpret these raw signaling messages. Is there anyone out there that has any information? NorTel is totally unhelpful. Any ideas? Thanks, Derek.Andrew@Usask.ca ------------------------------ From: Julie Love Subject: Employment Opportunity: Telecom Project Manager/LAN/WAN/ACD Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 01:24:41 GMT Position: IT / TELECOM PROJECT MANAGER NEEDED Organization: Pacific Bell Mobile Services Department: Customer Operations Type: Permanent/Contract Location: Pleasanton, CA Salary: commensurate with experience Pacific Bell Mobile Services Customer Operations Implementation Project seeking a highly skilled and experience contract individual to support the IT/Telecom Manager by coordinating the work and tasks of the subgroups within the IT/Telecom team, take management responsibility during the absence of manager, maintain the project plan, implement changes to the plan and report on the impact of these changes on deliverables. DESCRIPTION: Produce IT/Telecom project and task plans within Customer Operations. Maintain IT/Telecom element of the Project Plan, report project progress and manage budget and expenditures. Coordinate team workflow. Produce impact assessments of changes to project tasks,timetables and resource allocations. Manage vendor and technical support contracts. Establish and maintain interfaces with other project teams and departments. Perform resource planning and management. Serve as Deputy Manager of IT/Telecom Team and represent team at planning meetings as directed by Manager. TECHNICAL SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE: Project management methodologies and computer-based project management applications (Microsoft Project preferred). IT and information management strategies and architectures, information flow management techniques and system design. Structure of commercial contracts and supplier management. Database management systems and interfacing (Oracle-based). Design of data communications architectrues and systems (Ethernet and structured cabling systems). Telecommunications (WAN and LAN) network management. Telecommunications issues in support of call centers and customer service operations (ACD, CTI, IVR). ACD systems management and report structuring. PTO operations, procurement of PTO services and definition of call streaming requirements. Mobile communications architectures (GSM) and mobile networks management. PC systems and applications. EXPERIENCE PROFILE: IT/IS project management and implementation. Implementation of mobile services billing systems and integration with other business support applications such as general ledger, banking communications and GSM network management and call charging systems. ACD systems (CTI and IVR preferred). Management of large project teams (20+ people). IT/IS supplier contract management. Customer Service operations. Project expenditure management. Operating with senior management. If interested, EMAIL RESUME TO: Julie Love Pacific Bell Mobile Services Staffing Contractor jlove@soar.com ------------------------------ From: phoneroom@aol.com (PhoneRoom) Subject: Solid State Systems SR224 Info Needed Date: 27 Dec 1995 02:39:18 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: phoneroom@aol.com (PhoneRoom) Does anyone know the current value of an SR224? I have two. One of them seems to be configured for T1 the other looks like it is set up for switched service. I would like to offer them to a dealer or reseller but first need input on their approximate value. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Dec 95 00:02:36 EST From: Bill Rubin Subject: *66 Works on Ticketmaster Type Numbers? NYNEX is currently running a TV ad showing "dad" calling to order tickets for a "big show" at 9am when tickets go on sale, "but everyone else called, too", so dad used the "busy signal fix, *66" and got a call back when "they" were able to get thru for him and he was able to get tickets. End shot is everyone at the show, they're understandably happy. Now, when NYNEX came out with the *66 capability, I have to admit that using it to get thru to Ticketmaster when popular concerts went on sale was the main thing I thought of using it for, but I recall seeing some fine print that it won't work with stuff like that, or maybe I tried it and was told it couldn't be used for that since it was going to a PBX-type system. Has this changed, or is NYNEX taking "technology license" to sell their service? Now, of course, even if you were able to get thru, the odds are still pretty good that Ticketmaster's phone system will drop your call after you've been on hold for a few minutes and before you actually speak to someone, as they did to me three times last week, but that's another story. But if it will actually work in these situations, I might actually consider using it! Bill Rubin ------------------------------ From: Bill Hensley Date: Wed, 27 Dec 95 11:57:26 -0800 Subject: How Can I Test Phone Line Quality? I live in northwest Oklahoma City, and have two phone lines, one for data and one for voice. I use a USR Sportster 28.8 for connections to an ISP, my office, and other online services here in the area. I cannot seem to make a connection better than 19.2Kbps, and frequently I'll lose carrier altogether. An identical setup works well from my office, except back to my house. There is no audible noise on the data line. I have the most current modem firmware, drivers, etc., and calls to Southwestern Bell have brought the determination that the line is "fine". I suspect that my phone line, switch, or trunk is somewhere electrically dirty. Is there some way to measure the quality of the phone line connected to my house, preferably without having to spend several hundred dollars? It's not like this is killing me or anything, but I spent a heck of a lot of bread to go 28.8 for better remote access and it would be nice to be able to use it. FWIW, I have *no* problems when connecting to any 14.4 or less service. Any and all suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Bill Hensley TRW Oklahoma City Engineering Office Bill_Hensley@smtp.rc.trw.com ------------------------------ From: rbobbitt@ramlink.net (Raymon A. Bobbitt) Subject: D3 Channel Bank Question Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 04:52:40 GMT Organization: RAMLink Internet Access Service Does anyone know the difference between D3 and D4 framing in a channel bank?? I have six D# units and was wondering what I can use them for. Any suggestions?? (no boat anchor's please) ;-) Thanks, Raymon A. Bobbitt One Call Systems Po Box 1091 Ashland, KY 41105-1091 V/F 606-329-9919 rbobbitt@ramlink.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 17:19:08 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: New Canadian Telco Websites When websurfing recently, I came across websites for NewTel (Newfoundland) and Telebec & Northern Telephone. NewTel (Newfoundland) is at http://www.newcomm.net/ntc. This hasn't (yet) been `added' to Stentor's map and list as a link from their webpages. Telebec (PQ) webpages have some detail to a couple of their operating telephone regions and other info. Please note, it is *all* in French. http://www.telebec.qc.ca. Much of this website is still under construction. Northern Telephone (ON) has some good history from their webpage as well as other general info. http://www.nt.net/nortel/nortel.htm MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ From: gerryb@cogn.com (Gerry Belanger) Subject: CT Local Competition Docket/Decision Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 13:31:42 EST For those interested, the CT DPUC has put the local competition docket and decision on the state webserver. The documents appear to be in MS word for windows 6.0 form. URL is http://www.state.ct.us/EXECU/DPUC/telcom.htm zip and self-extracting zip is also there. Gerry Belanger, Sr Microsystems Engineer Cognitronics Corporation, 3 Corporate Dr, Danbury CT 06810 Main:(203) 830-3400, Direct:(203) 830-3413, Fax: (203) 830-3405 ------------------------------ From: claytonn@onramp.net (Clayton R. Nash) Subject: Re: AT&T Card Fraud Date: Wed, 27 Dec 95 23:26:21 GMT Organization: personal internet service I haven't been able to confirm it, but the last fraud I encountered appeared to have originated from someone obtaining PIN numbers from the PBX or call accounting system (or printouts from the same). Two calls, made from a hotel room using a non-AT&T calling card resulted in many calls about a week later in that same part of the country (San Jose, CA). Makes you wonder, since it was quite impossible for someone to have looked over my shoulder. claytonn@onramp.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your suggestion that it might have happened via the PBX reminds me of the first time I heard of this happening, somewhere around 30-35 years ago in the early 1960's. According to the account in the {Chicago Tribune} at the time, a switchboard operator at a rather elegant apartment hotel on the north side of Chicago overheard a guest in the hotel as he passed his telephone calling card number to the Illinois Bell long distance operator. The hotel operator then used the card for numerous personal calls over a two or three month period before being 'caught in the act' by telephone company security guys at a payphone near the hotel late one evening, in the process of making an international call. The card had found its way onto the 'hot list' and the overseas operator at White Plains, NY spotted it in taking a call. She stalled the user at the payphone while claiming she was 'trying to get a circuit available to London for the call ...'. In the meantime, telco security was notified and the fraud user was greeted by a knock on the door of the payphone booth. A quaint little story, with probably no one at the time aware of how pervasive toll fraud would become in the next couple generations. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jenorton@netcom.com (Joseph E. Norton) Subject: Re: 10-732 ANI Number Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 01:07:57 GMT > One now dials 10-732-1-770-988-9664. Interestingly, I also tried this same 770 number with AT&T TeleTravel Service. The reply I got was: Boop 51362950018 Boop 8880001565 Also, the TeleTravel Platform informed me that I could leave a message for this party by pressing 93. This message only gets spoken when there is no answer-supervision on the line, so guess you are not being charged from home either. Have to try it from work where we have direct AT&T service. ------------------------------ From: Paul Boudreaux Subject: Re: Digital Global Roaming Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 06:36:20 -0600 Organization: Texas Metronet, Inc (login info (214/705-2901 - 817/571-0400)) Reply-To: paulbx@metronet.com Ian Nicholls wrote: > brister@zip.com.au (James Brister) writes: >> Do I have any hope of use that phone is the USA? > No. I don't think GSM is used at all over there. Some companies use a > digital variant of the Analogue system, which doesn't help you. Well, you might be able to use your SIM in the Washington DC area. A Sprint (and someone else) venture just launched PCS1900 service. PCS1900 is basically GSM at 1900Mhz (there are some "americanization" aspects such as equal access for long distance). But, you will NOT be able to use your phone from Australia. >> Could anyone enlighten me as to potential problems? > When you get back, you might have to pay an arm and a leg through the nose > for approval to use a foreign phone in Australia. That's kind of protectionist, isn't it? I mean, all you should have to do is pay any import duties and you should be done. As far as getting service with Telstra or OPTUS, you should be able to plug your SIM (that is registered in a local network) into your phone ... and you should be done. However, I've heard that the voice encryption (A5 algorythm (sp?)) used in Europe was blocked in Australia. And, that a "substitute" encryption method was employed instead. Anybody know the details? The GSM networks in Australia generally wouldn't know where the phone was purchased (or manufactured). Really, all they care about is whether or not your IMSI (International Mobile Subscriber Identity) and IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identity) numbers are valid in it's network. ------------------------------ From: tomrdle@ibm.net Subject: Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users Date: 27 Dec 1995 05:20:43 GMT Reply-To: tomrdle@ibm.net In , robertr@icu.com (Robert A. Rosenberg) writes: > In article , j-grout@glibm8.cen.uiuc. > edu (John R. Grout) wrote: > 900 numbers, the back-office cost involved i.e., generating a monthly >> bill for them and sending it to the LEC is _far_ greater than that for >> subsequent calls. > What back office cost? The only cost that I can see is if the person is I think the issue is how the LEC charges ATT for billing. Using USW as an example, to have a separate billing page in the USW bill costs ATT about $0.380 each month. Each call placed on that page costs about $0.025. So for ATT to bill one call via the LEC costs $0.405 ($0.380 + $0.0025), or $0.405 per call. To bill ten calls costs ATT $0.63 ($0.380 + (10 * $0.0025)) or $0.063 per call. So if you are already an ATT customer, the incremental cost to add one call record to the LEC bill is small; if you are not, well, you can see why ATT isn't very interested in (in most cases) losing money on single call casual billing. Hope this was useful, Dale Tomrdle tomrdle@ibm.net ------------------------------ From: suhrig@bright.net (Steve Uhrig) Subject: Re: Caller ID Over AT&T Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 00:49:11 GMT Organization: BrightNet Scott Plichta wrote: > I live in PA, and my parents live in Maryland. They have AT&T > selected as a long distance carrier. Whenever they call me, my caller > ID box is still showing "NO CID NBR". Of course, we all know that > after Dec.1 this isn't supposed to happen, so I made it a point to try > to find an answer. There seems to be a misconception that because the FCC required interlata LD carriers to pass through CID that you should always get it. The FCC's ruling only applies to interlata LD carriers. Local exchange carriers do not come under the jurisdiction of the FCC. (Snip) > I then explain the FCC ruling and that I would like a satisfactory > reason that AT&T won't pass the CID (maybe the switch isn't SS7 I > suggest [knowing full well that it is]). He then determines that he SS7 stands for Signal System Seven. It is required to provide CID outside of the local call processor. Many Digital offices are not equipped with SS7. These offices are not capable of providing CID outside of their operating area. The FCC ruling does not require that SS7 be installed in every Class 5 office. If the office you received the call from is a mechanical office, or a digital office that doesn't have SS7 you will not get CID and the owner of the originating Class 5 office is not required to provide it. Local exchange carriers come under the jurisdiction of the state PUCs. Steve Uhrig Chillicothe, Ohio USA ------------------------------ From: jwilkers@freenet.columbus.oh.us (John Wilkerson) Subject: Re: Caller ID Over AT&T Date: 27 Dec 1995 09:37:18 -0500 Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Scott Plichta (splichta@instalink.com) wrote: > I live in PA, and my parents live in Maryland. They have AT&T > selected as a long distance carrier. Whenever they call me, my caller > ID box is still showing "NO CID NBR". Of course, we all know that > after Dec.1 this isn't supposed to happen, so I made it a point to try > to find an answer. I live in Ohio. Calls from an adjacent area code came thru with both name and number. My brother in Texas called recently. His number came over with the name "Texas Call" showing up on the name display. AT&T seems to be working okay, as well as I can tell. John L. Wilkerson Jr... jwilkers@freenet.columbus.oh.us johnw@right.net 71140,77@compuserve.com http://www.right.net/~johnw ------------------------------ From: kevin@mcs.com (Kevin R. Ray) Subject: Re: Caller ID Over AT&T Date: 26 Dec 1995 02:25:11 -0600 Organization: MCSNet Services I have used AT&T to make local calls to some people that I didn't want to know who was calling in the past couple of days. I didn't want to show up as "ANONYMOUS" (*67), so AT&T was my choice. :-) Using 10288 does pass along the CID info. Using 1-800-CALL-ATT does *NOT* pass along the CID info. Using 0-NUMBER also does *NOT* pass along the CID info (which I would think would be an Ameritech problem.) Almost a month later and they still don't have it right ... and trying to talk to any of the big companies on this is almost useless. I'm still fighting Cellular One (Chicago) on all cell phones coming up "ANONYMOUS" by default too. ------------------------------ From: Matthew S. D'Elia Subject: Re: How Do You Reach A Local Operator From Out Of State? Date: 27 Dec 1995 23:03:25 GMT Organization: jaguNET Access Services jweber@cbnews.att.com wrote: > In article I wrote: >> Can anyone tell me how to reach the local operator if I'm not in the >> same state? I'm not trying to dial the AT&T operator ("00"). I've been >> trying to dial the local operator in NV (specifically Contel, the LEC >> for the Lake Tahoe area) from NJ, and so far the only way I've been >> able to get connected is by calling Contel's business office, who put >> me through. > The reason I was trying to reach the local operator was to get rate > information to find out if calling a certain exchange from a certain > other exchange was a toll call. Except for looking at a Nevada phone > book, which I didn't have access to, I couldn't think of any other way > to find that out. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are welcome, and this is just what > Steve discussed in his message in this issue isn't it ... perhaps the > thinking is you don't need that information since the only way you > could possibly make such a call -- and thus be subject to the rates -- > would be if you were in the area in question. And of course in that > case, you would be within easy reach of an operator who would be glad > to stir the confusion up even further for you. PAT] If a long distance company operator cannot reach a local operator, then how do you have a long distance busy signal checked? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, as a matter of fact, many times you don't. In all the years AT&T and the Bells were one organization or system, things like this were not a problem. If you could not get through on a call, you just dialed the operator who would 'verify' the busy signal or other impediment on the line. She would do so by calling the 'inward operator' in the community in question and say something like this, "This is , please assist in dialing , we get no ring/no answer". Or she would say "we have tried it and only get a busy signal." The other end would generally try it again at that point and get the same result, at which point she would go off the line for a couple minutes and come back to report the phone had been left off the hook or whatever else was wrong if she could detirmine it. She would also put in a trouble report. Sometimes the telephone man would come to your house and ask if you knew that your phone was off-hook, or was it otherwise broken, etc. If it was broken, they would fix it then and there. Then came MCI and Sprint. Skimming the cream did not then (nor does it now, but things are different now) include customer assistance in getting a connection. If you asked the MCI/Sprint 'operator' to help you get through on a call, their response was always, "to place that call, you need to hang up, dial one oh two eight eight zero and the number." They would never say 'call AT&T's operator'; always 'dial 10288' as if AT&T was a bad word to say, and that the customer would just go ahead and dial as instructed still assuming that MCI/Sprint was 'saving him a lot of money' on his phone bill, just as they had always advertised they would do. For a long time after divestiture, AT&T continued to use the local Bell operators in many communities, and they continued to assist in getting through on numbers which were otherwise unreachable for whatever reason. I've not placed calls like that in so long I really don't know what they do now. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #531 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Dec 28 10:41:50 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id KAA15125; Thu, 28 Dec 1995 10:41:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 10:41:50 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512281541.KAA15125@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #532 TELECOM Digest Thu, 28 Dec 95 10:42:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 532 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: How Do You Reach A Local Operator From Out Of State? (Scott Montague) Re: Warning: SLC96 Cannot do 28.8 kbps (Richard Kenshalo) Re: Warning: SLC96 Cannot do 28.8 kbps (Bryan Halvorson) Re: SMDR Data Available? (John N. Dreystadt) Re: SMDR Data Available? (Doug Smith) Telephone Dictation Handset Wanted (Rupa Schomaker) Re: Fax --> E-Mail (Doug Reuben) Re: Fax --> E-mail Plus Voice Mail Also? (Richard Shockey) Re: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum (Dave Keeny) Re: 10-732 ANI Number (Mike P. Storke) Re: *66 Works on Ticketmaster Type Numbers? (Hendrik Rood) Re: Time Limits on 800 Number Calls From Pay Phones (John R. Levine) Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? (John R. Levine) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: 4sam3@qlink.queensu.ca (Scott Montague) Subject: Re: How Do You Reach A Local Operator From Out Of State? Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 04:28:50 GMT Organization: Queen's University at Kingston Reply-To: 4sam3@qlink.queensu.ca Steve experienced this "challenge" when trying to recieve out-of-LATA intra-LATA rates: > This reminds me of a challenge I had a few years ago in trying to get > a rate quote from Pacific Bell. I was in Sacramento at the time, and > needed to know if a call from a certain East Bay exchange to a > certain San Francisco exchange was or was not a local (untimed) call. > Both Sacramento and the bay area are served by Pacific Bell, but they > are in different LATAs. > So, I call the local Pacific Bell operator and ask my question. Almost > before I can finish my question, I am told in a somewhat condescending > tone: "Sir, San Francisco is a long distance call from here. You > need to call your long distance operator." Wow! I find that amazing. I just tried from up here in Bell Canada territory (where operators will go to the ends of the earth to answer your questions). The operator initially said "there is no charge between local calling areas" (which is expected, as there is no metered rating in Bell territory). I told her that they have metered billing for local calls and she immediately understood, apologizing that she didn't understand immediately. That whole exchange took no more than 15 seconds. She immediately got to work and found that, to her dismay, could only get an AT&T inward which had no clue how to ... well, no clue in general. She tried again ... no success. She tried to get the Directory Assistance for the area to transfer her, to no avail. She then apologized profusely, and even tried to defend the American system when I negatively remarked about it. "Well, I'm sure they [the Americans] must like it [their telephone network] or else they wouldn't have it!" -- Bell Canada Operator She then called DA for 415 and got the Business Office number for Pacific Bell. Before she offered to call it (and, BTW, absorb the charges), I thanked her and told her she had been a great help, and that I wouldn't want to trouble her any further. To me, this is amazing. It is SO easy to get rates within Canada, or to talk to a local operator from sea to sea to sea, that this kind of run around appears unnecessary. For instance, if I want a rate between two places in Northern Ontario the operator can give it to me immediately. Occasionally, the operator may have to go through Rate and Route, which only takes about 15 seconds. If I want a rate between two places outside Bell territory (eg. British Columbia), the operator will apologize that its not available and then call up the appropriate operator (eg. BCTel) and get it. I have tied up operators for over 10 minutes, and they never get angry, sarcastic, condesending or rude. And, if the operator is exceptional, I will ask to speak to the supervisor and give the operator due credit. This usually surprises the heck out of both the operator and the supervisor. What is amazing, however, is that Bell Canada is cutting back on the number of the operators (ie. you now get rings before its answered), you get more "automated billing", but you still get the most friendly customer service people of almost any business I know of, regardless of whether they are operators, repair, business office, or special services. Hopefully, that will never change. Scott 4sam3@qlink.queensu.ca / Apukwa of 4th \ Scouting: Improving tommorow *Proud to be Canadian* \ Kingston Cubs / through the youth of today. <> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Believe it or not, it used to be the same way here in the USA up until several years ago. There was a spirit of dedication and service which vanished here after divestiture which apparently is the trade off we were required to pay in exchange for competition, lots of enhanced services which some claim would never have come about without competition, etc. Like others, I watch eagerly as it all unfolds and falls into place: the telecommunications infrastructure for 21st century America. I do like it, but the price we are paying -- and I don't mean $$$ -- is enormous. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kenshalo@anc.ak.net Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 02:47:31 -0900 Subject: Re: Warning: SLC96 Cannot do 28.8 kbps > I have now heard of two ISPs in Bell Atlantic territory who got burned > when getting a SLC96 installed to handle their large numbers of phone > numbers. Apparently the SLC96's are incapable of handling 28.8 kbps, > and regularly result in 21 kbps and worse for users. I have heard telecom device providers speaking of this being due to robbed-bit signaling occuring over the T-1 feeding the SLCs. This doesn't make sense to me, as it would infer that B8ZS coding is also required to achieve high analog data rates. Robbed-bit signaling would, using B8ZS coding, remove some of the usable bandwidth (one bit every 6th and 12th frame). But I have heard of no requirement to use B8ZS line coding for high analog data rates, but only for 56 kbps and 64 kbps DDS circuits. But I can see that the higher quantization error that results from 7-bit encoding versus 8-bit encoding may make high analog data, with the complex modulation schemes, difficult to achieve. Does anyone have any experience with any special T-1 line coding requirements (B8ZS) for V.34 28.8 kbps modems? TIA, Richard Kenshalo kenshalo@anc.ak.net ------------------------------ From: bryan@edgar.mn.org (Bryan Halvorson) Subject: Re: Warning: SLC96 Cannot do 28.8 kbps Reply-To: bryan@edgar.mn.org Organization: Electronics 101. Apple Valley, MN Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 00:35:02 GMT In article , Bill Garfield wrote: > The issue with the SLC-96 and V.34 (28.8) modems is actually one more > directly attributable to the use of D4 framing and AMI line coding > than blaming the SLC itself. If the telco will cooperate in setting > the SLC up to use Extended Superframe and Binary 8-zero substitution > (ESF/B8ZS) then you'll miraculously begin to see lots of 28,800 bps > connections. Alas, few telcos will be that cooperative ... :) I had this same conversation earlier this week with a US West tech who was out working on the SLC-5 they installed in our office for our modem bank. We're getting mostly 24k connects with some 26.4k connects. We asked about the line coding and the tech brought out his Tbird and checked all the T1's. They all came up ESF/B8ZS. My boss has heard that you can get 28.8 connections with this SLC if it's set up right but doesn't know any details. US West is reasonably willing to try different things to help us but we don't know what to try. > It would help the situation if the telco can provide full "integration" > of the SLC at the Central Office end (meaning the T1 channels of the > SLC are switched digitally in the CO without breaking down to analog > ahead of the switch). Unfortunately this isn't possible if the CO > itself is an analog machine. This is one thing we haven't tried. Maybe I'll see if they can switch the new bank we're just expanding into over to this. > There is no cheap solution that I know of, short of moving the host > modem POP across the street from the serving C.O. and provisioning with > conventional 1FB analog business lines. -not Centrex!- If we don't have full speed connections working thru the SLC by next summer, which is when we figure we'll fill all the lines in the SLC and need to expand it, we're seriously considering doing something like this. Bryan Halvorson bryan@edgar.mn.org N0BUU bryan@n0buu.ampr.org ------------------------------ From: johnd@mail.ic.net (John N. Dreystadt) Subject: Re: SMDR Data Available? Date: 27 Dec 1995 23:40:06 GMT Organization: Software Services In article , cordones@spacelab. net says: > Jeff Keller (75542.3426@CompuServe.COM) wrote: >> I am interested in collecting information about different KSU/PBX SMDR >> outputs for potential product development (i.e. format, field length >> etc.) Aside from contacting every major manufacturer, does anyone >> have this information available? > Hi. I have similar interests. So far, I have looked at the format > output for the AT&T Partner II PBX, but I also have noticed that PC > Programs meant to work with the Partner work with other brands, such as > Panasonic. One probably just needs a flexible parser for the input > coming from the SMDR port, although unless told otherwise, we probably > can't assume that these inputs won't be a bit contradictory across brands. > I would like to know if anyone has further info on the subject, whether > that is books, videos, people, ftp sites, etc. Sorry but my news service did not send through the original message so I am guessing as to the intent. But I do have comments. SMDR format is different between different switch vendors, different lines for the same vendor, different versions of the software, and sometimes there are options set in the switch. Good luck finding much commonality. I have seen switches where one record had all the information, sometimes multiple records, and the worst case, where there could be followup records and there was no set delivery time because of the internals of the PBX. I believe that the vendors feel no competitive pressure to improve their relations with the computers that attach to their systems. I hope this is changing with TAPI and TSAPI. John Dreystadt ------------------------------ From: dougs@mcs.com (Doug Smith) Subject: Re: SMDR Data Available? Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 06:41:44 -0600 Organization: MCSNet Internet Services > 1. Can I talk back to the SMDR port? (most importantly, does it understand > anything?) I imagine that this capability varies with brand and Not on my Toshiba Perception ex ... > 2. If the answer to 1. is negative, what are my options for extending the > capabilities of some "simple" PBX such as the AT&T Partner by connecting > it to a PC. For example, if I wished to have a system where a caller is > identified with CID, looked up on a database, offered a voice prompt > [for a PIN #], and if they match, give clearance to call. Alas, if I On the Toshiba, it only outputs SMDR data when the call is completed or transferred so that it can contain the final time. This makes it impossible to do any intellegent call routing or database lookup at the start of a call. I know this is true with some other systems as well. I once heard of a company that put every caller on hold and transferred them in order to capture the SMDR. Doug Smith * dougs@mcs.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 00:37:52 PST From: Rupa Schomaker Reply-To: Rupa Schomaker Subject: Telephone Dictation Handset Wanted I am searching for a telephone device (the whole unit) or just a handset which looks and feels like a dictation unit. Idealy it would have the usual controls (rewind, fast forward, pause, etc) plus a full touch tone pad (on the base would be fine). The different controls should be programmable to emit a DTMF tone (eg: hitting rewind would generate the same tone as (say) pressing the number 1 on the keypad). If you have such a device or know where I might find one please let me know. I can provide a summary to the list or to individuals that are also interested in such a device. Thank you in advance. rupa@primenet.com ------------------------------ From: dreuben@interpage.net (Doug Reuben) Subject: Re: Fax --> E-Mail Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 03:30:51 EST On Thu, 14 DEC 1995 02:15:18, Robert Speirs wrote: >> In your opinion, what is the potential of a company which offers the >> service of enabling people to receive their faxes at their e-mail >> addresses? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: [...] To answer the > reader's question, I think we should call on Doug Reuben. He is > involved with a company doing just that, or perhaps it is in reverse > with email out to faxes, etc. He has not contributed anything here in > awhile now, so perhaps this will prompt him to write. PAT] ^^^^^^ Indeed, and I apologize (if anyone's missed my voluminous posts :) ). We have been busier than ever here, and we're finally at the stage where we can higher full-time help to alleviate the workload on the principals. Anyhow ... To answer the poster's question, it depends on what you mean by "receiving" faxes at their e-mail addresses. We think there is a market, albeit a limited one, for a service which allows callers to upload a fax to a given DID, 800, or generic "port" number, and to then have the fax converted to a UUENCODED graphics format (JPEG, etc) for transmission via e-mail. We have a number of customers who use ONLY this service, but they tend to be technically inclined and are willing to take the time to get the (generally) public domain or shareware software to UUDECODE and view the graphics files, or to set up Eudora, etc. A few customers also use our basic fax to e-mail service as a "gateway" in the US in order to pass faxes to an international site, where it is automatically converted to fax and then sent out over the PSTN. This is a more specialized application which we have seen a sizeable *initial* interest in, but when the costs and maintenance of a local node, etc. are factored in, only a few firms find it very cost effective (or they can do it "in house" for less, etc.) In light of the above, we developed our FaxUp WWW(sm) service, which allows Interpage customers to receive, view, annotate, name, store, fax, and e-mail their faxes from a "WWW Account" which we create on our server. The closest approximation I can think of right now is that of laptop or PC-based fax software which allows owners to receive, manage and send their faxes out "on demand", except that ours is on the WWW and allows users to log on from any WWW browser worldwide. Our FaxUp WWW service has attracted a good deal of interest, because (I think) instead of having the customer go out and get all the software necessary to decode e-mail and then download it, it is all done for them via Netscape, Mosaic, or whatever browser (customers can even access their faxes via Lynx -- one of the text-only browsers -- but of course can not view the files online that way...) Customers who need to receive faxes as e-mail may do so as part of the FaxUp WWW service, although this is a seldom used feature. Overall, I think the "neatest" part of Interpage's FaxUp WWW product is that you can basically manage a good deal of your fax traffic directly from the WWW, which we have found is especially attrative to international customers who need to develop a US/Canada presence. Typically, a user from outside the US/Canada can have senders here upload to our server in the US. The customer abroad can be notified that a new fax has arrived by e-mail (and/or pager), and log in via the WWW to review their faxes. They can then print out the fax, re-upload it to us (as a postscript file), view it and/or annotate it from their WWW account, and re-transmit it to the customer in the US without ever having to pay an international toll charge. Additionally, they can store these faxes in order to uitilize the FaxUp WWW service as a "fax-on-demand" server, or create new text or postscript faxes to send out from our server at reduced rates. So yes, I do think there is a good deal of potential for a company offering a "fax to e-mail" gateway service. However, in my mind, it *must* be implemented in a way that is universal *and* easy to access. Our first product was universal (or as universal as e-mail gets :) ), but no one wanted to take the time to download and view their faxes unless there was a significant cost advantage to them and/or they were very interested in the technology and simply "liked" the concept. I *think* we are on the right track with the WWW-based fax mailbox, but who knows? Maybe it's just a fad ... it does seem, however, that this is an untapped market, and that the more firms who get involved in this the greater degree of public awareness of such a versatile product will be, which will benefit all of us who offer it, Interpage and others alike. (Either that or we'll go out of business ...:) ) Anyhow, just so this doesn't sound like a *complete* ad for Interpage, I'll end now by saying that there are a number of other firms which offer Internet-based fax services, one of which, "tpc.int", does it for free to many areas (check Yahoo, etc. for others). My next post will NOT be about Interpage! :) Doug Reuben * dreuben@interpage.net * +1 (203) 499 - 5221 Interpage Network Services -- http://www.interpage.net, telnet interpage.net E-Mail Alpha/Numeric Local/Nationwide Paging, Info., and WWW/E-Mail Fax Svcs ------------------------------ From: rshockey@ix.netcom.com (Richard Shockey) Subject: Re: Fax --> E-mail Plus Voice Mail Also? Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 09:54:58 GMT Organization: Netcom robertr@icu.com (Robert A. Rosenberg) wrote: >> In your opinion, what is the potential of a company which offers the >> service of enabling people to receive their faxes at their e-mail >> addresses? > Since the Fax Message format is standardized (otherwise Faxes would > not work), it would seem that providing a service to accept incoming > Faxes and then Email them as MIME attachments would be feasible. > There would need to be a separate number for each user Telephony grade Fax Boards can do this now. The Fax Boards would accept the DID signal from the CO and link to the E-Mail address and ISP using a simple table. These boards are avaiable from vendors such as GammaLink, PureData or Brooktrout. Saved as G.3 .Tif and then MIME attached and delivered by the ISP to the user. Piece of Cake. What is of interest as well is the delivery of voice mail messages in the same manner. Convert the Voice Mail message to .WAV file MIME attach and deliver. Once that piece of the puzzle is in place you have Universal Messaging -- Internet Delivered -- The Universal In-Box needs a TIF viewer and a WAV Player to work. Many of the major Voice Mail system developers are considering a Microsoft Exchange Exchange Server based system for just these purposes for corporate customers. From a software development point of view, this can be done with current Mirrosoft Mail MAPI strategies for 95 and NT platforms. It is a simple rules based routing technique. What has been lacking is getting the voice message to the desktop as well. for home users there are a number of new single channel Voice/FAX/DATA boards that could (in theory) deliver this for the SOHO user as well. The business model is the question. Is this a service delevered by the RBOC or a Value-Added to a Corporate Network. My argument is that this is a Value-Added to a corporate communications network and a potential service for ISP's to provide highly mobile customers. Make no mistake ... dozens of software companies and some major messaging players are looking at this right now. The first products will roll out sometime in 1996. The major worry I have is can the Internet Service Providers handle the massive increase in Store and Forward traffic. What would be needed is a 100 or 1000 fold increase in disk drive space to accomidate the new data types on a regular basis and can this be accomidated using the flat price business models ISP's traditional use. Richard Shockey Developers of Fax on Demand Solutions President For Business, Media, Industry and Nuntius Corporation Government. 8045 Big Bend Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63119 For a Demonstration Call our Voice 314.968.1009 CommandFax Demonstration Line FAX 314.968.3163 at 314.986.3461 rshockey@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ From: Dave Keeny Subject: Re: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum Date: 28 Dec 1995 05:05:48 GMT Organization: Telecommunications Techniques Corporation phoneroom@aol.com (PhoneRoom) wrote: > Does anyone know of a newsgroup that is dedicated to issues specific to > the telemarketing field? I have found that the editor of this group has > negative feelings toward the industry and therefore desire to join > discussions in a more unbiased area. > Please Email Phoneroom@aol.com Any book store of reasonable size will have books in their computing section that list newsgroups and their areas of focus. There are also a couple of WWW/FTP sites (at least) that maintain lists of active newsgroups. I don't have the URLs handy, but if you use one of the WWW search engines, Archie, etc., the sites should be easy to find. By the way, since when do "negative feelings" about telemarketing imply a bias? I also have a distaste for telemarketing based on my experience on *both* ends of the sales pitch. That is not bias, it's forming an opinion based on experience -- something we all do. If telemarketers identified themselves, asked if I'd like to hear about their product, and took "No" for an answer, maybe I would soften up some. But, that scenario is fantasy, which is one reason most people would like their phone service to offer the equivalent of a "No Soliciting" sign. It would be nice (and totally impractical I'm sure) to require telemarketers to have a unique exchange that could be blocked by entering a *xx code. ------------------------------ From: storkus@heather.greatbasin.com (Mike P. Storke) Subject: Re: 10-732 ANI Number Date: 28 Dec 1995 12:20:33 GMT Organization: Great Basin Public Access UNIX, Reno, NV In article , Joseph E. Norton wrote: >> One now dials 10-732-1-770-988-9664. > Interestingly, I also tried this same 770 number with AT&T TeleTravel > Service. The reply I got was: Boop 51362950018 Boop 8880001565 > Also, the TeleTravel Platform informed me that I could leave a message > for this party by pressing 93. This message only gets spoken when > there is no answer-supervision on the line, so guess you are not being > charged from home either. Have to try it from work where we have > direct AT&T service. Now I've got a weird experience. With (770) 988-9664, I get: A. With my own carrier (no 10xxx), a message saying to call customer service (I suppose Express-Tel's way of telling you a bad number). B. With 10732 added, I get 70272182948 after the first beep, of which the last digit is not part of the phone #, and after the second beep, lots of zeros ending with a lone one. Now the weird part is this: This is my cellular, and this number correctly gave my ANI. Now when I dial (800) MY-ANI-IS, I get (702) 721-1550, correct NPA and NXX, but incorrect extention number (should be 8294, remember?). Now, since this is AT&T Wireless now, is it because they'll give the correct ANI to their own system and not to a competitor's (MCI, as I recall), or is something else at work here? *Mike P. Storke N7MSD Snailmail: 2308 Paradise Dr. #134 * *Inet: storkus@heather.greatbasin.com Reno, NV 89512-2712 * *Amateur: None--the little !?#%@* around here won't let me have one!! * *Famous Sayings: "Pascal-The Handcuff of the Programmer; C is the savior!"* *Preaching the Gosphel of Beavis & Butt-Head and exterminating Spongites * ------------------------------ From: hrood@xs4all.nl (Hendrik Rood) Subject: Re: *66 Works on Ticketmaster Type Numbers? Date: Thu, 28 Dec 95 14:54:07 GMT Organization: Elephantiasis In article , Bill Rubin wrote: > NYNEX is currently running a TV ad showing "dad" calling to order > tickets for a "big show" at 9am when tickets go on sale, "but everyone > else called, too", so dad used the "busy signal fix, *66" and got a > call back when "they" were able to get thru for him and he was able to > get tickets. End shot is everyone at the show, they're understandably > happy. This is the commercial description of the feature: Call Completion at Busy Subscriber (CCBS, official ITU name in an ISDN-environment). This is a feature that can only be provided when the subscriber line you are calling is connected to the network via SS#7 and the SCCP-protocol with Transaction Capability Application Part (TCAP) on the stack. These protocols are public-switch standards. This is typically not the case with a PABX connected to the telephone network. I have not seen CCBS-standards crossing the User Network Interface (DSS1 in ISDN) yet. The feature does on the other side work at Centrex-lines (if not disabled/blocked). > Now, when NYNEX came out with the *66 capability, I have to admit that > using it to get thru to Ticketmaster when popular concerts went on > sale was the main thing I thought of using it for, but I recall seeing > some fine print that it won't work with stuff like that, or maybe I > tried it and was told it couldn't be used for that since it was going > to a PBX-type system. This is an answer you can expect considering the above written way CCBS works in PSTN/ISDN. > Has this changed, or is NYNEX taking "technology license" to sell > their service? Now, of course, even if you were able to get thru, the > odds are still pretty good that Ticketmaster's phone system will drop > your call after you've been on hold for a few minutes and before you > actually speak to someone, That is not the way the feature works. CCBS uses a transaction- mechanism. When you dial a line and receive busy you punch *66. Then your local (originating) exchange sends out a SS#7 message over the TCAP/SCCP stack to the terminating exchange. This message puts your number in a stack for the dialed line and enables a call-back requested flag. This stack is typically maintained around 30 minutes. After the telephone line at the terminating exchange has ended conversation the switch first makes a lookup in the stack, sends back a message to your phone line (over SS#7/SCCP/TCAP) that provokes ringing and waits several seconds for your pick up. After you pick-up the originating exchange restarts call setup to the originally dialed number, were your call is than connected through. > as they did to me three times last week, but that's another story. > But if it will actually work in these situations, I might actually > consider using it! The answer on your original question: "Does *66 Works on Ticketmaster Type Numbers?" is therefore maybe. It depends of application of a PABX or Centrex. And also some ticketmaster service owners might not like the 10 to 20 seconds idle-time between release and acceptance of the next call, but that is merely a business decision wheighting more user friendliness versus higher call-processing capacity. ir. Hendrik Rood Stratix Consulting Group BV, Schiphol NL tel: +31 20 44 66 555 fax: +31 20 44 66 560 e-mail: Hendrik.Rood@stratix.nl [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When this was first installed in Chicago several years ago, there was a bug in the procedure which did not eliminate the possibility of dialing your own number (getting a busy signal) and then trying to call yourself back using *66. If you tried this it appeared to work. After dialing your number, getting a busy signal and dialing *66 the response back to you would be 'hang up and we will keep trying to reach this number for thirty minutes ... you will hear a special ring when it becomes available ... etc'. Of course within a few seconds of hanging up, you would get that special ring. Lifting the receiver would get you a couple seconds of silence followed by the response, 'the number you asked us to keep trying for you *did* become free, but in the meantime it has become busy again.' You'd hang up, and after a few seconds when the switch passed information back and forth saying the line had become free (naturally, since you had hung up again) once again the line would have that special ring to let you know your call could be completed. Of course picking up the receiver cause the line 'to become busy again ...' as the announcement would advise you when it tried to complete the call once it got you back on the line. This would go on for the thirty minutes or so allowed until you decided to press *86 and 'cancel your automatic callback request'. I can't get that to happen here any longer. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Dec 95 00:30 EST From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: Time Limits on 800 Number Calls From Pay Phones Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > I posted an inquiry a couple of months ago about this same occurence. > I was in Little Italy/SoHo and used the new yelllow NYNEX calling card > payphones, ... The yellow phones aren't calling card phones, they're stored value card phones. Considering that the stored value cards are only usable at the yellow phones, it makes some sense that they don't want other kinds of calls tying up the phones. What I don't understand is why they let you call anything other than 911 without putting in the card first. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Trumansburg NY Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies" and Information Superhighwayman wanna-be ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Dec 95 00:38 EST From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > [ITA charged about $100 to a phone from which someone called their 800 > number] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Pac Bell -- nor any other telco is > being deceptive when they say that calls to 800 numbers are free to > the calling party. Where the *toll charge for the call itself* is > concerned, it is reversed to the called party. .... But when > you call an airline for example via their 800 number to reserve > tickets, and you are later billed for same, do you complain that you > thought it should have been free since you called via 800? If they tried to charge the plane tickets to my phone bill, I'd sure complain. But, of course, they don't so that's a red herring. I thought we argued this to death a year ago -- the issue is that it's not reasonable to assume that someone who calls an 800 number is authorized to charge anything whatsoever to the line he's calling from. It might be a PBX user, a COCOT, a dorm line, or any of a wide range of other "courtesy" users. Furthermore, the 900 pseudo-NPA exists specifically for services charged back to the calling number, and the last time I checked the FCC had rules that prohibit charges to an 800 caller without prior written permission for the customer of record for the line. Happy New Year, by the way, with hopes for many more. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com "Space aliens are stealing American jobs."-Stanford econ prof [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And Happy New Year to you also. I would like to see a few more years myself; maybe I will and maybe I won't. You are correct that the FCC does require that written authorization, however that is being disputed by many in the industry who claim that it never was and still is not required of Western Union. And telco refuses to budge where WUTCO is concerned as far as either discontinuing their billing for them and/or requiring written authorization in advance. Ditto, a couple other 'legitimate' services using 800 for calls and billing to phone bills, albiet 'reasonable' rates, like fifty cents or one dollar, etc are not securing written authorization in advance and the adult content providers say that is discrimination. The FCC rules do not address the *content* of the information or transaction taking place, nor the fees involved. It is a sorry mess. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #532 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Dec 28 14:14:04 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id OAA29090; Thu, 28 Dec 1995 14:14:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 14:14:04 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512281914.OAA29090@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #533 TELECOM Digest Thu, 28 Dec 95 14:14:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 533 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users (A Sherman) Re: *66 Works on Ticketmaster Type Numbers? (Ron Elkayam) Re: D3 Channel Bank Question (Edward Shuck) Re: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum (A.E. Siegman) Re: CA 1+ Intralata Regulations (Steve J. Slavin) Re: 411 and Information/Directory Assistance (Ed Ellers) Re: 411 and Information/Directory Assistance (cables@hamptons.com) Re: Ten-Digit Dialing - Article From Maryland (David H. Close) AT&T 9100 Best Secure 900mz Cordless? (Dave Yost) x.25 Information Wanted (Iaen Cordell) Looking For Information on Nationwide Paging (Keith Connors) No Monthly Fee Cellular Service (Stan Schwartz) Standardization of Voicmail, Fax (Tom Crofford) MFJ vs. Internet Develpoment (John Vitiello) Price Reduced on Oslin Book "Story of Telecommunications" (James Haynes) Re: NYTel (NYNEX) Payphones Blocking Certain Numbers (Doug Reuben) Current Area Code Information Wanted (Brian Churchill) Re: Internet Voice and PSTN (Van Heffner) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: asherman@lehman.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users Date: 28 Dec 1995 05:20:53 GMT Organization: Lehman Brothers, Inc. In , robertr@icu.com (Robert A. Rosenberg) asks: > What back office cost? The only cost that I can see is if the person is In article , replies: > I think the issue is how the LEC charges ATT for billing. Using USW > as an example, to have a separate billing page in the USW bill costs > ATT about $0.380 each month. Each call placed on that page costs > about $0.025. So for ATT to bill one call via the LEC costs $0.405 > ($0.380 + $0.0025), or $0.405 per call. To bill ten calls costs ATT > $0.63 ($0.380 + (10 * $0.0025)) or $0.063 per call. So if you are > already an ATT customer, the incremental cost to add one call record > to the LEC bill is small; if you are not, well, you can see why ATT > isn't very interested in (in most cases) losing money on single call > casual billing. This is a very nice analysis, but LEC billing chargebacks are probably just the tip of the iceburg. Think about what it costs for a business to keep track of a customer. No matter whether the ultimate bill rendering is direct mail or through the agency of another business you have to do all this stuff (list is probably not all-inclusive): a) Maintain an account record with balances, addresses, some demographics, and account activity; b) Run that account through the billing cycle; c) Render a bill if activity > $0; d) Process payment if payment > $0; e) Track payment history; f) Process name and address changes. Those are the specific overheads associated with maintaining an account. Most of them accrue even if the activity is zero for a billing period. In addition any business has non specific overheads that ultimately get allocated to all business activities. Rent. Cost of core functions, like corporate management, R&D, etc, etc. Although it is pretty dramatic to have over 40c billing cost for the first call, which may be a one-minute call (and a loss), the real numbers are probably even more dramatic. I seem to recall from my Bell Labs days talk that the account maintenance cost was measured in dollars rather than cents. (No, I don't remember the exact number, and it was probably proprietary anyway. This analysis is derivable from common sense, not inside info). I once joked that when the competition slammed Aunt Sally who mostly received calls that they were probably boosting our bottom line. I quickly received a lecture on the strategic importance of market share and corporate image ... Accounting pedantry aside, the tone of several contributions to this thread indicates that even on the eve of divestiture's 12th anniversary there are those who expect a large enough IXC to engage in the same type of cross subsidies as before without the monopoly to sustain it. Whether or not one liked the old way better, and that is certainly a matter on which reasonable people can and do differ, those days are long gone. The rules have changed forever. Expecting cross-subsidies under the new rules is really asking to have it both ways. Andy Sherman 101 Hudson St, Jersey City NJ, 34th flr Vice President, Systems Administration (201) 524-5460 Lehman Brothers Global Unix Support asherman@lehman.com "The point of technology is to serve the business, not the other way around." [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This has long been the source of much ambivilence for me -- a love/hate relationship. Would I do without the many nice things in the modern system? No .... Was the old way clearly better in many respects? Yes, absolutely. And twelve years of it, as of next week! Soon there will be people among us who remember little or nothing of the 'Bell System'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: relkay01@fiu.edu (Ron(ell) Elkayam) Subject: Re: *66 Works on Ticketmaster Type Numbers? Date: 28 Dec 1995 09:22:38 GMT Organization: The People's Voice, 305-937-6468 On Tue, 26 Dec 95 00:02:36 EST, Bill Rubin (rubin@watson.ibm.com) posted: > But if it will actually work in these situations, I might actually > consider using it! It's pointless for heavily-used busy numbers. By the time you get the ringing, and pick up the phone, the desired line is busy again (and you'll be told to hang up and wait some more). It's not as if it reserves you the right to be the next caller (it doesn't). You've got much higher chances getting in by pushing 'redial' or trying to "operator emergency interrupt" from time to time. It would only make sense to get that feature if the number you're calling is actually on-hook for at least 30 seconds between calls ... W/love, Ron Miami, FL [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The use of 'operator emergency interuppt' is definitly NOT a recommended action. In many locations, declaring that an emergency exists for any reason, including manipulation of the phone network to get others off the line -- when in fact no emergency exists -- is a crime. Your phone book will tell you that much somewhere near the front cover in the introductory pages. It will refer to the exact law in your state, etc. Likewise, to refuse to give up your telephone conn- ection when requested to do so in a bonafide emergency is a crime. What is an 'emergency' and what isn't? A judge will decide, if some party affected by your actions decides to get problematic about it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: edshuck@visual-traffic.com (Edward Shuck) Subject: Re: D3 Channel Bank Question Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 08:46:24 GMT Organization: visual traffic Reply-To: edshuck@vosial-traffic.com On Wed, 27 Dec 1995 04:52:40 GMT, rbobbitt@ramlink.net (Raymon A. Bobbitt) wrote: > Does anyone know the difference between D3 and D4 framing in a channel > bank?? > I have six D# units and was wondering what I can use them for. I have a little experience with this. Years ago I worked at TRW Vidar. The D3 will work against a D4 set to mode 3. The D4 will handle two D3s in this configuration. ed ------------------------------ From: siegman@ee.stanford.edu (A. E. Siegman) Subject: Re: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 17:34:43 -0800 Organization: Stanford University For those interested in this issue, I'd note that the latest version of what I believe to be a realistic, fair, effective and economically sensible proposal for regulating telemarketing so as to meet the needs of individual consumers and the industry itself can be found on my Web page, at http://www-ee.Stanford.edu/~siegman/telemarketing_proposal.html ------------------------------ From: sjslavin@aol.com (SJSlavin) Subject: Re: CA 1+ Intralata Regulations Date: 27 Dec 1995 23:46:30 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: sjslavin@aol.com (SJSlavin) The CA PUC has some dates firmly cast in mush -- several dates have been set as targets but not finalized yet. 65+ companies are trying to get in; some (25+) were supposed to reach some agreement on issues last spring, but came up with almost ZIP by way of consensus, consensus hrowing the ball back in the lap of the CPUC. Steve Slavin, Sr. Regulatory Analyst San Ramon, CA 510-842-4757 ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: 411 and Information/Directory Assistance Date: Wed, 27 DEC 95 13:39:51 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) WES LEATHEROCK writes: > The X11 codes were also generally consistent, usually used > in large cities and the 11... series of codes might be used in other > places in the same state. > It normally depended on what kind of hardware was used at > the time the service codes were first established (in other words, > the first dial hardware that went in in that place). Then it would > generally be followed throughout that area. That's right. The 11x series was popular in step-by-step areas since it allowed these calls to be diverted from the first switch at one point. ------------------------------ From: cables@hamptons.com Subject: Re: 411 and Information/Directory Assistance Date: 28 Dec 1995 06:33:22 GMT Organization: Network Internet Services (516) 543-0240 Reply-To: cables@hamptons.com In the 1950s, a telephone operator reminded me that the mnemonic for the x11 codes was the number of letters in the associated word: 211 for LD 411 for INFO 611 for REPAIR 811 for BUSINESS This was in New York Tel territory, NYC metro. JBR [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You think this was deliberate, or just coincidental? I remember many years ago when there used to be several major department stores lined up in a row on State Street in downtown Chicago (yes, all the major chains used to be downtown including Sears, Wards, the Boston Store and lots of others) and they all had phone numbers in numerical order. Marshall Field (STAte-1000) was followed a block away by Carson Pirie Scott (STAte-2000) next door to Weiboldt's (STAte-3000) and a few doors further south Goldblatt's (STAte-4000) and finally Sears (STAte-4600, eventually changing to WABash-4600 for reasons forgotten). On the west side of State Street in the same three or four block range were Wards (formerly the Fair Store) with STAte-1500 and the Boston Store (STAte-2500). Field's and Carson's are the only two left, and only Field's has approximatly the same phone number as back then: 312-781-1000. (Yes, I know STAte should be 782, and there is one of those downtown also). They always said it was strictly a coincidence. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu (David H. Close) Subject: Re: Ten-Digit Dialing - Article From Maryland Date: 28 Dec 1995 05:53:39 GMT Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Carl Moore writes: (quoting Shawn Donnan, Associated Press Writer) > Ten-digit dialing, like it or not, is something that will be a reality > nationwide in the future, according to the public service commission. Nothing against ten-digit dialing, but ... why has no one proposed a system to permit n-digit dialing, when n is any number from one to ten? If you dial less than ten digits, end with #. The system would then assume that the missing digits were identical to the calling phone, and that the dialed digits were the last digits of the desired number. Why should we be limited to a choice between seven and ten digits? Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We can do this now to a limited extent with number strings of variable length. For example, 0# times out immediatly to an operator without waiting to see if additional digits are going to follow such as 0-AC-number. When using a calling card to call the number to which the card is assigned, likewise just the four digit pin needs to be entered, and a # on the end will speed up the processing. International dialing can be terminated with # also to speed up dialing so the equipment does not have to sit and time-out. I agree however that variable length numbers would be a nice idea here. I will be '1' ... . If they are concerned that the switches are not able to handle numbers like that, then my suggestion would be that when the # is entered as a 'carriage return' or end-of- dialing indicator that the switch just default the difference between what was given and eleven with a few zeros as filler. PAT] ------------------------------ From: yost@Yost.com (Dave Yost) Subject: AT&T 9100 Best Secure 900mz Cordless? Date: 28 Dec 1995 10:49:54 -0800 Organization: Dave Yost's house I just bought one of these things for $160 at Price Club, and I think the sound is grungy. Sure there's no static; just the same consistent gravely, distorted sound. Is there a better product that is encrypted, as this one is? Dave ------------------------------ From: iaenc@sydney.DIALix.oz.au (Iaen Cordell) Subject: x.25 Information Wanted Date: 28 Dec 1995 17:36:07 +1100 Organization: DIALix Services, Sydney, Australia. Wishing everyone the best for the Christmas holiday. I have just started work in the electronic message section of my company. and I was asked to setup an x.25 link. Can anyone help me with information on x.25 setup and addressing? The only references to this on the net are x.25 to x.400 gateways. This is helpful but not what I am after at this point. Many thanks in advance. ic ------------------------------ From: connors@moose.erie.net (Keith Connors) Subject: Looking For Information on Nationwide Paging Date: 28 Dec 1995 12:07:56 GMT Organization: ErieNet Hello all and happy holidays! I am trying to find a list of companies that provide nationwide paging. If someone could please forward me a few names, I can contact them for details. Thanks, Keith ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 12:11:25 EST From: Stan.Schwartz Subject: No Monthly Fee Cellular Alltel Mobile, the B-side carrier in the Charlotte, NC market, is offering a no monthly fee contract for the light-usage customer. Buy a phone from them (starting at $9.99), pay a $99.00 activation fee, and then .75 a minute for local calls. No airtime allowance, no monthly fees. For "emergency" only use (or even if you do a bit of roaming in the Charlotte market), $8.00/month with .75/minute isn't too bad. Alltel also markets itself as "PCS: Personal Communications Solutions". One wonders if they're intentionally trying to confuse customers into thinking that they're getting PCS-capable phone service. Stan [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I doubt it, since most cellular phone users -- indeed, most employees of cellular phone companies -- have no idea what PCS is or how it works. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 23:44:58 -0600 From: tomc@xeta.com (Tom Crofford) Subject: Standardization of Voicmail, Fax Does anyone out there know of any sort of standardization for voicemail/auto attendant systems? For example, most auto attendants will let you dial an individual's extension, but every one works a little differently. Sometimes you just dial the extension number. Other times you have to do a menu selection up front and then dial the extension number. I just wondered if the ITU or some other organization was working on standardizing things like this. If no one knows of such a standardization effort maybe we need to do that via our newsgroup. Tom Crofford tomc@xeta.com 918-664-6876 fax ------------------------------ From: jvitiell@ix.netcom.com (John Vitiello) Subject: MFJ vs. Internet Develpoment Date: 28 Dec 1995 14:25:03 GMT Organization: Netcom A question was posed to my class in Regulatory Law and Telecommunications Policy at grad school. I'm interested in anyone's opinion on the subject. The question was: Could the internet have developed if the Bell Sysyem had remained a monopoly? If so how? If not why? Any opinions on this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, John Vitiello jvitiell@ix.netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Internet was around long before telco divestiture got underway. Even this Digest was around a couple of years before. In the late 1970's and early 1980's the Internet was becoming very robust. Obviously, it was nothing like today, but even in 1983 when divestiture was barely underway, the Internet had grown a lot over the three years prior. Would it have gotten as far and grown as much as it has today without divestiture? I personally think it would have. It is quite fashionable in some quarters to claim that everything good about telecommunications came once AT&T lost its grip, and that everything evil and bad about the old ways died the same day as Ma Bell, December 31, 1982. But that is just not a realistic point of view. Oh, but you said 'internet' with a lower-case /i/ instead of 'Internet' with an upper-case /I/ didn't you ... and there is a difference! They are two different things. Upper-case Internet consists of the traditional 'domains' ie. .edu, .mil, .gov, .com and .org and it was originally the system which interconnected universities and the government/military research institutions, etc. Lower-case internet on the other hand is ... well, for lack of a better term, the rest of you who have interconnected with the above over the years. There was a time many years ago when Internet people via the Usenet (the collection of newsgroups circulating on the internet) had very big flame wars over whether or not *any* interconnection with non- university sites should be allowed. I remember in 1986-87 the battle on Usenet was about allowing Portal Communications (I think they were the first IP anywhere) to send and receive the Usenet news feed. It was thought that 'outsiders' from places like that were likely to pollute the Usenet groups with nonsense and not be of much value. An interesting history there at Portal ... they started out sometime in the 1980's as a purely local BBS in the San Jose, CA area, then they expanded by getting linked into the PC Pursuit network operated by GTE/Telenet. (Remember them?) and that network address on Telenet gave thousands of early BBS'ers access to Portal BBS. Before long came their link to net news and email. Now, I guess Internet and internet are used interchangeably, but they really shouldn't be. Likewise, GTE/Telenet was around from the early 1970's when it mostly was used to interconnect the computer systems of universities and large corporations. So to answer your question, there is no doubt that divestiture has indeed influenced the growth and development of the internet, but I do not think the net's existence is soley dependent on divestiture. I think we would have been around anyway, not as large perhaps. PAT] ------------------------------ From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (James H. Haynes) Subject: Price Reduced on Oslin Book "Story of Telecommunications" Date: 28 Dec 1995 06:24:44 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz I got a flyer the other day from Mercer University Press, the publisher of "The Story of Telecommunications" by George Oslin. The price has been reduced from $35 to $28. Maybe this means they are trying to get rid of the remaining stock. I recommend the book highly even though it is a mess. The author is the former public relations man for Western Union and he wrote it at the age of 93. Lots and lots of interesting stuff about telegraphy and telephony in history. They ask $3.75 P&H for first book, 75 cents each additional, and the address is Mercer University Press, 6316 Peake Rd., Macon, GA 31210-3960. ------------------------------ From: dreuben@interpage.net (Doug Reuben) Subject: Re: NYTel (NYNEX) Payphones Blocking Certain Numbers Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 02:44:43 EST On Dec 20, 1995 23:29:24 EST, capek@watson.ibm.com (Peter Capek) wrote: > I had a weird experience this morning. I was at a train station and > used a pay phone to call an 800 number stock price service. The > following happened four times: I was able to initiate the call, and to > get a couple of quotes, but the first time I hit a touchtone key pad > after about 90 seconds into the call, the call was disconnected and I > got a dial tone. Happens to me all the time from New York Telephone payphones in *New York City*, especially in Manhattan. To access my voicemail, I need to enter my 800#, and then press * and my password. This is fine -- most of the "rigged" NYTel payphones allow this. BUT -- if there is a caller on hold and I need to connect with them, I need to enter * + PIN + *. This second "*", seemingly in close proximity to the first "*", causes a lot of New York Telephone payphones in NYC to just hang up on me, and I can not use many of the features of my voicemail and pager because of this. > What occurred to me is that NYNEX is limiting call duration because of > the traditionally high usage of pay phones in train stations, when the > call is an 800 call. Does this seem plausible? Or any one of their other inane arguments to restrict service -- it "deters" crime, it makes beepers harder to use, etc. This isn't the issue in my mind. I think that if it comes to the point that I can complete a call to my voicemail with a greater degree of success from a COCOT then from a Bell phone, there is something wrong. At a time that NYTel is advertising a strong "caveat emptor" message aimed directly against COCOTs, it is highly hypocritical to suggest that callers beware on private COCOT phones when in fact New York Tel is practicing the same slimey tactics. It also strikes me as odd and potentially indicative of ulterior motives that this is only a practice in some areas on NYC and not others, and certainly not outside of NYC in the NYC Suburbs. I've been increasingly fed up with this nonsense, but have not really had much time to do anything about it. If anyone out there is interested in contacting the NYS PUC and/or the FCC regarding this issue, I'd be glad to provide supporting statements and personal accounts of similar occurences. I'd even be willing to put a WWW page up which will fax to the NYS PUC whenever a caller finds such a NYTel phone and wishes to complain. Doug dreuben@interpage.net Interpage NSI (203) 499 - 5221 *WWW to: http://interpage.net for info on our E-Mail to ANY Pager gateway* *Telnet to: interpage.net, login as "guest" for Interpage demo and info.* ------------------------------ From: Brian Churchill Organization: Massachusetts Maritime Academy Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 08:27:07 EST Subject: Current Area Code Information Wanted Greetings Pat, Do you have any idea where on the Internet (or via other access) I can obtain information about existing and anticipated splits of area codes? I have a switch manufacturer and a carrier who don't seem to be able to get together long enough to update the area code routing table in my switch ... so like the old adage, "if you want it done right, do it yourself!!!". I'm willing to do it, just not sure where to locate current and receive notification of the area code information for USA. Brian C. Churchill Director of Technology Services Massachusetts Maritime Academy bchurchill@mma.mass.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I would *love* to have all that in the Telecom Archives. I have a lot of area code stuff now which needs to be be massively updated. Carl Moore and David Leibold have worked on this in the past, and I understand -- hope! -- they are working on it now to have the latest possible information made available soon, including a new interactive program which will allow searching numerically for area codes as well as international country/city codes. How about it Carl, David? Will this be ready anytime soon? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 10:36:23 -0800 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: Re: Internet Voice and PSTN > Has anyone out there come up with a good method of bridging between the > PSTN and the internet voice world. I'd be interested in sharing info on > this topic either via private e-mail or via this or other newsgroup > postings. There is a company in Hackensack, NJ that has introduced a service that lets internet users interface with the public switched telephone network via proprietary software. They charge about $.10 a minute for access (not bad for an international call!). Unfortunately, the system is running half-duplex (at the moment). More info can be found in the December issue of DLD Digest, available at the below URL. Van Hefner, Publisher Discount Long Distance Digest http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #533 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Dec 28 18:10:40 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id SAA17506; Thu, 28 Dec 1995 18:10:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 18:10:40 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512282310.SAA17506@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #534 TELECOM Digest Thu, 28 Dec 95 18:10:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 534 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? (Christopher Ambler) Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? (Shubu Mukherjee) Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? (Tim Shoppa) Re: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum (Glenn Foote) Looking for Callback Switch Information (Gene Retske) Tools For Shopping Residential Long Distance Rates (Stuart Zimmerman) Anyone Know Who Unibridge is? (Steve Samler) 811-xxxx in California (was Re: New York Suffolk County) (Carl Moore) Re: Telecom Questions (Carl Moore) Telephony Fraud (was Re: AT&T Card Fraud) (Mickey Ferguson) Novell Based Voice Mail (eaglecom@interport.net) Re: Data/Voice Call Center 'Discriminator' (Eric Ewanco) Re: Data/Voice Call Center 'Discriminator' (Gary Breuckman) Re: Reactions and Rebuttal to Internet Day of Protest (Joel B. Levin) Elegy For a Free Press (Joe Shea, The American Reporter) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chris@kosh.punk.net (Christopher Ambler) Subject: Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? Date: 28 Dec 1995 16:32:22 GMT Organization: Punknet Internet Cooperative Our Moderator Said... > When the caller later goes complaining to his state commission or > the telco, or the Action Line column in his newspaper or this Digest > or whatever, the IP can produce the pertinent twenty or thirty second > segment of tape and say "here ... who is kidding who? After all, it > is the World's Oldest Profession." ... People are paying for 800 calls to farmers?! (C) Copyright, 1995 Christopher Ambler, Director, Punknet Internet Cooperative, San Luis Obispo, California Permission to redistribute electronically is granted for non-commercial use. Fee for commercial redistribution is $100 per use. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Hey, surely someone must have the number 800-MOO-COWS. I wonder what they use it for? PAT] ------------------------------ From: shubu@cs.wisc.edu (Shubu Mukherjee) Subject: Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? Date: 28 Dec 1995 17:01:29 GMT Organization: CS Department, University of Wisconsin In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine): [ITA charged about $100 to a phone from which someone called their 800 number.] >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Pac Bell -- nor any other telco is >> being deceptive when they say that calls to 800 numbers are free to >> the calling party. Where the *toll charge for the call itself* is >> concerned, it is reversed to the called party. .... But when >> you call an airline for example via their 800 number to reserve >> tickets, and you are later billed for same, do you complain that you >> thought it should have been free since you called via 800? All this discussion about 800 numbers is great, but let me make one thing clear about this ^#%@$@^@& ITA dating service. First, ITA claims that we specifically called them to establish the service, which is ___absolutely___ false. Second, anyone can call them and ask them to connect the service to a ___any___ number. They do ___not___ verify whether the phone number is in anyway connected to the caller establishing the service. This has two implications. First, anyone can play a prank on you. Second (and the more serious one), is that anyone below 18 years can access the dating service, which supposedly is meant only for adults. This is a clear indication that ITA could be a scam. Of course, Channel 5 News, Atlanta, confirmed it. Several people have sent me mail saying that they had faced a similar problem with ITA, but fortunately all of them got their money back. Shubu Mukherjee Univeristy of Wisconsin-Madison, Computer Sciences shubu@cs.wisc.edu http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~shubu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But you *did* call their number. You said so yourself. By the time calculations you included in your original message you were connected how long? The thing is, although you can say you are calling from whatever number you like, the thing about ANI -- Automatic Number Identification -- on 800 calls is that it does not lie, nor can it be blocked with *67. Generally those people go by the ANI of the calling number; they do not ask the customer to pass or recite his number. I still agree with your basic premise: they are slime, but let's not get too self-righteous here; we know you called them and how long you were on the line, the only question seems to be if you clearly understood what the cost would be. Apparently you were decieved ... a lot of people have been. That is how those outfits stay in business. PAT] ------------------------------ From: shoppa@deneb.krl.caltech.edu (Tim Shoppa) Subject: Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? Date: 28 Dec 1995 18:00:15 GMT Organization: Kellogg Radiation Lab, Caltech In article , John R Levine wrote: > I thought we argued this to death a year ago -- the issue is that it's > not reasonable to assume that someone who calls an 800 number is > authorized to charge anything whatsoever to the line he's calling > from. It might be a PBX user, a COCOT, a dorm line, or any of a wide > range of other "courtesy" users. I've given some of the suspicious looking 1-800 numbers a ring from a PBX system that seems to be very well administered, and these calls invariably result in a recorded message saying something to the effect "This service cannot be accessed from the phone you are dialing from. Please call to make payment arrangements. " Interestingly enough, I can't call the local Pizza Hut from this same PBX, instead I have to find a "regular" phone line. It sounds like the call is never picked up at the other end. Is this possibly because valid Caller-ID information isn't going out? I asked the clerk at the local Pizza Hut this question and got nowhere ... Tim (shoppa@altair.krl.caltech.edu) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Someone has seen to it where that PBX is concerned the ANI and/or class of service message going forth to the other end is quite explicit: 'do not mess with us at this number'. Chances are the admin there not only got the PBX listed with Billed Number Screening where the big three carriers and local telcos are concerned, but also got the PBX and all associated trunk lines, etc listed on the Integratel database and any similar negative listings he could find out about ... which is good where the IP is concerned also. Contrary to what some people may think, the electronic houses of prostitution don't want to waste their time month after month arguing with people about their services either. Any of those 'suspicious 800 numbers' you try to call from a pay phone will get the same response: "go somewhere else to call us, or call xxx-xxxx and tell us how you plan to pay for it." PAT] ------------------------------ From: glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Glenn Foote) Subject: Re: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum Date: 28 Dec 1995 14:04:12 -0500 Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Dave Keeny (keenyd@ttc.com) wrote: > phoneroom@aol.com (PhoneRoom) wrote: >> Does anyone know of a newsgroup that is dedicated to issues specific to >> the telemarketing field? I have found that the editor of this group has >> negative feelings toward the industry and therefore desire to join >> discussions in a more unbiased area. >> Please Email Phoneroom@aol.com > Any book store of reasonable size will have books in their computing > section that ... ... > Soliciting" sign. It would be nice (and totally impractical I'm sure) > to require telemarketers to have a unique exchange that could be > blocked by entering a *xx code. Not to throw gas into a warm area, but ... There are many VALID issues in the telemarketing areas that could benefit from a calm rational discussion on this forum. First, the general term Telemarketing (as *I* am using it here), involves ANY marketing activity taking place by telephone. The pizza I just ordered falls into that catagory. So does the client who's system I helped design who is involved in the daily activity of calling drug stores and and receiving orders for controlled substances in a seven state area. So does the client who only hires PhD's as solicitors ... they sell aerospace technology and maintaince equipment to end users worldwide. This kind of "telemarketer" is what keeps industry running today. Now ... The other type: Like it or not, these companies are here to stay. If you don't believe me do a little research on related stocks; read the comments (public records) surrounding the last effort to control that segment of the industry. If anyone (you, me, anyone) thinks that they are going to go away ... well, I've got some nice swamp land . Both types of companies have technological needs, concerns, and questions. If we (the readers here, the moderator, whoever) are seriously interested in the TeleCommunications Industry, we should be adult enough to deal with those elements which are less than desireable without resorting any type of censorship or name calling. If we want to defeat the (bad?) telemarketer, we should be willing to discuss the technology that will allow us to do so, because I don't think that we are going to get any help from the government or the phone companies. By the way, if anyone has knowledge of web sites that discuss ways to defeat these calls *I* think that this would be a good place to get that word out. In the meantime, let us duscuss the technology, and issues; not the personalties. ** Glenn "Elephant" Foote ...... glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us ------------------------------ From: solvox@gate.net (Gene Retske) Subject: Looking For Callback Switch Information Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 14:08:26 GMT Organization: CyberGate, Inc. We are preparing a series of magazine articles and a comprehensive guide on callback and international resale switching technology. If you have not received a package from us, and want to be considered for inclusion, please email or fax us at the location below, and we will send you a package. Thank You, SOLVOX Systems solvox@gate.net Fax +1 407 779 8339 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Dec 95 17:39 EST From: Stuart Zimmerman <0007382020@mcimail.com> Subject: Tools for Shopping Residential Long Distance Rates Now there is a central web site listing long distance rates and plans available from the major long distance carriers for residential service. Fone Saver, LLC is celebrating the Grand Opening of its Web Site which lists information about residential long distance services. Free hot dogs and balloons for the kids while they last ! At this site, you can view the key rates and calling plans (interstate and international) for the nation's four largest providers of residential long distance. Visit the site: http://www.wp.com/Fone_Saver Feedback, corrections, and additions from the Digest's readers would be appreciated. Stuart Zimmerman Fone Saver, LLC "Helping Consumers Save on Long Distance" 007382020@mcimail.com 800-313-6631 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 15:50:11 EST From: Steve Samler Subject: Anyone Know Who Unibridge is? I understand that they are associated with PCS. A marketing group of some sort that is charged with promoting PCS. Anyone have an address or a phone? Steve Samler Editor, Communications Individual, Inc. 617 273 6060 x323 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Dec 95 07:16:13 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: 811-xxxx in California (was Re: New York Suffolk County) It was noted that 811-xxxx for the telephone company in California (I don't know which tel.co., either PacBell or GTE?) translated to some other number based on where you were calling from. Those number translations had to be made public for those who needed to call (from their offices?) about their account from outside of that particular service area. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Dec 95 17:12:16 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: Telecom Questions I remembered 14049889664 as giving a busy signal when called via AT&T without the leading 10732. So I tried it again, and got the same result after I had to substitute area code 770 for 404. ------------------------------ From: Mickey Ferguson Subject: Telephony Fraud (was Re: AT&T Card Fraud) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 12:27:31 +0000 Organization: Stac This reminds me of back when I was working in Santa Clara, CA. We had a whole bunch of stuff stolen from various places on site, and it all went unsolved for several months. One of the stolen items happened to be a cellular phone (of which there really weren't all that many of them back then!). Our company had reported the phone stolen, so the phone company indicated that on their records but DIDN'T deactivate the phone. The phone company watched the calls being made, and started to notice a pattern, with one number in particular being called several times. They then looked in their records, and working with the our internal security officials, noticed that the last name was the same as an employee of the external security company with which we had contracted. They took that to the police and got a search warrant of the security officer's home and found many of the stolen items! It turns out that the security officer had been calling his brother to brag about his "winnings". Talk about stupid! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's an old trick which still works well. If you want to catch mice, you leave a bit of food in the mousetrap, right? Back in the days (early 1980's) when access to MCI and Sprint had to be done via local seven digit numbers followed by 'access codes' (which got increasingly longer as the carriers tried to shake the phreaks off their systems) one common technique of the carriers' security departments was to deliberatly go on phreak BBS lines and post a lot of bogus, worthless codes along with one or two closely monitored good, active codes. Then they would sit back and watch the fun as the phreaks took the bait and started using those codes to make calls. Even AT&T security guys would call up the phreak boards and post a few calling card numbers now and then just to watch the excitement as the guys would try out the new codes to see how they worked. Plenty of audit trails in place naturally, with all the evidence nicely available for the US Attorney's office to review at a later time. And what carrier is it in California which seems to make most of its profits *not* from the legal use of its system but via the fines and punishment imposed on the *illegal* use of its authorization codes? I seem to remember John Higdon -- or it may have been someone else -- telling us about that bunch a few years ago. They charged very reasonable rates for lawful use of their network but had some tariff in place calling for payment of thousands of dollars per call on calls which were made 'without prior authorization'. They then deliberatly left things wide open so that even a brand new baby phreakling could figure out how to get in. Once someone wandered in, the trap would catch them and they would get some humongous, hellish bill for thousands of dollars for the calls they made. Anyone with knowledge of this care to repeat the story for our newer readers? PAT ------------------------------ From: EagleCom@interport.net (Eagle Consultants) Subject: Novell Based Voice Mail Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 17:08:37 GMT Organization: Interport Communications Corp. I was looking to become an agent for a Novell based Voicemail software. I sent one of my employees for training and he left my company. Now I am stuck with three copies of the voice mail software. I would like to unload it with covering my cost: $3,000. Anyone interested? The software is great. You can view your messages off the LAN, chose the messages you wish to read, program you voicemail in Windows, set your pager to beep you, forward your messages with email, use a text to voice and voice to text reader etc. Please send me an answer directly: eaglecom@interport.net ------------------------------ From: eje@xyplex.com (Eric Ewanco) Subject: Re: Data/Voice Call Center 'Discriminator' Date: 28 Dec 1995 10:11:56 -0500 Organization: Xyplex Inc. In article bmoynihan@mcimail.com (Bill Moynihan) writes: > I need a little help defining some equipment for an application. > The application requires a single 800 number with a box behind it that > will: > a) Route to a modem pool for a <=28Kbps dial-up session, or; > b) If no carrier is detected within a couple of seconds, decide it is > a voice call and direct callers to a VRU/menu application for user- > directed assistance. I see a problem here. Originating data modems of the modern sort will not speak unless spoken to; they do not present their originating carrier until they hear an answer carrier. If they never hear an answer carrier first, they will hang up and report a failure. This is in contrast with dumb faxes, which will sit there merrily chirping even if there is nothing at the other end. This means that in order to detect a V.34 (or below) carrier, you first have to offer one, which, if it is a voice call, is going to probably induce rapid connection termination. :-) Eric Ewanco eje@world.std.com Software Engineer, Xyplex Inc. Littleton, Mass. ------------------------------ From: puma@netcom.com (Gary Breuckman) Subject: Re: Data/Voice Call Center 'Discriminator' Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 17:10:50 GMT The problem is that ORIGINATING modems do not send any carrier -- so you would have to direct all calls to a modem for a few seconds of answer tone before you could tell if it was a modem calling or a voice caller. Most voice callers would probably hang up on you if they were not aware that this was to be expected. The V.34 answer sequence is quite a mess of tones and 'noise' - and if the caller is using a 2400 modem it won't respond for quite a distance into the sequence. puma@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) Subject: Re: Reactions and Rebuttal to Internet Day of Protest Date: 28 Dec 1995 17:05:06 GMT Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc. In article John Higdon writes: > My question is simple: in more than two decades of the Internet, why has > pornography suddenly become a matter of overwhelming concern to > legislators? [snip] > As a fairly active participant on the Internet, I have yet to see any of > this dreaded pornography. But then I have not gone looking for it, either. > Makes me wonder about those who rail against it so hard. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is, quite simply, because of the > large number of people who have just begun to discover the Internet. > In the past, the use was so limited relative to the large number of > people around; now with millions and millions of new users coming on > board this was bound to happen. Was it me to made the analogy to > CB radio a couple years ago? I hate to say "I told you so," but > I did tell you so. PAT] It's a pretty bad analogy, though. If you turn on the CB radio you hear tremendous noise. On internet, you only get what you ask for (or look for) plus-or-minus some occasional junk mail or some such. John just said that he has turned on his "Internet-CB" and not heard this dreaded cacophony. Neither have I. The main problem seems to be that those who go looking for it can find it. Either those are people looking for something to raise an alarm over, or those who actually want to see it. The bluenoses can go jump in a lake as far as I am concerned. The fraction of the second group who are under age is the only set of users for whom such alarms might be justified, and home and parental control is the answer, not government regulation. /J [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are right, but the more people there are involved, the more bluenoses there will be. The reason you do not hear the traditional cacophony is because the transmission methods differ. On the radio, everyone spoke (or cursed, or heckled or harassed) at the same time. For several years in the 1980's here, the 11 meter (CB radio) band was constant heterodyne. Just squeals and hisses and the occassional person a thousand miles away running enough power that he came bleating out through your radio above all the noise. From the 1960's when a relatively few number of people were involved in CB -- most of whom were also amateur radio operators with intelligence -- to the middle 1970's things were fine. Because the airwaves were so clear we *could* talk all over the midwest using two or three watts of power. It was incredible, it was the people's answer to unlimited free speech. When I keyed that microphone I knew I would be heard clearly all over the Chicago area. Then between about 1975 and 1980 or so, *millions* of people bought CB radios and got on the air. Most of these people had no interest whatsoever in the gentlemen's agreements which had evolved over the decade before. For instance, there were informal rules about using upper or lower sideband on certain channels and AM transmissions on other channels. There were informal rules about using certain channels for motorists on the expressway, and certain channels for teenagers. There were federally mandated rules on other aspects of CB. (does any of this sound familiar, anyone?) Most had no idea how their radio operated and no interest in learning about the technical aspects. All they knew was they could turn it on and use it. They had no idea *how* it worked, or *why* it worked, or *how and why* the simple agreements some of us obeyed came to be in existence. All they knew was, they bought their equipment at Radio Shack the day before and they were entitled to use it the same as everyone else. So what if you did not want to hear them ... you would respond, "I bought my radio at 'the Shack' also, and I don't want to listen to you, and I was having a conversation on this channel first so would you please go somewhere else to talk ..." Their answer would be something inane like, "My radio has sideband on all forty channels and I guess that means it is legal to talk on sideband here." Well yes indeed it was legal, but we who had been around awhile had agree- ments which went beyond legal and included courtesy. (does any of this sound familiar, anyone? Your computer receives six thousand newsgroups, and you bought your computer at Radio Shack so it must be legal for you to post on all six thousand news groups, right?) The old-time CB'ers would get disgusted and debate these things over and over ...'they ought to make the new guys pass a written test before they get to take the radio out of the store ... they ought to measure their IQ level and demand a minimum level of 85 before letting them buy a radio ...' Guys worked to develop filters and other ways of screening out the nonsense. The flame wars (yes, we had flame wars on CB) went on and on for days. When people got angry enough they would get in their car and go tracking down the signal of their radio enemy. After some digging and investigation they'd find out where the trouble-maker was broadcasting from. (any of this sound familiar at all, anyone?) By 1980 CB here in Chicago and most major cities was just solid heterodyne; thousands of people talking at once with the speaker on the radio just hiss, static and noise. The old-timers who knew how got more power to use; they rationalized it saying it is 'the only way to cut through the mud out there tonight'. Of course the racists, antisemitics, Bible preachers, and crackpot fringe got through okay since they had been running high powered radios all along. The Nazi people would go on the air and say something perfectly awful about black people, and use at least two thousand watts of effective radiated power to say it aimed at the south side of Chicago. 'The brothers' would hear the message as it blasted out of the speaker on their radio and their response would be to turn their own linear amplifiers on and do a little preaching of their own disrupting communications all over the city for the rest of the night. You may think the current Secret Service/FBI agents are pretty agressive when they come to your home investigating computer crime. Well let me tell you, the Federal Communications Commission had some hard-nosed street investigators also ... not a bunch to bother with formalities, they'd get a belly-full of the heterodyne and triangulate in on the worst offenders and kick your door down walking right in. Like cybercops today, the radiocops grabbed everything they could find that slightly looked like radio equipment to use as 'evidence' against you. If you ever got it back (only if the court ordered its return) then it would always be all busted up. Everytime the radiocops had a raid somewhere, the word would soon be out on the airwaves about it and everyone else would know about it in a few hours. They would then hide their illegal equipment in the event the radiocops came for them next. To save themselves, the CB'ers would tattle on each other to the radiocops: "have you checked out so-and-so yet?" ... (does any of this sound familiar at all, anyone?) And I hate to disappoint Senator Exon and others, but vicarious pedophelia did not start when Compuserve invented 'CB Simulator' chat rooms back in 1981. The guys who are into that were doing it on the radio back in the 1970's; chatting with young boys who had just installed a new CB radio, and arranging to meet them to 'help them with their new equipment' ... quite obviously the conversations could not be as open as they are in private chat rooms, but there were quite a few cases of kids going to meet older guys, etc. They were vague about the meeting place; never any actual street address was given out over the air, just 'on the corner of Oak and Polk at ten' ... a newspaper columnist wrote in the {Chicago Tribune} around 1980 that 'intelligent child molestors know how to use their CB radio to pick up kids' ... and to his way of thinking (and, I might add, a few politicians at the time) this was a good reason why the radios should be banned or highly regulated. Naturally the CB'ers responded by going off on tangents about Free Speech and the First Amendment and why can't parents be responsible for their kids and since its legal to talk about it on the radio in Outer Slobovia what happens if atmospheric conditions cause the signal to skip and I hear it on my radio here thousands of miles away; how can the radiocops punish me, etc ad nauseum. Did you really think all those were new issues, unique to our present medium? After awhile, people got tired and bored and quit using CB. Give Usenet another year or two at most. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 11:23:36 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: Elegy For a Free Press Passed along to the Digest FYI: EDITORIAL by Joe Shea American Reporter Correspondent Hollywood, Calif. 12/21/95 ELEGY FOR A FREE PRESS by Joe Shea American Reporter Correspondent We still find it hard to believe that our President will betray the First Amendment and his duties to the Constitution of the United States by signing into law the censorship legislation contained in the larger telecommunications reform bill, but that now seems inevitable. Frankly, for one reason or another, that will almost certainly mean the death of The American Reporter, a brave, struggling, desperate little journal that tried to make reporters owners of their destiny. Most reporters are not very brave, though, perhaps preferring to watch from the sidelines than to be in the trenches, and subscribers are not sufficiently generous to keep us going. Now that we have also taken upon ourselves the task of challenging the Congress of the United States and the President, our fate is probably sealed. It is painful to contemplate spending the next two years in a Federal prison for violating a law that violates the First Amendment, but it is very possible that all the lawyers in Congress, and all the lawyers that work for them, and all the lawyers that work for the lobbyists, have devised a scheme that will not discomfit five Justices of the United States Supreme Court. In that event, the jail terms and fines associated with our challenge to the legislation will surely prevent our further publication. That will be a small tragedy in most lives, though a great one in ours. We know how badly the world needs a free and independent press, and how badly the corporate giants want a controlled, pliable press. Congress has given the latter their way. It would be our observation that as long as they are paid every two weeks, most journalists will go along, loudly protesting all the while, but resisting the appeal to civil disobedience their own hearts must make. Few have distinguished themselves in this debate, and those that have are still contributing to The American Reporter. We will continue to publish at least long enough to produce the article by Judge Steve Russell of Texas, that is to be defended in the courts by attorney Randall Boe of Arent Fox, Kintner, Plotkin and Kahn. We know it is difficult for most Americans to see the relationship between a word they consider obscene and the right to be unquiet in our speech. To understand, they will have to realize that untrammeled speech is a threat to those interests that hope to soon control the Internet. In the pay-as-you-go Cyber Disneyland of our immediate future, the Net's strong cables of self-created connections will become strands of angel hair pasta and a fiber optic lure to the unwary. Not only the classic "seven dirty words" but words that recreate lovemaking or voice the reality of human experience will be forbidden. Indecency is not the world of slaughter and depredation found in Bosnian war crimes or the gluttonous hoarding of public money from the poor, nor the vast poverty of spirit our entertainment industry creates, and not the ugly deaths of children shot down in the streets of New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. These are unoffensive, but the anger they arouse, the language of uninhibited love and the celebration of freedom in which their expression is contained, is now to be offensive and obscene. We love our country more than we should, or would we not be so hurt to see its blessings betrayed. Of all of those, none is greater than the right to speak and write freely, and none is more worth dying for. We have vowed to challenge the law that would diminish those rights, and we will. We expect that others will follow, at a safe distance. To do less would be to avoid the responsibility of Americans to defend with all our heart and might the tenets of our freedom and our precious Bill of Rights. The American Reporter Copyright 1995 Joe Shea, The American Reporter All Rights Reserved ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #534 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Dec 28 21:49:52 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA01005; Thu, 28 Dec 1995 21:49:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 21:49:52 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512290249.VAA01005@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #535 TELECOM Digest Thu, 28 Dec 95 21:49:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 535 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Absolutely Amazing Free Catalog (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: 10-732 ANI Number (Phil Ritter) Re: Fax --> E-Mail (Richard Shockey) Re: Warning: SLC96 Cannot do 28.8 kbps (Jim Warner) "PCS Faces Rough Road" (Rob Hickey) Operator Interrupts (was: *66 Works on Ticketmaster) (Mark Brader) Is There an 'Underground Guide' to Cellphones? (Michael Peshkin) New Phone System (George Clute) Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users (Ed Ellers) Re: BellSouth Has *Olympic Fever*! (Stan Schwartz) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 20:06:38 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Absolutely Amazing Free Catalog The fellow I am going to talk about now reads the Digest, but he did not ask for any special endorsement, nor has he sent any commercial message to be run here. Still, I want to tell you about the catalog he sends out from his company. I get them and they are extremely interesting. TELECOM PRODUCTS is the name of an interesting sixty page catalog published about every two months by Mike Sandman. Billing himself as "Chicago's Telecom Expert" -- which I have no doubt he is -- his bi-monthly catalog is full of technical reports, short articles of interest on telephony, and *lots* of illustrations and short blurbs about things he sells from his shop, which is located in Roselle, IL. The December/January issue of TELECOM PRODUCTS begins with "the world's best toner and probe" on page one, along with a digit decoder, a cable tester, tips about fixing RF on handsets and a 'rubber button repair kit' and concludes sixty pages later after several interesting short articles and a few hundred more items for sale with amplified handsets, a low cost butt-set, and installation/repair tools featured on the back page. Adapters, analyzers, music-on-hold adapters, caller- id blockers, AC line monitors, a large stock of repair parts for all sorts of AT&T equipment including Merlin and Comkey -- with pictures of it all. It is really a very incredible catalog, and reminds me of the catalog from the Johnson Company years ago with thousands of items in it, each with an interesting commentary. The current issue has a technical bulletin on 'message waiting lamps' and how they work as well as a technical bulletin on dealing with RF in phone lines. His merchandise all seems to be reasonably priced. Most of the prices in his catalog appear to be average or better than average. I strongly recommend getting a copy and checking it out. Write mike@sandman.com _or_ Mike Sandman Chicago's Telecom Expert 804 Nerge Road Roselle, IL 60172 Phone: 708-980-7710 He accepts all major credit cards, checks, etc, and I would be very surprised if after reviewing his catalog you don't wind up buying something 'you always wanted' ... it is pretty hard to resist some of the goodies I saw in there. When I mentioned that this review would be in the Digest to him a few minutes ago he was surprised and pleased. I think you will be also. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Dec 95 14:10:07 PST From: pritter@la.AirTouch.COM (Phil Ritter) Subject: Re: 10-732 ANI Number Mike P. Storke writes: > In article , Joseph E. Norton > wrote: >>> One now dials 10-732-1-770-988-9664. >> Interestingly, I also tried this same 770 number with AT&T TeleTravel >> Service. The reply I got was: Boop 51362950018 Boop 8880001565 >> Also, the TeleTravel Platform informed me that I could leave a message >> for this party by pressing 93. This message only gets spoken when >> there is no answer-supervision on the line, so guess you are not being >> charged from home either. Have to try it from work where we have >> direct AT&T service. > Now I've got a weird experience. With (770) 988-9664, I get: > A. With my own carrier (no 10xxx), a message saying to call customer service > (I suppose Express-Tel's way of telling you a bad number). > B. With 10732 added, I get 70272182948 after the first beep, the last > digit is not part of the phone #, and after the second beep, lots of zeros > ending with a lone one. > Now the weird part is this: This is my cellular, and this number correctly > gave my ANI. Now when I dial (800) MY-ANI-IS, I get (702) 721-1550, correct > NPA and NXX, but incorrect extention number (should be 8294, remember?).Now, > since this is AT&T Wireless now, is it because they'll give the correct ANI > to their own system and not to a competitor's (MCI, as I recall), or is > something else at work here? Nothing wierd at work at all. No corrolation to AT&T (the long distance company) and AT&T Wireless' new relationship. No particular wierness related to Express-Tel either. It has to do with is the way the cellular carriers connect to the PSTN and with AT&T's "software defined network", as follows: 1. 1-800-MY-ANI-IS reads out a number that is not related to you mobile's directory number because most (not all, but most) cellular carriers deliver calls to 800 numbers to an end-office connection, without ANI (this, BTW, is called "Type-1 Wireless Interconnect"). The number that you heard read back is the billing telephone number of the end office where your carrier delivers calls to 800+. [BTW - 1-800-MY-ANI-IS is pin-code protected now - how are you still using it ;-)]. 2. The reason that 10-732-770-988-9664 works is that AT&T (the LD company, not the wireless company) uses the PIC 732 for their "software defined network", a kind-of wide-area centrex-like service where each customer group has a private dial plan and customers are put into customer groups based upon what their ANI is. They also have a dial plan for unknown ANI's, which is how their 'TeleTravel' service is implemented. The 770-988-xxxx office code is translated to a number that does not necessarily have anything to do with with the 770-988-xxxx in Smyrna, GA. In fact, the unfortunate truth is that ATT/SDN was using the "770" NPA for services like "Teletravel" before the code split in Georgia (pity the poor soul in Smyrna with 770-988-6594). The reason that they can properly read back your ANI is 'cause ANI is almost always passed from Cellular carriers to long distance carriers (otherwise, the LD carrier could not produce bills). 3. The reason that Express-Tel does not handle calls to 770-988-9664 is likely because they have not implemented the 404/770 split completely. You should call their business office at the number in their message and complain (permissive for this split was supposed to end 12/1/95). Phil Ritter pritter@la.airtouch.com ------------------------------ From: rshockey@ix.netcom.com (Richard Shockey) Subject: Re: Fax --> E-Mail Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 00:23:35 GMT Organization: Nuntius Corporation Those of you interested in this FAX to E-Mail issue might be interested in the following press release. I suspect this is just the first of many offerings that are similiar. Send, Receive and Manage Faxes Over The Internet CUPERTINO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 19 , 1995--NetManage, Inc., the leader in TCP/IP for Windows applications, and Internet productivity software, released today the industry's first Windows-based Fax Server that allows users to send and receive facsimile documents directly from their Windows PC using state-of-the art Internet technology. Chameleon Fax Server provides users with everything needed to send, receive, route and manage their faxes over the Internet. Chameleon Fax Server is ideal for the office or corporate workgroups standardizing on SMTP mail transport as part of their intranet business solution. "Chameleon Fax Server dramatically increases user communication options using core Internet technology. Chameleon Fax Server easily integrates into existing SMTP mail/messaging infrastructure and expands the use of the corporate intranet," said Willie Tejada, vice president of product marketing, NetManage. Send, Receive and Manage Faxes Easily Chameleon Fax Server seamlessly integrates with NetManage's Chameleon Desktop mail client and runs on Windows and Windows 95 platforms. Chameleon Fax Server eliminates the need for fax machines and allows users to send/receive, view and manage faxes over the Internet. According to Mason Wright, network administrator for Korg USA Inc., "NetManage's innovative new fax solution integrates nicely with our corporate SMTP mail system, and provides an inexpensive, easy to install and manage, and answers all of our PC desktop fax needs." The powerful combination of Chameleon Desktop's mail client and the Chameleon Fax Server provides corporations with a complete fax client and server solution. Chameleon Mail supports MAPI (Messaging Application Programming Interface) and provide users with a point and click solution for sending and receiving MS word or other MAPI-compliant application files. Chameleon Desktop includes the NEWTView application for viewing fax documents. Chameleon Fax Server's DID (Direct Inward Dial) support allows users to automatically receive faxes in their mailbox as a MIME (Multi-purpose Internet mail extension) attachment. Thus, eliminating the task of retrieving faxes from a fax machine. To expedite the sending of faxes, users can store important fax numbers in the Chameleon Mail Address Book or in the company's ECCO phonebook. Once the user sends a fax the data is stored in the Fax Log by date, time, number dialed, size and length of document. Additionally, inbound faxes are marked by subject and sender and can be stored into folders by defining Chameleon Mail rules. Chameleon Fax Server provides fax administrators with tools for defining authorized users, configuring fax cards and other customized fax features. Chameleon Fax Server's Coordinator application is ideal for corporations requiring a centralized fax solution. The Coordinator allows fax administrators to view the first page of all faxes and route it to designated recipients. This special viewing feature provides an extra security feature for securing confidential documents. Chameleon Fax Server supports over 300 Fax cards including Class 1, 2, 2.0, CAS (PureData SatisFAXion) or GPI (GammaLink fax) fax cards and allows administrators to streamline product into the network quickly. About Chameleon Mail Chameleon Mail is a feature rich mail system based on the Internet-standard SMTP and is developed for corporate intranet users and administrators. It provides all the features and benefits of a proprietary mail system while using industry-standard protocols -- negating the need for gateways -- while providing the advantages of performance, interoperability and scalability. Chameleon Mail operates over any standard TCP/IP network. Pricing and Availability Chameleon Fax Server is available immediately for US $299 for a 30 user license. Chameleon Mail is included in the Chameleon Desktop application suite and is available in Windows and NT platforms. Chameleon Desktop is priced at $400 per single copy and includes over 50 desktop applications including host connectivity, file and printer sharing, messaging, workgroup collaboration, desktop management and Internet access. A Windows 95 version will be available in Q1 1996. About NetManage NetManage, Inc., the fastest growing public software company in the United States, develops, markets and supports an integrated set of applications, servers and development tools for Microsoft Windows, Windows 95 and Windows NT. NetManage's software facilitates the communication, collaboration and sharing of information between corporate workgroups using Internet technology. The company's award-winning products include Chameleon, Internet Chameleon and ECCO. NetManage also develops terminal and printer emulation software called Swift, which supports SNA and the migration from SNA to TCP/IP-based networks. NetManage is a public company, whose shares are traded on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol NETM. Its products are sold world-wide by NetManage's direct sales force and authorized channel partners. Contact NetManage at http://www.netmanage.com or 408/973-7171. ----------------- Richard Shockey Developers of Fax on Demand Systems President For Business, Industry, Government Nuntius Corporation and Media Markets. 8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110 St. Louis, MO 63119 For a Demonstration Call: Voice 314.968.1009 x110 314.968.3461 FAX 314.968.3163 Internet rshockey@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ From: warner@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Warner) Subject: Re: Warning: SLC96 Cannot do 28.8 kbps Date: 28 Dec 1995 22:48:39 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz In kenshalo@anc.ak.net writes: > Does anyone have any experience with any special T-1 line coding > requirements (B8ZS) for V.34 28.8 kbps modems? I'll jump in here even though my information is second hand. The University has an Ericcson MD110 PBX. Incoming DID trunks are 28K ft copper local loops. The MD110 is a digital switch so any modems attached to its ports get an "extra" trip through D/A and A/D conversion. This is similar to what you'd get with an analog SLC. Our result is that V32 modulation works fine. V32bis (14.4K) is marginal to poor. V34 is hopeless. V.34 modems on direct CO copper circuits (same length) work fair to good; about 80 percent 28.8K connections. The MD110 is a distributed architecture switch. It's line card processors are connected to a group switch with AMI T1s (actually E1s). We've been told by Ericcson tech support that another customer with similar modem performance to ours switched their internal T1s from AMI to B8ZS and saw an improvement in modem performance. This makes sense to me. There are CSUs in the system. It is THEIR JOB to modify user data by inserting extra 1's to avoid violating the AMI 1's density rules. That modification sounds like noise to me. The similarity I mentioned in my first paragraph does not extend to robbed bits. The MD110 does its hook supervision stuff completely out of band. In summary, tech support from our PBX vendor says that line coding IS important for high speed modem performance. jim warner network engineer, UCSC ------------------------------ From: Rob Hickey Subject: "PCS Faces Rough Road" Date: 28 Dec 1995 21:57:05 GMT Organization: ftn Internet An interesting article appeared in the {Globe and Mail} (Canada) regarding the future of PCS. The author, Geoffrey Rowan, appears to cast doubt on the viability of PCS providers; he maintains that cellular technology will not be quickly missplaced for the following reasons: 1) PCS phones cannot compete with cellular phones on price since they are practically giving away cell phones; 2) PCS air time cannot compete with cellular air time charges since most cellular companies are not charging on evenings and weekends; 3) PCS phones cannot be practically any more portable than the latest cell phones; 4) PCS phones will not work in moving vehicles. Mr. Rowan questions why the PCS industry would spend billions in infrastructure to duplicate services that already exist. Is there merit to these arguments, and do the same conditions apply in the United States (given that millions have already been spent on licenses)? Thanks in advance, Rob ------------------------------ From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Operator Interrupts (was: *66 Works on Ticketmaster) Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 21:18:46 GMT > [*66 is] pointless for heavily-used busy numbers. By the time you get > the ringing, and pick up the phone, the desired line is busy again > You've got much higher chances getting in by pushing 'redial' or > trying to "operator emergency interrupt" from time to time. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The use of 'operator emergency interuppt' > is definitly NOT a recommended action. In many locations, declaring that > an emergency exists for any reason, including manipulation of the phone > network to get others off the line -- when in fact no emergency exists -- > is a crime. ...] In Bell Canada territory, operator interrupts do not require an emergency. On page 29 of the 1995 metro Toronto phone book: There is a charge of $2.00 to confirm a line is busy and a charge of $4.25 for the interruption. If both are requested during the same call, the interruption charge will apply. These charges DO NOT apply when: the called line is not busy, the receiver of the called line is off the hook, the operator finds trouble on the line, the request comes from a hotel switchboard or if it is a call to which long distance charges apply. Those charges are in Canadian dollars, and incidentally, are about three times the amounts I remember being informed of a few years ago when they were introduced. Of course, this wouldn't help with reaching companies like Ticketmaster ... they'd just hang up on you. At least, I assume they would. Mark Brader, msb@sq.com, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The point is, do not claim to have any emergency condition. We get the same services here in Chicago you mention in Toronto and I think the prices and terms are quite similar. I don't think many people use the service. PAT} ------------------------------ From: peshkin@nwu.edu (Michael Peshkin) Subject: Is There an 'Underground Guide' to Cellphones? Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 16:40:58 -0600 Organization: Northwestern University Is there a source for what they don't tell you about cellphones in the users manual? Like, how to read out and/or program the phone's id number? Every salesperson knows how to do this, so it can't be too great a secret. Why do I want to know? Nothing unethical. I'd like to use a spare phone as an emergency phone in my other car, sharing a number. (Of course if both ever got turned on at the same time, they'd probably disconnect my service, but I can avoid doing that.) Also I'm just curious what are all the things you can do that they don't tell you about. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are various books you can purchase with information and instructions on programming cellphones. One example which comes to mind is Bishop. I forget the exact title of their book but you would find it in some technical book stores. Actually, you can *not* share a number between two phones as you propose, or certainly not with your level of expertise. The reason is both phones need to share the same ESN, or electronic serial number, and that is the one thing which is difficult or usually impossible to modify ... again, for most people. *If* you had an easy to handle method of cloning the one phone with the ESN of the other then what you propose would work as long as both phones were not turned on at the same time. As you are set up now, even if you knew how to program the spare phone with the number and other specifications of the main phone, once you did so calls would still fail to complete. Why? Because the tower looks not only at the phone number transmitted to it, but also the ESN, and if the two do not match the carrier's records, then too bad for you. Naturally your original phone would match the carrier's records as to ESN but the other one would not. One call might slip past on the spare phone, especially if you were roaming out of your 'home' area, but then by the time you wanted to make a second call, the carrier would have gotten word back from your home carrier that, 'hey ... there is an ESN mismatch; this phone is not authorized ...' Now there are a lot of things you can do to modify the parameters in your phone *if you know the code to unlock the phone from the keypad* and get into 'test' or 'local' mode. You can change the phone number (a lot of good it will do, remember the ESN and phone number must match on carrier records); you can change the carrier id code for your 'home' service; you can often times change the way the phone operates (ie. dial only from memory locations with keyboard itself disabled; disallow toll by only allowing seven digits; disallow any outgoing calls at all taking only incoming calls, etc); you can change the generally worthless 'access level' which none of the carriers ever use anyway, etc. It is strongly recommended that before changing *anything*, you make copious notes about the status of *everything* first so it can all be restored ... otherwise we'll soon be seeing you at the cellphone programming and repair shop here in Skokie on Church Street when you show up wimpering and begging for someone to bail you out of the mess ... ... Since most cellphones have a limit as to the number of times they can be programmed, you'll soon find yourself locked out unless you learn the 'short the battery to ground' technique or one of its variations used by different cellphone manufacturers. Typically, a certain pin on the battery or the back of the phone where the battery connects has to be held low or grounded while the phone is turned on, and then a special access code entered on the keyboard. This gets you into the 'deep programming' mode where you can do such things as convince the phone to forget about the number of times it has previously been programmed and let you start all over again. You can also do such things as unmute the audio and manually select channels you wish to monitor. I suggest you might want to review Volume 2 issue 5 of {Private Line}, a magazine published bi-monthly by Tom Farley. The September/October, 1995 issue has a lengthy article by Damien Thorn on the subject of 'Cellular Test Mode Scanning'. It might very well discuss the model of phones you are using; it certainly has plenty listed along with the codes to get into programming mode on each. Send five dollars in cash, check or money order to Tom Farley, 5150 Fair Oaks Blvd, #101-348, Carmichael, CA 95608. That six digit number in the middle I guess is because he goes through a remail or mail drop service, which I think is a prudent thing to do under the circumstances. You can also email him: privateline@delphi.com. Remember: ESN and phone number as they appear in the carrier's records have to match, else service will be denied. Generally, you cannot change the ESN, and if you diddle with the phone number or carrier id code too much, the ESN will get blacklisted. And remember, the cellphone repair place is at 5115 Church Street in Skokie, where they will look at you and snicker as they take the phone in a back room where you cannot see what they are doing and reprogram it correctly. Two minutes later they'll come back out, you'll hand over the money they tell you to give them, and you will walk out with your phone properly humiliated. So what's a Northwestern guy doing around here this week? Why not out at the Rose Bowl with at least half the population of the campus and Evanston? PAT] ------------------------------ From: geo@camco1.celestial.com (George Clute) Subject: New Phone System Getting Installed Date: 28 Dec 1995 12:10:25 GMT Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA I'm about to start a new project and place a new Unix based network into a 30 or 40 user configuration. I'll be using the cat 5 wire and would like to make some recommendations on changing their old electro-mechanical phone system to something that will take them into the next century. I'm not much of a phone guy and need to get up to speed on the new phone stuff. Are there applications to integrate phones and Unix based phone systems? Who has the lastest and greatest in phone systems? George Clute geo@ratbert.celestial.com ------------------------------ From: edellers@shivasys.com (Ed Ellers) Subject: Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users Date: 28 Dec 1995 18:02:15 GMT Organization: Pennsylvania Online [Usenet News Server for Hire] In article , tpeters@hns.com says: > Like many people who read this Digest, I subscribe to a small carrier and > only use AT&T for special occasions, so this change may impact me. I point > this out because I don't want to sound sanctimonious when I say that most > 10288 dialers are cream skimmers who are taking advantage of AT&T's regular > customers. > I don't like price increases either, but it is silly to pretend that AT&T > has done something *wrong*. A free market in long distance has to include > the right to raise prices and to give better prices to frequent customers. Why? Would you like it if you went in a store and tried to buy an item with cash, and were charged a percentage extra because you didn't have one of the store's credit cards? That's what this amounts to. Why can't AT&T simply compete on the basis of how well it treats *all* customers? > Most non-subscribers are infrequent customers who tend to use AT&T only for > the difficult calls that other carriers don't do. From a business point of > view, why shouldn't AT&T want to make this type of customer pay more? They > provide minimum revenue and maximum headache. Because it's the right thing to do, and because AT&T should be trying to *attract* customers, not drive off all but a few. ------------------------------ From: Stan Schwartz Subject: Re: BellSouth Has *Olympic Fever*! Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 14:00:04 -0500 In TELECOM Digest V15 #514, Eric Friedebach wrote: > I was making a flight connection at the Charlotte Douglas Intl. > Airport in Charlotte, NC today when I noticed that about one in > five of the BellSouth payphones in the terminal have a special > coin box installed in them with a full color Olympic logo with > the words *Official Sponsor of the 1996 U.S. Olympic Team*. > Very colorful and unique! > I don't think an Olympic Sponsor is allowed to display such > promotional tie-ins after the games are over, unless they are > a long term sponsor (and I doubt BellSouth is). So the question > is; what's going to happen to all those special coin boxes after > the 1996 Games? Maybe some BellSouth employees will have a neat > little bookend on their shelves in 1997 ... Those coin boxes started to appear in the last few weeks, as the Southern Bell art on the phones was changed to BellSouth. I get the feeling that you're right about the bookends. About ten years ago, when NYNEX switched its pay phones from ten cents to a quarter, I happened to be using a phone in a bank of phones that was being changed. I asked the tech what he was going to do with the old plastic inserts (that were of historical value only), and his answer was, "You want em?". He then plopped them down on the shelf of the phone I was on, and a grateful me finished my call so he could convert the phone that I was using. Those cards are still around here somewhere. Stan ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #535 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Dec 29 01:44:12 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA13492; Fri, 29 Dec 1995 01:44:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 01:44:12 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512290644.BAA13492@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #536 TELECOM Digest Fri, 29 Dec 95 01:44:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 536 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: SMDR Data Available? (Jose Cordones) Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? (Shubu Mukherjee) Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? (Dave Levenson) Suggestions For PC Voicemail Software? (Mickey Ferguson) Want to Buy: Old Telephone Set (Daniel Rosenberg) Re: D3 Channel Bank Question (Pat Martin) Re: MFJ vs. Internet Development (Steve Cogorno) Re: Warning: SLC96 Cannot do 28.8 kbps (Pat Martin) Re: "PCS Faces Rough Road" (Pat Martin) Re: Time Limits on 800 Calls From a Pay Phone? (D. Brent) The Day The Bell System Died (Lauren Weinstein/TD 1983 Reprint) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cordones@spacelab.net (Jose Cordones) Subject: Re: SMDR Data Available? Date: 28 Dec 1995 20:31:18 -0500 Organization: spacelab.net Internet Access Doug Smith (dougs@mcs.com) wrote: [clip] >> 2. If the answer to 1. is negative, what are my options for extending the >> capabilities of some "simple" PBX such as the AT&T Partner by connecting >> it to a PC. For example, if I wished to have a system where a caller is >> identified with CID, looked up on a database, offered a voice prompt >> [for a PIN #], and if they match, give clearance to call. Alas, if I > On the Toshiba, it only outputs SMDR data when the call is completed > or transferred so that it can contain the final time. This makes it > impossible to do any intellegent call routing or database lookup at > the start of a call. I know this is true with some other systems as > well. I once heard of a company that put every caller on hold and > transferred them in order to capture the SMDR. Doug, I did some RTFM'ing with the manual for the AT&T Partner II and like you and others pointed out, it's pretty much obvious that SMDR data varies across models, let alone vendor. Bad Thing(tm). For that particular ailment, I am thinking of a configurable parser that basically is specified its legal inputs by a language grammar. As for the delivery time of the SMDR data, it is quite braindead, so the information is dumped to you some time after the call is completed. Like I had suspected in my first posting, it seems I will have to hack an interface compatible with a System phone. Why, you ask? SMDR is really lousy for the parts where I would like to: 1. authenticate caller at beginning of transaction. 2. have more or less real time limits on the phone usage for each user, and to boot, most users will be remote. OTOH, System Stations are given CID info by the PBX (when properly set-up, of course) if they are the ones that pick-up the call. Let me avoid confussion by defining that "system" refers to the computer, System Station refers to sort of the super-user PBX extensions (exts. 10 and 11 on the Partner), interface refers to the device to be built. The System Station/interface's ability to read CID info on inbound calls takes care of reqirement 1. I feel that I can safely make the assumption that as long as SMDR doesn't spit out an entry for a given call, the call is in progress. So, that trick takes care of reqirement 2. Even if SMDR is "late" by a few seconds in giving me the information at the end of a particular call, I should have a timer on the system for that on-going transaction. If, for example, the time reaches the user's limit, it doesn't matter that SMDR hasn't spit out the info, my timer says it is past due. Finally, when SMDR does print the info, I have the actual PBX time at which the call was ended. So, SDMR is good as a sanity-checker, but the actual accounting needs to be done with some kind of interfacing that behaves like a System Phone. Other capabilities I'd need to add include touch-tone detection, for PIN verification and perhaps manual entering of "originating" telephone numbers on "Out of Area," etc. types of inbound calls; Recorded-prompts (on some voice-EPROMS?) to play back, etc. would be nice. To recap: the user calls up the PBX, which is routing all the calls to the station(s) controlled/signalled by the phone system; The system CID's the user and looks up the PIN for that user. The user is prompted for PIN. If CID number and PIN number match a pair in the database, access is granted. User now has rights to a line. Basically, the system is the one receiving the numnber to be dialed from the user, so it needs to decode it. Once decoded, it dials the number for the user on a second line and joins them (possibly by CONFerencing them or by transfering the caller to the same line as the callee. Depends on the PBX. Once they are joined, the call is said to be in progress and the counters are happily running and the system is guarding the user's allowed time (limits are imposed, etc. so a long distance call cost database is needed). So far, I only know that I have quite some RTFM'ing ahead of me for months to come. It seems there's pretty much an IC for every use out there, and if there's none, there's one very close to it. So far I have seen a book (title escapes me) with basic projects in Electronics for Telephony, and a series of articles in Electronics-Now that cleverly use some ICs. It seems my recourse is to comb the IC Master Manuals and find chips with capabilities "close" to my task, but this is bound to be tedious and error-prone. Does anyone have more direct recommendations on books (from beginner to advanced) about Telephony Projects, about the common Telephony electronic parts, etc. Perhaps a version of the IC Master Manual only with Telephony stuff? As for TAPI, TSPI, etc. I had read Intel's homepages and it was of no help. I now have checked Microsoft's TAPI page and they actually bother to provide info. From the Intel disinformation part, my fingers itched to tell you "but I want the computer to control many lines, not one ..." but I just found a paper (ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/ developr/TAPI/CLTSRV.ZIP) that claims "dispells the belief that TAPI can't do third party call control and gives a suggestion on how to impliment both the client and the server TAPI components." The format seems to be "Power Point Text[?]" and I can't read it, though :-/ Are there other any advanced books out on TAPI, even if from Microsoft or Intel? A friend tells me that Apple has a Telephony API, too, but I don't know any more, at this time. I'll be hunting. Any comments? I don't have the manual for the Partner II on me but I volunteer to collate a file of SDMR formats as reported by other readers and by PBX models/manuals I run across. Any takers? Just quote the page where SDMR is described on your manual and I'll quote it directly on that file. Soon we should have a fairly decent SDMR file and it can be made available over FTP. So that we save bandwidth, mail your entries to cordones@spacelab.net. Questions about the status of the file, too. You will be entirely credited as having submitted your entries. It seems this is going to be a lot of fun, I'll keep you posted. Jose Cordones ------------------------------ From: shubu@cs.wisc.edu (Shubu Mukherjee) Subject: Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? Date: 29 Dec 1995 01:35:33 GMT Organization: CS Department, University of Wisconsin > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But you *did* call their number. > You said so yourself. Never! :-) Don't jump to conclusions. Never ever did I say that any where in my posts. We called them ___after___ we received our bill. Clear? If you still doubt it, check my previous posts and show me where I said so. > we know you called them and how long you were on the line, Aren't you being a bit judgmental? Shubu Mukherjee Univeristy of Wisconsin-Madison, Computer Sciences shubu@cs.wisc.edu http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~shubu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well okay ... let's let it pass for now with my wishes to you for a Happy New Year. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 01:26:51 GMT Our moderator writes: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, the adult/sex IP's out there *claim* > they give ample notification of their charges. They *claim* that if you > remain on the line you do so of your volition and with full knowledge > of the cost of the call, and your consent for billing. The problem comes when the rightful owner of the billed telephone is not the one on the line. PBX-owners, payphone owners, and others who make telephone service available to the public are in serious trouble under Pat's rationalization. If calling an 800 number can result in charges to the calling party, then it is no longer safe to allow the public to call 800 numbers. How useful is an 800 number if it can only be called from residence lines? Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think you will find however that most of these funny numbers actually are non-dialable from pay phones. Whenever I find an 800 number of the kind we have been discussing, I always try it from a payphone, and preferably a COCOT style payphone just to see how smart the COCOT proprietor and the information provider are. If the call goes through, I say fine ... because I think there should be a plague on both their houses. But time and again, genuine Bell payphones *never* complete those calls, even if it is an 800 number, because the information provider has access to a database of phone numbers listed as being in coin service. Quite a few of the COCOTS are listed that way as well, or else the COCOT owner has deliberatly listed himself on the negative list at Integratel, etc. So while your argument sounds good and makes sense, in real life the 800's 'which charge the caller' never can complete from anything but a private residence. Remember the horoscope people about three years ago we experimented with? They were the only ones I've ever seen who did not have themselves covered where pay phones were concerned. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mickey Ferguson Subject: Suggestions For PC Voicemail Software? Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 18:11:42 +0000 Organization: Stac I've got my brand-new Pentium-75 at home running Win95 (OK, no major workhorse, but quite a step up from my old 386SX-25!). I'd like to find a nice program to handle my answering machine types of functions at home. Nothing too fancy, just something to use my modem to answer the call and store it on my PC hard disk, and then I can retrieve my messages either at my leisure from my desk, or maybe even retrieve them remotely by entering some kind of access code. Any suggestions? Of course, price is also a consideration! (Of COURSE! ) I'll summarize my responses if there is any interest (and I get any good alternatives). ------------------------------ From: dmr@kzsu.Stanford.EDU (Daniel Rosenberg) Subject: Want to Buy: Old Telephone Set Date: 29 Dec 95 02:53:14 GMT Organization: Stanford University Hi folks -- I'm looking for individuals or companies that sell old telephone sets, since I got it into my head that something like a genuine Western Electric 200 set (or near equivalent) would make a great gift for my friends with flaky cordless phones. If you know of anyone willing to part with one or two of these beasts, please email me, or phone at 908 464 5269. While I cannot pay the prices quoted to me in New York City antique boutiques, I'm willing to part with a reasonable amount for working equipment. By mail is okay, but individuals or stores in or near Philadelphia, New Jersey, New York, New England, or Salt Lake City (where I'll be for the week of 31 Dec-6 Jan) would be preferred. Thanks, Daniel Rosenberg, KZSU Radio http://kzsu.Stanford.EDU/~dmr/ ------------------------------ From: pmartin@netcom.com (Pat Martin) Subject: Re: D3 Channel Bank Question Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 04:13:11 GMT In article , edshuck@visual-traffic. com (Edward Shuck) wrote: > On Wed, 27 Dec 1995 04:52:40 GMT, rbobbitt@ramlink.net (Raymon A. > Bobbitt) wrote: >> Does anyone know the difference between D3 and D4 framing in a channel >> bank?? >> I have six D# units and was wondering what I can use them for. > I have a little experience with this. Years ago I worked at TRW > Vidar. The D3 will work against a D4 set to mode 3. The D4 will > handle two D3s in this configuration. Yeah, correct me if I am wrong, but is not a D4 bank just a single bank with two full D3 banks built in, often sharing timing and or some of the CE? Most of the old dumb banks are sold this way. There was also the optional tranmission of T2 over copper which sent both D3 signal down the same set of pairs, but I do not know if that was D4. Patrick L. Martin pmartin@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: MFJ vs. Internet Develpoment Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 20:29:50 -0800 (PST) TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > Oh, but you said 'internet' with a lower-case /i/ instead of 'Internet' > with an upper-case /I/ didn't you ... and there is a difference! > They are two different things. Upper-case Internet consists of the > traditional 'domains' ie. .edu, .mil, .gov, .com and .org and it > was originally the system which interconnected universities and > the government/military research institutions, etc. Lower-case > internet on the other hand is ... well, for lack of a better term, > the rest of you who have interconnected with the above over the years. Actually that's not quite right. The "Internet" is what we are using to communicate right now; an "internet" (with a lower case i) is *any* two (or more) networks that are interconnected. If there's a router, then there's an internet. But back to the original question: the Internet as we know it was in existence long before divestiutre, but on a much smaller scale. The 'Net originally came about when the Pentagon had a surplus to spend. The military had (maybe has?) a special unit to dispose of 'unused' cash so that congress can't get it back. It's called the Advanced Research Projects Agency, or ARPA. The net that was developed was called ARPANet. Basically it linked research universities and military bases. The TCP and IP protocols were designed specifically for ARPAnet, and in the early days IP was severly limited. The routing protocols used the Distributed Bellman Ford algorithm. Although it is simple to implement, it has some serious looping errors that can cause throughput to drop to a miniscule fraction of the link's bandwidth. Since ARPANet used leased lines and satellite links, I don't really believe that divestiture had much to do with the explosion of the internet. (As I understand it, rates for leased lines did not drop nearly as much as consumer long distance prices.) From a technological standpoint, the physical communication channels haven't changed much at all. T1 and T3 lines are still the main backbones between ISPs. I believe that the "real" cause of the Internet explosion is that the price of modems and personal computers has dropped dramatically while the speed and power has greatly increased. Steve cogorno@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: pmartin@netcom.com (Pat Martin) Subject: Re: Warning: SLC96 Cannot do 28.8 kbps Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 04:28:00 GMT In article , bryan@edgar.mn.org (Bryan Halvorson) wrote: > In article , Bill Garfield > wrote: >> The issue with the SLC-96 and V.34 (28.8) modems is actually one more >> directly attributable to the use of D4 framing and AMI line coding >> than blaming the SLC itself. If the telco will cooperate in setting >> the SLC up to use Extended Superframe and Binary 8-zero substitution >> (ESF/B8ZS) then you'll miraculously begin to see lots of 28,800 bps >> connections. >> It would help the situation if the telco can provide full "integration" >> of the SLC at the Central Office end (meaning the T1 channels of the >> SLC are switched digitally in the CO without breaking down to analog >> ahead of the switch). Unfortunately this isn't possible if the CO >> itself is an analog machine. B8zs and ESF really won't buy any quality improvement for voice tranmission. Voice codecs can be set so that an all zero code is never generated thus ensuring bit density in T1 tranmission as there is at least one bit set in each byte. This reduces the number of availible byte codes by 1, from a possible 256 to a possible 255. The impact on voice quality is virtually non-existant. Standard T1 signalling does bit rob certain frames for signalling. Though this does not occur on every frame I have heard of some quality impact. B8ZS and ESF, however, have no impact on this. The only way to get around this is to use some type of 'out of band' signalling like ISDN or CC7. If the SLC is configurable for out of band this might help (I know little about SLC-96). I would suspect that the old problem of running digital to the CO and then interfacing to the switch via analog is most likely the culprit. We T1 delivered CO trunks here in Houston which go through that rigamarole. Patrick L. Martin pmartin@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: pmartin@netcom.com (Pat Martin) Subject: Re: "PCS Faces Rough Road" Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 04:05:24 GMT In article , Rob Hickey wrote: > An interesting article appeared in the {Globe and Mail} (Canada) regarding > the future of PCS. The author, Geoffrey Rowan, appears to cast doubt > on the viability of PCS providers; he maintains that cellular technology > will not be quickly missplaced for the following reasons: > 1) PCS phones cannot compete with cellular phones on price since they are > practically giving away cell phones; > 2) PCS air time cannot compete with cellular air time charges since most > cellular companies are not charging on evenings and weekends; > 3) PCS phones cannot be practically any more portable than the latest > cell phones; > 4) PCS phones will not work in moving vehicles. > Mr. Rowan questions why the PCS industry would spend billions in > infrastructure to duplicate services that already exist. > Is there merit to these arguments, and do the same conditions apply in > the United States (given that millions have already been spent on > licenses)? Add to that - PCS providers will have to pay additional millions, or billions, to move Private Microwave users out of the 1.9 ghz bands before they can go on the air with their systems. However - PCS companies have lots and lots of money. The big boys like ATT, Sprint, and all of the baby bells have bought in to PCS heavily. Most of the PCS companies are partnerships of big boys like the aforementioned. PCS companies figure to drop the per minute prices an order of magnitude and thus generate an order of magnitude of additional market penetration. What if an average per minute price drop of 50% occurs? What if that generates 10 times more customers? ATT and some of the other big boys plan to market nation wide services which use PCS in some areas and cellular in others. All with the same telephone. No more roaming, anywhere in the country call in or out for the standard per minute rate. I call you wherever you are, no extra charge -- for you or me. Some are hinting that the monthly cost of a PCS phone will eventually average about the same as the monthly cost of a wired phone. What about the market penetration then? PCS phones will be able to work in moving vehicles. Propagation at 1.9 ghz will be more iffy than with 800 mhz, so the signal saturation will have to be higher to ensure equivelant reliability. A properly designed system can meet or exceed current Cellular reliability. Finally - One thing is certain, no one can really predict what the technological world will look like in the next fifty or so years. I once scoffed at the idea that we would pay to have TV delivered via cable, I won't make that mistake again. Patrick L. Martin pmartin@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: dbrent8971@aol.com (DBrent8971) Subject: Re: Time Limits on 800 Calls From a Pay Phone? Date: 28 Dec 1995 18:42:56 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: dbrent8971@aol.com (DBrent8971) > What occurred to me is that NYNEX is limiting call duration because of > the traditionally high usage of pay phones in train stations, when the > call is an 800 call. Does this seem plausible? First, are you sure it was a NYNEX phone? Some COCOTs limit the number of digits you can dial. This is a fraud protection issue to prevent DDD calls from being billed to their phone. If you were able to obtain several quotes via DTMF inputs and then the pad went dead, I assume you exceeded the limit. NYNEX makes access $ from the IXC for every minute you spend on the 800 call, so they would have no reason to disconnect your call. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 00:30:52 EST From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: The Day The Bell System Died As we approach the end of another year, we remember the divestiture of the Bell System with mixed feelings. Now finishing the twelfth year of post 'Ma Bell' attitudes, we've seen much discussin in the Digest over the years of 'what might have been', 'what really happened', etc. Long time -- in fact, charter -- subscriber/reader Lauren Weinstein sent in a message in 1983 which has since become a traditional classic here at the end of every year. This message first appeared in TELECOM Digest in mid-July, 1983 when divestiture was six months underway. Here it is again ... ** DO NOT use the addresses shown here to contact Lauren. They are all long since obsolete ** 12-Jul-83 09:14:32-PDT,4930;000000000001 Return-path: <@LBL-CSAM:vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM> Received: from LBL-CSAM by USC-ECLB; Tue 12 Jul 83 09:12:46-PDT Date: Tuesday, 12-Jul-83 01:18:19-PDT From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: "The Day Bell System Died" Return-Path: Message-Id: <8307121614.AA17341@LBL-CSAM.ARPA> Received: by LBL-CSAM.ARPA (3.327/3.21) id AA17341; 12 Jul 83 09:14:35 PDT (Tue) To: TELECOM@ECLB Greetings. With the massive changes now taking place in the telecommunications industry, we're all being inundated with seemingly endless news items and points of information regarding the various effects now beginning to take place. However, one important element has been missing: a song! Since the great Tom Lehrer has retired from the composing world, I will now attempt to fill this void with my own light-hearted, non-serious look at a possible future of telecommunica- tions. This work is entirely satirical, and none of its lyrics are meant to be interpreted in a non-satirical manner. The song should be sung to the tune of Don Mclean's classic "American Pie". I call my version "The Day Bell System Died"... --Lauren-- ************************************************************************** *==================================* * Notice: This is a satirical work * *==================================* "The Day Bell System Died" Lyrics Copyright (C) 1983 by Lauren Weinstein (To the tune of "American Pie") (With apologies to Don McLean) ARPA: vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM UUCP: {decvax, ihnp4, harpo, ucbvax!lbl-csam, randvax}!vortex!lauren ************************************************************************** Long, long, time ago, I can still remember, When the local calls were "free". And I knew if I paid my bill, And never wished them any ill, That the phone company would let me be... But Uncle Sam said he knew better, Split 'em up, for all and ever! We'll foster competition: It's good capital-ism! I can't remember if I cried, When my phone bill first tripled in size. But something touched me deep inside, The day... Bell System... died. And we were singing... Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? Is your office Step by Step, Or have you gotten some Crossbar yet? Everybody used to ask... Oh, is TSPS coming soon? IDDD will be a boon! And, I hope to get a Touch-Tone phone, real soon... The color phones are really neat, And direct dialing can't be beat! My area code is "low": The prestige way to go! Oh, they just raised phone booths to a dime! Well, I suppose it's about time. I remember how the payphones chimed, The day... Bell System... died. And we were singing... Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? Back then we were all at one rate, Phone installs didn't cause debate, About who'd put which wire where... Installers came right out to you, No "phone stores" with their ballyhoo, And 411 was free, seemed very fair! But FCC wanted it seems, To let others skim long-distance creams, No matter 'bout the locals, They're mostly all just yokels! And so one day it came to pass, That the great Bell System did collapse, In rubble now, we all do mass, The day... Bell System... died. So bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? I drove on out to Murray Hill, To see Bell Labs, some time to kill, But the sign there said the Labs were gone. I went back to my old CO, Where I'd had my phone lines, years ago, But it was empty, dark, and ever so forlorn... No relays pulsed, No data crooned, No MF tones did play their tunes, There wasn't a word spoken, All carrier paths were broken... And so that's how it all occurred, Microwave horns just nests for birds, Everything became so absurd, The day... Bell System... died. So bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? Ma Bell why did you have to die? We were singing: Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die? We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI, "Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry. Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die? ======================= [TELECOM Editor's Note: Ma Bell died December 31, 1982. Long live Ma Bell! A little later today to finish out the present year a new essay from George Gilder will be distributed and you'll receive my increasingly frequent request for your annual voluntary donation to help keep the Digest alive for another year unless you want to see this Digest go the way of Ma Bell; and I do not mean I'll be so wealthy and powerful and all-pervasive that I will be required to divest myself ... ... Then, over the holiday weekend a few more special mailings will come out to you including the new 1996 Frequently Asked Questions File (FAQ) for comp.dcom.telecom, an updated guide/index to the Telecom Archives with a help file for its use, and an index to the authors and subjects which appeared in the Digest during 1995. Sometime early next week we'll start Volume 16 in this continuing discussion on telecommunications and life in general. PAT] HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL !! ===== === ==== == === == ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #536 ******************************