Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 2:15:44 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #301 Message-ID: <8908160215.aa08903@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 16 Aug 89 02:10:36 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 301 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Michigan Bell Strike Brings Vandalism (Bob Leffler) The Strike (John Higdon) Help Needed With Voicemail System (L. J. Judice) Re: Cellular Calls to 911 (Dave Fenske) Re: Summary of Comments About "Watson" Voice Processing (A.E. Mossberg) Re: Info About 2600 Magazine (Andrew Boardman) Re: Types of Service (Roy Smith) Re: Incorrect Use of Area 202 (John Kennedy) Re: Operator Service (James J. Sowa) Re: Touring the CO (Larry Kollar) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue Aug 15 20:14:27 1989 From: Bob Leffler Subject: Mich Bell Strike Brings Vandalism Somebody cut 1800 pairs with a chainsaw today. Service was interupted for Mich Bell customers in Troy and Madison Heights area. Service was also interupted to a local hospital, but Mich Bell established service to the hospital with mobile phones until the lines can be repaired. The lines were cut in such a way that makes it extremely difficult to repair according to a local news report. The union denies that any of their members has anything to do with this incident. My personal opinion is that the timing is too close to the strike to not be a disgrutled employee. It's too bad that the strikes occur in the first place, but this type of activity can't be tolerated. ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: The Strike Date: 16 Aug 89 05:56:05 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows With the strike at Pac*Bell and elsewhere droning on without much evident progress, the decline in service is becoming apparent. Every other word out of the mouth of a strike fill-in person is a reference to the work stoppage and how they can't help you. Every operator service is prefaced with "Due to the work stoppage...". If an airline is on strike, do you stay home? Or worse, do you buy a ticket and then stay home. What we are being told by our operating companies is, "Due to the fact that we have a labor problem (for which we were at least partly responsible), we will provide you, our customer, with substandard service at full price. During this time we will be saving a great deal of money, but will have no fear that we will lose your business because you have nowhere else to go." -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Aug 89 12:26:42 PDT From: "L. J. Judice (DTN: 323-4103 FAX: 323-4533" , Subject: Help Needed With Voicemail System Our office has recently installed an ASPEN (Octel Communications) Voicemail system. The mode of operation is for users to BUSY/DA FORWARD their phones (on an AT&T DIMENSION) to the ASPEN's incoming hunt group. o When you call from an outside telephone, you are connected to ASPEN, and to the voicemail-box associated with the extension you were dialing. So, for example if you call me at 201-xxx-xxxx, you will get "hello this is lou...." o But, when you call from an extention inside the facility, you get the ASPEN main menu. This makes life a bit annoying since you have to dial someone, wait for them not to answer, wait for ASPEN to pick up and then dial the extension AGAIN! I am confused. I assume DIMENSION has no Calling Extension ID, so that explains why it can't transfer to the right voicemailbox. But when dialing from outside, is it safe to assume the CO has CLID, and that THIS is what is used to make the association? Thanks for any insight... /ljj ------------------------------ Date: Tue Aug 15 07:35:40 1989 From: Dave Fenske Subject: Re: Cellular Calls to 911 Reply-To: davef@lakesys.UUCP (Dave Fenske) Organization: Lake Systems - Milwaukee, Wisconsin In article Kent Borg writes: >In article doug@letni.LawNet.Com >(Doug Davis) writes: >>As a side note, anyone want to post their experences about fun things >>to do with your portable cell phone? So far I have this list: Well, here are two things. One is fun, the other isn't. For a real treat, carry a transportable phone. Then, when you arrive at someone's house, do the following: before you knock or ring the doorbell, have his/her number all set to be dialed. Lastly, dial the number and after a slight pause, ring the bell. See if you can predict, in advance, whether your host(ess) will answer the door or the phone first. On a serious note, some months ago, I glanced out a window to see a neighbor's house on fire. It didn't take me long to reach for the phone and try to dial the fire department. Unfortunately, the fire had already melted the phone cables. Luckily, I have a transportable with a charged battery pack which I did use to call for help. DF ------------------------------ From: "a.e.mossberg" Subject: Re: Summary of Comments About "Watson" Voice Processing Date: 15 Aug 89 14:04:33 GMT Reply-To: aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu mergvax!donnelly@decvax.dec.com (Mark Donnelly) writes: >>I was wondering if any one as experiences or comments about Natural >>Microsystems product called "Watson". It is a PC based voice processing >>system that I was thinking of buying. Whoops, sorry. I didn't see your original request. I wrote a real estate inquiry service using the Watson system. A month after we had bought the system, they upgraded the software and ROMs on the board. They charged us two hundred dollars to upgrade, though the upgrade was merely bug fixes, serious enough to delay the project. The interface was designed for people who didn't know anything about using a computer, and was very awkward to write a program with. All the advanced features required buying their "application software" or their "developer's package". The board itself was very slow at picking up DTMF and halting outgoing speech. After some inital tests of the system, Watson was put in a closet. We found it to have too many problems to be used robustly in an inquiry service. I liked the idea of Watson. Unfortunately, we found it to be poorly designed and extremely overpriced. ("Well, we only make a small number"-- Less than a month after putting it in a closet, we saw Watson from mail-order houses for less than our "dealer-incentive price") Unless it has significantly changed, I couldn't recommend it. (If I seem vague on some details, this was three and a half years ago..) aem a.e.mossberg - aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu/aem@umiami.BITNET - Pahayokee Bioregion I have a simple philosophy. Fill what's empty. Empty what's full. Scratch where it itches. - Alice Roosevelt Longworth ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Aug 89 13:32:09 EDT From: Andrew Boardman Subject: Re: Info About 2600 Magazine Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science In article I wrote: >[...] >That particular BBS has been defunct for a year and a bit; there is however >a bunch of BBS's associated with 2600. (Five others, I think.) If anyone >is *really* interested I can dredge up the numbers; send me mail. OK! I give up! The number of people requesting this information is getting close to three digits and accellerating! BBS's associated with 2600 magazine =================================== #1 OSUNY [defunct -- for now, anyway] near White Plains,New York 914-725-4060 #2 The Central Office Bedford, NY 914-234-3260 #3 Yoyodyne Omaha, Nebraska 402-564-4518 #4 Beehive NOVA (northern VA) 703-823-6591 #5 The Switchboard Brooklyn, New York 718-358-9209 (or was it Queens... NYC, anyway) #6 Farmer Pete's Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 412-829-2767 Now *please* stop killing my mailbox. I won't vouch for the quality or content, etc. etc., of any of the above, except for #1. Andrew Boardman amb@cs.columbia.edu ROLM is a four letter (and if you really have to, ab4@cunixc on bitnet) word. ------------------------------ From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: Types of Service Date: 15 Aug 89 14:52:29 GMT Reply-To: Roy Smith Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY) In vol 9, issue 297, msg 1/8, Mike Morris writes: > Her comment was that GTE stood for Graft, Theft & Extortion. Something > like $100 _per line_ for something that took me under 10 minutes for all 6!. I used to think it was outrageous what TPC charged for service changes when all it involved was throwing a few switches (or, more likely, typing a few commands). Then, I had a second line put in where I used to live. Some guy shows up in a truck to make the connections (yes, we already had phone service, but didn't have a spare pair into the apartment from the box in the back yard (4 unit apartment building). So the guy has to get into the back yard. But, the only normal access to the back yard is through the garden apartment, and nobody is home there, so the guy ends up climbing down our fire escape. In the pouring rain. With all his gear. All his gear turns out to include his ladder, since it seems there aren't any good pairs from the pole to the box in the back yard. To make a long story short, he was there for several hours piecing together a pair all the way down to some panel on the next block. All for the same $60 or whatever it was. I don't know what a man and a truck cost for several hours (not including travel time) but I'm sure TPC lost money on that one. It probably averages out. -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu "The connector is the network" ------------------------------ Date: 15 Aug 89 12:35:27 GMT From: John Kennedy Subject: Re: Incorrect Use of Area Code 202 Reply-To: johnk@opel.UUCP (John Kennedy) Organization: Second Source, Inc., Annapolis, MD In article cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 296, message 4 of 8 >I have seen 2 recent cases where area code 202 was used in front of a Maryland >number which has metro DC-area service but is beyond area 202 (they are only >in area 301). In one case, 202-621 was displayed on the back of a panel >truck. In the other case, 202-261 was displayed in a fast-food restaurant in >an employment ad. It's my understanding that that's supposed to work, since the numbers in the metro DC area are "local" to one another, even though they may be in area codes 202, 703 or 301. Now, not all of the exchanges in 703 and 301 are local calls in the DC area, but the ones that are local are dialable with the 202 area code. For example, my home phone exchange is 858. It's in distant Maryland, but is one of the exchanges with the privelege of being local to DC and is dialable (from outside the area) with a 202 area code. Likewise, phones in Northern Virginia (703 are code) are also dialable with 202. The US-gov't FTS service didn't used to support 703 or 301 for the DC suburbs. You always dialed 202. John Kennedy johnk@opel.UUCP Second Source, Inc. Annapolis, MD ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Aug 89 14:40:51 EDT From: James J Sowa Subject: Re: Operator Service Reply-To: jjjs@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (james.j.sowa) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article gmw1@cunixd.cc.columbia. edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes: > ... >However, up at my weekend house in NW Connecticut, dialing 0 or 00 brings >up the SNET operator. > ... >Shouldn't 00 bring up the AT&T operator directly? S.N.E.T. was not a fully owned operating company in the "old" bell system and as such is not under the same operating rules/laws as the Ameritechs, NYNEXs etc. are. In this case they were not mandated to provide equal access for carrier selection. In the case of 00 that is an equal access method of providing carrier selected operator service. Jim You guessed it - these are not necessarily the opinions of my employer!!! ------------------------------ From: "Larry E. Kollar" Subject: Re: Touring the CO Date: 15 Aug 89 18:11:11 GMT Organization: DCA, Inc., Alpharetta, GA In zygot!john@apple.com (John Higdon) writes: > If you live in an area that still has functional electromechanical CO equip- > ment, do whatever it takes to wangle a tour before it's all gone forever. During my summers as a teenager in Moline, MI (10-15 miles south of Grand Rapids), the rotary stepper exchange (616-877) building often had its doors left propped open. I'd just walk right in and look around; one of the Michigan Bell technicians there went to my church. They threw all sorts of old stuff out the back; I still have a few old Bell books and wiring maps of the area that I just picked off the ground & took home (hey, they threw it out; they must not want it anymore, right?). It was fun to watch the step relays going up, then across as someone dialed a number. On a hangup, the rotor would rapidly spin out of the contact area and drop: ker-chunk! Maybe these were more "modern" steppers than those someone else mentioned, which stepped out and down. LOTS of batteries; a whole wall of 'em (and plenty of NO SMOKING signs all over the place :-). I have no idea whether that rotary switch is still there; I doubt it. I seem to remember one of the techs saying they were gearing up to replace it. Anyone at Michigan Bell know when/if it was replaced? >[Moderator's Note: The Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago also has >such an exhibit in their Telecommunications Exhibit Area. It is fun to >watch. PT] I've been there too; it's fascinating. I particularly liked the "improvements in sound quality" part of the exhibit. -- Larry Kollar ...!gatech!dcatla!mclek : life BEGIN funds @ enough_to_retire < WHILE work REPEAT ; ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #301 *****************************   Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 0:41:37 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #302 Message-ID: <8908170041.aa03267@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 17 Aug 89 00:40:08 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 302 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Junk Fax: Urban Legend (John Levine, via Steve Elias) Re: Unusual Recorded Messages (Dave Esan) Re: Brother's Solution (really: 12345678) (Vance Shipley) Re: Telephone Numbering Change in Denmark (S|ren Oskar Jensen) Re: International Direct dial codes (Daniel O'Callaghan) Re: Unusual Warning Notice on Phones (A.E. Mossberg) Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public (Bob Goudreau) Re: Bay of Eagle Fiasco (Randal L. Schwartz) Re: 100th Anniversary of the Pay Phone (Pete Fleszar) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 00:10:27 EDT From: Steve Elias another fax article... >From: johnl@esegue.uucp (John Levine) >Newsgroups: alt.fax >Subject: Re: Junk Fax: urban legend? >Date: 13 Aug 89 16:50:00 GMT >Reply-To: johnl@esegue.UUCP (John Levine) >Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA In article <132@ssc.UUCP> tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) writes: >I just can't BELIEVE all the stuff I am reading in print media about >Junk Fax. ... >Is this really a problem? I think not. ... It's real, all right. The problem is not so much that the machine is tied up so you can't send anything (although this apparently happened to the governor of Connecticut when the incredibly stupid junk faxers were flooding him with junk faxes urging him not to sign an anti-junk-fax bill. He signed it, of course.) The problem is that you come in in the morning or after lunch and find your fax machine's hopper full of junk faxes using up your expensive fax paper to advertise overpriced fly-by-night vendors of fax supplies. Another problem is that junk calls tie up your line and make it more difficult for people from whom you want to hear to contact you. The junk faxers would send junk mail except that they know that we're already smart enough to throw that away without looking at it. The problem is really no different from that of junk phone calls in general, just that you have a pile of paper to remind you of it. I'd define junk calls as making more than four identical or substantially similar calls in a single day to callees who have not requested it, and outlaw that. This would not accidentally also cover mechanical and human voice junk phone calls. Bah. I suppose that when fax machines are commonly attached to computers and people preview their faxes on the screen before looking at them, it'll be less of a big deal to ignore them, but they're still a pain in the neck. -- John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 492 3869 {ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl, johnl@ima.isc.com, Levine@YALE.something Massachusetts has 64 licensed drivers who are over 100 years old. -The Globe ------------------------------ From: Dave Esan Subject: Re: Unusual Recorded Messages Date: 15 Aug 89 15:11:51 GMT Reply-To: Dave Esan Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY >[Moderator's Note: Can someone please explain what a 'rambam' is; as in >'Dial A Rambam'??? Is it anything like Dial A Gay Atheist? Should I spend >thirteen cents on Reach Out tonight to find out? Is it worth thirteen >cents? PT] Rambam is the Hebrew acronym given to the famous philosopher Maimonedes. Acronyms, particularly of famous rabbis, occur frequently in Jewish usage. Maimonedes's full name was Rabbenu Moshe ben Maimon, or RMBM which in Hebrew is read Rambam. It is nothing like Dial-a-gay-atheist. Whether or not it is worth 13c is your decision. Rambam was born in Spain, exiled by anti-semitism to Morocco, and finally ended up as the court physician in Egypt. His writings covered both Jewish and general philosophy, as well as medical procedures, astronomy, etc. The 800th anniversary of Rambam's birth was celebrated with a conference in Spain in which the Spanish, Jews and Arabs tried to claim him as their own. No matter that in his lifetime the Spanish and Arabs had viewed him as an infidel, and some segments of Judaism viewed him as a heretic. --> David Esan rochester!moscom!de ------------------------------ Date: Wed Aug 16 02:02:21 1989 From: Vance Shipley Subject: Brother's Solution (really: 12345678) Reply-To: vances@egvideo.UUCP (Vance Shipley) Organization: Linton Technology - SwitchView In article goldstein@delni.enet.dec. com writes: >So when he opened a new exchange near some mining camp or other such >outpost (using Harris D-1200 PBXs as COs, btw), Ma gave him the prefix >"234". Gee, that's a nice one, though Art. Until he noticed thousands >of incompleted pegs to a vacant number. Yep, 234-5678. What I liked was his solution to the problem; he installed an answering machine and started turning them into billable calls! Vance Shipley uucp: ..!{uunet!}watmath!xenitec!vances Linton Technology - SwitchView INTERNET: vances@egvideo.uucp 180 Columbia Street West (soon) vances@xenitec.uucp Waterloo, Ontario CANADA tel: (519)746-4460 N2L 3L3 fax: (519)746-6884 # if it ain't got an interface it ain't much use! # ------------------------------ From: S|ren Oskar Jensen Subject: Re: Telephone Numbering Change in Denmark Date: 16 Aug 89 09:40:44 GMT U5434122@ucsvc.unimelb.edu.au writes: >Recently Denmark changed its system of telephone numbers and area codes, going >through a stage where the area code was compulsory even for local calls. >They moved to 8 digit numbers recently, I think, although that seems excessive >for a country of only 5 million people. ( 7 digits will serve about 15 million >people, if pushed to the limit, and that is without area codes) >Can anyone give details of the Danish situation now, please? The main reason for the change was a shortage of numbers in the central Copenhagen (our capitol - it has a population of approx. 1.2 million). Especially some of the centrals in the office district had a shortage of numbers (the two first digits of the six digit number was a central prefix). What the telcos have done is to implement a three step plan: 1) make the area code compulsory - ie. 01 for Copenhagen. 2) differentiate the area code - the 01 for Copenhagen has been split into 31,33,35,36,38,39 (no I don't know why they haven't used 32,34,37) 3) change the last 6 digits of the numbers in areas where this is needed. So far step 2 is implemented but you can still use the old area codes inside Denmark 'til next year. Sergej ------------------------------ From: munnari!ucsvc.unimelb.edu.au!U5434122@uunet.uu.net Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 17:40 +1000 Subject: Re: International Direct dial codes Organization: The University of Melbourne In article , euatdt@euas11g.ericsson. se (Torsten Dahlkvist) writes: > In article henry@garp.mit.edu > writes: >>Why is 00 more logical than 009 (or 011 in Canada and the US), or 0011 >>(in Australia)? > > Because in most countries (outside Northern America), all area codes begin > with a 0, indicating the start of "national" dialling. Another 0 would > (logically) imply an even larger numbering plan - "international". Simlpe? > If/when we get interplanetary dialling the logical prefix would be 000. > I shudder to think what four zeroes would mean... > But in Australia, 0011 is normal international access code, 0015 is for faxes (Partially conditioned data lines - have not noticed any difference myself) and 0012 is for automatic ring back with price - just dial the number you want with 0012, and when you hang up the operator tells you the cost of the call. Australia is the only country I know of with 4 digit international access codes, but they are versatile. > [Moderator's Note: I don't think too many countries have our penchant here > in the USA for pulling zero to get the operator either. Right/wrong?? PT] Too true, but in Oz you have to know which operator you want. 013 local DA 0175 non local DA 0103 overseas DA 011 Operator connected calls within Oz 012 charge enquiries (Oz) 0102 charges (international) 0108 calls to ships at sea The list goes on...... Daniel Daniel O'Callaghan, University of Melbourne ------------------------------ From: "a.e.mossberg" Subject: Re: Unusual Warning Notice on Phones Date: 16 Aug 89 14:34:50 GMT Reply-To: aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu judice@kyoa.enet.dec.com (Lou Judice 15-Aug-1989 0916) writes: >While moving offices recently, we noticed the following odd label on the >bottom of AT&T straight sets (normal single line phones): > WARNING > USE FOR BUSINESS SYSTEMS ONLY OR YOU > RISK AN ELECTRICAL SHORT CIRCUIT. When we got new phones (at a former company) the first thing I did was borrow someone elses's phone (-:) and plug it into an outside line in my office. Worked fine. My guess was that the notice was to discourage people from taking home these nice phones. Though, it could be that some of the line-powered features on these phones have no protection--and count on being on fairly well protected circuits. aem a.e.mossberg - aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu/aem@umiami.BITNET - Pahayokee Bioregion Chances that a homeless American holds a full- or part-time jobs: 1 in 5 - Harper's Index 2/89 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 11:54:38 edt From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public Reply-To: goudreau@rtp48.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC >I just want to call home! I eventually succeeded, but I vowed to fight >any similar efforts to deregulate Canada's telecommunications industry. >Digression: airline deregulation is similarly bad. The benefits are >lost in the enormously higher risks as airlines ignore safety (take >Eastern Airlines, for example, (please?)). >Richard Sargent Internet: richard@pantor.UUCP >Systems Analyst UUCP: uunet!pantor!richard You picked a poor analogy by criticizing airline deregulation's effect on safety. In fact, according to a recent article in the _Economist_, the decline in accidents & deaths per US aviation passenger mile has continued unabated, even throughout the past decade of deregulation. The truth is not that airline deregulation has led to "enormously higher risks"; rather, deregulation has had little effect on the historically increasing airline safety level. Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau 62 Alexander Drive goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 09:35:03 PDT From: iwarp.intel.com!iwarpq0.intel.com!merlyn@omepd.intel.com Subject: Re: Bay of Eagle Fiasco Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Hillsboro, Oregon, USA In article you write: |>OK, gang, another mystery from the AT&T system of the late 1960s-early 1970s: | |>Once upon a time, my brother (who was about ten years old at the time) picked |>up the phone and dialed: | |>1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-0 | |>[Moderator's Note: I just now tried it of curiosity. Dialing 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 |>sent me to immediate intercept with a message saying, "When dialing a call |>outside the 312 area, you must dial '1' before the number. When calling |>within 312, do not dial '1' first." PT] | |Here I got 'the number you have dialed has been disconnected or no longer in |service. If you feel that you have dailed the correct number, please hang |up and try again. Thank you. A local freebie classified-ads paper owner paid $BIG$ $MONEY$ for the right to use the phone number 234-5678 for his paper. Within one month, he had so many kids calling 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 on the phone blocking his lines, he just stuck an answer-only answering machine on the line telling them to call some other number to place a classified ad. Them's the breaks... -- /== Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 ====\ | on contract to Intel, Hillsboro, Oregon, USA | | merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn | \== Cute Quote: "Welcome to Oregon... Home of the California Raisins!" ==/ ------------------------------ From: dt5y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu Subject: Re: 100th Anniversary of the Pay Phone Date: 16 Aug 89 22:19:11 GMT Reply-To: dt5y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (P. Fleszar) Organization: Cornell Information Technologies, Ithaca NY In article John Wheeler writes: >X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 299, message 3 of 8 >In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu >(TELECOM Moderator) writes: >>The price has been twenty-five cents in most places now for several years. >It's still a dime in Dawson County, GA...how many places can still say that? > Turner John Wheeler > Networks It's still a dime in ConTel service areas near (and between) Cortland and Ithaca, NY, and I suspect also in other ConTel areas throughout other Upstate NY places no one has heard of (like Eagle Bay :-) ). N.B. The ConTel payphones around here were all tone 3 years before NY Tel started installing tone payphones hereabouts. NY Tel *still* has some dial payphones in this area! Pete, KB2CCL dt5y@cornella.cit.cornell.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #302 *****************************   Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 1:35:34 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #303 Message-ID: <8908170135.aa04951@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 17 Aug 89 01:20:50 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 303 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Caller ID Privacy Question (Bill Nickless) Montgomery Ward Selects MCI (TELECOM Moderator) Phone tells you who's calling? (uri@arnor.watson.ibm.com) NJ Bell responds to Sabotage (Mark Robert Smith) Re: BOC Strike - One Good Side-Effect (Frank Haynes) Re: Mich Bell Strike Brings Vandalism (A.E. Mossberg) AT&T calling card demo (John Boteler) When A CO Is Cutover (John Boteler) International Calls From/To the U.S.A. (Tom Hofmann) Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm (Dave Davis via Will Martin) 313 Area (was: NPA Dialing Procedure Changes) (Carl Moore) DC Area (was: NPA Dialing Procedure Changes) (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Caller ID Privacy Question Date: 16 Aug 89 16:35:01 EDT (Wed) From: Bill Nickless First, a thanks to Patrick for his time and energy as moderator. I believe the biggest problem with Caller ID is that it is new. If telephones had originally come with this facility there would have been no privacy question. (I realize it was technically infeasible in the early days, but that's beside the point!) In the United States we are used to a certain model of telephone service. Unless specifically blocked, subscriber's telephone numbers are publicly available information. With some exceptions, the government cannot legally snoop on telephone conversations. And the idea of knowing who is calling before you answer is simply new. If Abner Doubleday had decided on a pentagon shape instead of a diamond shape, (and it had caught on!) do you think major league baseball would reshape their playing fields because someone thought it was better to have three bases and a home plate? No. It would require adjustments in expectations from coaches, players, talent coaches, and everyone. Let us not forget that telephone usage is not one of the civil liberties protected by the constitution. Nobody is *forced* to use a telephone, nor to reveal their telephone network "address." However, without Caller ID, people can call others without disclosing this information. This is the way things have been. This is not the way things have to be. In the case of the battered women's shelter, they simply need to know that when the call is placed to the alleged batterer, he is being notified of where the call is originating. Simple solution: have a public agency such as the police place the call. No invasion of privacy, no danger to the bettered women. Just a *different* way of looking at things. And if we can stop these obscene phone calls without getting Big Brother involved, more power to Caller ID. Since it's now technically feasible, let's do it. In 10 years people will wonder how they ever got along without it. Secretaries can get written or digital record of who calls, without getting numbers mixed up. All kinds of other benefits present themselves. Just because something is new doesn't mean it's bad. Aside: As of 1984, a local call in Dillingham, Alaska (907) 842-xxxx costed 10 cents at the local payphones. And that included Aleknagik, which was 25 miles away. This was an independant phone company, the Nushagak Bay Telephone Cooperative (or something like that!) Bill Nickless | bnick%aucis.uucp@mailgw.cc.umich.edu or Andrews University | sharkey!aucis!bnick or uunet!zds-ux!aucis!bnick Computer Science Department |------------------------------------------------ Unix Support Group | "Help! I'm locked up in a .signature factory!" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 2:25:25 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Montgomery Ward Selects MCI On Tuesday, Montgomery Ward and Company announced that MCI had been selected to provide private network service to its 420 locations. Terms of the 3-year, multimillion dollar agreement were not disclosed. Wards said the selection followed a six month comparative test of MCI, Sprint, AT&T and other carriers. Montgomery Ward's corporate phone bill is approximatly *one million dollars per month*. I'd say MCI landed a juicy one this time. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: uri@arnor.watson.ibm.com Subject: Phone Tells You Who's Calling? Date: 16 Aug 89 15:41:38 GMT Reply-To: Hello, everyone! Gotta question. Is is possible to find out who actually is calling you when the phone's ringing? 1) Is it legal (well, I can't see any reasons why not)? 2) Is such a phone available ANYWHERE on the market (i.e. can I buy one)? As I see it, ideally it should have a small screen, where the number you're called from is displayed. Nice feature, isn't it? Regards, Uri. [Moderator's Note: The service you refer to is Calling Party ID, and it will become available nationally once the telcos succeed in overcoming the objections of those people who believe their own right to privacy includes the right of making telephone calls anonymously if they desire. Presently, the service is available in New Jersey and a few other selected locations, primarily in the eastern United States. See the first message in this issue of the Digest for a discussion of the legal objections. And yes, the terminal has a little screen, and it is a *great* feature. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 19:50:18 EDT From: Mark Robert Smith Subject: NJ Bell Responds to Sabotage NJ Bell has placed ads in the Bergen Record, and probably many other NJ papers. These ads offer a $25,000 reward for the first person to provide information leading to the arrest of the vandals who have damaged telephone equiptment. They provide two numbers to call: NJ Bell at 1-800-843-0106, or the FBI at 1-201-622-1412. According to the ad, a violation of Federal Law (which this is) can lead to a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment of not more than 10 years. Mark Smith | "Be careful when looking into the distance, |All Rights 61 Tenafly Road|that you do not miss what is right under your nose."| Reserved Tenafly,NJ 07670-2643|rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!msmith,msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: BOC Strike - One Good Side-Effect Date: Tue, 15 Aug 89 19:36:15 EDT From: Frank Haynes From article , by RS%AI.AI.MIT.EDU@ mintaka.lcs.mit.edu (Robert E. Seastrom): > ...Maybe we should just flush the current employees and let the > supervisors man the phones. It took a little extra time, but the > operator's pleasantness made the wait worthwhile. > [Moderator's Note: If the make-do operator sits there much longer, her > pleasant disposition will begin to erode, believe me you. Operators take > a tremendous amount of abuse at times from customers, ... If you only knew! [Moderator's Note: Believe me, I do know. I was a switchboard operator from 1958 - 62 for the University of Chicago. I got the job when I was a junior in high school (working part time of course, and full time in the summer), and full time when I graduated from high school. In those days the phone setup was an *eighteen position* cord board. All manual service inbound and outbound. As I recall, 135 trunks to the CO; a couple dozen tie-lines direct to Long Distance; about 3000 internal extensions. On the sixth floor of the building at 5801 South Ellis Avenue. During the summer when school was not in session, I was *the* overnight operator. Fifty dollars a week and all the fools I could talk to at night. My employment there is another story for another time. My ears soon lost their virginity! PT] ------------------------------ From: "a.e.mossberg" Subject: Re: Mich Bell Strike Brings Vandalism Date: 16 Aug 89 21:10:45 GMT Reply-To: aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu bob@rel.mi.org (Bob Leffler) writes: >The union denies that any of their members has anything to do with this >incident. My personal opinion is that the timing is too close to >the strike to not be a disgrutled employee. It is very rare for unions to encourage or know of any activities like this by individual members. Unfortunately, people who already have strong anti-union sentiments use incidents like this to cast shadows on unions and union activity in general. Management has done these type of things far more often than unions, just to try to make unions look bad, which helps management to break unions and further exploit workers. Followups via email please. aem a.e.mossberg - aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu/aem@umiami.BITNET - Pahayokee Bioregion Chances that a homeless American holds a full- or part-time jobs: 1 in 5 - Harper's Index 2/89 ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T Calling Card Demo Date: Tue, 15 Aug 89 20:30:06 EDT From: John Boteler In issue 282 of TELECOM Digest, an unidentified author wrote: >This may be old news to some of you, but AT&T has a "calling card tutorial" >line installed. You can reach it at 1-800-255-3439. You don't really need a >valid AT&T card...any 14 digits will work. I called it. Great demo...it doesn't even say "Thank you for using AT&T!" after dialing the calling card number. ------------------------------ Subject: When A CO is Cutover Date: Tue, 15 Aug 89 20:51:31 EDT From: John Boteler I go one further to suggest that anyone seriously interested in the telecommunications systems of this nation should make every effort to attend a 'cutover party'. I was fortunate enough to watch one of the last #5 crossbar offices in the Washington D.C. area cutover to #5 ESS last year. It really is difficult to imagine just how this process operates without witnessing it: the evening of the cutover, arrangements are made to minimize loss of service to emergency and priority subscribers, while phone phreaks gather around the telephone chair to record the event for posterity. As the critical moment approaches, the mucky-mucks (local politicians, telephone company big-wigs, etc.) hunch around the console of the new switch watching the operator sit back and view the high-tech computerized graphic display...and wait. Meanwhile, your tail is over on the business end of the cutover where the cutover crew prepares for its work, which means literally cutting the wires connecting the subscriber loops to the old switching machine. (Probably why it's called a 'cutover':) When the foreman has verified that everyone is ready, the signal is given and the cutover crewmembers start up their equipment--hand-held power drills with huge duckbill cutter attachments in place of drill bit chucks; the mucky-mucks watch the console...and wait. Each member of the cutover crew races down a particular row and severs the wires at lightning speed! The crew I witnessed was so rehearsed after umpteen-dozen cutovers around here that the cutover schedule was actually moved earlier! These guys and gals really flew!! After a few minutes of frenzy, wire segments flying everywhere, the cutters turned off, the only sound remaining in the huge equipment room was the lonely gong of the old XBAR5 trouble alarm, calling out for some craftsperson to please, please say it isn't so. Bote Old & Improved path!: uunet!comsea!csense!bote New & Improved path!: {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!cyclops!csense!bote ------------------------------ From: Tom Hofmann Subject: International Calls From/To the U.S.A. Date: 16 Aug 89 09:02:36 GMT Organization: WRZ, CIBA-GEIGY Ltd, Basel, Switzerland In consideration of several of long-distance carriers (LDC) in the U.S.A., I have two questions concerning international calls. 1. International calls TO the U.S.A. Who handles these calls? Always AT&T? If not: Can it be influenced by the calling/called party? 2. International calls FROM the U.S.A. Have each LDC their own international access, or are all international calls forwarded to one single LDC (AT&T)? In the first case: Are the direct dialable countries the same for each LDC? Another question arises, not restricted to the U.S.A.: What is the reason that some countries cannot be dialed directly from one country while they can be dialed directly from other countries? The USSR e.g. cannot be dialed directly from the U.S.A. but from Western Europe. I think it cannot be a technical problem. Must there be an agreement between the two governments? Tom Hofmann wtho@cgch.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 9:12:10 CDT From: Will Martin Subject: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm This was on Risks -- thought it was worth getting into Telecom: >Date: Tue, 15 Aug 89 08:17:31 -0400 >From: dave davis >Subject: Cellular Telephone Causes Airliner Fire Alarm A morning radio news report here in Washington, DC reported that a commercial airline crew noted a fire alarm signal from a cargo hold in mid-flight. Upon returning to their originating airport, the cargo hold was examined carefully, and no evidence of fire was found. Apparently, a cellular telephone in a passenger's luggage had received an incoming call, that activated the smoke (I assume) detector via RF interference. This occurrence shows why we have systems engineers. That is, someone who must consider not only electromagnetic compatibility between system components, but also with other systems in the same operating environment. As a result of this event, the aircraft companies may have to redesign a lot of sensors. Dave Davis, MITRE Corp., McLean, VA ----- End of forwarded messages ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 11:39:02 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: 313 area (was: NPA Dialing Procedure Changes) It's noted that 1+7D is going away (in favor of 7D) at an unknown date in area 313, which includes Detroit. What about 0+7D? And is 313 running short of NNX prefixes? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 11:56:36 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: DC area (was: NPA Dialing Procedure Changes) Fred G. Monti writes >Not announced: what will happen to the (relatively few) cases where local >and extended area calls within an NPA are currently dialed with 1 + 10 digits >due to code duplication. They'll probably be reduced to 7 digits. I don't know what this refers to. From Maryland prefixes 621,261,858 you currently dial 1-301-569-xxxx (NOT a toll call) to reach 569 prefix in Severn, because 569-xxxx reaches 569 prefix in Springfield, Va.; that local call to Severn was 1-569-xxxx until the DC area got N0X/N1X prefixes. I guess it'll take a while to reduce that local call to Severn to 7 digits, because you don't want people reaching Severn where Springfield was intended. That's the only DC- area case I know of where more than 7 digits are currently needed on a local call. Your announcement of 1 Oct. 1990 is the first time I have heard a date for that change. I previously asked in this Digest: Does that mean that Md. & Va. suburbs are being removed from area code 202? (I know there are points elsewhere in Md. where local calls to another area are available by dialing 7D only. I am not as familiar with area 703 in this regard.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #303 *****************************   Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 2:16:33 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #304 Message-ID: <8908170216.aa05870@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 17 Aug 89 02:10:47 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 304 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: US Sprint Rep Comments, ISDN progress (Bill Cerny) Re: Sprint Bashing Should Stop! (Tom Wiencko) Re: Sprint Bashing Should Stop! (Ron Natalie) Which Access Code is 'More Logical'? (John R. Covert) Direct Inward Dial, Twin Channel Fax Card Announced (Steve Elias) Gas Cylinders (Jim Gonzalez) Phone Numbers For ATI Supply (Denis Filipetti) More about Deep Springs and also Grapevine 1 (George Adams) Local Calls Across NPA Boundaries From NYC (Carl Moore) 35 Cent Payphones In Iowa (Miguel Cruz) [Moderator's Note: There is currently about a two day backlog of messages waiting for transmission. I received 41 new messags today alone. Most of the backlog should be transmitted Friday morning. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Cerny Subject: Re: US Sprint Rep Comments, ISDN progress Date: 16 Aug 89 12:47:44 GMT Organization: Little 3B1 on the Prairie, St. Marys, KS In article , eli@chipcom.com writes: > He also commented about ISDN and how US Sprint is ready for ISDN, > whereas ATT is behind, and MCI is way behind. Sprint already has > CCS7 (switching something-or-other), a fiber network, and 100% digital > transmission. ATT is accelerating the depreciation of their equipment > because they have to modernize their network in order to support ISDN, > and to keep up with the competition -- in this case, US Sprint. AT&T has been providing true ISDN via its Primary Rate Interface for over a year now. AT&T is providing new calling services made possible with ISDN, including call-by-call service selection and calling number delivery. A recently announced service will allow enhanced routing capability on an electronic tandem network (Service Node Controller). AT&T will complete the installation of CCS7 in its network by the end of this year; all major routes have been CCS7 since earlier this year. SouthernNet was the first carrier to install a 100% CCS7 network, followed by US Sprint in Dec. '88, and MCI this past spring. The US Sprint network uses 41 Northern Telecom DMS-250 tandem switches. The MCI network has a mix of DSC, Northern Telecom and Ericsson AXE tandems. Sprint plans to offer real ISDN (like AT&T did) next year _from all of its POPs_, while AT&T provides ISDN from a steadily growing number of its POPs. MCI plans to offer _ISDN-like_ services (read "inband" signaling vice the Q.931 outband signaling of ISDN) in the fourth quarter of this year, to be followed by real ISDN next year. Consider the degree of difficulty in getting ISDN up and flying on your network: it's more likely to work if you have fewer brands of switches to talk to each other (standards? yes, but... 8-) 8-) ). There are three vendors with working ISDN CPE in this field today: AT&T (System 85), Northern Telecom (SL-1) and Rockwell (Galaxy ACD). Many vendors have announced ISDN CPE this year. The CPE to work with MCI's ISDN-like services is under development. Too much ISDN hype, eh? Today's ISDN users aren't talking; there is a perceived advantage that they must obscure from their competitors. But in one published report, a telemarketing firm found that calling number delivery trimmed an average of 8 seconds off each call (the customer's record was automatically retrieved according to phone number). If you carry this calculation forward, a center that handles 2,000 calls/day saves about 4.5 hours. It's up the sweatshop owner to decide whether to reduce the number of agents, provide longer breaks to the agents, or go after more business. (These facts extracted from trade press, announcements, and industry contacts. Please e-mail corrections. Thanks!) -- Bill Cerny bill@toto.uucp "I'm gone to San Diego in my mind." ------------------------------ From: Tom Wiencko Subject: Re: Sprint Bashing Should Stop! Date: 16 Aug 89 16:26:32 GMT Reply-To: Tom Wiencko Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., "The Procedure IS the product" In article rick@uunet.uu.net (Rick Adams) writes: >Background: >My Sprint bill is $30,000 - $40,000 per month. My phone bill comes in a big >box with detail of every call. I have NEVER found one of those details >to be a call that was not answered. >I consider the offhanded and uninformed response of the moderator that >"Sprint doesn't have answer supervision" to be uncalled for bashing. >It is not factual and it as uncalled for. >For some reason, very little of the Sprint "information" is factual or >current. This is what I object to. Nonsense. Sprint will admit it to you if you push them hard enough. With this large a phone bill, unless you happen to make long calls to areas with Feature Group D trunks, it is almost impossible for you not to have some 1 minute phone calls (or whatever minimum billing interval Sprint happens to use on your account) which are not real completed calls. The technology is simply not in place for them to be able to provide call supervision everywhere (unless they get Feature Group C lines as I mentioned in a previous message). This is not "Sprint bashing"; this is simple exposure of the facts of the matter. The fact that you find Sprint's service and billing procedures acceptable does not mean that it is acceptable to everyone, and in particular, it does not mean that they take the same good care of residental or small business customers. Not all of us have $30,000 phone bills, but would like to get quality phone service, accurate billing, and reasonable response to problems. I, for one, have have good experiences with Sprint line quality, but horrid experiences with their billing and so-called "security" procedures. I have had months where 40% (yes, almost half) of the calls on a Sprint bill were one minute calls which actually were busy, no answer, or even dropped calls. So believe it when people complain about Sprint's billing procedures. There is proof. They will even occasionally admit it themselves. Tom ------------------------------ From: Ron Natalie Subject: Re: Sprint Bashing Should Stop! Date: 16 Aug 89 20:34:24 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. I wasn't one of the Sprint bashers but your comment: > Just because they offer lousy residential service, you can't damn the entire > company for it. If they happen to make a business decision to care > less about residential services, than business services, fine. Don't > use them from your home. However, you would be a fool to refuse to > consider them for business use based on their residential services. Sure I can damn the entire company for it. I had very unfortunate experiences with Sprint about two and a half years ago that convinced me that I would never want to use them again. Just last May (much more current information that they have not changed their ways) I had another run in with them and again as a residential customer I got screwed by them. The local operating company told me that the type of complaints I had were common place with Sprint (Sprint gratuitously changed my mother's long distance carrier to them, Sprint claims C&P Telephone did it, C&P claims Sprint instigated it). If they want to screw me as an individual they've already lost a lot of ground as to my objectivity of me committing my whole business to such levels of treachery. -Ron ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Aug 89 06:03:06 PDT From: "John R. Covert 15-Aug-1989 0829" Subject: What Access Code is 'Most Logical'? >00, whether more logical or not is certainly the most widespread, at least in >Europe and the Med. It may be the most widespread in Europe and the Med, but it is certainly not the most widespread in the world. 011 is easily the most widespread, being used in the U.S. and Canada (and much of the Caribbean). The population of the U.S. and Canada is 272 million, and covers an area of more than 7.5 million square miles, with the most telephones per person of any countries in the world. In 1980 40.7% of the world's tele- phones were in World Numbering Zone 1. The total population and area of Algeria, Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czecho- slovakia, Germany (West), Gibraltar, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Morocco, Portugal, Switzerland, and Tunisia is 245 million in an area of 1.6 million square miles. /john ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 09:39:53 EDT From: Steve Elias Subject: Direct Inward Dial, Twin Channel Fax Card Announced Reply-To: eli@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) This probably belongs in the new product announcement group, but I'm not sure if you folks read that one! Brooktrout has announced a twin channel, DID fax card. this is a first in the market -- both the twin channel, and DID capability. DID will allow each person at a site to have their own fax number -- this solves the problem of routing the fax to the proper person, or proper computer. Check the current issues of Network World, MIS Week, and InfoWorld for more information. Feel free to contact me directly as well... I'm not really up on the details of these new products, but I have read the Network World article and do speak with the folks at Brooktrout occasionally. ... Steve Elias (eli@spdcc.com);6172399406;6178906844;6178591389; {} /* */ ------------------------------ Subject: Gas Cylinders Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 12:15:46 -0400 From: gonzalez@bbn.com In a recent issue of this digest, Michael Warfield comments on color codes for gas cylinders. The facts he presented are largely correct, but here is some more detail. The information below is from 1982 issue of the Airco Industrial Gases (AIG) Data Book. AIG markets compressed gases for a variety of applications, including wafer semiconductor fabrication. Airco Welding Products (AWP) markets the other equipment needed for gas and arc welding. Both are headquartered at 575 Mountain Avenue in Murray Hill, NJ, directly across the street from Bell Labs. Lovely neighborhood. Anyway, here's the data: Oxygen: USP (medical) oxygen is supplied in green cylinders with green caps. All other standard grades are supplied in orange cylinders with orange caps, with an aluminum ("silver") collar to specify higher pressure. Specialty grade comes in aluminum cylidner with orange collar. Nitrogen: For all standard grades, lower half of cylinder is painted orange. Upper half is red or aluminum, depending on grade. Blue band in middle denote prepurified nitrogen. Cap is orange, except for 2485 psig (as opposed to 2200 psig), which is aluminum. Specialty grades come in aluminum cylinders with with collars. White shoulder band denotes 6000 psig (3000 or less is normal). Helium: All standard grades have brown body with orange collar. Silver shoulder band indicates 2200 psig, as opposed to 1800 or 2485. Specialty grades have aluminum cylinder with brown collar. Brown shoulder band indicates 6000 psig. Carbon Dioxide: All grades have aluminum body with orange, green, blue or brown collar indicating grade (beverage, industrial, welding and "siphon"). Acetylene: Black cylinder and cap. Compresed Air: Only specialty grade is listed. It is aluminum with white collar and orange shoulder band. Oddly enough, I had never given much thought to those cylinders by the telephone poles. You can bet I will, now. -Jim. ------------------------------ From: wellflt!svenny!denis%talcott@harvard.harvard.edu Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 12:17:49 EDT Subject: Phone Numbers For ATI Supply Folks, I have just got some mail saying that the number I gave for ATI Supply doesn't seem to work. Since I have been having trouble sending mail into DECs enet, where the sender is, and since perhaps others are having trouble with that number, I'll respond here. Their outside CA number is still good, I just tried it. They verified their inside CA number. The rest are off of the back of their catalog. 800.826.4821 Outside CA 800.468.6278 Inside CA 818.889.9236 If you want to spend some money 818.889.7680 FAX 910.250.6958 Telex 703.444.6751 Atlantic Dist. 916.344.8080 N. Ca. Dist. 312.537.0520 Central Dist. 602.894.1606 Western Dist. Hope this helps. P.S. I haven't ordered from them yet, for no good reason, So I can't vouch for their service or products. Denis Filipetti ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 11:44:54 -0500 From: George Adams Subject: More about Deep Springs and also Grapevine 1 I too got literature from Deep Springs College, but it was 15 years ago. Three years ago when I lived in California I drove by the place on a long weekend of putzing around on dirt roads ('bout the only kind there) in the Death Valley area. Deep Springs College is in fact in California, although by the topographic map on my desk here, it is only 10 miles from Nevada as the crow flies. The "no radio reception during the day" fits with both my recollection and what the map shows. Deep Springs Valley is dramatic geography. About 10 miles long, 3 miles wide, flat and at an elevation of 5270 (at the college) still a full 8996 feet below the summit of White Mtn. Peak, rising on the northwest side of the valley. The south and east sides of the valley are rimmed by mountains rising steeply but only 2500 feet above the valley floor. Cal Tech operates a several radio telescopes in Owens Valley, just over the pass west out of Deep Springs, so the whole area is probably fairly radio quiet. Driving east and then south from Deep Springs you can take Bureau of Land Management dirt roads into the north end of Death Valley National Monument. A few miles after you reach pavement in the park there is a ranger station with a standard phone boot beside it. A standard booth, but not ordinary. You can see all of Death Valley from there on a clear day and other than the ranger station a few feet away, there is not a building in sight to the naked eye from this phone booth. With binoculars you can just make out the campground buildings down below sea level at Furnace Creek, 40 miles away. The phone is toll station Grapevine 1 (the road runs along the foot of the Grapevine Mountains). Made a credit card call from there. The Pacific Bell operator asked for where I was calling from and didn't ask twice, so some are used to toll stations. It was interesting to see Grapevine 1 on the bill the next month. George ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 13:13:07 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Local Calls Across NPA Boundaries From NYC The subject calls (between 212 and 718 areas, also to Nassau and southern Westchester) are shown as 1+NPA+7D. Back in 1986, I noticed 212-516 prefix on a pay phone in Manhattan; 516 used to be a NEIGHBORING area code. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 01:08:30 EDT From: Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich.edu Subject: 35 Cent Payphones In Iowa Speaking of US West (somebody was...), I was just in their area this past week. I noticed that payphones cost $.35 for a local call. Is that something just peculiar to Iowa or is it a sweeping trend I'll have to deal with all the time soon? People always have a quarter on them. But who has a quarter and a dime? Yeech. [Moderator's Note: Are you sure these were US West payphones, or perhaps privately owned COCOTS under the auspices of a greedy shop-keeper? PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #304 *****************************   Date: Fri, 18 Aug 89 0:27:52 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #305 Message-ID: <8908180027.aa18837@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 18 Aug 89 00:25:04 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 305 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Cellular! (Bob Frankston) Taconic Tel (Gabe M. Wiener) Compuserve and the Internet (Kenneth R. Jongsma) PBX Dialing Tones (Was Re: Bay of Eagle Fiasco) (Andrew Boardman) Automatic Collect Calls (John Higdon) Re: Buffalo, Texas (Peter da Silva) Split Communities (Carl Moore) Re: London (UK) New Area Codes. (Harry Broomhall) 1-234-5678 (Ken Rossen) Calling 800's From Outside USA (Kenneth Selling) Default Carrier On a Pay Phone (Carl Moore) One Operator Does All (Kenneth Selling) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Frankston (BFrankston) Subject: Cellular! Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 14:38:06 EDT I'm gathering this comments in my first attempt to travel with my cellular phone. I have travelled with a car phone in the Northeast and that worked. Travelling wider than that is more difficult. In speaking to Geoff Goodfellow, I can understand his frustrations with the cellular system. I thank him for help in getting as far as I did. My base system is Cellular One (SW Bell) in Boston. They do not (yet) have follow-me roaming and do not have roaming agreements in the Bay area (San Francisco). 1. They list the roaming number as 415-770-ROAM. Turns out that it is really 860 for the A carrier (Cellular One, not related) and 722 for the B (GTE Mobile). 2. It is difficult to phone these companies since information only gives out the 800# which is useless outside of California. 3. Cellular companies only work during business hours. After all, nobody really uses this technology so why work weekends and evenings to support it. 4. Given #3, I can't register when I arrive on a weekend. You get off the plane and discover that you can't get service. But why would anyone use a telephone on a weekend? 5. Even in the Northeast, primar roaming territory for me, the cellular companies are too dumb to list their roaming numbers in the phone directories. See #3. 6. Charges. See #3. After all, telephones (and by extension cellular phones) are only play things for the idle rich. Real people don't travel. 7. An aside, for airplane phones, see #6 compounded by the worst quality imaginable. Why aren't planes simply local cells? Maybe there are technical problems with the current generation (can someone explain them to me) but one can take it into account for the digital network. There is a danger in being sarcastic in email. I should clarify by pointing out that I think that cellular should be the normal mode for communications with wired phones being oddities. TV, on the other hand, should be confined to cable because it wastes gobs of spectrum that can be used for more useful communications. Now that I've expressed my considerable annoyance, is there any hope for the FCC viewing cellular phones as normal communications and working to establish guidelines for roaming and, followme roaming? Followme implemented with proper protocols should cause double charging. In fact, #8 would be the idea of charging for all services including answering services at full rate air time when not air time is being used. Well, if you're a monopoly you can do anything. There are some additional practical problems with a portable phone. One is that callers are used to giving three or four rings while with a cellular twenty would be more reasonable to accommodate figuring out what that sound is and where it is coming from and how to dig the phone out from the bottom of a pile of junk (common scene in comedies). What I really want is a combination of phone with beeper so that it would retain a list of messages and callers. Yes, one can get cellular answering service but I detest voice mail and all I really want is a list of caller phone numbers. This list can be provided automatically with ANI or by allowing a user to key in a phone number instead of voice mail. Since information is being passed, a (modest) charge would be appropriate. Perhaps in an ISDN/X.400 world some of this might start to work. I should live that long. (Yiddish sarcasm, not a statement of probability). Full name: Bob Frankston ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 14:21:47 EDT From: Gabe M Wiener Subject: Taconic Tel Taconic Tel not only has the last nickel payphone, they also have post-payment phones (at least in certain areas). I was up in Copake, NY about a year ago and I had a good look at their payphones. They were certainly telco provided. They looked a little like "Charge-A-Call" phones, but they were brown, and were rotary. There was a large sign saying "Do not deposit nickel until party answers -- No money will be returned." The transmitter was, of course, kept muted until you deposited your coins. Speaking of Taconic....I remember one fact distinctly. They're using some remarkably old equipment. I visited a friend in Hillsdale, NY and made a long-distance call. I dialed 1+NPA+#, and nothing happened. Okay, I figured, maybe I didn't need the 1. So I tried NPA+# and sure enough, the thing just sat there. It turned out that you had to dial 11+NPA+#. I checked it in the Taconic phone book, and it described it as "1 + DDD Code + Area Code + #" I always thought that the initial "1" was the DDD code in itself. Why on earth would the exchange want TWO of them? Another interesting fact about that exchange is that it took FOREVER for calls to process...even local ones. The phone was true DTMF, so I suspect that the switch was SxS with a Touchtone front-end. Any comments, folks? -G ------------------------------ From: Kenneth_R_Jongsma@ncar.ucar.edu Subject: Compuserve and the Internet Date: Wed, 16-Aug-89 17:35:42 PDT For those that use or know someone on Compuserve, it is now possible to mail to or from the Internet and CIS. The procedure is pretty straight forward, but I don't have it handy now. If anyone is interested, let me know and I will mail a copy. There is no additional charge on the CIS end. ken@cup.portal.com [Moderator's Note: In fact, the addressing scheme is '7xxxx.xxx@compuserve.com' and it is quite reliable. The first part is simply the CI$ user ID number separated with a dot in the middle. I send copies of the Digest to a couple people on CI$ now who prefer to receive it in their mailbox there, although no re-distribution of the Digest is permitted at that site. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Aug 89 13:06:14 EDT From: Andrew Boardman Subject: PBX Dialing Tones (Was Re: Bay of Eagle Fiasco) Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science In article kent wrote: >The phone on my desk says Ameritech on it. The designers knew that >people expect to hear tones when they dial a push button phone, but >they are not using tones to communicate with the PBX, so they have two >single tones which alternate with each keystroke. ROLM PBXen (this one at least) have one uniform tone that is sounded when any key is pressed. Real DTMF of fixed length and fixed intervals is sent out the other end, though, even on a call to another phone on the PBX. (If one dials very fast, it can take quite a while for the PBX to finish pulsing out the tones. It is possible to tie up a ROLM extension by calling it and, when the other party ansers, dialing very very fast, such that the PBX has to spend quite a while pulsing out the appropriate tones. Even after one hangs up, the other party *can't* until the PBX is done playing it's measured frequencies. (Unplugging the phone or hanging up won't work; when the phone is plugged back in, the call-in-progress light will still be lit, and when the phone is taken off-"hook", you will still hear that beep-beep-beep.)) Andrew Boardman amb@cs.columbia.edu ROLM is a four letter (and if you really have to, ab4@cunixc on bitnet) word. ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Automatic Collect Calls Date: 17 Aug 89 01:52:32 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows Got a chance to play with one of those automatic collect-call machines. I was surprised to discover that it is all done within the COCOT itself, and the machine allows you to hear all the action with a muted mouthpiece. When you dial "0+NXX+NXX-XXXX", the synthesized voice says to push 1 for a collect call and 3 for any other operator assisted call. After pushing 1, the voice prompt you for your name. The unit then dials the call (direct) and when it thinks the other end has answered it asks the called party, "Will you accept a collect call from [your recorded name]? If yes, press 1, otherwise press 0 now." It will repeat one time if there is no response and then disconnect. This raises some interesting questions. Where is the billing information stored for charging the called party? In the phone? By some special arrangement with whatever carrier they use for the call? What if the called party refuses the call? Does the COCOT owner pay for the one-minute refusal? It was a lot of fun playing with that phone. You would be surprised how many hotel and motel operators will refuse a call from Donald Duck. -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 21:34:07 -0400 From: ficc!peter@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Buffalo, Texas In article , moxie!greg@cs.utexas.edu (Greg Hackney) writes: > If memory serves, the 497 exchange in Houston was formerly called > Buffalo, and is now called Gypsy 7. And the 498 exchange, Alief, Texas, > is called Gypsy 8. I'm in the 497 exchange, and as far as I know it's still called "Buffalo". At least that's what I see listed as the originating area on the LD section of my bill. I'll ask my in-laws in the 498 exchange what they get. Let's see... according to my 89/90 phone book, Buffalo consists of the following prefixes: 293, 493, 496, 497, 531, 556, 558, 584, 596, 870. THe 498 prefix is in the Alief exchange, along with: 495, 530, 561, 568, 575, 879, 933. Just for reference, the 666 prefix is in the Mohawk exchange. Amusing. --- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "The sentence I am now Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | writing is the sentence Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | you are now reading" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 20:50:47 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Split Communities Recently, this digest has had an item about modifications to billing algorithm in NJ to make within-community calls local if they are other- wise long-distance. I recall hearing in this digest back in 1983-84 that some California communities wound up split by the proposed 213/818 border, which got moved for that reason (necessitating some new phone numbers); I never heard which communities were involved. ------------------------------ From: Harry Broomhall Subject: Re: London (UK) New Area Codes. Date: 17 Aug 89 01:14:49 GMT Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK. In article chris@gargoyle.uchicago. edu (Chris Johnston) writes: >When dialing into a country from outside, the leading zero must be >stripped off the area code. For example dialing from Switzerland to Unfortunatly this is *NOT* true for all countries, so beware! (Standards? I love standards. There are so many of them!) Regards, Harry. -- Automatic Disclaimer: The views expressed above are those of the author alone and may not represent the views of the IBM PC User Group. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 17:06:46 EDT From: Ken Rossen Subject: 1-234-5678 For those who care, Michigan Bell found those people (children especially) curious enough to dial 1-234-5678 annoying enough to install it as a valid number in Flint (where 234 is a valid prefix -- the original CEdar exchange) , but with a recording to discourage such calls. It's been in place for at least 15 years. When you call, the recording says: "You have reached 234-5678, a special test circuit. This call will appear on your bill if you are calling long distance. This is a recording." -- KENR@BBN.COM ------------------------------ Date: 16-AUG-1989 20:47:47.56 From: Kenneth Selling Subject: Calling 800's From Outside USA Question: Is it possible to reach a U.S. 800 number from outside N. America (granted that it will no longer be toll-free)? Could this work with AT&T's USA Direct service? Ken Selling Organization: Wesleyan University Internet: kselling@eagle.wesleyan.edu BITNET: kselling%eagle@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 16:44:25 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Default Carrier On a Pay Phone Recently, I have noticed that some Diamond State Telephone pay phones have their default carrier noted on the instruction cards. Apparently, some phones (not necessarily in Delaware) don't have this feature yet, and as a result last night, I dialed 00 from a C&P phone in Maryland and got the Sprint operator instead of AT&T. ------------------------------ Date: 16-AUG-1989 20:45:49.50 From: Kenneth Selling Subject: One Operator Does All In v.9, issue 292, Gabe M Wiener asks: > In New York City, I can dial 0 for a New York Tel operator, or 00 for a > long distance operator... However, up at my weekend house in NW Connecticut, > dialing 0 or 00 brings up the SNET operator... Shouldn't 00 bring up the > AT&T operator directly? ... Have they not completely separated from AT&T? After the AT&T break-up, BOC's had the option of continuing to have their operator service provided by AT&T, or setting up their own. Many (such as Pacific NW Bell, NY Tel) set up their own service. To differentiate, many used the system of: 0 (zero) = local operator : 00 (zero) (zero) = AT&T operator. Readers have pointed out that this scheme is not universal amongst all BOC's. Further, in recent years, other inter-LATA carriers have begun offering operator service too, where 00 gets you your primary carrier's operator. SNET in Connecticut was not affected by the Judge's order; it wasn't in the Bell System, although AT&T owned a small portion of it. It has continued with the policy of having it's operators handle (what a novel concept!) all customer calls, whether they are related to local or long-distance (AT&T) calls. Accor- ding to an SNET supervisor I spoke with, this will remain true at least through the end of 1989, with no officially announced plans to change it in the future. As for your weekend house in CT, think of it as a step back in time to a simpler era when one operator (who you get by dialing 0) did it all. Further, if you stop at a payphone on your way up there, you will find that there is no AOS in CT -- per state law. Dialing 0 at any payphone will get you an SNET operator. Ken Selling Organization: Wesleyan University Internet: kselling@eagle.wesleyan.edu BITNET: kselling%eagle@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #305 *****************************   Date: Fri, 18 Aug 89 1:55:56 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #306 Message-ID: <8908180155.aa23320@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 18 Aug 89 01:50:08 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 306 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail (John McCarthy) Re: US Sprint Rep Comments (Paul V. Flynn) Re: Sprint Bashing Should Stop! (Ben Ullrich) Re: Sprint Bashing Should Stop! (Peter da Silva) Last Laugh! Strikers List Demands (Letterman, via Peter Fleszar) [Moderator's Note: This issue of the Digest is primarily devoted to an essay by John McCarthy on the topic of FAX versus email. It is quite lengthy, but I thought it worthy of presentation in full. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Aug 89 1619 PDT From: John McCarthy Subject: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail Electronic mail (email), using ARPANET and other networks has been in use for almost 20 years. The widespread use of telefax is more recent. However, unless email is freed from dependence on the networks, I predict it will be supplanted by telefax for most uses in spite of its many advantages over telefax. These advantages include the fact that information is transmitted more cheaply as character streams than as images. Multiple addressees are readily accommodated. Moreover, messages transmitted as character streams can be readily filed, searched, edited and used by computer programs. The reason why telefax will supplant email unless email is separated from special networks is that telefax works by using the existing telephone network directly. To become a telefax user, it is only necessary to buy a telefax machine for a price between $1,000 and $5,000 (depending on features) and to publicize one's fax number on stationery, on business cards and in telephone directories. Once this is done anyone in the world can communicate with you. No complicated network addresses and no politics to determine who is eligible to be on what network. Telefax is already much more widely used than email, and a Japanese industry estimate is that 5 percent of homes will have telefax by 1995 and 50 percent by 2010. This is with a $200 target price. Email could work the same way at similar costs, but because of a mistake by DARPA about 1970, i.e. making a special-purpose, special-politics network the main vehicle for electronic mail, it was combined with other network uses that require higher bandwith and packet switching. Another mistake was UUCP. It uses the telephone network, but three features inherited from its use within Bell Telephone Laboratories made its widespread adoption a blunder. 1. It assumes that both parties are using the UNIX operating system rather than using a general mail protocol. This is only moderately serious, because some other systems have been able to pretend to be UNIX sufficiently well to implement the protocols. 2. It requires that the message forwarding computer have login privileges on the receiver. This has resulted in a system of relaying messages that involves gateways, polling and complicated addresses. This results in politics in getting connected to the gateways and causes addresses often to fail. 3. Today forwarding is often a service provided free and therefore of limited expandibility. There has been a proliferation of networks and message services on a variety of time-sharing utilities. Some of them are commercial and some of them serve various scientific disciplines and commercial activities. The connections between these networks require politics and often fail. When both commercial and noncommercial networks must interact there are complications with charging. A whole industry is founded on the technologically unsound ideas of competitive special purpose networks and storage of mail on mail computers. It is as though there were dozens of special purpose telephone networks and no general network. The solution is to go to a system that resembles fax in that the ``net addresses'' are just telephone numbers. The simple form of the command is just MAIL @$, after which the user engages in the usual dialog with the mail system. The sending machine dials the receiving machine just as is done with fax. When the receiving machine answers, the sender announces that it has a message for . Implementing this can involve either implementation of protocols in a user machine or a special machine that pretends to be a user of the receiving machine or local area network. The former involves less hardwarebut the latter involves less modification to the operating system of the receiving machine. I have heard various arguments as to why integrating electronic mail with other network services is the right idea. I could argue the point theoretically, but it seems better to simply point out that telefax, which originated more recently than electronic mail is already far more widespread outside the computer science community. Indeed it is often used for communicating with someone who is thought to have an email address when getting the forwarding connections right seems too complicated. The World of the Future Eventually, there will be optical fiber to every home or office supplied by the telephone companies. The same transmission facilities will serve telephone, picturephone, telefax, electronic mail, telnet, file transfer, computer utilities, access to the Library of Congress, the ``National Jukebox'' and maybe even a national video jukebox. In the meantime, different services require different communication rates and can afford different costs to get them. However, current telephone rates transmit substantial messages coast-to- coast for less than the price of a stamp. Indeed the success of telefax, not to speak of Federal Express, shows that people are willing to pay even higher costs. What about the next 20 years of email? There are two kinds of problems, technical and political. Guess which is easier. The main technical requirement is the development of a set of point-to- point telephone mail protocols. Any of several existing network mail protocols could be adapted for the purpose. Presumably the same kinds of modems and dialers that are used for fax would be appropriate but would give better transmission speeds. Perhaps the organizationally simplest solution would be to get one or more of the various UNIX consortia to add a direct mail telephone protocol to UUCP. Such a protocol would allow mail to be addressed to a user-id at a telephone number. The computer would require a dialer and a modem with whatever characteristics were taken as standard and it would be well to use the same standards as have been adopted for telefax. It mustn't require pre- arrangement between the sending and receiving computers, and therefore cannot involve any kind of login. Non-UNIX systems would then imitate the protocol. Fax has another advantage that needs to be matched and can be overmatched. Since fax transmits images, fully formatted documents can be transmitted. However, this loses the ability to edit the document. This can be beaten by email, provided there arises a widely used standard for representing documents that preserves editability. The political problem is more difficult, because there are enormous vested interests in the present lack of system. There are the rival electronic mail companies. There are the organizers of the various non-profit networks. There are the engineers developing protocols for the various networks. I've talked to a few of them, and intellectual arguments have remarkably little effect. The usual reply is, ``Don't bother me, kid, I'm busy.'' It would be good if the ACM were to set up a committee to adopt a telephone electronic mail standard. However, I fear the vested interests would be too strong, and the idea would die from being loaded with requirements for features that could be too expensive to realize in the near future. Fortunately, there is free enterprise. Therefore, the most likely way of getting direct electronic mail is for some company to offer a piece of hardware as an electronic mail terminal including the facilities for connecting to the current variety of local area networks (LANs). The most likely way for this to be accomplished is for the makers of fax machines to offer ASCII service as well. This will obviate the growing practice of some users of fax of printing out their messages in an OCR font, transmitting them by fax, whereupon the receiver scans them with an OCR scanner to get them back into computer form. This is probably how the world will have to get rid of the substantially useless and actually harmful mail network industry. More generally, suppose the same need can be met either by buying a product or subscribing to a service. If the costs are at all close, the people who sell the product win out over those selling the service. Why this is so I leave to psychologists, and experts in marketing, but I suppose it has to do with the fact that selling services requires continual selling to keep the customers, and this keeps the prices high. I hope my pessimism about institutions is unwarranted, but I remember a quotation from John von Neumann to some effect like expecting institutions to behave rationally is like expecting heat to flow from a cold place to a hot place. I must confess that I don't understand the relation between this proposal and the various electronic communication standards that have been adopted like X25 and X400. I only note that the enormous effort put into these standards has not resulted in direct telephone electronic mail or anything else as widely usable as telefax. I am grateful for comments from many people on a version distributed by electronic mail to various BBOARDS. John McCarthy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 14:48:32 EDT From: Paul V Flynn Subject: Re: US Sprint Rep Comments on "Billing On No Answer" and More Reply-To: pvf@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (paul.v.flynn) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article eli@chipcom.com writes: >ATT calls are terminated on the trunk side of the telco instead of the >line side of the telco, and in this case, ATT uses feature group C, >which is not available to "alternative" long distance carriers due to >the vagaries of how ATT built their network before equal access. >Group C bypasses a few switch steps, which was one of the reasons why >ATT calls used to get completed faster than Sprint's. (This part of >the explanation went over my head a bit; clearly my buddy limited his >comments here so he could get back to work without spending too much time >explaining this "feature group C" setup.) I've never heard this one before. Feature Group C access (used by AT&T) and Feature Group D access (used by the others) are both trunk-side connections. What difference between Feature Group C and Feature Group D allows AT&T to have a shorter call setup time than the other common carriers? US Sprint makes heavy use of access tandems, while we tend to connect directly to a local exchange carrier's end office, but that is a business decision on US Sprint's part, not something they are forced to do because of Feature Group D. Can your buddy at US Sprint explain to us what Feature Group C vs. Feature Group D has to do with call setup time? Paul Flynn AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Sprint Bashing Should Stop! Organization: sybase, inc., emeryville, ca. Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 11:05:00 -0700 From: ben ullrich In article , rick@uunet.uu.net (Rick Adams) writes: > > Chances are your Sprint rep friend will tell you they do not have 'call > > supervision equipment' and cannot tell when the call actually starts. PT] > Sprint claims that they have call supervision equipment in all areas that > offer equal access. > Why the continuing Sprint bashing? They aren't nearly as half-assed as > you seem determined to present them. How are they not half-assed?? Unless you give good reasons for the ``bashing'' to stop, there will be no motivation to do so. And ``Claims'' by Sprint are no better than any ``bashing.'' Let's see some real answers. ...ben ---- ben ullrich consider my words disclaimed,if you consider them at all sybase, inc., emeryville, ca "When you deal with human beings, a certain +1 (415) 596 - 3500 amount of nonsense is inevitable." -- mike trout ben@sybase.com {pyramid,pacbell,sun,lll-tis}!sybase!ben ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 22:05:31 -0400 From: ficc!peter@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Sprint Bashing Should Stop! I have AT&T set up as my primary home service, with SPRINT set up as my secondary service. That way bills for my calls on 10333 don't get sent through the wringer. I'm pleased with Sprint and have had no problems with them. I used to use MCI, but after getting the runaround, and having them charge me business rates for residential service (at that time residential service was limited to off-peak hours, so I got a business account. The first time I tried to use them during the day I couldn't. They refused to credit me for the extra charges!), I'll never use them again. MCI Mail is a different matter, though. --- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "Optimization is not some mystical state of grace, it is an intricate act U of human labor which carries real costs and real risks." -- Tom Neff ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Aug 89 0:50:21 CDT From: Peter Fleszar Subject: Strikers List Demands To End Walkout [Moderator's Note: Mr. Fleszar kindly sent along this item which originally appeared on David Letterman's 'Top Ten', and more recently in rec.arts.tv. Thanks for a great laugh to close this issue of the Digest! PT] 08/08/89 Top Ten Demands of Striking Telephone Workers. 10. Sick of getting paid in quarters. 9. Make it illegal to answer phone "YEL-LO" 8. Full protective clothing and breathing apparatus for guys who clean New York City public phones. 7. Can refuse to repair phones shaped like cartoon cats. 6. Right to listen in on Rob Lowe's phone conversations. 5. Operators no longer have to make dial tone sound with their mouths. 4. Power to send National Guard to flatten houses of people with funny answering machine messages. 3. Authorization to say "Look it up yourself, you lazy sack of krud." 2. Right to call everybody Larry, as in "Thank you for using AT&T Larry." 1. Stop all the damn ringing, ringing, ringing. [Moderator's Note: It sorta reminds me of the Lillie Tomlin routine. Say goodnight, Larry. Wave bye-bye to little Patrick. **Just two issues of the Digest today** so see y'uns tomorrow morning. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #306 *****************************   Date: Sat, 19 Aug 89 0:38:35 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #307 Message-ID: <8908190038.aa32135@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 19 Aug 89 00:36:07 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 307 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: 100th Anniversary of the Pay Phone (Andrew Boardman) Re: 100th Anniversary of the Pay Phone (Dave Fiske) Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm (Dave Levenson) Re: Touring the Central Office (Dave Fiske) Re: Montgomery Ward Selects MCI (Eric Schnoebelen) Re: Reuben and Cuteness (Miguel Cruz) Re: Reuben and Cuteness (David Kuder) Re: Buffalo, Texas (Hector Myerston) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 18 Aug 89 11:28:26 EDT From: Andrew Boardman Subject: Re: 100th Anniversary of the Pay Phone Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science In article it was quoth: >N.B. The ConTel payphones around here were all tone 3 years before NY Tel >started installing tone payphones hereabouts. NY Tel *still* has some >dial payphones in this area! NYT has lots of them all over New York City today! It is my impression that they would rather just install a new payphone rather than convert an old one. Although I would be *extremely* suprised if there was anyplace else with a higher density of public phones, it's still hard to find one during peak hours. [Digression, for those that keep track of these things: repairs on my CO were just completed this morning after the chainsaw job someone did on it in the middle of last week.] Andrew Boardman amb@cs.columbia.edu ROLM is a four letter (and if you really have to, ab4@cunixc on bitnet) word. ------------------------------ From: Dave Fiske Subject: Re: 100th Anniversary of the Pay Phone Date: 18 Aug 89 18:43:49 GMT Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY In article , telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > Sunday, August 13 marked the 100th anniversary of the invention of the pay > phone. In 1889, William Gray obtained United States Patent # 408,709 for Thanks, Patrick, for an interesting item. We have a local DJ who, every summer, has people call in with the numbers of pay phones in unusual spots which they noticed while on vacation. Then he calls the numbers, and, if anyone picks up, talks to them about the weather where they are, etc. It's kind of comical sometimes. I remember one time, the pay phone was out on a dock at Cape Cod. Anyway, what unusual spots have people seen pay phones in? Although, it wasn't a pay phone, the most unusual spot I've seen a working phone in was...a submarine! At Portsmouth, NH, they have a retired experimental submarine, the AGS Albacore, on display in a little lagoon near Route 1. We went on one of their little tours once, and at some point, the guide left our group alone for a few minutes. There was this phone in there, and it started ringing. We didn't know whether to answer or not, but finally one brave soul picked it up and said "Hello". No, it wasn't a call from CINCLANT, but someone who wanted to know if they were open that day. Apparently they had an extension strung out from the office to the sub. We couldn't help but speculate on how neat it would be to call somebody up and say "Hi, I'm calling from a submarine." -- "ANGRY WOMEN BEAT UP SHOE SALESMAN Dave Fiske (davef@brspyr1.BRS.COM) WHO POSED AS GYNECOLOGIST" Home: David_A_Fiske@cup.portal.com Headline from Weekly World News CIS: 75415,163 GEnie: davef ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm Date: 19 Aug 89 01:46:28 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , wmartin@stl-06sima.army. mil (Will Martin) writes: > This was on Risks -- thought it was worth getting into Telecom: > > >Date: Tue, 15 Aug 89 08:17:31 -0400 > >From: dave davis > >Subject: Cellular Telephone Causes Airliner Fire Alarm > > A morning radio news report here in Washington, DC reported that a commercial > airline crew noted a fire alarm signal from a cargo hold in mid-flight. Upon > returning to their originating airport, the cargo hold was examined carefully > and no evidence of fire was found. Apparently, a cellular telephone in a > passenger's luggage had received an incoming call, that activated the smoke > (I assume) detector via RF interference. > ...As a result of this > event, the aircraft companies may have to redesign a lot of sensors. No. The only sensor that has to be implemented is the one that scans the passenger baggage. It is ILLEGAL to use electronic devices such as cellular telephones or even Walkman-sized portable receivers on board commercial aircraft. It is also ILLEGAL to operate such devices on other aircraft unless the pilot of the aircraft has determined that the device in question does not interfere with the aircraft systems. This part of the federal aviation regulations is chiefly aimed at reducing the risk of interference with the navigation or communications systems, in the interest of flight safety. While interference with the file alarm system may have been unexpected, the passenger who carried a powered-up portable electronic device aboard that aircraft is in violation of the law. What will probably result from this incident is not a major re-design of aircraft systems, but better enforcement of the existing regulations. -- Dave Levenson Voice: (201) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: Dave Fiske Subject: Re: Touring the Central Office Date: 18 Aug 89 18:15:55 GMT Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY > In article john@zygot.uucp writes: > > Something that every reader of this group should do is take a tour of a > > local central office. I would kill for that opportunity now with all When I was in college in Ithaca, NY (in the 70s), they had an open house at the CO. It was definitely a good time. Strangely enough, the staff were extremely open with us. First, we were walked through the racks, and a technician asked one person in the group what her phone number was. He traced over and down and showed her where her line was connected. "That's your phone number, right there." I remember being impressed with the amount of time they spent just checking their equipment and cabling--according to the technician, 75% of their efforts were just spent testing. While we were there, a bell started ringing, and a bare light bulb mounted over a door started flashing. "Oh, don't worry, just a minor alarm", he said, and ignored it. (Of course, I also remember thinking about how little work they performed in turning on your service--being a student, I was acutely aware of how much it cost!) Next, we were bussed over to a separate location, where the operators and other staff were located. They showed us their latest equipment acquisition--which they seemed particularly proud of--a PPCS board (Person-to-Person/Collect/Special, or so they told us). This was great, they said, because if someone were making a collect call, they could dial the number right in, and it was displayed on the board for the operator to see. I remember they also told us how operators had to listen for the beeps made when someone was inserting coins in a pay phone, and even admitted that sometimes people put the coins in too fast for the operator to keep track of. I was surprised to hear them say this, since it's almost inviting people to rip them off, but it shows how honest they were being. I asked how long they waited before re-assigning phone numbers, since I had been getting a lot of calls for the previous assignee. They said they waited a year, but when I mentioned my problem, they admitted that, in neighborhoods where there was high concentration of students (obviously with a high turnover rate) they would sometimes re-assign them in only 9 months. Well, at least they didn't cop out. I wish I could remember more of what I saw, and that I had had more knowledge then about what I did see. But I agree, it definitely is worth doing if the opportunity ever comes up. -- "ANGRY WOMEN BEAT UP SHOE SALESMAN Dave Fiske (davef@brspyr1.BRS.COM) WHO POSED AS GYNECOLOGIST" Home: David_A_Fiske@cup.portal.com Headline from Weekly World News CIS: 75415,163 GEnie: davef ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Montgomery Ward Selects MCI Organization: JBA Incorporated, Lewisville, Tx. Date: 18 Aug 89 16:20:19 CDT (Fri) From: Eric Schnoebelen In article you write: - On Tuesday, Montgomery Ward and Company announced that MCI had been selected - to provide private network service to its 420 locations. - - Terms of the 3-year, multimillion dollar agreement were not disclosed. Wards - said the selection followed a six month comparative test of MCI, Sprint, - AT&T and other carriers. - - Montgomery Ward's corporate phone bill is approximatly *one million dollars - per month*. - - I'd say MCI landed a juicy one this time. MCI has landed several juicy contracts recently. Another that they landed was the House of Representative network. The House has opted out of FTS 2000 ( or at least that is the word around here. ) Now for a little bragging... MCI has been using our (JBA Incorporated's) Hybrid Network Design System to design voice networks for their customers for the last three years, including the House of Representatives, and probably Montgomery Ward's. The eastern regions have been most successful in using our design system to make sales, with both of the eastern regions running full time, and still not being able to get everything they need done done. ( I won't say anything about the western regions... :-) ( We also have three RBOCs, one switch manufacturer, and a network integrator as customers.. ) Publish this or not, as you see fit, but I felt a small need to brag about how MCI is winning these contracts. :-) Eric --- Eric Schnoebelen, JBA Incorporated, Lewisville, Tx. work: egs@u-word.dallas.tx.us home: eric@egsner.cirr.com MS-DOS: The Cockroach of Operating Systems ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 01:27:16 EDT From: Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich.edu Subject: Supervision of Operators Benson@odi.com writes in #288 about the "big brother" breathing down the supposed necks of operators. It's no secret that phone companies (and most other places with similar service positions) time their operators' performance. But they don't, as you all but insist, get "fired" for taking a little longer on a call. If you're pleasant/talkative with an operator, he/she'll often take the time to answer your question or whatever. It's only if everyone who called started asking for ringdowns in Rangoon that they'd get in trouble. There's a such thing as leeway (it comes in the same package as common sense), and operators know how much of it they have and they decide when to use it. They're people, understand? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 15:38 PDT From: David Kuder Subject: Re: Supervision of Operators Reply-To: david@indetech.UUCP (David Kuder) Organization: Independence Technologies, Inc. Fremont, CA In TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 288, message 11 of 11 our moderator writes: >But, it is *overall* performance which counts, and not the call count being >up or down in any specific time period. Telco management understands that >different types of calls take varying amounts of time to handle. >I wish some of the operators were not robotrons; but then some of >the Business Office people are just as inflexible. The system does need >repair, or at least some tweaking. Recently while riding the BART here I overheard some of the management types discussing their day on the information switchboards. One was apparently a supervisor of information operators, the rest were drawn from jobs apparently not requiring interaction with customers.* The non-operator types complained about the performance montinoring display on their station. It apparently showed how many calls had been handled in a given time. The supervisor quickly explained the key sequence to clear the number saying that he disliked how poorly he did these days. On the evening news the other day they interviewed a PacBell speech writer filling in as an operator. He wasn't too happy about it, but I bet if they paid their operators as well as their speech writers there wouldn't be a strike. -- ____*_ David A. Kuder {sun,sharkey,pacbell}!indetech!david \ / / Independence Technologies \/ / 42705 Lawrence Place FAX: 415 438-2034 \/ Fremont, CA 94538 Voice: 415 438-2003 ------------------------------ From: myerston@cts.sri.com Date: 18 Aug 89 09:08 PST Subject: Re: Buffalo, Texas Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA 94025 [(415)326-6200] Maybe EVERYBODY is right. What is Central Office is called depends largely on who you talk to and what you are talking about. Some (maybe not all) variations: o Base/Control Group. What the engineers call it. Used to be assigned by Western Electric. Base unique to location, control group to switching entity. Form XXXX-CX as in 6A97-C4 equals a 1AESS in LA Grand (see below) o Common Language ID. A combination of the place name contracted (they spell out how) and, if necessary, a number. PLALCA02 equals Palo Alto, California 02. I >think< that this is where the billing location comes from. o Street Address. Used mostly by sales and support people and those who work there. 666 Howard is an example. o The old exchange name like CEDAR 2 or whatever. Popularly used by oldtimers for oldtime offices. The modern equivalent of just the NXX is seldom used since modern machines can support multiple 10K groups with unrelated NXX codes. Maybe there are still more variations out there. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #307 *****************************   Date: Sat, 19 Aug 89 1:36:57 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #308 Message-ID: <8908190136.aa01702@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 19 Aug 89 01:25:38 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 308 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: International Access Codes Around the World (Dan Sahlin) Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public (Mike Trout) Re: Automatic Collect Calls (Dave Fiske) Re: Dial-A Services in Rochester, NY (Dave Esan) Re: Taconic Tel (John R. Levine) Re: Types of Service (Dave Fiske) Re: 35 Cent Payphones In Iowa (Marvin Jones) Re: Discerning Your LD Carrier (Mike Morris) Re: 100th Anniversary of the Pay Phone (Richard R. Grady, Jr) Re: Calling 800's From Outside USA (Henry Mensch) Payphones/Earthquakes (Kathleen Creighton) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dan Sahlin Subject: Re: International Access Codes Around the World Organization: SICS, Swedish Inst. of Computer Science Date: Fri, 18 Aug 89 11:04:15 GMT Sweden will before the year 2000 change the international direct dial code from 009 to 00. So will probably most other countries in Europe, thereby following international recommendations. Sweden will also prepare to use the 11x number for emergency calls etc. We now use 90000 for emergency call. This also follows international recommendations. This change may take much longer time as it effects houndreds of thousands of subscribers whose numbers start with 1. /Dan Sahlin, email: dan@sics.se ------------------------------ From: Mike Trout Subject: Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public Date: 18 Aug 89 18:41:47 GMT Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY In article , goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes: > >Digression: airline deregulation is similarly bad. The benefits are > >lost in the enormously higher risks as airlines ignore safety (take > >Eastern Airlines, for example, (please?)). > You picked a poor analogy by criticizing airline deregulation's effect > on safety. In fact, according to a recent article in the _Economist_, > the decline in accidents & deaths per US aviation passenger mile has > continued unabated, even throughout the past decade of deregulation. > The truth is not that airline deregulation has led to "enormously > higher risks"; rather, deregulation has had little effect on the > historically increasing airline safety level. Examining one set of statistics reported by one news organization proves little. Airline safety statistics can be used to prove that safety has never been better, that it has never been worse, and everything in between. Serious, scholarly questions, with substantiation in fact, HAVE been raised regarding the effect of deregulation upon airline safety. Note the recent FAA special safety exam of Eastern, in which it was stated that although there were no specific safety problems worth citation now, it was inevitable that such problems would develop in the future. Let's keep this forum for the discussion of telecommunications, and leave airline safety to the experts in that field. -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, SOD & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------ From: Dave Fiske Subject: Re: Automatic Collect Calls Date: 18 Aug 89 19:22:42 GMT Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY In article , zygot!john@apple.com (John Higdon) writes: > It was a lot of fun playing with that phone. You would be surprised how > many hotel and motel operators will refuse a call from Donald Duck. Hmmm. How about Person-to-Person calls TO Donald Duck? -- "ANGRY WOMEN BEAT UP SHOE SALESMAN Dave Fiske (davef@brspyr1.BRS.COM) WHO POSED AS GYNECOLOGIST" Home: David_A_Fiske@cup.portal.com Headline from Weekly World News CIS: 75415,163 GEnie: davef ------------------------------ From: Dave Esan Subject: Re: Dial-A Services in Rochester, NY Date: 18 Aug 89 14:47:03 GMT Reply-To: Dave Esan Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY %X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 259, message 6 of 10 %According to the White Pages in Rochester, New York (area code 716): % Dial A Yuk 546-5233 %[Moderator's Note: I refuse to ask what a Yuk is. I refuse to ask! What %do I care? So don't tell me. When I guess at these things I wind up either %offending the Orthodox Jews or the gay athiests. I won't guess at it. PT] There is a chain of comedy clubs called "Yuk-Yuks", in Rochester. The address for Yuk-Yuk's and Dial-A-Yuk is the same. --> David Esan rochester!moscom!de ------------------------------ From: "John R. Levine" Subject: Re: Taconic Tel Reply-To: John Levine Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: Fri, 18 Aug 89 22:35:11 GMT In article gmw1@cunixd.cc.columbia. edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes: >It turned out that you had to dial 11+NPA+#. I checked it in >the Taconic phone book, and it described it as "1 + DDD Code + Area Code + #" >I always thought that the initial "1" was the DDD code in itself. Why on >earth would the exchange want TWO of them? The second "1" is what in some parts is called a circle digit. Different parties on the same part line have different circle digits to identify who is making the call. I guess it's too hard to tell the exchange that party lines dial differently from private lines, so all private lines have a circle digit of 1. AT&T never seemed to take to circle digits, they always had an operator cut in and ask for the number you were calling from. -- John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 492 3869 {ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl, johnl@ima.isc.com, Levine@YALE.something Massachusetts has 64 licensed drivers who are over 100 years old. -The Globe ------------------------------ From: Dave Fiske Subject: Re: Types of Service Date: 18 Aug 89 19:00:12 GMT Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY In article , roy%phri@uunet.uu.net (Roy Smith) writes: > I used to think it was outrageous what TPC charged for service > changes when all it involved was throwing a few switches (or, more likely, Or better yet, the infamous "Record Order Change". In what other industry is the customer required to pay for the paperwork required to fulfill his or her request? Or how about the old "once-in-a-lifetime" charge for a color phone? I've read there was no cost justification for that (other than greed). I do think the phone companies did a remarkable job in developing a reliable phone system over the years, but I also believe that to some degree they accomplished this with money that came from "padded" bills paid by customers. There's a fascinating book called The Phone Book, written by a disgruntled phone executive. I don't buy everything he wrote, considering his bias, but he does discuss some of these "scams". Of course, divestiture has changed the picture so much that the book is mainly of historical interest now. -- "ANGRY WOMEN BEAT UP SHOE SALESMAN Dave Fiske (davef@brspyr1.BRS.COM) WHO POSED AS GYNECOLOGIST" Home: David_A_Fiske@cup.portal.com Headline from Weekly World News CIS: 75415,163 GEnie: davef ------------------------------ From: Marvin Jones Subject: Re: 35 Cent Payphones In Iowa Date: 18 Aug 89 16:56:23 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA In article , Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich. edu writes: > Speaking of US West (somebody was...), I was just in their area this past > week. I noticed that payphones cost $.35 for a local call. Is that something > just peculiar to Iowa or is it a sweeping trend I'll have to deal with all > the time soon? What's wrong with this picture? Iowa is served by SouthWestern Bell. I grew up there; my uncle worked for SW Bell. I'm quite sure this hasn't changed in the past 10 yrs. :-) Must have been a private pay phone ... which may account for the price, also. -- Marvin Jones {pyramid, pixar, tekbspa}!optilink!jones Optilink Corp. ATT-net: 707-795-9444 X 206 1310 C Redwood Way CI$: 71320,3637 Petaluma, CA 94952 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 10:27:20 PDT From: Mike Morris Subject: Re: Discerning Your LD Carrier In article you write: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 300, message 5 of 8 >X-Originally-From: Ed Jones, National Public Radio (via John R. Covert) >[Moderator's Note: John Covert kindly passed along this note he received, >and the one following. PT] >Please, PT, don't encourage readers to dial 700-555-1212 to find out which >Default Carrier is in use on a line. I made that mistake once, and good >old Ches. & Pot. billed me $.50 for a Directory Assistance call (yes, I >know it doesn't exist, but tell that to their software). > >The correct number is 700-555- 4 1 4 1. I did the same thing a while back, not knowing any better. I received a 50 cent charge on my bill and called the business office. The conversation went something like: me: her: Well, you called 700-information... me: Please put me on hold, and try that number. her: OK her: thats not information! me: then why was I charged? her: it's a computer error. me: sounds like a programming error to me. her: same thing. You got charged. I'm going to take it off the bill. me: Thanks. her: bye I've not tried it recently to see if the data base has been fixed. I still feel that long distance information should be free to residential customers, and local should be charged _only if it is in the book_. WHy should I have to keep 4 feet of shelf space reserved for the LA phone books? ANd have to pay for the books out of my area as well? -- Mike Morris UUCP: Morris@Jade.JPL.NASA.gov #Include quote.cute.standard | The opinions above probably do not even come cat flames.all > /dev/null | close to those of my employer(s), if any. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Aug 89 09:43:48 EDT From: "Richard R Grady, Jr" Subject: Re: 100th Anniversary of the Pay Phone Reply-To: r4@cbnews.ATT.COM (richard.r.grady..jr) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > [...] In the late sixties, most payphones were >charging fifteen or twenty cents per call. The price has been twenty-five >cents in most places now for several years. Payphones still cost a dime in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Dick Grady r_r_grady@att.com ...!att!mvuxd!r4 The above opinions are mine, and not necessarily those of my employer. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Aug 89 16:37:04 -0400 From: Henry Mensch Subject: Re: Calling 800's From Outside USA Reply-To: henry@garp.mit.edu It's not possible with USA Direct (I've tried this while I was living in Australia ...) # Henry Mensch / / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # / / ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 05:48:21 pdt From: Kathleen Creighton Subject: Pay Phones/Earthquakes I saw "Surviving the Big One" produced by KCET (PBS) in Los Angeles and narrated by an LA fireman. One of the statements he made was that in the event of a major earthquake which disrupts local phone service, we would still be able to call *out of state* via pay phones. He recommended, therefore, that California residents make use of (and let other people in the family know about) an out-of-state contact who would then relay information to others calling in. As a San Francisco resident, this whole problem of communication in the event of a major earthquake concerns me but I have *never* heard of the supposed availability of pay phone communication in such event. Can someone clear this up for me? (As an aside, he also said that the telco can only tolerate 10% of its pay phones being offhook at the same time so when you see a pay phone offhook after an earthquake, hang it up.) ====================================== [Moderator's Note: I am not sure why the *in-state/out-of-state* distinction was made. Did the commentator somehow feel that central offices handling long distance calls were somehow more immune to earthquakes or other problems? And likewise, why did he think payphones were more reliable? A payphone inside a building which has collapsed is just as damaged as a private phone therein. The wires leading to/from them are as easily damaged; by an earthquake at least if not necessarily human vandals. Regards hanging up phones left off hook, that is a gracious thing to do. All telcos are able to provide simulataneous service to only about ten or fifteen percent of their customers at one time; and an even smaller number can be offered dial tone at the same time. This is not a condition attributable just to coin phones. When all circuits/switching equipment/dial tone generators are busy, other customers sit with a 'dead' phone at their ear waiting. Actually, the worst thing anyone can do in a time of national emergency is jump on the phone. Stay off if possible. The night Martin King was asassinated in April, 1968, nearly everyone in the Chicago-Monroe CO went off hook at the same time. It damn near ruined the switch, which never did work right after that. Remember, stay off the phone so that people who must use it for emergency duties can do so without delay. If necessary, the CO *can* shut off service to all but emergency numbers if desired. On Pearl Harbor Day, Sunday, December 7, 1941, the (then mostly manual) phone system in Chicago was so overtaxed that beginning at 1:00 PM that day the operators answered everyone who went off hook by saying "Emergency calls only! No other calls are being handled now..." And until about 10 PM that night, *no one* could use the phone except as emergencies dictated. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #308 *****************************   Date: Sat, 19 Aug 89 2:21:37 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #309 Message-ID: <8908190221.aa02625@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 19 Aug 89 02:15:08 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 309 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Charles Daffinger) Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Mike Trout) Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Lawrence M. Geary) Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Bob Frankston) Is Calling Party ID in Northern Virginia? (John Kennedy) Re: Caller ID Linked to Decline in Harrassing Calls (Dave Fiske) National Views of Access Codes (Mark Brader) Area Code 908 (Kenneth R. Jongsma) [Moderator's Note: As to be expected, the message on Calling Party ID a few issues ago got many people stirred up on this controversial topic once again. This issue of the Digest is devoted mostly to responses received on this topic in the past two days. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Daffinger Date: 18 Aug 89 02:45:12 GMT Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question Reply-To: cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Charles Daffinger) Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington In article bnick%aucis.UUCP@mailgw. cc.umich.edu (Bill Nickless) writes: > [...] >And if we can stop these obscene phone calls without getting Big Brother >involved, more power to Caller ID. Since it's now technically feasible, >let's do it. In 10 years people will wonder how they ever got along without >it. Secretaries can get written or digital record of who calls, without >getting numbers mixed up. All kinds of other benefits present themselves. >Just because something is new doesn't mean it's bad. My second line is unpublished and unlisted for a reason. I don't want other people to have it. Not secretaries, not friends... nobody. According to a posting in the Digest a while ago, ATT goes to great lengths to protect the privacy of such a number. If it were to show up on the screen of whomever I'm calling, that would be silly, would it not? Something which *could* be acceptable to some may be the option of using some kind of an alternate code for those who so desire. Thus, instead of your unlisted/unpublished number appearing on the screen of the receiver of the call, an alternative code (certainly a non-telephone number) would appear. This identification number would be unique and associated with your particular number. If somebody has an unlisted/unpublished phone number then this associated number is treated in the same way as the phone number: with the same level of confidentiality. This way, when you make a call people can identify *who* is making the call once they know that number comes up when you call, while preserving the privacy of your telephone number. In the case of harrassing phone calls from unlisted/unpublished numbers using such a feature, the telephone company could cross-reference the code for the harrassing calls with its telephone logs. If indeed these match, the telephone company alone can easily find the phone from which these calls originated. But then, the harrasser could be from a pay phone... -charles -- Charles Daffinger >Take me to the river, Drop me in the water< (812) 339-7354 cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu {pur-ee,rutgers,pyramid,ames}!iuvax!cdaf Home of the Whitewater mailing list: whitewater-request@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu ------------------------------ From: Mike Trout Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question Date: 18 Aug 89 17:09:25 GMT Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY In article , bnick%aucis.UUCP@mailgw. cc.umich.edu (Bill Nickless) writes: > If Abner Doubleday had decided on a pentagon shape instead of a diamond shape > (and it had caught on!) do you think major league baseball would reshape > their playing fields because someone thought it was better to have three > bases and a home plate? No. It would require adjustments in expectations > from coaches, players, talent coaches, and everyone. This is a minor quibble, but Abner Doubleday did not decide on a diamond shape, nor did he have very much to do with the design and development of baseball. Baseball as we know it evolved from cricket, rounders, and the New York Game, and took its basic present form before Doubleday began publicizing it. A pentagon shape (or any other major difference) would result in such a drastically different game that it's hard to imagine its survival. > In the case of the battered women's shelter, they simply need to know that > when the call is placed to the alleged batterer, he is being notified of > where the call is originating. Simple solution: have a public agency such > as the police place the call. No invasion of privacy, no danger to the > bettered women. Just a *different* way of looking at things. Sounds good, but you're asking a battered woman--who has been through an event of unimaginable trauma--to behave rationally and with logic. This requires her to ASK the police or ASK the shelter to ask the police to make the call for her. It's just as likely that in her emotional turmoil, she'll just go and make the call without thinking about potential consequences. She HAS been married to (or living with) this jerk for some time, and regardless of how much she may fear or loathe him, she also has deep within her some positive feelings for him. If there are children involved, the psychological entanglements get even messier. Remember--"when dealing with human beings, a certain amount of nonsense is inevitable." -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, SOD & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Aug 89 14:39:45 EDT From: Lawrence M Geary Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question Reply-To: lmg@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (lawrence.m.geary) When I first heard of Caller ID, and realized that the phone company would be sending my phone number to callers without my permission, and without giving me the opportunity to stop it, I was outraged. Now I've been on the receiving end of enough annoying phone calls to change my mind. I want Caller ID. Just the other day, I was involved in some matters of personal hygiene when the phone rang. I didn't want the answering machine to get it because I was expecting a call and had been playing telephone tag for days. I rushed to the phone and caught it in time. It was the obscene caller; the one who dials number after number in the night; if a male answers, he hangs up instantly; but if a female answers he goes into his routine. I want to stop this creep from ever invading my home again. I want Caller ID. Then there are the charitable organizations I once supported until they hired phone banks and started asking me for "an extra special contribution". And calling me at dinner time, or late at night. And they won't take "No" for an answer. $6.50/month is a small price to get them off my back. There are also new features possible with Caller ID. How about a telephone that can be programmed to give certain numbers a distinctive ring? How about a call forwarding or voice mail service that lets you single out particular numbers for different treatment? Or an answering machine that records calls from thosse people who never leave messages? How about blocking calls on your FAX line from junk FAXers? The central office can do some of these things now. With Caller ID I'll be able to buy a box from Panasonic to do it all without an extra monthly fee. The privacy issue is real, and there could be abuses. But I've changed my mind and feel Caller ID is a good thing, and I will get it when I can. -- lmg@hoqax.att.com Think globally ... Post locally att!hoqax!lmg ------------------------------ From: Bob Frankston (BFrankston) Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 11:11:35 EDT I presume I will be one of many respondants pointing out that just because something is old it is good. Remember that rights themselves were not part of the constitution -- the bill of rights was a last minute patch. The right to privacy is controversial in that many see it as implied by the Bill of Rights and others say that any new (since 1800 or so) technique for invading privacy is good. When I was in junior high school I was told that writing to a Socialist (ok, Communist) embassy caused the FBI to start a file on you (the Joe McCarthy way of doing things for those old enough). What good is privacy if the mere act of placing a phone call, writing a letter, or using a credit card is equivalent to publishing your thoughts. There is no right of free association if it is closely monitored. I very much want the caller ID feature, but the caller must be provided with safeguards. It is not sufficient to say that prefixing a call with *999 provides privacy -- it must be possible to make that a default on a line and to provide legal responsibility if the number gets disclosed through the phone company's negligence. In the battered shelter case, there can be a cost associated with disclosing the number. Bob Frankston ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 89 12:17:24 GMT From: John Kennedy Subject: Is Calling Party ID in Northern Virginia? Reply-To: johnk@opel.UUCP (John Kennedy) Organization: Second Source, Inc., Annapolis, MD The Arlington County, Va. cable company has just announced a new feature for pay-per-view. You dial 810-00xx, where xx is the premium channel you want to watch. It then responds with "verify your channel now" or "this phone number is not authorized for this service." It sure seems that they know who's calling. Does this mean that C&P has implemented Calling Party ID there, or do they have some other arrangement? John Kennedy johnk@opel.UUCP Second Source, Inc. Annapolis, MD [Moderator's Note: Actually John, *all telcos* have Calling Party ID for their own internal use; at least most of them do. They just don't *tell you* the operator sees your number on the CRT when handling your call, etc. Emergency 911 service is another example of Caller ID in action. And the telcos are required to pass your number (as well as your name and address) to any long distance carrier which handles a call for you. When dialing an 800 number (or some variant thereof, such as '950-xxxx', your number is passed to the organization paying for the call. It might well be that in your town, '810-xxxx' is an automatic reverse billing prefix and the cable company pays for all calls to those numbers, in which case they would indeed get your number. But services like that are not really what the Caller ID stink is all about. PT] ------------------------------ From: Dave Fiske Subject: Re: Caller ID Linked to Decline in Harrassing Calls Date: 18 Aug 89 18:32:35 GMT Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY In article , GABEL@qcvax.bitnet writes: > The following article appeared on page 1 of the New York Times, > Saturday, 8/5/89. (copyright 1989 New York Times) > > Harrassing Calls Show Decline When Phones Identify Callers > by Calvin Sims > > The number of obscene or harassing telephone calls has fallen sharply > in the first test of a system that allows people to see the number of the > phone the call was dialed on before they answer. I have no doubt that this is true, but this is not the only way the phone company can deal with problem calls. They've had those "black boxes" for years, enabling them to keep a line open in order to trace a call. Over ten years ago, a friend of my mother's was getting nuisance calls in the middle of the night. After a number of occurrences, the phone company gave her one of these devices, and the next time there was a call, they traced it, and the police ended up knocking on the guy's door not too much later. I guess he was pretty surprised. However, of course it turned out to be an ex-lover, so my guess is that in most cases, an educated guess would lead you to the culprit. Also, someone once told me that the phone company had given them the following strategy for nuisance calls. Tap the receiver so it sounds like a couple of clicks, then say "Operator, this is the call I want you to trace." I think this would probably be enough to scare off the "casual" prankster. There was a neat story here maybe five or six years ago. Apparently the phones at the White House are (or at least were) constantly equipped with tracing devices, so that any threatening calls can be traced immediately. Seems this local high school student was showing off or something, called the White House from a pay phone at the Cohoes High School, and made some kind of vague threat. Well, the call was traced immediately to that pay phone, the Secret Service called their office in Albany, who contacted the Sheriff's Office. They dashed over to the school, asked a few people if they'd seen anybody using the pay phone, and confronted the offending student--all within 45 minutes! You can imagine, that student was pretty impressed with the response. -- "ANGRY WOMEN BEAT UP SHOE SALESMAN Dave Fiske (davef@brspyr1.BRS.COM) WHO POSED AS GYNECOLOGIST" Home: David_A_Fiske@cup.portal.com Headline from Weekly World News CIS: 75415,163 GEnie: davef ------------------------------ From: Mark Brader Subject: National Views of Access Codes Date: Fri, 18 Aug 89 01:14:16 EDT A few weeks ago I asked four questions. There were some posted articles and I also received some email. I summarize: 1. France seems to be the only country outside North America where what we call the access code is not considered part of the phone number. 2. There seems to be no country outside North America that allows customer- dialed, operator-assisted long distance calls. 3. There seems to be no country outside North America that uses 1 as an access code; France uses 16. 4. There's no correlation between unusual dials and unusual access codes. Thanks to those who responded. -- Mark Brader "...out of the dark coffee-stained mugs of SoftQuad Inc., Toronto insane programmers throughout the world..." utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com -- Lee R. Quin ------------------------------ From: Kenneth_R_Jongsma@cup.portal.com Subject: Area Code 908 Date: Fri, 18-Aug-89 08:01:17 PDT I can't remember if this was mentioned yet, so please induldge me if it was! The following came from a recent issue of Communications Week: New Jersey Bell Telephone Co. plans to create a new area code in New Jersey come June 8, 1991. Under the plan, the area code 908 will be established for Huntertown, middlesex, Monmouth, Somerset, Union and Warren counties and part of Ocean county. The counties of Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Passaic, Sussex and most of Morris will remain in the 201 area code, according to Bell Atlantic. No changes are planned for the 609 area code. Beginning January 1, 1990, calls into the 201 area code will be completed with either the 201 or 908 area code. Ken@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #309 *****************************   Date: Sun, 20 Aug 89 1:31:32 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #310 Message-ID: <8908200131.aa06958@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 20 Aug 89 01:30:07 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 310 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Call*Trace, Call*Block, Caller*ID (Michael Scott Baldwin) 10288 From a Payphone (Lawrence M. Geary) Suncom Network in Florida? (Carl Moore) What Is Involved In Getting a 900 or 976 Number? (Mike Morris) Re: Pay Phones/Earthquakes (David Lesher) Bellcore Publications Phone Number (Wayne Hamilton) Re: Mich Bell Strike Brings Vandalism (Wolf Paul) Re: Help Needed With Voicemail System (Dave Levenson) Re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail (Bob Frankston) Re: 100th Anniversary of the Pay Phone (Roy Smith) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 19 Aug 89 17:47:44 EDT From: Michael Scott Baldwin Subject: Call*Trace, Call*Block, Caller*ID Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories You can deal with nuisance calls effectively without revealing phone #'s. I have Caller*ID (NJ Bell puts the cute asterisk in the name) here in Morristown, but I can also get Call*Block, which prevents the last caller from calling me again, and Call*Trace, which sends the last caller's phone number to the local office. Neither lets me know the phone number myself. You don't need black boxes or prior arrangement, of course. Call*Repeat and Call*Return are amusing: they retry either the last number I dialed (repeat) or that dialed me (return). With Caller*ID and a redial button on the phone, neither of these seem to be any use. But -- if the other party is busy, it will keep trying the number for 1/2 hour until it gets through (my phone's not tied up by this). I get a distinctive ring and if I answer it, it will ring the other number. Because the service coverage is small (some exchanges in NJ, none inter-lata) and uneven (even some exchanges in Morristown don't work), it's not as useful as it could be, but I like it anyway. Now I want to get a computer interface for my unit and a voice synthesizer so that it will announce who's calling instead of ringing. I'm not sure, but I think that NJ Bell will be putting a funny mark in the White Pages beside any phone number that has Caller*ID. -- michael.scott.baldwin@att.com (bell laboratories) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Aug 89 14:54:11 EDT From: Lawrence M Geary Subject: 10288 From a Payphone Reply-To: lmg@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (lawrence.m.geary) I recently tried to make a call using 10288 from the Dunes hotel in Las Vegas. The hotel blocked 10288 access from the room phones. (And the hotel operator lied about how to reach AT&T, giving me a sequence that connected me to an AOS called "OSW".) They also denied access to 10288 from PAY telephones located on the premises. I had to leave the complex and walk down the street to make my call. Question: Is this legal? -- lmg@hoqax.att.com Think globally ... Post locally att!hoqax!lmg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Aug 89 17:18:57 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Suncom Network in Florida? I often scan through addresses & phone numbers to learn the system, not necessarily to call, write, or visit. Thus, I came across an ad recently indicating the A. G. Holley State Hospital in Lantana, Florida 33465 (apparently near West Palm Beach), and it gave a number to call: (407)582-xxxx Suncom, 228-xxxx (keeping the last 4 digits the same). How many such networks are there? (I have heard of, but not made a formal list of: Autovon, FTS, Cornet, DTN, and there's some- thing in California whose name I can't put my finger on right now.) ------------------------------ From: Mike Morris Subject: What Is Involved In Getting a 900 or 976 Number? Date: 19 Aug 89 07:00:34 GMT Reply-To: Mike Morris A friend of mine is currently providing a dial-up service using regular phone lines and a couple cheap answering machines. I'm curious - what is involved in getting a couple 900- or -976- lines? Mike Morris UUCP: Morris@Jade.JPL.NASA.gov #Include quote.cute.standard | The opinions above probably do not even come cat flames.all > /dev/null | close to those of my employer(s), if any. [Moderator's Note: To get a 976 number from Illinois Bell, for starters you drop off an application for same at their office accompanied by a Cashier's Check for $2000. You must have another phone line in addition to the 976 number. 976 is a prefix in the downtown area only. You must have an office downtown where it can be installed. Recordings are limited to 57 seconds. You set the rate to be charged; telco gets half of it. There is a minimum number of calls per day required -- at least a thousand -- and you agree to pay Bell for any shortfall under that number. For example, you charge 50 cents per call. Bell gets 25 cents. If you miss the minimum number of calls required by 100, then you owe Bell (100 x .25 = $25.00). No adult subject matter and no interactive conversation is permitted on 976 in Chicago. Illinois Bell does not operate 900 service here; it is all outside vendors, and mostly monopolized by the Nine Hundred Service Corporation. After your application for a 976 number is approved, allow about six weeks for connection. And one more thing: you agree to accept chargebacks -- as approved by Bell -- for any uncollectibles. Uncollectibles are people who move without paying their phone bill; establish connection via fraudulent schemes so that an innocent third party is billed and then protests; and 'one time goodwill writeoffs' for people whose bratty children ran the phone bill up without the parent's knowledge. What a deal! Of course you do get the benefit of easy collection from your listeners who get charged on their phone bill, and most of the time they pay. PT] ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Pay Phones/Earthquakes Date: Sat, 19 Aug 89 11:09:25 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher > Actually, the worst thing anyone can do in a time of national emergency > is jump on the phone. FTS was created for this very reason. Seems during the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK couldn't get a dial tone, so FTS used excess capacity at four (I think) rural CO's, one of which was in northern MD. With it, of course, you CAN get a dial tone. You just can't get a call to connect, or if it does, you can't hear. -- Flash! Murphy gets look and feel copyright on sendmail.cf {gatech!} wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Aug 89 04:25:44 -0500 From: Wayne Hamilton Subject: Bellcore Publications Phone Number >[Moderator's Note: I know. It was only after I put the Digest in the >mail yesterday morning and had gone to bed that I lay there and realized >it was the *Bellcore* phone number which was wrong -- not the AT&T Customer >Information number. We are still looking for the Bellcore number, I assume. >Sorry about that. PT] Back in June I talked to the Bellcore Publications "Hotline" at (201)699-5800. Is that the number in question? wayne hamilton U of Il and US Army Corps of Engineers CERL UUCP: {convex,uunet}!uiucuxc!osiris!hamilton ARPA: hamilton@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu USMail: Box 476, Urbana, IL 61801 CSNET: hamilton%osiris@uiuc.csnet Phone: (217)333-8703 ------------------------------ From: Wolf Paul Subject: Re: Mich Bell Strike Brings Vandalism Date: 18 Aug 89 11:59:32 GMT Reply-To: wnp@attctc.dallas.tx.us Organization: The Unix(R) Connection BBS, Dallas, Tx In article bob@rel.mi.org (Bob Leffler) writes: >>The union denies that any of their members has anything to do with this >>incident. My personal opinion is that the timing is too close to >>the strike to not be a disgrutled employee. > >It is very rare for unions to encourage or know of any activities like this >by individual members. Unfortunately, people who already have strong >anti-union sentiments use incidents like this to cast shadows on unions and >union activity >in general. Management has done these type of things far more often than >unions, just to try to make unions look bad, which helps management to break >unions and further exploit workers. >Followups via email please. There was a time in labor relations when both unions and management engaged in these kinds of tactics; if you maintain that management still uses these as widely as you seem to imply, you ought to back it up with some statistics, not just make a statement like this. It could well have been a disgruntled employee, without the union being aware of it or having encouraged it. As someone else pointed out, the Baby Bells really have nothing to lose: People are still using the phones, while they are paying fewer employees, and if the service deteriorates, that's all right, people have nowhere else to turn anyway. Therefore I do not see the Baby Bells using such drastic and potentially backfiring tactics. We're talking federal offense here. And b.t.w: having made a controversial statement, don't try to discourage public discussion of it by redirecting to email. That's a cop-out. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: {texbell, attctc, dalsqnt}!dcs!wnp DOMAIN: wnp@attctc.dallas.tx.us or wnp%dcs@texbell.swbt.com NOTICE: As of July 3, 1989, "killer" has become "attctc". ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Help Needed With Voicemail System Date: 18 Aug 89 01:46:37 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , judice@kyoa.enet.dec.com (L. J. Judice (DTN: 323-4103 FAX: 323-4533)) writes: > Our office has recently installed an ASPEN (Octel Communications) Voicemail > system. The mode of operation is for users to BUSY/DA FORWARD their phones > (on an AT&T DIMENSION) to the ASPEN's incoming hunt group. > > o When you call from an outside telephone, you are connected > to ASPEN, and to the voicemail-box associated with the > extension you were dialing. So, for example if you call me > at 201-xxx-xxxx, you will get "hello this is lou...." > > o But, when you call from an extention inside the facility, > you get the ASPEN main menu. This makes life a bit > annoying since you have to dial someone, wait for them > not to answer, wait for ASPEN to pick up and then > dial the extension AGAIN! > I am confused. I assume DIMENSION has no Calling Extension ID, so that > explains why it can't transfer to the right voicemailbox. But when > dialing from outside, is it safe to assume the CO has CLID, and that > THIS is what is used to make the association? What your Dimension(tm) PBX has are DID (Direct Inward Dialing) trunks. That's what makes it possible for me to call you by dialing your 201-xxx-xxxx number and directly reaching your own extension. The central office is transmitting the last four digits of the dialed number toward the PBX. When the ASPEN system was added, they also added a device that sits between the DID trunk and the Dimension PBX. This device (most probably a DigiTrap(tm) made by a company whose name I've forgotten in Minnesota) records the digits sent by the CO toward the PBX. It stores them for the duration of the call. (It also passes them through to the PBX). When the ASPEN system answers a call, it transmits a special in-band signal toward the trunk. This signal activates the DigiTrap, which temporarily splits the trunk from the PBX, transmits the digits it stored toward the PBX (and toward the ASPEN box), and then reconnects the trunk to the PBX. The ASPEN thereby obtains the DID code of the dialed call. This doesn't work on internal calls because no DID trunk is involved. The internal caller may, instead, hear a brief spurt of touch-tone-like signaling before the ASPEN device answers, as it tries to query the DigiTrap that isn't there. To see if this is really what's happening, answer an incoming call. Transfer the call to another extension (or forward your phone to another extension) and let that extension go un-answered or be busy. The ASPEN should get the original dialed number from the DigiTrap, and take a message for the originally-dialed extension -- not the one to whom the call was actually routed! Despite these limitations of the technology, the DigiTrap makes reasonably feature-rich automated call coverage available to older PBX's that weren't designed with such capabilities in mind. -- Dave Levenson Voice: (201) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: Bob Frankston (BFrankston) Subject: Re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail Date: Sat, 19 Aug 89 14:11:59 EDT Though I too am frustrated by the slow adoption of electronic mail, the reason that FAX is winning at the moment is that it is simply much much easier to use. You plunk down $1k or less, plug it into the wall, and stick a piece of paper in. That is about the same as pressing play on a VCR. (I know that the VCR has all those other buttons, but I'm pleased that people have learned they can ignore them instead of having to learn them). The situation is the same for voice mail -- you just leave a message. Never mind that it is a pain for the listener; most people don't know how much better it should be in terms of message management. Electronic mail needs similar ease of use. That is why I implemented Lotus Express so that email would be part of my PC in the background always available. A second requirement is ubiquity. Creating a transport and the subsequent development of SMTP, primitive though it is, was a necessary step in this direction. It used existing equipment -- requiring new equipment in 1970 just wasn't feasible. Even now, the current phone network is barely up to the task of supporting FAX. Many machines do not have their own addresses (nee phone number). The good news is that the telcos are becoming more aware of this. X.400 provides an email transport and ISDN is a step towards a next generation phone network that treats voice as one form of data with X.400 providing a multimedia store and forward capability and X.500 automating directory assistance. The process will be instantaneous by telco standards (less than 40 years). Fax can be coopted by treating the FAX machine as an X.400 user agent and treating a FAX phone number as someone's email address. The FAX message would arrive as an X.400 body part. There is already a service that will take faxes sent to you, OCR them and deliver them as MCI mail. In summary, it is taking a lot longer than I'd like but there is an inevitability of email. Remember CB? It still exists but cellular phones are much more effective for messaging. Bob Frankston ------------------------------ From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: 100th Anniversary of the Pay Phone Date: 19 Aug 89 00:47:40 GMT Reply-To: Roy Smith Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY) My recollection is that pay phones in Mexico City are free! Partly, I guess, because they can't keep up with the constantly changing coinage as inflation takes its toll (if this were RISKS instead of TELECOM, I'm sure the moderator would find some pun to make of that). -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu "The connector is the network" ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #310 *****************************   Date: Sun, 20 Aug 89 2:16:45 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #311 Message-ID: <8908200216.aa14529@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 20 Aug 89 02:15:51 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 311 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: International Access Codes Around the World (Michael Scott Baldwin) Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Mike Morris) Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Ken Dykes) Re: Gas Cylinders (John DeBert) Re: Gas Cylinders (Roy Smith) Re: Error In Earlier Message (Jim Gottlieb) Re: Touring the Central Office (Jim Gottlieb) Re: AT&T Mail and the Internet (Jim Gottlieb) Re: Automated Collect Calls From COCOTs (David Tamkin) Re: Pay Phones/Earthquakes (Chris Schmandt) Moderator's Note: I am sorry to report a message was lost and the sender will need to retransmit it. The message, entitled "The First Advertisement" discussed the original ad placed by Alex Bell describing the use of the telephone. Sorry, I don't have the senders name. Please retransmit! PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 19 Aug 89 17:31:12 EDT From: Michael Scott Baldwin Subject: Re: International Access Codes Around the World Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories * Why is 00 more logical than 009 (or 011 in Canada and the US), or 0011 * (in Australia)? > 00, whether more logical or not is certainly the most widespread, at > least in Europe and the Med. It's because 00 is recommended by CCITT as the international prefix. | When dialing into a country from outside, the leading zero must be | stripped off the area code. Strictly speaking, that 0 isn't part of the area code (called `trunk code' by CCITT); it's the trunk prefix code. Again, CCITT recommends using 0. Some confusion might be caused by the CCITT national number format, which is (trunk code) subscriber number or (trunk prefix + code) subscriber number In the USA, we never put the trunk prefix in the parens, but other countries often do; thus, (020) 22 88 28 in Amsterdam is really trunk code 20. The trunk prefix is never dialed in international dialing. The E.100 series of CCITT recommendations talks about this stuff. -- michael.scott.baldwin@att.com (bell laboratories) ------------------------------ From: Mike Morris Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question Date: 19 Aug 89 22:46:20 GMT Reply-To: Mike Morris (Charles Daffinger) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 309, message 1 of 8 >(Bill Nickless) writes: >> [...] >> ... lists some of the benefits of caller ID feature... > > ... talks about his desire to keep his second line number private... >... If it were to show up on the >screen of whomever I'm calling, that would be silly, would it not? >Something which *could* be acceptable to some may be the option of >using some kind of an alternate code for those who so desire. Thus, >instead of your unlisted/unpublished number appearing on the screen of >the receiver of the call, an alternative code (certainly a >non-telephone number) would appear. This identification number would >be unique and associated with your particular number. If somebody has an >unlisted/unpublished phone number then this associated number is >treated in the same way as the phone number: with the same level of >confidentiality. I think this is going to be a necessity. I have 2 lines here in the house, soon to be 3. Only one is listed - and I've had that number since 1965. I've given out the modem line number to maybe 4 people in the time I've had it, and that was when somebody wanted to download something. The _only_ calls I get on teh modem line are solicitors. However, the modem line is on the key system, and the light goes on when the modem is off hook. When it isn't, the modem line is used just like any other outgoing line. I can picture several scenarios: My wife is on the main line calling her aunt, and I make a call on the modem line. The receiving party doesn't recognize the number so refuses the call. Or somebody has a "smart" phone that looks the number up and displays the name of the person. Now, let's say that I call from work - and work has a PBX with 20-or-so outgoing trunks. Does the owner of the phone have to program in every trunk number? No, I think that the telco will have to offer a no-cost option where you can have an _alternate phone number_ that you also are the "owner" of be your "alternate code", Mr. Daffinger. This way, my main number, that everyone knows is "me" will show up no matter if I use my main number or my modem line. As long as this cannot be changed by the user, I think it will work. Or maybe I haven't thought it out far enough. Comments? Comment aside: When will Ma Bell offer combined billing? Sprint lists the toll calls from both lines on one bill (saving postage, paper (a.k.a. trees), etc. Why can't Ma Bell? (In my case, Pacific Bell) Mike Morris UUCP: Morris@Jade.JPL.NASA.gov #Include quote.cute.standard | The opinions above probably do not even come cat flames.all > /dev/null | close to those of my employer(s), if any. [Moderator's Note: AT&T list all lines associated with one subscriber on one bill if you ask. My Reach Out America plan is associated with both my numbers. I can use either line during the applicable time period and have the calls charged against my *single* Reach Out Plan. Likewise, billings from Illinois Bell (and AT&T, as the second part of the bill) are combined with all lines on one bill, provided the lines are on the same prefix. My itemized long distance statement from AT&T, via IBT, lists my main number, then references 'calls from xxx-xxxx' as part. PT] ------------------------------ From: Ken Dykes Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question Date: 20 Aug 89 00:57:49 GMT Reply-To: Ken Dykes Organization: S.D.G. UofWaterloo Someone suggested that unlisted lines show up on Caller-ID as some unique number that may be cross referenced by the phone company. Well, why just the unlisted ones? Why not ALL numbers mapped into a different unique value. Users will soon learn to recognize the ones they want to answer or want to avoid, phone numbers are protected, and when necessary they can be looked up by The Company. -ken -- - Ken Dykes, Software Development Group, UofWaterloo, Canada [43.47N 80.52W] kgdykes@watmath.waterloo.edu [129.97.128.1] kgdykes@waterloo.csnet kgdykes@water.bitnet watmath!kgdykes [Moderator's Note: Under your scenario, when we exchange phone numbers on first meeting, we also have to exchange secret numbers! "...my phone call will generate '123MJ5092G&H?' on your readout.....I am only giving you this because you are too itsy-poo to answer your phone and tell the bill collectors and itinerant telemarketing people to bug off...." Much too complicated. Let's just show the number of origin, and start being responsible for our behavior and actions on the phone, okay? PT] ------------------------------ From: John DeBert Subject: Re: Gas Cylinders Date: 19 Aug 89 20:42:33 GMT Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 997-9175 guest} Airco is not the only producer of compressed gases. There are quite a few who provide industrial and medical gases: Matheson, SPecialty Gas Products and Liquid Air Products are three that come to mind. Cylinders from Matheson and SGP differ in the color coding as described in the referenced article (not included because of it's size) quoting Airco's technical manual. As for Liquid Air, aside from the giant dewars used for liquified gases, I haven't seen their cylinders in some time and don't recall what colors they use. There would seem to be no way to be really sure about the contents of a cylinder without knowing who produced it and knowing the color scheme used. That's from a distance - up close, one can look for the DOT mandated labeling on the cylinder. JJD onymouse@netcom.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: Gas Cylinders Date: 19 Aug 89 00:41:52 GMT Reply-To: Roy Smith Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY) For what it's worth, the only nitrogen tanks I've seen on the street (marked "property of NYTel") are LN2 (liquid) tanks. You can get either liquid nitrogen or gas out of them, depending on which valve you open. The newer tanks are stainless steel (or at least they look that way). At the lab, we get LN2 in either the stainless tanks, or similar sized older tanks painted white. I've never seen the old white ones on the street. It always struck me as odd that they left LN2 tanks laying around where anybody could wander along and have a fast lesson in cryogenics. -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu "The connector is the network" ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: Error In Earlier Message Date: 20 Aug 89 04:41:02 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles In article GREEN@wharton.upenn.edu (Scott D. Green) writes: > >Re: Where can I find. . . (Jim Gottlieb) Here I am! Over here. >The number given for BellCore Publications catalog (201-669-5800) is either >incorrect or is a victim of the strike :-). ("The number you have reached >is not in service..") Can anyone correct it? Oops. I goofed (I hold my head down in shame). The correct number to Bellcore's publications department is (201) 699-5800. -- Jim Gottlieb E-Mail: or or V-Mail: (213) 551-7702 Fax: 478-3060 The-Real-Me: 824-5454 ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: Touring the Central Office Date: 20 Aug 89 04:47:11 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles In article bovine!john@apple.com (Higgy Baby) writes: > >In article , kitty!larry >@uunet.uu.net (Larry Lippman) writes: >> It is becoming extremely difficult for even an organized group >> to tour a central office in any BOC area. BOC's are particularly paranoid >> (perhaps rightfully so) about outside people being in any central office. > >Things must have been different in years gone by. I believe they were. In the late 1970s, I got tours of several COs just by picking up the phone in front of the building and asking if I could come in and look around. I can't imagine them letting someone in like that today. My first tour, in fact, was on a Saturday. The lone switchman on duty let my friend and I in, and we must have been there 4 hours, just chatting and touring. He did make us promise that we would not tell anyone that he let us in, but I just can't imagine someone risking his job like that in this current age of hackers and outright criminals. -- Jim Gottlieb E-Mail: or or V-Mail: (213) 551-7702 Fax: 478-3060 The-Real-Me: 824-5454 ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: AT&T Mail and the internet Date: 20 Aug 89 04:38:31 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles In article crum%lipari.usc.edu@usc. edu (Gary L. Crum) writes: > >What is the relationship between AT&T Mail and the internet? > >If there exists a two-way gateway service between the AT&T Mail >Network and the world UUCP network, then I would consider AT&T Mail >part of the internet (not Internet > >Perhaps AT&T Mail is closer to MCI Mail. Well, that's how they seem to push it to the public. When I originally called to order the service (wanting to hook up to it via a UUCP connection), the representative told me that I must have an IBM-compatible to use the service. I told her she was wrong, but she insisted. The literature states something like "You may connect to UNIX sites (only registered sites)..." meaning only Unix sites that subscribe to AT&T Mail. There is a gateway between the Internet and att, and by extension attmail, but I don't think they advertise that. They would rather that every Unix site be a registered (read "paying") user. In any case, I am now a happy subscriber. I love being able to send faxum by e-mail. I do have an on-site fax machine, but I'm often willing to pay the fee to avoid the hassles of printing it out, taking the paper over to the fax machine... Especially nice is being able to send an e-mail message to friends with e-mail and those with a fax, all at the same time. -- Jim Gottlieb E-Mail: or or V-Mail: (213) 551-7702 Fax: 478-3060 The-Real-Me: 824-5454 ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Automated Collect Calls From COCOTs Date: Sat, 19 Aug 89 12:03:05 CDT In TELECOM Digest, Volume 9, Issue 305, John Higdon wrote: | When you dial "0+NXX+NXX-XXXX", the synthesized voice says to push 1 | for a collect call and 3 for any other operator assisted call. After | pushing 1, the voice prompt you for your name. The unit then dials the | call (direct) and when it thinks the other end has answered it asks the | called party, "Will you accept a collect call from [your recorded | name]? If yes, press 1, otherwise press 0 now." It will repeat one time | if there is no response and then disconnect. | This raises some interesting questions. Where is the billing | information stored for charging the called party? In the phone? By some | special arrangement with whatever carrier they use for the call? What | if the called party refuses the call? Does the COCOT owner pay for the | one-minute refusal? And what if the called party picked up on a telephone that doesn't generate tones and cannot answer the automated question? David Tamkin dattier@jolnet.orpk.il.us {attctc|netsys|ddsw1}!jolnet!dattier P. O. Box 813 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN BIX: dattier CIS: 73720,1570 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-0813 Voice Mail: +1 312 693 0591, +1 708 518 6769 These views are nobody's but mine because I will not let anyone else have them. ------------------------------ From: Chris Schmandt Subject: Re: Pay Phones/Earthquakes Date: 20 Aug 89 03:46:03 GMT Reply-To: geek@mit-amt.media.mit.edu Organization: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge MA At least for AT&T, it seems to be policy to provide greater access for *outgoing* long distance calls from an emergency area (specifically, recent CA earthquake) than incoming. The logic is that if a family gets news out then relatives in other areas can pass it on to each other without straining the network node in the emergency area. Traffic quotas can be set, according to destination, for example, at each of the 100-odd 4 ESS's. In other words, your local node (Bent Street, Cambridge) knows to let only some fraction of the calls towards the node in question (say, LA) through, and signals busy locally without bothering the distant node. Such decisions are made by humans at the NOC (Network Operations Center), and implemented in the routing tables in each of the 4ESS's. I guess this is somewhat easier now that the network is no longer heirarchical. I was told the above{during a recent visit to the NOC. (amazing place, never turn down a chance to visit it!) chris ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #311 *****************************   Date: Sun, 20 Aug 89 21:54:59 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #312 Message-ID: <8908202154.aa08488@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 20 Aug 89 21:50:06 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 312 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Consolidated Billing For All Lines (David E. Bernholdt) Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Ken Dykes) Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Peter da Silva) Re: Caller ID Linked to Decline in Harrassing Calls (Michael H. Warfield) Re: 35 Cent Payphones In Iowa (Eric Schnoebelen) Re: Sprint Bashing Should Stop! (Ben Ullrich) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David E. Bernholdt" Subject: Consolidated Billing For All Lines Date: 20 Aug 89 18:35:53 GMT Reply-To: "David E. Bernholdt" Organization: University of Florida Quantum Theory Project In article Mike Morris writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 311, message 2 of 10 >Comment aside: When will Ma Bell offer combined billing? Sprint lists > the toll calls from both lines on one bill (saving postage, > paper (a.k.a. trees), etc. Why can't Ma Bell? (In my case, > Pacific Bell) In the Chicago 'burbs about 9-10 years ago, I convinced my parents to put in a second line for me to use. We checked out the options and found that the best thing for us was to add a second line, but have both lines charge against a single "CallPack 60" service. CallPack 60 mean that we could make up to 60 units of calls and would be charged beyond that. Local calls were free, calls to the rest of the Chicago area (AC 312) were charged a x units/min. based on distance. So we had both lines charging against the CallPack without distinction as to which line they originated on. Same for LD calls. For this we had to pay the one-time installation charge and a few dollars a month for the second line, in addition to the CallPack 60, which they already had. Although I'm not there anymore, they still have the second line and as far as I know, the billing arrangement has survived to the present. I have no idea if this service had a special name, or if you can still get it, but it may the same as PT referred to in his addendum to the note I quoted. It was great for us, since almost all of my calls were local. -- David Bernholdt bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu Quantum Theory Project bernhold@ufpine.bitnet University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 904/392 6365 [Moderator's Note: Call-paks and modem-all-night-for-a-nickle in northern Illinois went the way of the California Condor, I am afraid. Everyone in 312 except Central Telephone Company subscribers, i.e. all Illinois Bell residence subscribers now get an approximate eight mile radius of 'local calling' billed at one unit, untimed. Everything else is pay as you use it, even in the Chicago metro area. But we still get consolidated billing. All phone lines on the same prefix under your control can be billed on one invoice, and all usage requirements relating to discounts or savings (i.e. Reach Out America) can be spread over the same lines. PT] ------------------------------ From: Ken Dykes Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question Date: 20 Aug 89 23:47:18 GMT Reply-To: Ken Dykes Organization: S.D.G. UofWaterloo In article Ken Dykes writes: >Well, why just the unlisted ones? Why not ALL numbers mapped into a different >unique value. Users will soon learn to recognize the ones they want to answer >[Moderator's Note: Under your scenario, when we exchange phone numbers on >first meeting, we also have to exchange secret numbers! "...my phone call >will generate '123MJ5092G&H?' on your readout.....I am only giving you this >because you are too itsy-poo to answer your phone and tell the bill collectors >and itinerant telemarketing people to bug off...." Much too complicated. >Let's just show the number of origin, and start being responsible for our >behavior and actions on the phone, okay? PT] 1) If everyone started being responsible for phone usage, you wouldn't need Caller*ID at all! 2) I can be responsible for *my* usage, but want to keep my number guarded because I can't guarantee the recipient will be responsible with the info. 3) Extend my idea to include ACCOUNTS not numbers, ie: I have 3 phone lines so, only ONE ID for any of the 3 show up (now you only need to remember one number, not 3!) Extend this further to calling-cards, any call I place with my card (from a booth, work, vacation) will show with MY ID, see: more useful 4) Besides, I would expect people in general would answer the phone to "strange" IDs, it's just the "repeat offenders" you would ignore. Thus it really shouldn't be necessary to give you my ID in advance, you will learn the ones you DON'T like. 5) Heck, if its associated with my account, it could follow me when I change phone numbers, see: less complicated -- I don't have to inform you in advance when I change my configuration. -- - Ken Dykes, Software Development Group, UofWaterloo, Canada [43.47N 80.52W] kgdykes@watmath.waterloo.edu [129.97.128.1] kgdykes@waterloo.csnet kgdykes@water.bitnet watmath!kgdykes ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Aug 89 21:33:10 -0400 From: ficc!peter@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question It's pretty obvious that there need to be rules for this sort of thing. They don't even have to be very complex: (a) Have a 'privacy' prefix, like the current *70 Cancel Call Waiting prefix. (b) Telephones with unlisted numbers show up as 'unlisted'. Outdial phones for emergency centers or shelters would just be unlisted. End of problem. --- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "Optimization is not some mystical state of grace, it is an intricate act U of human labor which carries real costs and real risks." -- Tom Neff ------------------------------ From: "Michael H. Warfield (Mike" Subject: Re: Caller ID Linked to Decline in Harrassing Calls Date: 20 Aug 89 21:21:34 GMT Reply-To: "Michael H. Warfield (Mike" Organization: Harris/Lanier Network Knitting Circle In article davef@brspyr1.brs.com (Dave Fiske) writes: >I have no doubt that this is true, but this is not the only way the >phone company can deal with problem calls. They've had those "black >boxes" for years, enabling them to keep a line open in order to trace >a call. Yeah well I've been this route and it generally requires complaints stretched out over weeks, if not months; multiple call to the telco security people (you don't get it if you don't become a nuisance to them); and getting past the clerks who insist nothing of that sort exists. Then, if you have your dispensation from God in order, you might just get it, along with the remark that it doesn't always work. >..... However, of course it turned out to be an ex-lover, so my >guess is that in most cases, an educated guess would lead you to the >culprit. Trouble is, educated guesses don't prove a thing and can't be taken to court or the telco to get relief if the bum doesn't quit or admit to it. In fact it might just convince him that he's getting under your skin and to turn up the heat! After all, you're just guessing. >Also, someone once told me that the phone company had given them the >following strategy for nuisance calls. Tap the receiver so it sounds >like a couple of clicks, then say "Operator, this is the call I want >you to trace." I think this would probably be enough to scare off the >"casual" prankster. Oh boy, I though this had died a quiet death ages ago. I tried this once. Pranksters turned out to be a bunch of kids having fun when their parents were out. They though that was funny as all get out. Had to call me back several more times to listen to the routine!!!!!!! My wife and I had to put up with their nonsense for weeks afterwards. Note that this is where I got my first experience with the telco security people and the illusive black box. Never did get the box that time, the kids gave up before the telco security people did. Biggest problem with this is that anyone with the inteligence of a rock is going to recognize it for the bullsh*t that it is. It just feeds their fun. After all they're getting to you! That's exactly what they wanted to do. The best thing I found for dealing with late night crank calls is a modem. After the first crank call in the middle of the night, I turn the modem on with auto answer. <<>> It rarely takes more than a call or two for the callers to realize that they can't frustrate a machine and their ears aren't worth it. I recommended this to a college student friend a few years back and she also dealt with a serious crank call problem very effectively! Problem with it is that you can only use it when you don't want or expect any calls. I've never gotten any innocent victims yet but there is that catch. Calling Party ID is definitly an idea whose time has come. Southern Bell here in the Atlanta area has already announced all of the other related features (Call Block, Call Trace, etc.) but I can wait for the furor to settle and I can get the real thing. I haven't had crank calls for years so Call Block and Call Trace aren't really very useful to me. I would love to turn the tables on some of these *sshole phone solicitors, though. I would also love to see the day when it can be hooked-up up to my answering system (already computer controled) and I can customize my greetings based on who called me (read that last remark anyway you like). --- Michael H. Warfield (The Mad Wizard) | gatech.edu!galbp!wittsend!mhw (404) 270-2123 / 270-2098 | mhw@wittsend.LBP.HARRIS.COM An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it! ------------------------------ From: Eric Schnoebelen Subject: Re: 35 Cent Payphones In Iowa Date: 19 Aug 89 14:22:42 GMT Reply-To: Eric Schnoebelen Organization: Central Iowa (Model) Railroad, Lewisville, Tx. In article optilink!jones@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Marvin Jones) writes: - -In article , Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich. -edu writes: -> Speaking of US West (somebody was...), I was just in their area this past -> week. I noticed that payphones cost $.35 for a local call. Is that something -> just peculiar to Iowa or is it a sweeping trend I'll have to deal with all -> the time soon? - -What's wrong with this picture? - -Iowa is served by SouthWestern Bell. I grew up there; my uncle worked for SW -Bell. I'm quite sure this hasn't changed in the past 10 yrs. :-) - -Must have been a private pay phone ... which may account for the price, also. What is still wrong with this picture?? That Iowa is claimed to be served by Southwestern Bell. All of the Iowa I grew up in was served by Northwestern Bell, or independents ( like the Sharon Center Telephone Cooperative.. ) When I was in Iowa just weeks ago most of the phones in Ames were still marked Northwestern Bell, although I noticed the phone books were put out by US West. The only potential Southwestern Bell service area in Iowa might be along the southern border ( with Missouri, which is SWBT territory ) although I remember that area being served predominately by independents (GTE/Contel/ various little cooperatives ) Oh, and the payphones were still a quarter.. ( at least the GTE payphone I attempted to use.. ) -- Eric Schnoebelen egs@u-word.dallas.tx.us egsner!eric@texbell.swbt.com coming soon: eric@egsner.cirr.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Sprint Bashing Should Stop! Organization: sybase, inc., emeryville, ca. Date: Fri, 18 Aug 89 20:18:30 -0700 From: ben ullrich > My Sprint bill is $30,000 - $40,000 per month. My phone bill comes in a big > box with detail of every call. I have NEVER found one of those details > to be a call that was not answered. How often did you check every record? How can you be so sure about so many calls? > I consider the offhanded and uninformed response of the moderator that > "Sprint doesn't have answer supervision" to be uncalled for bashing. > It is not factual and it as uncalled for. Not really. Where is your counter-evidence? > Just because they offer lousy residential service, you can't damn the entire > company for it. If they happen to make a business decision to care > less about residential services, than business services, fine. Don't > use them from your home. However, you would be a fool to refuse to > consider them for business use based on their residential services. This is inane. A good deal of business service provided by them is over the same type of lines, and of course the network is all the same. Besides, a ``business decision'' doesn't give them the right to rip people off and do nothing about it. That type of ``business decision'' is a fairly cowardly one: businesses are much less likely to complain about (let alone EXAMINE) their bills than residential folks are. With business service, Sprint can make tons of money and not have to be accountable for their billing. And believe me, they do this. Sybase used to be a $14 K per month customer of Sprint's. After a year of ignoring us (no representative contact), and six months of DISMAL international service (many calls to the UK not completing or being cut off for weeks at a time, as well as nearly non-functional international FAX service), I moved us to a T-based service with MCI, saving 34% and getting better customer service, international, and FAX quality than we have ever experienced. I remember all the mornings I came in at 6 to be with the international marketing folks to listen in on their calls and make records of calls to the UK so Sprint could tell me there was nothing wrong with anything at that time. ``I'll fill out a trouble ticket,'' they said. ... and toss it in the garbage, I thought. I'll never forget the nerve of my customer service rep when she told me that anyone could bill calls to our numbers with no verification. ``Everyone [ATT, MCI, etc.] does it,'' she said. She also said she'd take the charge off. That was in March; the amount is still being billed to us to this day. > My basic complaint is that too much information on this list is either > hearsay or outdated or just plain wrong. I have nothing against > savaging a vendor who's screwing up (readers of comp.sys.sequent will > attest to that). However, I do feel that we should be dealing in facts > rather than inuendo. The amount of pro-ATT bigotry is astounding. > For some reason, very little of the Sprint "information" is factual or > current. This is what I object to. It sounds more like you just don't like the fact that your company isn't thrilling the majority of readers here. Your ``information'' on the subject is no more credible than anyone else's. You relate your experiences with hearsay, everyone else does too. Why is everyone else wrong just because you don't like their conclusions? Don't you sort of wonder why there aren't more people saying praises of Sprint? ben ullrich consider my words disclaimed,if you consider them at all sybase, inc., emeryville, ca "When you deal with human beings, a certain +1 (415) 596 - 3500 amount of nonsense is inevitable." -- mike trout ben@sybase.com {pyramid,pacbell,sun,lll-tis}!sybase!ben ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #312 *****************************   Date: Sun, 20 Aug 89 22:41:27 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #313 Message-ID: <8908202241.aa09021@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 20 Aug 89 22:40:31 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 313 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail (Wolf N. Paul) Re: 100th Anniversary of the Pay Phone (David Lesher) Re: 10288 From a Payphone (Mike Bryan) Re: 10288 From a Payphone (Mark Robert Smith) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail Date: Sat, 19 Aug 89 8:47:20 CDT From: "Wolf N. Paul" In TELECOM Digest 9/306, JMC@sail.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) writes: > However, unless email is freed from dependence on the networks, I predict it > will be supplanted by telefax for most uses in spite of its many advantages > over telefax. > ... > The reason why telefax will supplant email unless email is separated > from special networks is that telefax works by using the existing telephone > network directly. > ... No complicated network addresses and no politics to determine who is > eligible to be on what network. Telefax is already much more widely used than > email, and a Japanese industry estimate is that 5 percent of homes will have > telefax by 1995 and 50 percent by 2010. This is with a $200 target price. Frankly, I believe that E-Mail and Fax will co-exist for quite a while, because both methods of communications have unique advantages which are appropriate in different circumstances. > Another mistake was UUCP. ... > > 1. It assumes that both parties are using the UNIX operating system > rather than using a general mail protocol. This is only moderately serious, > because some other systems have been able to pretend to be UNIX sufficiently > well to implement the protocols. You don't need to pretend to be UNIX. There are uucp-compatible programs available for MS-DOS, VMS, AOS, MacIntosh, etc. > 2. It requires that the message forwarding computer have login > privileges on the receiver. This has resulted in a system of relaying > messages that involves gateways, polling and complicated addresses. This > results in politics in getting connected to the gateways and causes addresses > often to fail. Relaying messages via multiple hops and gateways is based on economics, not necessarily on questions of login access. There is such a thing as anonymous UUCP, which does not require machines to have any specially privileged access. But most sites do not wish to make long distance calls, therefore the message-passing system. > 3. Today forwarding is often a service provided free and therefore of > limited expandibility. But there are situations like UUNET here in North America, and a practically commercial UUCP network operating in Europe, both of which offer an avenue of expansion. > ... > The solution is to go to a system that resembles fax in that the ``net > addresses'' are just telephone numbers. The simple form of the command is just > > MAIL @$, > > after which the user engages in the usual dialog with the mail system. No doubt there would be some uses for a system such as you describe, but it has major drawbacks over E-Mail as currently implemented in a variety of systems. > Eventually, there will be optical fiber to every home or office > supplied by the telephone companies. The same transmission facilities will > serve telephone, picturephone, fax, electronic mail, telnet, file transfer, > computer utilities, access to the Library of Congress, the "National Jukebox" > and maybe even a national video jukebox. In the meantime, different services > require different communication rates and can afford different costs to get > them. However, current telephone rates transmit substantial messages coast- > to-coast for less than the price of a stamp. Indeed the success of telefax, > not to speak of Federal Express, shows that people are willing to pay even > higher costs. This is the issue around which things revolve. At this point, using Internet, UUCP, or commercial E-mail simply is still cheaper than sending a message via FAX or via a system such as you propose. It is also cheaper than voice telephone, and provides a hard copy of the message to both parties. For those who use computers in the normal course of their work, it integrates flawlessly with their work environment. A system such as you propose, for security purposes (since you advocate password-free access) would almost have to use dedicated hardware, and would thus integrate less flawlessly, in addition to incurring long distance costs and giving up the advantages of batching transmissions. As for the FAX-vs-EMAIL issue: In my experience people who have access to electronic mail use FAX for a number of issues which are hard to resolve: 1. FAX provides a legally acceptable facsimile of a document in a way that E-Mail cannot. I can edit an e-mail message prior to printing it out, and claim that it arrived that way. FAX is harder to falsify. This may well be the main reason for the success of FAX, in conjunction with the almost instantaneous delivery of the copy. 2. FAX requires no retyping of the handwritten notes and other communications still very common in our office requirements. If I have a manually annotated document, I can fax it and thus transmit both the original document and the handwritten notes at the same time. 3. Because FAX can transmit an image of a hardcopy communication generated in any number of ways, it is easier to use for those who still are somewhat computer-phobic. Yes, those folks are still around, sometimes in the highest echelons of management, and they will still be with us for a while. If all you have is E-mail, you need someone to re-type messages generated by those who prefer other methods of producing hard copy. Another issue related to pricing is the postal monopoly situation in many countries outside the US. The only reason the postal services tolerate FAX is because it is substantially more expensive than a first class letter. The only reason they tolerate E-Mail is because they control the PSS networks. For political reasons, they will not allow a CHEAP direct e-mail service, for fear that it will compete with the Postal Service. > Fortunately, there is free enterprise. Therefore, the most likely way of > getting direct electronic mail is for some company to offer a piece of hard- > ware as an electronic mail terminal including the facilities for connecting > to the current variety of local area networks (LANs). The most likely way for > this to be accomplished is for the makers of fax machines to offer ASCII > service as well. This will obviate the growing practice of some users of fax > of printing out their messages in an OCR font, transmitting them by fax, > whereupon the receiver scans them with an OCR scanner to get them back into > computer form. That would be a useful thing, but your next sentence does not follow: > This is probably how the world will have to get rid of the > substantially useless and actually harmful mail network industry. Look at FAX and the type of service you propose as the Federal Express of electronic communications. Then look at commercial networks as the First Class Mail service -- short delivery times for a lot less money. And finally the various "free" or volunteer networks are similar to Fourth Class Mail. They can co-exist quite happily. The only way that current e-mail schemes are "harmful" to what you propose is in the way that the existence of the US Postal Service is harmful to FedEx, UPS, etc. -- but that is life! > More generally, suppose the same need can be met either by buying a > product or subscribing to a service. If the costs are at all close, the > people who sell the product win out over those selling the service. Why this > is so I leave to psychologists, and experts in marketing, but I suppose it > has to do with the fact that selling services requires continual selling to > keep the customers, and this keeps the prices high. That is not necessarily true. Despite the fact that Office Copiers have proliferated over the past couple of decades, Copy Shops offering the same service have also proliferated. For some people it makes sense to purchase the product and provide their own service. For others it makes more sense to purchase the service when they need it and not make the capital investment in the product. Don't try to press everyone into the same mold. > I hope my pessimism about institutions is unwarranted, but I remember > a quotation from John von Neumann to some effect like expecting institutions > to behave rationally is like expecting heat to flow from a cold place to a > hot place. That is because institutions are made up of people. > I must confess that I don't understand the relation between this > proposal and the various electronic communication standards that have been > adopted like X25 and X400. I only note that the enormous effort put into > these standards has not resulted in direct telephone electronic mail or > anything else as widely usable as telefax. These are related to interconnecting the different commercial networks, and that is definitely coming. Well, these are my comments. It seems to me that you are unnecessarily setting this up as an either-or situation, which it is not. All of these communications have their place: FAX, direct e-mail, and networked e-mail. Wolf Paul -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: attctc!dcs!wnp Western Union ESL: 62864642 DOMAIN: dcs!wnp@texbell.swbt.com TLX: 910-380-8748 WNP UD ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: 100th Anniversary of Pay Phones Date: Sun, 20 Aug 89 10:58:08 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher One of the more frustrating aspects of international travel is trying to use the pay phones. While leaving Bogota Friday, I tried, from the airport, to call a coworker about a last minute problem. First, the thing would not take any of my Pesos. It just dumped them back in the return slot. But WAIT! I noticed that the pulse-pad worked anyhow (no surprise) so I called up and got through. But, alas, they time local coin slot calls, and it soon wanted more money. I dropped it in, it came back, and the blasted box hung up on me. I tried 3 phones and they ALL did it. So I kept calling back (for free), talking two minutes, etc..... {before you ask, the slot did NOT have a number on it, so she couldn't call me} -- Flash! Murphy gets look and feel copyright on sendmail.cf {gatech!} wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM ------------------------------ From: Mike Bryan Subject: Re: 10288 From a Payphone Reply-To: Mike Bryan Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute, IN Date: Sun, 20 Aug 89 16:39:56 GMT In article lmg@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (lawrence.m.geary) writes: >I recently tried to make a call using 10288 from the Dunes hotel in >Las Vegas. The hotel blocked 10288 access from the room phones. (And >the hotel operator lied about how to reach AT&T, giving me a sequence >that connected me to an AOS called "OSW".) They also denied access to >10288 from PAY telephones located on the premises. > >Question: Is this legal? I have a couple of articles which were circulated around our company regarding the problems with AOS providers. Both appear to be from a local newspaper, but I can't say for sure. The first article lists in detail the types of problems that are often experienced by users (sometimes unwittingly) of AOS, including high prices and blocked access to major carriers. Regarding blocking of calls, the article says: [reprinted without permission] The AOS may block all access numbers starting with 10, making it impossible to reach AT&T. The FCC has ordered an end to this practice, but four AOS carriers are asking to be excepted. Even on a blocked phone, you can sometimes reach Sprint or MCI by using their 800 or 950 numbers. The second article deals with a pending investigation of AOS by Indiana utility regulators, due to complaints of price gouging and fraud. Relevant quotes from this article: [reprinted without permission] "We are seeking a total ban of AOS providers because what they provide is not in the public interest," Timothy M. Seat of the office of the utility consumer conselor said Wednesday. The consumer office, which represents the public in utility hearings, requested the investigation after hearing that some companies charge extremely high rates, block callers from using cheaper long-distance companies and bill for local calls from pay phones based on the length of a call, which is banned in Indiana. -- Mike Bryan, Applied Computing Devices, 100 N Campus Dr, Terre Haute IN 47802 Phone: 812/232-6051 FAX: 812/231-5280 Home: 812/232-0815 UUCP: uunet!acd4!mjb ARPA: acd4!mjb@uunet.uu.net "Did you make mankind after we made you?" --- XTC, "Dear God" ------------------------------ From: Mark Robert Smith Subject: Re: 10288 From a Payphone Date: 20 Aug 89 23:37:57 GMT Organization: Rutgers - The Police State of New Jersey In article lmg@hoqax.att.com (Lawrence M Geary) writes: > I recently tried to make a call using 10288 from the Dunes hotel in > Las Vegas. The hotel blocked 10288 access from the room phones. (And > the hotel operator lied about how to reach AT&T, giving me a sequence > that connected me to an AOS called "OSW".) They also denied access to > 10288 from PAY telephones located on the premises. I had to leave the > complex and walk down the street to make my call. > Question: Is this legal? > lmg@hoqax.att.com Think globally ... Post locally att!hoqax!lmg As I understand the recent FCC ruling, NO. The way I read the ruling, any pay or hotel phone served by an AOS MUST provide a charge-free method of reaching all long-distance carriers that serve that area. Thus, it strikes me as illegal. If you want to do something about, contact the Public Utilities Commission (or equivalent) in Nevada, and remind them of the FCC decision. Mark Smith | "Be careful when looking into the distance, |All Rights 61 Tenafly Road|that you do not miss what is right under your nose."| Reserved Tenafly,NJ 07670-2643|rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!msmith,msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #313 *****************************   Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 1:31:09 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #314 Message-ID: <8908210131.aa12488@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 21 Aug 89 01:30:04 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 314 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Catastrophes and Line Load Control (A Forbidden Topic :-) ) (Larry Lippman) Interactions Between "retry on busy" & "return call if busy" (Anthony Lee) More on 234-5678 (Laura Halliday) Answering Machine(s) On Multiple Lines (Ole J. Jacobsen) Caller ID - 800 numbers (Bill Huttig) My New Phone Service (John Wheeler) Pac*Bell Combined Billing (Epsilon) Where to Find 'The Phone Book'? (Miguel Cruz) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Catastrophes and Line Load Control (A Forbidden Topic :-) ) Date: 20 Aug 89 22:03:25 EDT (Sun) From: Larry Lippman In article casey@well.sf.ca.us (Kathleen Creighton) writes: > I saw "Surviving the Big One" produced by KCET (PBS) in Los Angeles and > narrated by an LA fireman. One of the statements he made was that in the > event of a major earthquake which disrupts local phone service, we would > still be able to call *out of state* via pay phones. Sounds like the fireman may be misinformed. While coin telephones would be given preference under conditions of Line Load Control (which I will shortly discuss in more detail), anyone getting dial tone should be able to call anywhere the cable plant and central office is intact. This means that local calls would most assuredly be available. Cable plant restoral preference would no doubt be given to coin telephones and subscribers deemed to be essential to the "public welfare" (like police, fire, hospitals, etc.). > (As an aside, he also said that the telco can only tolerate 10% of its > pay phones being offhook at the same time so when you see a pay phone > offhook after an earthquake, hang it up.) The above is no longer a particular problem with ESS CO's in which software can simply ignore the scanning of a line in a permanent signal condition. In the case of SxS or crossbar CO's this was a problem in that a linefinder-first selector was tied up in the case of the former, and that junctors and permanent signal holding trunks would be tied up in the case of the latter. > [Moderator's Note: I am not sure why the *in-state/out-of-state* distinction > was made. Did the commentator somehow feel that central offices handling > long distance calls were somehow more immune to earthquakes or other problems It sounds to me like the commentator, who was obviously a fireman and not a knowledgeable telephone company employee, was simply misinformed. > And likewise, why did he think payphones were more reliable? A payphone > inside a building which has collapsed is just as damaged as a private phone > therein. Most BOC's have coin telephone vans available that are given priority during restoral procedures following a catastrophe. These telephone vans may use wirelines for service, or may use IMTS or cellular radio for service. > All telcos are able to provide simultaneous service to only about ten or > fifteen percent of their customers at one time; and an even smaller number > can be offered dial tone at one time. This is not a condition attributable > just to coin phones. When all circuits/switching equipment/dial tone > generators are busy, other customers sit with a 'dead' phone waiting. > > Actually, the worst thing anyone can do in a time of national emergency > is jump on the phone. Stay off if possible. The problem in a central office is that when it is overloaded with call processing requests resulting from "real" callers or permanent signals from damaged cable plant, NO ONE gets adequate service - not even essential subscribers like police, fire, etc. To assure telephone service to essential subscribers, a special procedure known as Line Load Control is often implemented in time of local catastrophe or national emergency. The existence and implementation procedures for Line Load Control, believe it or not, is one of the most closely guarded secrets of any telephone company. In the case of BOC's, Load Load Control procedures are covered in a "Plant Emergency Instruction" binder with the pertinent section containing a large warning: "NOT TO BE MENTIONED OR DISCUSSED WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC". Line Load Control is implemented as a hardware function in SxS and crossbar offices, and is implemented as a software function through the maintenance tty in ESS offices. Virtually all BOC CO's are equipped for Line Load Control, except for perhaps small CDO's. In a CO equipped for Line Load Control subscriber lines are divided into three classes: Class A, which comprises 20% of all CO lines, and which provides service "essential to national defense and public welfare"; Class B, which consists of 40% of the other CO lines; and Class C which contains the remaining 40% of the CO lines. In the case of a BOC, traffic engineering personnel somewhat arbitrarily assign what lines go into Class A, with Class B and Class C being randomly assigned to the remaining 80% of the CO lines. When Line Load Control is enabled, only Class A CO lines are able to obtain dial tone and originate calls, but such originated calls may be completed to ANY line in the CO, including those in Class B and Class C. When the Class A calling activity has stabilized, and if traffic capacity permits, originating service will be ALTERNATED between Class B and Class C, so that theoretically every working subscriber line has some chance to originate a call. Implementation of Line Load Control requires an upper management decision, and such implementation is not usually made unless a serious local or national catastrophe has occurred. In a SxS or crossbar CO, Line Load Control is implemented by cutting off battery to the subscriber line relays so that requests for dial tone are ignored. Such an action does not impair calls TO the affected lines. In ESS offices Line Load Control is purely a software function such that lines denied service are simply not scanned for off-hook condition. Perhaps the ultimate Telephone Status Symbol is having a Class A line. Why not call your local telephone business office and ask for one? :-) <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp. <> UUCP {allegra|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <> TEL 716/688-1231 | 716/773-1700 {hplabs|utzoo|uunet}!/ \uniquex!larry <> FAX 716/741-9635 | 716/773-2488 "Have you hugged your cat today?" ------------------------------ From: Anthony Lee Subject: Interactions between "retry on busy" and "return call if busy" service Date: 18 Aug 89 14:34:33 GMT Reply-To: anthony%batserver.cs.uq.OZ@uunet.uu.net In the proceedings to the 7th International Conference on Software Engineering for Telecommunications Switching Systems, there is an article by T.F. Bowen et al from Bellcore. The article was called "The Feature Interaction Problem in Telecommunications Systems" The following is a paragraph from the article: >"Automatic verification that specifications are consistent is a promising >approach. But detecting certain kinds of inconsistency may be intractable or >undecidable. There are interactions whose detection appears to require >examination of all possible executions of the system. We call these >"dynamic interactions". To make this idea concrete, suppose that customer >A has automatic "retry on busy", which continues calling a busy line until >it is free, and customer B has automatic "return call if busy", which >remembers a call that arrives when the line is busy and returns it as soon >as the line is free. If A calls B, an infinite cycle of calls could be >initiated, in which B tries to return A's call but A is retrying B, who >remains busy trying to call A. ..... My question is why is it not possible to have the exchange watch for such a situation and cancel either the "retry on busy" or "return call if busy". Is it possible to view the above problem as a deadlock situation ? cheers Anthony Anthony Lee (Humble PhD student) (alias Doctor(Time Lord)) ACSnet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz TEL:(+617) 3712651 Internet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (+617) 3774139 (w) SNAIL: 243 Carmody Rd, St Lucia, 4067 Australia ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 89 18:22 -0700 From: laura halliday Subject: More On 234-5678 I thought I'd try and see what happened with some west coast area codes and 234-5678, and the results are: (604) 234-5678 is blocked at the tandem, never getting to the 234 exchange (206) 234-5678 is a non-working number at Boeing Aircraft (503) 234-5678 rang, but nobody answered (415) 234-5678 has been changed to another number (408) 234-5678 clicked and told me the person I wanted was out of the service area, after saying something about GTE MobileNet in San Francisco (818) 234-5678 said my call couldn't be completed, and referred me to an 800 number for assistance (213) 234-5678 rang, with no answer (619) 234-5678 is a law firm in San Diego Apologies for those whose area codes I missed. ...laura ------------------------------ Date: Sun 20 Aug 89 07:07:25-PDT From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" Subject: Answering Machine(s) on Multiple Lines At the office we have 16 incoming lines (in hunt). We have an answering machine connected to the main number, and that's it. If the main line is in use (for an outgoing call, say) the answring machine won't kick in. I know radio shack has a device that will "watch" two lines and patch the ringing one through to the answering machine, I have such as gizmo at home and it works well. In theory I should be able to buy a number of them and connect them in cascade to have the answering machine pick up any ringing line. This would be a giant kludge, but would probably work. The question though is: Can I purchase some sort of device that will answer multiple lines, or are we talking "voice mail" which I've avoided so far since it seems very expensive? I guess 8 x 2-line answering machines would work too, but I'd prefer a more elegant solution. Any pointers would be much appreciated. Ole ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Caller ID - 800 numbers Date: 21 Aug 89 02:45:42 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL After reading the articles on caller ID I thought I would remind everyone that when the call an 800 the company receiveing the call will get your phone number on their bill. [Moderator's Note: Except, not really. You do get the city and state, and *sometimes* the calling number as well. If it is strictly local 800 service then you almost always get the numbers. AT&T can provide the number of the caller the 800 service; the other carriers struggle with the problem. PT] ------------------------------ From: John Wheeler Subject: My New Phone Service Date: 21 Aug 89 03:03:09 GMT Reply-To: John Wheeler Organization: Turner Entertainment Networks Library; Atlanta I am moving as of September 1 into the heart of Atlanta, which means that my phone service will be moving from 404-496 (Tucker, GA co) to 404-875 (midtown [10th street] co). I was first assigned the new number, then the representative from Southern Bell checked to see if that exchange qualified for their new (apparently pre-caller-id) package of services, which they call (here we go again with these blasted stars) Touch*Star. The services she offered were: 1) selective call forwarding...forwarding only specified numbers 2) automatic callback of last calling party 3) distinctive ring based on calling party 4) call trace (I didn't get all the details) Does this mean that this switch is caller-id ready - just waiting for the politics to come around? Is this an all-digital or digital/analog switch? -- Turner John Wheeler E N T E R T A I N M E N T ...!gatech!nanovx!techwood!johnw Networks Techwood Library * home of Superstation TBS * TNT * TBS Sports ------------------------------ From: claris!wet!epsilon@ames.arc.nasa.gov Date: Sun, 20 Aug 89 21:02:43 PDT Subject: Pac*Bell combined billing Organization: Wetware Diversions, San Francisco In article morris@jade.jpl.nasa.gov writes: >Comment aside: When will Ma Bell offer combined billing? Sprint lists > the toll calls from both lines on one bill (saving postage, > paper (a.k.a. trees), etc. Why can't Ma Bell? (In my case, > Pacific Bell) When I had two lines installed last year, Pac*Bell asked if I wanted combined or separate billing--the only restriction being that both lines had to have the same basic service (i.e. both flat rate or both measured) for combined billing. -=EPS=- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Aug 89 18:10:44 EDT From: Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich.edu Subject: Where To Find the 'Phone Book'? David Fisk wrote in digest #308 about a book called "The Phone Book". Does anyone know where I can find a copy of it? I've been looking for quite some time. The University of Michigan has it listed in the card catalog, but nobody can find it. Likewise at 3 other state schools. Did someone go through and remove all the copies? Anyone know the publisher; maybe I can contact them.. Oh, and re the payphones in Iowa... I was in Dubuque, where every payphone, including the one glued to the phone company building, cost $.35. Incidentally, the only phone books I saw there were published by Teleconnect... Isn't that the company which earned notoriety by presuming to decide which numbers to allow calls to be placed to? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #314 *****************************   Date: Tue, 22 Aug 89 0:16:05 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #315 Message-ID: <8908220016.aa08421@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 22 Aug 89 00:00:13 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 315 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Suncom Network in Florida? (David E. Bernholdt) Re: Discerning Your LD Carrier (John Higdon) Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public (John DeArmond) Re: Types of Service (Barry Shein) Re: 35 Cent Payphones In Iowa (Tim Russell) Re: 10288 From a Payphone (John Wheeler) Re: Call Forwarding Fun (Dell Ellison) Re: Automatic Collect Calls (Paul Guthrie) Re: More On 234-5678 (Bob Clements) Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm (Ron Natalie) Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm (Mike Gardner) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David E. Bernholdt" Subject: Re: Suncom Network in Florida? Date: 20 Aug 89 16:36:48 GMT Reply-To: "David E. Bernholdt" Organization: University of Florida Quantum Theory Project Suncom is a state-wide service connecting a majority (perhaps all??) state institutions. It also provides reduced-rate LD service to those who are connected to it. Here at University of Florida, we use it for all outgoing LD calls except those to foreign countries (I don't think it reaches outside the US). I personally have never used it to call other state institutions, but there is an entire phone book for state Suncom numbers. On the subject of "private" networks, University of Illinois was also hooked into a state network. Once again, I never had occasion to use it, so I can't say too many details, but I remember that it connected the two UI campuses (Urbana and Chicago), and also went to the state offices in Springfield. I don't know where else it might has gone. Also, many private companies have private networks: I know Amoco does from when I worked there; and GE does too based on phone numbers they put in a paper I have from them. -- David Bernholdt bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu Quantum Theory Project bernhold@ufpine.bitnet University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 904/392 6365 [Moderator's Note: Indeed, Amoco has a huge national phone network for internal use. Networks on top of networks, actually; they have a much smaller one called 'Stanotel' (for Standard Oil Telecom) which handles just communications for inter/intra-refinery operations. Another big one is 'Unitel' which is the United Airlines network. PT] ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Discerning Your LD Carrier Date: 20 Aug 89 20:02:18 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , morris@jade.jpl.nasa.gov (Mike Morris) writes: > I still feel that long distance information should be free to residential > customers, and local should be charged _only if it is in the book_. > Why should I have to keep 4 feet of shelf space reserved for the LA phone > books? And have to pay for the books out of my area as well? I am the last person to stick up for "the Phone Company". But I'm sure you will agree that providing you with phone numbers via information (or even via directories) costs the provider money, right? There are some, myself included, who seldom require any directory assistance. We return calls from numbers provided by our callers. We remember our friends numbers (or write them down). We use private publications and directories (for marketing purposes). Only on rare occasions do I find it necessary to consult an out of town directory (or directory assistance) to get the number I wish to call. For those occasional events, I am more than willing to pay the fifty cents. Why is it fair for the costs of DA to be shared by everyone (which is what happens when it's "free") when not everyone prefaces every other call with a call to Directory Assistance? -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: John DeArmond Subject: Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public Date: 20 Aug 89 19:56:58 GMT Reply-To: John DeArmond Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., "The Procedure IS the product" In article goudreau@rtp48.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes: >>Digression: airline deregulation is similarly bad. The benefits are >>lost in the enormously higher risks as airlines ignore safety (take >>Eastern Airlines, for example, (please?)). > >You picked a poor analogy by criticizing airline deregulation's effect >on safety. In fact, according to a recent article in the _Economist_, >the decline in accidents & deaths per US aviation passenger mile has >continued unabated, even throughout the past decade of deregulation. And as anyone who has looked below the surface of this subject knows, "deaths per passenger mile" is a completely bogus measurment which does not represent the true safety condition of modern air travel. As a larger and larger proportion of a carrier's fleet becomes high capacity jumbo-jets, the DPPM magically goes down even while the crash rate is up. A much truer representation is "deaths per VEHICLE mile". Even more representative than that would be "crash rate" in units of "crashes per vehicle mile". Rearrange the figures to fit into either of these models and the figures don't look so hot. Makes pedaling a bicycle on I-75 at rush hour look safe. As some immortal soul once said, "figures lie and liars figure". And you certainly don't expect the airline industry or FAA to arrange the lying so THEY look bad do you? Now back to your regularly scheduled telephone show :-) John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | Manual? ... What manual ?!? Sales Technologies, Inc. Atlanta, GA | This is Unix, My son, You ...!gatech!stiatl!john **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Aug 89 14:48:47 EDT From: Barry Shein Subject: Re: Types of Service Re: Roy Smith's service anecdote I had a similar experience, no line to the house so they needed to install one. There's a steep hill behind my house, I watched the guy climbing trees, the hill and all sorts of rather interesting gyrations like several attempts to throw a large wire spool over the garage in the back to get that line in from the street below. Again, all for $60. -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade 1330 Beacon Street, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 Internet: bzs@skuld.std.com UUCP: encore!xylogics!skuld!bzs or uunet!skuld!bzs ------------------------------ From: Tim Russell Subject: Re: 35 Cent Payphones In Iowa Date: 21 Aug 89 01:23:10 GMT Organization: U. of Nebraska at Omaha optilink!jones@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Marvin Jones) writes: |In article , Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich. |edu writes: |> Speaking of US West (somebody was...), I was just in their area this past |> week. I noticed that payphones cost $.35 for a local call. Is that something |> just peculiar to Iowa or is it a sweeping trend I'll have to deal with all |> the time soon? |What's wrong with this picture? |Iowa is served by SouthWestern Bell. I grew up there; my uncle worked for SW |Bell. I'm quite sure this hasn't changed in the past 10 yrs. :-) |Must have been a private pay phone ... which may account for the price, also. Well, sorry to say this, but I was just in Spirit Lake Iowa yesterday, and called back to work on a pay phone that wanted 35 cents and also had a VERY large logo marked "US West Telecommunications" on it. I used my calling card and got "Thank you for using MCI" after I entered my number, which surprised me - I had thought you ALWAYS got AT&T when using one of their calling cards, but this is evidently not the case. Regardless, the original claim is validated, and things have changed in the past 10 years (can you say "divestiture"? :-) As far as the 35 cents goes, pay phones in Omaha still only want a quarter, thankfully. It's probable that this trend is still confined to small towns. Tim Russell, Computer Operator | Internet: russell@zeus.unl.edu Campus Computing | Bitnet: russell@unoma1 University of Nebraska at Omaha | UUCP: uunet!zeus.unl.edu!russell ------------------------------ From: John Wheeler Subject: Re: 10288 From a Payphone Date: 21 Aug 89 03:10:54 GMT Reply-To: John Wheeler Organization: Turner Entertainment Networks Library; Atlanta I was early for a movie this weekend, and at a Southern Bell payphone in the theatre with time on my hands, tried several 10XXX-1-700-555-4141 combinations, all of which led me to "This is the AT&T Telephone Network... Thank you for..."(you know the rest). I thought the sign on the phone was supposed to show the default carrier...not the only accessible one! -- Turner John Wheeler E N T E R T A I N M E N T ...!gatech!nanovx!techwood!johnw Networks Techwood Library * home of Superstation TBS * TNT * TBS Sports ------------------------------ From: Dell Ellison Subject: Re: Call Forwarding Fun Date: 18 Aug 89 00:14:54 GMT Organization: gte In article , sje!tom@pdx.mentor.com (Tom Ace) writes: -> .... Three subscribers with call forwarding would create -> a forwarding loop, e.g. A forwards his calls to B, B to C, and C back -> to A; once that was set up, calling any of the three numbers from -> another location would, after a short pause, cause the entire switch -> to go down (completely go out of service). There was evidently code -> in the switch to recognize two-subscriber forwarding loops, but with -> three or more, it would hang. The only fix they had at the time was -> to disable call forwarding for customers served by that switch. -> [Moderator's Note: We covered this topic rather extensively some time back -> in the Digest. There are now absolute limits on the number of loops which -> can be made. Maybe someone will respond who knows the specifics. PT] With a GTE switch, the 'absolute limit' is now seven. After the call has been forwarded (or diverted) seven times (even if it's in a loop), the originating party will get Reorder tone (fast busy). ------------------------------ From: Paul Guthrie Subject: Re: Automatic Collect Calls Date: 19 Aug 89 17:26:53 GMT Reply-To: Paul Guthrie Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers In article zygot!john@apple.com (John Higdon) writes: >This raises some interesting questions. Where is the billing >information stored for charging the called party? In the phone? By some >special arrangement with whatever carrier they use for the call? What >if the called party refuses the call? Does the COCOT owner pay for the >one-minute refusal? The billing info is indeed stored inside the COCOT phone itself. This has actually been going on for a while with this sort of phone, at least with calling card (0+) types of calls. This sort of phone is the salvation of COCOTS, since now they don't have to give up a large percentage of operator assisted calls to AOSs, but can do all of the processing themselves. If indeed the COCOTs and the AOSs are the same company, then they still save manpower and backhauling costs, and naturally, switch capacity. As far as the carrier, most likely the phone will casual call (10XXX) some IXC (Sprint is a usual choice). There is no special arrangement (other than a Business bulk billing arrangement), since this is in essence a normal call (except to the phone itself :-) . Due to this, the COCOT owners do eat the costs of refused calls, but this is reflected back to customers in their higher costs. -- Paul Guthrie chinet!nsacray!paul ------------------------------ From: Bob Clements Subject: Re: More On 234-5678 Date: 21 Aug 89 17:31:08 GMT Reply-To: Bob Clements In article halliday@cc.ubc.ca (laura halliday) writes: |I thought I'd try and see what happened with some west coast area codes |and 234-5678, and the results are: |[list of victims deleted] |Apologies for those whose area codes I missed. No apologies to the people you bothered with these annoyance calls for your own amusement? /Rcc ------------------------------ From: Ron Natalie Subject: Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm Date: 21 Aug 89 21:41:44 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. I'm skeptical about this article. The plane must have been on the ground or else it wouldn't be answering the phone call. Second, airplane control systems are already required to have RF immunity especially with the new all electronic control systems the FAA is increasing the protection that is required. -Ron ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 09:36:08 -0500 From: Mike Gardner Subject: Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline F >> ...As a result of this >> event, the aircraft companies may have to redesign a lot of sensors. >No. The only sensor that has to be implemented is the one that scans >the passenger baggage. >It is ILLEGAL to use electronic devices such as cellular telephones >or even Walkman-sized portable receivers on board commercial >aircraft. It is also ILLEGAL to operate such devices on other >aircraft unless the pilot of the aircraft has determined that the >device in question does not interfere with the aircraft systems. > >This part of the federal aviation regulations is chiefly aimed at >reducing the risk of interference with the navigation or >communications systems, in the interest of flight safety. While >interference with the file alarm system may have been unexpected, >the passenger who carried a powered-up portable electronic device >aboard that aircraft is in violation of the law. What will probably So, after the pilot makes a mistake trying to get his airplane back to a runway before it explodes, you can drag this guy's body out of the reckage and throw the book at him.8^} You don't design something as complicated as an airliner, which depends on a remote system over which you have NO CONTROL to keep the airliner safe. Yes, fix the baggage checking system AND realize that compact electronic devices are becomming very common. All the planes systems should be able to either function properly despite interference or identify that they are being interferred with rather than giving a faulty indication. What if there had been a fire and the telephone, radio, etc kept the fire alarm from working? mgg >result from this incident is not a major re-design of aircraft >systems, but better enforcement of the existing regulations. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #315 *****************************   Date: Tue, 22 Aug 89 1:04:27 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #316 Message-ID: <8908220104.aa18368@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 22 Aug 89 01:00:44 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 316 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Some Questions About International Country Codes (Dolf Grunbauer) Re: Types of Service (ficc!keller@uunet.uu.net) Re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail (Steve Elias) Re: What Is Involved In Getting a 900 or 976 Number? (John Higdon) Re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail (John Higdon) Re: Interactions between "retry on busy" & "return call if busy" (Levenson) Re: Answering Machine(s) on Multiple Lines (Dave Levenson) Re: Caller ID Linked to Decline in Harrassing Calls (John Higdon) Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Ron Natalie) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: Philips Telecommunication and Data Systems, Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 14:53:01 GMT From: Dolf Grunbauer Subject: Some Questions About International Country Codes Once I heard someone say that the country code for the Soviets happens to be 7 because of James Bond (yes, the famous British spy, also known as 007). Can someone tell me whether this true, or is it the other way around (i.e. Ian Flemming chose 007 as 7 was already the country code for the Soviets)? In fact, this leads to some more trivia questions, like: 1. When were the country codes established ? 2. Who did this and based on what rules ? 3. Why do America and Canada share the same number, and why is it 1 ? 4. How come some countries have a single digit country code, some have a two digits sequence (like PR China, which is probably big enough to have a 1 digit number), and some countries have a 3 digits prefix. 5. Are there any countries with a 4 digit country code ? 6. What happens when a new country is created (:-) like a "thuisland" or home-land in South Africa (you known, the countries South Africa makes and states that they are independant countries, but the rest of the world thinks differently) ? Do they all get new numbers ? 7. What happens when two countries join to one bigger country ? Like what happend when North & South Vietnam joined ? Do they use the North Vietnam country code number, or do they use two different numbers ? (The same might happen when the North & South Korea and East & West German get united, or maybe this will prevent them :-), or when Hong-Kong and Macao become part of the PR of China). Please note that I am only curious about telephone country numbers thus *NOT* about any involved political item (especially 6 & 7). -- Dolf Grunbauer Tel: +31 55 432764 Internet dolf@idca.tds.philips.nl Philips Telecommunication and Data Systems UUCP ....!mcvax!philapd!dolf Dept. SSP, P.O. Box 245, 7300 AE Apeldoorn, The Netherlands [Moderator's Note: I think the longest country code has to the one for the Vatican; it is six or eight digits, of which the final digits simply appear to be appended to the code for Italy. PT] ------------------------------ From: ficc!keller@uunet.uu.net Date: Mon Aug 21 06:59:10 1989 Subject: Re: Types of Service In article , pf@islington-terrace.csc. ti.com (Paul Fuqua) writes: < The amusing thing was that the representative offered me my < choice of three basic services: unlimited, "economy" (charge-per-call < over 25 calls), or two-party (!). < This is within the Dallas city limits (although only by 100 yards), < and I was and am surprised that two-party service is still offered, much < less in an apartment built only three years ago. Are there other major < cities still offering party-line service? Two-party service is still available in Houston. I seem to remember that party lines are only available with pulse service. ------------------------------ From: eli@chipcom.com Subject: Re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 07:38:22 -0400 A few points. 1 -- There capability to integrate uucp mail and fax is already with us a number of demonstrations have been made, such that users can send mail to address!phone_num, and have the node at "address" convert their email message to group 3 fax and fax it to any fax machine. 2 -- Fax does not necessarily lose the ability to edit documents. PC-fax cards allow one to modify received faxes as well as generate them from scratch (or printer output). 3 -- The only thing stopping me from setting up a permanent email->fax gateway is problems running UUPC with a Hayes clone modem. Also, with DID inbound fax, the reverse gateway could be provided for $1 per month per user. Each user would have his own DID fax number.. -- Steve Elias -- eli@spdcc.com, eli@chipcom.com -- voice mail: 617 239 9406 -- work phone: 617 890 6844 ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: What Is Involved In Getting a 900 or 976 Number? Date: 21 Aug 89 18:36:35 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows > [Moderator's Note: To get a 976 number from Illinois Bell, for starters > you drop off an application for same at their office accompanied by a > Cashier's Check for $2000. Ditto for California. Your equipment must be located in the area served by the 976 prefix. Downtown LA, downtown San Diego, financial district, San Francisco, Santa Clara (Space Park), and downtown Santa Rosa are the locations that I know about for their respective area codes. You must have a minimum of 6 lines and you are charged standard rate for these lines. Pac*Bell gets a "transport charge" that is based on the length of your program, not on your rate. For a three-minute program (the maximum) the per-call transport is seventy cents. There is no minimum amount of calls you have to receive. Currently, interactive is allowed on 976, but Pac*Bell is encouraging migration to their 900 services. You are subject to "charge backs", just like Illinois. "Harmful matter" is no longer permitted on 976, and Pac*Bell is aggressively reviewing programs to make sure no one is cheating. Now that the strike is over, you can probably get connected within 2-3 weeks. That minimum on Illinois Bell sounds scary. If you get no calls at all on Pac*Bell 976, all you owe is the cost of those 6 (or however many) trunks that you have, which amounts to about $130 total. You get (on a three minute program that costs the caller $2.00) $1.30 per call, so it doesn't take much to break even. If your service allows, you can declare a shorter program and get more of your $2.00. -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail Date: 21 Aug 89 18:53:33 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , lotus!bobf@uunet.uu.net (BFrankston) writes: > Though I too am frustrated by the slow adoption of electronic mail, > the reason that FAX is winning at the moment is that it is simply > much much easier to use. You plunk down $1k or less, plug it into > the wall, and stick a piece of paper in. > > Electronic mail needs similar ease of use. That is why I implemented > Lotus Express so that email would be part of my PC in the background > always available. When I send email, I sit down at my computer, type "mail [user@uucp or internet address]". An editor is automatically invoked and I type the message. When satisfied that the message is correct, I exit the editor, list any "Cc's" to be sent, strike a lone "." and then a return and walk away. Within a few minutes to a few hours, my message is delivered to the recipient anywhere in the world. If, for some reason, it is undeliverable, the message is returned to my email box with an explanation. If the recipient doesn't have a uucp or internet address, a couple of extra key strokes routes the message through AT&T Mail and it is delivered via FAX or standard US Mail. You can't have it much easier or simpler than that! BTW, this *is* from my home. -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Interactions between "retry on busy" & "return call if busy" Date: 22 Aug 89 02:13:01 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , munnari!batserver.cs.uq. oz.au!anthony@uunet.uu.net (Anthony Lee) writes: ...description of deadlock resulting from two parties auto-retrying each other... > My question is why is it not possible to have the exchange watch for > such a situation and cancel either the "retry on busy" or "return call > if busy". Is it possible to view the above problem as a deadlock > situation ? It is possible if 'the exchange' serves both parties. But consider that one party may be in New York and the other in Los Angeles. What if there are three parties involved (A trying to reach B who is trying to reach C who is trying A) in three different cities? A similar deadlock may occur with call-forwarding. If two subscribers happen to simultaneously forward to each other, and someone else happens to call either of them, it could create a loop that eventually occupies all of the trunks available between the two exchanges involved. But this doesn't really happen. Here in NJ, if I have call-forwarding, and a call comes in and gets forwarded, no other calls get forwarded until the original call disconnects. Subsequent calls receive a busy signal, just as they would if my calls were not forwarded, and I had answered the origianl call myself. This makes the potential loop situation harmless. -- Dave Levenson Voice: (201) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Answering Machine(s) on Multiple Lines Date: 22 Aug 89 02:18:52 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , OLE@csli.stanford.edu (Ole J. Jacobsen) writes: > At the office we have 16 incoming lines (in hunt). We have an answering > machine connected to the main number, and that's it. If the main line is > in use (for an outgoing call, say) the answring machine won't kick in. > I know radio shack has a device that will "watch" two lines and patch > the ringing one through to the answering machine, I have such as gizmo > at home and it works well. In theory I should be able to buy a number of > them and connect them in cascade to have the answering machine pick up > any ringing line. This would be a giant kludge, but would probably work. Yes, it will work. I use a cascade of these devices to share a Caller*Id display unit between several lines. The trouble is that the holding time for calls to answering machines is long enough that a single machine may be unable to handle the traffic on 16 lines. The probability that it will be in use when any given call arrives may be too high to be helpful. I suggest a compromise: use a cascade of three devices to share the answering machine over the first four trunks. If you need more, consider a second answering machine for the next six, and so on. There are two-line answering machines, but they combine the two-line switch with the machine. This means that you can't cascade them for larger concentrations of lines per machine... -- Dave Levenson Voice: (201) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Caller ID Linked to Decline in Harrassing Calls Date: 22 Aug 89 03:34:59 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , mhw@wittsend.lbp.harris. com (Michael H. Warfield (Mike)) writes: > The best thing I found for dealing with late night crank calls is > a modem. After the first crank call in the middle of the night, I turn > the modem on with auto answer. <<>> It rarely > takes more than a call or two for the callers to realize that they can't > frustrate a machine and their ears aren't worth it. I recommended this to > a college student friend a few years back and she also dealt with a serious > crank call problem very effectively! Problem with it is that you can > only use it when you don't want or expect any calls. I've never gotten > any innocent victims yet but there is that catch. This brings up a heretofore unmentioned type of harrassment call: the idiot with the wrong number. These may have been pranks, but they sounded legitimate. On the first instance someone called on my private line and asked for a Tom [Somebody]. I simply said, "you must have the wrong number", and hung up. Minutes later, he calls back and upon realizing that he had reached the same party asked if he had reached 723-XXXX. I told him that he had and that he must have obtained the wrong number somewhere. A few minutes after that, a woman called asking for the same person. Once again, I explained that she had a wrong number--at which point the previous gentleman, who was on the line, spoke up and said, "See, I told you, honey." I thought that was that. Ten minutes later, an operator called and said, "This is the Pacific Bell operator. Have I reached 723-XXXX?" "Yes" "Is there a Tom [Somebody] there?" "No, and there never has been". "Thank-you." That was scenario #1. The second scenario begins simply with a telco repairman showing up at the door. He says, "Pacific Bell repair. You have a line...723-yyyy out of order?" "Not that I'm aware of." "A Mister [Neverheardoftheperson] reported your line out of order." Well, it turns out that 723-yyyy in this case has a Telebit Trailblazer connected to it. For those of you who don't know, it answers with the most gawdawful "bleep-blop-whoosh", repeated once then followed by standard modem tones. Some idiot was so sure he had a right number that he actually called repair service and "turned it in". Even more surprising was that they dispatched without calling on one of my voice lines first. -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Don't you love the people who pull those stunts? I once had a lady do that to my modem line, but the repair foreman called me from his office on my other line to inquire, "Pat, don't you have a modem on the second line?" I told him I did, and he related that some lady had put *seven quarters in a row* in a payphone someplace; kept calling my number and getting the modem; got two different operators to assist her because she did not believe the first operator, and finally -- bless her soul -- when she got home she called Repair Service to turn me in for having "...some kind of terrible, loud noise on the line...". And she even asked Repair if they would *refund the buck seventy five she lost* trying to get through. Talk about Dumb! Although I am sure she meant well by calling it in. PT] ------------------------------ From: Ron Natalie Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question Date: 21 Aug 89 21:54:29 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. By the way, It's obvious that the people who designed ICLID had some of this stuff in mind. The possible things you get in the data burst are the phone number, a P indicating the caller won't tell you, and an O meaning the phone system doesn't know. Of course, whether the phone company will allow you to cause your phone to send a P or not is another story. -Ron ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #316 *****************************   Date: Tue, 22 Aug 89 2:17:52 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #317 Message-ID: <8908220217.aa23761@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 22 Aug 89 02:15:06 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 317 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson ISDN, Caller ID and More (Torsten Dahlkvist) Watson / Natural Microsystems (David Stodolsky) International Access Codes Around the World (Chris Hayward) What California Network? (Carl Moore) [Moderator's Note: This issue of the Digest is mainly devoted to an essay by Torsten Dahlkvist which I am sure you will enjoy. In case you don't notice it, every contributor in this issue of the Digest comes from a different *country* in the world. Only one of the four articles is from an American. As we near the conclusion of eight years of continuous publication of the Digest this week, I must say I really believe the Digest has become an international telecommunications journal, and a unique one at that, being entirely reader-written. This weekend approaching, watch for another special edition of the Digest devoted to ISDN. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Torsten Dahlkvist Subject: ISDN, Caller ID and More Date: 21 Aug 89 14:23:34 GMT Reply-To: Torsten Dahlkvist Organization: Ellemtel Utvecklings AB, Stockholm, Sweden Since the discussion about Calling Number Identification seems to have started again, I feel a need to say my word on the subject even though I've posted some of this before. Apologies to those who feel annoyed about this. The Calling Number Identification facility (CNI) of ISDN is a nice example of the new features the all-digital communication technology offers us. Some feel this to be an intrusion on their privacy, but as the moderator pointed out in his footnote to , CNI has long been available to the telcos, the Police and other "worthy" institutions. In the U.S. they are even, apparently, forced by law to hand this on in full (address and all) to other telcos for billing. Now that it's being offered to the general public the only main difference lies in that more people are getting it. Several readers have pointed out the need for a way for users to cancel CNI transfer in certain cases, like the battered woman calling to tell her kids she's all right. In Bob Frankston states that: > the caller must be provided with safeguards. It is not sufficient > to say that prefixing a call with *999 provides privacy -- it must be > possible to make that a default on a line." To clarify things a bit I'd like to point out a few fundamentals about CNI in ISDN as proposed by CCITT and implemented by several manufacturers. If ATT has chosen to go for a full implementation I do not know. If they haven't, I'll leave it up to them to defend their decisions. 1) CNI is always sent from the originating caller's exchange to the exchange of the destination. 2) With the CNI is included an indication telling if the caller wants this info to be sent on to the callee or to stop at the telco. 3) The "no CNI" indicator is controlled by: a) what is explicitly ordered for this call, b) the default for this line, c) the default for this telco, If the caller dials a special code when setting up his call, or if he's using a feature-phone which can be pre-programmed to do it automatically, he can select to - on a call-at-a-time basis - override the default for the line. If no special code is given, the default for the line is used. This would enable customers with un-listed numbers to guard their privacy. Using a) above, they can still send CNI to trusted people. If no default is specified for the line, the default set by the telco is used as a last resort. 4) The called subscriber in his turn must subscribe to CNI in order for his exchange to send it on to him. 5) For "special" subscribers (Police, Fire, telco offices) the exchange can be programmed to give CNI at all times regardless of what the caller may have specified. This allows continuation of emergency services as provided today. As you can see, there is no guarantee in this that the FBI or CIA will not tap into the data stream between the exchanges to see exactly who is calling the Russian Embassy. The situation is exactly the same in this aspect as it has been for many years. Also, there is no way to stop a salesperson (or obscene caller) from using the suppression facility to avoid beeing identified. In the end you may find yourself where you only answer calls identified as beeing from your friends, or at least beeing identified so that you can get back at them if you dislike their message. In Charles Daffinger requests some means of identification that would not hazard the privacy of un-listed subscribers. Bearing in mind what I've said above about the suppression facility, the non-listed subscriber who wants to identify himself without revealing his number (or the regular user who wants to add more personality to his calls) can use the User-User-Info facility, UUI. This comes in a number of varieties in ISDN, but what I was thinking of right now is the Call Setup version where a text of up to 32 characters (bytes, really) can be programmed into the callers feature-phone and is transferred on each outgoing call. This can be displayed along with or instead of the CNI, as the case may be, and allows you to send your name, company name or just a funny note of your choice to the other party. The telco charges for this transfer, of course, since the info goes there and can be read even if he doesn't answer. Still, this, along with CNI, may provide the cheapest means by far for students-in-distress to call their parents and say "call me back at this number". There seems to be some misunderstanding on the net of the full implications of ISDN on phoning and datacomm. For example, in Mike Morris worried that if he used his second line to make an outgoing call the number normally leading to his modem line would be sent to the other party and either not be recognized or later incorectly used to call back to him. But in ISDN you will not be using your old modem - it will not fit. Instead you will need to buy a new "ISDN-modem" which will - at first - be rather costly but which will give you a number of nice features like high-quality data transfer at 64 kb/s. And built-into the ISDN concept is the call-type identifier which ensures that the modem will only answer datacomm-calls and the phone will only answer speech connections. They may share the same line and the same number, they will still not interfere with each other. If you get a computer with a built-in ISDN card you may find that it gives you both speech and data capability so that you may use the computer both as a BBS and a feature-phone. Incoming calls identified as "phone" will start it ringing and urge you to pick up the receiver while calls identified as "data" will silently start the logon routine. Of course, trivialities like baud rates, parity and such are handled automatically in the call-setup so that the connection takes place only if both ends manage to agree on how to communicate. No need to scan carrier frequencies up and down at different speeds to try to find a match. Since the customer access to ISDN is 2B+D, every subscriber in reality gets a two-line system. This is one of the reasons why telcos are pushing ISDN in spite of the cost. They can meet the increasing demand for second phone lines to homes and businesses without digging up the street. You just go ISDN, they install some hardware at your premises and change your phones (and modems) (you pay through the nose for all the new features, of course) and then it's done. This means you can have two different phone calls going on at the same time. Or two datacomm connections. Or one of each. Your line will not be busy until both B-channels are in use. Since the exchange is necessarily all-digital, call forwarding and such facilities are trivial to include. In ISDN this is used to tie several numbers to the same line. In the incoming call-setup info a field called "Called Party Number" tells which number the caller dialled and you can program your phones (and modems) to accept calls to certain numbers only. This way, you can give the kids their own phone and their own number by simply having another number tied to your line. You then decide for each phone which number(s) to enable in it. Another entry in the feature-phone is the "Given Calling Patry Number" field. Since you have several numbers tied to one physical line, you need to specify which of these numbers is to be used for CNI when you make an outgoing call. This means that if you have four phones in your house - one in the kitchen, one in the kids' room, one in your den and one in the living-room - you could tie a set of three numbers to this installation, say 101, 102 and 103. You then program the phone in the kitchen to use 101 for both outgoing and incoming calls. The phone in your den uses 102 and the kids get 103. The phone in the living-room, however, is not obviously the "property" of either of you so maybe you program it to answer to both 101 and 102 while giving it's own identity as 101 when calling out. That way, when you make a call from the den, your wife calls from the kitchen or the kids call from their room, the party at the other end always gets the correct number to use when returning the call. In the living-room the phone will ring for either you or your wife, while outgoing calls will look as if they are made by her. (Ladies: please forgive me for this very blatantly sexist family set-up. It's just an example to illustrate the facilities of ISDN, o.k? :-) Maybe you want to keep one of the numbers un-listed and have the others listed. No problem. Just remember not to program any of the phones to send the non-listed number as CNI. You could still let all phones answer to that number if you want to. Or just some. Your choice. Maybe you are in the living-room about to make a call when the phone rings. You see from the CNI and UUI that it is for your wife, so you press the "kill" button and your phone stops ringing. You then lift the receiver and the phone automatically grabs the other B-channel to make an outgoing call (if the kids aren't already using it in which case you will get a "No B-channel available" text message and you'll just have to wait :-) The phone in the kitchen still rings and will do so until your wife answers (or presses "kill" as well :-) or the calling party hangs up. All questions on the practical aspects of ISDN use are welcome by E-mail. Any interesting points will be summarised and posted. /Torsten Additional disclaimer: What I've said here is merely my personal interpretation of what I consider to be "common knowledge" in the field of ISDN. I do not in any way represent ERICSSON in these matters. If anyone has questions regarding ERICSSON's ISDN programme I will immediately refer them to some suitable sales-creature over at the main offices. Torsten Dahlkvist ! "I am not now, nor have I ever ELLEMTEL Telecommunication Laboratories ! been, intimately related to P.O. Box 1505, S-125 25 ALVSJO, SWEDEN ! Dweezil Zappa!" Tel: +46 8 727 3788 ! - "Wierd" Al Yankowitz [Moderator's Note: My sincere thanks for an excellent presentation to the Digest readers! PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Aug 89 23:03:25 +0200 From: David Stodolsky Subject: Watson / Natural Microsystems aem@ibiza.cs.miami.edu (a.e.mossberg) in Message-ID: said: >A month after we had bought the system, they upgraded the software and ROMs >on the board. They charged us two hundred dollars to upgrade, though the >upgrade was merely bug fixes, serious enough to delay the project. >I liked the idea of Watson. Unfortunately, we found it to be poorly designed >and extremely overpriced. ("Well, we only make a small number"-- Less than a >month after putting it in a closet, we saw Watson from mail-order houses for >less than our "dealer-incentive price") I purchased a Watson board at a "special introductory price" and was in the process of putting it through type approval in Sweden when there was an upgrade (I think this same one). After first being told that they did not exchange boards, they agreed to do so since we were trying to establish their product in a new market. We also purchased an additional board at the same time. Because of a shipping problem, where they thought they might have to pay for customs clearance or something on the returned board, they refused to ship the new boards, until we agreed to cover the expected costs (it turned out there were none, to either them or us), even though authorization had been given to charge the new boards in full. After many long distance calls, the upgraded boards were finally shipped. However, the credit for the old board was not given. When I called the VP for sales he checked his records and found that the return had been recorded. After still not receiving the credit a month later, I inquired again and was told that the return had not been received. I finally issued a stop payment on my American Express Card. After having to deal with their billing department, I finally was credited with the then current price of the board, which they claimed had not been received (you guessed it, less than the special introductory price), but was billed for some additional software, the order for which had been cancelled. Quoting from my letter to American Express: "However, a second shipment was never authorized and receipt of my telex cancelling any back orders was confirmed to me by Eric Binder, VP Sales by phone. However, he took no action. Thus I am due $234." Finally, I had to sign a form saying I would discard the development software in question (for a product we didn't want and could not legally use or sell in Sweden). This is not the whole story, but you get the idea of what it was like to deal with them. I again could use a good voice-mail system, but from a *good* company, please. David S. Stodolsky, PhD Routing: <@uunet.uu.net:stodol@diku.dk> Department of Psychology Internet: Copenhagen Univ., Njalsg. 88 Voice + 45 31 58 48 86 DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark Fax. + 45 31 54 32 11 ------------------------------ From: Chris Hayward Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 16:10:34 BST Subject: International Access Codes Around the World The UK code for international direct dialling (IDD) is 010, as opposed to 00 as adopted by many European countries. The reason for this, I believe, is as follows: In the days before IDD, <00> was used as a "special" STD code for calls from the UK (including Northern Ireland) to the Republic of Ireland. When IDD came along, it would have been politically insensitive (suicidal?) to make Eire calls "international", and rather than mess about changing existing codes and routings, the 010 had to be adopted for the IDD prefix. Is this history correct? I wouldn't be surprised if the cause of a common European IDD prefix is yet another victim of the mess that is Anglo-Irish politics :-( Chris Hayward Praxis Systems Bath (UK, I suppose I should say) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 10:10:17 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: What California network? Yes, the California network I was thinking of was ATSS. I came across it in my notes after sending the question. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #317 *****************************   Date: Wed, 23 Aug 89 0:04:18 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #318 Message-ID: <8908230004.aa00843@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 23 Aug 89 00:00:34 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 318 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Calling 800 Numbers From Outside the USA (Vance Shipley) Hotel Long Distance (Kenneth R. Jongsma) Difference In Rates Calling USA <==> Overseas (Sten Peeters) Followup re Answering Machine On 16 Lines (Ole J. Jacobsen) What is 2600 Magazine, Anyway? (Tom Ace) What is 'True' ISDN, Anyway? (Dell Ellison) Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers (John DeArmond) Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm (James J. Sowa) Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public (Jim Olsen) Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public (Tom Ace) Re: Error In Earlier Message (P. W. Stumpf) Hey! That's Me! (Carl Moore) [Moderator's Note: Whatever else you do, from now through the weekend, do *watch Neptune* !! Its the biggest show in town. Have you seen any of the photos yet? In particular, from Friday afternoon through Saturday morning, spend what time you can watching the transmissions. Thus far, it is pretty incredible, but more incredible than the planet itself is the technology which brings us this spectacle. I'm loving every minute of it! PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue Aug 22 12:58:35 1989 From: Vance Shipley Subject: Calling 800's From Outside USA (translation numbers) Reply-To: vances@egvideo.UUCP (Vance Shipley) Organization: Linton Technology - SwitchView I have quite often wished to reach an 800 in the US from here in Canada but found that it was not dialable from here. Sometimes the 800 listing is all I have! In these cases I would wish I knew the 'conversion' number. I first found out about this while testing 800 lines. In order to test an 800 number with US coverage you must dial from the states. Calling from here in Canada wouldn't complete. So to test one of these circuits we would have to know the 'conversion' number. To use this number you had to be coming from a foreign exchange (it had to be a toll call). The conversion number often had the same last four digits and the NXX was always a valid office code. I don't know if this would work internationally or not. Also I'm not sure how it would be billed. Anyone care to comment? Vance Shipley uucp: ..!{uunet!}watmath!xenitec!vances Linton Technology - SwitchView INTERNET: vances@egvideo.uucp 180 Columbia Street West (soon) vances@xenitec.uucp Waterloo, Ontario CANADA tel: (519)746-4460 N2L 3L3 fax: (519)746-6884 # if it ain't got an interface it ain't much use!# [Moderator's Note: How could I pass up a chance to comment? :) If you found such a number and it worked in Canada, then I'm sure it would work calling from Europe, etc. And in all probability it would generate a charge to your account. PT] ------------------------------ From: Kenneth_R_Jongsma@cup.portal.com Subject: Hotel Long Distance Date: Mon, 21-Aug-89 07:40:02 PDT I had an interesting experience in trying to get an AT&T operator from a Hilton hotel room in Biloxi, MS. Dialing 8-0-xxx-xxx-xxxx got me some AOS, so I hung up. Remembering a trick from another hotel, I tried 8-00-xxx-xxx-xxx. "Operator, May I help you?" A little suspicious, I ask "What company do you work for?" A slight pause, followed by laughter. "The best, of course! AT&T." I explained why I was a bit concerned, and she was very understanding. Then she did something that really surprised me. She stated that she thought the line was a little weak and wondered if *she could call me back* in 20 seconds! I explained I was in a hotel room and she said that was no problem, so I gave her the number. 30 seconds later, she calls apologizing for the delay. She said the hotel was slow in answering the phone! To say I was impressed would be an understatement... ken@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 15:55:44 EST From: Sten Peeters Subject: Difference In Rates Calling USA <==> Overseas Calling from Europe to the US has always been ridiculously more expensive than the other way around. I have an AT&T Card and I was wondering if it would cost less if I used the AT&T card instead of calling on a European bill. In other words would AT&T charge me the US rates or European rates if calling from Europe by means of the AT&T card? Sten Sten Peeters | UUCP: sp@pro-palace 2005 Buckman Avenue | TEL : 215/678-6378 Wyomissing, PA 19610 | Orig: Belgium [Moderator's Note: AT&T would charge you whatever the local PTT charged-back to them for the call. Its the local PTT which is selling you the service, and they cooperate with other telcos (and LD carriers) as a courtesy and convenience in billing matters. In other words, having an AT&T/Sprint/MCI Calling Card would save you nothing. Now if you use the 'USA Direct' service available in many countries, that *is* less expensive because you are dealing with the local PTT only for a 'local call' to the nearest AT&T point of presence. And AT&T picks up the charges for your call to them from whatever country you are in. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue 22 Aug 89 10:34:28-PDT From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" Subject: Followup re Answering Machine On 16 Lines Thanks to all who responded to my enquiry. It would appear that the "best solution" is an expensive one, involving a voice mail hookup, while a couple of extra answering machines on the first 3 or so lines will probably solve the problem for most after hours situations. I should point out that the system in question, a Merlin II, has all 16 lines in a "pool" which means that outgoing lines are selected *at random*, thus teaching people to "only use lines from the top of the hunt group" will not work, and busying out other trunks is also not a good solution. Some kind of delayed-call-forwarding (no-answer transfer) would also work, but is probably best done within the system, I will have to "call the PBX vendor" as some of you suggested. (...and be prepared to spend a fortune...you know, sometimes I feel like that guy in the AT&T commercial who is about to be fired for having selected the wrong phone system, trouble is our system is made by AT&T, ok, ok, no more vendor bashing, I promise :-) Ole ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Aug 89 11:15:12 PDT From: Tom Ace Subject: What is 2600 Magazine, Anyway? I've seen "2600 Magazine" discussed here recently, but I imagine there are plenty of readers who (like me) don't know what it is. Could someone please briefly tell us what the magazine is about? Thanks in advance, Tom Ace tom@sje.mentor.com ...!mntgfx!sje!tom ------------------------------ From: Dell Ellison Subject: What Is 'True' ISDN, Anyway? Date: 22 Aug 89 16:15:15 GMT Organization: gte In article , toto!bill@apple.com (Bill Cerny) writes: > AT&T has been providing true ISDN via its Primary Rate Interface for > over a year now. AT&T is providing new calling services made possible > with ISDN, including call-by-call service selection and calling number > delivery. A recently announced service will allow enhanced routing > ... What IS 'true ISDN'? The definitions vary so widely that people are very confused as to what one is talking about. ** What is YOUR definition of ISDN? ** [Moderator's Note: Watch for a special edition of TELECOM Digest this next weekend devoted entirely to a special report on ISDN, *then* answer his question. It will be distributed sometime Saturday. PT] ------------------------------ From: John DeArmond Subject: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers Date: 22 Aug 89 15:47:32 GMT Reply-To: John DeArmond Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., "The Procedure IS the product" In article zygot!john@apple.com (John Higdon) writes: >I am the last person to stick up for "the Phone Company". But I'm sure >you will agree that providing you with phone numbers via information >(or even via directories) costs the provider money, right? >For those occasional events, I am more than willing to pay the fifty cents. > >Why is it fair for the costs of DA to be shared by everyone (which is >what happens when it's "free") when not everyone prefaces every other >call with a call to Directory Assistance? It's fair for everyone to share the cost for DA for the same reason it's fair for all to share the cost of things like the inside plant, cable, right-of-ways, telephone poles and so on. IF we wanted to be very strict with this concept of only those who use a service pay, then you would get charged extra if a cable right-of-way was extra expensive or if your trunk was damaged by storms or routing to your house took a few extra taps or the road to your drop box is rough, accelerating the wear on the phone company truck, or the fact that all your extra extensions use extra power from the ring and battery supply and so on ad infinum. No, the concept of universal service is that the costs, sometimes individually extraordinary, are spread across the rate-base so that everybody pays just a little bit. Sure, you may not use DA often but for some others it may be vital. I'll bet you use other free value-added services of the phone company more than the average user. I know that I'm on them frequently to fix problems with my lines that only affect data transmission. Sure I could buy a data-grade line and in fact, they try to push that from time to time. My residential service is surely more expensive than the subscriber who only calls his/her mother once a week. But I don't think any of use REALLY want pay-as-you-go. That some PUCs have allowed the phone company to deviate from the concept of universal service is sad indeed. John De Armond, WD4OQC | Manual? ... What manual ?!? Sales Technologies, Inc. Atlanta, GA | This is Unix, My son, You ...!gatech!stiatl!john **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Aug 89 16:29:36 EDT From: James J Sowa Subject: Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm Reply-To: jjjs@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (james.j.sowa,ih,) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes: >I'm skeptical about this article. The plane must have been on the ground or >else it wouldn't be answering the phone call. >-Ron Cellular phones don't have to be on the ground to answer a page message and start alerting. RF is able to travel vertical and horizonal. That is one of the reasons people were able to use cellular phones on commercial airline flights until they were banned by the FAA. "JUST DO IT!" Jim Sowa att!cbnewsc!jjjs Yep this is my on opinion and all that stuff must people add here. ------------------------------ From: Jim Olsen Subject: Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public Date: 22 Aug 89 20:13:33 GMT Reply-To: Jim Olsen Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, MA John DeArmond writes: >..."deaths per passenger mile" is a completely bogus measurment which >does not represent the true safety condition of modern air travel. Mr. DeArmond is sadly mistaken. If one must use a single statistic to measure safety, deaths/passenger-mile is as good as any, and superior to deaths/vehicle-mile precisely because it does account for passenger load. Judged by the chance of death on a journey, airline safety *is* improving. However, other aspects of airline deregulation suggest interesting parallels to telecom deregulation. Although the overall safety of air travel is improving, many airlines are relaxing some safety standards: those standards which exceed the legal minimum requirements. There is actually nothing wrong with this, as long as the legal requirements are adequate and are properly enforced. If one believes that the relaxed standards are too lenient, the answer is not airline re-regulation, but simply to require higher minimum safety standards. As with the airline industry, the deregulated telecom industry is pushing the legal limits. Unfortunately, in many cases (such as AOS and COCOT's) these limits were almost nonexistent, leading to abuses. As with the airlines, the best solution is not to return to the "good old days" of non-competition, but to make and enforce strong regulations to curb the abuses. Since the laissez-faire FCC is reluctant to do this, it's up to Congress and the individual states to do the job. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Aug 89 11:40:14 PDT From: Tom Ace Subject: Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public John DeArmond , discussing air travel, said: >And as anyone who has looked below the surface of this subject knows, >"deaths per passenger mile" is a completely bogus measurment which >does not represent the true safety condition of modern air travel. As >a larger and larger proportion of a carrier's fleet becomes high capacity >jumbo-jets, the DPPM magically goes down even while the crash rate is up. Let me see if I get your reasoning right. They pack the same number of people on fewer planes, so fewer crashes happen (fewer planes to crash), and voila--the DPPM goes down. Isn't it essentially a wash, though, because if there are now more people per plane on the average, each crash is likely to result in more fatalities? DPPM may not measure what _you_ want to know, but it is hardly a "completely bogus measurement". If I want to know the odds of my dying when I fly 1900 miles, I can calculate that from a DPPM figure. I cannot calculate that from the "deaths per vehicle mile" figure which you say is more useful. Each metric has its particular applications. (This IS the Telecom digest, isn't it?) Tom Ace tom@sje.mentor.com ...!mntgfx!sje!tom [Moderator's Note: Yes, its TELECOM, and we have probably exhausted this topic for now, at least in this forum. PT] ------------------------------ From: P W Stumpf Subject: Re: Error In Earlier Message Date: 22 Aug 89 16:41:35 GMT Organization: Bell Communications Research In article , GREEN@wharton.upenn.edu (Scott D. Green) writes: > Re: Where can I find. . . (Jim Gottlieb) > The number given for BellCore Publications catalog (201-669-5800) is either > incorrect or is a victim of the strike :-). ("The number you have reached > is not in service..") Can anyone correct it? 201-699-5800 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Aug 89 10:46:57 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Hey! That's me! I chuckled just now. I saw the Digest which had the short note from me about ATSS, and at the head of the Digest it said only one of the four articles is from an American (that's me!). [Moderator's Note: Yes Carl, that was you I was talking about. We have a sizeable number of international readers these days. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #318 *****************************   Date: Wed, 23 Aug 89 1:30:20 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #319 Message-ID: <8908230130.aa30473@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 23 Aug 89 01:20:40 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 319 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Busy Signals: Are 900 Numbers a Waste of Money? (TELECOM Moderator) Common Language Codes: Everything You Never Wanted to Know (Larry Lippman) Combined Billing Offered by Southern Bell in Florida (Dr. T. Andrews) Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Mike Trout) [Moderator's Note: Just *two* issues of the Digest this morning! PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 89 1:05:56 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Busy Signals: Are 900 Numbers a Waste of Money? [Condensed from an article in the Chicago Tribune, August 22, 1989] Consider just a few of the lines operating now -- Freddy Pumpkin 900-909-1234 Slime Line 900-909-2233 Paula Abdul 900-909-1800 The Hulk 900-909-5855 Club Teen 900-909-0100 World Weather 900-321-1212 Samantha Fox 900-909-FOXX NBC Soap Line 900-650-4622 Romantic Confessions 900-909-4500 Ken Patera 900-646-SLAM Stock Market Forecast 900-234-1100 Womens Secrets 900-909-1133 Did you ever wonder who would be on the other end if you dialed one of those phone numbers so luridly advertised on cable TV? But have you been too shy or put off by the price -- often $2 for the first minute and 45 cents per minute thereafter to call? On 900-909-1133 "Women's Secret Confessions" you get a scratchy recording of several women who earlier consented to have their phone calls taped for later listening by strangers. These women sound more like Roseanne Barr than Joan Collins. One says, "My confession is for the last six years I've been in love with my husband's brother. I have been married for seven years. Both marriages involve two children.....I know he cares for me and I care for him. But by us both being married, and both of them being brothers....I don't know what to do. I have feelings for both of them. Could someone help me? Please call in and let me know." Then there is 900-909-4500, known as "True Romantic Confessions". Another tape, another voice, this time it is Joe Sixpack speaking: "Hello, my name is Jerry and I play for a highly competitive softball team in central Illinois. And I'm having a hard time finding young ladies and [sic] everything that like softball and everything [sic] and the outdoors. And I am into snowmobiling because I have two of them. And I am into boating because I have one. And its really hard because I'm from a small community and everything and its just hard to find anybody. So could anybody please call?" "The Samantha Fox Line" at 900-909-FOXX features the pop singer in her streetwise Cockney. The tape is already halfway through but she assures us, "....if you've not 'eard all the message, stay on the line, it will repeat from the beginning.... " All these tapes are mobius loops which go 'round and 'round repeatedly, so you can listen as long as desired, and not coincidentally run up your phone bill even more in the process. "....'ere I am now. Jive [Records] signed me up about three years ago and my first big 'it single was 'Touch Me'. It was number three in America and number one in 17 other European countries," she says, proving that if she is anything at all, she is ignorant of geography. And this is where dialing 900 can land you. If there were a box office, you'd ask for your money back. But it is around such messages that a fast- growing, complex and controversial segment in the phone industry has sprung up. It did not exist until 1980, when AT&T invented it to allow NBC News to poll viewers on who won the Reagan-Carter presidential debate. They picked the Californian, and both a new presidency and a new phone concept were launched. According to Bruce Kushnick, a New York consultant who tracks 900 numbers, telcos and the people who provide the programming will rake in about $500 million this year. By 1992, he estimates the take will be more than $2 billion per year. 900 numbers have something of a seamy reputation in the public's mind. There are a large number of 'adult programming' numbers, featuring both taped messages appealing to every sexual fantasy imaginable, as well as live, interactive 'chat' lines, where persons of similar pursuasion can meet and exchange phone numbers for late night direct contact purposes. The sexually- oriented 'chats' seem to mostly be located on the 999 exchange, at rates that typically begin at $1.95 - $2.95 for the first minute, and about a dollar a minute thereafter. Many of these services offer a guarenteed connection by proclaiming, "...try our free number first! 312-606-xxxx. If the line is busy, we guarentee someone is waiting when you dial 900-999-xxxx." In other words, someone gets a free connection in exchange for functioning like a shill to bring others to the pay-to-play conference line. There are many, many users of 900 numbers. Last year, Fox TV used a 900 poll to allow viewers to choose the ending of a special "Married....With Children" episode. In a "Saturday Night Live" skit, Eddie Murphy had viewers voice their opinion over whether to execute Larry the Lobster by throwing him in a pot of boiling water or let him live. Calls from around the country via the 900 lines voted for mercy, and the financial take for both AT&T and the Saturday Night Live people was quite substantial. Steve Cowthon of Cable News Network points out that hardly a night goes by when CNN doesn't run one of its non-scientific polls on subjects such as the hostages in Iran or what to do with General Noriega. MTV first used 900 service during Bruce Srpingsteen weekend in 1987, and they received 886,000 calls in two days. Flushed with that kind of success, MTV ran a contest in March, 1989 to give away Bon Jovi's childhood home in Sayerville, NY. Within *15 minutes*, 300,000 calls had been received. Within *35 minutes* the tally was above 600,000 calls. Many 900 lines are just blatant advertising designed to sell something and get the caller to pay for listening to the advertisement. For instance, a 1969 nostalgia line has Wolfman Jack urging callers to "check out the 1969 video at your local video store..." Many of these messages are deliberatly designed to attract children, and encourage them to call without their parent's knowledge or consent. Some phone companies, including Illinois Bell, have dropped the chat lines they were running because of trouble which ensued when children and others gave out their home address or phone number to the stranger on the other end. Most of the telcos have discontinued offering billing service to the sexually oriented lines, effectively deep-sixing many of them; however those services have begun to recover, and now frequently use 800 service; requiring the caller to punch in his credit card number at the start of the call, and wait a couple seconds for verification before being connected to the conversations and/or taped message in progress. Most telcos now also offer blocking and will implement it free of charge on request. They will also write off (and charge back to the vendor) any charges on the phone bill the *first time* someone complains that they did not know what they were reaching, or the cost involved. One prominent 900 service provider, headquartered in the Chicago area is Telesphere International. According to Denny Houlihan, manager of 900 services for the company, they don't carry lines that naturally appeal to children. He said they avoid them due to the difficulty in collecting from parents who found out after the fact what their (unsupervised) children had been doing in their spare time. [Condensed from an article in the Chicago Tribune, Tuesday, August 22, 1988 by John Barrat.] ------------------------------ Subject: Common Language Codes: Everything You Never Wanted to Know :-) Date: 23 Aug 89 00:20:33 EDT (Wed) From: Larry Lippman In article myerston@cts.sri.com writes: > Maybe EVERYBODY is right. What is Central Office is called depends > largely on who you talk to and what you are talking about. Some > (maybe not all) variations: > o Base/Control Group. What the engineers call it. Used to be > assigned by Western Electric. Base unique to location, > control group to switching entity. Form XXXX-CX as in > 6A97-C4 equals a 1AESS in LA Grand (see below) > o Common Language ID. A combination of the place name > contracted (they spell out how) and, if necessary, a number. > PLALCA02 equals Palo Alto, California 02. I >think< that > this is where the billing location comes from. > ... The writer of the above articles mentions Common Language, which is a somewhat arcane [to the uninitiated, at least] method of standardizing designations for central office, outside plant and customer locations, along with standardizing designations and options for transmission and certain types of switching apparatus. The Common Language Identification Code system was developed by AT&T as a standard means of describing customer and telephone company facilities and circuits on a world-wide basis. However, the particular usage of the Common Language codes as mentioned in the referenced article is not correct, unless it is someone else's Common Language. :-) There are two types of Common Language coding, one for locations and one for transmission/switching equipment, but I will confine myself to the particular case of locations, which are referred to as CLLI (Common Language Location Identification), and are an 11-character mnemonic code in the form of AAAA-AA-NN-XXX or AAAA-AA-XXXXX, which further breaks down as follows: Character Positions 1-4 = Place Abbreviation Character Positions 5-6 = State, Province or Territory of Canada, or country Character Positions 7-11 = Location within the place In the case of telephone company buildings, character positions 7 and 8 form a building code, and 9 to 11 form a building subdivision, Traffic Unit, Plant Unit or Administrative Unit. Place codes used to be assigned solely by the Bell System Common Language Bureau which was part of Bell Telephone Labs; this function is now some part of AT&T, but I don't know the exact department or location. An example of the CLLI data listing for the CO where I live is: CLCT-NY-CC-CG0, where CLCT refers to Clarence Center, CC refers to a central office building location, and CG0 refers to an ESS end office, "unit" 0. An alternative method of encoding the above (which was NOT implemented) would be CLCT-NY-CC-741, where the 741 is the ANC (All Number Code). Note that there is no area code imbedded in the CLLI data. The rules for CLLI encoding are complex and arcane beyond belief, and in many instances character positions 7 to 11 are hardly mnemonic in nature. When my CO was a 35E97 SxS and was located in a different building (a new building was built for the 3ESS), the CLLI was: CLCT-NY-MA-SG1. There is a slight significance to the building codes CC and MA: CC no doubt refers to Clarence Center Rd. where the new CO is located, and MA referred to Maple St. where the old CO was located. Intuitive, huh? I'll give a few more CLLI examples just to show how this works: BFLO-NY-BA-891 Buffalo, NY Bailey Ave. CO, 891 1ESS apparatus BFLO-NY-BA-F10 Buffalo, NY Bailey Ave. CO, MDF location BFLO-NY-BA-AT4 Buffalo, NY Bailey Ave. CO, Traffic Assignment Office BFLO-NY-BA-01T Buffalo, NY Bailey Ave. CO, EAS tandem apparatus BFLO-NY-CH-001 Buffalo, NY Children's Hospital centrex apparatus located on customer premises BFLO-NY-SP-822 Buffalo, NY South Park CO, 822 1ESS apparatus BFLO-NY-SP-AT3 Buffalo, NY South Park CO, Traffic Assignment Office BFLO-NY-SP-A10 Buffalo, NY South Park CO, COSMOS computer There will be a surprise quiz on CLLI codes next week. :-) <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp. <> UUCP {allegra|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <> TEL 716/688-1231 | 716/773-1700 {hplabs|utzoo|uunet}!/ \uniquex!larry <> FAX 716/741-9635 | 716/773-2488 "Have you hugged your cat today?" ------------------------------ Subject: Combined Billing Offered by Southern Bell in Florida Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 7:01:23 EDT From: "Dr. T. Andrews" Organization: Society to Save the Sand Gnat In [9,11,2] morris@jade.jpl.nasa.gov (Mike Morris) writes... ) Comment aside: When will Ma Bell offer combined billing? Sprint ) lists the toll calls from both lines on one bill ... Southern Bell and AT&T combine their bills here. My three lines on two prefixes get listed on a single, unfortunately large bill each month. -- ...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!tanner ...!bpa!cdin-1!ki4pv!tanner or... {allegra attctc gatech!uflorida uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner ------------------------------ From: Mike Trout Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question Date: 22 Aug 89 18:35:21 GMT Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY In article , ficc!peter@uunet.uu.net writes: > Outdial phones for emergency centers or shelters would just be unlisted. End > of problem. Good idea, but I would imagine that such "unlistedness" would require extra fees, just as not being listed in the directory does. It's unfair to expect shelters--who operate on shoestring budgets--to pay extra for something that's rather critical to their safe operation (in this area, yearly salaries for experienced shelter staffers average a whopping $13,000). Of course, it could be argued that free unlistedness for shelters should be mandated by law, but we all know the likelihood of that idea getting by PAC-driven politicians. -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, SOD & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #319 *****************************   Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 0:01:55 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #320 Message-ID: <8908240001.aa26567@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 24 Aug 89 00:00:22 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 320 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Caller ID -- A Bad Idea (John R. Covert) Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Allen Nogee) Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Uri Blumenthal) Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Jim Gottlieb) Re: Unusual Warning Notice on Phones (John R. Covert) Re: Unusual Warning Notice on Phones (Robert S. Sklar) Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public (Spencer Garrett) RE: 10xxx From Payphones (John R. Covert) Re: More On 234-5678 (Boot Trax) Re: Supplementary and Intelligent Network Services (Anthony Lee) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 17:59:47 EDT From: "John R. Covert 21-Aug-1989 1735" Subject: Caller ID -- A Bad Idea I'm going to be as brief as possible, since this has been argued before. These are the two most often stated benefits: 1. Gathering numbers for voicemail systems. 2. Stopping harrassing phone calls. The first is not real. The number I'm calling from is not necessarily the number I want the call returned to. It may not even support incoming calls. The second does not require caller ID to the end-user. As currently implemented a subscriber who doesn't have a display can still trap harrassing callers by dialling a special code after the call, causing the number to be given to the phone company or police harrassment center. /john ------------------------------ From: Allen Nogee Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question Date: 22 Aug 89 16:00:44 GMT Organization: gte I'd like to dispel some of the myths that have been going around about Calling Line Identification. I have been involved in the hardware design of this feature for GTE. The following info is transmitted from the CO to your home about 1/2 second after the first ring is completed: 1) Month and Day (01 - 12, and 01 - 31) 2) Military Local Hour and Minute (01 - 23, and 00 - 59) 3) One of the following: a) Directory number, 2 - 10 digits b) ascii 'P' for Private Number or c) ascii 'O' for Out of Area With the present standard, nothing more or nothing less can be transmitted. Sorry, but words and letters are not possible. In the future, if the display boxes and standard are changed, we could transmit up to 256 ascii characters with many more interesting possibilities. The latest I've is that if your number is unlisted, you will get the Private Number code. (Displayed as 'PRIVATE #' on most boxes.) I also hear that the phone company allows callers to type a code (* 7, for example) to cancel the output of their numbers. They do, however, have to do this for every call. > With Caller ID I'll be able to buy a box > from Panasonic to do it all without an extra monthly fee. Not quite true. This feature, like touch-tone, requires the CO to install special equipment in the switch. You can have all the boxes you want, but without the feature you don't get the number. I've heard you can buy boxes for about $50 - $100. AT&T does supply the box in NJ when you subscribe, but in the future, I can guess there will be a rental charge. (Like a cable box.) I hope the above is helpful, as this is a very new and controversial feature. Allen Nogee ------------------------------ From: Uri Blumenthal Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question Date: 22 Aug 89 15:59:28 GMT Organization: IBM Corp., Yorktown NY From article >[Moderator's Note: Under your scenario, when we exchange phone numbers on >>first meeting, we also have to exchange secret numbers! "...my phone call >>will generate '123MJ5092G&H?' on your readout.....I am only giving you this >>because you are too ... to answer your phone and tell the bill collectors >>and itinerant telemarketing people to bug off...." Much too complicated. >>Let's just show the number of origin, and start being responsible for our >>behavior and actions on the phone, okay? PT] > > 1) If everyone started being responsible for phone usage, you wouldn't > need Caller*ID at all! > 2) I can be responsible for *my* usage, but want to keep my number guarded > because I can't guarantee the recipient will be responsible with the inf Wrong. If you want to keep your number guarded - make it unlisted (see previous discussion). If you don't - let's keep all the thing simple. It IS a lot more convenient, when you have either REAL person's name or his/her phone number the call's made from. At least ONE of those IS necessary. You don't want to give up the number - let it be another ID. But why make all the matter so complicated for nothing? From article by ficc!peter@uunet.uu.net: > It's pretty obvious that there need to be rules for this sort of thing. They > don't even have to be very complex: > > (a) Have a 'privacy' prefix, like the current *70 Cancel Call > Waiting prefix. > > (b) Telephones with unlisted numbers show up as 'unlisted'. > > Outdial phones for emergency centers or shelters would just be unlisted. Sorry, both points are wrong (:-). a) Cancel Call Waiting is NOT necessarily *70. Actually, somewhere it simply doesn't exist (:-). b) To allow ANY number to be just 'unlisted' will screw up all the system. The only way is to make some codes/names show up instead of real phone numbers, so that the caller CAN BE IDENTIFIED, but YOU CAN'T CALL HIM BACK. Regards, Uri. -------------- ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question Date: 23 Aug 89 02:03:31 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles In article lmg@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (lawrence.m.geary) writes: > >With Caller ID I'll be able to buy a box >from Panasonic to do it all without an extra monthly fee. I agree; it will probably be Panasonic (Matsushita) and not AT&T that will first come out with a device for the consumer to manipulate the Caller ID info. If only AT&T could produce products like Panasonic... Speaking of Panasonic, I am told that due to the 178% tariff slapped on their communications products, they have ceased shipping of same from Japan. They said they currently have a 6 month supply, and shipments will resume when manufacture is started at a new factory in the UK. -- Jim Gottlieb E-Mail: or or V-Mail: (213) 551-7702 Fax: 478-3060 The-Real-Me: 824-5454 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Aug 89 13:57:49 EDT From: "John R. Covert 22-Aug-1989 1357" Subject: Re: Unusual Warning Notice on Phones >While moving offices recently, we noticed the following odd label on the >bottom of AT&T straight sets (normal single line phones): > > WARNING > > USE FOR BUSINESS SYSTEMS ONLY OR YOU > RISK AN ELECTRICAL SHORT CIRCUIT. They're not _quite_ normal single line phones. If you look at the number on the bottom, you'll see that it is 2500 DM rather than 2500 D. The "M" means that the yellow-black pair is connected to a switch inside the phone which closes when you pick up the phone. This would be connected to the "A" and "A1" leads of a key system to make the lights on a key telephone light and to make your phone interact properly with your secretary's hold circuit, if necessary. The reason for the warning is that in older residential installations, Y-BK carries power for dial lights. And, to make matters worse, one series of transformers used to power those lights could create a fire hazard when shorted. /john ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 89 15:07:42 EDT From: Robert S Sklar Subject: Re: Unusual Warning Notice on Phones Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article , judice@kyoa.enet.dec.com (Lou Judice 15-Aug-1989 0916) writes: > While moving offices recently, we noticed the following odd label on the > bottom of AT&T straight sets (normal single line phones): > > WARNING > > USE FOR BUSINESS SYSTEMS ONLY OR YOU > RISK AN ELECTRICAL SHORT CIRCUIT. > > > The phones are on a Dimension PBX. I'm sure I've put consumer phone stuff > on a Dimension without frying it, so I'm curious about this. (Note, I > could understand if this was a digital phone or a MET-set type phone). > > /ljj The reason for the warning is probably for the sub-case where someone attempts to plug this phone into an RJ14 *TWO-LINE* jack. A business analog phone, probably a 2500M, is wired differently than its residential equivalent, a 2500D. The business phone uses the yellow-black pair for A-A1 supervision (the hook-switch short-circuits the pair so that the PBX|KSU knows that the line was picked-up and can light the appropriate lights on multi-line phones). On a 2500D this hookswitch pole is used for other purposes. Therefore, if you install a 2500M or equivalent in a two-line residential installation without opening the yellow-black connection to the hookswitch, you will short-out the second line every time you pick up this phone. Robert Sklar (Lachman Associates, Inc @) AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, IL ------------------------------ From: Spencer Garrett Subject: Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public Date: 23 Aug 89 03:59:30 GMT Organization: Quicksilver Engineering, Seattle In article , stiatl!john@gatech.edu (John DeArmond) writes: > And as anyone who has looked below the surface of this subject knows, > "deaths per passenger mile" is a completely bogus measurment which > does not represent the true safety condition of modern air travel. As > a larger and larger proportion of a carrier's fleet becomes high capacity > jumbo-jets, the DPPM magically goes down even while the crash rate is up. > > A much truer representation is "deaths per VEHICLE mile". Even more > representative than that would be "crash rate" in units of "crashes per > vehicle mile". Rearrange the figures to fit into either of these models > and the figures don't look so hot. Makes pedaling a bicycle on I-75 at > rush hour look safe. Just a minute, guy. Deaths per passenger mile is exactly the figure you need to calculate your own chance of dying. How many others meet their end at the same time isn't very relevant. Deaths per vehicle mile just makes bigger planes look less safe, ignoring the fact that fewer trips need to be made to accomplish the same end. DPPM does NOT go down "magically" as planes get bigger, we just don't have to send the coroners to as many places to pick up the same number of bodies. Crashes per vehicle mile is a useful figure for gauging the effectiveness of traffic control procedures, since the size of the plane doesn't affect the way it's handled, but for overall air safety concerns I want to know how many *people* bought the farm, not just how many *pilots*. (And I'm not down on pilots, mind you; everyone in my family *is* one!) (And what is this doing in comp.dcom.telecom? I've redirected followups.) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Aug 89 14:52:55 EDT From: "John R. Covert 22-Aug-1989 1450" Subject: RE: 10xxx from payphones >I was early for a movie this weekend, and at a Southern Bell payphone >in the theatre with time on my hands, tried several 10XXX-1-700-555-4141 >combinations, all of which led me to "This is the AT&T Telephone Network... >Thank you for..."(you know the rest). I thought the sign on the phone >was supposed to show the default carrier...not the only accessible one! This is part of making all carriers accessible from payphones. If you had called 10xxx-0-NPA-NXX-XXXX you would have reached your carrier of choice, if it is willing to provide operator payphone services. But for now, ONLY AT&T has the necessary hardware to handle coin-paid (1+) calls. The new code in most central offices to handle payphone default carrier selection simply ignores 10xxx on 1+ calls. Eventually the code will have to support two defaults -- a default for 0+ and a separate default for 1+. /john ------------------------------ From: Boot Trax Subject: Re: More On 234-5678 Date: 23 Aug 89 19:30:55 GMT Reply-To: Boot Trax Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee In article Bob Clements writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 315, message 9 of 11 >In article halliday@cc.ubc.ca (laura >halliday) writes: >|I thought I'd try and see what happened with some west coast area codes >|and 234-5678, and the results are: >|[list of victims deleted] >|Apologies for those whose area codes I missed. >No apologies to the people you bothered with these annoyance calls for your >own amusement? >/Rcc I don't think apologies are in order. I receive hundreds of calls a year with promotional computer survey devices and telemarketing firms calling me and wasting my time. Telephones are a public service and should be used as such. (( boottrax@csd4.csd.uwm.edu )) My opinions are my own, but blame anyone else)) )) "Undermine their pompous authority, reject their moral standards, make (( (( anarchy and disruption you trademarks, cause as much chaos & disruption )) )) as possible, but don't le tthem take you alive" - Sid Vicious (( ------------------------------ From: Anthony Lee Subject: Re:Supplementary and Intelligent Network Services Date: 24 Aug 89 00:16:29 GMT Reply-To: anthony%batserver.cs.uq.OZ@uunet.uu.net I posted a question about Supplementary and Intelligent Network Services about two months ago and since then I received a reply from a Richard W. Desaulniers with the following InterNet address: desaulni@liszt.mpr.ca I have twice tried to reply but only to have my mail bounced. Richard if you are reading this, then I've received your mail but I cannot reply to them. Please send me your SNAIL (mail) address and your telephone number so that we can discuss the topic further. You might also like to ring me (if you can afford the international phone call). Anthony Lee (Humble PhD student) (alias Doctor(Time Lord)) ACSnet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz TEL:(+617) 3712651 Internet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (+617) 3774139 (w) SNAIL: 243 Carmody Rd, St Lucia, Queensland 4067, Australia ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #320 *****************************   Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 0:55:07 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #321 Message-ID: <8908240055.aa08876@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 24 Aug 89 00:45:57 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 321 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson BOC's and Regionals (Roger Crew) AT&T Mail and the Internet (Paul S. R. Chisholm) How Public Utility Commissions Operate (Charles Buckley) Modems and Call Waiting Question (Gary Cattley) Help - How to Reach the ECSA? (Chip Rosenthal) Book Review: "The Phone Book" (Dave Fiske) Satanic LD Carriers Revisited (Andrew Boardman) 313 234-5678 (John R. Covert) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Aug 89 18:36:57 -0700 From: crew@Polya.Stanford.EDU (Roger Crew) Subject: BOCs and Regionals Organization: Stanford University Computer Science Dept. >> What's wrong with this picture? >> Iowa is served by SouthWestern Bell. I grew up there; my uncle >> worked for SW Bell. I'm quite sure this hasn't changed in the past >> 10 yrs. :-) > > Well, sorry to say this, but I was just in Spirit Lake Iowa yesterday, and > called back to work on a pay phone that wanted 35 cents and also had a VERY > large logo marked "US West Telecommunications" on it. Doubtless, my memory is at least as faulty as anyone else's, but my recollection has Minnesota, Iowa, North & South Dakota all being served by NorthWestern Bell, which upon divestiture became a subsidiary of US West. While we're at it, maybe we should settle all of these questions in one swell foop. Here's my attempt: NYNEX New England Telephone (Maine, NH, VT, Mass, RI) New York Telephone Bell Atlantic New Jersey Bell Bell of Pennsylvania Chesapeake & Patomic (Maryland, DC, VA?) Bell South Southern Bell (NC, SC, GA, FL) South Central Bell (KE, TN, Mississippi, AL) Ameritech Ohio Bell Indiana Bell Illinois Bell Michigan Bell Wisconsin Bell Southwestern Bell Southwestern Bell (LA, Arkansas, TX, OK, KA) US West Northwestern Bell (Minnesota, ND, SD, Iowa, Missouri?, Nebraska?) Mountain Bell (Montana, ID?, WY, CO, UT, Arizona, NM, Nevada) Pacific Northwest Bell (WA, OR, Alaska?, Hawaii?) Pacific Telesis Pacific Bell (CA) And then there are the oddball at-most-partially-owned-by-AT&T non-Bell companies that somehow managed to take over entire states: Southern New England Telephone (Connecticut) Diamond State Telephone (Delaware) ------------------------------ From: pegasus!psrc@att.att.com Date: Wed, 23 Aug 89 00:27:44 GMT Subject: AT&T Mail and the Internet (one more time) In an earlier issue of the digest, Gary Crum asks: > What is the relationship between AT&T Mail and the internet? I'm not going to get involved in the discussion of "internet" vs. "Internet" vs. "USENET" vs. "world-wide UUCP network"; I'll just handle the AT&T Mail question. AT&T Mail is a commercial electronic messaging service. Since day one, we've accepted messages from registered systems using UUCP. We also have gateways to X.400, Telex, remote local area networks, and PROFS; XMODEM support for personal computers (and good front-end software for MS-DOS systems and Macintoshes); and delivery to FAX machines, remote printers, paper addresses, and telephones. We charge for message delivery and on-line message creation; receiving and reading messages is free. If you want to send e-mail to someone on AT&T Mail (or through AT&T Mail), you have to find someone to foot the bill. (I can get the current price schedule to the Digest, if there's enough interest.) The easiest way is to register your own system. The second easiest way is to find someone who's already registered, and who's willing to pass your traffic along (and settle the costs with you in some manner). Note that if you're sending lots of international FAX messages, these bills can be steep! If someone already on (or connected to) AT&T Mail wants to send e-mail to someone on the Internet, the situation is a little easier (since the billing's already been taken care of). Any gateway will work, so it should be easier to find someone to pass messages along. In practice, most commercial AT&T Mail users are only interested in exchanging messages with other commercial mail service users (and paper and FAX delivery). People who want to connect with the Internet (especially AT&T employees) usually have logins on UNIX systems that can connect to the rest of the network. If you're trying to reach someone, and the only contact information you have is an AT&T Mail address, let me know; I'll try to get the two of you in touch. (But please don't, as someone already has, tell me, "Such-and-so in on AT&T Mail, and his telephone number is this, how do I reach him?") The AT&T Mail Customer Assistance Center doesn't know what the word "Internet" means, let alone how to reach it, so calling them may not be much help. Yes, two of the other commercial e-mail services have just announced gateways to the Internet which are free (or where someone's picking up the bill). I've told my management about it. To register your system with AT&T Mail, or for other AT&T Mail questions, please call the AT&T Mail Customer Assistance Center, 1-800-MAIL-672 (1-800-624-5672). Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 89 01:04:06 PDT From: Charles Buckley Subject: How Public Utility Commissions Operate Pay phone rates and other operating company charges (like monthly subscriber rates) are subject to review by state organizations, called various things: Public Utilities Commision, State Utilities Commission, etc. These bodies are largely appointive, but can some times be elective. In the former case, an effort is made to get people with experience, in order to fairly review utilities applications for rate increases. While this sometimes leads to getting consumer advocates on the committee, more often than not it means former utility executives, who still have close ties to the industry. In the latter case, the office is not one of great interest to the voters, and extreme things can happen. When I want to size up how politics are played in any given state, I look at the UC as a good indicator. The results of utilities regulation varies widely from state to state - some states have been able to keep utilities costs under control through strong advocacy on the part of utilities commission members (e. g. California), while some states have rubber stamp utilities commissions which are at risk of being snowed by high flash presentations on the part of utilities. My home state fell into this category when I last lived there. If you want to do something about apparently outrageous utilities charges, such as $.35 payphones, forced business-line rates for BBS operators, lack of small-count multi-line discounts, etc., your state utility commission are the people to turn to. Bashing the phone company won't help - they're essentially businessmen, and thrive on the adversarial pressure. I never see anyone holding the latest dealings of the various utilities commissions up to public scrutiny on this newsgroup. I find that somewhat strange. [Moderator's Note: This newsgroup began as a *technical* forum relating to telecommunications. It has only been in the past year or so that the incoming mail has gotten away from strictly technical issues and become much more political in nature. The way it has gotten is due in large part to divestiture and the competition available. The activities of the PUC's are very important and newsworthy and should receive regular coverage and conversation. It is just something I don't have time to cover or type in. If you, and other users with interest in this area will supply factual messages relating to the PUC's, I will be glad to print them; and this is a good forum for such discussions. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Aug 89 15:06:34 CDT From: Gary Cattley - CEMI Subject: Modems and Call Waiting Question I would like to know what effect a call waiting tone might have on my terminal when I am communicating via modem. Should I expect to see garbage on my screen, or maybe even lose the connection? I'm spending quite a lot of time on the phone/modem, and would really like to know if someone's trying to call me, even if call waiting trashed my session (I can always recover and "lost" data). Thanks for your time... gary Gary T. Cattley | "Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre email:cattley@dept.csci.unt.edu| and gimble in the wabe. All mimsy were the" bitnet: id48@vaxb.acs.unt.edu | borogoves, and the mome raths outgrabe." L.C. [Moderator's Note: A call-waiting signal will at best cause garbage on your screen and at worst will cause a dropped carrier and disconnection. Or is it the other way around regards best case/worst case? The solution is to use *cancel call waiting* on the line when placing calls. In most communities this is *70 or 70# or similar. If it is operative in your phone office, then begin using it on the front of each number dialed by the modem. The best solution of course is to get a second actual line -- without call waiting installed on it -- and use that line for all modem calls and voice overflow calls. Cancel call waiting causes incoming calls to get a busy signal. PT] ------------------------------ From: Chip Rosenthal Subject: Help - How to Reach the ECSA? Date: 23 Aug 89 09:16:36 GMT Reply-To: chip@vector.dallas.tx.us Organization: Dallas Semiconductor Could somebody kindly send me the snail mail address for the ECSA? I wrote to them requesting information on the T1 Standards Subcommittees, but unfortunately my address is really old, and the post office bounced it as unforwardable. Thanks. -- Chip Rosenthal / chip@vector.Dallas.TX.US / Dallas Semiconductor / 214-450-5337 "I wish you'd put that starvation box down and go to bed" - Albert Collins' Mom ------------------------------ From: Dave Fiske Subject: Book Review: "The Phone Book" Date: 23 Aug 89 19:16:49 GMT Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY In article , Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich. edu writes: > David Fisk wrote in digest #308 about a book called "The Phone Book". > > Does anyone know where I can find a copy of it? I've been looking for quite > some time. The University of Michigan has it listed in the card catalog, but > nobody can find it. Likewise at 3 other state schools. Did someone go Sorry, I should have provided some more information on this book. Turns out there are a number of books called "The Phone Book." The one I was referring to is by a "J. Edward Hyde"--the book flap says this is the "nom de plume of a former middle-management employee of the phone company who is now a magazine editor, teacher, and free-lance writer." I checked the Books in Print Database, and apparently the book is not in print. If it's any help, here is the imprint: J. Edward Hyde, The Phone Book: What the telephone company would rather you not know, Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1976. It's been a while since I read the book, so I'm going to re-read it. I'll post telecom-relevant snippets as I come across them. As a teaser, here is the text from the dust cover. I should point out that it contains a bit of hype. The book is not quite as anti-AT&T as this makes it sound. "On the hundredth anniversary of the corporation known as AT&T--or, more familiarly, Ma Bell--here's something that actually gives the country a reason to celebrate; a book written by a former telephone company insider that tells you what the phone company would rather you didn't know. "The Phone Book reveals for the first time precisely how the 60-billion-dollar company manages to thrive in spite of its almost incredible foul-ups in service; a discriminatory, army-style personnel system; a monolithic red-tape bureaucracy; and a 'public be damned' style of operating at the expense of both users and would-be competitors. It furthermore tells how the scads of rules (many of them contradicting each other), idiosyncrasies, and quirks in the system can sometimes be exploited by the customer on his behalf, for a change. "Here are just a few of the items discussed in the book that the phone company would rather you not know about: " - why your phone may be tapped or your service cut off at the will of a company employee, without any right to appeal by you. " - what extraordinary reprisals have been taken against such 'unfriendlies' as customers bewildered by erroneous billings; well-intentioned employees--including the author--who take the side of the customer (how, in fact, one high-level executive committed suicide, leaving a note that stated: 'Watergate is a gnat compared to the Bell system'); Ramparts magazine (which was forced to withdraw an entire issue); as well as coin-box thieves and phone phreaks. " - why Bell bills a month in advance, and why it often demands deposits from certain types of customers, among them single women and people with accents. " - why calls often don't go through, and how the New York City phone fiasco of 1969-1970 could happen anywhere. " - why you should ask for detailed billing explanations, especially if you get a charge marked 'O.C.C.' " - how to deal with service reps to get the most for your money, plus dos and don'ts for getting action from operators, installation people, or their supervisors. " - how the company made $15 million by introducing colored phones. " - why the company's dictatorial attitude has enabled competitors to be first with equipment improvements, delayed the Picture Phone for three-quarters of a century, and slowed the development of the Computer Age. " - why WATS lines are not the budget slicers they might seem, and how to cut that first WATS bill in half. " - how Bell System employees have been able to sell nonpublished numbers lists, customer long distance usage sheets, and customer preplanning data to outside businesses. " - why special billing numbers are better than phone credit cards. " - why businesses must routinely overlease to get the equipment they need. " - how curious employees have been encouraged to develop the habit of listening in on private calls and trading 'hotpants' numbers. " - why Bell would be doing itself--and everybody else--a favor by getting out of the phone business. " - but not why you must pay for the right to have an unlisted number (there is no good answer)." -- "ANGRY WOMEN BEAT UP SHOE SALESMAN Dave Fiske (davef@brspyr1.BRS.COM) WHO POSED AS GYNECOLOGIST" Home: David_A_Fiske@cup.portal.com Headline from Weekly World News CIS: 75415,163 GEnie: davef ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 89 18:51:42 EDT From: Andrew Boardman Subject: Satanic LD Carriers Revisited I recall a quote from Patrick somewhat to the tune of "666 has never been and probably never will be assigned as part of a long distance access code. Well.... (from a list of 10xxx codes) 654 Cincinnati Bell Long Distance 655 Ken-Tel Service 660 Tex-Net 666 Southwest Communications <<<***** 675 Network Services 680 Midwest Telephone Service 682 Ashland Call America /a (If you want a complete list bother gmw1@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu.) [Moderator's Note: Southwest Communications has only recently -- last several months or so -- been assigned that code. I was unaware of that at the time. My source at Illinois Bell tells me the company asked for that code. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 17:00:57 EDT From: "John R. Covert 21-Aug-1989 1701" Subject: 313 234-5678 >[In Flint] When you call, the recording says: > > "You have reached 234-5678, a special test circuit. > This call will appear on your bill if you are calling long > distance. This is a recording." But they lie. The recording is free. /john [Moderator's Note: What? Ma Bell would lie to us? Blasphemy! PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #321 *****************************   Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 1:59:54 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #322 Message-ID: <8908240159.aa17062@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 24 Aug 89 01:40:33 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 322 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Rates For US Calling Card Calls To US From Overseas (John R. Covert) Re: International Calls From/To the USA (John R. Covert) LD Carriers (Mark A. Holtz) Paying for Long Distance Info (John R. Covert) Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers (John Higdon) Re: Calling 800's From Outside USA (translation numbers) (John Higdon) Re: Busy Signals: Are 900 Numbers a Waste of Money? (Paul Fuqua) Re: Caller ID Linked to Decline in Harrassing Calls (Lord Snooty) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 00:20:18 EDT From: "John R. Covert 24-Aug-1989 0002" Subject: Rates For US Calling Card Calls To US From Overseas >Calling from Europe to the US has always been ridiculously more expensive than >the other way around. I have an AT&T Card and I was wondering if it would cost >less if I used the AT&T card instead of calling on a European bill. In other >words would AT&T charge me the US rates or European rates if calling from >Europe by means of the AT&T card? > >Moderator's Note: AT&T would charge you whatever the local PTT charged-back >to them for the call. Its the local PTT which is selling you the service, >and they cooperate with other telcos (and LD carriers) as a courtesy and >convenience in billing matters. In other words, having an AT&T/Sprint/MCI >Calling Card would save you nothing. Now if you use the 'USA Direct' service >available in many countries, that *is* less expensive because you are dealing >with the local PTT only for a 'local call' to the nearest AT&T point of >presence. And AT&T picks up the charges for your call to them from whatever >country you are in. PT Sorry, Patrick, but you're wrong. Is this "make up a fact" day? When calling back to the U.S. using an AT&T calling card (except from Canada), you pay the U.S. rate, not the other country's rate. In fact, you pay the same rate whether you use USA-Direct or the local PTT operator. The advantages of USA-Direct are only: 1. It's usually much faster than operators in other countries. 2. It often fakes hotels out on ridiculous surcharges. 3. No language problem. 4. Some countries don't allow credit card calls to the U.S. (Germany is one example) but do have USA-Direct. When you call the U.S. you will pay the operator assisted overseas rate. You will pay either the standard or the discount rate, never the economy rate. The time and days during which the discount rate applies are usually different than the times from the U.S. to the overseas country, and are determined by the time at the location you're calling from. This is true for ALL countries except Canada. (I have the bills to prove it, but if you don't believe me, call AT&T's International Information Service at 800 874-4000.) Unlike domestic rates, the AT&T overseas operator assisted rate is always a three minute minimum at the standard rate with a hefty surcharge, so it's usually best to make a short call paying locally (since most other countries bill in message units) to make sure the person you want to talk to is there, and then, if you can't get the person to call you back, make your credit card or USA-Direct call. I know MCI now has MCI-Direct, but other than that, does anyone have any evidence that it's possible to use any carrier other than AT&T for collect or credit card calls to the U.S. from overseas? /john [Moderator's Note: You are in error in saying that the rate for calls from other countries to the United States is detirmined by AT&T. Apparently what you are claiming is that AT&T sets the rates for all the telcos everywhere in the world when the calls are made on AT&T cards. Now it so happens that in some cases the rates are the same in both directions, allowing for money conversion; but this has *nothing* to do with the fact that the call is billed to an AT&T card. You say your phone bills 'will prove it', however I sincerely doubt you can produce a phone bills showing a call from every country in the world to the same phone in the United States and a bill showing a call in the opposite direction where the price, considering conversion from local currency, is the same. The various PTT's set their rates and terms. AT&T does not dictate to them and tell them what they can or cannot charge. In some countries, AT&T cards are not even accepted! And on a call to the Customer Information Center, I was told it was precisely because of this lack of control by AT&T over how foreign PTT's operate (and charge) that USA Direct was started. It is *only* on USA Direct calls that the calling card rate is the same coming here as it is in calls going there. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 18:14:48 EDT From: "John R. Covert 21-Aug-1989 1807" Subject: Re: International Calls From/To the U.S.A. >From: mcvax!cgch!wtho@uunet.uu.net (Tom Hofmann) >Date: 16 Aug 89 09:02:36 GMT >Organization: WRZ, CIBA-GEIGY Ltd, Basel, Switzerland > >In consideration of several of long-distance carriers (LDC) in the >U.S.A., I have two questions concerning international calls. > >1. International calls TO the U.S.A. > Who handles these calls? Always AT&T? If not: Can it be influenced > by the calling/called party? This is up to the other country to decide. A similar situation has always existed with Telex, since there have always been multiple carriers for record traffic to and from the U.S.A. Some countries would pick a carrier (such as I.T.T.) for all traffic, other countries would send traffic based on available trunks or would return the same percentage volume of traffic to each carrier that originated from each carrier. >2. International calls FROM the U.S.A. > Have each LDC their own international access, or are all international > calls forwarded to one single LDC (AT&T)? In the first case: Are the > direct dialable countries the same for each LDC? It works just like for domestic calls. Your calls are carried by your default long distance carrier unless you prefix the call with a 10XXX code for another carrier. Resale of international calls was authorized about a year or so ago, at which point some carriers started sending calls to countries which they could not handle via AT&T. Before that, if your carrier didn't serve the country you were calling, you had to dial 10288 (or another carrier) and then the number. >Another question arises, not restricted to the U.S.A.: What is the >reason that some countries cannot be dialed directly from one country >while they can be dialed directly from other countries? The USSR e.g. >cannot be dialed directly from the U.S.A. but from Western Europe. >I think it cannot be a technical problem. Must there be an agreement >between the two governments? Yes, there does have to be an agreement. In the case of the USSR, the U.S.A. had direct dial service to the USSR until it was cut off by the Soviets (for all of the West) right after the Moscow olympics were over. Service has only recently been restored for Western Europe, and is due to be restored for the U.S. some time this fall. In addition to the requirement for an agreement to exist, AT&T tends to prefer to keep calls handled on a manual basis for countries where there are an inadequate number of circuits (this is the problem with the USSR at the moment) or where calls do not complete reliably or incorrectly return answer supervision on wrong numbers. /john [Moderator's Note: In answering this correspondent, you correctly note ("Who handles the calls?") that it is up to the foreign PTT to decide what they want to do. Yet you somehow think they do not have the same right to decide what charge shall be levied for the call, and that AT&T makes that decision for them? What about the use of MCI and Sprint cards in other lands for calls to the USA? Do you think Sprint and MCI dictate to the PTT also? PT] ------------------------------ From: "Mark A. Holtz" Subject: LD Carriers Date: 23 Aug 89 22:32:45 GMT Organization: Sacramento Public Access, Ca. USA My "modern" telephone company has finally offered equal access for LD carriers. However, I am not sure on the different rates. Does anyone know which company is best for my needs? LD Calling Pattern: * Rarely call before 5p * Sometimes call between 5p and 10p weekdays * Usually call on weekends 6-7 LD calls per month. -- *-> Mark A. Holtz <=> AppleLink PE: Mark Holtz <-* *-> 7943 Sungarden Drive <=> GEnie: M.HOLTZ <-* *-> Citrus Heights, CA 95610-3133 <=> Home Phone: (916) 722-8522 <-* *-> UUCP: ames!pacbell!sactoh0!mholtz <=> [For FAST reply, use UUCP] <-* [Moderator's Made Up Fact: I would suggest AT&T's Reach Out America would suffice; with the additional evening discount added in. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 17:04:17 EDT From: "John R. Covert 21-Aug-1989 1702" Subject: Paying for Long Distance info Long Distance info used to be free. Then we got competition. (Competition, **NOT** divestiture.) Suddenly, AT&T started carrying all sorts of non-revenue traffic that it never was able to recover the cost of from offsetting revenue traffic. People would dial 1-NPA-555-1212, costing AT&T money for the long distance call, and would then dial their favorite other long distance carrier to complete the call. Not fair to AT&T. As an AT&T residential customer, I get some number of free D.A. calls each month, as long as I place an offsetting revenue call to that area code. /john ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers Date: 24 Aug 89 04:48:42 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , stiatl!john@gatech.edu (John DeArmond) writes: > No, the concept of universal service is that the costs, sometimes > individually > extraordinary, are spread across the rate-base so that everybody pays just > a little bit. Sure, you may not use DA often but for some others it may > be vital. I'll bet you use other free value-added services of the I'm afraid I have to disagree. While I concur with your comments about inside plant and the other incidentals to provide dial tone to different subscribers and equalizing those costs in the spirit of "universal service", DA just isn't one of those things. I have ten residential lines. I get no volume discount; it's $oneline X ten. I have CommstarII (home centrex) at $8.00/line. (Do you suppose it costs them $8.00/month/line to have typed the features in once a long time ago?) Granted, these are "value added services" and I am happily (?) paying for them. My long distance bill is approx. $400/month. By your reasoning, that cost should just be spread over the rate base and let everyone share in the cost. No matter how you look at it DA is an *optional* service. You CAN avoid using it. And let's face it: DA abuse was rampant before charging began. I know people who literally prefaced *every* call with 411 because they couldn't remember numbers and felt that looking them up or writing them down was too much trouble. And remember, those who are disabled can get a waiver on charges. > I know that I'm on them frequently > to fix problems with my lines that only affect data transmission. Sure I > could buy a data-grade line and in fact, they try to push that from time to > time. My residential service is surely more expensive than the subscriber > who only calls his/her mother once a week. But I don't think any of use > REALLY want pay-as-you-go. That some PUCs have allowed the phone company to > deviate from the concept of universal service is sad indeed. Ah, but the concept of universal service only applies to the most "basic" (whatever that means) telephone service. It is quite right and proper for telephone companies to charge for anything more. Quite honestly, if your non-data-grade lines are unsatisfactory for your use and data-grade lines are, then, my friend you are looking for more than basic telephone service and you will have to pay more to get more. I'm not insensitive about this. Five of my lines carry data. But I fortuately live virtually next door to the CO and have never had any problems. If this wasn't the case, I would pay for data-grade if necessary. BTW, I've never thought that Pac*Bell should give me a discount because they don't use much cable to provide my service.:-) -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Calling 800's From Outside USA (translation numbers) Date: 24 Aug 89 04:17:34 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , vances@xenitec.uucp (Vance Shipley) writes: > In order to test an 800 number with US coverage you must dial from the states > since calling from here in Canada wouldn't complete. So to test one of these > circuits we would have to know the 'conversion' number. To use this number This is actually known as the "POTS" number. An 800 number is nothing more than an ordinary line with an ordinary or POTS number that has special treatment by the long distance carrier. When a caller dials an 800 number, it is translated by the long distance carrier into the area code and phone number of the POTS line and then billed to the 800 subscriber. Back when it was just "the phone company", 800 POTS lines were restricted from out calling (some still are) but now various companies are offering 800 translations to customers' standard business lines and even some residential. POTS=Plain Old Telephone Service. > I don't know if this would work internationally or not. Also I'm not sure > how it would be billed. Anyone care to comment? Since you are calling an ordinary number, it would be billed at prevailing rates. -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 89 12:58:24 CDT From: Paul Fuqua Subject: Re: Busy Signals: Are 900 Numbers a Waste of Money? In recent weeks I've seen a couple of new variations on the 900-number theme: 1. On one of the local Spanish-language TV stations, a new magazine is advertising "free" subscriptions if you call their 900 number (which is $2 or $3 per minute, I forget). In typical misleading style, the commercial closes with a five-second shot of the word "Gratis" positioned right above the 900 number. 2. Some group is using a 900 number to raise money to help clean up the Alaska oil spill (or so they claim). The number doesn't do anything, but the $10 collected per call "is a charitable contribution made through your phone bill" or something like that. By the way, about that "Women's Secret Confessions" line: some months back, there was *another* 900 number which one could call to *make* those confessions. Paul Fuqua pf@csc.ti.com {smu,texsun,cs.utexas.edu,rice}!ti-csl!pf Texas Instruments Computer Science Center PO Box 655474 MS 238, Dallas, Texas 75265 ------------------------------ From: "Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head " Subject: Re: Caller ID Linked to Decline in Harrassing Calls Date: 19 Aug 89 12:44:29 GMT Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara In article , GABEL@qcvax.bitnet writes: > Consumers phoning businesses might find their numbers > being passed on to telephone marketing concerns without permission. This is serious. This is hard to combat. > "A caller-identification system that does not have a blocking function > endangers the lives of battered women," said Gail Jones, director of > Women Escaping a Violent Environment, a counseling center based in > Sacramento, Calif. "The woman or her counselor will often contact the > batterer to let him know that she is all right." This is ridiculous. If that's all they want to say, let them use a phone-booth. "I'm all right, dear. I have escaped our violent environment. Bye." ........................................................................... Andrew Palfreyman There's a good time coming, be it ever so far away, andrew@berlioz.nsc.com That's what I says to myself, says I, time sucks jolly good luck, hooray! [Moderator's Note: With this Digest, we conclude our eighth year of electronic publication. The Digest has grown and expanded tremendously in the past year; and I take this opportunity to thank all of you who have made it possible with your informative and interesting messages. Patrick Townson] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #322 *****************************   Date: Fri, 25 Aug 89 1:31:57 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #323 Message-ID: <8908250131.aa02613@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 25 Aug 89 01:25:06 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 323 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Telecom's Ninth (TELECOM Moderator) Tariff Question (Tom Neiss) Is CNI Necessarily ISDN? (Torsten Dahlkvist) Subscriber Line Charge (Steve Keifling) Telco Service Anecdote (Steve Elias) Sprint Rep Responds to Paul Flynn's Question (Steve Elias) Comments About Issue #322 (David Gast) Re: What is 2600 Magazine, Anyway? (Ron Natalie) Re: What is 2600 Magazine, Anyway? (Tim Nelson) Re: Busy Signals: Are 900 Numbers a Waste of Money? (Lawrence M. Geary) Re: Busy Signals: Are 900 Numbers a Waste of Money? (John Arisco) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 21:00:33 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: Telecom's Ninth TELECOM Digest begins its ninth year of continuous publication today. It began publishing August 25, 1981. The Digest has grown substantially since the early days, and is now read by telecom professionals and enthusiasts around the world. The Digest is distributed to Usenet, where it is read by an estimated 13,000 netters each day. It is distributed to several telecom interest groups resident on local machines at various sites. It goes by electronic mail to individual mailboxes on the Internet, Bitnet, Telenet, Fidonet, MCI Mail, AT&T Mail, Compuserve and Telebox (West Germany) networks. To those of you who actually write each issue of the Digest, my thanks! Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 07:53:42 EST From: Tom Neiss Subject: Tariff Question Organization: State University of New York - Central Administration 1. Is there a discussion list on tariffs? Both proposed and current? 2. If there is none then I would like information on a proposed tariff by New York Telephone which I noticed in the newspaper last evening. These notices are most times obscure and would like help in deciphering exactly what it is they are proposing. a. Simplified Message Desk Interface(SMDI)II b. Introduction of Netowrk Reconfiguration Service Could someone offer a better description? Thanks, Tom Neiss Telecommunications Coordinator The Research Foundation of The State University of New York RTRN@SNYCENVM.BITNET 518-434-7200 [Moderator's Note: There is no specific discussion group on tariffs of which I am aware. This Digest is the 'discussion list' by default. Perhaps a reader(s) with a background in tariffs will assist you. PT] ------------------------------ From: Torsten Dahlkvist Subject: Is CNI Necessarily ISDN? Date: 24 Aug 89 12:31:36 GMT Reply-To: Torsten Dahlkvist Organization: Ellemtel Utvecklings AB, Stockholm, Sweden Hmm. An interesting thought just struck me. There's been some talk about Calling Number Information on this meeting and some about ISDN. Because I used to work with ISDN and the first time I heard of CNI was there, I just naturally assumed they were linked. That is, I thought the subscribers beeing offered CNI were field-trial ISDN customers. But when I look at the numbers of subscribers quoted as potential CNI customers it certainly doesn't look like any field trial any more. Or somebody is manufacturing one HELL of a lot of stuff which I haven't heard about. So I started thinking about other solutions and something soembody said about signal bursts made me realize that it should be possible to send some sort of digitally encoded data on the phone line between the ring pulses to convey the necessary information. Is this what's being done? If so, how much do they send out? Is it just a field of "display data" that is shown on the user's display or does the receiving unit contain additional "intelligence" so that it can select specific fields of information from the burst? Could this kind of encoding be used to convey additional information to the receiving party? Like if a certain sequence of *'s and #'s was dialled with the subscriber number they'd get carried along and sent to the receiving party along with the CNI. That way you'd give the users a whole bunch of ISDN-like features at a much lower cost. Is this another example of the evolution of an older product continuing during the development of a newer one so that the advantages of the newer one aren't all that great when it finally hits the market? Will the struggle between ISDN and analog lines with digital add-ons be as fierce as that between MicroChannel and the extended AT-bus? It seems to me that the technical aspects of this issue must have been covered before the political problems were brought into the discussion so I probably just missed the beginning of it when I first started following News. If the topic has been covered and somebody can summarize it in a mailing to me then I'd be very grateful. /Torsten Torsten Dahlkvist ELLEMTEL Telecommunication Laboratories P.O. Box 1505, S-125 25 ALVSJO, SWEDEN Tel: +46 8 727 3788 [Moderator's Note: Watch your mailboxes for a special edition of the Digest to be issued Saturday devoted to a lengthy article on ISDN. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 89 23:48:10 PDT From: Steve Keifling Subject: Subscriber Line Charge My roommates and I want to put in a second line into our house for modem use. Somewhere I recall hearing that the phone company could install a "bare-bones" line that could only make local calls and hence be exempted from the FCC "Interstate subscriber line charge." However, when I called GTE I was informed that all phone numbers have this charge whether they make long distance calls or not. Furthermore, she offered me the "service" of blocking long-distance calling for a mere $2.50 per month! Feh. Is GTE giving us the runaround, or is this FCC charge in fact inescapable? ----- Steve Moderator's Note: The charge is assessed to compensate local telephone companies for lost revenue as a result of their no longer being partially subsidized by long distance revenue. It has nothing to do with whether or not you make long distance calls; but rather that the long distance companies do not contribute (by the historic formulas, at least) to the cost of local phone service. It is inescapable. Send a note to The Great Architect of modern phone service in the USA and thank Him for his wisdom. PT] ------------------------------ From: eli@chipcom.com Subject: Telco Service Anecdote Date: Wed, 23 Aug 89 08:42:39 -0400 I had a second phone line installed two winters ago, during a VERY cold spell. Every pair of the 50 pair terminator for my block was used. The phone company had to install a new 50 pair 'trunk' connection back to the somewhere, all to install my one extra line. There were *many* hours of pole time involved here. The NYNEX engineers were involved somehow, not just the typical service cats. It must have taken them quite a while to string that 50 pair cable -- there were phone trucks in my neighborhood for many days! Finally, a regular NYNEX service guy showed up and hooked up the new line in the house. It was a windy 5 degrees out and he was sitting on a telephone pole. He came in every few minutes to warm up and play with our cat. Total cost for all the work was only $60. -- Steve Elias -- eli@spdcc.com, eli@chipcom.com -- voice mail: 617 859 1389 -- work phone: 617 890 6844 ------------------------------ From: eli@chipcom.com Subject: Sprint Rep Responds to Paul Flynn's Question Date: Wed, 23 Aug 89 16:19:06 -0400 eli@chipcom.com writes: >Group C bypasses a few switch steps, which was one of the reasons why >ATT calls used to get completed faster than Sprint's. Paul Flynn responds: I've never heard this one before. Feature Group C access (used by AT&T) and Feature Group D access (used by the others) are both trunk-side connections. Sprint pal says you are correct. My transcription of his original comments about these 'feature groups' was lacking. What difference between Feature Group C and Feature Group D allows AT&T to have a shorter call setup time than the other common carriers? US Sprint makes heavy use of access tandems, while we tend to connect directly to a local exchange carrier's end office, but that is a business decision on US Sprint's part, not something they are forced to do because of Feature Group D. Again, you are correct... Reasons for that business decision follow: Because of the fact that Sprint was building a new network, they started by getting access to hubs (tandems). This provides more access per unit $ and per unit setup work. Analogy: first drill a well in the middle of a town, and then go out to different neighborhoods and drill more wells. Sprint does build circuits with CO access as time progresses, but they started by accessing the tandems. Can your buddy at US Sprint explain to us what Feature Group C vs. Feature Group D has to do with call setup time? There's no difference with the circuit itself. Group D and Group C are basically the same thing. No non-ATT carrier can buy a feature group C. Sprint's original Group D circuits came out of tandems, but those were their first routes. As they fine tuned their network, their new routes terminated at COs instead of tandems. One reason that ATT often has quicker call setup time is that they have had more time to build their network, and they probably have far more CO-terminated routes than tandem-terminated routes, compared to the alternative carriers. On the subject of Sprint bashing..... Ben Ullrich at Sybase wrote: How are they not half-assed?? Unless you give good reasons for the ``bashing'' to stop, there will be no motivation to do so. And Ben -- unless you give good reasons for the "bashing" to occur, there is no motivation to "bash". in fact, it's just annoying to those of us interested in facts rather than bullshit. ``Claims'' by Sprint are no better than any ``bashing.'' Let's see some real answers. point out what is wrong with Sprint's "claims", Ben, instead of giving trite responses like "let's see real answers". my friend at Sprint is giving "real answers". why don't you give us "real questions or comments" ? -- Steve Elias -- eli@spdcc.com, eli@chipcom.com -- voice mail: 617 859 1389 -- work phone: 617 890 6844 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 15:42:31 -0700 From: David Gast Subject: Comments about Issue #322 Regarding Digest Issue 322 > [Moderator's Note: ... > It is *only* on USA Direct calls that the calling card rate is > the same coming here as it is in calls going there. PT] Not true. The charge for USA Direct from Japan does not vary with the time of day. It costs somewhere in between night rate and evening rate from the U.S. My statements are based upon information which is a couple months old; the charges may have changed in the meantime. [Moderator's Note: Best tell Mr. Covert about this. He claims calls to or from the USA and other countries are *always* the same rate when the AT&T Calling Card is used. As you note, Japan has no time-of-day pricing to call here. We do have when calling there. Ergo, different rates, even on the card. PT] ================= > Does anyone know which company is best for my needs? > LD Calling Pattern: > * Rarely call before 5p > * Sometimes call between 5p and 10p weekdays > * Usually call on weekends > 6-7 LD calls per month. > [Moderator's Made Up Fact: I would suggest AT&T's Reach Out America would > suffice; with the additional evening discount added in. PT] You really do not provide enough information, specifically how long do your calls last? MCI has some alternatives to ROA which may work better for you. In particular, they have a Saturday only plan. If you live in a state/locality which taxes interstate telephone calls, you may want to consider going with a company that sends ther bill to you rather than having the BOC bill you. The moderator or anyone else really has no way of knowing what the best solution for your needs is. The best idea is for you to call the various major carriers and ask them for their rates given your specific usage patterns. There do not appear to be any great deals anymore. David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu {uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast ------------------------------ From: Ron Natalie Subject: Re: What is 2600 Magazine, Anyway? Date: 24 Aug 89 18:43:39 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. It's really more of a newsletter than a magazine (at least it was several years ago when I was getting them sent to me via the Army security office). It's a magazine for "Telecommunications Hobbyists." Generally, just articles on how phones and phone systems work. Not nearly as break in oriented as TAP, but they discussed things like hunting around on ARPANET, TELENET, several private telephone networks, things on how Pay phones worked, etc... The name comes from the frequency of the tone used to signal on a long distance trunk or something like that (not much into that stuff). -Ron ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 16:51:10 EDT From: tim@ncrcan.Toronto.NCR.COM (Tim Nelson) Subject: Re: What is 2600 Magazine, Anyway? Reply-To: tim@ncrcan.Toronto.NCR.COM (Tim Nelson) Organization: NCR Canada Ltd., Mississauga, Ontario In article sje!tom@pdx.mentor.com (Tom Ace) writes: >I've seen "2600 Magazine" discussed here recently, but I imagine there >are plenty of readers who (like me) don't know what it is. Could someone >please briefly tell us what the magazine is about? > 2600 is a hackers magazine. Look for it in your local bookstore, if you are lucky you may just get a hold of one. ========== tim (nelson) | uucp ...!uunet!attcan!ncrcan!tim ncr canada | internet tim@ncrcan.Toronto.NCR.COM (416) 826-9000 x442 | 6865 Century Ave, Mississauga, Ontario ========== [Moderator's Note: Actually it is more for phreaks than hackers. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 10:21:36 EDT From: Lawrence M Geary Subject: Re: Busy Signals: Are 900 Numbers a Waste of Money? Reply-To: lmg@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (lawrence.m.geary,ho,) In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >MTV first used 900 service during Bruce Springsteen weekend in 1987, and >they received 886,000 calls in two days. Flushed with that kind of success, >MTV ran a contest in March, 1989 to give away Bon Jovi's childhood home >in Sayerville, NY. Within *15 minutes*, 300,000 calls had been received. ^^ I wonder how many calls they would have received if the callers had been told the truth: Sayreville is in New Jersey. I know. I live there. --Larry -- lmg@hoqax.att.com Think globally ... Post locally att!hoqax!lmg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 18:19:14 CDT From: John Arisco Subject: Re: Busy Signals: Are 900 Numbers a Waste of Money? Last night, I was watching Nickolodeon and I observed what has to be the sleaziest 900 number scheme I've seen so far. The service was called something like "Kid's Talk Line", and it encouraged kids to call this number to speak with other kids (or maybe to hear recordings) about problems faced in growing up. It implied that counselors would be online occasionally to give advice about things like divorce, family violence, substance abuse and sex. From what I saw, it looks very similar to the "Women's Private Confessions", since most of the examples shown were kids (mostly confused, upset, tearful kids) pouring out their hearts on the telephone. I would be the first to say that every city in the US needs to have telephone counselling available for kids (and anybody else who needs help), but to take advantage of this situation is the ultimate in scummy tactics. Of course, the commercial ended with "Kids, get your parent's permission before calling." -- John Arisco, MCC CAD Program | ARPA: arisco@mcc.com | Phone: [512] 338-3576 Box 200195, Austin, TX 78720 | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!milano!cadillac!arisco ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #323 *****************************   Date: Fri, 25 Aug 89 2:23:09 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #324 Message-ID: <8908250223.aa10918@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 25 Aug 89 02:20:11 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 324 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Some Questions About International Country Codes (Tom Hofmann) Re: Some Questions About International Country Codes (Wolf Paul) Re: My New Phone Service (John R. Covert) Re: My New Phone Service (David Lewis) Re: National Views of Access Codes (Tom Hofmann) Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Leonard Erickson) Re: Interactions between "retry on busy" & "return call if busy" (D. Lewis) Re: Compuserve and the Internet (Joe Bradley) Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers (Dell Ellison) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Hofmann Subject: Re: Some Questions About International Country Codes Date: 24 Aug 89 11:39:37 GMT Organization: WRZ, CIBA-GEIGY Ltd, Basel, Switzerland From article , by dolf@idca.tds. philips.nl (Dolf Grunbauer): > 5. Are there any countries with a 4 digit country code ? > > [Moderator's Note: I think the longest country code has to the one for the > Vatican; it is six or eight digits, of which the final digits simply appear > to be appended to the code for Italy. PT] The seven digits for the Vatican (3966982) are composed as follows: a) 39 (the country code for Italy) b) 6 (the area code for Rome) c) 6982 (an exchange within the Rome area code) A problem that arises here is that we use the notion "country code" in two different manners: a) telephone-system code (all calls within one telephone system can be dialed without international access code) b) proper country code (all international calls starting with this code end in one and the same country) One telephone system can provide several countries (e.g. U.S.A. and Canada); the involved countries have no proper country code. In some cases, however, a small country covers exactly one area code of a telephone system. Liechtenstein e.g. has area code 75 within telephone system +41 (Switzerland). The Vatican covers only an exchange within an area code. For these countries a proper country code can be determined: telephone-system code + area code (+ exchange). For Italy, however, there is no proper country code (+39 covers Italy, the Vatican, and San Marino). When we say country code we usually mean telephone-system code (+1 e.g.---USA and Canada have no proper country codes), and these codes are in fact limited to three digits. Tom Hofmann wtho@cgch.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Wolf Paul Subject: Re: Some Questions About International Country Codes Date: 23 Aug 89 19:31:38 GMT Reply-To: wnp@attctc.dallas.tx.us Organization: The Unix(R) Connection BBS, Dallas, Tx >[Moderator's Note: I think the longest country code has to the one for the >Vatican; it is six or eight digits, of which the final digits simply appear >to be appended to the code for Italy. PT] Right, and if you are in Italy, all you dial is these final digits: It is in fact simply a separate area code within Italy, technically speaking, although for political reasons it may be identified as a country code. The same scenario holds for some other small countries and their so-called country codes. Wolf Paul -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: {texbell, attctc, dalsqnt}!dcs!wnp DOMAIN: wnp@attctc.dallas.tx.us or wnp%dcs@texbell.swbt.com NOTICE: As of July 3, 1989, "killer" has become "attctc". ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 18:45:07 EDT From: "John R. Covert 21-Aug-1989 1842" Subject: Re: My New Phone Service >From: techwood!johnw@gatech.edu (John Wheeler) >Organization: Turner Entertainment Networks Library; Atlanta >I am moving as of September 1 into the heart of Atlanta, which means >that my phone service will be moving from 404-496 (Tucker, GA co) >to 404-875 (midtown [10th street] co). >Does this mean that this switch is caller-id ready - just waiting >for the politics to come around? Yes. >Is this an all-digital or digital/analog switch? It's a 1AESS, fully analog, but with a digital computer controlling the operation of the machine. /john ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: My New Phone Service Date: 24 Aug 89 18:58:55 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article , techwood!johnw@gatech. edu (John Wheeler) writes: > ... the representative from Southern Bell checked to > see if that exchange qualified for their new (apparently pre-caller-id) > package of services, which they call (here we go again with these > blasted stars) Touch*Star. The services she offered were: > > 1) selective call forwarding...forwarding only specified numbers > 2) automatic callback of last calling party > 3) distinctive ring based on calling party > 4) call trace (I didn't get all the details) > > Does this mean that this switch is caller-id ready - just waiting > for the politics to come around? Is this an all-digital or digital/analog > switch? These services are all part of the CLASS (SM) package of services. If you look at them, you see that they all need calling party number to work. WRT Calling Party Number Delivery (aka Caller*ID aka who knows how many other cute names), what it means is that the software is in place, but Southern Bell has been either unwilling or unable to tariff it to date -- either politics, or an unwillingness to try out the politics yet. WRT the switch, it means it's an SPC (Stored Program Control) switch -- most likely a 1AESS, which is an analog switch with a digital computer control (most likely because something like 80% of the lines served by the Baby Bells are served off of 1As); possibly a 5ESS or a DMS-100, both of which are digital switches. CLASS is a Service Mark of Bellcore, but no one really cares about Service Marks, so I don't know why we bother... -- David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ From: Tom Hofmann Subject: Re: National Views of Access Codes Date: 24 Aug 89 12:36:14 GMT Organization: WRZ, CIBA-GEIGY Ltd, Basel, Switzerland From article , by msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader): > 1. France seems to be the only country outside North America where what > we call the access code is not considered part of the phone number. > 3. There seems to be no country outside North America that uses 1 as an > access code; France uses 16. The fact that the access code is not part of the phone number is a rather new feature in the U.S.A. It became established when 1+ dialling was introduced. One reason why the leading 1 is not considered part of the phone number might be that 1+ dialling was introduced gradually. But direct distance dialling was already available before 1+ dialling, and there was (and still is) an access code (strictly speaking two access codes) for long distance calls: the second digit of the area code (this digit is either 1 or 0). And this access code was and is considered part of the phone number. The only difference to other countries' system is that the access code is/are not the first digits of the number. Tom Hofmann wtho@cgch.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Aug 89 21:01:40 PDT From: Leonard Erickson Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question In comp.dcom.telecom you write: >> In the case of the battered women's shelter, they simply need to know that >> when the call is placed to the alleged batterer, he is being notified of >> where the call is originating. Simple solution: have a public agency such >> as the police place the call. No invasion of privacy, no danger to the >> bettered women. Just a *different* way of looking at things. >Sounds good, but you're asking a battered woman--who has been through an event >of unimaginable trauma--to behave rationally and with logic. This requires her >to ASK the police or ASK the shelter to ask the police to make the call for >her. It's just as likely that in her emotional turmoil, she'll just go and >make the call without thinking about potential consequences. She HAS been >married to (or living with) this jerk for some time, and regardless of how >much she may fear or loathe him, she also has deep within her some positive >feelings for him. If there are children involved, the psychological >entanglements get even messier. Remember-- "when dealing with human beings, >a certain amount of nonsense is inevitable." It just occured to me that this argument about the women's shelter is bogus. For the number to show up, the *shelter* has to be on an office that has the special features available. Just make sure that the "business" phone for the shelter isn't available to the battered wife, and that the other phones don't have an address in the phone book (to insure against the slight chance that the husband has access to a reverse directory). Result? Now the husband has a number *but no address to go with it*! So he can call the number. Big deal... If he gets obnoxius, Call*trace will handle it. So the only danger is that he could convince someone on the *non-business* line to give him the address. I rate that as about as likelty as the wife giving him the address. I keep saying "non-business" to emphasize that this line would be one listed as something innocous. (J. Random User? ) It wouldn't be the line that the shelter gets it's calls on. So it wouldn't be answered "XYZ Women's Shelter, may I help you?" Heck, it could even be an outgoing only line! (They do exist) With a minimal amount of forethought on the part of the people running the shelter, the problem disappears. It's a lot more likely that the wife will *tell* him where she is! After all, I can easily see someone as distraught as everyone is making the wife out to be giving him the phone number if he asks her for it! -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: Interactions between "retry on busy" & "return call if busy" service Date: 24 Aug 89 17:13:05 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article , munnari!batserver.cs.uq. oz.au!anthony (Anthony Lee) writes: >In the proceedings to the 7th International Conference on Software Engineering >for Telecommunications Switching Systems, there is an article by T.F. Bowen >et al from Bellcore. >The article was called "The Feature Interaction Problem in Telecommunications >Systems" The following is a paragraph from the article: [text deleted] >> To make this idea concrete, suppose that customer >>A has automatic "retry on busy", which continues calling a busy line until >>it is free, and customer B has automatic "return call if busy", which >>remembers a call that arrives when the line is busy and returns it as soon >>as the line is free. If A calls B, an infinite cycle of calls could be >>initiated, in which B tries to return A's call but A is retrying B, who >>remains busy trying to call A. > > ..... > >My question is why is it not possible to have the exchange watch for >such a situation and cancel either the "retry on busy" or "return call >if busy". Is it possible to view the above problem as a deadlock >situation ? Part of the problem is that you don't have just *one* situation to watch out for. True, you could have your switches or your service logic (I'm using some perhaps unfamiliar terminology here; sorry -- consider it a peek at Bellcore documents...) (of course, they're not *proprietary* documents, so I won't get fired...) watch for a certain situation. But in an environment where you have a potentially large number of services being introduced fairly rapidly (where "rapid" is in comparison to today's pace -- e.g. two years or less to introduce a new service), you've got an exponentially growing set of pairwise interactions; if you also factor in the multiple states in which any two services can interact... determining the proper pairwise interactions for each new service can become a Very Big Deal. (Which, to my understanding, is the way that it's done in developing a new switch generic today -- and guess how many staff-years it takes to create a new generic? Lots.) -- David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 15:38:20 edt From: Joe Bradley Subject: Re: Compuserve and the Internet In article ken@cup.portal.com writes: >For those that use or know someone on Compuserve, it is now >possible to mail to or from the Internet and CIS. The procedure >is pretty straight forward, but I don't have it handy now. If >anyone is interested, let me know and I will mail a copy. >[Moderator's Note: ... the addressing scheme is '7xxxx.xxx@compuserve.com' >and it is quite reliable. The first part is simply the CI$ user ID number >separated with a dot in the middle. I send copies of the Digest to a couple >people on CI$ now who prefer to receive it in their mailbox there, although >no re-distribution of the Digest is permitted at that site. PT] Does anyone know if there is a direct connection to Compuserve from the Internet? It would save a lot of money and time if you could telnet directly in. At least 50% of my time on-line is spent waiting for stuff to print to the screen at 2400 baud. G.J. (Joe) Bradley, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, Georgia, 30332 UUCP: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!gb7 INTERNET: gb7@prism.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: Dell Ellison Subject: Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers (Dell) Date: 24 Aug 89 19:22:58 GMT Organization: gte In article , stiatl!john@gatech.edu (John DeArmond) writes: -> It's fair for everyone to share the cost for DA for the same reason it's -> fair for all to share the cost of things like the inside plant, cable, -> right-of-ways, telephone poles and so on. IF we wanted to be very strict -> with this concept of only those who use a service pay, then you would -> get charged extra if a cable right-of-way was extra expensive or if your -> trunk was damaged by storms or routing to your house took a few extra taps -> or the road to your drop box is rough, accelerating the wear on the phone -> company truck, or the fact that all your extra extensions use extra power -> from the ring and battery supply and so on ad infinum. With this kind of attitude, you might as well include LD (Long Distance) charges as well! Then those of us who call our mother on the other side of the world can do so every five minutes and not have to worry about the great cost. (Heavy Sarcasm) Those that are too lazy or for whatever reason, should pay for their using directory assistance. We don't all need to pay for them. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #324 *****************************   Date: Sat, 26 Aug 89 0:08:39 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #325 Message-ID: <8908260008.aa19078@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 26 Aug 89 00:02:45 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 325 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Bell Canada Billing Insert (Richard Sargent) An Example of Mis-parsing a Phone Number (Roy Smith) Forced to Use TRON (Boyd Harnell via Chip Rosenthal) Origin of "Generic" (Kenneth R. Jongsma) LD DA, Access Fee, and the Strike (David Gast) Call Forwarding Fluke in My Office? (Miguel Cruz) Can an AOS masquerade as MCI? (David Singer) Re: Hotel Long Distance (Ron Natalie) Re: Compuserve and the Internet (Ron Natalie) Re: Unusual Warning Notice on Phones (Alexander Dupuy) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 10:10:34 est From: Richard Sargent Subject: Bell Canada Billing Insert The following is extracted, without permission, from an insert found in my latest bill from Bell Canada (still regulated, thank goodness!). * THE LONG DISTANCE BARGAIN At a time when the prices of almost everything you buy have gone up, it's always a surprise to find that some prices have actually gone down. Yes that is the case with the price you pay for Bell Canada long distance service. Since 1986, long distance prices have dropped: - 26%, on average, for calls within Bell territory (Ontario, Quebec, and parts of the Northwest Territories); - 31%, on average, for calls from Bell territory to other provinces; and - 11.6% for calls to the United States and 27.7% for calls overseas. These rate reductions apply to discount periods (evenings and weekends) as well as the normal business day. * LOW RATES FOR LOCAL SERVICE While Bell's long distance prices have dropped, rates for local service have remained stable for five years running. Since 1984, local rates for Bell customers have gone up by less than four per cent, on average. Meanwhile, the Canadian Consumer Price Index has gone up by 20 per cent. This means that the amount of time you have to work to pay for basic service is shorter. For the typical Bell residential customer, it's now 45 minutes a month, down from 50 minutes five years ago. In comparison, since 1983, according to the Unuted States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), local service rates in the U.S. have gone up an average of 48 per cent. And local service in the U.S. is far more expensive than in Canada. Examples of monthly rates for local service, not including installation charges (in Canadian dollars): U.S.A. CANADA Buffalo $32.10 Quebec(city) $ 9.60 Cleveland 23.66 Montreal 11.60 Milwaukee 25.96 Toronto 12.60 * One Reason For Low Rates A key reason local rates are so low in Canada is the subsidy from long distance revenues. With the subsidy, local rates are priced below cost, with long distance above cost. At the same time, more than 98.5 per cent of households in Bell Canada territory have telephone service (Even the U.S. can't match this: 93 per cent of American households have service). For 1989, we expect that about $1.8 billion of our long distance revenues will be needed to help cover the cost of local service. That's a subsidy of about $20 a month for a typical residential customer. ====================== End of Verbatim Excerpt ====================== I note phrases like "American households" versus "households in Bell Canada territory". Also, I have no idea of the validity of comparing the various cities as Bell did. I wonder how the rates are in cities like Miami, Washington, and New York. Unfortunately, I neglected to bring the itemized portion of my bill to work, so I can't break down the costs. My average monthly bill is in the neighbourhood of $30-35. This includes a number of long distance calls to my in-laws (during evening hours), and such nasties as a "touch tone" surcharge. As an aside, Bell in the past has tried to convince customers to get touch tone service, since it is cheaper and better for Bell, however, the want you to pay for that privilege! I understand it is (was?) the same in the U.S. Richard Sargent Internet: richard@pantor.UUCP Systems Analyst UUCP: uunet!pantor!richard ------------------------------ From: Roy Smith Subject: An Example of Mis-parsing a Phone Number Date: 25 Aug 89 13:24:10 GMT Organization: Public Health Research Institute, NYC, NY I just spoke to an operator and asked him for information on how to place a shore-to-ship call via the marine operator. He wasn't sure (I suspect it wasn't an AT&T operator) but suggested that I call 102880411. What's interesting is that he said "one-oh-two, pause, eight-eight-zero, pause, four-one-one". As he was saying it, I was writing down digits, putting a space everytime he paused. I looked at it and asked him if he was sure it was right; it didn't have the right number of digits for any phone number I knew, and 102 sure is a funny looking area code anyway. It wasn't until a bit later that I realized it should be parsed 10-288-0-411. It's amazing how much you depend on the cadence to be able to remember phone numbers. Speak those 9 digits 3-3-3, and they make no sense, speak them 2-3-1-3 (or 5-1-3) and it's obvious. I once got a directory assistance recording which spoke a 7 digit number in some funny way (something like 2-2-2-1). I had to listen to it about three times before I could manage to copy the digits down. -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu "The connector is the network" ------------------------------ From: Chip Rosenthal Subject: Forced to use TRON Date: 25 Aug 89 03:42:56 GMT Reply-To: chip@vector.dallas.tx.us Organization: Dallas Semiconductor The following message appeared in comp.arch and comp.os.misc. Malcolm said he didn't mind if I passed it along to the TELECOM readers. For those unfamiliar with TRON, it is a project spearheaded by Ken Sakamura (sp?) and embodies a set of specifications for a range of processors and operating systems. Here in the states, TRON is quite controversial. The arguments I've heard tend to fall into two catagories: (1) it is architecturally ugly, and (2) it is being conducted in such a way which excludes US involvement. Number 1 is a religious argument which always happens when you get computer types together. I believe it is really the second argument which makes TRON controversial. --- start of forwarded message ----------------------------------------------- >From: malcolm@Apple.COM (Malcolm Slaney) >Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.os.misc >Subject: Forced to use TRON >Message-ID: <34263@apple.Apple.COM> >Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA From the Monday August 7 issue of Electronic News NTT: Suppliers Must Use Tron Operating System By Boyd Harnell Tokyo - Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corp. (NTT) last week said that its ISDN and digital switching network suppliers will be required to use the Japanese-developed Tron operating system - a move opposed by U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills as a potential trade barrier against American equipment. Ms. Hills' agency, in a report to Congress last May on major trade barriers, had said any Japanese attempt to make the Tron operating system mandatory in procurements would bar U.S. firms in the market. The report said Japanese telecommunications firms had a long lead in developing equipment using the Tron software to be ready for mandatory Tron requirements. In what was perceived to be an attempt to show the Tron requirement does not discriminate against foreign suppliers, NTT officials described Tron as an open architecture system that allows for all equipment firms to interface their products into the new ISDN and digital networks. As evidence they said a foreign firm, Northern Telecom, is participating in the NTT joint development program of equipment using the new Tron operating system. Others are Fujitsu, Hitachi, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, NEC, Oki and Toshiba. [The article continues with a description of NTT ISDN switches and some other similar stuff.] -- Chip Rosenthal / chip@vector.Dallas.TX.US / Dallas Semiconductor / 214-450-5337 "I wish you'd put that starvation box down and go to bed" - Albert Collins' Mom ------------------------------ From: Kenneth_R_Jongsma@cup.portal.com Subject: Origin of "Generic" Date: Fri, 25-Aug-89 07:32:28 PDT Could someone fill me in on the practice of using the term "generic" instead of "release", "version" or any number of other terms, when talking about new central office switch software? There must be a historical reason for it, but it seems like a strange term to use... ken@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Aug 89 18:34:06 -0700 From: David Gast Subject: LD DA, Access Fee, and the Strike It's interesting to note that the FCC has implicitly or explicitly agreed that if we want Interstate Directory Assistance we must pay for it, but the Access Fee will be accessed on all residential (and most business) accounts whether long distance calls are made or not. I have no objection to paying for long distance information calls. I do object to the present system. 1) The Long Distance Companies spend lots of money advertising. Presumably they consider this a necessary cost of business. 2) Getting a number from DA is in many ways like advertising. In this case they would be advertising a specific number, not some catchy song that is devoid of content. 3) Because the specific number has some value to the customer, they believe they should sell it. 4) I would not mind having to pay for DA if it cost a reasonable amount. I get something like 5 free phone calls to local DA per month (and I use about 1), after that they charge, perhaps 10 cents a piece. So, if I pay 14 cents per minute for the LD call and 10 cents for the information call, then it should cost 24 cents, not the sixty cents or whatever that is charged. In all fairness, it should be pointed out that one LDC, AT&T, does provide a way to get a few LD information numbers each month if a call is made to the same area code. I believe that this system is reasonably fair. Finally, speaking of advertising, I have to comment on the fact that PacBell had been advertising their Centrex System very heavily with lines like It's in their office, nothing can go wrong. As soon as the strike started (actually perhaps a little earlier I don't know exactly), these commercials stopped. Perhaps the strike can cause things to go wrong. Not to mention major fires a la Hinsdale, etc. David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu {uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Aug 89 20:58:34 EDT From: Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich.edu Subject: Call Forwarding Fluke in My Office? I recently got call forwarding on one of my home lines. Naturally, I've been playing with it incessantly. One day, I forwarded calls from my office phone to my home phone, as I often do. Now having forwarding at home, I decided to see what would happen if I then forwarded my home calls back to my office. A busy signal, I predicted. But when I went to another phone and called my number, I heard a loud click. Then 2 seconds later, another click. 2 second later, another. Each time, a little quieter. Finally, after about 10 or 12 of them, they were too quiet to hear anymore. I listened for a couple minutes, but nothing much else happened. Should I assume that some piece of equipment was actually dumb enough to keep bouncing the calls back and forth, ad infinitum? If I could tie up two lines every two seconds that way, it seems like some idiot could clog up an entire CO in a couple of hours. -- Another thing.. recently, the phone (I'm in 313) has started to allow me to prefix local calls with 1+. What am I to assume from this? -- Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Aug 89 11:12:27 PDT From: David Singer Subject: Can an AOS Masquerade as MCI? I know that some AOS companies have access to the AT&T/BOC PIN database so they can verify my card and charge me through my local phone company. Am I safe from AOSes when I call the MCI 950 (or 800) number and use my MCI Card? David Singer (singer@almaden.ibm.com, n6tfx@n6tfx.ampr.org) Disclaimer: Yes. ------------------------------ From: Ron Natalie Subject: Re: Hotel Long Distance Date: 24 Aug 89 18:35:57 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. I don't know how long ago you did this, but for a while the way AT&T operators answer the phone is "AT&T" -Ron [Moderator's Note: But many tend to slur it, so it comes out 'Aytee Optur'. Maybe that comes from the volume of calls they handle each day. PT] ------------------------------ From: Ron Natalie Subject: Re: Compuserve and the Internet Date: 25 Aug 89 17:59:05 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. It would save you a lot of money, but it would still cost someone. Actually, it wouldn't be hard to do. Rutgers already has the stuff in place to do it, but it obviously isn't enabled. CompuServe is accessible via the X.25 networks. We have an X.25 -> telnet gateway (we only have the into the internet side turned on right now). -Ron ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Aug 89 13:24:38 EDT From: Alexander Dupuy Subject: Re: Unusual Warning Notice on Phones Reply-To: dupuy@cs.columbia.edu Does anyone know what the meaning of the letter codes after the model # on phones is? I have an old 500DM(?) black rotary standard which I like because it works even when the AC power is out, and because it rings loud enough to hear it across the apartment. Is there any possibility it will short out my second line when I hook that up? @alex ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #325 *****************************   Date: Sat, 26 Aug 89 1:03:28 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #326 Message-ID: <8908260103.aa20733@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 26 Aug 89 01:00:59 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 326 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Another AT&T Rate Reduction Coming (TELECOM Moderator) Re: Caller ID -- A Bad Idea (Bob Clements) Re: Caller ID -- A Bad Idea (Dan Howell) Re: Caller ID Linked to Decline in Harrassing Calls (Mike Trout) Re: BOCs and Regionals (Daniel Faigin) Re: BOCs and Regionals (Eric Schnoebelen) Re: Compuserve and the Internet (Amanda Walker) Re: 313 234-5678 (Ron Natalie) Re: Unusual Warning Notice on Phones (Macy Hallock) [Moderator's Note: Watch in your mail over the weekend for a special edition of the Digest, with a feature-length essay on ISDN, written by Dory Leifer of the Merit Computer Network. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 26 Aug 89 0:31:31 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Another AT&T Rate Reduction Coming American Telephone and Telegraph Company has still another five percent reduction in long distance rates planned, scheduled to take effect on January 1, 1990. This new reduction is part of the Reach Out plans offered by AT&T. Here are the basics: Customers Who Subscribe to Reach Out America ============================================ A five percent discount will be given on all international dial calls to all points, regardless of the time of day. The discount will apply during the standard, discount and economy rate periods. A five percent discount will be given on all direct dial calls to Canada in the same way. It will also apply 24 hours per day, every day of the week. These new discounts will replace the discounts that were given on international calls during the standard and discount periods and on Canadian calls during the day and evening rate periods. =================================================================== Customers Who Subscribe to Reach Out Overseas Reach Out Canada =================================================================== A five percent discount will be given at all times of the day on interstate calls. This replaces the discount which was formerly given during the day and evening rate periods. ==================================================================== Customers Who Subscribe to Reach Out America AND (Reach Out Overseas -or- Reach Out Canada) ==================================================================== A five percent discount will be given on all interstate dial station, Canadian dial station and international dial calls except those which are already discounted in their respective Reach Out plans. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Bob Clements Subject: Re: Caller ID -- A Bad Idea Date: 25 Aug 89 15:40:42 GMT Reply-To: Bob Clements In article covert@covert.enet.dec. com (John R. Covert) writes: >I'm going to be as brief as possible, since this has been argued before. OK, me too. >These are the two most often stated benefits: [Skipping the first one, not a benefit to us consumers.] > 2. Stopping harrassing phone calls. >The second does not require caller ID to the end-user. As currently >implemented a subscriber who doesn't have a display can still trap harrassing >callers by dialling a special code after the call, causing the number to be >given to the phone company or police harrassment center. Here I disagree. Trapping the number to the CO may not help you at all. The problem is that the definition of "harassment" that the telco and the police use may not match yours. You may want to take legitimate consumer/economic action against an obnoxious "telemarketer", for example. Or in a case that happened to me, the harassment went on for a short enough period of time that I'm confident no police department would have acted. But I wanted to know the source and couldn't get it. My short-form conclusion on Caller-ID: 1) The caller should have the right to suppress the ID. 2) The callee should have the right to have unidentified calls suppressed, without even ringing the called phone. (Maybe the caller hears "Unidentified calls are not being accepted at that number" and gets billed for the call, of course.) I think that is fair to the caller, the callee and the telco. /Rcc ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 89 17:56:31 PDT (Thursday) Subject: Re: Caller ID -- A Bad Idea From: DHowell.ESCP8@xerox.com The pro-Caller-ID people want caller ID because they want to block out the harassing telemarketers. The anti-Caller-ID people don't want caller ID because they don't want the harassing telemarketers to have their number. Why don't we just outlaw telemarketing and get rid of this problem once and for all? Dan Howell ------------------------------ From: Mike Trout Subject: Re: Caller ID Linked to Decline in Harrassing Calls Date: 25 Aug 89 17:31:16 GMT Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY In article , nsc!berlioz.nsc.com! (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head ) writes: > In article , GABEL@qcvax.bitnet > writes: > > "A caller-identification system that does not have a blocking function > > endangers the lives of battered women," said Gail Jones, director of > > Women Escaping a Violent Environment, a counseling center based in > > Sacramento, Calif. "The woman or her counselor will often contact the > > batterer to let him know that she is all right." > This is ridiculous. If that's all they want to say, let them use a > phone-booth. "I'm all right, dear. I have escaped our violent environment. > Bye." I hate to keep beating on this subject, but "there you go again..." No woman who has just escaped a violent domestic environment is going to make a rational, logical phone call like that. The counselor can be relied upon to behave rationally, but not the victim. We all make the mistake of assuming that people will always do what they should do, but this is like saying that drunk driving should go away simply because drunk driving is wrong. I daresay that Gail Jones knows a lot more about the behavior of battered women than you do. -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, SOD & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Aug 89 08:02:32 PDT From: faigin@aerospace.aero.org Subject: Re: BOCs and Regionals Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA >Pacific Telesis > Pacific Bell (CA) Pacific Bell most certainly does not provide service for all of California. The two other *large* companies that provide service in California are Continential Telephone (CONTEL) and Generally Terrible Equipment (oops) Grouchy Turtle Enterprises (oops) General Telephone (GTE). I should know. I've lived in CA all my life, and have never had service under PacBell. I have been *blessed*? with GTE. (Which reminds me of a story of a PacBell customer who moved to a GTE area, and then received a sympathy card from PacBell :-) ) It would be interesting to see a summary of where these companies provide service. I know that GTE provides service in Hawaii and California, and that Contel provides service in parts of CA, NV, and CO. I have another question. Telephone books provide lots of information on what it costs to call whereever. However, they do not provide information on what regional company you would need to call to provide local service. The only way I have found to do this is to see what prefixes are omitted from one book (they belong to the "other" guy). This is critial in Los Angeles, where service is divided between GTE and PacBell. Daniel -- Work :The Aerospace Corp M8/055 * POB 92957 * LA, CA 90009-2957 * 213/336-3149 Home :=> 9758 Natick Avenue * Sepulveda CA 91343 <= NEW ADDRESS * 818/892-8555 Email:faigin@aerospace.aero.org (or) Faigin@dockmaster.ncsc.mil Voicemail: 213/336-5454 Box#3149 * "Take what you like, and leave the rest" ------------------------------ From: Eric Schnoebelen Subject: Re: BOCs and Regionals Date: 25 Aug 89 16:19:04 GMT Reply-To: eric@egsner.cirr.com Organization: Central Iowa (Model) Railroad, Lewisville, Tx. In article crew@Polya.Stanford.EDU (Roger Crew) writes: - While we're at it, maybe we should settle all of these questions in one swell - foop. Here's my attempt: - Some corrections to the list.. Not too bad of an original start though.. - Bell South - Southern Bell (NC, SC, GA, FL) - South Central Bell (KE, TN, Mississippi, AL) Add Louisiana to South Central Bell ( at least if my memories of living in Shreveport are accurate.. ) - Southwestern Bell - Southwestern Bell (LA, Arkansas, TX, OK, KA) Remove Louisiana, add Missouri.. ( SWBT is based in St. Louis, Mo. ) - US West - Pacific Northwest Bell (WA, OR, Alaska?, Hawaii?) - Northwestern Bell (Minnesota, ND, SD, Iowa, Missouri?, Nebraska?) Remove Missouri ( see above ) - Mountain Bell (Montana, ID?, WY, CO, UT, Arizona, NM, Nevada) Nevada is served by Pacific Bell/Pacific Telesis. All of the above is from memory, checked by a CCMI/McGraw Hill National Lata Map. -- Eric Schnoebelen, JBA Incorporated, Lewisville, Tx. work: egs@u-word.dallas.tx.us home: eric@egsner.cirr.com MS-DOS: The Cockroach of Operating Systems ------------------------------ From: Amanda Walker Subject: Re: Compuserve and the Internet Date: 25 Aug 89 19:12:29 GMT Reply-To: Amanda Walker Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation In article , gb7%prism@gatech.edu (Joe Bradley) writes: > Does anyone know if there is a direct connection to Compuserve from the > Internet? It would save a lot of money and time if you could telnet directly > in. At least 50% of my time on-line is spent waiting for stuff to print to > the screen at 2400 baud. Well the mail gateway is a little daemon that runs on one of Ohio State's Pyramids--the actual connection is a normal dialup, as far as I know... I don't think CompuServe is connected to any real networks (aside from their own packet-switched service). -- Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation amanda@intercon.uu.net | ...!uunet!intercon!amanda [Moderator's Note: Compuserve has an NUIC which is reachable via Telenet and most foreign PTT data networks. PT] ------------------------------ From: Ron Natalie Subject: Re: 313 234-5678 Date: 25 Aug 89 17:32:01 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. >>[In Flint] When you call, the recording says: >> >> "You have reached 234-5678, a special test circuit. >> This call will appear on your bill if you are calling long >> distance. This is a recording." > > But they lie. The recording is free. Perhaps it is true. They never said it was going to be charged, perhaps it is a special test number that shows up as a zero dollar charge on your bill. -Ron ------------------------------ From: nc386!fmsystm!macy@hal.uucp Subject: Re: Unusual Warning Notice on Phones Date: Fri Aug 18 14:57:49 1989 Reply-To: macy@fmsystm.UUCP (Macy Hallock) Organization: F M Systems Medina, Ohio USA In article judice@kyoa.enet.dec.com (Lou Judice 15-Aug-1989 0916) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 300, message 8 of 8 >While moving offices recently, we noticed the following odd label on the >bottom of AT&T straight sets (normal single line phones): > > WARNING > > USE FOR BUSINESS SYSTEMS ONLY OR YOU > RISK AN ELECTRICAL SHORT CIRCUIT. Generally speaking, this indicates the sets are modified for use behind 1A2 key telephone equipment. This older style electromechanical key equipment tequired a single line set to put out a dry contact closure when off hook, on the yellow+black base cord wires. These same wires were used in residential applications to provide dial light power for Trimline sets, from a 2012A transformer. Unless the 500/2500 sets were field modified, the suffix on the designation was different form the usual 500D (Its been too long, I can't remember all the old Western Electric numbers!) I've got my old Key Syetems Manual around her somewhere.... Plug in a A-lead control set in a residence and during the next long phone call using that set, the subscriber would notice a distict smell of charred copper+enamel insulation. Rumor had it that more than one residence burned to the ground due to shorted dial light transformers ! Macy Hallock fmsystm!macy@NCoast.ORG F M Systems, Inc. hal!ncoast!fmsystm!macy Medina, OH 44256 Voice: 216-723-3000 X251 Disclaimer: My advice is worth what you paid for it. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #326 *****************************   Date: Sat, 26 Aug 89 2:01:39 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Introduction to ISDN Message-ID: <8908260201.aa21599@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 26 Aug 89 02:00:00 CDT Introduction to ISDN Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Introduction to ISDN (Dory Leifer via Ray Guydosh) [Moderator's Note: I am pleased to present this special essay by Dory Liefer, and I thank Ray Guydosh, a long-time Digest reader and contributor for sending it along. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 19 Aug 89 09:13 EDT From: Ray Guydosh Subject: Article on ISDN Patrick, I stumbled upon the article below and thought that you might be interested in seeing it if you hadn't seen it already. Regards, Ray ========================================================================== An Introduction to ISDN Author: Dory Leifer Filename Filetype: ISDN LEIFER_D (Dory Leifer is a programmer for the Merit Computer Network, located in Michigan. This article was originally published in the Merit Network News, Vol 3 # 3, October, 1988. Permission to use this article is granted provided the original source is cited and a hardcopy of the article is sent to the editor at Merit, 5115 I.S.T. Bldg, 2200 Bonisteel Blvd, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2099. Further information about Merit, the Merit Network News, or this article may be obtained by sending electronic mail to Info@merit.edu.) =========================================================================== - Introduction to ISDN - Motivated by the ever increasing public need to send digital information in the form of voice, data or image, national governments along with private corporations have developed a scheme called Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN). Although this concept dates back to the early 1970s, only recently have standards been developed. The standardization of ISDN has resulted in an emerging market of ISDN equipment and service plans. This technology will have widespread impact on both suppliers and users of network equipment and services. In the United States, all seven regional Bell operating companies have initiated limited testing and deployment of ISDN. General deployment is expected during the mid to late 1990s. Our European and Japanese counterparts are committed to the nationwide implementation of ISDN. ISDN will spur technological development of new and innovative products and services for both research and business. This article introduces the basic concepts of telephone networks and ISDN and explores possible applications of ISDN technology. The Telephone Network In order to understand why ISDN evolved, let's look at the current telephone network. The basic telephone is an analog instrument connected to a pair of wires. Analog means that signals are transmitted by varying the frequency and intensity of the electric current in response, in this case, to changes in the speaker's voice. Digital signals, in contrast, consist of only two discrete voltage levels corresponding to binary 0 and 1. The pair of wires from a subscriber's premises, a private home for example, is connected over approximately a mile of cable to a local telephone company's central office. This pair of wires is commonly called the "last mile" or local loop. Inside the central office, the pair is attached to a device called a switch. The switch converts the analog signal to digital by sampling it thousands of times a second. The switch also routes the call by examining the telephone number called. If the call is long-distance, it is routed by the local telephone company, Michigan Bell, for example, to an Interexchange Carrier (IEC) such as AT&T, MCI, or US Sprint. The IEC routes the call to the local telephone company at the destination, still preserving the digital nature of the signal. Digital signals can be carried easily over long distance lines because they can be combined or multiplexed for transmission on high capacity links. Digital signals also are not very susceptible to noise during amplification. When the destination switch receives the digital signal, it converts the digital signal back into analog and sends it out over the local loop at that end. This conversion between digital and analog seems reasonable for voice since humans (even programmers) cannot hear or speak digitally. But what if we intend to exchange digital information by connecting two computers together? In that case, we must convert digital information from our computers into analog signals using a modem. When these signals reach the central office, they are converted back to digital. The digital signal can only be a sampling of the "noise" coming out of the modem, not a regeneration of the original bit stream from the computer. The reverse process is used at the destination switch to convert the digital signal back to analog and pass it to the destination modem which finally turns it back for the last time to a computer bit stream. This process is not only redundant, it is inefficient. When voice is converted from analog to digital, a bit rate of 56,000 bits per second (bps) is typically dedicated to carrying it. This rate is required to make sure that the voice will sound natural when it is converted back to analog. Since the telephone network treats modems the same way, a rate of 56,000 bps is also required to convey modem signals. However, most modems send and receive at or under 2400 bps. The rest of the capacity is wasted. Modems serve another purpose apart from digital transmission. Most modern modems incorporate automatic dialing and answer functions. We say that a autodial modem exchanges signalling information with the telephone network. The modem can be instructed to place a call and report its progress: examples of what it can report back are "ringing", "busy", and "no circuits available". Again in this case, because the telephone network is designed for voice, computer equipment is disadvantaged. The modem requires special hardware to detect (actually to listen and guess) the sound of a busy signal, ring, or call incomplete message (usually preceded by three tones.) This type of signalling is not only analog but it is in band: that is, signals and real transmitted information use the same channel. On a phone line, you cannot start dialing unless you hear a dial tone. A dial tone means that your phone is connected to a device at the telephone company ready to accept call initiation. If a call is in progress and you try to dial, the person at the other end hears an unpleasant tone. Sharing a single circuit to convey both transmission and signalling information imposes serious limitations. ISDN relieves the limitations of both in-band signalling and analog transmission. The next section describes a standard ISDN interface which provides end-to-end digital transmission and separates the signalling functions from the transmission functions. ISDN Basic Rate Interface The ISDN basic rate interface is the standard interface to connect subscribers to the ISDN. This interface uses the existing telephone wire pair. Instead of using this pair for analog signalling and transmission, only digital information is conveyed. On this wire, three channels or digital paths exist. The channels are multiplexed by giving each a time slice on the wire. Since ISDN channels are half duplex or uni-directional, a "ping-pong" method is used so that when one end transmits, the other listens. The ping pong happens with every tick of some central clock so the link appears to be bidirectional. Each ISDN circuit includes three channels: 2 B or Bearer channels for data or voice (each 64,000 bps) 1 D or Data channel for signalling or packet data (16,000 bps) These channels provide both signalling and transmission. Notice that there is no distinction between voice and data on the B-channel. The ISDN treats both as a stream of bits. The bits have significance only to the terminating equipment such as a telephone for voice or a computer for data. When a subscriber wishes to place a call, the terminating equipment sends a packet on the D-channel containing the information needed by the network in order to establish the call. Assuming that the call succeeds, the subscriber may then send either voice or data on a B-channel. To end the call, a take-down packet is sent. This is analogous to hanging up. Bearer Channel Transmission The B-channel is referred to as a clear channel because of its ability to pass an arbitrary bit stream transparently. In reality, arbitrary bit patterns have limited uses since the B-channel must adhere to the disciplines of existing voice and data networks. Sending voice using some non-standard encoding would preclude placing calls between the ISDN and the existing telephone network. A standard Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) scheme has been standardized for digitized voice because it is compatible with the existing voice network. Correspondingly, a data protocol must be employed on the B-channel if the subscriber is to reach hosts on the existing packet services which are not yet on the ISDN. Even if the host is on the ISDN, the network provides no guarantee that the data will be transmitted without errors. This is not a serious problem with terminal sessions (we live with error-prone modems), but for computer to computer connections (for example, performing a file transfer) an error-correction protocol may be required. The B-channel itself provides services that comply with layer one of the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) Reference model (the physical layer). That is, it offers a medium through which bits may pass. (For information on OSI protocols, refer to the Dec. 1988--Jan. 1989 "Merit Network News", which may be obtained by sending a message to INFO@merit.edu ) If a subscriber uses the ISDN to call another computer directly, a minimum of a layer-two protocol is involved for error correction and flow control. In many cases, the subscriber will wish to access a host on a packet network like Telenet. In this case, both a link layer (OSI layer two) and network layer (layer three) are required. The subscriber then uses the X.25 protocol between the ISDN and his or her machine. An interworking unit acts as a gateway between the ISDN and the packet network, using the X.75 protocol. A somewhat similar service could be deployed by Merit in the future to provide Internet access for ISDN subscribers. Off-campus users could place an ISDN call to an Internet gateway. They could then access TCP/IP applications like file transfer, remote terminal, and mail. ISDN provides added support in this case: since the ISDN would report the caller's address, a unique Internet address could be associated with a particular calling address. Other services which require authentication of the caller would also be facilitated by this feature. The Data Channel The Data or D-Channel was originally specified by the CCITT for signalling but later was re-specified to include both signalling and transmission of packet data. Unlike its sister B-channel, the D-channel is not designed to carry an arbitrary bit stream. The D-channel uses both a link layer, Link Access Protocol-D (LAPD), similar to HDLC, and a network layer, Q.931, similar to X.25. The D-channel may be used for packet data when data throughput is not of high priority. No call set-up or take-down is required when using the D-channel to interface in packet mode. The signalling protocol on the D-channel is based on the set of signalling messages needed to establish and release a simple 64,000 bps B-channel voice or data connection. Included in call set-up are: * Flexible addressing compatible with many standard networks * Required data rate * IEC (long distance carrier) selection if applicable * Notification if line forwarded to another address * User information text Signalling information is exchanged between a subscriber and the ISDN. But this information must also be passed within the ISDN to assure timely circuit establishment, efficient allocation of resources, and accurate billing and accounting between various service providers. A protocol called Common Channel Signalling Number Seven (CCS7) performs these functions. CCS7 was designed by AT&T and is based on the international standard CCITT Signalling System Seven (SS7). CCS7 is already used on a wide scale for signalling in the non-ISDN world but will be essential to support ISDN. Equipment Compatibility with existing equipment is extremely important to most of the users who will migrate from switched and private networks to ISDN. Therefore, most of the early ISDN equipment which users will purchase will be adapters for non-ISDN devices such as asynchronous terminals with RS-232 interfaces, 3270 style terminals with IBM SDLC and coax interfaces, and various LANs. An interface to connect common analog telephones will surely be a hot seller. Many of these devices are quite complex because they have to support both signalling and transmission. For example, an adapter which allows RS-232 attachment for terminals needs to interface with both the B- and D-channels. Under development by several manufacturers are integrated terminals that combine voice, data, and signalling into a compact desktop package. Initially, these terminals will function as expensive desktop space savers, replacing a separate phone and terminal, but later they will provide access to truly integrated services. What is an Integrated Service? The concept of an integrated service is an abstraction rather than a set of particular CCITT recommendations. An integrated service is one that is capable of providing a wide assortment of information well organized into a single package. This information may be, for example, in the form of voice, computer data, video, or facsimile. Initially, services available on ISDN will not be integrated. Voice and data, although they may be accessed together on an integrated terminal, have little to do with one another. Voice calls will involve only voice and data calls only data. We speak of this relationship as Service Co-existence. The second generation of ISDN services will be integrated. For example, consider a future bank credit card service. A card holder who disputes an entry in the credit card bill places an ISDN call to the bank. At the bank, a customer representative equipped with an ISDN terminal answers the call. The bank representative immediately has access to the caller's name and records since the ISDN passes the customer's originating address. The bank uses this address as a key into its customer database. The representative can address the customer by name when answering the phone. When the customer explains the nature of the problem, the bank representative retrieves the previous month's bill, which appears simultaneously on both screens. If the statement is in error, the balance can be recomputed before the customer's eyes. Integrated services can also facilitate research collaboration via multi-media voice, image, and control functions between scientists. Applications which require exchange of only short, infrequent messages can use services offered by the D-channel. Applications such as burglary alerting, energy control, credit card verification, cable TV requests for service, and home shopping can be accomplished using the D-channel packet facilities. Advantages of Circuit Switching Although the data rate of 64,000 bps may be too slow for bandwidth-intensive applications like real-time high definition imaging, ISDN's circuit-switched capabilities do offer several advantages to the research community over packet-switched networks like Merit, NSFNET or ARPANET. Certain real-time applications which require cross-country connectivity can be run over ISDN. Although the individual circuits which comprise modern packet networks may be much faster than 64,000 bps, the overhead involved in packet switching and queueing is far in excess of similar circuit switching functions on an established call. Packet networks try to optimize aggregate performance across the entire network. Real-time applications are usually interested not in averages but rather in worst cases. If you get a 64,000 bps ISDN circuit, you will be guaranteed 64,000 bps service for the duration of the connection. Throughput on a packet network might average 150,000 bps, for example, but might fall below 64,000 bps 10\% of the time, causing serious problems for a real-time system. Another advantage ISDN has over packet networks is its potential ability to interface to a wide variety of digital laboratory equipment. The ISDN B-channel offers clear channel transmission. There is no protocol overhead involved in order to exchange information. This bit pipe can be used, for example, between detector/collector paired devices without the complication and expense of packet protocol gateway machines at each end of the connection. ISDN interfaces will eventually be readily available in VLSI, which will allow them to work with a wide variety of equipment at minimal additional cost. High Speed (Broadband) ISDN Many argue that 64,000 bps, based on the transmission capacity of the existing telephone system, is too slow to provide a wide assortment of integrated services. High-definition television, computer-aided design, medical imaging, and high-quality audio all require far more bandwidth than available in the current ISDN. An evolving standard for broadband ISDN (B-ISDN) may include 150 megabit per second subscriber lines over fiber optic local loops. A switch that can handle thousands of such lines requires technology far beyond conventional VLSI design. The power to be exploited by future designs of this type of switch will be mind-boggling. Conclusion ISDN will extend the capabilities of today's telephone networks, thus providing a market for new services. Most introductory services will apply service co-existence; services will be described as "running over" ISDN. ISDN will do for data networks what the Communications Act of 1934 did for voice -- provide a ubiquitous method for public transmission. Pioneer users of this technology will have both the opportunity and the challenge of helping to shape the future of telecommunications. References Armbruester, H. "Universal Broadband ISDN: Greater Bandwidth, Intelligence and Flexibility." Proceedings from the IEEE ICC, June 1988. Dorros, I., "A Systems Approach for National Telecommunications Policy." IEEE Communications, Jan 1989, Vol 27, Num 1. Habara, K. "ISDN: A Look at the Future Through the Past." IEEE Communications, Nov 1988, Vol 26, Numb 11. pp 25-32. Roehr, W., "Signalling System Number 7." Open Systems Data Transfer, February 1985. pp 1-16. Smith, E.A., et al "Impact of Non-Voice Services on Network Evolution." Electrical Communications, number 1, 1981. pp 17-30. Stallings, William. Tutorial - Integrated Services Digital Networks (ISDN). IEEE Computer Society, 1985. "Standard Makers Cementing ISDN Subnetwork Layers." Data Communications, Oct 1987, Vol 16, Num 11. Williams, R., and R. Gillman "ISDN Access Protocols - Status and Applications." National Communications Forum, 1984. pp 181-190. *************************************************************************** CCNEWS Copyright Notice If you use this article, in whole or in part, in printed or electronic form, you are legally and morally obligated to credit the author and the original publication name, date, and page(s). We suggest that you also inform the author of your intention to use this article, in case there are updates or corrections that he or she might wish to suggest. If space and format permit, we would appreciate your crediting the "Articles database of CCNEWS, the Electronic Forum for Campus Computing Newsletter Editors, a BITNET-based service of EDUCOM." We would also appreciate your informing us (via e-mail to CCNEWS@EDUCOM) when you use an article, so we will know which articles have proven most useful. *************************************************************************** [Moderator's Note: Again, my thanks to Ray Guydosh for sending this along to share with you. In Sunday's Digest (327) more messages from John Covert explaining how AT&T sets the rates foreign PTT's must charge for calls to the United States when the call is placed on an AT&T card. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest : Introduction to ISDN *****************************   Date: Sun, 27 Aug 89 0:56:41 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #327 Message-ID: <8908270056.aa09462@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 27 Aug 89 00:50:33 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 327 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Overseas Calling Card Rates (John R. Covert) British Telecom Int'l and AT&T Rate Comparison (John R. Covert) Europe <=> USA calls (Paolo Bellutta) A Fix For USENET Reply Problem (Chip Rosenthal) UK System X, etc (Clive Carmock) Question About ROA (David Gast) Seminars Scheduled for Fall/Winter (TELECOM Moderator) [Moderator's Note: Due to scheduled maintainence on the Delta machine at Northwestern University, the system will be down Sunday night from about 11 PM until Monday morning at 8 AM. Therefore, the Digest will not be published on Monday, August 28. If there is enough stuff in the queue, I may put out another edition late Sunday evening, but otherwise the next Digest you receive will be Tuesday morning, August 29. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 89 11:12:42 EDT From: "John R. Covert 25-Aug-1989 0931" Subject: Overseas Calling Card Rates >Moderator's Note: You are in error in saying that the rate for calls from >other countries to the United States is detirmined by AT&T. Apparently what >you are claiming is that AT&T sets the rates for all the telcos everywhere >in the world when the calls are made on AT&T cards. AT&T sets the rates it charges AT&T customers for calls to the U.S. from overseas. This is the agreed upon practice for the handling of international calls. When a person from the U.K. calls home to the U.K. from the U.S. with a British Telecom card, the U.K., not the U.S., rate applies. When an AT&T customer calls the U.S. from the U.K., or Chile, or any other country which allows the use of AT&T cards or which allows AT&T to provide USA-Direct service, the U.S. dertermined rate, which AT&T has filed with the FCC, applies. >Now it so happens that in some cases the rates are the same in both >directions, allowing for money conversion; but this has *nothing* to do with >the fact that the call is billed to an AT&T card. The above three lines have no basis in fact. By charging the U.S. rate for calls to the U.S. from overseas AT&T avoids worrying about currency conversion. >You say your phone bills 'will prove it', however I sincerely doubt you can >produce a phone bills showing a call from every country in the world to the >same phone in the United States and a bill showing a call in the opposite >direction where the price, considering conversion from local currency, is >the same. I travel extensively internationally, and can produce phone bills for calls to the U.S. from many countries. The rate is invariably the AT&T U.S. rate. >The various PTT's set their rates and terms. AT&T does not dictate to them >and tell them what they can or cannot charge. The PTTs set the rates they bill their customers. They do not set the rates AT&T bills AT&T customers; those rates are set by AT&T. Face it, Patrick, you are simply mistaken. Admit that you are wrong. >In some countries, AT&T cards are not even accepted! This is correct. Germany is one example. But collect calls can be placed from Germany through PTT operators, and will be billed at the U.S. rate. Germany doesn't have a rate for collect or credit card calls, because neither concept even exists for calls within Germany or for Germans travelling outside Germany. The same rate will be charged for the collect call to the U.S. whether the call is placed through a Deutsche Bundespost operator or through a USA-Direct operator. And while we're discussing Germany, here are the applicable rates. I travel to Germany at least once or twice a year. Calling the U.S. from Germany, a station-to-station calling card call placed via USA-Direct will cost 6.62 for the first three minutes, 1.09 for each additional minute. No discount periods apply. [Source: AT&T International Rate and Dialing Information Service, 800 874-4000. Confirmed by calls appearing on my phone bill on 2 April 1989.] Calling to Germany from the U.S: Dial Initial Minute Op Assisted 3 Mins Each additional minute Econ Disc Standard Station Person Econ Disc Standard 1.16 1.46 1.94 6.62 8.82 .65 .82 1.09 [Source: AT&T Pub 1WB311 dated 11/88] Calling to the U.S. from Germany, paid in Germany: One message unit (DM 0.23) every 1.882 seconds M-F noon-midnight, every 2.28 seconds at other times. This works out, at the exchange rate of 1.9555 quoted in today's paper, to be DM 7.33 or $3.75 per minute during the higher rate period or DM 6.05 or $3.10 per minute during the cheap rate period. Since hotels charge between DM.50 and DM.70 per message unit, a person calling the U.S. from a hotel could be shocked with a charge of $114.13 for a ten minute call to the U.S. instead of the $37.50 the call would have cost if directly dialled from a private phone or $14.75 if placed through USA-Direct. [Source for German rates: Postbuch der Deutschen Bundespost] >It is *only* on USA Direct calls that the calling card rate is the same coming >here as it is in calls going there. No, Patrick, this is *not* the way it works. When billing a call placed to the U.S. from overseas to an AT&T card, "you pay the same rate whether you use USA-Direct or the local PTT operator." >The charge for USA Direct from Japan does not vary with the time of day. Correct. As I said, the times for discount periods may differ, and there may, in fact, be no discount period for calls back to the U.S. It appears that the discount periods were eliminated for several countries some time within the past few months. >It costs somewhere in between night rate and evening rate from the U.S. My >statements are based upon information which is a couple months old; the >charges may have changed in the meantime. The charges haven't changed in the last few years. You will find that you were charged $8.87 for the first three minutes and $1.35 each additional minute. This rate applies for station-to-station calls from Japan to the U.S. billed in the U.S. regardless of whether they were placed through an operator in Japan or through USA-Direct and regardless of the time of day. It is the same as the day rate for operator assisted calls from the U.S. to Japan. >Moderator's Note: Best tell Mr. Covert about this. He claims calls to or >from the USA and other countries are *always* the same rate when the >AT&T Calling Card is used. As you note, Japan has no time-of-day pricing >to call here. We do have when calling there. Ergo, different rates, even >on the card. I never claimed "calls to or from the USA and other countries are *always* the same rate when the AT&T calling card is used." I said that the rate billed to the AT&T calling card for calls to the U.S. is always the same for USA-Direct and for PTT operator-placed calls. I stated that the U.S. rate applies, but I also stated that discount periods may be different. They may be so different as to be non-existant, or the discount rate may apply, but never the economy rate. Patrick, please don't put words into my mouth, and please check your information before you post answers to people's questions or rebuttals to statements made by readers. You are doing a disservice to the readers of Telecom Digest by posting incorrect information and standing firm on that incorrect information. If you don't have documentation that something is correct, at least indicate that what you are saying is opinion, not fact. /john [Moderator's Note: Okay, it is my 'opinion' that AT&T does not tell the PTT's of the world what they can or cannot charge Americans who use the phones in those countries to call the United States. It is my 'opinion' that AT&T has no authority whatsoever in setting the phone rates in other countries merely because the caller happens to be an American calling to the United States. It may be true that AT&T has that agreement in some places -- but *everywhere* in the world? And if AT&T can and does in fact dictate to the PTT's regarding their (the PTT's) acceptance of AT&T calling cards and rates, then why not calling periods also? Why does AT&T 'permit' even that much latitude in the rate setting? Why don't the PTT's tell AT&T to get lost? An American without a calling card is one who will simply shove a fistful of coins in the phone. Doesn't that make better sense financially to the foreign telco? Does MCI also dictate to the PTT's who connect with MCI-Direct (or whatever it is called)? If not, why not? I don't care what AT&T International Information Service says, I would like someone from British Telecom or someone from Australia or Japan to post a message saying "AT&T sets the rates we are allowed on calls to the USA using the AT&T Card." Just my 'opinion' of course! PT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Aug 89 14:46:13 EDT From: "John R. Covert 25-Aug-1989 1446" Subject: British Telecom Int'l and AT&T Rate Comparison To further illustrate the way international rates work, the rates to and from the United Kingdom follow: British Telecom International charges the following rates (converted to US$ at today's rate in the paper, .6353, and including Value Added Tax): Direct dial: 8-3 5-8 Standard 71p or $1.12 BT Card rates from the U.K. to the 3-5 Peak 81p or $1.27 U.S. are the same as shown to the left, 8-8, W Cheap 61p or $0.96 plus a 25p ($0.39) per call surcharge. The cheap rate applies all weekend. A BT card holder calling back to the U.K. from the U.S. will be charged 4-08 ($6.42) for the first three minutes and 1-27 ($2.00) for each additional minute. [Source: British Telecom International operator (155)] AT&Ts rates, on the other hand, are: Direct Dial First Each Additional Minute Minute 6p-7a Economy .98 .60 AT&T Card calls from the U.S. to the 1p-6p Discount 1.21 .75 U.K. will be $5.35 for the first three 7a-1p Standard 1.51 .99 minutes, and then the applicable add'l minute rate (.60/.75/.99) These rate periods apply seven days a week. Calls placed to the U.S. from the U.K. using an AT&T calling card will cost $5.35 for the first three minutes, and then .99 each additional minute at all times. [Source: AT&T International Information Service (800 874-4000)] /john ------------------------------ From: Paolo Bellutta Subject: Europe <=> USA calls Date: Fri, 25 Aug 89 9:48:35 MET DST Some questions about calls between USA and Europe: - What is the cheapest way to call Eurpoe from the US? The call from a pay-phone need $6.80 in quarters and dimes, and it is always hard to find them. The call from a m/hotel room is more expensive (> $9). I recently read on the news that MCI accepts Visa Cards. Does it even for foreign people? If so what is the procedure to use MCI + Visa, what is the minumum length of the call I will be billed ? Are there othe phone companies that allow the use of a credit card? - What is USA Direct service? In which direction you use USA -> Overseas or vice versa? - Is there a way to call 800 numbers (in the US) from Europe (being charged for the call, of course!)? - How could I reach a US directory assistance service from Europe? Any help appreciated. Paolo Bellutta I.R.S.T. vox: +39 461 810105 loc. Pante' di Povo fax: +39 461 810851 38050 POVO (TN) e-mail: bellutta@irst.uucp ITALY bellutta@irst.it ------------------------------ From: Chip Rosenthal Subject: Fix For USENET Reply Problem Date: 26 Aug 89 03:19:54 GMT Reply-To: chip@vector.dallas.tx.us Organization: Dallas Semiconductor It has been brought to my attention that some USENET readers of comp.dcom.telecom might be having problems replying to messages here. This problem effects only those people using the "readnews" or "vnews" news reading programs, and only occurs on messages which look something like: Reply-To: Chip Rosenthal The problem is that these programs aren't handling the "
" correctly, even though this is legal syntax. I have posted a fix to this problem to the USENET news.software.b group, see article <705@vector.Dallas.TX.US>. If you use either "readnews" or "vnews", you might want to ask your local news administrator to install this fix. -- Chip Rosenthal / chip@vector.Dallas.TX.US / Dallas Semiconductor / 214-450-5337 "I wish you'd put that starvation box down and go to bed" - Albert Collins' Mom ------------------------------ From: Clive Carmock Subject: UK System X etc Date: 26 Aug 89 17:58:01 GMT Organization: Computer Science Dept. - University of Exeter. UK Does anyone know what ring back numbers are in use on the new digital system X exchanges in the UK - in the past 1267, 174 and 175 have the desired effect, with 175 also doing an auto test of the line. Some new digital units do not respond to any of these. Can anyone help? Beware of dialling 11 after the exchange calls you back on units accepting 175 - I saw this on a line with a call logger and 50p worth of units are charged almost immediately! Again does anyone know of the meanings of the codes that can be dialled after 175??? I'd be grateful to receive any replieds via mail to cca@cs.exeter.ac.uk OR cca@expya.uucp. I will summarize to the net. Thanks Clive Carmock (cca@cs.exeter.ac.uk) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Aug 89 00:50:25 -0700 From: David Gast Subject: Question About ROA Does the additonal 5% discount apply to full price or the current discounted price? That is, suppose that it now costs 3.00 per minute to call Japan during peak times and $1.00 to call at night. (the peak time rate is not expensive and the actual discount is not so steep, but these assumptions make the math easier). Will the new night rate be $0.95 (5% off $1.00) or $0.85 (5% off $3.00)? I suspect the former. If AT&T had the best price, I would not hesitate to use them.o David ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Aug 89 0:15:44 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Seminars Scheduled for Fall/Winter The Corporation for Open Systems in cooperation with the American Institute has announced its fall/winter schedule of seminars. One series deals with X.25 packet switching; the other series deals with ISDN. Here is the timetable for each -- ISDN ==== Washington, DC October 11-13, 1989 Chicago, IL October 18-20, 1989 New York, NY November 29 - December 1, 1989 Los Angeles, CA December 11-13, 1989 San Jose, CA January 8-10, 1990 X.25 Packet Switching ===================== New Brunswick, NJ September 11-13, 1989 Kansas City, MO September 25-27, 1989 Morristown, NJ October 2-4, 1989 Warren, MI October 23-25, 1989 Chicago, IL October 30 - November 1, 1989 Washington, DC November 8-10, 1989 Los Angeles, CA November 13-15, 1989 San Jose, CA December 4-6, 1989 In both series of seminars, the sessions last from 9 AM to 5 PM on each of the three days. The registration fee is $995 per person; with a ten percent discount given on the enrollment of the third and subsequent persons in a group enrolling together. Credit given: 2.1 CEU's are awarded on successful completion of either seminar. Participants will also be awarded 5 DCU credits toward certification. In the case of the X.25 seminar, these 5 DCU credits will apply toward Level 3 Advanced Certification. For more information and/or to register for either seminar, contact -- American Institute 331 Madison Avenue 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 1-800-444-3123 In New York City: 212-883-1770 FAX: 212-370-0257 Course Director: Charles Incremona. His work experience includes a stint with ITT and MICOM Systems. He is currently an independent consultant specializing in X.25, packet switching and data communications networks. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #327 *****************************   Date: Sun, 27 Aug 89 20:39:21 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #328 Message-ID: <8908272039.aa24668@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 27 Aug 89 20:35:06 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 328 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Strike Slows Down New Installation (Venkatesh K. Chittur) Telephone/audio Interfaces (Joe Stong) Re: Can an AOS Masquerade as MCI? (John DeArmond) Re: 10288 From a Payphone (Paul Guthrie) Re: Origin of "Generic" (Ron Natalie) Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm (Jonathan M. Prigot) Re: BOCs and Regionals (John Higdon) Re: An Example of Mis-parsing a Phone Number (Ron Natalie) [Moderator's Note: Due to maintainence work on the Delta machine at Northwestern, the system will be down Sunday overnight/Monday morning. Therefore, there will be no Digest on Monday, August 28. We will resume publication on Tuesday morning, August 29. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 27 Aug 89 13:12:13 -0500 From: Venkatesh K Chittur Subject: Strike Slows Down New Installation I recently moved to southern New Jersey, and applied for a phone connection on August 7. At first they told me that they may be able to have someone over to do the connecting (or whatever); then later someone called and said it would be delayed indefinitely because of the strike. They did give me a phone number, though. Apparently, as the apartment complex I am living in is a new development, someone has to come and physically do "something" at the phone box outside the apartment. The apartment has telephone wiring and jacks inside also. I plugged a phone into the Network Interface Jack, just to check, and heard only silence. So what the heck do they have to do? Seems to me, one just has to open up the other side of the box (a simple socket driver is enough) and connect whatever wires are needed, right? Isn't it simple? Why won't the telephone company let *me* do it? Then they would only have to set up the "stuff" in their office to make my number work, right? I can understand them not permitting me to do something like this if I can get this necessary service from elsewhere, but since I *have* to get service only from them, and since they are unable to provide me with it, shouldn't I be able to find an alternative? I would appreciate any information on this subject. Please email if possible, as I may not be able to read the net; I will forward copies of responses to anyone interested, or post a summary if there is enough interest. Thanks in advance. (P.S. I am not expressing any opinions about the strike. I don't know anything about it, so no flames on that, please!) -- Venkatesh K. Chittur (chittur@ecn.purdue.edu, pur-ee!chittur) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Aug 89 03:12:40 PDT From: Joe Stong Subject: Telephone/audio Interfaces The interface boards that I know of are "The Complete Answering Machine", "Big Mouth" and Watson, for PC busses. Oh yes, and DECtalks, if you're willing to spend many thousands of dollars. There's a board for a 3B1. Any others that anyone knows of? I heard a story out of a fellow at Talking Technology, the producers of "Big Mouth", and I'd like to verify it. I was curious as to why there was always a large cost associated with the programmer's software package (subroutine library) for these boards. He said that there's a company named "VBX Corporation" who own the patent on "Voice Store and Forward". ( As a techie, I would have assumed that "Voice Store and Forward" was a "concept" and thus not patentable.) The fellow described that this company demands significant royalties for the use of their idea, implying that this was the cause of the high cost: You were paying for the incorporation of "voice store and forward" in your own application. He also described that ROLM had paid a large royalty to this company, so they had plenty of money to pursue protection of their patent. Does anyone know about the validity of this story, or was this just an attempt to discourage me from doing a Unix driver for their board on my own? I tried out a Watson once and discovered that it could not recognize the short pulses of touch tone out of the NEC PBX that we had at work, nor would it recognize touch tones transmitted from further than the local CO. My Panasonic answering machine could hear them fine. I returned it. I'd love to hear anyone else's experiences with similar devices and boards. Please copy responses to me via mail, as I don't manage to read this section frequently enough. Joe Stong jst@dorothy.UUCP jst@cca.ucsf.edu pacbell!dorothy!jst ------------------------------ From: John DeArmond Subject: Re: Can an AOS Masquerade as MCI? Date: 27 Aug 89 06:11:10 GMT Reply-To: John DeArmond Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., "The Procedure IS the product" In article SINGER@almaden.ibm.com (David Singer) writes: >I know that some AOS companies have access to the AT&T/BOC PIN database so >they can verify my card and charge me through my local phone company. Am I >safe from AOSes when I call the MCI 950 (or 800) number and use my MCI Card? NO!! you are not. If you place a call through a COCOT or a phone in a captive envronment (hotel, hospital, etc), the AOS has the technical ability to trap ALL routing requests and charge through their systems. And if the AOS is sleezy (as most are), they will even imitate other carriers. A few years ago, I worked on a team that designed a central office system for an AOS. This system trapped all calls and handled them through the AOS facilities. The display on the operator's console told her what carrier the caller had requested so she could act like an AT&T operator or whatever. The FCC has ruled that this practice is illegal but it continues. I tested a phone known to be on this AOS a couple of weeks ago and found them doing the same old stuff. Best advice I can give is to totally avoid pay phones that don't have the name of the local BOC on them and when in captive environments, ASK who the LD carrier is. I personally refuse to patronize any facility such as hotels that uses an AOS. And I vocally tell them why. Remember that one of the major reasons AOS systems have grown like they have is the greed of the facility owners. The kickbacks are sometimes irrestible. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | Manual? ... What manual ?!? Sales Technologies, Inc. Atlanta, GA | This is Unix, My son, You ...!gatech!stiatl!john **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!! ------------------------------ From: Paul Guthrie Subject: Re: 10288 From a Payphone Date: 27 Aug 89 19:18:01 GMT Reply-To: Paul Guthrie Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers >>I recently tried to make a call using 10288 from the Dunes hotel in >>Las Vegas. The hotel blocked 10288 access from the room phones. (And >>the hotel operator lied about how to reach AT&T, giving me a sequence >>that connected me to an AOS called "OSW".) They also denied access to >>10288 from PAY telephones located on the premises. OSW is owned by Centel, the local operating company. So naturally, they have the ability to route all assisted calls to OSW. OSW used (before the buyout - I don't know about now) to operate in a strange (and possibly illegal manner). They did not own a switch. Calls were routed to them via dialers dialing up a hunt group. A board in a PC would detect ringing and answer, and provide dial tone. The dialer at the hotel would them outpulse a 5 digit identification code. If it checked out, the PC would then provide dial tone again, and the dialer (generally Mitel Smart-1s) would then outpulse the dialed digits. The PC could make 0+ calls on its own, or bring up the call on the display for the operator to handle. The sneaky part is how they handle the outgoing part of the call. The PC flashes (invoking three way calling), gets dial tone and completes the call. The PC then hangs up, leaving the other two parties still connected and the PC available for another call, i.e. true operator service without a switch, and running on about $3k of hardware per station. The legal problem is that they do not pay access charges for these calls. As far as the legality of them intercepting all 10XXX calls, it is currently legal, but the Nevada PUC is looking into it. -- Paul Guthrie chinet!nsacray!paul ------------------------------ From: Ron Natalie Subject: Re: Origin of "Generic" Date: 27 Aug 89 13:17:30 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. The Berkeley UNIX Kernels autoconfigure themselves when you boot them up. The binary that comes with the tape (and the sample system in the kernel build directories) has a collection of the more common drivers so that people could get up and running on that kernel while setting up a system to generate the customize their own (dropping drivers they don't need, etc...). Berkeley called this non-customized kernel the "GENERIC" kernel in all the config files and docs. -Ron ------------------------------ From: "Jonathan M. Prigot" Subject: Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm Date: 25 Aug 89 08:49:50 EDT Organization: W.R. Grace & Company In article , jjs@ihlpz.att.com (James J Sowa) writes: > Cellular phones don't have to be on the ground to answer a page message and > start alerting. RF is able to travel vertical and horizonal. That is one of > the reasons people were able to use cellular phones on commercial airline > flights until they were banned by the FAA. Does anyone know the differences that make use of private cellular phones "dangerous" and the use of public cellular phones on planes "safe"? -- Jonathan M. Prigot Telephone: 617-861-6600 x2148 W. R. Grace & Co. UUCP: j_prigot@wrgrac1.UUCP 55 Hayden Avenue (...!wang!wrgrac1!j_prigot) Lexington, MA 02173 1989 Poster child ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: BOCs and Regionals Date: 27 Aug 89 20:15:32 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , faigin@aerospace.aero. org writes: > (Which reminds me of a story of a PacBell customer who > moved to a GTE area, and then received a sympathy card from PacBell :-) ) Which reminds me of a story that happened to myself. Here in the Silly Con Vallee we are served exclusively by Pac*Bell except for the *town* of Los Gatos, which has six prefixes of the Great Telephone Experiment. (For those who are jumping to their keyboards to correct me, Morgan Hill (GTE) and Gilroy (Contel) are not really in the metro area.) Anyway, a radio station that I contract with does periodic remote broadcasts from various businesses, usually on Saturdays. For these broadcasts they like to have a phone line installed to provide contact with the studio and to handle last-minute details that may come up. (They haven't been bitten by the Cellular Bug yet.) This is usually a piece of cake. You pick up the phone, dial 811-0997, tell the person you want a temporary telephone line installed at [address] on [Friday the whatever], disconnected on [Monday the whatever], billed to the station, touch tone, no carrier, RJ11C jack. Done. The person at the other end gives you the order #, the disconnect order #, the phone number and that's that. Without fail, these lines have been there waiting for every broadcast. But then they wanted to broadcast from a car dealership in Los Gatos. So I call this 800 number that sends me to someone in Thousand Oaks (Thousand Jokes). I tell them that I want a phone line installed. "What is the address of your business?" I give them the dealers address. "Will this be addtional service?" No it will be new service. "What is your social security number?" That's a little personal. This sort of exchange went on for over thirty minutes. This person at the other end had no concept of a "temporary" exchange telephone line. I got stuff like "We'll have to bill you for a full month". Well, of course. I had to pry the phone number and the order numbers out of him. Throughout the transaction, I kept asking if there was a special department that handled this type of transaction. No, there wasn't. The day of the broadcast, Saturday, we arrived to find a jack labeled with the station's call letters, but it was dead. We called repair and they sent a burly phone man out who complained bitterly about being called out on his day off. He went into the back room and fooned around for about an hour, then came out and said there was nothing wrong with the line. When I plugged a 2500D set into the jack and showed him it was dead, he said that of course it was dead--that wire wasn't connected in the phone room. Could he connect it? Well, he could, but it would cost us $95 extra. What? $95 extra to have what I ordered actually work? When I became visibly agitated, he pointed across the street (where the CO was) and told me that building has the most advanced switching equipment in the world (a GTD5, but he probably didn't know that) and that he was sick of people putting down his great company. I told him it didn't matter what was in that building, if there was no dial tone on the jack it was useless to me. He finally connected it in the phone room, and later I found out that the station had a go-round with GTE over an extra $95 charge. Is it any wonder that there are people who literally red-line areas of the state and refuse to consider living in any area served by GTE? -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Ron Natalie Subject: Re: An Example of Mis-parsing a Phone Number Date: 27 Aug 89 13:14:36 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Yes, used to be a party line that advertised it's number as 100 411 7777777 (actually they said seven sevens). It took me a minute to realize what the number actually was. The other fun one is that the Rutgers library ID numbers that are displayed on the checkout terminals are social security numbers. I looked at my number a couple of times before I realized it because they had the spaces in non obvious locations. -Ron ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #328 *****************************   Date: Sun, 27 Aug 89 22:23:01 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #329 Message-ID: <8908272223.aa24545@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 27 Aug 89 22:15:37 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 329 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson GWU Telecommunications Courses (TELECOM Moderator) Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Peter da Silva) Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers (John DeArmond) Re: 35 Cent Payphones in Iowa (Mark L. Milliman) Re: Europe <=> USA calls (John R. Covert) Re: International Access Codes Around the World (Charles Bryant) Re: Overseas Calling Card Rates (Gihan Dias) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 27 Aug 89 22:04:47 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: GWU Telecommunications Courses The George Washington University Continuing Engineering Education Program is offering a number of short courses in telecommunications during the fall. While most courses are given in Washington, DC, there are opportunities to participate in other communities also. Here are the courses and the dates -- In-house Maintainence of Communications and Information Systems: What Happens After the Warranty Expires? (October 9-10 Washington, DC $725) Telecommunications Regulations: Pending Developments Affecting Local, National and Global Applications (October 16-18 Washington, DC $840) Electro-Optics, Fiber Optics and Lasers for Non-Electrical Engineers (October 16-18 Washington, DC $840) New HF Communications Technology (October 16-20 San Diego, CA $1070) (December 11-15 Washington, DC also) Introduction to Telecommunications Systems with Signal Processing Applications (October 16-20 Washington, DC $1070) Digital Cellular Telecommunications (October 18-20 Washington, DC $840) Foundations of Modern Telecommunications Systems (October 23-27 Washington, DC $1070) Trends in Communications Networks: Design Considerations and Economics (October 23-27 Washington, DC $1070) Grounding, Bonding, Shielding and Transient Protection (October 30 - November 2 Orlando, FL) (December 4-7 San Diego, CA $960) Microwave Systems Engineering (Oct. 30 - Nov. 3 Orlando, FL $1070) Fiber-Optic Technology for Communications (December 5-7 Washington, DC $840) Introduction to Communications Systems for Non-Engineers (December 5-7 Washington, DC $840) =================================================== Classes will meet from 8:30 AM until 4:15 PM on each day of the two, three or four day session indicated above. On the first day of class, plan to arrive by 8:15 AM for registration and other matters. Washington, DC classes are held on the GWU campus, Academic Center, 3rd Floor, 801 22nd Street, NW (between 'H' and 'I' Streets). Payment can be made by check, corporate purchase order, or VISA/MC. For more specific information, to register or receive a complete copy of the catalog of the telecom offerings, with detailed descriptions of each class, telephone -- In Washington, DC 202-994-CEEP Telex: 4992135 Elsewhere in USA 800-932-CEEP FAX: 202-872-0645 Canadian Callers 800-535-4567 Credit hours given: 1 CEU is awarded for each ten hours of classroom instruction. The course shown above would typically award 1.5 ===> 3 CEU's. The catalog I received was rather extensive, and there is not nearly enough room to enter it all online. But if you obtain a copy, you'll note it is a twenty page publication, listing full details about each course. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Aug 89 21:40:47 -0400 From: ficc!peter@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question This is a response to , posted by arnor!uri (Uri Blumenthal) I said: > > (a) Have a 'privacy' prefix, like the current *70 Cancel Call > > Waiting prefix. Uri said: > a) Cancel Call Waiting is NOT necessarily *70. Actually, > somewhere it simply doesn't exist (:-). You're picking nits. The point is to have a privacy prefix. Not what the particular prefix is. I said: > > (b) Telephones with unlisted numbers show up as 'unlisted'. Uri replied: > b) To allow ANY number to be just 'unlisted' will screw up all > the system. Why? This statement is so outlandish I can't conceive what line of reasoning can lead to it. Could you be so kind as to explain just what you're getting at here? Finally, he argues: > The only way is to make some codes/names show up > instead of real phone numbers, so that the caller CAN BE > IDENTIFIED, but YOU CAN'T CALL HIM BACK. I want to be able to call them back. I don't see why you would even want to have the service if you can't see the number of the phone that's calling you. What would be the point? The service is desirable (I want it, anyway). The only question is how to preserve the privacy of people who, for whatever reason, don't want their phone numbers to be public knowledge. The two conditions I described provide this protection. I have absolutely no idea why you would want ANI under the sorts of circumstances you're advocating. The service you really seem to want is some sort of automatic call tracing, for your own protection. If you want that, that's fine... but you shouldn't confuse it with ANI. --- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "Just once I'd like to meet an alien menace that isn't immune to bullets" 'U` -- The Brigadier, Dr Who. ------------------------------ From: John DeArmond Subject: Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers Date: 27 Aug 89 05:57:42 GMT Reply-To: John DeArmond Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., "The Procedure IS the product" In article asuvax!gtephx!who! ellisond@ncar.ucar.edu (Dell Ellison) writes: >In article , stiatl!john@gatech.edu >(John DeArmond) writes: >-> It's fair for everyone to share the cost for DA for the same reason it's >-> fair for all to share the cost of things like the inside plant, cable, >With this kind of attitude, you might as well include LD (Long Distance) >charges as well! Then those of us who call our mother on the other side >of the world can do so every five minutes and not have to worry about >the great cost. (Heavy Sarcasm) Actually, a good case could be made for this. Inter-LATA "long distance" is de-facto wrapped into our bills here in the Atlanta area. This is supposedly the largest toll-free lata in the nation. Our phone bills for basic service are a bit higher than some other areas but I don't have to worry about paying long distance to call 20 miles to an adjacent city as I did in the last town I lived in. Pretty nice really. >Those that are too lazy or for whatever reason, should pay for their using >directory assistance. We don't all need to pay for them. Hmmm. I always got a kick out of that line. Yep, everybody that uses DA is a lazy slob including those that: * are blind. * are in a phone booth without a book. * are in an office without a book. * are looking for a new number. * are trying to find a number correction. Yep, let's just call them slobs and nail them for each use of DA. That's the ticket. Makes about as much sense as did the idea of tearing the phone company up. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | Manual? ... What manual ?!? Sales Technologies, Inc. Atlanta, GA | This is Unix, My son, You ...!gatech!stiatl!john **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Aug 89 20:59:03 EDT From: Mark L Milliman Subject: Re: 35 Cent Payphones In Iowa Organization: AT&T-Bell Laboratories I am not sure what you mean by this article. SouthWestern Bell does not provide local telephone service in Iowa; US West Communications does (formerly Northwestern Bell). The US West pay phones were still 25 cents the last time I was in Iowa. There are several vendors of private pay phones that can charge anything they want (I suppose this is regulated). The property owner gets a commission from use of the pay phone. I suppose that this person stumbled across one of these phones. I have seen phones that charge 35 cents for a three minute call. This situation is no different in any other state. Was this person joking? How could you live in a state for ten years and not know who your local phone company was? It is even harder to believe that he thought his uncle worked for them. Am I confused, Mark Milliman E-mail: mlm@homxc.att.com AT&T Bell Laboratories Holmdel, NJ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Aug 89 10:33:31 EDT From: "John R. Covert 27-Aug-1989 0943" Subject: Re: Europe <=> USA calls Paolo Bellutta asks: > >- What is the cheapest way to call Eurpoe from the US? The call from a >pay-phone need $6.80 in quarters and dimes, and it is always hard to find >them. The call from a m/hotel room is more expensive (> $9). I recently >read on the news that MCI accepts Visa Cards. Does it even for foreign >people? MCI now has a service similar to AT&T's USA-Direct service. They call the service "Call USA." With it, you may call someone in the U.S. collect or with an MCI Calling Card, but not with any other credit card. >What is USA Direct service? In which direction you use USA -> Overseas or >vice versa? USA-Direct is a service provided by AT&T to allow calls from overseas to the U.S. to be placed with AT&T operators rather than with PTT operators. As with Call USA, only collect or AT&T calling card calls may be made. As I have mentioned in earlier replies, USA-Direct does not change the rate charged for AT&T Calling Card calls from overseas to the U.S. What it does provide is added convenience, some freedom from hotel surcharges (but of course hotels could, in some cases, program their billing systems to recognize USA-Direct numbers and put a surcharge on your bill anyway), and occasionally provides AT&T Calling Card service from countries where the PTT operator won't place AT&T Calling Card calls or where operators can't be reached from coin phones (e.g. Germany). >- Is there a way to call 800 numbers (in the US) from Europe (being charged >for the call, of course!)? No. In an earlier reply it was suggested that you could call the Plant Test Numbers associated with the 800 Service number. While that would work in some cases, not all 800 numbers have Plant Test Numbers that can be dialled from a regular phone. It's possible to have 800 Service delivered directly from AT&T on Megacom trunks (and other carriers can provide similar direct arrangements), and even where the 800 Service is delivered from local exchanges, in many areas it is common practice to use special 800 Service prefixes that are not diallable from the regular telephone network. >- How could I reach a US directory assistance service from Europe? USA-Direct will currently connect you to US directory assistance at no charge. Just ask for directory assistance for the area code you're interested in. If you don't know the area code, the USA-Direct operator can tell you the area code for any city in the country. /john ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 89 16:25:52 GMT From: Charles Bryant Subject: Re: International Access Codes Around the World Reply-To: Charles Bryant Organization: Maths Dept., Trinity College, Dublin In article praxis!cdh@uunet.uu.net (Chris Hayward) writes: >The UK code for international direct dialling (IDD) is 010, as opposed to >00 as adopted by many European countries. The reason for this, I believe, is >as follows: >In the days before IDD, <00> was used as a "special" STD code for calls from > the UK (including Northern Ireland) to the Republic of Ireland. That is still the case. For example, the Dublin number (01) 234567 is dialled as 0001 234567 from the U.K. However this is not the case for all area codes. The Irish phone book has a table which translates an Irish area code into a code that is dialled from Northern Ireland (it dosen't mention the rest of the U.K. but I have experience with 01 -> 0001 so I assume its the same). Most are really strange. e.g. 01 0001 021 0002 022 010 353 22 (note 353 is international code for Ireland) 041 0011 042 0004 071 0015 078 0010 To dial a U.K. number from Ireland it is much simpler, e.g. the London number 01-234 5678 is dialled as 031 234 5678. The rule is that the U.K. area code is prefixed with 03 except when it is is 0N (n=1,2,3,4,5,6) in which case it becomes 03N. The cellular access codes are given as Cellnet=030860, Vodaphone=030836 (I assume they already include the 03). -- Charles Bryant. (ch@dce.ie) Working at Datacode Electronics Ltd. (Modem manufacturers) ------------------------------ From: Gihan Dias Subject: Re: Overseas Calling Card Rates Date: 27 Aug 89 20:47:03 GMT Reply-To: Gihan Dias Organization: E.E.C.S. Dept. - U.C. Davis. My opinion is that John is right. I have no idea whether calls using "USA Direct" and AT&T cards are billed at the same rate or not, but the fundamental priciple in billing is, as John said, Any carrier can charge *its* customers whatever it wants, and the carrier in the originating country couldn't care less. For instance, if I make a collect call home (to Sri Lanka), Sri Lanka Telecom makes a charge according to their rates, and if I get a collect call from home, AT&T charges me AT&T's rates for this, not S.L. Telcom's rates. Neither of these rates has much of a relation to (though they are likeley to be higher than) the rates the carriers charger each other for the call. Gihan ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #329 *****************************   Date: Tue, 29 Aug 89 0:17:30 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #330 Message-ID: <8908290017.aa01641@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 29 Aug 89 00:00:34 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 330 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm (Kenneth R. Jongsma) Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm (Ole J. Jacobsen) Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm (John Higdon) Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm (John R. Covert) Re: BOCs and Regionals (Paul Fuqua) Re: Advertising and the Strikes (David W. Tamkin) Re: Help - How to Reach the ECSA? (Fred Goldstein) Re: Canada - U.S. Communications (Ilya Goldberg) Re: Telephone/audio Interfaces (eli@chipcom.com) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth_R_Jongsma@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm Date: Mon, 28-Aug-89 07:25:59 PDT With regard to the question about why it is ok to use the public phones on an airplane and not your own cellular phone: The reason is that the public phones on airplanes are not cellular. There are multiple receiving stations on the ground, but I don't believe they do handoffs. In any case, that is beside the point. Whenever an electronic device is installed in an aircraft, extensive testing is done to make sure it does not interfere with any other device on the plane. Antenna location is critical, as is shielding. By using an unshielded transmitter in a "random" location, you open yourself up to interfering with all sorts of equipment critical to the safe operation of an aircraft. Even the thought of some guy whipping out his phone on the taxi in to the gate bothers me to no end. With traffic on the taxiways as busy as an expressway rush hour, I don't want anything to interfere with the flight crews communication with ground control or attention to detail. ken@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon 28 Aug 89 07:31:14-PDT From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" Subject: Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm There are two reasons why you shouldn't use your cellular phone in an airplane. First, the airlines are parnanoid about any electrical device which "can cause interference to avionic systems" and while their fear may be largely unfounded, they have little or no sense of humor about it. I even know of an airline in the UK which forbids the use of Walkmans for the same reason. (Yes, it is pretty bogus). Secondly, the FCC does not allow the use of cellular phones in a *flying* airplane, because it may cause massive interference to the cellular system. Remember that the premise of cellular is the control of intereference through many low-powered cells and high frequency re-use. Imagine what happens when you are up in a plane above a densely populated area: all of a sudden your phone "sees" many cell sites at the same time (and the cell cites "see" it). This can result in all sorts of crosstalk and interference. Don't do it. Ole ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm Date: 28 Aug 89 18:30:58 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , wrgrac1!j_prigot@ uunet.uu.net (Jonathan M. Prigot) writes: > Does anyone know the differences that make use of private cellular phones > "dangerous" and the use of public cellular phones on planes "safe"? The use of cellular phones is not permitted from *any* aircraft. Not only for aviation safety reasons, but because of the havoc it wreaks with the cellular systems themselves. If a mobile comes up on multiple sites, the system will probably lock it out permanently to protect itself. The phone you are probably refering to is called "Airphone". It uses special equipment on a special frequency (950MHz band) and has special approval by the FAA and FCC for aircraft to ground communication. The phone in your hand is an ordinary *cordless* phone. The actual air to ground communications is performed by a transceiver mounted elsewhere on the aircraft. -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Aug 89 21:16:52 EDT From: "John R. Covert 28-Aug-1989 2106" Subject: Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm >Does anyone know the differences that make use of private cellular phones >"dangerous" and the use of public cellular phones on planes "safe"? FAA regulations prohibit the use of all electronic devices not explicitly certified to be safe. Radio receivers and transmitters emit electromagnetic waves at frequencies that may interfere with an aircraft's communications or navigation equipment. The "Airphone" public phones aboard aircraft are specifically designed and tested to ensure that they will not interfere with the aircraft. FCC regulations prohibit the use of cellular phones aboard aircraft for a totally different reason: There are only 832 channels allocated for cellular service. In order to allow more than 832 calls to be active in a system, the channels will be reused only a few miles apart. The more customers a system has, the more cell sites it will have (and cell sites will be found in low, rather than high, places), the smaller the coverage area will be for each cell, and the lower the power your cellular phone will be told to use (by the cell site). This allows frequency reuse. If you are at 10,000 feet, your signal is going to reach not only the nearest cell site, but also several other cell sites using the same frequency. You will interfere with other calls. "Airphone" uses a separate group of frequencies. /john ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Aug 89 00:20:01 CDT From: Paul Fuqua Subject: Re: BOCs and Regionals > Date: Sunday, August 27, 1989 3:15pm (CDT) > From: John Higdon > Subject: Re: BOCs and Regionals > Organization: Green Hills and Cows > Is it any wonder that there are people who literally red-line areas of > the state and refuse to consider living in any area served by GTE? I feel the same way. Many of the Dallas suburbs are "served" by GTE. I can always tell whether my sister is calling from her home in Grapevine (GTE) or work in Arlington (SWB) -- I can barely hear her when she calls from home. Funny thing is, GTE seems to work really hard at satisfying its business customers. They've won a number of accounts here, including the new system for Texas Instruments, replacing a Centrex-based setup. I suppose favoring one group over the other is a business decision, but I think it's a pretty stupid one. Paul Fuqua pf@csc.ti.com {smu,texsun,cs.utexas.edu,rice}!ti-csl!pf Texas Instruments Computer Science Center PO Box 655474 MS 238, Dallas, Texas 75265 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Advertising and the Strikes Date: Sat, 26 Aug 89 14:53:04 CDT From: "David W. Tamkin" From David Gast in TELECOM Digest, Volume 9, Issue 325: | Finally, speaking of advertising, I have to comment on the fact that | PacBell had been advertising their Centrex System very heavily with | lines like It's in their office, nothing can go wrong. As soon as | the strike started (actually perhaps a little earlier I don't know exactly), | these commercials stopped. Perhaps the strike can cause things to go | wrong. Not to mention major fires a la Hinsdale, etc. The strike still in effect against Ameritech's subsidiaries hasn't slowed Illinois Bell down from continuing their Centrex advertising campaign. They still tell us how we don't have to worry about maintenance or upgrades because they keep everything tip-top and state-of-the-art. David Tamkin dattier@jolnet.orpk.il.us {attctc,netsys,ddsw1}!jolnet!dattier P. O. Box 813 GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN BIX: dattier CIS: 73720,1570 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-0813 voice mail: +1 312 693 0591, +1 708 518 6769 ------------------------------ From: goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com Subject: Re: Help - How to Reach the ECSA? Date: 28 Aug 89 16:21:02 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Littleton MA USA In article , chip@vector.dallas.tx.us (Chip Rosenthal) writes... >Could somebody kindly send me the snail mail address for the ECSA? I >wrote to them requesting information on the T1 Standards Subcommittees, >but unfortunately my address is really old, and the post office bounced >it as unforwardable. Thanks. They've moved to the Washington area. Try: Exchange Carriers' Standards Association 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 200 Bethesda MD 20814 (301)564-4505 is the phone. fred (T1S1 member) ------------------------------ From: Ilya Goldberg Subject: Re: Canada - U.S. Communications Date: 13 Aug 89 00:59:11 GMT Reply-To: Ilya Goldberg Organization: Stanford University In article telecom-gateway@vector. UUCP writes: >In article , wnp@killer.dallas.tx.us >(Wolf Paul) writes: > ... >> (a) from certain nationalistic perspectives it rankles that Canada >> is the only major country which does not have its own country code >No, Canada is not the only major country which does not have its own >country code! The USA does not have its own country-code, either, as it must share with Canada! >But Paul's other point is well taken. If two country codes were >used for these two telephone-intensive countries, it would provide >some near-term relief from the rapidly-approaching exhaustion of >available area codes. Actually, no, unless you want to go to 12-digit international numbering. The reason is that there is only one single digit code (namely '1') and this would go to the US. But then no other country can get a two-digit code which starts with a '1' (there is a rule that says country codes must be distinct in this way). Therefore, if Canada and US had country codes, they would have to be two-digit codes, both starting with a '1'. Well, with 11-digit international numbers, that would leave only 9 digits for the national number, which is not enough. The long term plan has always been to go to NXX style area codes. The biggest problem with that is parsing a phone number to distinguish a 7-digit local call from a 10-digit long-distance call. Since many places already have N0/1X exchanges and 1+ dialing, implementing NXX area codes should not be as big a problem now. -Ilya ilya@polya.stanford.edu ------------------------------ From: eli@chipcom.com Subject: Re: Telephone/audio Interfaces Date: 28 Aug 1989 Joe Strong writes: >The interface boards that I know of are "The Complete Answering Machine", >"Big Mouth" and Watson, for PC busses. Oh yes, and DECtalks, if you're >willing to spend many thousands of dollars. There's a board for a 3B1. >Any others that anyone knows of? There are at least 20 voice mail vendors out there. for PC-bus products, try Brooktrout, Dialogic, Applied Voice Technology, Centigram. >I heard a story out of a fellow at Talking Technology, the producers >of "Big Mouth", and I'd like to verify it. I was curious as to why >there was always a large cost associated with the programmer's >software package (subroutine library) for these boards. He said that >there's a company named "VBX Corporation" who own the patent on >"Voice Store and Forward". VMX Corporation of Richardson, Texas owns the patent on voice store and forward. I'm unsure of whether the licensing agreements with VMX require that royalties be paid to them even when software toolkits are sold. >( As a techie, I would have assumed that "Voice Store and Forward" was a >"concept" and thus not patentable.) I would agree. apparently nobody wants to fight VMX in court. even ROLM/IBM buckled under to VMX, as Joe mentions. >He also described that ROLM had paid >a large royalty to this company, so they had plenty of money to pursue >protection of their patent. Ihey rake in BIG MONEY from this patent. no doubt. >Does anyone know about the validity of this story, or was this just >an attempt to discourage me from doing a Unix driver for their board >on my own? The story is true. But i can't divulge the details of any of the license agreements that the smaller vendors have with VMX. At least one of the vendors i listed above is working on porting their VSF software and toolkits to UNIX. >I tried out a Watson once and discovered that it could not recognize >the short pulses of touch tone out of the NEC PBX that we had at work, >nor would it recognize touch tones transmitted from further than the >local CO. My Panasonic answering machine could hear them fine. >I returned it. I'd love to hear anyone else's experiences with >?similar devices and boards. Watson is a low end product. Sometimes you get what you pay for. >Please copy responses to me via mail, as I don't manage to read this section >frequently enough. C'mon! TELECOM Digest is one of the more fabulous mailing lists on internet! Keep on reading! [Moderator's Opinion: Thanks for the kind words in your final paragraph. Just my opinion, of course! (wink!) PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #330 *****************************   Date: Tue, 29 Aug 89 1:09:05 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #331 Message-ID: <8908290109.aa12936@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 29 Aug 89 01:00:22 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 331 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Central Office Tour (Malcolm) To Europe From the U.S. (John R. Covert) First Radio Commercial (U.K. Tony) Modems in France (Doug Faunt) A New Line; It's So Simple (Andrew Palfreyman) Re: Tariff Question (Vance Shipley) There's No Need to Talk to Stangers (Democrat & Chronicle via C.E. Reid) Re: Caller ID -- A Bad Idea (Paul D. Anderson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Central Office Tour Date: Mon, 28 Aug 89 16:46:26 -0700 From: malcolm@apple.com I was in LA over the weekend and I got a tour of a Pac Bell central office. Mind you this was not a normal office. Hookup charges were $1300 per line! (I didn't ask whether they charged for directory assistence :-). All calls were made by a craftsperson who made the appropriate connections on a little plug board. These were hardly your normal voice quality circuits. We were wondering around the top of Mt. Wilson (5500 feet or so) and found the Pac Bell microwave station. It was a rather warm night and behind a screen door there was a big black 30-40 year dude chomping on a cigar. We said hello and he invited us in to chat and see his toys. He had what looked like a couple of dozen microwave dishes (at 6 and 11Ghz) that were pointed around the valley. He seemed rather bored with the TV link he was monitoring. It was a live feed from the Laugh House up to Mt. Wilson and then back to some other company in Hollywood for a satellite up-link to a customer in NY. I guess they had rolled a truck up to the site of the video feed and just pointed the antenna in the right direction. We asked him how hard it was to get it pointed the right direction and he proudly said that he'd been doing this long enough (9 years) that he could get it pretty close just from the address. He said that there was about 5 degrees latitude in the pointing before the signal would be unusable. I got the impression that there were just transmitting raw video. He had the signal fed into a TV and it didn't look like they were even bothering to convert it into digital or any of the normal T-type transmission standards. The transmitters and receivers looked small (8" x 12") and homemade (maybe 10-20 years old.) I remember being surprised by the size of the transmitters. We had been looking at the TV antennas and seeing 8" feeds up the tower. We were expecting the same thing here. He was only using 1w to get anywhere in the basin! In retrospect it seems obvious since it is line of sight and he had fairly large antennas (2m?) The cost was pretty much dominated by the set up charges. The charges were per hop so even though JPL was less than 5 miles away they got charged twice the normal rate since it had to go to another mountain before making it up to the top of Mt. Wilson. It was pretty interesting. He was one of those really good I-know-how-to- make-this-equipment-work type of craftsperson that are such a joy to meet. He was all to happy to show us the raccoon that was always getting into his garbage and tell us about the Mt. Wilson astronomers. Definitely worth the trip. Malcolm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Aug 89 01:12:29 EDT From: "John R. Covert 28-Aug-1989 0026" Subject: To Europe From the U.S. >What is the cheapest way to call Eurpoe from the US? The call from a >pay-phone need $6.80 in quarters and dimes, and it is always hard to find >them. The call from a m/hotel room is more expensive (> $9). I recently >read on the news that MCI accepts Visa Cards. Does it even for foreign >people? If so what is the procedure to use MCI + Visa, what is the minumum >length of the call I will be billed ? Are there othe phone companies that >allow the use of a credit card? In an earlier reply to this I read your question backwards. You're asking about calling Europe from the U.S., but I answered the opposite question. MCI has not yet started accepting VISA cards for operator assisted calls, although I, too, have heard reports that they would. A call to an MCI operator results in the answer, for now, that they do not accept bank or T&E cards. There are local operating company multi-carrier phones in strategic locations which have card readers and accept various cards, but these, in my experience, invariably will not allow international calls when a bank or T&E card is used. Only telephone company cards work in these phones for international calls. There are AT&T phones (with a small CRT providing instructions) located in strategic places (airports, hotel lobbies, etc.). Some but not all of these will accept American Express and other cards. The initial three minutes will be expensive (6.62 for Italy and several other countries) but the additional minutes will be at the same rate as for direct dialled calls, 1.09/.82/.65, depending on time of day. These are, of course, the same rates you pay when you shove cash into the phone. International Telecharge, Inc. (ITI), whose operators are reached by dialling ITT's code (10488-0), will supposedly place calls to Italy charged to VISA cards, but as is typical with AOS companies, cannot currently quote their rates, so you may just be opening your wallet to them if you place a call through them. /john ------------------------------ Date: 08/28/89 17:22:21 (New York time) From: "U.K. Tony" (U.K. Tony) <6675@mneuxg.com> Subject: First Radio Commercial Part of................. Associated Press Broadcast Report for Monday, August 28, 1989 Today is Monday, August 28th, the 240th day of 1989. There are 125 days left in the year. Today's Highlight in History: On August 28th, 1963, some 200-thousand people participated in a peaceful civil rights rally in Washington D-C, where they heard Dr. Martin Luther King Junior deliver his now-famous ``I Have a Dream'' speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial. On this date: In 1922, radio station W-E-A-F in New York City aired the first radio commercial. (The Queensboro Realty Company of Jackson Heights paid one hundred dollars for ten minutes of air time.) [Moderator's Note: WEAF was the first AM broadcast station in the United States. It was operated as an experimental station by AT&T. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Aug 89 13:15:27 PDT From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 Subject: Modems in France I may want to take a modem over to France for temporary usage to the US. I know you're supposed to get modems from the PTT there, but has anyone any practical experience in using a modem imported from the US on the French 'phone system? Trailblazers, V.32, anything else? Thanks, doug ------------------------------ From: "Lord Snooty" Subject: A New Line; It's So Simple Date: 26 Aug 89 09:53:20 GMT Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara I've never tried this before, but I want a new line to my apartment. I live in a complex of apartments. The management says "leave it to the phone company". They have apparently ca. 100 lines per block allocated, and so PacBell's $35 fee for connection is one of these wires. PacBell "quotes" $45 for the first 15 mins of installation, and $15 per extra 15 min thereafter. When I asked them how long it would take, they could not say. Not even guesstimate. When I suggested that this was less of a "quote" and more of a "licence to print money", they reluctantly agreed. Since deregulation, even a private contractor is allowed to somehow get that wire into my apartment and with the appropriate hole in the wall for the jack. The management here says that I am not allowed to make the final hookup myself. These are the facts as I know them. Please - can anybody help out of this maze? and how much SHOULD it cost? ........................................................................... Andrew Palfreyman There's a good time coming, be it ever so far away, andrew@berlioz.nsc.com That's what I says to myself, says I, time sucks jolly good luck, hooray! [Moderator's Note: The telco allows the *owner* of the inside wiring to maintain it as he pleases, provided it works, of course. Your problem is, the landlord is the *owner* -- not you -- and the landlord has opted to have telco do the wiring and pass the costs along to the tenants. There is probably very little you can do, since the telco can't give you the authority to touch someone else's wires -- in this case, the landlord's. But don't be too alarmed by the open-ended fee. I'd be very suprised if the installation took more than fifteen minutes unless it is very complicated. A half hour would be very ample. Of course, you could raise the point that telco can only charge *you* for wiring that is within your premises and under your control, namely, the wires in your apartment. You can't be responsible for wires in areas of the building not in your control, such as a locked basement area. Of course, the landlord *is* responsible for that, and he says you as the tenant pay it! You can't win! PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun Aug 27 20:05:16 1989 From: Vance Shipley Subject: Re: Tariff Question Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology In article RTRN@snycenvm.bitnet (Tom Neiss) writes: >notices are most times obscure and would like help in deciphering exactly what >it is they are proposing. > a. Simplified Message Desk Interface(SMDI)II > b. Introduction of Netowrk Reconfiguration Service >Could someone offer a better description? These are both centrex features. SMDI is an interface for a message center, usually voice mail. network reconfiguration service allows the customer to dynamically assign facilities. Vance Shipley uucp: ..!{uunet!}watmath!xenitec!vances Linton Technology - SwitchView INTERNET: vances@egvideo.uucp 180 Columbia Street West (soon) vances@xenitec.uucp Waterloo, Ontario CANADA tel: (519)746-4460 N2L 3L3 fax: (519)746-6884 # if it ain't got an interface it ain't much use! # ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Aug 89 11:55 EDT From: "C. E. Reid" Subject: There's No Need to Talk to Strangers [Reproduced without permission from SUNDAY DEMOCRAT AND CHRONICLE, Rochester, New York, August 27, 1989, Page 15A] There's no need to talk to strangers New device shows phone number of incoming call The Associated Press POUGHKEEPSIE -- The telephone rings and there's nothing on the line but heaving breathing, a tireless salesman or some other nameless voice. Picking up the phone can be like opening the door to any knock, the telephone company says. That's why NYNEX Corp. in New York and other phone companies have started offering customers a device known as caller identification. With a small video panel located beside the phone, caller identification displays the number from which an incoming call is originating before the call is answered. "People want more control over their telephones. They want more flexibility in using them," said NYNEX spokesman Joe Gagen. Not everyone thinks caller identification is a good idea. Some consumer advocates say the device could cause problems for people who want to keep their phone numbers secret. Other say it could hurt the telemarketing industry. Caller identification and several other services will be offered in New York this fall through NYNEX subsidiaries -- New York Telephone and New England Telephone. Karen Johnson, a spokeswoman for New Jersey Bell, says four out of five people who tried the service in a test in that state liked it. They cited an added sense of security as the reason, she said. Ninety percent of those also said it was a good solution to harassing calls, Johnson said. Along with caller identification, NYNEX will offer three other services: call return, which calls back the last person who called, whether the call was answered or not; call trace, which records the telephone number of an obscene or unwanted call; and automatic redial, which keeps dialing a number that rings busy for up to half an hour. NYNEX predicts at least 20 percent of its residential customers will subscribe to the new calling services. Caller identification is the most expensive of the services offered. Gagen says NYNEX's caller identification will cost about $6.50 a month. Subscribers also must buy an electronic recording device that displays the caller's phone number on a screen. The device, about the size of a desk radio, costs between $40 and $90, depending on the model. It plugs into a phone jack and flashes the caller's number for 30 seconds after the first ring. The device also records the caller's number and the date and time of the call. It can store 20 to 50 calls a day. Caller identification also would enhance the ability of emergency services to respond to crises. If a caller couldn't provide the location of a problem, caller identification would at least get the phone number. To address privacy concerns, Pacific Telesis Group, which serves much of the West Coast, plans to offer a feature that will allow callers to block their telephone numbers by dialing a special code before they place the call. At the receiving end, a message that says "private call" will appear on the caller identification video panel. ======================================= Curtis Reid CER2520@RITVAX.Bitnet CER2520%RITVAX.Bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Internet) [Moderator's Note: Thanks for passing this article along, Curtis. Hopefully, Caller ID will be a standard option for everyone soon, and anonymous phone calls will be a thing of the past. I know I'll sign up the day it becomes available here. PT] ------------------------------ From: "Paul D. Anderson" Subject: Re: Caller ID -- A Bad Idea Date: 28 Aug 89 03:34:09 GMT Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., "The Procedure IS the product" DHowell.ESCP8@xerox.com writes: >Why don't we just outlaw telemarketing and get rid of this problem once and >for all? Dan Howell Great idea! What about this angle? How about using caller-id to ignore calls from people you don't know? I installed a phone for my convenience- not the callers. Before too many people jump on me for this- I suspect that there are many of folks that use their answering machine to perform this screening function for them now (as I do). Most of the time, I pick up the phone, no matter who calls. But it sure does stop telemarketers and similar ilk who have no patience for the machine. It would be nice to know who's calling before answering. As it is now, when I need *real* quiet, I turn the machine on, put it under a pillow and turn off all the other phones... Just another thought on the subject.... paul -- Paul Anderson (w) (404) 841-4000 gatech!stiatl!pda (h) (404) 662-0799 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #331 *****************************   Date: Wed, 30 Aug 89 0:14:07 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #332 Message-ID: <8908300014.aa06466@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 30 Aug 89 00:00:17 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 332 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson A Sprint Non-Bash (John Higdon) Re: Sprint Bashing (Ben Ullrich) Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers (Fred Goldstein) Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers (John Higdon) Yet Another AOS Question (Patty Winter) Re: Can an AOS Masquerade as MCI? (Mike Van Pelt) Re: Can an AOS Masquerade as MCI? (Mike Trout) Re: Is CNI Necessarily ISDN? (David Lewis) Re: Busy Signals: Are 900 Numbers a Waste of Money? (Mike Peltier) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Higdon Subject: A Sprint Non-Bash Date: 30 Aug 89 03:06:09 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows With all of my snorting about Sprint, I do maintain a secondary account on most of my lines. This evening, it suddenly occurred to me that my latest line had not been added to the account. So I settled back in the chair with a good book and dialed 800 877-4646, expecting the usual 30+ minute wait for a person. I dialed the number, ka-klunk, "Thank you for calling Sprint, may I help you?" Oh. Huh. You're a person? She was. I gave her my account number, told her the number of the added line, and that I was a secondary subscriber. She updated my account and wished me a good evening. Total transaction time: approx 60 seconds. One of my major contentions with Sprint has been the difficulty in reaching service people. We may be rethinking our position. Then again this may have been a fluke! -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Sprint Bashing Organization: sybase, inc., emeryville, ca. Date: Sat, 26 Aug 89 22:49:33 -0700 From: ben ullrich I have given all the ``real'' things both of us have asked for, in the very same article you quote. It is clear that both of us are irritated by the things the others are saying, and that is all. Oh well, so much for ``real'' discussion. ...ben ---- ben ullrich consider my words disclaimed,if you consider them at all sybase, inc., emeryville, ca "When you deal with human beings, a certain +1 (415) 596 - 3500 amount of nonsense is inevitable." -- mike trout ben@sybase.com {pyramid,pacbell,sun,lll-tis}!sybase!ben ------------------------------ From: goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com Subject: Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers Date: 29 Aug 89 16:15:27 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Littleton MA USA In article , stiatl!john@gatech.edu (John DeArmond) writes... >...Yep, everybody that >uses DA is a lazy slob including those that: > >* are blind. >* are in a phone booth without a book. >* are in an office without a book. >* are looking for a new number. >* are trying to find a number correction. > >Yep, let's just call them slobs and nail them for each use of DA. That's >the ticket. Makes about as much sense as did the idea of tearing the phone >company up. I don't usually disagree with John, but I think he misses the point. Some folks abuse Directory Assistance. Badly. Some businesses used to use it (and still might, where it's free) as a means to verify credit cards on the cheap. Is the person listed at that address? Such companies ran hundreds of DA calls a month without making the corresponding phone calls. Since it costs telco about half a dollar a call (the FCC required cost-justification for the interstate $.60 which the telcos charge and LD carriers pass along), the telcos were being ripped off. I do support monthly DA allowances. But when something is totally "free", it has a way of being abused. fred (k1io) ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers Date: 29 Aug 89 22:21:31 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article , stiatl!john@gatech.edu (John DeArmond) writes: > >Those that are too lazy or for whatever reason, should pay for their using > >directory assistance. We don't all need to pay for them. > Hmmm. I always got a kick out of that line. Yep, everybody that > uses DA is a lazy slob including those that: > > * are blind. In most areas, handicapped subscribers can be exempted from DA charges, so this argument is moot. > * are in a phone booth without a book. Pac*Bell does not charge for DA from a public telephone; in fact the PUC does not allow COCOTs to charge for local information, either. Argument is again, moot. > * are in an office without a book. If the proprietor of the office does not feel the need to keep phone books available to employees or visitors then he jolly well should pay for calls to DA. > * are looking for a new number. Look at it as a one-time charge. Be sure to write it down. > * are trying to find a number correction. I don't know what this means. > Yep, let's just call them slobs and nail them for each use of DA. That's > the ticket. Makes about as much sense as did the idea of tearing the phone > company up. A nice little zinger, but irrelavent. Even if the "phone company" had been left intact, I would be a supporter of DA charging. BTW, you are the one referring to people as "slobs"; I simply feel that one who uses a service should pay for it. -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Aug 89 23:47:56 PDT From: Patty Winter Subject: Yet Another AOS question With all of this discussion about AOSs (and while I'm writing nasty letters to the three Arizona hotels I stayed in recently :-) ), could someone please explain to me exactly where AOSs are in the sequence of a telephone call? I presume that when I make a long-distance call from a hotel, the call goes straight through the hotel switchboard and out to the AOS. How am I doing so far? Are the AOSs necessarily local, or might the call go a ways even before it heads for the recipient? Then, how does it get from the AOS to the callee? I presume that the AOS somehow routes it to one of the standard LD carriers. Does each AOS use one particular carrier, or might they choose from all of them depending on the distance the call needs to go, time of day, etc.? Thanks! Patty Winter N6BIS INTERNET: winter@apple.com AMPR.ORG: [44.4.0.44] UUCP: {decwrl,nsc,sun}!apple!winter ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Can an AOS Masquerade as MCI? From: Mike Van Pelt Date: 29 Aug 89 00:57:18 GMT Reply-To: Mike Van Pelt Organization: Video 7 + G2 = Headland Technology In article John DeArmond writes: > ... the AOS has the technical ability to trap ALL routing requests >and charge through their systems. And if the AOS is sleezy (as most >are), they will even imitate other carriers. ... > ... This [AOS] system trapped all calls and handled them through the >AOS facilities. The display on the operator's console told her what >carrier the caller had requested so she could act like an AT&T operator >or whatever. >The FCC has ruled that this practice is illegal but it continues. Suppose you just flatly refuse to pay any charges that come from an AOS? Make sure that you place no calls unless the operator says "BOINGGGGGgggg AT&T." Then when the AOS bills you, you can confidently tell them "I did not place any such call through your company. I never place calls from (hotels, pay phones, etc.) through anyone but AT&T, and I ALWAYS make sure the operator SAYS AT&T. (Or MCI, Sprint, or whatever.) This charge is, therefore, obviously fraudulent. Carbon copy the FCC or whoever else would be interested in this kind of criminal activity. Since they have illegally placed this charge on your bill, I don't think they're quite stupid enough to attempt to take you to court. If they attack your credit rating, you could probably sue them for really big bucks. -- Mike Van Pelt Will your long-winded speeches never Headland Technology/Video 7 end? What ails you that you keep on ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp arguing? -- Job 16:3 ------------------------------ From: Mike Trout Subject: Re: Can an AOS Masquerade as MCI? Date: 29 Aug 89 19:33:45 GMT Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY In article , stiatl!john@gatech.edu (John DeArmond) writes: > In article SINGER@almaden.ibm.com > (David Singer) writes: > >I know that some AOS companies have access to the AT&T/BOC PIN database so > >they can verify my card and charge me through my local phone company. Am I > >safe from AOSes when I call the MCI 950 (or 800) number and use my MCI Card? > NO!! you are not. If you place a call through a COCOT or a phone in > a captive envronment (hotel, hospital, etc), the AOS has the technical > ability to trap ALL routing requests and charge through their systems. > And if the AOS is sleezy (as most are), they will even imitate other > carriers. I just received my new MCI card (actually, just the same as the old one; this one gives five miles on Northwest Airlines per dollar spent on MCI), and there was some interesting accompanying literature. In "The MCI/Northwest WORLDPERKS Card Wallet Guide to long distance calling": "Use your MCI/Northwest WORLDPERKS Card Around Town...Make long distance or international calls from a touch-tone phone in your local calling area. Your calls will be free of the normal surcharge imposed by long distance carriers. Or from your hotel...First dial 9, or the appropriate number to get an outside local line. Then dial 950-1022. This way you will not be charged by the hotel for your long distance calls." But in "A Guide to Long Distance Calling with your MCI/Northwest WORLDPERKS Card:" "Calling long distance from around town. You can use your MCI/Northwest WORLDPERKS Card to make long distance calls while around town at the same low MCI rates you enjoy at home or the office. When making long distance or international calls from a touch-tone phone in your local area, your calls are free of the normal surcharge imposed by long distance carriers. This includes calls from any corner pay phone, restaurant or store phone, a business associate's office or private phone. With MCI's Around Town feature, you can save up to 80 cents on every call." "Using a hotel phone. First dial 9, or the appropriate number to get an outside local line. Then dial 950-1022 and follow the normal steps to make a call." Of course, whether any of this actually works as advertised is open to discussion. Actually, I've used my MCI card for years happily, but then I tend to use it only for non-complex domestic calls from Baby Bell pay phones. -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, SOD & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: Is CNI Necessarily ISDN? Date: 29 Aug 89 17:19:13 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article , euatdt@euas11g.ericsson. se (Torsten Dahlkvist) writes: > An interesting thought just struck me. There's been some talk about Calling > Number Information on this meeting and some about ISDN. Because I used to > work with ISDN and the first time I heard of CNI was there, I just naturally > assumed they were linked. That is, I thought the subscribers beeing offered > CNI were field-trial ISDN customers. But when I look at the numbers of > subscribers quoted as potential CNI customers it certainly doesn't look > like any field trial any more. Or somebody is manufacturing one HELL of > a lot of stuff which I haven't heard about. What most people are talking about is CLASS (SM), Custom Local Area Signaling Services. The CLASS package of services makes use of Signaling System 7 common channel signaling to transmit Calling Party Number from the originating end office to the terminating end office. The terminating end office extracts the CPN from the SS7 Initial Address Message (IAM) and does whatever actions are necessary, based on that calling party number and called party number, to provide the particular service. In the case of CPN Delivery, aka Caller*ID or whatever (Calling Number Identification, in ISDN terms), it sends the calling party number to the user in the gap between the first and second rings, using a special signaling protocol which I'm not that familiar with. (and can't find offhand.) > ...how much (information) do they send out? Is it just a > field of "display data" that is shown on the user's display or does the > receiving unit contain additional "intelligence" so that it can select > specific fields of information from the burst? It's just Calling Party Number -- there's no "user-to-user signaling", just "network to user" signaling. Of course, there's nothing to say you couldn't develop CPE to take the calling party number and do all sorts of things with it -- call screening, database lookup (sometimes called "account match"), etc., etc... -- David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ From: Mike Peltier Subject: Re: Busy Signals: Are 900 Numbers a Waste of Money? Date: 29 Aug 89 20:02 GMT Organization: U of M Engineering, Ann Arbor, Mich. arisco%cadillac.cad.mcc.com@mcc.com (John Arisco) writes: > Last night, I was watching Nickolodeon and I observed what has to be >the sleaziest 900 number scheme I've seen so far. The service was called >something like "Kid's Talk Line", and it encouraged kids to call this number >to speak with other kids (or maybe to hear recordings) about problems faced in >growing up. Nickelodeon is the scourge of the earth. It has so much power to shape the minds of the youth of America, and yet it presents so much materialistic, trendy, consumerist garbage that it's hardly tolerable... To think, it used to be a good channel. If I had the power to either severly limit or prevent my little sister from watching it, I would. As it is, she spends a good five hours a day plugged into it. Michael V. Peltier | Computer Aided Engineering Network 1420 King George Blvd. | University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Ann Arbor, MI 48104-6924 | stealth@caen.engin.umich.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #332 *****************************   Date: Wed, 30 Aug 89 1:25:50 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #333 Message-ID: <8908300125.aa01182@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 30 Aug 89 01:15:44 CDT Volume 9 : Issue 333 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Caller-ID Display Not Needed to Stop Harrasing Calls (John R. Covert) Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Buster Irby) Question Regarding UK Telephone Network (Jeff Wasilko) Putting A Call On Hold (Bob Howell) Any Interest In a Group For Discussion of Intelligent Network (Anthony Lee) Plantronics LiteSet (Sam Cramer) What Number is This, Anyway? (Oliver "Vetti" Muoto) Place Name on Phone Bill (Carl Moore) Fascination With Numbers (Scott D. Green) More Old Radio Station History (Robert E. Seastrom) Re: BOC's and Regionals (David Lewis) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 28 Aug 89 21:52:25 EDT From: "John R. Covert 28-Aug-1989 2148" Subject: Caller-ID Display Not Needed to Stop Harrasing Calls I've just received mail from someone who disputes my claim that Caller-ID isn't needed to stop harrassing calls. He feels that, for personal reasons, he can't go to the phone company or the police with the Call-Trace data. He'd like to just ignore calls from that number or send them to an answering machine. My reply to him follows: You don't need a display of the number to prevent the calls from reaching you. With the services offered in conjunction with Caller-ID (the ones that don't actually deliver the number to you, the ones I approve of) you can do just what you want. You can use Call-Block to cause the caller to get a recorded message saying that you are not available. You provide a list of numbers (and you can add the last number which called you to that list without knowing the number). You can use Selective Call-Forwarding to forward that caller to some other number. As with Call-Block, you provide a list of numbers or indicate that you want the last number added to the list. You can use this to do just what you want: send the call to a second line with an answering machine, a voice mail system, a conventional answering service, or even the police -- I once forwarded _all_ my calls to the local police for about two hours [with their permission! I told them I didn't expect them to take messages for me!], stopping my set of teenager-originated nuisance calls for months. No, you don't need the number of the person calling to be displayed to you. /john ------------------------------ From: Buster Irby Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question Date: 30 Aug 89 02:51:10 GMT Organization: Public Access Unix, Stafford, Tx ficc!peter@uunet.uu.net writes: >I want to be able to call them back. I don't see why you would even want to >have the service if you can't see the number of the phone that's calling >you. What would be the point? The point here is that *you* are not entitled to my unlisted phone number just because I placed a call to an identifying device which you happened to be standing next to. However, if I am making harrassing calls, the receipient of the call should be able to identify me to the phone company, ala the code names/numbers. I do not see any reason why the Caller ID device cannot provide the required calling party id without finding it necessary to divulge an unlisted phone number. Buster Irby rli@buster [Moderator's Note: However, some of us feel that we have the right to know the identity of the caller -- not necessarily recognize the caller -- just know the identity of the person ringing our bell. We feel you don't have the right to know our number and be able to ring it at will while at the same time witholding your own, preventing us from calling you. PT] ------------------------------ From: Jeff Wasilko Subject: Question Regarding UK Telephone Network Date: 27 Aug 89 03:47:18 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Wasilko Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 997-9175} I am looking for some information on the telephone system in England. We are making a proposal to a newspaper in southern England for the installation of our newspaper editing system (which is PC-based and uses the Proteon Pronet-10 token ri