Date: Tue, 5 Dec 89 0:15:00 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #551 Message-ID: <8912050015.aa29606@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 5 Dec 89 00:14:26 CST Volume 9 : Issue 551 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Modems and Phone Rates (Jonathan Bayer) Re: Modems and Phone Rates (Ted Schroeder) Re: PC Pursuit (Roger Preisendefer) Re: Anachronistic Rip-off (Paul Guthrie) Re: Long Ago Memories of Telex/TWX Calls (Joe Talbot) Re: "Intercom Plus" by Pacific Bell (David Lewis) Re: NY Tel New Service For Handling Operator Assisted Calls (Scot Wilcoxon) Re: How Do I Avoid Satellite Connections? (Kevin Hopkins) Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (John Higdon) New Report in Archives: Eavesdropping Laws (TELECOM Moderator) Must Part With Tele-Expand System (David C. Troup) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Bayer Subject: Re: Modems and Phone Rates Date: 4 Dec 89 17:06:00 GMT Organization: Intelligent Software Products, Inc. david@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (David Robinson) writes: > From the discussion so far it appears that modems do not take up >anymore phone network resources than a normal voice call, you get the >same ~4KHz bandwidth whether you are talking or using a modem. Sorry, you're wrong. The telephone network is designed to work with human voices. As such the equipment multiplexes many conversations onto a single wire. Human conversation has many gaps that the network can use to multiplex other conversations using the same frequency. A modem is on continously, tying up a frequency full-time. Assuming that a wire can handle 100 different conversations at one time, and further assuming that 10 % of the conversations is quiet, that means that with the proper equipment a single wire could handle 110 conversations at the same time. However, you use modems and all of a sudden the network loses some of its excess capacity. I am sure that my numbers are not correct, but the method is valid. I do not support the idea of extra charges for modem usage, and the phone companies' numbers will have to be looked at very carefully, however you cannot deny that modems _do_ take up bandwidth that conversations do not. Jonathan Bayer Intelligent Software Products, Inc. (201) 245-5922 500 Oakwood Ave. jbayer@ispi.COM Roselle Park, NJ 07204 ------------------------------ From: Ted Schroeder Subject: Re: Modems and Phone Rates Organization: Ultra Network Technologies Date: Mon, 4 Dec 89 17:49:19 GMT In this discussion nobody has mentioned the fact that modems place a continuous carrier on the line, unlike human voices that pause between sentences and words. There is a form of compression called DSI (and there may be other forms also) that allow this "dead space" to be used. You might put 12 calls on 8 lines and assume the "dead space" would allow you to compress bandwidth this way. I know this is done quite frequently in fully digital private networks, but I don't know how the public networks work and whether they use this type of technology. Does anyone out there know about this? Ted Schroeder ted@Ultra.com Ultra Network Technologies ...!ames!ultra!ted 101 Daggett Drive San Jose, CA 95134 408-922-0100 Disclaimer: I don't even believe what I say, why should my company? ------------------------------ From: rwp@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: PC Pursuit Date: Mon, 4-Dec-89 19:23:46 PST A quick summary: I cancelled my PCP account end of May, and continued to be billed through November. Telenet ignored calls, letters, and certified mail. I finally changed my CC account # to stop the bills. Patrick Townson, the moderator of the comp.dcom.telecom newsnet, took my complaint to Dave Purks directly. He replied with a form letter post to the comp.dcom.telecom board, addressed to all. Still never bothered to talk to me, though. This was not good enough, so I sent another complaint through Patrick T. This resulted in a call, the next day, from David Rupp, from Telenet. He has been given the unenviable assignment of watchdog over customer service at Telenet. He was amiable, knew about my problem, and arranged a credit (theoretically, we'll see when I get my statement.) There was no record of my registered letters that he could find. He'll look into it.... I explained that I wasn't the only one in this boat, and asked him to fix that. He replied that he would like everyone with this type of problem, who has not been able to get satisfaction from customer service, to write to him directly, bypassing CS. To do this, send mail to: Telenet Communications Corp, HQ23E, 12490 Sunrise Valley Dr., Reston, VA 22096, Attn: David Rupp. The only way he will find out if CS is screwing up is to hear from you, so write him if CS ignores you! Roger Preisendefer X-PCP customer ------------------------------ From: Paul Guthrie Subject: Re: Anachronistic Rip-off Reply-To: Paul Guthrie Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers Date: Mon, 4 Dec 89 07:03:40 GMT One thing to keep in mind is that the use of dialers to access inter-lata carriers does not necessarily mean that the customer pays for the local call into the carrier. Many carriers use FGB lines (950 NXX), and bear the (much reduced) costs. Paul Guthrie chinet!nsacray!paul ------------------------------ From: Joe Talbot Subject: Re: Long Ago Memories of Telex/TWX Calls Date: 4 Dec 89 12:11:47 GMT Organization: ATI, High desert research center, Victorville, Ca I used to work for a radio station in Orange County that had a TWX machine. We used it to get orders from ad agencies and to add or "pull" music from the playlist (we were programmed by someone from another area). When I first started there (november 1978) the TWX machine's dial tone came from Pacific Telephone (from the Anaheim Lemon street crossbar). The, one day, it changed! The dial tone level was lower, and the service came from an electronic switch. The switch wouldn't allow the use of pulse dialing, probably because the machine we used normally was a tone machine (model 33, yecch). joe@mojave I finally changed my dumb signiture. People were always telling me what a great signature I had. ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: "Intercom Plus" by Pacific Bell Date: 4 Dec 89 18:36:15 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <1755@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > In article , apple!netcom!edg@ > ames.arc.nasa.gov (Edward Greenberg) writes: > > Last month, my phone bill advertised a little service called Intercom > > Plus. Being the phone junkie I am, I called up the business office > > and ordered it right up. > Leave it to Pac*Bell to sell its ringback codes to the public and then > have to gall to refer to it as "advanced" service. > How long is Pac*Bell going to sell bits and pieces of Centrex service > to the residential and small business public while avoiding the > necessary upgrades to offer really state-of-the-art telephone service? As long as necessary to fully depreciate their 1AESSs. Pac*Bell has a whole pile of 1As; the 1A feature book is about 4 pages thick; Pac*Bell is not allowed by the CPUC to writedown their 1As for several years yet; it doesn't take a genius to figure out their best move... Seriously, have you seen a thing called the "Intelligent Network Task Force Report"? Their definition of "Intelligent Network" is about 10 times the size of my definition, but it's interesting -- the definition of what's needed for "really state-of-the-art telephone service." I won't go into it (it's a fairly long piece of work), but copies should be available -- it's a public document. However, the only address I have for Pac*Bell documentation is: Pacific Bell Information Exchange 2600 Camino Ramon, Room 1S450 San Ramon, CA 94583 (415) 823-0222 (I got my copy at the 1989 IN ComForum in Chicago.) David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ From: Scot E Wilcoxon Subject: Re: NY Tel New Service For Handling Operator Assisted Calls Date: 5 Dec 89 00:19:43 GMT Reply-To: Scot E Wilcoxon Organization: Data Progress, Minneapolis, MN >[Moderator's Note: Can't you *just imagine* the fraud with this new toy? >On being asked to record their name, caller responds: >'Meet me at the airport at seven'; 'Call me back at acc-xxx-yyyy'; 'I do >not have change, but I'll be home soon.'; or a whole variety of messages >to which the callee can refuse to accept charges. Is telco going to >keep track of all the 'names' (heh-heh!) that callers use when placing >collect calls? I don't know what telco plans are, but it might be a profitable side effect. As the calls would undoubtedly get charged the minimum amount for a "collect" call, dredging for these lost calls could easily be worthwhile. Instead of several human operators handling many calls, a single operator could listen to the few recorded seconds from many calls and tap a "charge for call" button (or type the 'name') when appropriate. Security staff can start by with random sampling, and it could increase to a task to fill operator idle times (or not retiring an operator replaced by the automated service). A permanent record of corrected charged calls, and the legal differences between a phone call and an obvious recording should be useful. Should we consider it a "collect voice mail" service? :-) Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@DataPg.MN.ORG {amdahl|hpda}!bungia!datapg!sewilco Data Progress UNIX masts & rigging +1 612-825-2607 uunet!datapg!sewilco I'm just reversing entropy while waiting for the Big Crunch. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: How Do I Avoid Satellite Connections? Reply-To: K.Hopkins%computer-science.nottingham.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Date: Mon, 04 Dec 89 19:54:42 +0000 From: Kevin Hopkins I know it's in the wrong direction, but I believe you can use country code 89, instead of 1, to reach the US from the UK via the transatlantic cable. Using country code 1 just picks the next channel to the US whilst 89 avoids the satellite. I saw this on a UK newsgroup a few months back and cannot remember who mentioned it - I don't have first hand experience and I don't know if it still works. Can anyone shed more light on this? BTW, country code 89 has not been assigned by CCITT. +--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+ | K.Hopkins%cs.nott.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk | Kevin Hopkins, | | or ..!mcsun!ukc!nott-cs!K.Hopkins | Department of Computer Science,| | or in the UK: K.Hopkins@uk.ac.nott.cs | University of Nottingham, | | CHAT-LINE: +44 602 484848 x 3815 | Nottingham, ENGLAND, NG7 2RD | +--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+ ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy Date: 5 Dec 89 01:21:09 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows Mr. Rotenberg's basic premise involves the comment that just because we can do it doesn't mean we should do it. Also, he assumes that there is some inherent, cast-in-stone right to privacy concerning the use of the telephone. I'd like to turn it around. Just because in years past we have *not* had the technology to reveal callers' phone numbers does not mean that failing to do so is the natural order of things. I'm sure that if Caller-ID had been an inherent feature of automatic switching systems from the beginning, this would be a non-issue. The word "Luddite" comes to mind: A person who automatically resists change, particularly technological. I, for one, barely tolerate the lack of Caller-ID service in California only because I recognize that Pac*Bell is too backward to provide it. This, as bad as it is, is at least a legitimate reason for its non-existence. However, if Pac*Bell could provide the service, and it was unavailable simply because some Luddites had decided that people who call me have the right to know my number but I have no right to know theirs, I would be pulling out all the protestation stops. Yes, Mr. Rotenberg covers his ground very well, but unfortunately you have to subscribe to his basic assumptions to be able to agree. I, for one, do not. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 89 1:49:11 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: New Report in Archives: Eavesdropping Laws I am pleased to announce another recent donation to the TELECOM Archives for your reading pleasure. The draft copy of a research paper on the eavesdropping laws has been presented by Mr. Christopher Seline, . Mr. Seline, who is studying for the bar, has made his research available to us. The paper is entitled, "Eavesdropping on the Electromagnetic Emanations of Digital Equipment: The Laws of Canada, England and the United States." This file is about 55 K in length, and is filed in the archives under the title, 'eavesdrop.laws' The usual ftp rules apply: ftp cs.bu.edu login anonymous as a password, give your name and site, i.e. myname@mysite.edu 'cd telecom-archives' 'ls' to review the selections. And of course, if you did not get a copy of the Special Edition over the weekend, you will also want a copy of 'rotenberg.privacy.speech'. My thanks to Mr. Seline for making this paper available. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: "David C. Troup - Skunk Works : 2600hz" Subject: Must Part With Tele-Expand System Date: 4 Dec 89 23:21:24 GMT Organization: Carroll College Stealth Rock Climbing Club For all those who showed interest. I am selling my Tele-Expand small phone system. Best offer takes this hard-to-get item. We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed_ _______ _______________ |David C. Troup / Surf Rat_2600 hz__________ _______)(______ | |dtroup@carroll1.cc.edu : mail______________ ________________________________|414-524-6809(dorm)/7343(work)______________ [Moderator's Note: Please correspond direct with Mr. Troup, thanks. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #551 *****************************   Date: Tue, 5 Dec 89 1:03:28 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #552 Message-ID: <8912050103.aa07872@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 5 Dec 89 01:03:00 CST Volume 9 : Issue 552 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: The Use and Abuse of UUNET (Was: ATTMAIL Access?) (Fred E.J. Linton) Re: How Do I Rotary? (Lars J Poulsen) Re: Caller*ID and *69 (David Lewis) Re: Another Thought on 8-digit Phone Numbers (David Lewis) Re: Need a Light to Indicate Phone *Has Rung* (Not is Ringing) (K.Thompson) Re: The Lighter Side: An Unusual Story (Dave Fiske) A Word of Thanks is in Order (TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Re: The Use and Abuse of UUNET (Was: ATTMAIL Access?) Date: 4 Dec 89 20:04:34 GMT In article , psrc@pegasus.att.com (Paul S. R. Chisholm) writes: > ... recitation-of-the-month: AT&T Mail is a commercial e-mail service. > There is *no* gateway between the AT&T Mail service and the Internet. > This seems to be quite correct -- except -- that most of the well- connected Unix systems "registered" with AT&T Mail seem willing to overlook another AT&T Mail subscriber's _occasionally_ sending through them FROM his own AT&T Mail account TO an Internet/Bitnet/Usenet/etc.-net destination. Not so, however, for mail ORIGINATING somewhere else and destined for you on your AT&T Mail account (except in flukey cases, where the postmaster isn't aware of how his machine is getting mugged, or doesn't know how to stop it): > It's not a technical problem (AT&T Mail talks uucp, and so > do several gateways), but a billing question. Any system that acted > as a gateway would be billed by AT&T Mail for all messages it passed > on, and of course wouldn't have reliable way of passing the bills along > along to the systems it served; as a result, no one wants to be a gateway. Indeed, I once found (briefly) a seeming Internet-to-attmail gateway -- very soon I had "cease-and desist" mail from its postmaster, with whom (since I hadn't cost him more than 85 cents, in fact) I quickly was able to make peace; shortly thereafter, he had a patch on his mailer rejecting third-party attmail-bound traffic through his machine. Many sites spring to mind -- cbosgd and athq03, among others -- who are no longer even on attmail because of the expense of forwarding in this way, or who -- like uunet, seismo, ihnp4 -- just blankly refuse to forward into attmail except for their own local users. > Yes, it would be nice if there was a gateway. Yes, there are gateways > to MCI Mail and CompuServe. I know it. AT&T Mail management knows > it. As of right now, there isn't one. Gentle pressure on the AT&T Mail Customer Assistance Center reps at +1 800 624 5672 may, in time, cause AT&T Mail management to realize that permitting inbound mail at no charge to the site last handling it before it arrives in attmail can only be _good_ for business -- a fact MCI Mail and C'Serve have already realized (and _that_ fact may help convince AT&T Mail!). > ... get from the Internet to AT&T Mail? You can't, okay? You can however make yourself a little switch box that will connect in "triangle-routing" fashion your keyboard to your mainframe's data-in line, your mainframe's data-out line (normally to your CRT) to a modem TxD line, and the modem's RxD line to your CRT, and in this way, on the line with AT&T Mail, you can transfer to your AT&T Mail account, for further processing, anything that reached you from Internet; similarly, by reversing the triangle, you can download from your attmail account and into your mainframe account and thence onwards into the Internet whatever has arrived there. (I made myself such a box using a couple of 4P2T switches -- totally hassle-free.) As to how the Moderator finds his way into AT&T Mail accounts, I'd be curious to know -- perhaps the attmail recipients have an agreement with the gatewaying machine to reimburse expenses, or the gatewaying machines haven't yet realized they're being taken advantage of, or... > [Moderator's Note: Sorry, but I have to differ with you > on the 'no gateway to attmail' statement. TELECOM Digest is sent to > a few people who recieve it in their attmail boxes at their request. > I send control copies of the Digest to my own attmail box from time > to time to test the link. ... or maybe they'll just up and plug the leak, with no warning, and no bounce report... (-: ? Fred E.J. Linton Wesleyan U. Math. Dept. 649 Sci. Tower Middletown, CT 06457 ARPA/Internet: FLINTON@eagle.Wesleyan.EDU (preferred) Bitnet: FLINTON%eagle@WESLEYAN[.bitnet] (also works) from uucp: ...!{research, mtune!arpa, uunet}!eagle.Wesleyan.EDU!FLinton on ATT-Mail: !fejlinton ( ...!attmail!fejlinton ) Tel.: + 1 203 776 2210 (home) OR + 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work) Telex: + 15 122 3413 FEJLINTON CompuServe ID: 72037,1054 ( OR, maybe: 72037.1054@CompuServe.COM ) F-Net (guest): linton@inria.inria.fr OR ...!inria.inria.fr!linton [Moderator's Note: Well, if that occurs, then those users will need to supply me with some other address. It would be a shame. PT] ------------------------------ From: Lars J Poulsen Subject: Re: How Do I Rotary? Reply-To: Lars J Poulsen Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California Date: Mon, 4 Dec 89 17:30:19 GMT In article <1782@accuvax.nwu.edu> john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > ... hunting costs an >arm and a leg with Pac*Bell (like everything else). It costs $20.00 >per line to make any change in hunting e.g. install, remove, number >change, etc. For instance, if I have two lines (as I do for my UUCP >modems) and I want the lead number to "hunt" to the second number, >then I pay $40.00 extra ($20.00 per line) to install over and above >any other charges and $1.00 per month ($0.50 per line). It would cost >$40.00 to have the hunting removed as well (@ $20.00 per line). > ... With busy-forwarding, you pay $5.00 >to put it in (on the first line, which when busy "forwards" to the >second) and $2.00 per month. ... and there is no termination >charge if and when it is removed. I am amazed that people put up with such rip-offs, and THEN talk about how bad GTE is. In my GTE area, the technical quality has been excellent since they ripped out the entire CO plant and replace it with ESS about 3 years ago. Since then they have replaced the cable plant in most of the city (they were running out of pairs). And hunting is free. I have my two lines in a circular hunt group, though I'll probably change that some day. (When the voice line is busy, I don't usually want to deal with another voice call untill I get off the first one). Technically, what is the difference between hunting and busy- forwarding ? Sounds to me like the same thing in an ESS environment. / Lars Poulsen (800) 222-7308 or (805) 963-9431 ext 358 ACC Customer Service Affiliation stated for identification only My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !! ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: Caller*ID and *69 Date: 4 Dec 89 18:55:53 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <1758@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Dave_C_Henry@cup.portal.com writes: > I heard today that Bell of PA is now offering the Caller*ID feature ... > I have a few questions first: > 1) What areas do the incoming calls have to come from for the number > to be displayed? Do they have to be local, from within PA, from an > area that also has Caller*ID, or will every number show up? What about > long distance numbers? I get most of my calls from Baltimore, > Pittsburgh and Boston. I'm in Philadelphia. (sigh). I really oughta put this in a file and just copy it when the question comes up... (but will I? Probably not...) For Caller*ID information to be displayed, assuming you have subscribed to Caller*ID and have the Caller*ID box (and therefore your CO is equipped with the appropriate hardware and software), one of the following must be true: 1. The caller must be calling from a phone subtending the same CO you do; 2. The caller must be calling from a phone subtending a CO which is equipped with SS7 (common channel signaling system #7), which is in the same LATA as your CO. (At some time in the future (beyond 1991), when Interexchange Carrier SS7 interconnection is available, add:) 3. The caller must be calling from a phone subtending a CO which is equipped with SS7, run by a telco which has SS7 connectivity with the caller's IC, which has SS7 connectivity at the appropriate tandem switches, and has SS7 connectivity to your telco. Simple, hey? In practical terms: Today, you would get the calling number from calls inside your LATA (in the philly area, generally local calls), from COs which are SS7-connected (not intuitively obvious which are, but generally some reasonably high percentage of "major" COs in the LATA will be SS7-connected before a telco will offer CLASS). You would not get calling number from Pittsburgh, Baltimore, or Boston. At some point in the future -- but not before mid-1991, most likely -- you would start getting some calling number delivery from outside your LATA. There are so many variables involved that I won't even *try* to predict where you would and would not get delivery.... save to say that Pittsburgh would be your best bet (Bell of PA), followed by Baltimore (C&P of Maryland, different telco but part of Bell Atlantic) followed by Boston (different Regional Company -- NYNEX). David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: Another Thought on 8-digit Phone Numbers Date: 4 Dec 89 18:59:16 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article , ijk@violin.att.com (Ihor J Kinal) writes: > Somewhere I was told that the phone company [MA BELL] did studies in > the distant past, and found that people remember 7 digits much better > than 8. There's a famous work on short-term memory called "Seven Plus-or-Minus Two". I don't recall the author (I guess it's not *that* famous), but the basic conclusion is that a person's short-term memory can hold, on average seven "chunks" of information, plus or minus two. Of course, most people don't remember phone numbers as digits, but as collections of numbers. My phone number, for example, isn't stored in my memory as "2", "0", "1", etc..., but as "201", "758", "40", "99". Four chunks. Same with SSN -- "XXX", "XX", "XXXX". David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ From: Ken Thompson Subject: Re: Need a Light to Indicate Phone *Has Rung* (Not *is Ringing*) Date: 4 Dec 89 22:08:58 GMT Reply-To: Ken Thompson Organization: NCR Corporation, Wichita, KS It sounds exactly like the ATT system we have at work. You can buy an analog phone that has a little message led that flashes once a second when there is a message. This is in addition to the sudder dial tone. Your old phone can do the job. Put an led in series with a 22K resistor across your phone line. Get the polarity right so that the led lights when the phone is ON HOOK. When you have a message the led will blink off momentarily once a second. It will flash brightly when the phone rings and when you are off hook it will go nearly out. Have fun. PS. This is being used all over our building. Ken Thompson N0ITL NCR Corp. 3718 N. Rock Road Wichita,Ks. 67226 (316)636-8783 Ken.Thompson@wichita.ncr.com ------------------------------ From: Dave Fiske Subject: Re: The Lighter Side: An Unusual Story Date: 4 Dec 89 21:57:09 GMT Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY In article , telesci!ashepps@ pyrnj.pyramid.com (Anton C Shepps) writes: < Climbing down from the pole, Pat found: < a. Dog was tied to the telephone system's ground post via an iron chain < and collar. < b. Dog was receiving 90 volts of signalling current. < c. After several jolts, the dog was urinating on ground and barking. < d. Wet ground now conducted and phone rang. Gee. Might this be a solution for the person who wanted to be able to "see" (via lamps) the phone ringing from any room in the house? Provided you could see the dog's pen from all relevant rooms, just watch for the dog urinating, then dash and pick up the phone! I'm sure it would impress visitors, too. "CROOK ROBS 16 BANKS -- Dave Fiske (davef@brspyr1.BRS.COM) WITH A CUCUMBER" Home: David_A_Fiske@cup.portal.com Headline from Weekly World News CIS: 75415,163 GEnie: davef ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Dec 89 0:30:18 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: A Word of Thanks is in Order I want to publicly extend my thanks to Chip Rosenthal who assisted with the comp.dcom.telecom gateway for over a year during my tenure as moderator of this Digest. About a month ago, I received a note from Chip saying that his circumstances were changing at his place of employment, and that it would be necessary to make some changes in the gateway between the Digest and Usenet, which was until that time being administered at 'vector', a well-connected site in Dallas, Texas. Arrangements were made to handle the gateway from here in Evanston on the accuvax. We were not ready to go at the end of November, and Chip graciously assisted for a few more days from his new location, 'chinacat.lonestar.com'. I appreciate his tireless efforts; particularly his work in writing software which completely automated the gateway while he was managing it. He expects to re-locate at his new permanent base of operations within about a month or two. The cutover was made this past weekend, and not without some fumbles, for which I take the entire blame. For your records, should you wish to correspond with him, his address is 'chip@chinacat.lonestar.org'. Again, thanks! Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #552 *****************************   Date: Wed, 6 Dec 89 0:27:31 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #553 Message-ID: <8912060027.aa26253@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Dec 89 00:25:05 CST Volume 9 : Issue 553 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation (was Re: Do Modem Users...) (David Lewis) ISDN and TCP/IP (Robert P. Weber) Message Lights For Audix Systems (Ken Thompson) More Internet -> AT&T Mail Access (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Panasonic KX-T 61610 (Robert Jesse) Problem with Demented 900 Number (Dave Fiske) ANI Does Not Seem to Work (Holly Aaron) Kermit Sliding Windows Needed (Jose Valenzuela Sanz) Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping (Tad Cook) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lewis Subject: Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation (was Re: Do Modem Users...) Date: 4 Dec 89 19:03:41 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <1759@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Bandwidth is not dynamically allowcated by > some analysis of the sonic material on the line, but is fixed by the > telco in the transmission system involved. ... > It would be a neat trick indeed if you could automatically get extra > bandwidth out of a telephone connection on demand. The audio leased > line department would go out of business in a hurry! Wait for Broadband ISDN. SONET (Synchronous Optical NETwork) layer 1, plus ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) layer 2, plus the appropriate definition of bearer capabilities, signaling, user-network interfaces, and all that stuff (yet to be done...), gives you dynamic baodwidth allocation. Not until at least 1994, tho. And even then only in very limited deployment. Not the kind of thing you'll order when you move into that new apartment. David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1989 Dec 4 20:01 EST From: WEBER@harvarda.bitnet Subject: ISDN and TCP/IP Harvard University is installing a 5ESS running version 5 of the software. We also have a fiber optic ethernet backbone network whose configuration was chosen to permit easy upgrade to FDDI when such bandwidth is required and when the upgrade is cost effective. The environment is mostly Unix and VMS machines on the ether, running TCP/IP with some DECNet. There is some LAT on local ethernets, but only TCP/IP and DECNet will be supported on the backbone. The backbone is implemented at present with cisco routers and subnets for various faculties and departments. THere are a few IBM hosts that are or will be running TCP/IP, including the server for the library catalog application. The is some confusion here about the utility of ISDN in the short run and in long run. The following questions have arisen: 1. How do we create a gateway between ISDN and TCP/IP so that the following common cases can get access to TCP (and the world): a. Dumb terminals with an rs232 connection to circuit switched d or b channels (i.e., 9.6 kbs or 64kbs). b. Intelligent peronal computers such as msdos and macintosh machines. These machines would ordinarily have ethernet cards and run something like FTP Software's TCP implementation, or NCSA Telnet on the macs. There might be a stray Unix box somewhere (no one wants to run slip). THe ISDN connection is BRI, not PRI. c. Local area networks in buildings which are nt yet connected to the fiber ethernet network. These networks are typically Appletalk or TCP/IP itself, with a few Novell networks here and there. Again, the ISDN connection is BRI, not PRI. Thanks for any information you can offer. Robert Philip Weber, Ph.D. | Phone: (617) 495-3744 Senior Consultant | Fax: (617) 495-0750 Academic and Planning Services | Division | Office For Information Technology| Internet: weber@popvax.harvard.edu Harvard University | Bitnet: Weber@Harvarda 50 Church Street | Cambridge MA 02138 | ------------------------------ From: Ken Thompson Subject: Message Lights For Audix Systems Date: 4 Dec 89 23:07:55 GMT Organization: NCR Corporation, Wichita, KS For those with audix, an old phone, and no money to purchase an AT&T phone with a message light... Here is a circuit that works to indicate an audix message is waiting. Mount the led that lights in a conveniently visible location. |\ | <---------+-------| >|-----+-----'\/\/\/\/`-----+ | |/ | | 22k | | led | | to phone | | | line | | /| | | (green/red) +-------|< |-----+ | (L1/L2) | \| | led | | | <-----------------------------------------------+ This is for information only. No one is encouraged to actually use the circuit. Legal or moral considerations of modifying or destroying company property are not addressed. No warranty expressed or implied. Not liable for any direct, consequential, or incidental loss or damage. This circuit has not been certified as complying with Part 68 of FCC regs. WARNING: Telephone circuitry contains potentially lethal voltages. No user serviceable parts inside. Refer all repairs, adjustments and modifications of any equipment to qualified service personnel. Ken Thompson N0ITL NCR Corp. 3718 N. Rock Road Wichita,Ks. 67226 (316)636-8783 Ken.Thompson@wichita.ncr.com ------------------------------ From: "Paul S. R. Chisholm" Subject: More Internet -> AT&T Mail access Date: 5 Dec 89 21:07:28 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article , psrc@pegasus.att.com (Paul S. R. Chisholm) writes: > Yes, it would be nice if there was a gateway. Yes, there are gateways > to MCI Mail and CompuServe. I know it. AT&T Mail management knows > it. As of right now, there isn't one. In article <1809@accuvax.nwu.edu>, FLINTON@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Fred E.J. Linton) writes: > Gentle pressure on the AT&T Mail Customer Assistance Center reps at +1 > 800 624 5672 may, in time, cause AT&T Mail management to realize that > permitting inbound mail at no charge to the site last handling it > before it arrives in attmail can only be _good_ for business -- a fact > MCI Mail and C'Serve have already realized (and _that_ fact may help > convince AT&T Mail!). Fred, I realize your intentions are good; but my efforts to pass this message along to AT&T Mail management have been much more sucessful than the Customer Assistance Center's. I have a large (well, virtual) sign over my telephone that says "CTFC" (call the CAC), and I'm one of their biggest fans; but, *please*, if you want to apply pressure on AT&T on this topic, contact *me* (e-mail, please), not the AT&T Mail Customer Assistance Center. (If you need help with AT&T Mail products, please call the CAC instead of me.) > As to how the Moderator finds his way into AT&T Mail accounts, > I'd be curious to know -- perhaps the attmail recipients have an > agreement with the gatewaying machine to reimburse expenses, or the > gatewaying machines haven't yet realized they're being taken advantage > of, or... > > [Moderator's Note: Sorry, but I have to differ with you > > on the 'no gateway to attmail' statement. TELECOM Digest is sent to > > a few people who recieve it in their attmail boxes at their request. > > I send control copies of the Digest to my own attmail box from time > > to time to test the link. > ... or maybe they'll just up and plug the leak, with no warning, and no > bounce report... (-: ? I suspect most of the people at AT&T who want the Digest are also reachable via the .att.com domain. I have no idea whether non-AT&T employees on the service have other paths. (As far as I'm concerned, and speaking as the person who plugged at least one Internet to AT&T Mail leak, I'd rather help you find a better link. *Please*, oh kind Moderator, don't publish this path to the hole (:-) world, lest it become a problem.) 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. ------------------------------ From: rnj@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (robert.n.jesse) Subject: Panasonic KX-T61610 Date: 5 Dec 89 15:35:01 GMT Reply-To: rnj@attunix.att.com (Robert Jesse) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories More features I'd like to see added/fixed in the Panasonic 161610: o Allow one-keystroke dialing on proprietary sets of speed dial numbers (using the 12 memory buttons), LNR, and SNR. Pressing any of these while on-hook would imply "SP PHONE". o Be able to program "SP PHONE" (or ICM or CO) buttons in the station speed dial memories. The goal is to be able to program a button, DO NOT DISTURB, for example, that would, with a single keystroke, go off-hook (sp phone), dial *7110, wait for the confirmation tone, and go back on hook. o Momentarily drop loop current to a 2500-style station when disconnect is detected. This would allow me to connect my answering machine as an extension without having to wait several seconds for VOX disconnect on incoming messages. o Be able to program ringing phase for each station, so that physically nearby telephones ring simultaneously (subject to max current limitations). o Be able to assign different ringing cadences (selecting from maybe three or four options) to different CO lines so I can tell which is ringing without having to look at, or even have nearby, a proprietary telephone. o (This one takes hardware, obviously:) Decode Caller-ID on CO lines and send it to the LCD displays on the expensive proprietary telephones I've already bought. Robert Jesse rnj@attunix.att.com rjesse@oracle.com (starting mid-december) ------------------------------ From: Dave Fiske Subject: Problem with Demented 900 Number Date: 5 Dec 89 16:51:08 GMT Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY On the Dr. Demento radio program this week, he mentioned that he had to change the 900 number he had just instituted. (Previously, you had to call a regular number at your expense to make requests, etc. Now, you still call at your expense, but I guess it could be cheaper depending when and from where you call.) Anyway, he said that for some reason, certain areas were not able to get through to his number, 1-900-BANANAS. This translates to 1-900-226-2627. Why should this be a problem? At any rate, the new number is 1-900-773-7333. (I forget what the cost was.) "CROOK ROBS 16 BANKS -- Dave Fiske (davef@brspyr1.BRS.COM) WITH A CUCUMBER" Home: David_A_Fiske@cup.portal.com Headline from Weekly World News CIS: 75415,163 GEnie: davef ------------------------------ From: Holly Aaron Subject: ANI Does Not Seem To Work Date: 5 Dec 89 20:53:52 GMT Reply-To: Holly Aaron Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA I always thought that ANI could work from any phone but its seems that on some phones ANI (in my case 311) has no effect. Those any- one why. Is there any other way to find out your number? aaron@castor.usc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Dec 89 16:46:24 +0100 From: Jose Valenzuela Sanz Subject: Kermit Sliding Windows Needed I am looking for a version of kermit, called : Kermit Sliding Windows ("SuperKermit") Could you help me? Thank you very much, Jose ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping Date: 6 Dec 89 02:45:24 GMT Organization: very little In article <1781@accuvax.nwu.edu>, tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) writes: > Regarding Doug Davis's comments, I am not aware of any scanner > receiver manufacturers that limit coverage in the 46-49 MHz region. > Also, Doug says that Radio Shack does not limit coverage in the 800 > MHz celluar area on their scanners. Not true. They started blocking > these frequncies in their scanners even before passage of the ECPA, > although the radios can be modified back to full coverage. Some > owners have reported that Radio Shack has refused to service these > radios after the cellular mod has been made! The mod consists of one > clipped diode. > [Moderator's Note: Actually, one diode (from D-12, I think) is clipped > and re-inserted at D-9 to gain full 800 coverage as well as 68-88 > megs. Unfortunatly, the scanner loses 30-50 megs in the process; but > who cares? And even losing 30-50, you can use the 'magic number' > calculation to bring 46.61 => 46.97 back at 68.01 => 68.37 and 49.67 > => 49.99 back at 71.07 => 71.39. The IF is 10.7; just double it (21.4) > and add to the desired frequency. It isn't the best reception, but it > works. PT] Followup note: Not true! In the PRO2004, all it took was a clipped diode to restore cellular. If it was re-inserted at D9, then you get 100 more memories. I have the PRO2005, which just takes one clipped diode...nothing inserted to get the cellular restored. Neither mod causes you to lose any coverage in the 30-50 MHz range, or anywhere else. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP [Moderator's Note: I was discussing the PRO-34; sorry this was not made clear in the original message. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #553 *****************************   Date: Wed, 6 Dec 89 1:06:04 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #554 Message-ID: <8912060106.aa02085@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Dec 89 01:05:28 CST Volume 9 : Issue 554 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: The Origin of Coax Connector Names: BNC & TNC (Edwin R. Carp) Re: The Origin of Coax Connector Names: BNC & TNC (Rick Farris) Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (David Lewis) Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (Peter Weiss) Re: Modems and Phone Rates (Sam Fulcomer) Re: Modems and Phone Rates (Bernard Rupe) Re: Modems and Phone Rates (John Higdon) Modem Line Noise Problem (Bruce Nelson) Re: Why Not 00 as the International Prefix in the US? (John Hughes) Re: Wrong Numbers From Directory Assistance (Jay Schuster) Re: Need a Light to Indicate Phone *Has Rung* (Not is Ringing) (D Levenson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Edwin R. Carp" Subject: Re: The Origin of Coax Connector Names: BNC & TNC Date: 5 Dec 89 04:01:47 GMT Reply-To: khijol!erc@cs.utexas.edu Organization: Deadly Force, Inc., aka Clint Eastwood School of Diplomacy In article <1767@accuvax.nwu.edu> daryl@tcomeng.uucp (Daryl Jones) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 548, message 8 of 8 >Some time ago we had a lengthy discussion about the origins of the >coax connector names such as BNC, TNC, etc. I have just come across an >article in QST, a Ham magazine that I think is the real McCoy. I would >like to share it with you. >Named the type C connector, it was the first designed as a true 50-ohm I have used the type C connector. They are rather hard to find (maybe I haven't looked hard enough), but they are great for making portable and mobile 2-meter antennas! I had a friend in Salt Lake City who used one on his car (5/8 wave 2m antenna), and it lasted quite a long time! For those of you who are not familiar with the type C connector, it's like a BNC, except larger. Bayonet mount, the whole shot. Much nicer than type N. Ed Carp N7EKG/5 (28.3-28.5) erc@puzzle!khijol Austin, Tx; (home) (512) 445-2044 Snail Mail: 1800 E. Stassney #1205 Austin, Tx 78744 ------------------------------ From: rfarris@serene.UUCP (Rick Farris) Subject: Re: The Origin of Coax Connector Names: BNC & TNC Date: 4 Dec 89 20:27:02 GMT Reply-To: rfarris@serene.UU.NET (Rick Farris) Organization: Serenity BBS, Del Mar, California In article <1787@accuvax.nwu.edu> GREEN@wharton.upenn.edu (Scott D. Green) writes: > ... that the BNC conncector is so named because it is a Berry Nice > Connector. We always called them "Baby N Connectors" and "Tiny N Connectors"... Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 rfarris@serene.uu.net ...!uunet!serene!rfarris serene.UUCP 259-7757 ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy Date: 5 Dec 89 16:13:45 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ All in all a very interesting article, and I add my thanks to David Gast for submitting it to the Digest. Although I tend to disagree with some of the content... and while I was trying to figure out why, I realized that the central theme of Mr. Rotenberg's comments is. "(Calling Number Delivery) compels the disclosure of personal information, without the consent of the caller. This is at the heart of information privacy and the reason that so many civil libertarians and consumer advocates are concerned about the service." Given that, the rest of the arguments tend to flow. There is a basic assumption here that Mr. Rotenburg doesn't address, though: Is a telephone number "personal information"? Or is it corporate information belonging to the telephone company? I don't have an answer, of course (but I smell a Ph.D. thesis...) I will offer some possibilities for discussion, though. What exactly is "personal information"? Name? Blood type? Is there some common thread that distinguishes "personal information" from other types of information? If the telephone company wanted to change your phone number, would you be able to get a restraining order preventing them from doing so? The telephone companies, after all, have changed people's telephone numbers in the past and will continue to do so -- ask anyone whose number used to be 312-NXX-XXXX and is now 708-NXX-XXXX. If a second party can change information, is that information "personal"? I do agree very strongly with Mr. Rotenberg's second recommendation -- involving privacy advocates, public advocates, and so on in the process of defining new services. (And, presumably, getting 'em to sign non-disclosure agreements wouldn't be a problem... :-)) David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy Organization: Penn State University Date: Tuesday, 5 Dec 1989 12:46:59 EST From: Peter Weiss In addition to what was mentioned in the speech wrt. , is the potential for accidental or purposeful spoofing e.g., I'm at a friend's house and call one of those enterprises that support CLASS. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Dec 89 10:27:46 EST From: sgf@cs.brown.edu Subject: Re: Modems and Phone Rates I tried to stay out of this, but... david@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (David Robinson) writes: > From the discussion so far it appears that modems do not take up >anymore phone network resources than a normal voice call, you get the >same 4KHz bandwidth whether you are talking or using a modem. jbayer@ispi.COM (Jonathan Bayer) writes: >Sorry, you're wrong. The telephone network is designed to work with >human voices. As such the equipment multiplexes many conversations Well, you're both half right. If your modem traffic is passing through trunks (not just confined to two local loops served by the same end office) you're going digital. A modem conversation is one continuous scream and definitely (depending on how the signal is modulated/ compressed) takes up more trunk and switch bandwidth than the circuit held by two people who have fallen asleep after phone sex. If, however, your local loop (assumed still analog) is connected to another local loop at the same end office via an analog switch, what you've got is similar to an operator sitting in front of a patchboard - an electrical circuit which doesn't care what it's carrying (you get your 4KHz). Then there's ISDN with digital local loops.... _/**/Sam_Fulcomer sgf@cfm.brown.edu sgf@browncs.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Dec 89 13:08:01 CST From: Bernard Rupe Subject: Re: Modems and Phone Rates Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article <1798@accuvax.nwu.edu> jbayer@ispi.com (Jonathan Bayer) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 551, message 1 of 11 >Sorry, you're wrong. The telephone network is designed to work with >human voices. As such the equipment multiplexes many conversations >onto a single wire. Human conversation has many gaps that the network >can use to multiplex other conversations using the same frequency. A >modem is on continously, tying up a frequency full-time. Assuming >that a wire can handle 100 different conversations at one time, and >further assuming that 10 % of the conversations is quiet, that means >that with the proper equipment a single wire could handle 110 >conversations at the same time. However, you use modems and all of a >sudden the network loses some of its excess capacity. >...however you cannot deny that modems _do_ take up bandwidth that >conversations do not. Although I haven't been following this subject consistently, I think I can shed some light on the situation. Voice calls in today's network are indeed restricted to 3400 Hz. These calls are sampled at 8 kHz and converted to a digital rate of 64 Kb/s. These 64 Kb/s channels are then multiplexed and sent into the telephone network. Today's technology does not take advantage of any silent passages in conversation (although it could be done, it would be very expensive). Modem data is converted into the same 64 Kb/s and is multiplexed into the telephone network just like a voice call (otherwise, how could you use a regular phone line for a modem call?). The result, then, is that a modem call and a voice call take up exactly the same bandwidth in the telephone network. Bernie Rupe uunet!motcid!rupeb ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Modems and Phone Rates Date: 6 Dec 89 05:42:03 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article <1799@accuvax.nwu.edu>, ames!ultra!ted@uunet.uu.net (Ted Schroeder) writes: > In this discussion nobody has mentioned the fact that modems place a > continuous carrier on the line, unlike human voices that pause between > sentences and words. There is a form of compression called DSI (and > there may be other forms also) that allow this "dead space" to be > used. You might put 12 calls on 8 lines and assume the "dead space" > would allow you to compress bandwidth this way. I know this is done > quite frequently in fully digital private networks, but I don't know > how the public networks work and whether they use this type of > technology. There are two major problems with this. Long distance companies rarely do this anymore (it was too disconcerting to the customers) and local telcos *NEVER* do this between local offices. And remember, it's the local telcos that want to put the extra charges onto modem users. The drift has been lost here. Every justification for discerning between modems and the human voice would apply to LD carriers, not the metallic circuit that runs between your PC and your local central office. You already pay for long distance; is someone suggesting that modem calls should be charged at a higher rate? But the original question concerned whether lines used for modems should have higher *local* charges applied across the board. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Bruce Nelson Subject: Modem Line Noise Problem Date: 5 Dec 89 17:07:40 GMT Reply-To: Bruce Nelson Organization: Eastman Kodak Co, Rochester, NY I have been experiencing a problem which has me completely baffled. I have 2 phone lines, one for voice, and one for modem. I run a bbs on the modem line, and use it for outgoing calls to other bbs's, locally, and long distance. I am also president of a users' group which runs another bbs, which I call often. The problem is that I have absolutely no (transmission) problem calling any other bbs, local, or l/d. No user of my bbs ever has problems, including calls from the same modem the user group bbs uses. The only problem is when I call out from my modem to the user group bbs modem, on my modem line. I get lots of } echoed in response to my outgoing characters. If I switch my modem to the "voice" line, I have perfect transmission to the user group bbs. I have tried several modems at my end - I currently have a Supra 2400 on it. I have tried a Promethius 1200, which is the same modem as the user group uses. The problem persists with both of my modems. The phone company did come out and fix a grounding problem, and even changed the line to another pair, and the line tests 100% quiet. They are unable to do anything else. Every combination of my modem to anyone else's seems to be perfect in both directions, except for the one bbs, that bbs modem can call mine ok, and using my voice line to call theirs is successful, which seems to rule out interexchange trunk problems, too. Can anyone give me any insight as to how to cure the problem (other than using the voice line?). Bruce Nelson ...!rochester!kodak!nelson ------------------------------ From: "John H." Subject: Re: Why Not 00 as the International Prefix in the US? Date: 5 Dec 89 16:28:24 GMT Organization: Axis Design, 135 rue d'Aguesseau 92100 Boulogne France In article , dan@sics.se (Dan Sahlin) writes: > Thus the US could then follow the > international recommendations for international prefix (i.e. 00), > instead of having 010 which is not used anywhere else in the world. Well, in fact the UK uses 010, I think (please don't shoot me if I'm wrong) the US uses 011. > I am dreaming the day when I can pick up a telephone anywhere in the > world and dial home, always using the same number. Haha! If you think 010 or 011 is funny, try coming to France, we have to do 19 AND WAIT FOR A SECOND DIAL TONE! Primitive! John Hughes ------------------------------ From: Jay Schuster Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers From Directory Assistance Organization: The People's Computer Company, Williston, VT Date: Wed, 6 Dec 89 01:06:25 GMT henry@garp.mit.edu (Henry Mensch) writes: >If you get a wrong number from Directory Assistance, is there any >point in calling them and letting them know, or do they just bitbucket >this information and keep giving out the wrong number? My company's name is The People's Computer Company. For a while after we got an office, DA was giving out our number as the PeopleExpress Airlines reservation number. Someone would ask for Peoples Express, the DA would type in Peoples... and come up with our number and give it out. We kept track of the number of times we had to give out the correct PeopleExpress phone number, and eventually billed New England Telephone for using us to give out the PeopleExpress phone number. After a fair amount of wrangling, we actually *got* a check from them, which we photocopied, framed, and hung in our office. Even after we had solved the problem with NETel, we continued to get calls from Quebec. Jay Schuster uunet!uvm-gen!banzai!jay, attmail!banzai!jay The People's Computer Company `Revolutionary Programming' ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Need a Light to Indicate Phone *Has Rung* (Not *is Ringing*) Date: 6 Dec 89 03:37:37 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <1813@accuvax.nwu.edu>, kthompso@entec.wichita.ncr.com (Ken Thompson) writes: > It sounds exactly like the ATT system we have at work. ... > PS. This is being used all over our building. No, Ken, that works all over your building because your building is served by a PBX or other switching system that offers a message-waiting notification feature. Normal central office subscriber lines will not control the message-waiting lamps on your telephone sets. 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #554 *****************************   Date: Wed, 6 Dec 89 1:43:13 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #555 Message-ID: <8912060143.aa06187@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Dec 89 01:40:16 CST Volume 9 : Issue 555 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Various Questions and Observations (Mark B. Cohen) PacTelesis Power Grab (Kian-Tat Lim) Answering Machine MESSAGE STOPPER! (Thomas E. Lowe) 9600 Baud Modem Standards (Theodore Lee) Re: Why Aren't College Telcos Regulated? (Paul S. Sawyer) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 5 Dec 89 13:39:47 EST From: "Mark B. Cohen" Subject: Various Questions and Observations Recent, and some not so recent, articles in the Digest have brought a few questions and observations to mind. Old CO switches: I live in a town that only recently upgraded from pulse-only to electronic switching. [As a side note, kudos to New England Telephone for no noticable problems during the actual change.] My parents live a town that is also pulse-only (with no known plans for change....) With the old switch here in 508-865, intra-exchange calls could be dialed using 5-XXXX. At my parents residence, in 413-229, a similar intra-exchange call is dialed using only XXXX. Dialing the five digits would connect to 9XXX and drop the final digit. Is this difference significant, or just a feature from different switch manufacturers? Alternate LD from pay phones: Recently, I stopped at a pay phone in Brewster, NY (914-???) to place an interstate call using my NETel/AT&T calling card. The phone was clearly labelled with "Calls outside the 914 area code are handled by AT&T Long Distance Service". Dialing 0+number produced the expected 'gong' tone, after which I entered my card number. The response was a recording: "Thank you for using First Fone." After waiting for about 5 seconds (for a connection that is normally almost instantaneous) I closed the connection, and redialed using 10288+. This time, the connection was effectively instantaneous, with the traditional AT&T recording. In the past, I've also gotten a Sprint attachment to my NETel bill for an interstate calling card call. Two questions on this issue: First, is there any form of legislation that requires the _correct_ LD carrier to be displayed on a pay telephone? Second, can carriers such as Sprint or FirstFone utilize another carriers validation code? My understanding is that one must establish an account with an alternate carrier and receive a carrier-specific validation code. Misuse of local DA? A chain of diet centers in the MetroBoston area has been using a commercial that in my estimation is a blatant misuse of DA. At the close of the commercial, instead of an expected list of locations or a toll-free number, etc. etc., the image ends with the text "Call 411 today." Ironically enough, I first noticed this commercial shortly after the start of the strike against NETel. I called the NETel business office and mentioned the existence of the commercial. Their response was that if I wanted to file a formal complaint they could investigate it. I told them, thanks anyway, but I just thought they should know about it. NPA splits: I've now lived through two splits, one in each part of the affected area. During the 212/718 split, I had a job similar to Patrick's: I was a collector for second and third-party payments for a large hospital in Manhattan. For the 617/508 split, I moved less than two months after the split, so my number effectively changed twice in six weeks. I was never aware of any reported difficulty during either split. Toll-free numbers: A local radio station recently ran a large campaign for giving away thousands of dollars. (Don't they all? :) The station's studio is located in Worcester. Their business and request lines are local Worcester numbers. For this campaign, the number they advertised was 931-1045, which they claim is a toll-free call. (Non-coincidentally, their frequency is 104.5 MHz.) Calls to 931-1045 require a leading 1 from 508-865, which is local to Worcester. A check of the phone book showed an entry for 617-931 in Boston, and no entry for 508-931. 617-931-1045 is invalid. Is it possible to have an intra-NPA toll-free call without the leading 800? (I've never been able to get anything other than a busy, fast-busy, or a circuits busy recording when calling, so I don't have a record of a completed call.) Old telco equipment: In the basement of my parents home, I recently discovered some form of old telco battery. There was a case somewhat secreted among the floor joists, with a small cable (disconnected) running to it. The case itself it roughtly the size and shape of a large binocular case. Within the case are what appear to be two large dry cells. Each of them is cylindrical, roughly 8 inches high and 3 inches in diameter. They both have two screw-top terminals on the upper face. The upper and lower faces appear to be cardboard, and the wrapper is brown (now anyway) paper with the words (from memory) "Bell Telephone Property, Nov. 1929" (Date is approximate, I haven't looked in while. It's definitly the 1920's though.) From my understanding of the history of the house, it was built in the late 20's. Until 10 years ago, the house was at the end of the line for both telephone and electric service. (What's cable TV? :) So what are these things? Everything I've read on the history of telephony indicates power supplies were centralized. It also doesn't make sense to me to place expendables in a location not easily accessed. One final question, not directly related to telephony: Is the large population of people on the network with technical telephony knowledge the result of UNIX(tm) originally having been a Bell Labs product? Thanks to everyone in advance. Mark Cohen markc@wpi.wpi.edu markc@wpi.bitnet ...!well_connected_site!wpi.wpi.edu!markc (Not UUCP domain registered) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Dec 89 22:47:15 PST From: Kian-Tat Lim Subject: PacTelesis Power Grab Pacific Telesis ran a full-page ad in today's Los Angeles Times. Here's the text (there is no copyright on the ad): [Big headline] Can you imagine living in a country that limits the flow of information to its students? [Big headline] You do. [Bold italic] If Naason Sanchez lived in Great Britain, his telephone line could connect him to a computerized information service that would help him learn to solve math problems and answer geography questions in an instant. But Naason lives in Los Angeles, California -- in the United States of America -- and he isn't that lucky. Here in America, the Bell telephone companies aren't allowed to work closely with educators to create and offer information services like these that can help students learn. Or for that matter, provide many other services that could improve the lives of American citizens in ways people in other countries take for granted. Nor are the Bell companies allowed to design and produce equipment which could make these services easier to use. [Headline] Why is the U.S. behind? In 1984, an agreement between AT&T and the U.S. Justice Department split up the nationwide Bell system, forming Pacific Telesis and six other regional holding companies. At that time, very narrow limits were imposed on the services that their phone company subsidiaries, like Pacific Bell, could offer. Today, students in many other countries can use their phone systems to reach special computerized tutoring services, or they can access data bases that can help them do the research necessary to complete their homework assignments. Meanwhile, here in America, it's a different story. These services are available, but only in limited locations, and at high cost. If the Bell companies could develop and provide these services, along with many others that people in other countries take for granted, they would become more widely available, and growth of this market would encourage more information providers to enter it. [Headline] There _is_ something you can do. Legislation that would lift restrictions on Pacific Bell has already been introduced in the U.S. Congress. But it's not too late for you to learn more about this issue, and help us do something about it. The education of Naason Sanchez and millions of other American kids is too important to put on hold. [Boxed] STOP PUTTING AMERICA ON HOLD [Logo of telephone handset with a pair of hands] For further information, call Pacific Telesis Group. 1-800-776-1636. [My comments: 1. I sincerely doubt that Pacific Telesis expects to make much money off of education-only information services. I would expect them to quickly take a back seat to more lucrative commercial services. 2. How many countries have telco-owned information services? Britain, France, and who else? 3. Lifting restrictions may be a bit more general than the ad implies. I plan to call to get the further information. 4. [Not telecom related] Is answering geography questions instantly, by reference to a computer database, really a good way to improve our educational system? Kian-Tat Lim (ktl@wagvax.caltech.edu, KTL @ CITCHEM.BITNET, GEnie: K.LIM1) ------------------------------ From: Thomas E Lowe Subject: "Answering Machine MESSAGE STOPPER!" Date: 5 Dec 89 18:50:44 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Not too long ago, someone was asking about making their answering machine stop when they pick up ANY extension on that line. I came across a little gadget that is supposed to do just that in a catalog from a company called "The Fordham-Scope Catalog". Below is the description as it reads in the catalog: Answering Machine MESSAGE STOPPER! Stop your answering machine mesage when you pick up any phone in the house. Your answering machine will automatically reset while you speak. Simply plug the Message Stopper into the telephone wall jack. Then connect your answering machine and telephone into their respective slots. The Message Stopper can also be used to prevent others from interrupting or overhearing your phone conversation. Message Stopper model #MS-2. $7.95 each 2 for $15.00 Physically, it looks like one of those two-for-one adapters that give you two plugs for one, plus a green and red led (one for each jack) The phone number for the company is 800-645-9518 (800-832-1446 in N.Y.) Supposedly their catalog is $2.00. If anyone wants, I can fax them the page that has the Message Stopper pictured. Just send me mail. Tom Lowe tel@cdsdb1.ATT.COM attmail!tlowe 201-949-0428 AT&T Bell Laboratories, Room 2E-637A Crawfords Corner Road, Holmdel, NJ 07733 (R) UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T (keep them lawyers happy!!) ------------------------------ From: Theodore Lee Subject: 9600 Baud Modem Standards Date: Tue, 5 Dec 89 23:46:05 EST Could someone please describe what 9600 baud modem standards, including error-correction, are now current? (Telenet is starting to offer 9600-baud service -- how do I make sure that their modem is compatible with mine or with one I might call from their network when they get around to adding 9600 baud outdial as well?) (I don't read this Digest regularly, so if the question has been answered recently please point me to the answer, and, in any case, please reply directly.) Ted Lee [Moderator's Note: But in answering Mr. Lee, please 'cc' the Digest also. Thanks. PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Why Aren't College Telcos Regulated? Date: 5 Dec 89 15:25:11 EST (Tue) From: "Paul S. Sawyer" [Please note that any comments following are my personal opinions. I make no policy for, nor do I speak for UNH. I run the UNIX System, not the switch. We are familiar with ACUS only as users of software which they own.] Many persons, apparently students, have written lately to complain about various campus phone services. Recently Paul Selig brought up a few points to which I would like to add, to help show the position that we are in as service providers.... Since Divestiture, the local telco may not want to bother with serving your dorm room, unless it is already wired. Sometimes the telco does not even have wires to the building. It is the property owner's responsibility to provide the means (space in existing conduits or on poles, or easements and in some cases costs to install conduits or poles) to serve those buildings. Some colleges/universities do not wish to do this. Some opt to let an outside agent handle this. UNH is wiring buildings as possible, trying to eventually provide service for all campus residents. If we had to act as a public utility, we would have to do this all at once and so might not do it at all, since our main job is to provide business telecommunications for staff users. In most cases, we are making use of existing equipment and capacities which are not otherwise fully used after business hours. Keeping track of even a small number of students as customers is quite different from keeping track of departmental customers, especially with no additional staff. Outside agencies such as ACUS can seem attractive when they can act as turnkey service providers. Although some larger or more fortunate institutions have central office type switches and answer supervision, we and many others do not, and it would not be cost effective to implement soon (so they tell me). TSPS or similar service which someone mentioned as available to hotels, etc., was refused to us because we ARE NOT A HOTEL under the tariff, said the telco.... We already process outside toll tapes which include collect calls, etc., so we do not charge extra for such calls, but if you attempt a fraudulent call or make an operator assisted call which gets billed to other than your own number, we have to research it, and "Bill'em, Danno" an extra $2.00. We do this whether you are student or staff, since it is preventable. We do not knowingly block access to any long distance company that is normally accessable, although our direct dial prices should be lower than those with credit card or operator surcharges. We do not charge for 1-800- 950- or local calls. Our business office treats our fees as normal student expenses, so we do not need to charge a deposit or cut you off at a line of credit. Some institutions do not want to collect telephone bills. I agree that "Colleges and universities can only get away with this crap if their students and staff let them!" [eravin@dasys1.UUCP], as ACUS and other third parties all make some arrangement with some agent of any institution they serve, one or more of President, VP, Dean of Students, Telecom Office, Buildings and Grounds, Housing Office, probably Trustees and/or State Board of Regents, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Each institution has different people making different arrangements for different services, and differs in responsiveness to student needs. As telephone service providers at UNH, we try to be responsive, we welcome complaints, and we even give credits! (sometimes... B-) But you don't call the public utilities commission because the lights in your dorm flicker every time you make popcorn... so work with whoever runs these things on YOUR campus and maybe you can get somewhere! Best of luck, Paul = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Paul S. Sawyer uunet!unh!unhtel!paul paul@unhtel.UUCP UNH Telecommunications attmail!psawyer p_sawyer@UNHH.BITNET Durham, NH 03824-3523 VOX: 603-862-3262 FAX: 603-862-2030 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #555 *****************************   Date: Wed, 6 Dec 89 23:30:22 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #556 Message-ID: <8912062330.aa05730@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Dec 89 23:30:15 CST Volume 9 : Issue 556 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping (Russell McFatter) Re: Do Modem Users Congest The Phone Network? (Russell McFatter) Re: Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation (was Re: Do Modem Users...) (S. Fleming) Re: Modems and Phone Rates (David Lewis) Re: Modem Line Noise Problem (Richard S. Walker) Re: How Do I Rotary? (John Higdon) Re: Anachronistic Rip-off (John Higdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Russell McFatter Subject: Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping Date: 4 Dec 89 21:18:11 GMT Reply-To: Russell McFatter Organization: Alliant Computer Systems, Littleton, MA The Communications Act of 1934 actually goes a bit further: it basically states (as a result of international accord) that the airwaves belong to the PUBLIC, not the government. The concept here is that any signal which is beamed into YOUR airspace belongs to you, and you can do with it as you please subject to certain restrictions for reasons of national security. The concept here is "personal use" of material which is intentionally or unintentionally sent into your property: Just as with broadcast TV, you can (watch / videotape) to your heart's content, as long as the material is for your own personal use. You cannot sell, or in many cases give away, such information if it is "obviously" of a restricted / copyrighted nature. Under the Act, if you are to receive a transmission of a "secret" nature, you are obliged not to divulge the information to anyone (even for free), but may listen to it yourself. There are three recent examples of subsequent laws which appear to violate the Act: (1) States which ban radar detectors, which are effectively radio receivers. The Communications Act of 1934 is frequently used in defense of radar detectors (although your rights for receiving signals while MOBILE, on public property, are not clear). (2) Descrambling satellite transmissionswas made illegal not too long ago. This is another case of a (presumably contestable) situation where you are prohibited from using, even for your own personal reasons, information beamed into your house without your consent. (3) Protection for cellular telephones. I think that half the reason for the Communications Act of 1934 is one that we are seeing right here: If, by voluntarily transmitting a low-power signal on an authorized channel, in such a manner that the signal invades my neighbor's property, can I now seek to make it illegal for my neighbor to listen to that frequency ever again? Is the liability my NEIGHBOR'S (for listening), or MINE (for beaming the signal into his house)? This is what the Act seeks to resolve: that airwaves are public in nature, and cannot be monopolized by people who intend to use the resource as their own private communications device. If I wanted my baby's noises to be secure from prying ears, I could have easily trotted down to Radio Shack and purchased a wired(!) intercom that doesn't pollute the airwaves, or (what a concept!) put the baby where I can hear it without electronic assistance. (A bit more reliable, don't you think?) If I'm really bent on wireless intercoms inside my home, I should either accept the fact that I am voluntarily BROADCASTING, or at least take measures on my own to see that the transmissions do not leave my house. Most manufacturers of cordless phones (even some cellular phones), baby monitors, and other "Part 49" gizmos DO alert you to the fact that wireless communications defy privacy. This is not merely our law, but a law of nature as well; to legislate otherwise will bring us nothing but headaches. Russ McFatter russ@alliant.Alliant.COM ------------------------------ From: Russell McFatter Subject: Re: Do Modem Users Congest The Phone Network? Date: 4 Dec 89 20:45:54 GMT Reply-To: Russell McFatter Organization: Alliant Computer Systems, Littleton, MA While debating the question of how much load modem users actually create, I think that we've been missing a more important issue. Let me ask you the question: Why do you suppose the phone companies are really in favor of modem surcharges?? Does anyone really believe that this is out of a well-meaning intent to avoid the kind of dial-network overload that we only ever see on certain holiday afternoons and during major disasters? At least in THIS area, NYNEX seems to provide their own answer-- in terms of incredibly expensive, prime-time regional television advertisements telling you that you should be using the phone MORE. Keep in touch with everyone you know! Give 'em a call right now! This is backed by more TV and radio ads with themes such as "...you should have FAXed it!" and "How could you have known that the store was closed?? You should have called!!". Print ads do much of the same. Is this the behavior you would expect of a utility that is short of resources and wants to conserve them? (Contrast with an electric utility, which nowadays as they near peak capacity would never run an ad such as "Turn it way down and keep COOL this summer... with enjoyable central air conditioning"!!) Unfortunately, the BOC's tend to complain about the cost of providing some service until such a time as the rate commission gives in to the increase... and then they follow up with a marketing frenzy for the same service. New England Telephone has complained for years about not being allowed to charge for directory assistance, and they keep reminding us how it costs them "millions" of dollars. A friend of mine from New Mexico tells me that the story was the same there, but in his area a 60-cent-per-call charge was approved, and now they run advertisements telling you how much better it is to use directory assistance than to actually look up the numbers yourself. I suspect the same would be true for modem surcharges... "Don't sit there waiting for YOUR news... Poll your news host every five minutes!!" "Spend a good long time with your friendly local bulletin board service... Only $8.60 an hour! (based on a ten-hour call at lowest off-peak rates with maximum quantity discount and other provisions for calls in your local service area for a limited time only with rebate at participating locations.) I suppose that part of the basis of our (still a monopoly) phone network is to charge you something for (virtually) nothing: Tone service (they could actually save a lot of money by getting everyone to switch to tone and eliminate pulse dial)... Custom calling services (that are all handled at no extra expense by the central office's computer)... and the ubiquitous $8-$25 "service order charge" that represents 60 seconds that an service representative takes to punch your order for these into a computer. Haven't we had enough of this already? Russ McFatter russ@alliant.Alliant.COM (std. disclaimers) ------------------------------ From: fleming@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation (was Re: Do Modem Users...) Date: Wed, 6-Dec-89 08:02:30 PST In article <1759@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > It would be a neat trick indeed if you could automatically get extra > bandwidth out of a telephone connection on demand. The audio leased > line department would go out of business in a hurry! David G Lewis (...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej) responds: >Wait for Broadband ISDN. SONET (Synchronous Optical NETwork) layer 1, >plus ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) layer 2, plus the appropriate >definition of bearer capabilities, signaling, user-network interfaces, >and all that stuff (yet to be done...), gives you dynamic bandwidth >allocation. >Not until at least 1994, tho. And even then only in very limited >deployment. Not the kind of thing you'll order when you move into >that new apartment. Even though I think it will happen earlier than 1994, I agree with Mr. Lewis. And, yes indeed, "the audio leased line department will go out of business in a hurry!" When a user can dial up a full T1 circuit for 10 minutes *and be billed for only 10 minutes use*, it's going to be hard to justify leasing a 19.2 kb/s connection 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. ISDN was a warm-up. *Broadband* ISDN is really going to change the world. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Stephen Fleming | Internet: fleming@cup.portal.com | | Director, Technology Marketing | Voice: (703) 847-7058 | | Northern Telecom +-------------------------------------| | Federal Networks Division | Opinions expressed do not | | Vienna, Virginia 22182 | represent Northern Telecom. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: Modems and Phone Rates Date: 6 Dec 89 18:23:05 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <1798@accuvax.nwu.edu>, jbayer@ispi.com (Jonathan Bayer) writes: > david@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (David Robinson) writes: > > From the discussion so far it appears that modems do not take up > >anymore phone network resources than a normal voice call, you get the > >same ~4KHz bandwidth whether you are talking or using a modem. > Sorry, you're wrong. The telephone network is designed to work with > human voices. As such the equipment multiplexes many conversations > onto a single wire. Yes, but the multiplexing method you describe is not the one used in general. > Human conversation has many gaps that the network > can use to multiplex other conversations using the same frequency. A > modem is on continously, tying up a frequency full-time. Assuming > that a wire can handle 100 different conversations at one time, and > further assuming that 10 % of the conversations is quiet, that means > that with the proper equipment a single wire could handle 110 > conversations at the same time. > I am sure that my numbers are not correct, but the method is valid. Valid, perhaps. Used, no. (OK, before someone jumps on me and starts throwing "statistical TDM" around... not used by the public switched telephone network in any major applications.) > I do not support the idea of extra charges for modem usage, and the > phone companies' numbers will have to be looked at very carefully, OK, let's clarify some terms. A two-way voice conversation includes energy in the frequency band 20-20000 kHz. The majority of this energy is below 4000 Hz. An intelligible voice conversation, therefore, can be considered to include energy in the frequency band 300-3300 Hz. It also includes a large amount of dead air. A telephone voice channel is capable of carrying energy in a frequency band from about 300 to about 3300 Hz. This channel is constantly available, end to end, to the user. Regardless of the fact that no energy may be carried at a given point in time, the capacity is immediately, fully, directly available to the end user at any given point in time, and is not used by the network for any other purpose. This is true whether you're talking an analog loop, an analog trunk, a time-division multiplexed digital trunk (on any medium), an ISDN loop... doesn't matter. The 3000Hz of capacity is not used by the network for any other purpose. Therefore, it matters not whether that 3000Hz of capacity is 100% utilized, 90% utilized, or 10% utilized -- the resources are fully available to the end user, and you should not charge the end user more because he's able to make more efficient use of the channel provided him. > however you cannot deny that modems _do_ take up bandwidth that > conversations do not. Yes, I can. I can't deny that modems make more efficient use of the available bandwidth -- but I certainly can deny that modems "take up bandwidth conversations do not". A modem, be it a 300bps Bell 103, a 1200 bps Bell 212a, or a 9600 bps V.32, uses 3000 Hz of bandwidth. Period. A conversation uses 3000 Hz of bandwidth. Period. David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ From: "WALKER,RICHARD S" Subject: Re: Modem Line Noise Problem Date: 6 Dec 89 18:49:10 GMT Reply-To: "WALKER,RICHARD S" Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology BALLco, Inc sells a modem noise filter that comes with a money-back guarantee. It costs 30 bucks and seems to work fine for me. Call [404] 979-5900. Richard S. Walker Georgia Tech Research Institute GA Tech Box 35302 swalker@gtri01.gatech.edu (vm) Atlanta, GA 30332 swalker@vms62a.gatech.edu (vms) [404] 894-7161[W] gt5302b@prism.gatech.edu (unix) [404] 352-3726[H] 71021.1544@compuserve.com (cis) The opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect that of my employer. ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: How Do I Rotary? Date: 7 Dec 89 00:29:19 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article <1810@accuvax.nwu.edu>, lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) writes: > I am amazed that people put up with such rip-offs, and THEN talk about > how bad GTE is. Yes, but what do you pay monthly for a phone? I'll bet it's higher than my rate. Of course, I probably actually pay more because I have Commstar (home Centrex) which you can't get on unmeasured lines. Neah! > Technically, what is the difference between hunting and busy- > forwarding ? Sounds to me like the same thing in an ESS environment. At first blush, it would appear that the two are simply tariff differentiations. But busy-forwarding also allows you to cross prefix boundaries, and will forward after a preset number of unanswered rings. In my case, I have that number set to something like 15 or so. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Anachronistic Rip-off Date: 7 Dec 89 00:20:25 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article <1801@accuvax.nwu.edu>, pdg@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Guthrie) writes: > One thing to keep in mind is that the use of dialers to access > inter-lata carriers does not necessarily mean that the customer pays > for the local call into the carrier. Many carriers use FGB lines (950 > NXX), and bear the (much reduced) costs. It's time to dump this myth. I have the package for OCCs that is supplied by Pac*Bell. It includes all of the technical requirements, rates, billing procedures, etc., etc., for the various connections that OCCs can get to Pac*Bell. The long and the short of it is: the difference in cost to OCCs between FGB and FGD is fractional cents per minute. Plus, with FGD you can accept or waive a number of Pac*Bell services that can materially affect your connection costs. The major difference is POP requirements. Besides I wasn't talking about FGB in the first place. I was talking about FGA. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #556 *****************************   Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 0:12:08 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #557 Message-ID: <8912070012.aa19710@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Dec 89 00:10:58 CST Volume 9 : Issue 557 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: AT&T Operator Handling of International DA (David Smallberg) Re: How Do I Avoid Satellite Connections? (Mike Warrington) Re: How Do I Avoid Satellite Connections? (John Pettitt) Re: Phone Solicitations (Again) (Ge' Weijers) Re: Phone Solicitations (Again) (Steven_Tenney) Re: The Origin of Coax Connector Names: BNC & TNC (Michael Katzmann) Re: Why Not 00 as the International Prefix in the US? (Ge' Weijers) Re: 10XXX from Pay Phones (John Owens) Re: "Intercom Plus" by Pacific Bell (John Higdon) Pay Phone Questions (Gary Skinner) CLASS in Canada (Ken Jongsma) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Smallberg Subject: Re: AT&T Operator Handling of International DA Date: 6 Dec 89 02:55:10 GMT Reply-To: David Smallberg Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department In article klg@dukeac.UUCP (Kim Greer) writes: >>>speaks. Do any operators speak a second language? No! > Operators are not language junkies; they are >(educationally) ordinary people for the most part. >Which ones would you like them to speak: English, French, Spanish, >German, Dutch, Portuguese, Chinese (lots of dialects), Japanese, >Korean, Vietnamese, Hindi, Urdu, Serbo-Croatian, Hungarian, Farsi, >Russian (lots of variants), Italian, Turkish, Gaelic, Tamil, [lots of >Papua-New Guinea variants], Greek, Arabic, Swahili, ... ? Maybe it's just the U.S. that's backward, then. A Japanese acquaintance of mine was an operator for KDD (Japan's international phone company), and she spoke Japanese and English well, plus enough Mandarin, Korean, and French to handle most telephone requests. She said most other KDD operators could handle phone transactions in four or five major languages. The last time I used an international operator in the U.S., I asked her as an aside what languages she spoke other than English. She said none. As Yakov Smirnov would say, "What a country!" David Smallberg, das@cs.ucla.edu, ...!{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!cs.ucla.edu!das ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 DEC 89 09:13:58 GMT From: EMW@leicester.ac.uk Subject: Re: How Do I Avoid Satellite Connections > I know it's in the wrong direction, but I believe you can use country code > 89, instead of 1, to reach the US from the UK via the transatlantic cable. > Using country code 1 just picks the next channel to the US whilst 89 avoids > the satellite. I tried this last night using both BT and Mercury and it didn't work (I actually called a number in Canada, but I guess that shouldn't have made a difference). Maybe now that the number has been 'discovered', BT has changed it to some other unused country code. Mike Warrington ------------------------------ From: John Pettitt Date: Wed, 6 Dec 89 15:02:29 GMT Organization: Specialix International Subject: Re: How Do I Avoid Satellite Connections? pkh%computer-science.nottingham.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk (Kevin Hopkins) writes: >I know it's in the wrong direction, but I believe you can use country code >89, instead of 1, to reach the US from the UK via the transatlantic cable. >Using country code 1 just picks the next channel to the US whilst 89 avoids >the satellite. I saw this on a UK newsgroup a few months back and cannot >remember who mentioned it - I don't have first hand experience and I don't >know if it still works. Can anyone shed more light on this? >BTW, country code 89 has not been assigned by CCITT. Almost right, it works like this: There are several providers of transatlantic service using both cable (copper & fiber) and satellite links. British Telecom International (BTI) routes calls by some algorythmn known only to themselves and you may get any one of the above and any one of 3 or 4 long distance providers on the US end of the link. There is a magic code that you can dial after the get out code (010) country code (1) and before the areacode-prefix-number. This code will force the call to use MCI for the US end which seems to force a fibre link across the pond most of the time (~95%). I am not going to post the code since I think it is a bug in the programming of the international switch in London and I don't want it to go away because of overuse. It's not 89. If anybody knows any more about this please post/let me know. I just spent 10 minutes on the phone to BTI trying to get some more info but it's like banging your head on the wall trying to get anybody technical. John Pettitt Specialix International jpp@specialix.co.uk ------------------------------ From: Ge' Weijers Subject: Re: Phone Solicitations (Again) Date: 6 Dec 89 16:27:07 GMT iiasa!wnp@relay.eu.net (wolf paul) writes: >And that is the thing which needs to be outlawed -- it should be >prohibited to place calls to random numbers. If the direct marketers >want to use the telephone, let them research their prospective >customers, and call only numbers where they know at least the name of >the private individual (if that's their target) or business (another >legitimate target) who happens to be the subscriber. It would be enough if public opinion would consider those who use unsolicited phone calls to be unreliable. Never deal with companies that use phones in such an intrusive way. Let them go broke. Don't give the courts something extra to do. A nice technical solution: put a 'what-a-jerk' button on every phone, by using the # or * keys. If you're annoyed push it. If a telephone subscriber gets too many black marks he is disconnected, except for emergency numbers. Ge' Weijers Ge' Weijers Internet/UUCP: ge@cs.kun.nl Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, (uunet.uu.net!cs.kun.nl!ge) University of Nijmegen, Toernooiveld 1 6525 ED Nijmegen, the Netherlands tel. +3180612483 (UTC-2) ------------------------------ From: Steven_Tenney <10e@hpcvia.cv.hp.com> Subject: Re: Phone Solicitations (Again) Date: 6 Dec 89 22:13:13 GMT Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Corvallis, Oregon Oregon is soon to pass a law where a subscriber can have a symbol placed by their name in phone books indicating that they do not want any telemarketers/solicitors calling. If telemarketers do call the particular residence anyway (whether it's a mistake or not) the could be fined heavily (up to $25,000). Needless to say this will kill the computerized random calling technique in Oregon. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Dec 89 16:10:27 GMT From: Michael Katzmann Subject: Re: The Origin of Coax Connector Names: BNC & TNC Reply-To: Michael Katzmann Organization: Rusty's BSD machine at home In article <1852@accuvax.nwu.edu> rfarris@serene.UU.NET (Rick Farris) writes: In article <1787@accuvax.nwu.edu> GREEN@wharton.upenn.edu (Scott D. Green) writes: > ... that the BNC conncector is so named because it is a Berry Nice > Connector. I didn't see the original article to this but from what I remember it went: BNC : Bayonet Navy Connector. TNC : Threaded Navy Connector. N : Navy connector (Presumably) Perhaps the navy needed a better connector than the then standard UHF (sic) connector, considering the harsh corrosion environment. JONES : Jumble Of Numerious Efforts at Standardization (perhaps Apocryphal) (and we all know why an "F" connector was so named) email to UUCP: uunet!mimsy!{arinc,fe203}!vk2bea!michael _ _ _ _ Amateur | VK2BEA (Australia) ' ) ) ) / // Radio | G4NYV (United Kingdom) / / / o _. /_ __. _ // Stations| NV3Z (United States) / ' (_<_(__/ /_(_/|_ Subject: Re: Why Not 00 as the International Prefix in the US? Date: 6 Dec 89 17:44:15 GMT goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes: >As someone has already pointed out, there are a lot more people and >phones here in the NANP (US, Canada, much of the Caribbean) using 011 >as the prefix than there are in Europe using 00 as the prefix. If >such a change is really needed (and I don't agree that it is), it >sounds like *you* should change to conform to the majority, not us. >(And no, I'm not advocating such a change, I'm merely pointing out the >absurdity of the rationale.) There are a lot of places using 00. A short list: Algeria, Argentina, Aruba, Brazil, Brunei, Chili, Peoples Republic of China, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Federal Republic of Germany, Ecuador, Egypt, Philipines Gabon, Gibraltar, Greece, Guatemala, Hungaria, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jordania, Cameroon, Kuwayt, Libya, Luxemburg (nice country, no area codes!), Malaysia, Morocco, Dutch Antilles, Nepal, New Zealand, North Yemen, Oman, Austria, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal (Porto 07) Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Togo, Czechoslovakia, Tunesia, Venezuela, United Arab Emirates, Zambia, Switzerland. I've translated this out of a list provided by the Dutch PTT, which explains the order and odd spelling of some names (I'm not going to look them all up in the Webster on my desk.) To make my point: this makes for a lot of telephones. So why make all those people convert to 010. Incidentally 010 is the area code for Rotterdam in the Netherlands. The Dutch system uses 00x for special services like operator assistance, the time, the weather and the likes. They are moving these services to 06xxxxxx numbers though. Maybe we are converting from 09 to 00 for international access. Does anyone know? (maybe someone from DNL cares to comment?) In the meantime use a good agenda. Ge' Weijers Internet/UUCP: ge@cs.kun.nl Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, (uunet.uu.net!cs.kun.nl!ge) University of Nijmegen, Toernooiveld 1 6525 ED Nijmegen, the Netherlands tel. +3180612483 (UTC-2) ------------------------------ Organization: SMART HOUSE Limited Partnership Subject: Re: 10XXX from Pay Phones Date: 6 Dec 89 18:56:02 EST (Wed) From: John Owens On Dec 2, 1:30pm, Eric Swenson wrote: > If I walk up to a pay telephone and want to make a call (local or > otherwise, same area code or different) without depositing coins, > shouldn't I be able to dial 10777-0-[AC]-XXX-XXXX, get a BOING, and, > assuming I have a U.S. SPRINT FONCARD, be able to dial my FONCARD > number and complete my call? In my experience, with Sprint and MCI at least, you can use your local BOC calling card (which is usually the same number as your AT&T card) for 10xxx+0+ calls, but FONcard or MCI card numbers will not work. I believe that the BOC does the calling card validation and handles the billing in this case. If you have any volume discounts with these carriers, your FONcard or MCI card calls would contribute to them, but using your BOC card probably wouldn't. (You probably wouldn't get your MCI "Around Town" discount either.) This is mostly speculation, so take it for what it's worth, but try using 10777-0-NPA-NXX-XXXX and using your local operating company card number. (C&P Telephone recently reissued fancier-looking "IQ Cards" to their customers to replace the old "Bell Atlantic cards". The new cards actually contain the last 4 digits, and the glossy brochure accompanying them explained [in marketing-ese] that default 0+ carriers can be now individually assigned to pay phones and that you can use their card regardless of the default carrier, or with specific carriers using those carriers' access codes.) John Owens john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US uunet!jetson!john +1 301 249 6000 john%jetson.uucp@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: "Intercom Plus" by Pacific Bell Date: 7 Dec 89 00:11:04 GMT Organization: Green Hills and Cows In article <1803@accuvax.nwu.edu>, nvuxr!deej@bellcore.bellcore.com (David Lewis) writes: > > How long is Pac*Bell going to sell bits and pieces of Centrex service > > to the residential and small business public while avoiding the > > necessary upgrades to offer really state-of-the-art telephone service? > As long as necessary to fully depreciate their 1AESSs. I have no problem with Pac*Bell keeping their 1As around for awhile. They can provide almost any service currently available (with help from an adjunct, they can provide *any* service) and they do it in a grand style when compared to DMS or 5ESS. 1AESS has always had superior feature implementation, IMHO. My major gripe involves the way Pac*Bell can't get off their can and replace their rickety-tickety crossbar. Don't tell me they can't write those dinosaurs off yet. And in my case, I am sick of this 1ESS that can't even do "cancel call forwarding". My CO has four prefixes of 1ESS (marginal, at best) and eight (8) prefixes of crossbar. For any telco that pretends to be "big time", this is laughable. But it boils down to: Yes my calls are completed somewhat reliably (if slowly), dialtone is there most of the time (when the earth doesn't shake), and I can hear the party to whom I am speaking. If it was GTE, that would all be somewhat iffy. So I'm supposed to count my blessings, and be thankful that I have Pac*Bell. Well, I guess crossbar is better than directorized step-by-step. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Gary Skinner Subject: Pay Phones Date: 5 Dec 89 23:33:55 GMT Organization: AT&T, Denver, CO What does it actually take to install a pay phone? Does the CO have to provide a special line, or can I put a pay phone on any old line? I believe the full function pay phones need special signals to correctly work. Any idea of relative cost of pay phone line? Who gets what money for the line? Thanks for the info in advance. G Skinner att!drutx!gfs ------------------------------ From: ken@cup.portal.com Subject: CLASS in Canada Date: Wed, 6-Dec-89 05:22:59 PST Reply To: sun!portal!cup.portal.com!ken A few issues ago, I reported that Bell Canada was going to offer CLASS throughout Canada. Even though I was summarizing an article I saw, I should have known better than to imply that Bell Canada served all of Canada. Several people have written and reminded me that there are more operating companies in Canada. Ken Jongsma ken@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #557 *****************************   Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 0:55:57 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #558 Message-ID: <8912070055.aa23569@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Dec 89 00:55:18 CST Volume 9 : Issue 558 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Two Lines From a Twisted Three? (Todd Inch) Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (John G. De Armond) Re: Need a Light to Indicate Phone *Has Rung* (Not is Ringing) (J. McHarry) Re: Need a Light to Indicate Phone *Has Rung* (Not is Ringing) (Todd Inch) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: toddi@gtisqr.UUCP (Todd Inch) Subject: Re: Two Lines From a Twisted Three? Date: 6 Dec 89 17:38:10 GMT Reply-To: toddi@gtisqr.UUCP (Todd Inch) Organization: Global Technology International, Inc. In article owens%tartarus@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Christopher Owens) writes: >I want to bring a second phone line into my apartment . . . >Running from the terminal block to my apartment is an old-style >twisted-3 (conductor cable) . . . >From the junction box to my apartment is only a run of about 25 feet, >but the twisted three shares a conduit with two other twisted threes >serving two other apartments. >One thought was to use the extra wire of my three with an extra wire >taken from somewhere . . . I found out the hard way how important the "twisted pair" is: I once wired a building for phone using two "twisted-3" cables. My thought was that I wanted a total of six conductors, for up to three lines. What I really needed was a 3-pair equivalent, but at the time I didn't understand the "pair" concept. So I used one conductor from each cable to form the three pairs: {red A & red B}, {white A & white B}, {black A & black B}, where A is one twisted-3 cable and B is the other. This worked fine for the first line, but I had all the six conductor jacks installed before I connected the second line. That's when the trouble started. You could hear the conversations on the second line almost as well as you could hear your own conversation on the first, and vice-versa. Apparently, the twisting of the pair effectively sheilds it from the electromagnetic radiation of the other pairs. By not using any of the existing two twisted pairs but instead using separate twists for one wire of each line, I had created the worst-case condition, effectively creating a transformer which coupled the two lines together. The problem was especially bad because, at the time, my parents were going through a divorce and each had a separate phone line and they were sorta in separate buildings which shared some wiring. They didn't appreciate being forced to listen to each others' conversations. Anyway, if you try to use the spare conductor from your cable and the spare conductor from someone else's, you may end up with a three-way party line. It might work for only 25 feet, but I wouldn't bet on it. >I've been told there is a way to use some kind of bridge circuit at >each end of a 3-conductor wire to enable two phone lines to be run >over the wire. I once had a device on the outside of my house that allowed two different lines to somehow use the same pair to the phone company. Telco installed it and there must have been a device at the CO to run it. This was mentioned in passing here in the digest about a month ago. I'm not sure if you could convince telco to install one or not. Todd Inch, System Manager, Global Technology, Mukilteo WA (206) 742-9111 UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi ARPA: gtisqr!toddi@beaver.cs.washington.edu "You are the booger in the nose of my life." - My wife, to me. (Jokingly?) Disclaimer: My boss will read this while checking up on me and will disagree. ------------------------------ From: rsiatl!jgd (John G. De Armond) Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy Date: 6 Dec 89 07:43:01 GMT Reply-To: rsiatl!jgd (John G. De Armond) Organization: Radiation Systems, Inc. (a thinktank, motorcycle, car and gun works facility) In article <1806@accuvax.nwu.edu> john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 551, message 9 of 11 >Mr. Rotenberg's basic premise involves the comment that just because >we can do it doesn't mean we should do it. Also, he assumes that there >is some inherent, cast-in-stone right to privacy concerning the use of >the telephone. >I'd like to turn it around. Just because in years past we have *not* >had the technology to reveal callers' phone numbers does not mean that >failing to do so is the natural order of things. I'm sure that if >Caller-ID had been an inherent feature of automatic switching systems >from the beginning, this would be a non-issue. The word "Luddite" >comes to mind: A person who automatically resists change, particularly >technological. Well, Luddite may come to your mind but personal privacy rights come to mine. I am incensed that my personal privacy rights have been eroded both by government and by greedy private companies. I'll give you an example. Have you ever pulled a credit report on yourself? If you are at all affluent and/or have had many credit transactions, the personal information the credit databanks maintain on you is a disturbingly accurate reflection of your personal lifestyle. That is disturbing enough but what is worse is that almost anybody that wants access to it can have it. The law says that the credit bureaus must keep a record of who accesses your credit data and must provide it to you on request. In my record, there are literally dozens of inquiries from companies I've never heard of nor done business with. I'm sure that some of these companies were prowling for likely candidates to send free credit card applications to. Others were most likely building profiles for people to inflict telemarketers onto. I terribly resent either use. Still another, much more insidious use is by the IRS. They collect data on lifestyle from this and other databanks, such as mailing lists so that they can impute an income from lifestyle in the event they think you pay too few taxes. I am personally very vunerable to this type attack. By virtue of skillful trading, purchasing and craftsmanship, I live an apparent lifestyle several multiples of my actual income. And yet the IRS could use this very personal information to screw me if they so chose. What I buy, where I go and who I call are strictly MY PERSONAL BUSINESS and no one elses. Particularly those slimebags who are most likely to use such a service - the telemarketers and the government. More than adequate means already exist to trap prank and obscene calls. The only motive that can be assigned to wanting to personally know the ID of a prankster likely looks somewhat like vigilanteism. I'll give you another example of EXISTING caller ID, or as traditionally known, ANI. I've posted before about the sleeze phone company I wrote switch software for. They had feature group D lines which provided among other things, ANI. ANI was needed for billing but they went further. They collected calling statistics by caller and built and sold mailing list names. While it may be legal, it sure is not right. Dammit, my phone exists for MY and my family's convenience and use. No stranger has any more right to invade my privacy electronically than they do barging through my front door. Not answering the phone is NOT an answer. Aside from being driven from a service I pay for, tragedy can happen by ignoring emergency calls. I found out the hard way when I was a teenager. I got to spend the night in jail on a bum bust because my parents were not answering the phone that night. That we later had that cop's ass handed to us on a silver platter was no consolation for having to spend a hellish night in a city jail. I insist, no, I demand that a ring on the phone is either someone I want to talk to or is an emergency. All caller ID will do is allow slime to discover my phone number more readily. Hmm, instead of getting mad, perhaps I should take advantage of the entraprenural opportunity. Hey guys, how do you think a commercial automatic redialing service would fly. You know, you dial an access number to get a dial tone and your call is routed out over the service's line. You think that this service coupled with an iron-clad contract to never collect or release calling information would fly? I do. John De Armond, WD4OQC | The Fano Factor - Radiation Systems, Inc. Atlanta, GA | Where Theory meets Reality. emory!rsiatl!jgd **I am the NRA** | ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 6 Dec 1989 13:36:56 EST From: John McHarry Subject: Re: Need a Light to Indicate Phone *Has Rung* (Not *is Ringing*) I haven't had a chance to build this yet, but: Most US subscriber loops have about -52v on the ring and ground on the tip when on hook. When off hook, the voltage drops to something less than 8-9 volts. Ringing is accomplished by superimposing a nominal 86v rms on the -52v ring-tip voltage. An indicating device that turned on at something greater than 52v would accomplish the task, if it could be kept on by an external power source or by the 52v on hook voltage, the latter requiring very low current draw to avoid appearing off hook. As I recall, a device that can do this is the old NE-2 neon bulb. It requires something over 80? volts to turn on, but can be kept lit by well under 1 ma. The bulb, in series with a 100k resistor should be put in series with a diode good for at least 200v. Put about a 2 micro farad cap across the resistor and lamp part of the circuit. Hang the whole thing across tip and ring with the cathode end of the diode hooked to ring. If the lamp is so sensitive as to light with just the 52v, a 100-200k resistor across the lamp should solve the problem. The diode and cap are in the circuit to keep the positive cycle of the ringing voltage and short interruptions of the 52v from extinguishing the lamp. Taking a phone off hook should automatically extinguish the lamp by interrupting the -52v long enough for the cap to discharge. As I said, I have yet to build this, but it should work. It may be subject to some falsing due to lightening, etc. Also, it should be checked for immunity to 'dial tap'. It will indicate an incoming call attempt, but not whether there is voice mail, of course. (The usual disclaimers)**2 and do be careful, a telephone line can bite like a light socket...remember the apocryphal dog. *************************************************************** * John McHarry (703)883-6100 M21198@MWVM.MITRE.ORG * *************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: toddi@gtisqr.UUCP (Todd Inch) Subject: Need a Light to Indicate Phone *Has Rung* (Not *is Ringing*) Date: 6 Dec 89 18:46:41 GMT Reply-To: toddi@gtisqr.UUCP (Todd Inch) Organization: Global Technology International, Inc. I want to reply to the person who wanted a light to tell him if the phone rang (and therefore he probably has voice mail) while he was away. (Sorry, I lost the original article, please forgive my vague reference.) About a week ago I submitted an article on how to make your phone bell into a ringer. If you do that, or use some other relay-type device, it should be easy to make the lamp stay on with the following circuit. Get a relay which will operate on the same voltage as the lamp you want to power. A common normally-open single-pole single-throw type will probably do (see note at end.) Connect the contacts of the ringer-relay (operated by the phone ringing), the power supply (or possibly battery if you use an LED), and the coil of the new relay in a series circuit. Now the first relay will operate the second relay when the phone rings. Now connect the contacts of the second relay across (in parallel with) the contacts of the first relay. This allows the second relay to "turn itself on" and the ringer-relay can also still turn it on. When a pulse through the ringer-relay operates the second relay, the second relay will keep itself on after the pulses have stopped. This is a simple latch which I've also used for burgalar alarms. Connect the lamp in parallel with the coil of the second relay so it is also turned on and kept on. Install a normally closed (normally "on") switch in series with the power to the circuit (or just an on-off power switch.) This will reset the second relay and lamp by momentarily disconnecting the power. It may be necessary to add a diode (rated between 1 and 15 amp and at least twice whatever voltage you're using) in parallel with the second relay coil and the lamp. Be sure the Cathode (striped end) is connected to the Positive side of the coil and the Anode is connected to the Negative side, which is backwards from the way they are usually connected. This will effectively stretch the pulses by using the coil's inductance to keep its current flowing after the pulses have stopped. This is assuming you're using DC power. If you do have a second pair of contacts in the relay, I'd use those for the lamp circuit, disconnecting the lamp from the relay coil. This may be necessary if the lamp draws lots of current. If you use an LED (light emitting diode) with a series 220 ohm to 2K ohm resistor (depending on the voltage) as the indicator lamp, you shouldn't need the diode across the coil and you won't need to worry about the lamp current draw. Also - regarding my previous suggestion for turning a WECO-type bell into a ringer-relay, you MAY be able to place the reed switch in the right spot on the frame or near the magnet or somewhere so that the ringer is still intact (and therefore rings) but also operates the reed switch, although I haven't tried it. The switch may provide pulses which are too short if the magnetic field at that location is too weak. I hope I haven't made this sound too complicated, it really isn't, but let me know if you want more info. Hope this helps. Todd Inch, System Manager, Global Technology, Mukilteo WA (206) 742-9111 UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi ARPA: gtisqr!toddi@beaver.cs.washington.edu "You are the booger in the nose of my life." - My wife, to me. (Jokingly?) Disclaimer: My boss will read this while checking up on me and will disagree. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #558 *****************************   Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 22:41:23 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #559 Message-ID: <8912072241.aa30848@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Dec 89 22:40:29 CST Volume 9 : Issue 559 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: ISDN and TCP/IP (Michael A. Patton) 7kHz voice and ISDN (Dick Jackson) HDLC on DS0 in DS1 lines (Kamran Husain) Request - AI Applications on Network Management (Ben Lippolt) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 20:32:47 EST Subject: Re: ISDN and TCP/IP From: "Michael A. Patton" Date: Mon, 1989 Dec 4 21:27 EST From: (Robert Philip Weber) WEBER@HARVARDA.BITNET (glad to see Harvard's up the creek again :-) [Dr. Weber's description of Harvard's installation of a 5ESS in parallel with existing TCP/IP network removed -MAP] This is very much like the installation MIT has just gone through downriver. I expect that since your network & telecom people see ours all the time, they should already know much of this...here is my view from the "epicenter". > There is some confusion here about the utility of ISDN in the short > run and in the long run. The following questions have arisen: There was here, too. In fact there was a sometimes amusing presentation at the MIT Communications forum a couple of years ago, after both Harvard and MIT had jointly and independantly made their decisions, where the "responsible" parties from each organization (along with some others) talked about ISDN. As I recall the appropriate paraphrase from both the MIT and Harvard presentations on why they included ISDN in the purchase was, "It's the new telecom buzz-word. If we don't include it and it turns out to be a winner, they'll have our heads for getting stuck behind the times. If we do include it and it turns out to be a lemon, we can always blame it on the Telco...they over-stated its capabilities." Nobody there had any detailed concrete plans of even a single specific use to be made, but there was lots of fluff and smoke. I believe that state persisted even unto the actual cutover at MIT. (In fact the smoke persisted a little after cutover. :-) Harvard's probably just in that same boat. > 1. How do we create a gateway between ISDN and TCP/IP so that > the following common cases can get access to TCP (and the world): You build one yourself (the only way to get "a", meaning single box, at present) or buy what pieces you can. I'll describe what MIT has done or is considering for each of these. > a. Dumb terminals with an rs232 connection to circuit switched > d or b channels (i.e., 9.6 kbs or 64kbs) I'm not sure what you mean here, several points come to mind that you might be asking about. First, the connection (at 19.2kbps) between the dumb terminal on my desk and the ISDN is a standard DB25 on the back of this here AT&T 7506 phone. It even offers you the option of a semi-rasonable command interpreter or Hayes command set (but I guess Hayes is (tm) since the word does not seem to appear in the manual at all, I think they refer to it as "the industry standard AT command set", shades of Strowger and Step-by-Step). The second thing you might be trying to ask is for the case of someone without an actual ISDN connection in the office (i.e. POTS). These people can hook up any kind of modem to the line (they have a standard RJ-11) and call a bank of modems which gives them that same interface (at 300, 1200, or 2400 bps) preset to command interpreter (it's just some dedicated, no voice, connections with the same circuits and software as my phone). The third possibility is you were asking how people outside get connected to my machine if I put it on the ISDN. They can call a number (assigned seperately by telecom) which the 5ESS routes through that same modem bank, but then automatically connects through to my digital number. These three are all in service and in regular use on the MIT switch. > b. intelligent personal computers such as msdos and macintosh > machines. These machines would ordinarily have ethernet > cards and run something like FTP Software's TCP implementation, > or NCSA Telnet on the macs. There might be a stray unix box > somewhere (no one wants to run slip). The ISDN connection is > BRI, not PRI Again, I'm not quite sure which direction you mean to go here. If they're normally connected to your TCP/IP network via Ethernet, what more do you want? > c. local area networks in buildings which are nt yet connected > to the fiber ethernet network. These networks are typically > appletalk or tcp/ip itself, with a few novell networks > here and there. Again, the ISDN connection is BRI, not > PRI. The best use of ISDN here would probably be to simulate 64kbps leased lines and connect with some standard routers or bridges. You don't get full bandwidth, but with Appletalk at the end do you really care? If you do, pay to get the fiber. I thought Harvard was doing the same thing as MIT. I think we pulled an order of magnitude more fiber than the ESS and Network required together and distributed it to many more places. The cost of the fiber was small compared to the other costs of the installation and the labor to pull N rather than 1 is negligible. Once the fiber is lying there in the dark it doesn't cost a lot to run your photons through it :-). > Thanks for any information you can offer. You're welcome, but you didn't ask about the two most interesting areas (one of which MIT has in place and one of which is "under discussion"), so I'll get to them here. It's probably the case that you meant one of the above to include this and I just misinterpreted it, but I re-read them and I still don't see it. First, given the above, my terminal can reach all over campus at 19.2kbps. So what do I do? Everyone of interest is on the TCP/IP network (this is by definition, my job is managing TCP/IP networks :-) and they're not going to rush out and buy ISDN cards or X.25 software just so I can reach them. The answer is a box from Cisco (the one we use, other manufacturers also do this) with an X.25 connection at 64kbps on one side and an Ethernet connection on the other that knows how to translate between the respective terminal protocols and deal with terminals in general. You call it Pad.MIT.Edu, the MIT PAD. It's just like any other X.25 PAD except that rather than real terminal lines they're virtual using standard TCP/IP networking. Now, while I wait for all the random machines to put in something, I can always call PAD and connect over the network. Note that this system also works in reverse. If someone hooks up with an X.25 host connection designed to be called from a PAD, I can network from my workstation and use commands on Pad to set up X.25 calls. Second, can the 5ESS be used to provide an X.25 subnet to run TCP/IP over? This is the one that's "under discussion". I think the answer is "yes, but why?" I think what's going to happen here -- at least in the foreseeable future -- is that the ESS will be used for "leased line" type services to a few outlying spots, but that no general TCP/IP subnet service. ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Gee, this turned out to be a lot more than I started out to say. Anyway to get back more directly to your specifics, Dr. Weber. I would suggest you should be talking to appropriate people at MIT and Harvard. I see you're in OIT, you should talk to Scott Bradner at Harvard, who should be in touch with Ron Hoffmann and Jeff Schiller here. I would also be willing to answer a few more questions (but it's their job), too. I suspect that MIT and Harvard are the very leading edge of exploring this and many more ideas (and questions) will come up as we expand it. __ /| /| /| \ Michael A. Patton, Network Manager / | / | /_|__/ Laboratory for Computer Science / |/ |/ |atton Massachusetts Institute of Technology Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are a figment of the phosphor on your screen and do not represent the views of MIT, LCS, or MAP. :-) ------------------------------ From: Dick Jackson Subject: 7kHz Voice and ISDN Date: 7 Dec 89 18:24:30 GMT Reply-To: Dick Jackson Organization: Citicorp/TTI, Santa Monica As I understand it, work is afoot to implement a standard for the ISDN defined 7kHz voice service, wherein audio sampled (presumably) at 16 ksamples per second is encoded (using cunning modern techniques) at the ISDN bearer channel rate (64 kbps). I envisage the appearance of "hi-fi" telephones capable of using this service. Voice would be clearer and music could be carried (with fidelity equivalent to that of a.m. radio). Further, digital technology could enable superior echo cancelling allowing speakerphone use without the "in-a-tomb" effect. Clearly, the new phones would have to be compatible with POTS phones, but Q.931 and SS7 know enough for the service to be negotiated automatically on call set-up. Such phones might become the next great consumer electronics fad, following compact discs and cellular phones. Once people heard the higher quality, they might feel they had to have one, to keep up with their yuppie friends. Any comments? From those who know how the technology is progressing? From potential owners? Oh yes, if these things caught on, they would drive the market for ISDN lines to residential as well as business premises. Just what the local carriers need! Dick Jackson ------------------------------ From: uunet!stsusa.com!husain%sdcsvax@ucsd.edu Subject: HDLC on DS0 in DS1 lines Date: 6 Dec 89 09:02:01 GMT Organization: Siemens Transmission Systems, Albuquerque, NM I am using a DS0 on a DS1 signal for a data communication application. The layer 1 protocol is HDLC and LAPDwith an AT&T telephone system purchase and $560 when purchased alone. One-year warranty and standard one-, two- and four-year maintenance contracts apply. # # # AT&T MERLIN(R) Cordless Telephone Corded Sound Quality ensures that calls will be crisp and clear. Ten-Channel Selection allows users to change channels From Handset instantly for clarity. Five Line Appearances give user access to outside lines, intercom links or system programmable features. Direct Access to allows user to connect phone System directly to the system, without adaptor. Message Light on lets users know that they have Base Unit a call. Three-Position Ringer allows user to adjust volume for Volume on Base Unit changing environmental needs. Visual Indicators on show status of all lines or Handset features. Extended Life Battery makes frequent recharging unnecessary. Automatic Digital has up to 65,000 codes, guarding Security System against unauthorized use. User Replaceable make replacements fast and Battery and Antenna inexpensive. Full Range Performance provides extensive indoor and outdoor use. Out of Range Indicator provides audible tone to alert user that phone is going out of range from the base. Visual and Audible provide a clear indication when Low Battery Indicators handset recharging is necessary. Transfer Button allows user to transfer calls on Handset to other system extensions. Hold Button allows user to put one call on Handset hold while placing or answering other calls. # # # SPECIFICATIONS Wiring Four-pair modular FCC Compliance Conforms to FCC rules, Part 15 for cordless phones. FCC Reg. # AS 55HM-ATTMLC5 Certification Transformer UL Listed Set UL listed 1/1/90 Jack Type 657 - 4pr. Modular Temperature 32 - 122 F (0 - 50 C) Dimensions 8 1/2"(L) X 5"(W) X 2 3/4" (H) Wt. 3 lbs. Installation Installed by AT&T Technician or Self Installed System Compatibility MERLIN(R) Plus Communications System MERLIN(R) II Communications System MERLIN(R) 206/410/820 Communications Systems MERLIN(R) 1030/3070 Communications Systems AT&T System 25 Repair Procedures Return for repair or replacement at authorized AT&T Service Center Warranty One year # # # ==================================================== Don H Kemp "Always listen to experts. They'll B & K Associates, Inc. tell you what can't be done, and Rutland, VT why. Then do it." unet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk Lazarus Long ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 11:30:58 EST Subject: Re: Two Lines From a Twisted Three From: "Michael A. Patton" From: John Higdon Date: 2 Dec 89 21:21:29 GMT >Whatever you do, NEVER pick conductors from two different cables to >serve as your "pair". This, in effect, causes your line to look like an >unbalance circuit in each of the cables you have selected and there >will be major crosstalk. In other words, don't take the third conductor >from, say your existing service and your neighbor's service, to supply >the run for your second line. Everyone will end up talking to everyone >else. You are wrong about this NEVER working, I had such an installation in service for many years with a run of 4 floors vertical plus some horizontal distance. I used this "extra" line for 212-style dialup data and had fewer problems than any other line I've used with 212 modems. However, a warning (somewhat moderated) is still in order. This "kludge" was done only on the fifth "installation" trip---the first to feature a repeat performer, by the way. On several of the earlier trips many different options were explored, including fire-rated drop cable through an interior "well" in the building and many others. I had talked with the installation and repair supervisor literally dozens of times (we were getting to be good buddies, too bad he's not there any more :-). After all this and another while on this call scouting more possibilities, the three of us decided that the only way that could possibly work was to use my "third wire" and the "third wire" from either the apartment above or below me, we knocked on doors and one of the neighbors was home. I got it installed this way with the implied agreement between me and the supervisor that I wouldn't complain if it was "noisy" (I actually got the impression that he attached a notation of "Contact " for all reports concerning this line before any action). It turned out to be a perfectly fine connection, never a single problem with errors. I would caution however that it really shouldn't have worked, as John points out. In fact I was somewhat agast at it actually being BETTER than the original line had been, I'd expected to need to use the original to get data connections at all and start telling all my callers to use the other phone. We only got to this after exploring MANY other options with the landord and the phone company. I recommend exploring ALL other options first. The phone company was ready to declare it "uninstallable" without this, in fact if I hadn't shown such a wide knowledge of TPC during all the previous dealings with installers and the supervisor they probably wouldn't even have suggested it. I forget why subscriber carrier wasn't an option in my case, but it was brought up. If possible, I would guess this has a better likelihood of working than picking two random wires as a "pair". ------------------------------ From: Lars J Poulsen Subject: GTE vs Pac*Bell (Was: How Do I Rotary?) Reply-To: Lars J Poulsen Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 17:39:23 GMT In article <1810@accuvax.nwu.edu>, lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) writes: >> I am amazed that people put up with such rip-offs, and THEN talk about >> how bad GTE is. In article <1896@accuvax.nwu.edu> john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >Yes, but what do you pay monthly for a phone? I'll bet it's higher >than my rate. Of course, I probably actually pay more because I have >Commstar (home Centrex) which you can't get on unmeasured lines. Neah! I pay $23.50/month for two lines, one tone service with 1+ provided by ATT, and one which is supposed to be pulse-only, with 1+ dialing disabled. The two lines busy-forward to each other. This includes unlimited local calling (but not 6% sales tax). I have considered replacing the second line with a 3002 leased circuit to my place of work (my wife works there too); GTE offered at no extra cost to make the line end-to-end metallic. The distance is 3.2 miles (served by same CO) and I think I could run 56kbps on that circuit. The main reason I'm not doing it, is that I'd have to pay for a terminal server port card on the receiving end (system manager says "all ports are taken"). The cost of such a leased line would be about $150 to install and $23.50/month. I find these rates very reasonable. Especially when I read in TELECOM Digest about people that pay over $35/month for a single residential line. And I have no desire to get CommStar. I'd MUCH rather install a KX-308. I have: - one phone in the kitchen - one cordless in the master bedroom - one more in the master bedroom because my wife hates the sound quality on the cordless (Radio Shack alarm clock radio phone combo). - one phone in my study connected to the main number - one phone in the study connected to the modem line - two modems (one on each line) - an answering machine serving both lines With a Centrex service I'd have to have at least 6 lines to get what I want. That's 4 more than I have now. Even where GTE offers measured service, this would be at least $40/month. That would buy me a PBX in a year. / Lars Poulsen (800) 222-7308 or (805) 963-9431 ext 358 ACC Customer Service Affiliation stated for identification only My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !! ------------------------------ From: Alain Arnaud Subject: AT&T System 2000 Inquiry Date: 7 Dec 89 15:13:34 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories I have seen ads for the ATT System 2000 master phone for $200 and for the slaves for $150. The System 2000 connects to two external lines and allows six internal units with no modification to the internal wiring of the house. It has features such as intercom between units, three way calling, and speed dialing. Other than the two lines restriction, I would like to find out if anyone has had any experience with this system. Alan Arnaud Guest account (till 12/31/89) arnaud@angate.ATT.COM Permanent account: uunet!ecla!arnaud Standard disclaimer + Just a consultant at ATT. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 02:24:12 EST From: Miguel_Cruz@um.cc.umich.edu Subject: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? Mark Cohen in Digest 9.555 mentioned a commercial suggesting viewers "dial 411" in order to contact the advertiser. Mr. Cohen suggested that this was a flagrant abuse of DA and said he called his telco to inform them of this travesty. But I really don't understand what is wrong with this... A) it allows people from anywhere in the viewing area to find the number for the outlet/branch closest to them B) the phone company will charge the customer for the DA call. Customers know this; if they don't want to pay, they can use the phone book. It seems remarkably straightforward. Many advertisers do it, and I've never heard of one getting in trouble, most likely because there isn't a conceivable thing wrong with it. Or is there? Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich.edu ------------------------------ From: Dan Sahlin Subject: Re: Why Not 00 as the International Prefix in the US? Organization: SICS, Swedish Inst. of Computer Science Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 18:51:02 GMT John Hughes wrote: >Haha! If you think 010 or 011 is funny, try coming to France, we have >to do 19 AND WAIT FOR A SECOND DIAL TONE! Primitive! Within a couple of years, when the whole of France uses 8-digit numbers, 00 will be introduced as the prefix for international dialing. Sweden will do the same in the mid-nineties. We now use 009, and the tone comes after the country number! /Dan Sahlin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 23:46:59 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Phone Network Overflow: 12-7-41 Forty-eight years ago today, December 7, 1941, was the day King Roosevelt II said would live in infamy forever....and it was a day not to be forgotten by the thousands of telephone operators in the old Bell System, either. When the news reached the mainland a few minutes after the attack on Pearl Harbor (it was at 7:30 AM Hawaii Time; 12:30 PM EST), *everyone* jumped on the phone to tell their neighbors. In those days of mostly manual telephone service, with well-trained operators moving cloth cords in and out of jacks on switchboards very rapidly, Sunday was usually a slow day, and smaller than usual (for a business day) staffs were on duty. In Chicago, which at that time had a mixture of dial exchanges and manual exchanges (about a dozen dial exchanges downtown, but manual service elsewhere in the city and suburbs), phone service came to a virtual halt about noon when the crush of calls based on the news report from Pearl Harbor generated a record volume of traffic in the history of phone service in our town. Chicago was no exception to the rule: all over the United States, telcos sent out urgent messages to every available employee to come in and help 'work the boards'; and even with a full week-day complement of operators by later that Sunday afternoon, delays of twenty minutes just to reach the operator requesting 'number please?' were not uncommon. In Chicago, the telco went on 'emergency calls only' status beginning about 2:00 PM and remained on that status until mid-day Monday, when the volume of calls had dropped back to a manageable level. The operators answered each call by saying 'We can only handle emergency calls at this time; (pause)....call later please'; then yanking the cord and moving on to the next in line of dozens waiting. Although the area around Pearl Harbor suffered extensive damage to telecommunications lines, the small exchange there stayed open throughout the bombing and managed rather well. (See Telecom Archives file 'pearl.harbor.phones' for specifics). Calls to Hawaii were blocked by the overseas operators in Oakland, putting them through only when the operators at Hickam Air Force Base (where the exchange was then located) told them they could handle more calls. Nothing like the volume of calls that day had ever been seen before; nothing like it was seen again until the day in November, 1963 when JFK was gunned down. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #560 *****************************   Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 21:09:12 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #561 Message-ID: <8912082109.aa19398@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 8 Dec 89 21:08:39 CST Volume 9 : Issue 561 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson A Tangled Tale (Theodore Lee) 64 kbps Access Now Available (AT&T Press Release via Don H. Kemp) User Control of Feature(s) (Will Martin) How Were Telephone Sounds Chosen? (Douglas W. Martin) Data Over Voice (Richard Steele) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 01:24:34 EST From: Theodore Lee Subject: A Tangled Tale There is some kind of lesson in an annoying problem I just had with PC Pusuit that has taken Telenet a month and a half to resolve, although I'm not sure exactly what it is. But it does seem worth recording for posterity here. Our company's headquarters is in Maryland, in some sense midway between Baltimore and DC. We have arranged to be serviced by what I believe is called a "metro foreign exchange." It is in area 301, but dialable as a seven digit local (non-toll) call from metro (e.g, downtown) DC (area 202). For a good part of a year I have been using PC Pursuit's DCWAS outdial to connect to our computer. All of a sudden, in mid-October, my calls stopped going through. (The PC Pursuit dial command always returned Busy.) For some reason, whoever supplies Telenet with their telco information had, we eventually determined, made a mistake, and decided that our exchange was no longer a local call from metro DC, so calls to it were blocked by the outdial software. Tracking that down and convincing Telenet of the mistake is an interesting tale. At first, Telenet insisted it was a line problem: we have a Telebit Trailblazer on one of the lines; apparently the Telenet engineers had never heard its initial handshaking, which is not your ordinary 2400 baud Hayes, and decided our modem was bad or that there were local phone line problems. (It turns out that in fact we did have some C&P line problems at about this time, so at first I put the problem down to that.) Then they tried dialing from their Reston offices (area 703, not metro DC) -- and (of course?) they found it to be a toll call and reported that the exchange was not reachable. (We didn't realize until a little later that they were attempting to debug the problem from Reston rather than metro DC, where the outdial modem is.) About this point I was beginning to panic, having visions that the DC area toll structure had been redone without our knowing it. So I tried contacting C&P telephone to see what was up: my first call (to the service number for the exchange in question) shook me -- whoever I talked to said that the exchange was a Baltimore exchange, not a DC exchange. (At this point I should mention that I'm doing this from Minneapolis.) That didn't seem right (since I knew we had chosen that exchange specifically so that it would be a DC local call.) What I wanted to do then was find an operator in the exchange where the Telenet outdial was located and ask her whether the exchange I was trying to call was still a local call or not. It took me over an hour to find the right magic words to get my local long distance operator to talk to the DC local operator: there apparently is no way for a customer to be connected to a remote operator; my local operator kept telling me to talk to my long distance operator, my long distance operator kept telling me to talk to my local operator. After mumbling something about inbound service operator and stating my question, I finally did get my long distance operator to ask their operator the question, which was answered in one word, "Yes" (it is a local call.) Telenet wouldn't take my word for it and wouldn't make the same check themselves -- as far as I can tell, they had to wait for a new, updated (this time correct) exchange list. (To add insult to injury, somewhere in the middle of this process one of the Telenet service people decided the problem had been solved, when it hadn't, and closed out the first trouble ticket. And I almost don't want to mention, but will, that the engineers said it was poor beleagured David Purks' problem, whereas he said he was waiting for them to install the new, correct exchange lists.) To their credit, I do need to add that the Telenet customer service people I talked to really did seem to be trying to help and were as mystified by what was going on as I. The last time I was in DC I looked at a phone book and think I have a clue to what may have caused the problem: the exchange in question belongs to the town of Ashton (although our offices are not in Ashton). The boundary between the Baltimore LATA and the DC LATA goes right through the middle of Ashton, and I suspect if you look in some list somewhere you'll find Ashton as part of the Baltimore LATA, even though some of its exchanges are in the DC LATA and in fact local as well. Who says communications companies understand the business they're in? Ted Lee ------------------------------ Subject: 64 kbps Access Now Available Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 15:31:49 EST From: Don H Kemp [Moderator's Note: Another press release from AT&T to the Consultant Liason people, submitted by Mr. Kemp. PT] BASKING RIDGE, N.J. -- AT&T announced today it will make available 64 kilobit-per-second clear-channel access to customers who subscribe to its International ACCUNET (R) Digital Services and SKYNET (R) International Service offerings. Currently customers leasing an international digital circuit from AT&T who require bandwidth in excess of 56 kbps must use T1.5 (1.5 megabits per second) access for the local connection. "The 64 kbps rate is a common international data rate, and our multinational customers want and need the direct link that 64 kbps provides," said Elaine Kaup, AT&T Deputy Director -- International Product Management. The offering, which will be known as International ACCUNET Digital Direct Link Services and SKYNET International Direct Link Service, will initially be available from two locations in New York City and will be limited to the 64 kbps data rate. In early 1990, AT&T will expand the Direct Link offering to additional cities and will provide it at the commonly used Fractional T1.5 data rates (i.e., 128 kbps, 256 kbps, etc.). The effect of the Direct Link offering will be to reduce the overall cost of AT&T's International ACCUNET Digital Services and SKYNET International Service offerings to its customers. Customers of AT&T private-line services are connected to the international network via one or more of 28 AT&T International Pricing Points, located throughout the U.S. "By integrating data-rate-specific access into the cost of the international circuit, we are creating for our customers an offering that includes both a direct access link and the international half-channel circuit," said Kaup. "This package will be economical and customized to their specific requirements," she said. AT&T is issuing revised network specification information as an addendum to three documents: AT&T Technical Reference Publication 54019, the International ACCUNET Digital Service Description, and Network Interface Specifications. This addendum describes the interface -- which conforms to industry standards -- for the end-to-end 64 kbps clear-channel service. AT&T will provide Technical Reference Publication 54019 to manufacturers of customer premises equipment who write on their company stationery to Nayyar Azam, AT&T - Room 5359C1, 295 N. Maple Ave., Basking Ridge, N.J. 07920. The information will also be available through Corporate Mailing Inc., 26 Parsippany Road, Whippany, N.J. 07851 (1-800-338-4038). # # # Don H Kemp "Always listen to experts. They'll B B & K Associates, Inc. tell you what can't be done, and Rutland, VT why. Then do it." uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk Lazarus Long ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 9:36:23 CST From: Will Martin Subject: User Control of Feature(s) Another nice-to-have telecom capability, which can be added to the "wishlist" of features the telcos should offer, is dynamic user control of hunting and rotaries. When I am in the office alone, I should be able to turn off the rotary so that only one incoming call can hit at one time. Any others should get a busy signal. That is preferable to them getting a ring that isn't answered, if I am tied up on the preceeding call. You will note that this is just the opposite philosophy from "call-waiting", which assumes that later callers have the right to interrupt earlier ones. My opinion is just the reverse -- the first caller has priority and later callers should wait their turn. It might be that some local PBX or in-house telecom system does offer this sort of user control. Right now, we are on Centrex and do not have that capablity, as far as I can determine. You can get something almost like what I am thinking of with call-forwarding by forwarding (to a perpetual busy) any of the calls that arrive at the second number in the rotary. I would prefer a simple user-available command which, when entered from the first number in the group, would shut down the rotary to the next one. Another simple command would enable it again. You wouldn't have to enter the number (the next one in the rotary) in any case. [Are "hunt group" and "rotary" two terms for the same thing, or are they different? The recently-distributed "glossary" implies they are the same by defining only "rotary hunt". I'm using them as synonyms here.] I get the impression that this and a host of other improvements to the telecom system are not available due to a basic difference in design philosophy between me (and other reasonable sane people) and the telcos. :-) This might be something like the difference between computer systems like UNIX (which ironically was engendered in Bell Labs originally) and systems like IBM OS's. One puts maximum control in the user's hands, while the other limits the user capability much more and vests control in a separate administrator. Since the telcos want to charge you for eveyrhing possible, they tend to the latter approach, making sure you have to go through them for all sorts of minor changes, which they can then bill for. Obviously, this approach is why the aftermarket in-house telecom system is such a popular item now that deregulation has made it possible. However, I get the impression (not being terribly familiar with such products) that most of these systems merely move the administration functions down from the telco's offices to a little tin god within the business itself, as opposed to moving all possible control (while still keeping security and accountability in mind) down to the user him/herself. In my mind, the ideal system would let an administrator set things up and make changes, etc., for those customers who don't want to do it themselves, but the system would also let the user do things on their own that are now restricted to "superuser" types. For example, an office would have a specified group of telephone numbers and the users within that office, when entering system commands from an instrument with one of those numbers, could do things like set up their own preference for rotary hunting, enable/disable functions like call-forwarding or call-waiting, shift the intercom functions and reassign numbers to other instruments, etc. They couldn't affect other offices' numbers or instruments, except for such limited things as making one the destination for call-forwarding. To shift things between offices would require a "superuser" type to be involved, but intraoffice changes wouldn't require the administrator. Doing things like establishing a hunt sequence would require more effort by the user initially, but the system should remember such things and let them then be switched on and off by minimal-length commands entered directly from an affected instrument by anyone inside that office. Are there any systems on the market that incorporate this sort of design philosophy? I'd be interested in reading about any that do so, or even approach this attitude. We are going to be moving to a new office building in the near future, and part of that transition is a leap to a new, non-telco in-house telecom system. Unfortunately, I am sure it will not provide anywhere near the level of user-friendliness that I described above. (Being a GSA low-bidder system, I will be amazed if it works at all... :-) Regards, Will [Moderator's Note: Actually, part of the 'wishlist' was resolved some time back here in Chicago. Illinois Bell offers 'Centrex Mate' (?) which is a sort of do-it-yourself service representative thing. From a terminal, you connect with the IBT computer and make service changes yourself. This option is only available to centrex customers. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 15:37:34 PST From: "Douglas W. Martin" Subject: How Were Telephone Sounds Chosen? I posted this request several months ago, but got no response. Anyone with any ideas or speculations is greatly appreciated. I am interested in finding literature references on how the various telephone sounds, e.g. dial tone, busy signal, and the decaying tone associated with credit card calls, were chosen. What kinds of psychoacoustic research were done to determine that these sounds are easily remembered, easily discriminated in noise, or less annoying than other sounds which could have been selected. I am looking for references on how these sounds were selected. Also, can anyone supply information about the frequency, duration, etc. for the off-hook alarm signal? Thanks, Doug Martin martin@nosc.mil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 11:58:58 -0500 From: Richard Steele Subject: Data Over Voice Reply-To: Richard Steele Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network Here at Purdue U., we now have access to something called data over voice (DOV) units. These are small boxes, about the size of a regular modem, that gives the user a 9600 bps asynchronous data line to the University computer. Not only is the bugger faster than a modem, _but it leaves the phone free for regular use_. We can still receive and make calls with the DOV working with no obvious distortion on the line. Thus, in addition to having a reasonably fast connection (and I used to think a 2400 baud modem was speedy!), I don't have to take the wrath of my roomates for hogging the phone line all night long. The DOV unit connects to the phone line before any other equipment; i.e. there's are line in and line out jacks. In addition, just like a Hayes Smartmodem, there are a plethora of LEDs on the front like CD (carrier detect), RD (receive data), SD (send data), etc. Question: How would something like this work? The phone company _does_ need to make some changes on their end, but the phone line remains the same. So, what magic is involved here? Thanks to all who respond... Richard A. Steele Purdue University ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #561 *****************************   Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 21:56:48 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #562 Message-ID: <8912082156.aa31839@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 8 Dec 89 21:55:53 CST Volume 9 : Issue 562 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: 10XXX from Pay Phones (Robert Michael Gutierrez) Re: Pay Phones (Michael Katzmann) Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? (Steve Forrette) Re: AT&T Operator Handling of International DA (Colin Plumb) Re: Modems and Phone Rates and Reality (John Boteler) Re: How Do I Avoid Satellite Connections? (Julian Macassey) Re: ANI Does Not Seem To Work (John Higdon) Re: GTE vs. Pac*Bell (Was: How Do I Rotary?) (Colin Plumb) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 09:23:13 -0800 From: Robert Michael Gutierrez Subject: Re: 10XXX from Pay Phones Organization: NASA Science Internet Project Office writes in V-9, I-557, Msg 8 of 11: >On Dec 2, 1:30pm, Eric Swenson wrote: >> If I walk up to a pay telephone and want to make a call (local or >> otherwise, same area code or different) without depositing coins, >> shouldn't I be able to dial 10777-0-[AC]-XXX-XXXX, get a BOING, and, >> assuming I have a U.S. SPRINT FONCARD, be able to dial my FONCARD >> number and complete my call? >In my experience, with Sprint and MCI at least, you can use your local >BOC calling card (which is usually the same number as your AT&T card) >for 10xxx+0+ calls, but FONcard or MCI card numbers will not work. I >believe that the BOC does the calling card validation and handles the >billing in this case.......... John may have misinterpeted Eric's question, which I will attempt to clarify here. Eric's question would work for MCI since MCI *has* installed Automated Operator Positions (AOP's) in their network now, and subscribes to (I believe) 3 card authorization service companies. So, when you do dial 10222+1+NPA-NXX-XXXX, you should get a bong, and it should be MCI's AOP answering (you can let it time out, and it should go to a MCI TOPS operator). Now, the caveat is that the payphone will probably be programmed to intercept the call and go to an AOS (in the case of COCOTS only) in which case you have NO idea who is handling the call, and charging whatever outrageous amount to make that call. The incoming MF signalling from the local telco determines if the call is coming from a public or private payphone, and the MCI switch sees it is a 0+ call, and then sends the call to a switch which has an AOP (very few switches have AOP's still as of 6 months ago), then the usual AOP processes apply from here on. John's answer would be true, though, if you attempted to make an intra-lata call (within your service area), because the local BOC's don't subscribe/have access to the alternate L.D. carriers calling card databases. They only have access to AT&T's at the present time, though, this may change. BTW: MCI's AOP's are IBM PS/2 - Model 80's. >........................ If you have any volume discounts with these >carriers, your FONcard or MCI card calls would contribute to them, but >using your BOC card probably wouldn't. (You probably wouldn't get >your MCI "Around Town" discount either.) I was attempting to find out of the MCI Around Town discount was going to apply to BOC card calls, and the initial answer was 'No'. The problem was that Around Town determination was done at MCI's billing centers, not at the switch, and it was determined also by your *issued card number*, not the billing telephone number. I found out about this in my customer service days there, and the trick is to change your telephone number to that area's prefix, issue a card, then change back to your regular telephone number, and volia...you have 2 MCI cards with 2 around town areas. One area was based in San Rafel, and the other was based in Hayward (both in the San Francisco Bay area). Since the San Rafael card covered Marin and San Francisco for around town coverage, and the Hayward card covered the East Bay, I had Around Town coverage for most of the whole Bay Area! It was fun! Now that MCI has BOC billing, this trick could be a little harder since now MCI's computers do a check against the BOC's databases (this only applying to Pacific*Hell's........Pacific*Bell's area) when you sign up for service. Does this help clear up anything??? | Robert Gutierrez -- NSI Network Ops Center | | NASA Science Internet Project, Bldg 233-8, Moffett Field, CA. 94035-5000 | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | "Pain....will you return it....I say it again....PAIN!" (Depeche Mode) | ------------------------------ Date: 7 Dec 89 15:47:45 GMT From: Michael Katzmann Subject: Re: Pay Phones Reply-To: Michael Katzmann Organization: Rusty's BSD machine at home In article <1908@accuvax.nwu.edu> gfs@drutx.att.com (Gary Skinner) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 557, message 10 of 11 >What does it actually take to install a pay phone? >Does the CO have to provide a special line, or can I put a pay phone >on any old line? I believe the full function pay phones need special >signals to correctly work. >Any idea of relative cost of pay phone line? >Who gets what money for the line? A few months ago I posted an article asking for help in getting a pay phone going that I bought at a hamfest. Well I got a few replies, one of which put me on the right track. Apparently since the Bell breakup any one can operate a payphone. As such you can buy "private" payphones from various companies that will work on normal phone lines. ATT sell a version of their payphones that they call a Private payphone. These differ from the standard BOC type payphone in that the phones themselves figure out how much to charge. This is done, in the case of my "Elcotel" phone (which incidently has everything except the electronics made by Weco (ATT)), with the aid of a rating module. This has stored in it all the information as to billing from the payphone's number to anywhere in the US. This phone also has stored voice announcements "Please deposit 25 cents", "Invalid Number", "Please call again, Thank you" etc. The phone waits till you have finished dialing before validating the number, connecting to the exchange line and dialing the number. It also has the 0+ bong stored (it deliberatly has about a 3dB S/N so as to sound like a long distance connection!! (on MCI I suppose). You can change rating information from the keypad (after entering the security code) or do it by modem. (i.e. dial upthe payphone which answers after 5 rings (programmable)). The payphone can also be made to automatically ring you up when the coinbox becomes full, or when it is being vandelised! The phone works out that you have connected, and thus takes you money, by doing a voice signature analysis! (Very clever...) It has alot of ways of redirecting your long distance calls to your favourate LD co. (It is set up initially to reject 10XXX calls! but this can be re-programmed). New, these phones are about $1500 and up! Much better if you can find a hamfest. (I payed $125 (and all that was wrong was that the keypad was miswired and the tone-progress detector chip was fried)) The BOC type phones a dumb phones with the billing worked out at the CO, and voltage "wink" to tell the phone to take your money etc. If you're a business C&P (in our area) may put in a payphone for you and give you a slice of the profits. (but if you just want a REALLY sturdy phone for home,(you know, the ones as strong as the phones that you got from Bell before the break-up) you're out of luck) email to UUCP: uunet!mimsy!{arinc,fe203}!vk2bea!michael _ _ _ _ Amateur | VK2BEA (Australia) ' ) ) ) / // Radio | G4NYV (United Kingdom) / / / o _. /_ __. _ // Stations| NV3Z (United States) / ' (_<_(__/ /_(_/|_ Subject: Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? In article <1940@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >Mark Cohen in Digest 9.555 mentioned a commercial suggesting viewers >"dial 411" in order to contact the advertiser. >It seems remarkably straightforward. Many advertisers do it, and I've >never heard of one getting in trouble, most likely because there isn't >a conceivable thing wrong with it. Or is there? >Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich.edu I've spent most of this year in Washington state (Seattle), and much to my surprise, there's no such thing as 411 in this state! When I first arrived, I tried it from a payphone (what did I know). It didn't work, so I called the operator. She said "Why would you dial 411? Directory assistance is at 1-555-1212" She acted as if she had never heard of 411, and it definately doesn't work from any phone I've tried. Also, no 611 (you have to go through the operator to get repair service). (Reportedly, 611 will "read" you the number of the calling phone if you're in a GTE service area). ------------------------------ From: Colin Plumb Subject: Re: AT&T Operator Handling of International DA Date: 8 Dec 89 08:23:19 GMT Reply-To: Colin Plumb Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario While I was in Europe last summer, I noticed that many operators could handle 2 or 3 languages, and the *international* ones many more. You'd think if I dialled the country code for Germany, it would be a hint that speaking german would be useful? (No, I haven't checked the situation in Canada, not having anyone in Germany I want to call right now. I'm pretty sure they all know how to cope with French, if only to forward you to a French-speaking operator. I've occasionally been answered with telephoniste, but I just start speaking in English and all is fine.) I have to admit that there are plenty of places I don't reasonably expect an operator to be able to handle, but I don't think western Europe is asking too much. -Colin [Moderator's Note: Colin and others dialing into an intercept message in Quebec area codes may have noticed that the taped message is frequently (usually?) recited first in French, then in English. PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Modems and Phone Rates and Reality Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 6:14:29 EST From: John Boteler Having entered this discussion after reading the 'Subject:' line, perhaps we should return to the subject. I submit that any attempts to draw analogies between cost of providing telecom service and rates charged for that service will prove frustrating. Looked at your itemized bill lately? Touch-Tone service at $$$/month, eh? Bote NCN NudesLine 703-241-BARE -- VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote ------------------------------ From: julian macassey Subject: Re: How Do I Avoid Satellite Connections? Date: 8 Dec 89 14:04:20 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood CA U.S.A. In article <1900@accuvax.nwu.edu>, jpp@specialix.co.uk (John Pettitt) writes: > pkh%computer-science.nottingham.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk (Kevin Hopkins) > writes: > >I know it's in the wrong direction, but I believe you can use country code > >89, instead of 1, to reach the US from the UK via the transatlantic cable. > >Using country code 1 just picks the next channel to the US whilst 89 avoids > >the satellite. I saw this on a UK newsgroup a few months back and cannot > >remember who mentioned it - I don't have first hand experience and I don't > >know if it still works. Can anyone shed more light on this? > Stuff deleted > There is a magic code that you can dial after the get out code (010) > country code (1) and before the areacode-prefix-number. This code > will force the call to use MCI for the US end which seems to force a > fibre link across the pond most of the time (~95%). > I am not going to post the code since I think it is a bug in the > programming of the international switch in London and I don't want it > to go away because of overuse. It's not 89. > If anybody knows any more about this please post/let me know. This is what I read in New Scientist Mag a few years ago. It was also published on P69 Dec 1988 Popular Communications Mag. RCA 0101 83 (213) 555-1234 ITT 0101 84 (213) 555-1234 Yes, I know these carriers don't really exist anymore. Any hacker can now spend some time trying carious 8X combinations seeing what they get. You may try: 0101 8X (700) 555-4141. For the brits, the (700) 555-4141 number will give you a recorded message telling you who your long distance carrier is. The 700 number works from any line in the US, except some slimeball COPT payphones where they block it. Please post results. Enquiring minds want to know. Yours, Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com {ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian N6ARE@K6IYK (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: ANI Does Not Seem To Work Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 8 Dec 89 12:58:26 PST (Fri) From: John Higdon In article <1848@accuvax.nwu.edu> Holly Aaron writes: >I always thought that ANI could work from any phone but its seems that >on some phones ANI (in my case 311) has no effect. Those any- one >why. Is there any other way to find out your number? You might try two approaches. One, call the business office and see if they will help you. Until I passworded my accounts, people used to get my unpublished numbers that way all the time! The other way Patrick suggested some time ago: call someone person to person that isn't there and have the operator leave a call back number. She will give the number of the line you are using and you should be able to hear it. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Colin Plumb Subject: Re: GTE vs Pac*Bell (Was: How Do I Rotary?) Date: 8 Dec 89 22:44:06 GMT Reply-To: Colin Plumb Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario In article <1938@accuvax.nwu.edu> Lars J Poulsen writes: > I pay $23.50/month for two lines, one tone service with 1+ provided by > ATT, and one which is supposed to be pulse-only, with 1+ dialing > disabled. The two lines busy-forward to each other. This includes > unlimited local calling (but not 6% sales tax). > I find these rates very reasonable. Especially when I read in TELECOM > Digest about people that pay over $35/month for a single residential > line. Another data point: in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, I pay $8.75 a month for pulse-only POTS, and rent (I'm a student; I'm not going to be here long enough for it to be worthwhile to buy a half-decent phone) a basic indestructible telephone (it says QSQM500AX on the bottom, along with 07-89B and "Property of Bell Canada") for $1.75. Plus 8% sales tax. These are, of course, Candian dollars, which everyone got excited about nearing $0.87 US the other day. Unlimited local calls. Calling Toronto (1.5 hours drive or so) is $21.00 an hour, $8.40 an hour after 11:00 (60% discount). I should see if I can work out a volume discount with the phone company... I call Toronto a lot. -Colin ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #562 *****************************   Date: Sat, 9 Dec 89 10:00:50 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #563 Message-ID: <8912091000.aa28555@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 9 Dec 89 10:00:03 CST Volume 9 : Issue 563 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Phone Connections East/West Germany (Allgemeine Zeitung via H. Schulzrinne) Re: Phone Solicitations (Again) (Brian Gordon) International LD Headaches: Cuba, India, Egypt (David Lesher) ISDN and British Telecom (Data Comm, others via Pete French) Re: Pay Phones (John Higdon) Re: Anachronistic Rip-off (Paul Guthrie) When Writing to the Digest (TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 10:45 EST From: Henning Schulzrinne Subject: Phone Connections East/West Germany The following are excerpts translated from the November 18 edition of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Frankfurt, West Germany (translated without permission): "Calling the GDR is almost hopeless" ==================================== The situation in the German-German telephone communication is by now a catastrophe. It takes many hours to get a connection. Often that doesn't happen at all. It has become basically impossible to make important phone calls. Even attempts to use telegrams are almost hopeless. All regional postal administrations report that telegram traffic is totally overloaded. The telephone system of the GDR has not made the switch to digital technology. The existing system is based on analog switching, just as it was the case in West Germany not too long ago, and is outdated. There are bottlenecks in switching and the cable plant. Microwave links would have to be set up between the Federal Republic (W.-Germany) and the GDR. How tight capacities are can be seen by the fact that a total of 1313 conversations can be accomodated concurrently from the Federal Republic while from the GDR only 215. East Berlin and 221 other localities can be reached without operator assistance. According to figures provided by the postal administration in East Berlin, more than one million residents of the GDR have applied for a telephone line. 45000 additional lines had been planned for 1990. In the Federal Republic, 97 of 100 household have a telephone, in the GDR only 16. There are 27.5 mio. phone lines in West Germany, 1.6 mio in East Germany [population is 61 vs. 17 mio, roughly]. The postal administration in Munich points out that in early November, 250 calls were registered per day. Today, the number is 950. Only every tenth attempt for connection is successful when direct-dialing. According to the postal administration in Lower Saxony, only every fifth caller has a chance of getting through. ===== Henning Schulzrinne (HGSCHULZ@CS.UMASS.EDU) Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Massachusetts at Amherst Amherst, MA 01003 - USA === phone: (413) 545-3179 (EST); FAX: (413) 545-1249 ------------------------------ From: Brian Gordon Subject: Re: Phone Solicitations (Again) Date: 8 Dec 89 18:45:16 GMT Reply-To: Brian Gordon Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View In article <1902@accuvax.nwu.edu> 10e@hpcvia.cv.hp.com (Steven_Tenney) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 557, message 5 of 11 >Oregon is soon to pass a law where a subscriber can have a symbol >placed by their name in phone books indicating that they do not want >any telemarketers/solicitors calling. If telemarketers do call the >particular residence anyway (whether it's a mistake or not) the could >be fined heavily (up to $25,000). Needless to say this will kill the >computerized random calling technique in Oregon. ... but only FROM telephones in Oregon. Callers in other states won't be affected by an Oregon law, and probably won't even have access to the "symbols" even if they wanted to comply. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Brian G. Gordon briang@Corp.Sun.COM (if you trust exotic mailers) | | ...!sun!briangordon (if you route it yourself) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: International LD Headaches: Cuba, India, Egypt Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 23:35:45 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher If you REALLY want to raise your blood pressure, try calling Cuba. Here's the procedure: loop n=1 to 3E8 call 1-700-460-1000 get announcment in Spanish hang up next n (Get recording in English, go back to line 1.) Get ATT operator after several hours of above give him/her #s {s}he dials call aborts, or answers dead or any of 100 things, ATT keeps trying. (It is a big help to be calling a location with many trunks, as a busy sends you to line 1, again) Call answers, with at least one-way audio. Try and converse. Patience please, as you are in a conference call with about thirty other conversations, most only about 6 db. down from you, much less the other end. Hang up. BTW, to get credit for a call that didn't go through, you must get that 700 operator again. When you are there, it isn't much better. The 4 wire 75 baud 20ma data circuit was down. After three days, the telco man showed up at site. His first move was to call his test board. To do that, he had to find a working outgoing trunk. Since only 3 or 4 of 20 work on any day, this was a bit of a problem. Now his butt set consisted of a 300 series handset with braided insulation cord. No dial. No network I could see. He looked for a trunk on the protector with it. Since some were ringing, he jumped a lot. When he got one, he dialed by banging his pliers on the protector terminal. After 15 minutes of this, I loaned him my Buttinski. This took a translator to explain the Monitor/Talk switch. After many calls, he got through to the board (I always knew that redial on a butt set should be an option) When I left a day later, they were still working on it. In India, more than 30 languages are in regular use, and no more than 40% of the people speak the most common. This according to a friend of mine from there. I supect that Cairo is even worse than Havana. About 10 years ago, I remember reading that somehow the PTT swapped President Sadat's line with that of the local UPI office. (oops!) After MONTHS of attempting to get this fixed, Sadat and UPI gave up and just traded numbers. A host is a host & from coast to coast...wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu no one will talk to a host that's close..............(305) 255-RTFM Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335 is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335 [Moderator's Note: I tried calling 1-700-460-1000 Friday evening several times using my default carrier, AT&T. I kept getting intercepted locally, right here from AT&T in Chicago. ('cannot be completed as dialed, please check the number and dial again...') It never moved passed that point. Are you sure you have the right number? Then I tried 10222-1-700-460-1000 and 10333-1-700-460-1000. These rang several times, but both eventually cut into their respective carrier's intercept messages, telling me the same thing, and to call customer service for assistance. PT] ------------------------------ From: Pete French Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 14:25:00 GMT Subject: ISDN and British Telecom The following article is reproduced from "Data Comms" magazine... Britain is set to unveil big ISDN push, at last. After years of pushing back the introduction of ISDN, British Telecom is now planning a great leap forward. Instead of installing 1,500 ISDN basic-rate interface (2B + D) lines in the first year as originally planned, it is telling suppliers that it will install 50,000 lines during 1990. Plans for the following years have been given a similar upward thrust, in line with a memorandum of understanding between European PTTs that ISDN will be made available to 95 percent of business customers by the end of 1992. Currently, the UK has about 1,000 "ISDN" lines installed as part of BT's nonstandard Integrated Digital Access (IDA) service. ==================================== And reproduced from a photocopy that landed on my desk a few minutes ago... Plans for the digital communications era of the future have been unveild by British Telecom with the launch of an advanced service to carry voice, data and pictures. The service, "British Telecom ISDN 2", will pave the way for more high-tech applications such as the picture-phone, ultra-fast fax and high-speed data transfer. ISDN 2 will provide high-speed digital services to branch offices and small and medium businesses. Such services have, until now, been available only to large business sites. The launch follows a 23 million pound order with STC Telecommunications for equipment to provide up to 90,000 lines of network capacity. Nick Kane,BT's Director of Marketing and Sales said: "Our new service, the first ISDN service in the world to conform to the latest international standards, enables a broad spectrum of our customers to take advantage of information technology services previously only available to large businesses. In doing so it will accelerate the introduction of the information society." ================================== Trying to disentangle this from the marketing blurb ... ISDN 2 is "true" ISDN and seems to be based on standard I420. The older ISDN 1 was BT's Integrated Digital Access (IDA) service and was based on the 1980 ISDN standard which got changed (oops...). What interests me is why we all found this out from external sources when we are in the division that is supposed to be supporting the introduction of ISDN. Maybe I'll be able to throw away my modem someday soon... :-) -Pete French. | "The rhythm's gone, British Telecom Research Labs. | The radio's dead. Martlesham Heath, East Anglia. | And the damage done, All my own thoughts (of course) | Inside my head." ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Pay Phones Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 9 Dec 89 00:25:07 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon In article <1908@accuvax.nwu.edu> gfs@drutx.att.com (Gary Skinner) writes: >What does it actually take to install a pay phone? >Does the CO have to provide a special line, or can I put a pay phone >on any old line? I believe the full function pay phones need special >signals to correctly work. You will need a special line, but not because of technical requirements of the phone. The line will have certain restrictions such as no IDDD, billed number screening (so people can't call it collect, etc.), and a few other restrictions. The local rate is a bit different from standard business lines as well. "Full function" pay phones do all the work. They set the rate and ask for the money, detect answer and collect, and some of them now do automated collect calls. They do "OCC-style" dialing to put calls over slimeball carriers. The line itself does nothing to assist the phone in its duties. >Any idea of relative cost of pay phone line? It's roughly the same as a business line. >Who gets what money for the line? The telco and they charge you for local calls as well. Your profit is the difference between what you collect and what telco charges you. Long distance goes to your carrier who shares with you a preset amount. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Paul Guthrie Subject: Re: Anachronistic Rip-off Reply-To: Paul Guthrie Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers Date: Sat, 9 Dec 89 07:28:10 GMT In article <1897@accuvax.nwu.edu> john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >In article <1801@accuvax.nwu.edu>, pdg@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Guthrie) writes: >> One thing to keep in mind is that the use of dialers to access >> inter-lata carriers does not necessarily mean that the customer pays >> for the local call into the carrier. Many carriers use FGB lines (950 >> NXX), and bear the (much reduced) costs. >The long and the short of it is: the difference in cost to OCCs >between FGB and FGD is fractional cents per minute. Plus, with FGD you >can accept or waive a number of Pac*Bell services that can materially >affect your connection costs. The major difference is POP >requirements. This may be true in your area. I was not talking about carrier costs, merely the subscriber costs in accessing the carrier. FGBs (and FGDs) cost the subscriber $0 on their phone bill (except that which is naturally passed back to them through the LD call costs). >Besides I wasn't talking about FGB in the first place. I was talking >about FGA. And I wasn't talking about FGD, just pointing out that just because you have dialers, does not mean FGA...... It could be FGB. Paul Guthrie chinet!nsacray!paul ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Dec 89 9:52:43 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: When Writing To the Digest It has come to my attention once again that unfortunatly, a certain amount of mail addressed to the Digest simply never gets here. You should be so lucky that it bounces back to you, alerting you to try again. Some just vanishes.... :( The 'auto-reply' is my way of letting you know your submission or administrative request was received here. Everytime you write to the Digest, you should receive back an automatic message saying your submission or request was received. Sometimes the 'from' address is so badly mangled that the auto-reply itself bounces back to *me*, and I do not attempt to make re-delivery on these, so failing to get your receipt does not automatically mean I did not get your letter. But if you fail to get the receipt AND you do not see your article in a day or three, THEN please write again. On the other hand, if you get multiple copies of the receipt for the same submission, this is because you attempted to post your article direct to comp.dcom.telecom; it was rejected by several backbone sites; and each of the backbones sent me a copy. Ten copies of the same letter from the same person are not uncommon when that person attempts to circumvent moderation for whatever reason. *Always save a copy of your submission to the Digest until you see it in the Digest.* They do get lost (as per above), and sometimes they get lost in processing here as well. Auto-reply is for your benefit, and proves your submission was received here. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #563 *****************************   Date: Sun, 10 Dec 89 12:52:15 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #564 Message-ID: <8912101252.aa11893@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 10 Dec 89 12:49:53 CST Volume 9 : Issue 564 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? (Roy Smith) Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? (John R. Covert) Re: User Control of Feature(s) (Dave Levenson) Re: User Control of Feature(s) (John Stanley) Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping (John Higdon) Re: 7kHz Voice and ISDN (Fred Goldstein) Re: Data Over Voice (Steve Elias) Re: Phone Solicitations (Again) (John Higdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 9 Dec 89 16:46:53 EST From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? Organization: Public Health Research Institute, NYC > [dialing 411 from a payphone] didn't work, so I called the operator. She > said "Why would you dial 411? Directory assistance is at 1-555-1212" In New York City they used to have an interesting hack (I think this was before the 212/718 split). If you dialed 411, you got DA for the borough you were in. If you wanted DA for one of the other 4 boroughs, you dialed 555-1212 without an area code. I'm not sure if this still works. Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "My karma ran over my dogma" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Dec 89 07:14:46 -0800 From: "John R. Covert 10-Dec-1989 0957" Subject: Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? >Mark Cohen in Digest 9.555 mentioned a commercial suggesting viewers >"dial 411" in order to contact the advertiser. >Mr. Cohen suggested that this was a flagrant abuse of DA and said he >called his telco to inform them of this travesty. >But I really don't understand what is wrong with this... > A) it allows people from anywhere in the viewing area to find > the number for the outlet/branch closest to them Valid observation: I'm sure this is why the advertiser (a chain) was doing this. > B) the phone company will charge the customer for the DA call. > Customers know this; if they don't want to pay, they can > use the phone book. Invalid observation: In-State Directory Assistance in Massachusetts is free to residential customers. (Can't expect you to have known this.) This may be partly due to the cost of distributing directories of everyone's local calling area. Although Acton's local calling area only includes the four exchanges Acton/Boxborough, Concord/Carlisle, Maynard/Stow, and Littleton, not all of these towns are in the local phone book (Littleton is in another book). Each of these other towns has at least one local exchange that is in some other adjacent phone book. It would not be possible to re-align the books to solve the problem, since _each_ town has a different set of surrounding towns. (I suppose it would be possible to list towns in more than one book, but that, too would increase the cost of the books.) Apparently N.E.T. has determined that the cost of distributing an additional phone book for all the adjacent areas to each customer (a requirement before the DPU could get away with permitting a D.A. charge) is higher than the cost of D.A. (At least all N.E.T. phone books can be had for free for the asking.) But I'm sure that residents of Massachusetts don't feel that Mr. Cohen was some sort of hero for reporting the abuse. Rather than helping to preserve our free access to D.A., Mr. Cohen's report is more likely to be used by N.E.T. as ammunition in their attempts to get approval for a D.A. charge without the requirement that nearby phone books be delivered without a special request. I'll try and see if a residential D.A. charge is part of N.E.T.'s $16 million rate reduction filing now pending before the D.P.U. (DPU 89-300, Public Hearing at the State House, Thursday, 4-Jan-90, 7:30pm.) /john ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: User Control of Feature(s) Date: 10 Dec 89 00:06:38 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <1974@accuvax.nwu.edu>, wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil (Will Martin) writes: > Another nice-to-have telecom capability, which can be added to the > "wishlist" of features the telcos should offer, is dynamic user > control of hunting and rotaries. When I am in the office alone, I > should be able to turn off the rotary so that only one incoming call > can hit at one time. Any others should get a busy signal. ... This service IS available, today, from 1ESS and 1AESS central offices in New Jersey. It may be available elsewhere. I don't know the USOC for it, but it is a tarrifed service. It is implemented as a separate pair from the CO to the customer premises. At the customer end, they install a simple keyswitch that either opens or closes the pair. If this switch is open, hunting works normally. If this switch is closed, calls dialed to any number in the hunt group ring only that number - or reach a busy signal. It is used by customers who subscribe to answering services, who want calls dialed to their main number to reach the service after hours, or a busy if the service (presumably only connected to the first line) is already talking to another caller. It enables late-workers to receive calls on numbers other than the main LDN. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Dec 89 01:22:41 EST From: John Stanley Subject: Re: User Control of Feature(s) wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil (Will Martin) writes: >Another nice-to-have telecom capability, which can be added to the >"wishlist" of features the telcos should offer, is dynamic user >control of hunting and rotaries. When I am in the office alone, I >should be able to turn off the rotary so that only one incoming call >can hit at one time. Any others should get a busy signal. That is Should be do-able. We are moving soon, and want our main number to follow us for a while. Answer: call forward. Problem: if our main number gets forwarded, that over-rides the hunt we have. So, if anyone calls any of the other lines in the hunt, which will all be disconnected, they get disconnect notice. If anyone calls the old main number while someone is still being forwarded, they don't hunt, they get busy. So, forward overrides hunt. Forward your first line to the second. This will make all calls come in on second line, but the forward gets handled first, so subsequent calls get busy as first line is busy while forwarding to second. This is what our rep says, haven't tested it yet. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 9 Dec 89 15:42:03 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon In article <1887@accuvax.nwu.edu> Russell McFatter writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 556, message 1 of 7 >If I wanted my baby's noises to be secure from prying ears, I could >have easily trotted down to Radio Shack and purchased a wired(!) >intercom that doesn't pollute the airwaves, or (what a concept!) put >the baby where I can hear it without electronic assistance. (A bit With the proliferation of wireless devices, the public (and the public's representative--congress) seems to have become numb to the reality that the airwaves are nothing more than a big party line. To use this big party line, people have to cooperate, realize that their use can be monitored by others, and accept the laws of physics that relate thereto. I had to field a call once from a very irate person who had been informed that the reason her garage door opened occasionally on its own was because of signal from my client's FM radio station. Garage door openers operate at a frequency that is roughly the third harmonic of the center of the FM band. While it is possible that a broadcast could have measureable output on the third harmonic, it would be unlikely that it would exceed FCC limits (which are well defined). Coincidentally, I had been doing other work on the transmitter and happened to have measured the station's third harmonic and found it to well exceed FCC requirements for suppression. When I informed the person of this, she became even more irate and told me that she didn't care about FCC rules, it was the radio station's problem, pure and simple. Not having a lot of time to waste, I directed her to the statement on her unit which declares that the user must accept any interferrence and must not interfere with any other devices or services. She felt very wronged but I am sure that she gave no thought to the big picture--that a radio station serving hundreds of thousands of listeners be put on the same priority footing as her (probably defective) garage door remote control. I told her it was her problem to remedy and it would have to be at her expense. Sorry, that's reality. >If I'm really bent on wireless >intercoms inside my home, I should either accept the fact that I am >voluntarily BROADCASTING, or at least take measures on my own to see >that the transmissions do not leave my house. Most manufacturers of >cordless phones (even some cellular phones), baby monitors, and other >"Part 49" gizmos DO alert you to the fact that wireless communications >defy privacy. This is not merely our law, but a law of nature as >well; to legislate otherwise will bring us nothing but headaches. But, of course. Using the party line analogy, those with experience in this area have observed that sometimes people fight over the use of the party line, just as they sometimes do with the radio spectrum. Perhaps it's my radio background, but whenever I use a cellular phone, the thought never leaves my mind that the conversation is on the air and that at least someone else, not a party to the conversation, is listening. If the message is critically private, we move to landline. It's like breathing and eating. That's why this privacy flap is so funny. If you want to use the public airwaves for private communications, then it is up to you to encode them sufficiently to keep them private. But for someone to intentionally bug their own house (baby monitor), put it (unencoded) on the air, and then get angry when someone does the inevitable evesdropping, well... John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com Subject: Re: 7kHz Voice and ISDN Date: 8 Dec 89 16:55:39 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Littleton MA USA In article <1933@accuvax.nwu.edu>, ttidca.TTI.COM!jackson%sdcsvax@ucsd.edu (Dick Jackson) writes... >As I understand it, work is afoot to implement a standard for the ISDN >defined 7kHz voice service, wherein audio sampled (presumably) at 16 >ksamples per second is encoded (using cunning modern techniques) at >the ISDN bearer channel rate (64 kbps). >Any comments? From those who know how the technology is progressing? >From potential owners? Funny you should ask. Yes, there's a new ISDN 7 kHz audio bearer service. It makes use of 64 kbps ADPCM encoding. (Digression: Standard PCM uses 64 kbps to do 3.1 kHz audio. ADPCM is more efficient, so 32 kbps is essentially adequate for 3.1 kHz audio, with only minimal distortion (modems might complain, humans won't). So if you use the ADPCM principle on the usual 64 kbps bandwidth, you can get better audio.) The network uses PCM to generate tones and announcements for ISDN telephones in the telephony bearer service. The 7 kHz standard says that you begin all calls in standard 3.1 PCM mode, specifying that it's really a 7 kHz call. Once the two ends are connected to each other, they do a handshake to confirm that they're ready to switch into 7 kHz mode. That way the terminals are in 3.1 PCM mode when doing call setup (talking to the network) and in 7 kHz ADPCM mode when actually communicating with each other. This hack makes it essentially transparent to the network, which will speed implementation. You just need the chips in your telephones. I don't personally see much use for it in "handsets", given their cruddy mic/speaker combos, but it could be very nice for speakerphones, audio dial-up program services, remote broadcast feeds, etc. fred (member, ANSI T1S1, speaking for himself) ------------------------------ From: Steve Elias Subject: Re: Data Over Voice Date: 10 Dec 89 16:19:11 GMT Reply-To: Steve Elias Richard Steele writes: >Here at Purdue U., we now have access to something called data over >voice (DOV) units. These are small boxes, about the size of a regular >modem, that gives the user a 9600 bps asynchronous data line to the >University computer. Not only is the bugger faster than a modem, _but >it leaves the phone free for regular use_. >So, what magic is involved here? Thanks to all who respond... Try screaming into the phone while you are watching 960 cps output on your CRT... does the data rate slow? I think there are some nifty boxes out there which will encode the voice digitally and use any excess digital bandwidth for other data. Maybe this is the sort of device Purdue has given you. Now for the next step, you must TAKE IT APART, of course! The sign of a truly curious engineer. what are the labels On the outside of the box and on internal boards ? Steve Elias ; eli@spdcc.com ; 6179325598 ; 5086717556 ; { *disclaimer(); } ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Phone Solicitations (Again) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 9 Dec 89 18:16:55 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon In article <1902@accuvax.nwu.edu> 10e@hpcvia.cv.hp.com (Steven_Tenney) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 557, message 5 of 11 >Oregon is soon to pass a law where a subscriber can have a symbol >placed by their name in phone books indicating that they do not want >any telemarketers/solicitors calling. If telemarketers do call the >particular residence anyway (whether it's a mistake or not) the could >be fined heavily (up to $25,000). Needless to say this will kill the >computerized random calling technique in Oregon. Oh, dream on! Do you think for one microsecond that ALL or even most telemarketing directed at Oregonians originates inside Oregon? No offense, but I seriously doubt that major telemarketers set up boiler rooms in Oregon itself. And how will the phone police *prove* (remember proof? it's required in court) that any particular calls originated within the state boundaries of Oregon? In California, junk callers are required to get the victim's permission before sicking a machine on them. When I tried to turn one in that didn't, they said, "Oh, we make all of our telemarketing calls from Wisconsin." I knew they were lying, but it was EOD (end of discussion). I predict the new law will have negligible effect on the computerized random calling technique in Oregon. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #564 *****************************   Date: Sun, 10 Dec 89 13:46:19 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #565 Message-ID: <8912101346.aa22896@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 10 Dec 89 13:45:31 CST Volume 9 : Issue 565 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (Gregory G. Woodbury) Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (John Higdon) Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (Christopher Davis) Re: How Were Telephone Sounds Chosen? (Miguel Cruz) Re: FCC Doing It Again (Andrew D. Kailhofer) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Gregory G. Woodbury" Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy Reply-To: "Gregory G. Woodbury" Organization: Wolves Den UNIX BBS Date: Sat, 9 Dec 89 01:18:36 GMT In article <1911@accuvax.nwu.edu> rsiatl!jgd (John G. De Armond) writes: >What I buy, where I go and who I call are strictly MY PERSONAL >BUSINESS and no one elses. The fact that you CONTRACT with the phone company for the use of their facilities says otherwise. If you operated your own telephone system between you and your friends and the social services that you want to use, then MAYBE it would be your own business (I suspect that the govt. would call it a phone company ;-) >Dammit, my phone exists for MY and my family's convenience and use. >No stranger has any more right to invade my privacy electronically >than they do barging through my front door. Not answering the phone >is NOT an answer. > Except that it is not YOUR phone service - you contract for it. >I insist, no, I demand that a ring on the phone is either someone I >want to talk to or is an emergency. All caller ID will do is allow >slime to discover my phone number more readily. This is the part of your argument that I fail to follow. CNID will allow YOU to determine if you know the party calling and accept the interruption. It would make sense for you to ask for the phone company to not implement CNID on your outgoing calls. Then, when you call someone as insistent as you are about your right to remain unidentified, that person can ignore the call because the calling party chose to not identify itself. The phone companies are BUSINESSES. Due to the common opinion that phone service is a RIGHT (its really a purchased service), the government decided early to regulate it. Gregory G. Woodbury Sysop/owner Wolves Den UNIX BBS, Durham NC UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...dukeac!wolves!ggw [use the maps!] Domain: ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw@ac.duke.edu ggw%wolves@ac.duke.edu Phone: +1 919 493 1998 (Home) +1 919 684 6126 (Work) [The line eater is a boojum snark! ] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 9 Dec 89 01:05:47 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon In article <1911@accuvax.nwu.edu> rsiatl!jgd (John G. De Armond) writes: >Have you ever pulled a credit report on yourself? Yes I have, and what has that got to do with your phone number? My credit report was a surprisingly accurate account of my credit history and was quite detailed. Would you like a copy? >Still another, much more insidious use is by the IRS. They collect >data on lifestyle from this and other databanks, such as mailing lists >so that they can impute an income from lifestyle in the event they >think you pay too few taxes. I am personally very vunerable to this >type attack. By virtue of skillful trading, purchasing and >craftsmanship, I live an apparent lifestyle several multiples of my >actual income. And yet the IRS could use this very personal >information to screw me if they so chose. Again, I fail to see what your tax manipulations have to do with an individual knowing what number you are calling from? Is it because you want to pull some scam involving falsification of who or where you actually are? Sounds to me like you are paranoid about something and for some non-specific reason you are not sure you want anyone to know any more about you than they already do. >What I buy, where I go and who I call are strictly MY PERSONAL >BUSINESS and no one elses. Wrong. What you buy is your credit card company's business, your bank's business, even the IRS's business if you deduct for business purposes. Where you go is generally known by your credit card company. Who you call is known by your telco, your long distance company, and the IRS if you deduct telephone calls. Whenever you use the telephone, your number is given to the long distance company for billing, to the business you called if you used an 800 number, to the information provider if you called a 900 number. These many businesses (some of whom ARE scumbags) already have access to your number. What you seem to be against is the private individual having this same information. >More than adequate means already exist to trap prank and obscene >calls. The only motive that can be assigned to wanting to personally >know the ID of a prankster likely looks somewhat like vigilanteism. That's nonsense. I have already dreamed up some creative things that I will do with my computerized answering machine when the day comes that it is fed callers' numbers. For instance, giving important messages to known friends and business associates, being able to return calls where I couldn't understand the number spoken, etc. Just because you are short-sighted concerning the uses of this technology doesn't mean the rest of us should be deprived of its benefits. >Dammit, my phone exists for MY and my family's convenience and use. >No stranger has any more right to invade my privacy electronically >than they do barging through my front door. Not answering the phone >is NOT an answer. Aside from being driven from a service I pay for, >tragedy can happen by ignoring emergency calls. I found out the hard >way when I was a teenager. I got to spend the night in jail on a bum >bust because my parents were not answering the phone that night. That >we later had that cop's ass handed to us on a silver platter was no >consolation for having to spend a hellish night in a city jail. It sounds like you are carrying a lot of baggage concerning your affairs. Why do you think that your precious unlisted number will be compromised in a world with Caller-ID? Who do you call that will spread it around? If you thought that you didn't want me to have it, for instance, I would invite you not to call me. After all, what gives you the right to bother me if I can't "bother" you? If you are so hung up about all this, get two lines and use the listed one to make calls to those whom you seem to want to call without them being able to call you on your unlisted number. >I insist, no, I demand that a ring on the phone is either someone I >want to talk to or is an emergency. All caller ID will do is allow >slime to discover my phone number more readily. I have more unlisted numbers than you do. I have nine; how many do you have? Am I afraid of Caller-ID? Absolutely not. Those who know me will also tell you that I am a staunch advocate of civil rights, the right to privacy, and that I am a strict constitutionalist. But Caller-ID is not snooping by the government--they don't need it. It is not snooping by big business--they don't need it. It is a useful tool that puts just a little more control of the telephone back into the hands of call recipients. You have yet to convince me why that is undesireable; your obvious paranoia notwithstanding. >Hmm, instead of getting mad, perhaps I should take advantage of the >entraprenural opportunity. Hey guys, how do you think a commercial >automatic redialing service would fly. Why go through all that? Why not just have telco offer "calling number hiding"? Because someone will ask, "why do we have to pay to keep our God-given unlisted number private", and the debate starts all over again. >You know, you dial an access >number to get a dial tone and your call is routed out over the service's >line. You think that this service coupled with an iron-clad contract >to never collect or release calling information would fly? I do. Ah, but the service would know. And after awhile, your paranoia would once again surface and you would wonder if the IRS, or whoever you are hiding from was getting a court order to look at their records. And then what would you do? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Dec 89 10:56:55 est From: Christopher Davis Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (Really Caller-ID once again) Reply-To: Christopher Davis >>>>> On 6 Dec 89 07:43:01 GMT, jgd@rsiatl.uucp (John G. De Armond) said: > Dammit, my phone exists for MY and my family's convenience and use. > No stranger has any more right to invade my privacy electronically > than they do barging through my front door. Not answering the phone > is NOT an answer. Aside from being driven from a service I pay for, > tragedy can happen by ignoring emergency calls. I found out the hard > way when I was a teenager. I got to spend the night in jail on a bum > bust because my parents were not answering the phone that night. That > we later had that cop's ass handed to us on a silver platter was no > consolation for having to spend a hellish night in a city jail. > I insist, no, I demand that a ring on the phone is either someone I > want to talk to or is an emergency. [...] Thank you, Mr. De Armond, for one of the strongest arguments *in favor* of Caller-ID. Presumably you'll have a better idea if you want to talk to someone if you know their phone number before you pick up the phone... > All caller ID will do is allow slime to discover my phone number more > readily. Depends on who you call; I'd like to note that telesalescreeps managed to find my second line even though Caller-ID was [obviously] not available at that point. (The line was data only, which was always fun; nobody called on that line except salescreeps and folks who I'd asked to call back on that line to free up the main line... that gave me license to just turn on the auto-answer modem much of the time. Ah, sweet revenge.) > Hmm, instead of getting mad, perhaps I should take advantage of the > entraprenural opportunity. Hey guys, how do you think a commercial > automatic redialing service would fly. You know, you dial an access > number to get a dial tone and your call is routed out over the service's > line. You think that this service coupled with an iron-clad contract > to never collect or release calling information would fly? I do. Go for it. Just don't expect me to answer the phone if I don't recognize your number--I'll punt to the answering machine, which is what I do without Caller-ID. Christopher Davis, BU SMG '90 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Dec 89 13:59:32 EST From: Miguel_Cruz@um.cc.umich.edu Subject: Re: How Were Telephone Sounds Chosen? Doug Martin (martin@nosc.mil) asked in digest 9.561 about the tone the phone company blasts out when you leave your receiver off-hook for too long. As far as I know, it's 1400 Hz + 2060 Hz + 2450 Hz + 2600 Hz simultaneously, cycled on and off every .1 seconds. [Moderator's Note: But, I believe his question was, how were these sounds chosen? Did a committee somewhere listen to various sounds and choose this as the most appropriate? When and how were they picked? PT] ------------------------------ From: Andrew D Kailhofer Subject: Re: FCC Doing It Again Date: 10 Dec 89 18:02:05 GMT Reply-To: Andrew D Kailhofer Organization: Ameritech Applied Technologies In article <253@zircon.UUCP> davidb@Pacer.UUCP (David Barts) writes: [ stuff about the phone company rate-negotiators being evil and larcenous ] >Fortunately, you can fight back. If you are being charged more for a >tone line, ask for a pulse line. SURPRISE! Unless you have an old >pulse phone exchange, you still can use tone on the `pulse' line - the >pulse-to-tone converter lets the DTMF tones through to the exchange. >If the phone co. sends you an "Aha! You're using tone on a pulse line >so we'll charge you more!" letter they can be taken to court. The Federal >Trade Commission has ruled that if anyone gives you a service that you >haven't asked for, it's a FREE GIFT and you don't owe them a cent. This is true and not true. Let me first disclaim... While I am an Honest-To-Goodness employee of Ameritech Applied Technologies, I have never been a Telephone-Company-Person. I was hired for my UNIX skills and that's what I do, *but* you can't work around here w/o soaking up knowledge about the network. That said, the facts as I know them... Once upon a time, everything was pulse. The step-by-step switches whirred along nicely. Then they started selling DTMF service to the subscriber, requiring pulse-to-tone converters. It was generally more cost effective (at least here in Wisconsin) to wire an entire office with this equipment than the individual subscriber, so this was what was done. This stuff persisted through the SXS, the Crossbar, and most of the #1 and #1A ESSs. The end result of all of this is that if you did not feel any twinge of guilt at committing petty larceny against (what was at that time) AT&T, you could pilfer DTMF service at no cost except (potential) guilt. Once digital switching started to get more and more widely propagated, however, things changed. With the advent of the AT&T #5ESS (and presumbaly the DMS 10 & 100), the switch was able to recognize Pulse or DTMF on its own instead of relying on some piece of hardware in the network to perform conversion. The end result--if you don't pay for the service, you can't use it. I cannot comment on whether or not I think that DTMF should cost less than pulse, but consider the people still served by older switches who should pay more for something that extra equipment is required to provide... Can a PSC (or would a BOC want their PSC) to require a different billing reate for (potentially) each CO? Yikes. Andrew D. Kailhofer MS-CS candidate/UW-Milwaukee (kailhofr@cvax.cs.uwm.edu) Analyst--Network Systems/Ameritech Applied Technologies--WI (a07932@gus.ameritech.com) 414/678-7793 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #565 *****************************   Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 0:31:07 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #566 Message-ID: <8912110031.aa22830@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 11 Dec 89 00:30:15 CST Volume 9 : Issue 566 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Panasonic Rebates - No Luck (Amitabh Shah) Info on PBX: Toshiba Perception II? (Sean Burke) Cuba: The Mystery of 700-460-1000 Revealed (John R. Covert) Calling Cuba (David Lesher) Slick 96? (Dave Brightbill) Caller ID Question (Scott D. Green) Re: AT&T Multi-line Cordless Telephones (John Higdon) Re: PacTelesis Power Grab (John Higdon) Re: Data Over Voice (Miguel Cruz) Re: ISDN and TCP/IP (Jim Breen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Amitabh Shah Subject: Panasonic Rebates - No Luck Date: 10 Dec 89 04:19:53 GMT Reply-To: Amitabh Shah Organization: Cornell University Computer Science Department Many of you are aware of the Panasonic rebates on several of the Panasonic/Technics products, as a settlement of the antitrust suit brought against the parent co. of Panasonic. My story: I had purchased two products that might have qualified - a KXT 3000 cordless phone and a KXT 2432 phone/ans. mac. combo. While the first was listed in the qualified products, the second one was not; in fact it's white colored sibling KXT 2429 was. (2432 is black but otherwise identical to 2429.) I called up the Fund office about this product and was told that it is possible that they may allow 2432 as well and asked me to send in the application, which I did. I did not have the receipts, so I sent in cutouts from the boxes, showing model numbers, as they had instructed. After about a month or so, I get back in mail a letter saying that my application is rejected because I have the wrong model numbers. Both my proofs of purchase were cut in half and sent back. I call them up; they tell me that 2432 is not allowed. So I ask why the other part was returned. The woman didn't know anything about it and asked me to resubmit the application for the KXT 3000. After another month and a half, I get back another letter in mail saying that my application has been denied on the grounds of *wrong model number* as well as *missing serial number* which I had provided! I'm really pissed off. My question: has anyone succeeded in getting any rebate from the Antitrust Fund? Amitabh Shah shah@cs.cornell.edu--(INTERNET) Dept. of Computer Science shah@cornell------------(CSNET) Upson Hall -- Cornell University { ... }!cornell!shah-----(UUCP) Ithaca NY 14853-7501 (607) 255-8597----------(VOICE) [Moderator's Note: From the way you describe it, it sounds to me like it would be a good idea for the attornies for the Class to petition the court to have the Trustee removed due to incompetence and a new Trustee appointed. Let the Trustee argue about that in court, and in the process, perhaps replace at least a few of his most incompetent employees -- the ones who almost cost him this contract with the court. PT] ------------------------------ From: Sean Burke Subject: Info on PBX: Toshiba Perception II? Date: 9 Dec 89 23:53:41 GMT My company just moved into a new building that is equipped with a Toshiba Perception II PBX. This is all I know about it. I would appreciate hints from readers of this group on the following kinds of questions: > Does this system have any noteworthy features, particularly data networking capabilities? > As a UNIX weenie and a non-expert telecom user, can I have any fun with with this baby? > If any of the above items merit a positive response, where do I find out more about the machine? It didn't come with a reference manual, just those cryptic little pamphlets that tell you what the buttons on the phones do. Please email any replies, as I don't read this this group regularly. Thanx, Sean Bach is right next to The Bad Brains in MY record collection! [Moderator's Note: But please copy replies to the Digest as well. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Dec 89 11:05:13 -0800 From: "John R. Covert 10-Dec-1989 1401" Subject: Cuba: The Mystery of 700-460-1000 Revealed David Lesher reported in Issue 563 that the way to call Cuba is to dial 1-700-460-1000 to reach an AT&T operator handling calls to Cuba. Many of us immediately dialled the number to see what the scoop is -- and any of us not in Miami did not get through. AT&T International Information Service (800 874-4000) confirms that the number is for Miami only. Anyone else would dial "00" or "10288-0" to reach an AT&T operator, who would then connect you to the international operator for Cuba. Apparently the large number of people in Miami who would like to call Cuba has caused AT&T to implement a special arrangement to get calls directly to the operator handling calls to Cuba without tying up regular AT&T operators. /john ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Calling Cuba Date: Sun, 10 Dec 89 19:03:20 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher I did some checking, with the groundwork being done by John Covert. 700-460-1000 is a direct line to the Pittsburg IOC, valid only from Miami (not Lauderdale, not Palm Beach, not Chicago.) You, of course, must be on ATT via 10288. Now the international info number says I should be able to also call 102880 and request the IOC, but every time I tried, I got told to use the 700 line. Moral: If you want to call Cuba, use an FX to anywhere except Miami. A host is a host & from coast to coast...wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu no one will talk to a host that's close..............(305) 255-RTFM Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335 is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Dec 89 20:52:59 EST From: Dave Brightbill Subject: Slick 96? My rural community is served by Centel. A few years ago, we upgraded our home service from a 4-party line to a private line. Because of a lack of available pairs, we had to wait for a line. The telco solved the problem by installing some sort of magic box on a post in our community. All of our lines have been wired back to it. The installer called it a "slick-96" box, and from her description, I would guess that it is some sort of mux. My guess is that the "96" refers to 9600 baud. So is this a digital mux? Can it do any tricks? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Dec 89 16:36 EDT From: "Scott D. Green" Subject: Caller ID Question So the PA PUC finally gave in, and will allow Caller ID beginning next month. What is the interaction with Call Waiting? Now *that* would be useful: To know who was interrupting you before you actually interrupted the call-in-progress. I'm not sure if it's $6.50/month- useful, though. Plus equipment. Scott Green ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: AT&T Multi-line Cordless Telephones Date: 9 Dec 89 22:43:52 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon Don H Kemp writes: > NEW YORK -- AT&T today announced the first multi-line cordless > telephone for business. > [huge list of features offering little more than a Panasonic > cordless phone connected to a single-line port on a KX-T123211, deleted] > Suggested > prices are $485 with an AT&T telephone system purchase and $560 when > purchased alone. One-year warranty and standard one-, two- and > four-year maintenance contracts apply. I see AT&T's interpretation of "fair market value" comes to light once again. I have a KXT3900 cordless connected to a single-line port on my 1232. I can answer any line, place a call on any line, answer any ringing extension, answer and call my [homemade] doorphone, conference calls, receive second call indication at the handset, access speed dial, have system last-number-redial, park and retrieve calls, and access internal and external paging. The phone itself scans the 10 channels for a vacant one when you go off hook and allows the user to change channels should one become unusable during the conversation. The price for all this? I paid $149.95. That's nearly 400% less than AT&T's remarkable breakthrough. It also has a one-year warranty, but I'm not stupid enough to get a maintenance contract. You see, it (unlike what I've heard about Merlin) won't need it. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: PacTelesis Power Grab Date: 9 Dec 89 23:18:32 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon Kian-Tat Lim writes: > Pacific Telesis ran a full-page ad in today's Los Angeles > Times. Here's the text (there is no copyright on the ad): > [...] > In 1984, an agreement between AT&T and the U.S. Justice > Department split up the nationwide Bell system, forming Pacific > Telesis and six other regional holding companies. At that time, very > narrow limits were imposed on the services that their phone company > subsidiaries, like Pacific Bell, could offer. And for good reason. This was the topic of a meeting at the State building in San Francisco a couple of months ago between PacTelesis, information providers, and a rep from the PUC. A lot was discussed, but the long and the short of it is that since Pac*Bell controls the network, they could and probably would use every trick in the book to unfairly compete with independent providers. Once they gained a monopoly (in a completely unregulated market), they would only concentrate on lucrative aspects of the service. Since the PUC is not really sympathetic to Pac*Bell on this issue, it appears that they have taken to the streets. To see how information services provided by Pac*Bell would evolve, just look at the nation's cable TV industry. Cable companies scrambled to get exclusive franchises in cities across the US, promising to offer, not only TV stations from all over, but interactive services, educational services, and cultural programming. What did we really get? With minor exceptions, there is no interactive capability, they dropped the "out of area" TV stations and substituted all manor of over-priced pop-market pay channels. There are shopping channels, pay-per-view channels, and the rates have gone through the roof, even though technology and economies of scale would contraindicate the present high cost to the consumer. > If the Bell companies could develop and provide these services, > along with many others that people in other countries take for > granted, they would become more widely available, and growth of this > market would encourage more information providers to enter it. This is blatant nonsense. If the market is so promising, why aren't entreprenuers falling all over themselves to enter it now, as they are perfectly able to do? Is the reasoning that just because a "Bell company" enters a market that a stamp of approval has been issued? > 1. I sincerely doubt that Pacific Telesis expects to make much > money off of education-only information services. I would expect them > to quickly take a back seat to more lucrative commercial services. Absolutely correct. See my comments above about cable TV to see how there motives line up with reality. > 3. Lifting restrictions may be a bit more general than the ad > implies. I plan to call to get the further information. There is only one thing to remember: PacTelesis' dream is to become an "unregulated monopoly". John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Dec 89 17:59:12 EST From: Miguel_Cruz@um.cc.umich.edu Subject: Re: Data Over Voice A little while ago, Richard Steele wrote: >Here at Purdue U., we now have access to something called data over >voice (DOV) units. These are small boxes, about the size of a regular >modem, that gives the user a 9600 bps asynchronous data line to the >University computer. Not only is the bugger faster than a modem, _but >it leaves the phone free for regular use_. In response to which Steve Elias wrote: > I think there are some nifty boxes out there which will encode the > voice digitally and use any excess digital bandwidth for other data. > Maybe this is the sort of device Purdue has given you. Actually, I'd think it much more likely that there are just extra pairs running from all the university phone jacks that are activated on request and connected to the "University computer". Here at the University of Michigan (which I tend to assume works exactly the same as everyplace else), they will supply dorm residents with line drivers for a hundred bucks a year. Sometimes they refer to them as "data over voice" or other similarly deceptive hi-tech terms, but there's nothing magical about it. They work at 19200 baud and connect through Secondary Communications Processors (whatever they are) located in various campus buildings. I don't even think they're switched by the campus PBX...just wired straight. ------------------------------ From: jwb@cit5.cit.oz (Jim Breen) Subject: Re: ISDN and TCP/IP Organization: Chisholm Institute of Technology, Melb., Australia Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 03:04:17 GMT In article <1842@accuvax.nwu.edu>, WEBER@harvarda.bitnet asks: > 1. How do we create a gateway between ISDN and TCP/IP so that > the following common cases can get access to TCP (and the world): > a. Dumb terminals with an rs232 connection to circuit switched > d or b channels (i.e., 9.6 kbs or 64kbs). > b. Intelligent peronal computers such as msdos and macintosh > machines. These machines would ordinarily have ethernet > cards and run something like FTP Software's TCP implementation, > or NCSA Telnet on the macs. There might be a stray Unix box > somewhere (no one wants to run slip). THe ISDN connection is > BRI, not PRI. > c. Local area networks in buildings which are nt yet connected > to the fiber ethernet network. These networks are typically > Appletalk or TCP/IP itself, with a few Novell networks > here and there. Again, the ISDN connection is BRI, not > PRI. This is a question which comes up again and again, so it certainly deserves some considered attention. We are in a similar position with a backbone using ethernet and routers, and with ISDN compatible PABX's. We intend to make almost NO use of ISDN internally. We will be deriving B-channels for some of our intercampus traffic, and running them between routers, i.e. TCP/IP will be there at layers 3 & 4 but we don't have an interface problem because our (Plessey) digital handsets provide a standard X.21 64kbps interface. What you need to solve your problems are some ISDN Terminal Adaptors (TA) of various flavors. The problem is they haven't been developed yet! In (a) above you need a pair of asynch TA's, i.e. TA's which map various asynch speeds onto a 64k channel, enabling access to some sort of terminal server. In (b) we all hope there is a PC card coming which speaks BRI. Of course you need to connect somewhere, so it might be slip after all. For (c) a TA which can bridge ethernet segments would be fine. Clearly there is a long way to go with data access to ISDN, and there is room for a lot of innovative product development. Start shouting at your suppliers NOW. Better still, get some designers and builders together with a venture capitalist and go for it. _______ Jim Breen (jwb@cit5.cit.oz) Department of Robotics & /o\----\\ \O Digital Technology. Chisholm Inst. of Technology /RDT\ /|\ \/| -:O____/ PO Box 197 Caulfield East 3145 O-----O _/_\ /\ /\ (p) 03-573 2552 (fax) 572 1298 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #566 *****************************   Date: Tue, 12 Dec 89 0:00:25 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #567 Message-ID: <8912120000.aa22079@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 12 Dec 89 00:00:18 CST Volume 9 : Issue 567 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Data Over Voice (Robert Halloran) Re: Data Over Voice (Lars J. Poulsen) Re: Data Over Voice (Gary Segal) Re: Slick 96? (Michael A. Patton) Re: Slick 96? (Bernard Mckeever) Re: Slick 96? (Dave Levenson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rkh@mtune.ATT.COM (Robert Halloran) Subject: Re: Data Over Voice Date: 11 Dec 89 14:17:59 GMT Reply-To: rkh@mtune.ATT.COM (Robert Halloran) Organization: AT&T BL Middletown/Lincroft NJ USA In article <2022@accuvax.nwu.edu> Miguel_Cruz@um.cc.umich.edu writes: >A little while ago, Richard Steele wrote: > >Here at Purdue U., we now have access to something called data over > >voice (DOV) units. These are small boxes, about the size of a regular > >modem, that gives the user a 9600 bps asynchronous data line to the > >University computer. Not only is the bugger faster than a modem, _but > >it leaves the phone free for regular use_. >In response to which Steve Elias wrote: > > I think there are some nifty boxes out there which will encode the > > voice digitally and use any excess digital bandwidth for other data. > > Maybe this is the sort of device Purdue has given you. >Actually, I'd think it much more likely that there are just extra >pairs running from all the university phone jacks that are activated >on request and connected to the "University computer". The group I am contracted to here in AT&T manages for the local employees a service called 'CO Lan'. The box originally described, called a VDM for Voice-Data Mux, gives a 19.2K connection on the local pair (NOT a second line as suggested above) by modulating it out of the voice bandwidth and runs that back to the CO (which must be within a certain distance, 5 km I believe). There is no need for a digital link as suggested elsewhere above. At the CO it is split back out and run into a Datakit (TM, I'm sure) circuit switch and connects into the AT&T internal network. The RBOC's are marketing this like crazy for terminal connections and low-speed networking in a 'campus' environment, where the buildings are sufficiently close to take advantage of such an arrangement. The switches can also be trunked together to provide wider-area networks. For those of us with a PC at the house that we like to use in the evening to read news :-), or in a college/university environment as described above, it seems a useful way of providing general connectivity without major add-ons to physical plant; no new wires to string, just put the data switch in the CO and hand out the VDM's. There is also some improvement of security, since you are not providing generic dial-ups. Bob Halloran contracting at, not working for AT&T Bell Laboratories ========================================================================= UUCP: att!mtune!rkh Internet: rkh@mtune.ATT.COM Disclaimer: If you think AT&T would have ME as a spokesman, you're crazed. Quote: "Remember, kids, if some weirdo in a blue suit offers you some DOS, JUST SAY NO!!!" ------------------------------ From: Lars J Poulsen Subject: Re: Data Over Voice Reply-To: Lars J Poulsen Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 17:31:03 GMT A little while ago, Richard Steele wrote: > >Here at Purdue U., we now have access to something called data over > >voice (DOV) units. These are small boxes, about the size of a regular > >modem, that gives the user a 9600 bps asynchronous data line to the > >University computer. Not only is the bugger faster than a modem, _but > >it leaves the phone free for regular use_. In response to which Steve Elias speculated that these boxes might be delivering unused bandwidth of a digital subscriber loop for data use. In article <2022@accuvax.nwu.edu> Miguel_Cruz@um.cc.umich.edu writes: >Actually, I'd think it much more likely that there are just extra >pairs running from all the university phone jacks that are activated >on request and connected to the "University computer". >They work at 19200 baud and connect through Secondary Communications >Processors (whatever they are) located in various campus buildings. I >don't even think they're switched by the campus PBX...just wired >straight. The data communication magazines carry ads from several manufacturers of Data Over Voice units. They are carrier-frequency devices that share the local loop to provide a permanent modem circuit on the subscriber pair while allowing normal use of the telephone. The data signal is recovered by a "modem" box (twin to the one on the subscriber end) where the line enters the PBX. I recently learned that our local GTE outfit offers DOV on residential lines. The DOV circuit goes into a CBX (data PBX for asynch traffic) and is delivered to other DOV lines or to dedicated business data liens on the other side. (I wish they had an X.25 option on the other side). Several of the high-tech companies in town have access lines to this switch, as does the university (UCSB). The DOV facility provides 19.200 bps service for about the same cost per month as an extra residential subscriber loop. Unfortunately, my employer is unlikely to replace the current 5 dial-in lines with connections to this service. / Lars Poulsen (800) 222-7308 or (805) 963-9431 ext 358 ACC Customer Service Affiliation stated for identification only My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !! ------------------------------ From: Gary Segal Subject: Re: Data Over Voice Date: 11 Dec 89 20:09:27 GMT Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division steele@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Richard Steele) writes: >Here at Purdue U., we now have access to something called data over >voice (DOV) units. These are small boxes, about the size of a regular >modem, that gives the user a 9600 bps asynchronous data line to the >University computer. Not only is the bugger faster than a modem, _but >it leaves the phone free for regular use_. We can still receive and >make calls with the DOV working with no obvious distortion on the >line. Thus, in addition to having a reasonably fast connection (and I >used to think a 2400 baud modem was speedy!), I don't have to take the >wrath of my roomates for hogging the phone line all night long. >The DOV unit connects to the phone line before any other equipment; >i.e. there's are line in and line out jacks. In addition, just like a >Hayes Smartmodem, there are a plethora of LEDs on the front like CD >(carrier detect), RD (receive data), SD (send data), etc. >Question: How would something like this work? The phone company >_does_ need to make some changes on their end, but the phone line >remains the same. >So, what magic is involved here? Thanks to all who respond... Carnegie-Mellon University has had something called "Metropolitan Campus Network" (MCN) for a while (since fall 1986, I think). It gives people on certain CO's a 9600bps data link to the campus computing network. It is implemented using Gandolf DOV modems (model number escapes me), which sounds very much like the beast Purdue is using. When installed, the connection looks like this: +-----------+ | 2-wire to CO | +-----------+ =======| DOV Modem |=======================| DOV Modem |========= 2-wire | | | | | in a Bank |Many Pairs to VF | | | | | O' DOVs |to CO equip. +-----------+ | | +-----------+equip. (phones, ! | | ! modems, ! | | ! faxes...) ! | | ! ! | | Many RS-232 links to RS-232 to computer | | data switches & | | terminal concentrators | | Customer Premise | Poles, etc... | Central Office VF = Voice Frequancy How does it work? Simple, if the line between the CO and the customer premise is pretty good, you can get more than 300-3400Hz bandwidth out of it. The DOV modems use carrier frequancies above 3400Hz. They have a filter that sits between the DATA/Voice side and the VF side that removes the data signals. In addition, all of the normal telephone signals are passed through without changes. At the CO end, the data is "peeled" off before the channel banks or other such CO equipemnt. Thus, the DOVs are transparent to VF and telephone signaling. In order for this to work, the pair from the CO to your premise must be pretty darn good. When MCN was first offered by Bell of PA and CMU, they listed the exchanges that you could get it on. I believe they had installed DOV shelves in three CO's, so if you were attached to any of those, you could get it. In addition, they stated that if you were more than a certain distance from the CO (2 or 3 miles, I think), it wouldn't work. There was also talk of making a 64Kbs link availible, however I don't know if it was going to be by DOV or ISDN. Oh yeah, it was fairly expensive for your average student, something like $100 to install, $200 for the DOV and $25 a month. Maybe somebody at CMU can bring us up to date on the current state of MCN. Gary Segal, Motorola C.I.D. 1501 W. Shure Drive ...!uunet!motcid!segal Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Disclaimer: The above is all my fault. +1 708 632-2354 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 18:20:07 EST Subject: Slick 96? From: "Michael A. Patton" Date: Sun, 10 Dec 89 20:52:59 EST From: Dave Brightbill [In our rural community] we upgraded ... from a 4-party line to a private line. [There was] a lack of available pairs [which was solved] by installing [something] called a "slick-96". I believe it's a SLC-96 (pronounced "slik-96"). It stands for Subscriber Line Carrier, 96 channels. They use T1 (or similar) connections from the box to the CO, this gives them 96 subscriber drops off the box. It comes in various sizes, I have also seen sizes for one or two T1 circuits and for a T3 circuit. The latter was installed in an industrial park where I was working and (except for a short interruption when the installer accidentally cut the wrong wire :-) we couldn't notice the difference. Running one T3 circuit back to the CO was cheaper (or as cheap) than stringing another N-pair cable, and it freed up pairs for use in neighboring residential areas that were also expanding. These units seem to be much better than the ones they try and use to get two lines out of one. You probably lucked out that they didn't just do one of these funny mux things between you and whoever you formally shared the pair with. Maybe the tariffs don't let them use those when they're two seperate residences. ------------------------------ From: Bernard Mckeever Subject: Re: Slick 96 Date: 11 Dec 89 19:04:10 GMT Reply-To: bmk@cbnews.ATT.COM (bernard.mckeever,54236,mv,3b045,508 960 6289) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Slick 96 is really Subscriber Loop Carrier - 96 or SLC-96 {R}. This type system may also be referred to as a Digital Pair Gain System because is requires fewer outside plant pairs to serve a larger number of customers. You are quite correct to assume that it is a MUX, but it is a form of T1 MUX [1.544 Mbs] based on D4 channel banks. SLC-96 may be configured in several ways for POTS, Special Service, or a mixture of both. Mode 2 allows up to 96 subscribers on 48 time slots. A typical SLC system will have at least 1 protection T1 span and a few metallic pairs for test access and other maintenance applications. SLC systems will work with coin stations. The remote terminal may be mounted in cabinet, pedestal, vault, or customer location. Each remote terminal works with a central office terminal, or connects to a digital switch via a interface module. SLC does not use the two most popular framing patterns SF and ESF and can not be directly connected to a channel bank without framing conversion. Does it do tricks? Yes! It allows 1FR service in areas where the TELCO does not have enough outside plant to support it. For people having that nasty problem of a bunch of [[[[ messing up your modem connection, [you know who you are] the problem may be between a SLC system and your brand new Digital CO. SLC-96 is not the first or the last of the pair gain systems, SLC-1 was an added main line service that provided 2 lines over one pair. SLC-40 [an analog system] provided additional capacity and the newer systems are smaller and employ many additional features. No tricks. You can order 56 Kbs private line service over SLC and expect the same results as you would over CO based services. If your CO supports ISDN, SLC has a channel unit available to provide this service. In short SLC systems extend the range of the central office and outside plant without costing as much [by far] as a new CO. Bernie McKeever ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Slick 96? Date: 12 Dec 89 00:53:17 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <2018@accuvax.nwu.edu>, djb@loligo.cc.fsu.edu (Dave Brightbill) writes: > My rural community is served by Centel. A few years ago, we upgraded > our home service from a 4-party line to a private line. Because of a > lack of available pairs, we had to wait for a line. The telco solved > the problem by installing some sort of magic box on a post in our > community. All of our lines have been wired back to it. The > installer called it a "slick-96" box, and from her description, I > would guess that it is some sort of mux. My guess is that the "96" > refers to 9600 baud. So is this a digital mux? Can it do any tricks? We, too, have service from the local telco via SLC-96 (which is Subscriber Loop Carrier, 96 channels per T-1 span). This system uses digital multiplexing and local switching to concentrate a large number of subscribers on a small number of 1.55 Mbit digital loops to the CO. It regenerates battery feed, ringing, loop current interrupts, and anything else needed to support your local Tip and Ring telephone sets. A group of T-1 links to the CO (or fiber, in some installations) provide the physical circuits. Each T-1 link supports 24 derived voice circuits, using digital multiplexing. The actual ratio of supported subscribers to available derived circuits is engineered to provide an acceptable blocking probability, based upon the traffic generated by the subscribers served. When you're using a CO line, you get switched on to one of the available derived channels. When you're not, no channel is assigned. It's fast enough that you'd never notice it, except for the minute probability that no channel will be available when you want service. In that case, you'd experience a wait for dial-tone, or a party calling you would experience a fast busy (I think). We have run voice and data through that mux for several years, and have never experienced data integrity or blocking problems. The transmission quality is noticably better than it was when we had loaded-loop metalic circuits, a few years ago. When it was first installed, the remote terminal was buried in a vault under a man-hole a few blocks from here. There was a lot of excavation, and lots of noise while it was under construction. This moved a few of our neighbors to ask the town zoning board to deny permission to the Telco for use of their easement in this manner. I don't know how the politics finally were resolved, but the mux was cut back in about 1986 or so, and probably bothers nobody today! 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #567 *****************************   Date: Tue, 12 Dec 89 0:47:20 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #568 Message-ID: <8912120047.aa05265@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 12 Dec 89 00:45:41 CST Volume 9 : Issue 568 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Modem Line Noise Problem (Tad Cook) Re: Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation (was Re: Do Modem Users...) (Tim Pozar) Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping (Jim Budler) Re: ISDN and British Telecom (Johnny Zweig) Re: How Were Telephone Sounds Chosen? (Gary Segal) Re: How Were Telephone Sounds Chosen? (Stephen Tell) Re: Modems and Phone Rates (H. Shrikumar) Re: Caller ID Question (Dave Levenson) Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (Really Caller-ID once again) (M. Gersten) Re: How Do I Avoid Satellite Connections? (John Pettitt) References Wanted For Graduate Project (Tolba Hany) Various Mysteries/Question (Hector Myerston) Fiber Optics and ESS?? (Matt Simpson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Modem Line Noise Problem Date: 11 Dec 89 03:21:45 GMT Organization: very little Anyone have this problem? Sometimes when I call certain BBSs, my 2400 baud modem "hangs". It just sits there spewing out ones and zeroes, and never connects, making a shhhhhh sound, even after I send the on-hook command. Anyone know about this? Should I throw away my otherwise functional off-brand "Swan" modem? Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Dec 89 22:14:24 PST From: Tim Pozar Subject: Re: Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation (was Re: Do Modem Users...) Reply-To: Tim Pozar Organization: KKSF-FM (San Francisco) In article <1841@accuvax.nwu.edu> nvuxr!deej@bellcore.bellcore.com (David Lewis) writes: >In article <1759@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >> Bandwidth is not dynamically allowcated by some analysis of the >> sonic material on the line, but is fixed by the telco in the >> transmission system involved. >> It would be a neat trick indeed if you could automatically get extra >> bandwidth out of a telephone connection on demand. The audio leased >> line department would go out of business in a hurry! >Wait for Broadband ISDN. SONET (Synchronous Optical NETwork) layer 1, >plus ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) layer 2, plus the appropriate >definition of bearer capabilities, signaling, user-network interfaces, ..... I hope it's better than the noisy and distortion prone 8-bit junk than the stuff most phone equipment providers have been pushing. We (Broadcasters) need something at least 14 or 16 bits. Tim Pozar Try also... Internet: pozar@toad.com Fido: 1:125/555 PaBell: (415) 788-3904 USNail: KKSF / 77 Maiden Lane / San Francisco CA 94108 ------------------------------ From: Jim Budler Subject: Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping Organization: EDA Systems,Inc. Santa Clara, CA Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 03:04:40 GMT john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: } Perhaps it's my radio background, but whenever I use a cellular phone, } the thought never leaves my mind that the conversation is on the air } and that at least someone else, not a party to the conversation, is } listening. If the message is critically private, we move to landline. } It's like breathing and eating. That's why this privacy flap is so } funny. If you want to use the public airwaves for private } communications, then it is up to you to encode them sufficiently to } keep them private. In Tom Clancy's "Clear and Present Danger" one of the intelligence gathering methods used was intercept of cellular phone conversations by satellites. How real was this use in a fictional story? Is it possible? I would assume it's picking up the cell transmitters, not the 4 watt portables, but... Jim Budler jim@eda.com ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim compuserve: 72415,1200 applelink: D4619 voice: +1 408 986-9585 fax: +1 408 748-1032 ------------------------------ From: Johnny Zweig Subject: Re: ISDN and British Telecom Reply-To: zweig@cs.uiuc.edu Organization: U of Illinois, CS Dept., Systems Research Group Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 02:34:24 GMT pcf@galadriel.british-telecom.co.uk (Pete French) writes: >Britain is set to unveil big ISDN push, at last. After years of >pushing back the introduction of ISDN, British Telecom is now planning >a great leap forward. Instead of installing 1,500 ISDN basic-rate >interface (2B + D) lines in the first year as originally planned, it >is telling suppliers that it will install 50,000 lines during 1990. >The launch follows a 23 million pound order with STC >Telecommunications for equipment to provide up to 90,000 lines of >network capacity. Huzzah for the Revolution! Anyone at Illinois Bell getting word of any of this? ISDN is still in messy/expensive/poorly-supported "trial" (the term is used in the same sense that Kafka used it, I believe) stage here, and anyone smaller than McDonald's Corp. can't get a hold of it in any reasonable sense. Johnny 128-kbps-or-bust ------------------------------ From: Gary Segal Subject: Re: How Were Telephone Sounds Chosen? Date: 11 Dec 89 18:54:51 GMT Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division martin@cod.nosc.mil (Douglas W. Martin) writes: > Also, can anyone supply information about the frequency, >duration, etc. for the off-hook alarm signal? The off-hook warble tone comes on after about 18 seconds. It is a composite of a 1400Hz tone and a 2060Hz tone at about -12dBm. It is on for 0.1 second and then off of 0.1 second. While I'm at it... Ringback is 440Hz & 480Hz, 2.0 seconds on, 4.0 seconds off, -12dBm. Busy is 480HZ & 620Hz, 0.5 sec on, 0.5 sec off, -12dBm. Reoder is busy twice as fast (0.25 on, 0.25 off). Off course, the above is only sometimes true, and only then in the USA. Gary Segal, Motorola C.I.D. 1501 W. Shure Drive ...!uunet!motcid!segal Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Disclaimer: The above is all my fault. +1 708 632-2354 ------------------------------ From: tell@oscar.cs.unc.edu (Stephen Tell) Subject: Re: How Were Telephone Sounds Chosen? Date: 11 Dec 89 05:13:25 GMT Reply-To: tell@oscar.cs.unc.edu (Stephen Tell) Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill A related question on choice of tone signals: Has anyone else noticed that a lot of people in the "general public" (non-telecom-junkies) can't tell the difference between a busy and a reorder, or maybe don't know to listen for the difference in interuption rate? I'm still in touch with a lot of people at Duke University, where I used to be a student, but now I'm just beyond the area that is a local call for people on campus. It has happened many times that someone has tried to call me from a restricted campus phone (local-only, like a public non-coin phone), and complained "Your line is always busy." The Duke phone system (their own 5ESS) gives reorder for this case, also for the case of dialing only 7D when 1+7D is required. The latter may be more the problem, since GTE in Durham (around Duke, off-campus) doesn't want the leading 1. I explain "that's not a busy signal" and get funny looks from people who never heard of reorder, but I wonder how many calls I miss this way? (Perhaps this is an item for RISKS?) Steve Tell tell@cs.unc.edu CS Grad Student, UNC Chapel Hill. Former video guy, Duke Union Community Television, Durham, NC. ------------------------------ From: "H.Shrikumar{shri@ncst.in}" Subject: Re: Modems and Phone Rates Date: 11 Dec 89 20:24:52 GMT Reply-To: "H.Shrikumar{shri@ncst.in}" Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst In article <1799@accuvax.nwu.edu> ames!ultra!ted@uunet.uu.net (Ted Schroeder) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 551, message 2 of 11 >In this discussion nobody has mentioned the fact that modems place a >continuous carrier on the line, unlike human voices that pause between Interesting ... to remember that PEP modems like the Telebit Trailblazer put out essentially half duplex packets, with fast turnaround to simulate full duplex. Now if only the modems will keep silent when there no data to send, (except perhaps for a keep alive packet every second or so) then ... what is the difference if any at all between these modems and human conversation ? Will the (now being discussed) modem-service-charge apply in that case ? :-) shrikumar ( shri@ccs1.cs.umass.edu, shri@ncst.in ) ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Caller ID Question Date: 12 Dec 89 00:56:04 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <2019@accuvax.nwu.edu>, GREEN@wharton.upenn.edu (Scott D. Green) writes: ... regarding Caller*ID and Call-Waiting... > What is the interaction with Call Waiting? Now *that* would be > useful: To know who was interrupting you before you actually > interrupted the call-in-progress... Sorry, but Caller*ID does not function on calls waiting. Because the information is only sent between rings, and because your telephone does not ring when the call-waiting signal is sent, no Caller*ID information is sent. 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: Michael Gersten Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (Really Caller-ID once again) Date: 12 Dec 89 04:14:59 GMT Reply-To: Michael Gersten Organization: The Serial Tree BBS, +1 213 397 3137 In article <2007@accuvax.nwu.edu> Christopher Davis writes: > > is NOT an answer. Aside from being driven from a service I pay for, > > tragedy can happen by ignoring emergency calls. I found out the hard >Thank you, Mr. De Armond, for one of the strongest arguments *in >favor* of Caller-ID. Presumably you'll have a better idea if you want >to talk to someone if you know their phone number before you pick up >the phone... * Grrr. That's two non-thinking replies to the same point I just read. This person is saying that if you ignore phone calls, you can be ignoring important emergency noticies. Then two people claim that if they don't know the number, then it can't be that important. Do you know the number of all the hospitals in the area? What about the police stations? You cannot just ignore phone calls from numbers you don't know. So you gain nothing by having ANI except being able to recognize numbers you don't want to talk to. And since you're already at the phone it is easy enough to just pick it up, hear the voice, and hang up. ANI gives no effective new features to end users. It gives plenty of ABUSE to people compiling information and selling it. Michael ------------------------------ From: John Pettitt Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 17:05:19 GMT Organization: Specialix International Subject: Re: How Do I Avoid Satellite Connections? One '>' = Julian Macassey, julian@bongo.info.com Two '>>' = John Pettit, jpp@specialix.co.uk >> I am not going to post the code since I think it is a bug in the >> programming of the international switch in London and I don't want it >> to go away because of overuse. It's not 89. >> If anybody knows any more about this please post/let me know. >This is what I read in New Scientist Mag a few years ago. It was >also published on P69 Dec 1988 Popular Communications Mag. >RCA 0101 83 (213) 555-1234 >ITT 0101 84 (213) 555-1234 OK since the codes have been posted here is the current state: 0101 83 (213) 555 1212 will route via MCI I have not found any other codes that work. 700 555 4141 is blocked for UK callers but you can check that 83 is MCI by calling a 976 number and getting an intercept. John Pettitt UUCP: uunet!slxsys!jpp Internet: John.Pettitt@specialix.co.uk JANET: emxxjpp@uk.ac.brunel.me POTS: +44 1 941 2564 FAX: +44 1 941 4098 Disclaimer: Me, say that ? Never, it's a forged posting ! ------------------------------ From: Tolba Hany Subject: References Wanted For Graduate Project Date: 10 Dec 89 11:14:14 GMT Reply-To: tolba@loria.crin.fr (Tolba Hany) Organization: CRIN - INRIA, Nancy, France Hallo out there. A friend is prepearing his graduate project on the following subject and he is searching for the available ref. So I am posting this for him. The subject is realisation of an automatic computer based answering machine and the problem is, that my friend doesn't have any infromation concerining this subject and he will appreciate any help. So if any one out there knows any references, please mail it to me. ------------------------------ From: myerston@cts.sri.com Date: 11 Dec 89 11:35 PDT Subject: Various Mysteries/Question Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA 94025 [(415)326-6200] Data over Voice (DOV) aka Speech+Plus is as old as the hills. All it does is use the >metallic< twisted pair bandwidth ABOVE the 4Khz voice band for data. Straight analog frequency division multiplexing, not digital, not magic. SLC-96 is the semi-generic name for Subscriber Loop Carriers. Originally WECO using metallic pairs carrying T-1 (24 channel) PCM multiplexed traffic. 5 T-1s per box, 1 for backup, 4 for traffic (24 * 4 = 96). Today SLCs can carry more channels, do concentration, use fiber etc. Pulse/DTMF. It is not true that only the 5ESS can detect whether a line in coming in Pulse of DTMF. At least the 1AESS does the same. Parameters set by Telco decide what to do (Ignore or print on the Maint TTY) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 15:56:24 EDT From: Matt Simpson Subject: Fiber Optics and ESS?? My local CO has just switched over to ESS (I don't know what model), which means subscribers have been deluged with mail and phone calls from the LD carriers telling us that equal access is coming, and we have to select a default carrier. This much I can understand. What I can't understand is all the propaganda from the local BOC (South Central Bell), in the form of bill inserts, news releases, speeches to civic clubs, etc. They keep talking about their new fiber-optic network, and how it makes all this new neat stuff possible. The miracle of fiber-optics will allow us to have call-forwarding, call-waiting, etc. I thought all that stuff was done in the switch -- what does the transmission media have to do with it. Also, where is this amazing new fiber-optics network? I don't think I have glass fibers running into my house, it looks like copper wire to me. Has anyone heard of fiber being used anywhere in the local system, other than inter-office trunks? Is there any connection at all between fiber-optic cables and the availability of all these new features, or does SCB just think we're so dumb they can throw all this gee-whiz hype at us and expect us to be suitably amazed? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #568 *****************************   Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 0:16:40 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #569 Message-ID: <8912130016.ab11603@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 13 Dec 89 00:15:02 CST Volume 9 : Issue 569 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Hungary Gets Cellular; US West Gets Contract (Will Martin) High-Seas Communications (Thomas Lapp) First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice (Patrick M. Landry) The Pinnacle Payphone (John Higdon) Dumb Question on Caller*ID (Will Martin) Using a UK Modem in the USA (Jerry Durand) Questionable Placename in TELECOM Article (Alayne McGregor) CLASS Services in Central NC (Gregory G. Woodbury) U5434122 says, "Sorry!" (Daniel O'Callaghan) Re: Slick 96 (Various respondents, summarized by Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 10:29:44 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Hungary Gets Cellular; US West Gets Contract The following article was on page 11A of the Dec. 5, '89, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: U.S. FIRM GETS HUNGARIAN TELEPHONE CONTRACT [New York Times News Service] US West Inc., one of the seven regional Bell telephone companies, announced Monday that it had signed an agreement with Hungary to build a mobile cellular telephone system in Budapest. The Hungarian cellular system will be the first such telephone network in Eastern Europe. Because of the shortage of telephones in their country, Hungarians are expected to use cellular telephones for basic home service, as well as mobile communications. For Hungary and the other Eastern European countries that have antiquated telephone systems, it will be faster and cheaper for the Government to deliver telephone service by cellular networks than it would be to rebuild the nation's entire telephone apparatus. A cellular telephone network transmits calls on radio waves to small receiving antennas, called "cell" sites, that relay calls to local phone systems. The system to be built in Hungary will transmit calls from cellular phone to cellular phone and through the existing land-based telephone network. The system, which is scheduled to begin operation in the first quarter of 1991, will initially provide cellular communications to Budapest's 2.1 million residents. Eventually, the system will serve all of Hungary, a nation of 10.6 million. Hungary has 6.8 telephone lines for every 100 people, according to The World's Telephones, a statistical compilation produced by AT&T. By comparison, the US has 48.1 lines for every 100 people. ***End of article*** [Note: an abbreviated and slightly different version of this article was posted to the RISKS Digest. That one was followed by a comment pointing out the danger of relying on unencrypted cellular for the bulk of telephone traffic.] (Does anyone out there know if that "The World's Telephones" publication cited above is something you can get from AT&T as a freebie, or is it available only for purchase, or is not available at all?) Regards, Will ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 14:24:18 est From: Thomas Lapp Subject: High-Seas Communications Reply-To: mvac23!thomas@louie.udel.edu In several of the messages in the last week or so, it has been mentioned that the Pittsburgh International Operator was used for making high-seas calls. Whilst tuning across the bands on my short-wave receiver, I once came upon a transmission which seemed to be a high-seas conversation. Can anyone tell me more about how ship-to-shore (is this the same as high-seas?) telephony works? From the conversation I heard, it sounded as though I was hearing only one of the parties, and an operator? radio- person? who would tell someone, "O.k. your party is on the other end", or "Your party is still there -- you may talk" (the connection apparently was a poor one, since there was a lot of repetition of sentences). I guess I can assume that high-seas conversations are via radio ("What's that long wire we're dragging captain?" "Oh, that's our telephone line! Goes all the way back to shore... ;-), but can you supply any more details? Thanks, - tom internet : mvac23!thomas@udel.edu or thomas%mvac23@udel.edu uucp : {ucbvax,mcvax,psuvax1,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas Europe Bitnet: THOMAS1@GRATHUN1 Location: Newark, DE, USA Quote : Virtual Address eXtension. Is that like a 9-digit zip code? ------------------------------ Reply-To: pml4791@usl.edu From: Landry Patrick M Subject: First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice Date: 11 Dec 89 16:41:12 GMT Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana I am considering the purchase of a cellular phone for my father and would appreciate it if a couple of things could be explained to me. I will be purchasing a portable unit (as opposed to a car-mounted one). I understand the way cellular works but I don't know some of the admisistrative details. 1) Do the Bell Companies actually own the cells? 2) What is all the hubbub about subscribing with a certain carrier? What are the differences between different carriers? What questions should I be asking to find the right carrier for me? 3) What is the maximum power (watts) cellular phones are allowed to transmit? What kind of power can I expect to find in the consumer market? 4) How can I get my hands on a cell map? 5) Anything else a novice should know before purchasing? Thanks for the time. I can provide a condensation of replies if anyone is interested. patrick pml@cacs.usl.edu uunet!dalsqnt!usl!pml ------------------------------ Subject: The Pinnacle Payphone Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 10 Dec 89 21:25:10 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon For your dining and dancing pleasure, here is a facsimile of the card on the payphone at the entrance to the Pinnacles campground. The card was typewritten so the following is an exact representation, character for character, including the typo. Wish I could include the sounds that it made! ____________________________________________________________ | SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS - NO COIN TETURN. | | DO NOT DEPOSIT COINS UNTIL PARTY ANSWERS. | | | |FREE LOCAL CALLING FOR 389 PREFIX - DIAL LAST 3 #'S ONLY. | | | |LONG DISTANCE - INSIDE 408 DIAL 00 + 7 Numbers | | - OUTSIDE 408 DIAL 00 + 10 " | | - 800 #'S DIAL 00 + 800 + 7 #'s. | | - CALLING CARD " 00 + #'S, Later, Your #.| | | |INFORMATION - INSIDE 408 DIAL 411 | | - OUTSIDE 408 DIAL 00 + (CODE) + 555-1212. | | | | THIS # IS 389-9495 | |__________________________________________________________| ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Dec 89 9:45:53 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Dumb Question on Caller*ID I don't recall the following point being mentioned in the ongoing and longstanding Caller*ID discussion: If the calling number is displayed, how long does it remain on the display? Until you pick up the phone? Until the phone is hung up? For some fixed period and then the display blanks? Or does the last number continue to be displayed until the next one (or the message about an unidentifiable number) is shown? Do any of these displays remember the last "n" numbers shown, so if you get a string of calls in rapid succession, you can look back through the history of received numbers to locate, say, the third-last caller's number? If so, how big is "n" and do they store the "unidentified" label the same as if it was a number? Are any of these fancy enough to store the date/time along with the number, or do you have to hook your own computer or automated logger on the line to get that degree of service? Thanks for info! Regards, Will ------------------------------ From: JDurand@cup.portal.com Subject: Using a UK Modem in the USA Date: Tue, 12-Dec-89 14:05:59 PST A friend is having trouble hooking up a modem on a computer system she brought with her from the UK. She needs to use this system to communicate with her company back in England. I assume her modem will work on US telephone lines, but she needs to know the wireing conversion to hook it up. I have not seen this system and do not know the brand of modem she has. Any ideas? Jerry Durand jdurand@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Dec 89 11:45:41 EST From: Alayne McGregor Subject: Questionable Placename in TELECOM Article In ,news@chinacat.Lonestar.ORG writes: > This story was related by Pat Routledge of Winnepeg, ONT about an unusual ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sorry, but there's no such place. Assuming ONT is short for Ontario (and I haven't heard of anywhere else with that abbreviation), there's no such town/village/city in it. The closest is Winnebago. There is, however, a Winnipeg, the capital of the province of Manitoba (where I happened to grow up). Makes me wonder if the whole story isn't an (ex)urban legend. Alayne McGregor dciem!nrcaer!gandalf!alayne [Moderator's Note: Alayne, that story is *so old* I first heard it about twenty years ago, and in those days, it was an installer over in Scotland someplace.... :) And regards Winnepeg, Manitoba, *thank you* for catching this. I generally edit obvious (to me) errors in place names in the Digest, and I know it is in Manitoba, but that got right past me....until I saw your message. PT] ------------------------------ From: "Gregory G. Woodbury" Subject: CLASS Services in Central NC Reply-To: "Gregory G. Woodbury" Organization: Wolves Den UNIX BBS Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 03:57:35 GMT Just a quick report to the Telecom Digest concerning CLASS services in the Central NC area. Southern Bell (part of BellSouth) in central NC (specifically Raleigh area LATA) is offering CLASS services without CNID. The NC PUC has the CNID service held up in red tape while ACLU and other "intervenors" complain about privacy etc. Last # redial, last caller autodial and "wardialer" services (as well as call trace) are being heavily advertised on local TV. The GTE satrapy in Durham is finally advertising that they have the disable call waiting service in place, but it is not generally enabled in the switches - you have to specifically order it. Both phone companies are still charging for DMTF services. GTE disables DMTF by reversing polarity on the line at the switch frame. (i.e. you can remove "Touch Tone" from your line charges, and in about a week your modem and DMTF phones will generally stop working - but a check with a polarity reader (the led on a stick) will indicate that the polarity is "reversed" -- I know I wired it right when I redid my parent's place a couple of years ago ;-) GTE spokespersons said that CLASS services will become available in Durham in about 6 months or whenever the PUC finally decides the issue of CNID. An inquiry about the difficulty of re-programming the CO switches was met with a snide remark and a statment that the phone switch software is the most recent available from the manufacturer. Private information is that Durham is all NT DMS-10's and that the NT/BNR complex in RTP is working on it as fast as possible. Gregory G. Woodbury Sysop/owner Wolves Den UNIX BBS, Durham NC UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...dukeac!wolves!ggw [use the maps!] Domain: ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw@ac.duke.edu ggw%wolves@ac.duke.edu Phone: +1 919 493 1998 (Home) +1 919 684 6126 (Work) [The line eater is a boojum snark! ] ------------------------------ From: U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au Subject: U5434122 says, "Sorry!" Date: 12 Dec 89 17:15:19 (UTC+11:00) Organization: The University of Melbourne Apologies to all those who tried to reach me by e-mail. I discovered, to my horror, that I have been misquoting my e-mail address, since the new, improved addresses were introduced. My correct address is: u5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au Sorry again, Daniel (Daniel O'Callaghan, University of Melbourne ) ------------------------------ From: Various Writers Subject: Re: Slick 96? Date: 12 Dec 89 00:00:00 CST [Moderator's Note: There have been numerous replies to the 'Slick 96' message which appeared a couple days ago. Yesterday I printed three replies, and today, four more are presented in summary form, for the sake of helping to clear the present backlog in the queue. Dave Brightbill presented the original questions/comments. PT] In article <2018@accuvax.nwu.edu> djb@loligo.cc.fsu.edu (Dave Brightbill) writes: >My rural community is served by Centel. A few years ago, we upgraded >our home service from a 4-party line to a private line. Because of a >lack of available pairs, we had to wait for a line. The telco solved >the problem by installing some sort of magic box on a post in our >community. All of our lines have been wired back to it. The >installer called it a "slick-96" box, and from her description, I >would guess that it is some sort of mux. My guess is that the "96" >refers to 9600 baud. So is this a digital mux? Can it do any tricks? ======================= Organization: Leptons and Quarks, Winfield, IL 60190-1412 Date: 11 Dec 89 23:26:10 CST (Mon) From: Randolph J. Herber It is a Subscriber Line Interface Circuit (96 lines). Yes, it is a mux. Yes, it is digital. No, it does not do tricks. It is used to concentrate 96 subscriber circuits to a single metallic line or optical fiber which then runs to the telephone exchange. In your case, it is probably using your original metallic line. Randolph J. Herber, @ home: {att|mcdchg|laidbak|clout|obdient|wheaton}!yclept!rjh, rjh@yclept.chi.il.us ========================== From: Paul Guthrie Reply-To: Paul Guthrie Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers Date: Tue, 12 Dec 89 08:29:27 GMT The SLC in SLC-96 stands for Subscriber Loop Carrier (althout I have also heard the C stand for Concentrator, but I think Carrier is right). The 96 stands not for "9600 baud", but for the 96 lines that are concentrated onto a T-1 type trunk interface, which normally carries 24 channels. The quick will notice a 4:1 ratio on the SLC-96. I don't recall the signalling protocol. Paul Guthrie chinet!nsacray!paul ============================ From: Paul Elliott x225 Date: 12 Dec 89 16:02:18 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA The box referred to is a "SLC-96 (tm)", which stands for "Subscriber Loop Carrier - 96". This is a four-T1 system. A T1 circuit uses two pairs of special wire, running at a digital rate of 1.544 Mbit/sec. Each T1 circuit carries 24 channels of PCM. 24 channels times four circuits equals 96 channels, hence the "96". The SLC-96 has been in service for many years, and has been widely cloned. It is a convenient size for providing service to remote clusters of subscribers. The SLC-96 can provide some types of data service via different line card plug-ins, however I am not familiar with all the offerings, or the cost and availability of them. Can anyone out there comment on this? Regards, Paul M. Elliott Optilink Corporation (707) 795-9444 {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!elliott "I used to think I was indecisive, but now I'm not so sure." ============================ From: Peter Desnoyers Date: 12 Dec 89 17:19:06 GMT Organization: Apple Computer, Inc. 96 refers to 96 phone lines - 4 DS1s (also known as T1s), which is actually a DS2. (I guess DS2s do exist outside of add-drop multiplexors.) The data rate is 96*64000 bps plus DS1 and DS2 framing overhead, or somewhere around 6.2Mbps. I don't know if you can get DDS (56kb/s) or T1 (1.544Mb/s) lines off of a SLIC, though. I have heard (rumor only) that it is possible - if the switch software can handle it - to provide basic rate service on some SLICs by dedicating 3 lines for D, B1, and B2, plus the appropriate hardware. I would appreciate it if someone could tell me whether there is any truth to this. Peter Desnoyers Apple ATG (408) 974-4469 [Moderator's Note: In each response above, extensive quoting was removed in order to save time in re-reading the same quotes, and to allow more space for replies from readers. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #569 *****************************   Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 0:58:05 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #570 Message-ID: <8912130058.aa21266@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 13 Dec 89 00:57:00 CST Volume 9 : Issue 570 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Data Over Voice (Steve Parowski) Re: Data Over Voice (Michael Fryd) Re: ISDN and TCP/IP (Torsten Dahlkvist) Re: Fiber Optics and ESS?? (Marvin Sirbu) Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping (Kevin P. Kleinfelter) Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping (Colin Plumb) Re: AT&T Multi-line Cordless Telephones (Joe Talbot) Re: GTE vs Pac*Bell (Was: How Do I Rotary?) (John Higdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Parowski Subject: Re: Data Over Voice Reply-To: scp@bpa.bell-atl.com Organization: Bell Atlantic Corporation Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 21:37:31 GMT In article <1978@accuvax.nwu.edu> Richard Steele writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 561, message 5 of 5 >Here at Purdue U., we now have access to something called data over >voice (DOV) units. These are small boxes, about the size of a regular >modem, that gives the user a 9600 bps asynchronous data line to the >University computer. Not only is the bugger faster than a modem, _but >it leaves the phone free for regular use_. We can still receive and >make calls with the DOV working with no obvious distortion on the line. >Question: How would something like this work? The phone company >_does_ need to make some changes on their end, but the phone line >remains the same. >So, what magic is involved here? Thanks to all who respond... Here in Bell Atlantic we offer this as a tarriffed service it is called LANgate or Central Office Local Area Network. See your local sales rep for prices. How it works...... That box that has jacks for your phone and your terminal converts your terminal signal from digital to analog. The box then Frequency multiplexes your voice and the analog data onto the same copper pair. At the Purdue Central Office this process is reversed. This is an excellent way to provide 9600 bps without wiring changes or expensive modems. Steve Parowski Wal La ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 12 December 1989 20:26:17 EST From: Michael.Fryd@g.gp.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Data Over Voice Around here, DOV means "Data Over Voice" and refers to the Gandlaf DOV 640 modems that provide 64kb synchronous communications over a standard voice pair, without interfering with normal voice service. In Pittsburgh, this service is known as Metropolitan Campus Network (MCN) and is provided by some combination of Carnegie-Mellon University (CMU) and Bell of PA. My house was a beta-test site for this service a few years ago, and in the many technician visits I picked up a few things. I have since moved, so some of the details may have changed. Two DOV modems are actually used for each house served. One is placed at the Bell of PA Central office(CO), between the switch and the cable pair to your house. The second DOV is installed in your house, electrically between the Network Interface Jack and your existing household phone wires. +---------+ | Central | voice +--------+ data and voice +---------+ voice +---------+ | Office |-------| CO DOV | ----------------| user DOV|-------|telephone| | switch | +--------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ | | |data |data Port Selector in CO--- + +-------Home terminal or PC The modems communicate using frequencies above the voice band. The DOVs completely ignore all of the normal telephone signals, allowing uninterrupted data communications regardless of whether the phone line is in-use, ringing, or idle. The DOV operates as 64Kb synchronous. In order for the DOVs to work you must be within a pre-set distance (I think on the order of a few miles) from the CO. The real problem with this setup, is that it only allows you to communicate with the CO. Bell of PA installed port selectors in three of the COs near CMU. These were connected by fiber to CMU. At my house, I just plugged my terminal into the DOV, and hit return. This got the attention of Bell's port selector. There were few destinations at CMU that I could select (Most of which were additional port selectors or terminal concentrators). When I left the program, only 9600 and 19.2 kBd async was supported, with plans for 64Kb, possibly using Serial Line IP. The most amazing thing was that the system worked very well. Voice and data operated independently on the same copper pair. Incoming and outgoing calls did not affect data at all. I have no idea what the applicable tariffs were. Payments were made to CMU, but installations and service was provided by Bell of PA. I was always amazed that the Bell service operators (just dial 611) were able to cope with MCN trouble reports. The biggest problem during the testing phase was noise on the phone line. The DOVs went through quite a few revisions before there was no audible interference with the standard voice usage. If I've left anything out, let me know and I'll be happy to give the answer if I know it. Michael Fryd President Voice: (412) 751-5557 MEFCO, Inc. Fax: (412) 751-8403 2401 Coulter Road Email: Michael.Fryd@CS.CMU.EDU McKeesport, PA 15131-4251 ------------------------------ From: Torsten Dahlkvist Subject: Re: ISDN and TCP/IP Date: 12 Dec 89 12:10:24 GMT Reply-To: Torsten Dahlkvist Organization: Ellemtel Utvecklings AB, Stockholm, Sweden Hello again! In article <2023@accuvax.nwu.edu> jwb@cit5.cit.oz (Jim Breen) writes: >What you need to solve your problems are some ISDN Terminal Adaptors >(TA) of various flavors. The problem is they haven't been developed >yet! In (a) above you need a pair of asynch TA's, i.e. TA's which map >various asynch speeds onto a 64k channel, enabling access to some sort >of terminal server. In (b) we all hope there is a PC card coming which >speaks BRI. Of course you need to connect somewhere, so it might be >slip after all. For (c) a TA which can bridge ethernet segments would >be fine. >Clearly there is a long way to go with data access to ISDN, and there >is room for a lot of innovative product development. Start shouting at >your suppliers NOW. Better still, get some designers and builders >together with a venture capitalist and go for it. Funny you should ask... I spent five years (83 - 88) as part of Ericsson's ISDN terminal project. We did produce a feature-phone and a range of TA:s which conform very closely to the "official" ISDN spec. The deviations were due to the fact that the specs aren't yet quite waterproof. There are, to put it bluntly, holes in the protocols at some places, so we had to device ways around these. Ericsson's terminals are available NOW for Ericsson customers. The TA:s handle V24, X21 and X25 to mention the more popular protocols. The only problems are availability and the prices... You see, we started that project way back before any VLSI:s had appeared on the market (actually, we cooperated closely with AMD in their work with their chipset) and the custom-circuits used in that first generation of terminals are *expensive* and hard to get. This puts the prices of the terminals at a level few customers can handle and in reality all sales so far have been to Telcos using Ericsson equipment who want to set up field-trials for ISDN. So why don't we re-build them using state-of-the-art hardware and market quick as hell? Partly because the afore-mentioned gaps in the protocols are still there, no *true* standard exists. Partly because no-one in their right minds ventures a project like that when it's well known that several major Japanese producers have competing products in the pipe-line. We're a high-tech, high-cost country. We can't compete with far east producers when it comes to volume sales and all projections indicate that we'd get the market kicked out from under our feet well before we'd made our investment back. However, all is not lost. There are at least a couple of Ericsson trials going on in the U.S. today so if you're lucky enough to be in one of them you may soon get your datacomm gear :-) Sorry if this all sounds like a lot of gripe and blatant advertising. It's just that when Jim said "The problem is they haven't been developed yet" I felt I had to point out that there's a difference between "doesn't exist" and "isn't available in the U.S.". I *know* for a fact that our equipment is beeing installed in Mexico City. But how do you sell telecom equipment on a market where everybody still believes in their hearts that AT&T is the best while spending half the bandwidth of comp.dcom.telecom arguing that Sprint is better... :-) Disclaimer: I DO work for an Ericsson subsidiary but that doesn't mean I have any say-so. Anybody asking for price-quotations will be promptly referred to some suitable sales-creature and will after that be constantly drowned in junk mail. Don't say I didn't warn you! Torsten Dahlkvist ELLEMTEL Telecommunication Laboratories P.O. Box 1505, S-125 25 ALVSJO, SWEDEN Tel: +46 8 727 3788 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Dec 89 12:41:15 -0500 (EST) From: Marvin Sirbu Subject: Re: Fiber Optics and ESS?? You are right that most of the gee whiz services BellSouth talks about are a function of the switch, not of the type of wire to the home. On the other hand, there are about 20 fiber to the home trials underway in various parts of the U.S. Several combine voice and video delivery, some voice only. Bellsouth has been a leader in undertaking such trials, but every RHC has one underway. Don't hold your breath waiting for generalized availability. The majority of trials involve new subdivisions where they had to go install new wiring anyway. Replacement of existing copper to the home with fiber is a decade (at least) away. Marvin Sirbu Carnegie Mellon University ------------------------------ From: "Kevin P. Kleinfelter" Subject: Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping Date: 12 Dec 89 17:57:53 GMT Organization: Management Science America, Inc., Atlanta, GA So the consensus seems to be that the neighbor is certainly not doing anything ILLEGAL by listening to the broadcast from the wireless intercom. What if he gets one one the same frequency, and puts it next to his stereo (which he leaves running 24 hours a day)? Who gets priority? Is this a first-come/first-serve situation? Kevin Kleinfelter @ Management Science America, Inc (404) 239-2347 gatech!nanovx!msa3b!kevin ------------------------------ From: Colin Plumb Subject: Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping Date: 12 Dec 89 21:59:47 GMT Reply-To: Colin Plumb Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario In article <2001@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >But for someone to intentionally bug their own house (baby monitor), >put it (unencoded) on the air, and then get angry when someone does >the inevitable evesdropping, well... I think it's fair to be a little annoyed at the *impolite* behaviour of the neighbour, but I agree that I don't think it's illegal. If you want privacy, go for wires or encryption. That's one of the things I'm looking forward to with digital telephony... the ability to encrypt my conversations. Straight analog schemes do horrible things to fidelity and keep getting out of tune. But once I've got a digital channel, feeding it through a handy DES chip would keep out most would-be eavesdroppers. -Colin ------------------------------ From: Joe Talbot Subject: Re: AT&T Multi-line Cordless Telephones Date: 12 Dec 89 03:47:01 GMT Organization: ATI, High desert research center, Victorville, Ca I'll be very honest here in saying that I'm not a fan of the Merlin System from AT&T. I feel that you get very little bang for the buck, and you really don't even get the old time AT&T reliability or feel. But, Why do you need four pairs for an electronic phone? Electronic phones have been out for years, I beleive that the SL-1 phone from Northern Telecom was one of the first. It (and almost every other) uses two pairs! One is used for data and powering the set, another is used for an analog tip and ring. joe@mojave I finally changed my dumb signiture. People were always telling me what a great signature I had. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: GTE vs Pac*Bell (Was: How Do I Rotary?) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 10 Dec 89 20:48:55 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon In article <1938@accuvax.nwu.edu> Lars J Poulsen writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 560, message 3 of 7 >I pay $23.50/month for two lines, one tone service with 1+ provided by >ATT, and one which is supposed to be pulse-only, with 1+ dialing >disabled. The two lines busy-forward to each other. This includes >unlimited local calling (but not 6% sales tax). Does it include: 1) FCC-mandated access charge; 2) local tax (deaf, 911, etc.? If not, it's a couple of bucks per line higher than Pac*Bell. If so, you got a bargain! >And I have no desire to get CommStar. I'd MUCH rather install a KX-308. How about both? I have six Commstar lines on my KX-T1232. The Watson lives on an extension giving it the ability to answer multiple lines. It can also "reach through" the 1232 and transfer calls to other lines, keeping it's own line free. Commstar also allows me to have a WATS line serve both me and my UUCP modems, although, come to think about it, so would the 1232. The other four lines go directly to zygot's modems, but if they lived on extensions then there could be some outgoing flexibility. Maybe it's time to rethink my telephony! (Is this enlightenment while on line, or what?!) John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #570 *****************************   Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 0:16:29 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #571 Message-ID: <8912140016.aa19337@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Dec 89 00:15:23 CST Volume 9 : Issue 571 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Modem and Phone Rates (Krishna E. Bera) Re: FCC Doing It Again (John Higdon) Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? (Randal Schwartz) Re: User Control of Feature(s) (John Higdon) Re: Data Over Voice (George Gray) Re: Slick 96? (Stephen Fleming) Answering Machine "Calls Back?" (Anton Rang) AT&T Multi-line Cordless Telephones (Doug Faunt) SONET Revisited (Michael Hui) Sorry, Wrong Number (Michel Denber) Finding out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (Otto J. Makela) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: kebera@alzabo.uucp (Krishna E. Bera) Subject: Re: Modems and Phone Rates Reply-To: kebera@alzabo.UUCP (Krishna E. Bera) Organization: Brian's Gang, Ottawa, Canada Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 18:53:44 GMT ames!ultra!ted@uunet.uu.net (Ted Schroeder) writes: >In this discussion nobody has mentioned the fact that modems place a >continuous carrier on the line, unlike human voices that pause between >sentences and words.... Has anyone in the modem protocol design business considered dropping the carrier when the line is idle, and picking it up again when there is data to be sent? Can't modems be made to recognize the difference between on and off-hook? This would render moot the whole 'separate charge for modem use' issue, as modems would have the same line usage as human voice as far as the phone company was concerned. Krishna E. Bera "Programmer on the loose" Voice: (613) 238-4101 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: FCC Doing It Again Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 11 Dec 89 21:22:59 PST (Mon) From: John Higdon In article <2009@accuvax.nwu.edu> Andrew D Kailhofer writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 565, message 5 of 5 >Then they started selling DTMF service to the >subscriber, requiring pulse-to-tone converters. >[...] >This stuff persisted through the SXS, the Crossbar, and >most of the #1 and #1A ESSs. Well, in your words, yes and no. In the case of SXS, they had to add converters, UNLESS they (notably GTE) used directorization. Then the tone receivers were imbedded in the equipment used on everyone's line. And it was impossible to turn off the tone capability. In the case of crossbar, they had to use the Teltone or Mitel converters (the Mitels were much better; they weren't tone to pulse, but rather tone to 'OR lanquage--2 of 7' and worked instantaneously). As you said, it was usually more cost effective to equip all ORs with converters, even though in the early days they did try to shuttle all non-TT-paying customers to non-equipped registers. But even that is no longer the case. Now they use CONTAC, an adjunct to provide equal access. Since the customer dials into the CONTAC, which is inherently TT-capable, you have to consider that TT is now imbedded in crossbar. In fact, CONTAC has a difficult time dealing with rotary and must receive pulses within the range of 9 to 12 PPS, or it will bomb. No 20 PPS for all those speed freaks that wanted to avoid TT. ALL electronic switches (including all permutations of ESS) have embedded tone receivers. >Can a PSC (or would a BOC want their PSC) to require a >different billing reate for (potentially) each CO? Yikes. Wouldn't that be a hoot? If the cost of your phone was linked to the actual cost of maintaining your CO switch, you would pay more for more antiquated service. The more modern your service, the less you would pay. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Dec 89 12:23:40 PST From: Randal Schwartz Subject: Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Hillsboro, Oregon, USA In article <1966@accuvax.nwu.edu> somebody writes: | I've spent most of this year in Washington state (Seattle), and much | to my surprise, there's no such thing as 411 in this state! When I | first arrived, I tried it from a payphone (what did I know). It | didn't work, so I called the operator. She said "Why would you dial | 411? Directory assistance is at 1-555-1212" She acted as if she had | never heard of 411, and it definately doesn't work from any phone I've | tried. Also, no 611 (you have to go through the operator to get | repair service). (Reportedly, 611 will "read" you the number of the | calling phone if you're in a GTE service area). I've lived in the Pacific Northwest all my life, and had never *heard* of 411 as the number for info until I began taking business trips to the Bay Area two years ago. And then, I had exactly the *opposite* shock. I was looking up a number, and couldn't find it, so I dialed "113"... the info number for PNW Bell (now US West Telecom). When it didn't work, I asked a local, and they said "411", and gave me this blank stare when I said I had tried "113", as if knowing "411" gives you information was like knowing that "0" gives you operator! I had never understood the line in Patty Labelle's song "Who's Zoomin' Who?" that "getting the four-one-one on someone" meant getting information. Suddenly, it all dawned on me. So, is the Pacific Northwest the *only* place in the country that *doesn't* use 411? (And we still don't!) Thanks for the tip about 611 giving calling-number-ID. Wow! What fun! It works! You mean you use that for "service"? Geez. We just call the operator. :-) Just another provincial local, /== Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 ====\ | on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Hillsboro, Oregon, USA, Sol III | | merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn | \== Cute Quote: "Welcome to Oregon... Home of the California Raisins!" ==/ [Moderator's Note: Hah! *He* thinks 611 gives calling-number-ID! Here in Chicago we know it reaches the Illinois Bell Repair Service. And for many years, 211 reached the Long Distance Operator for 90 percent of the subscribers, while 811 reached Long Distance for the other 10 percent or so. And what we used to call Enterprise numbers *he* probably called Zenith numbers. Just a local yokel myself! :) PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: User Control of Feature(s) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 13 Dec 89 11:17:46 PST (Wed) From: John Higdon In article <2000@accuvax.nwu.edu> nmri!!stanley@uunet.uu.net (John Stanley) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 564, message 4 of 8 >If anyone calls the old main >number while someone is still being forwarded, they don't hunt, they >get busy. Not generally true. When the forwarded call supervises (is answered) then the forwarded phone will pass another call. And so on. The reason this was done (they used to forward any number of calls, regardless of supervision status) was to prevent forwarding loops. Try it; place a call to your forwarded number and when it answers, place another--it should forward as well. An exception to this is RCF. When you set up Remote Call Forwarding (a number that you don't even get a pair for, they just forward it for you to a number of your choosing), they ask you to specify how many "forwards" are to be allowed. This number should corespond to the number of lines available at location that is receiving the calls. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: George Gray Subject: Re: Data Over Voice Date: 13 Dec 89 15:23:28 GMT Organization: NYNEX Science and Technology, White Plains, N.Y. DOV (Data Over Voice) is a techniqiue that uses a single pair of wires that permits both data and voice on a line simultaneously. The data portion of the service is modulated at a higher frequency outsied of the normal voice conversation. For example, the voice conversation is at 300-4000 Hz (approx) and the data would be sent at 40Khz on the receive side and 80Khz on the transmit side. Because of the frequencies involved, the operating distances between 2 DOV units is usually less than 10,000 feet. DOV units are connected similar to a modem with a TESLSET jack and a TELCO LINE jack plus power. There are several maufacturers of these units among them are TELTONE and APPLIED SPECTRUM TECHNOLOGIES. George Gray ------------------------------ From: fleming@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Slick 96? Date: Wed, 13-Dec-89 11:21:43 PST >djb@loligo.cc.fsu.edu (Dave Brightbill) asks: >My rural community is served by Centel. A few years ago, we upgraded >our home service from a 4-party line to a private line. Because of a >lack of available pairs, we had to wait for a line. The telco solved >the problem by installing some sort of magic box on a post in our >community. All of our lines have been wired back to it. The >installer called it a "slick-96" box, and from her description, I >would guess that it is some sort of mux. My guess is that the "96" >refers to 9600 baud. So is this a digital mux? Can it do any tricks? SLC*96 (trademark of AT&T) is a 'Subscriber Loop Carrier - 96 lines'. Also called a pair-gain device, it performs analog to digital conversion on up to 96 telephone lines and transmits them over 8 copper pair (4 digroups) to a central office switch. It is an environmentally hardened channel bank, or time division digital multiplexer with analog interfaces. Nothing to do with 9600 baud... but a reasonable guess! It can do a lot of neat tricks, but none that are accessible to an end-user. SLC*96 is now being replaced with SLC Series 5, which performs essentially the same function but in about half the space, and Northern Telecom's DMS-1 Urban, which provides additional pair-gain savings through a concentration function. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Stephen Fleming | Internet: fleming@cup.portal.com | | Director, Technology Marketing | Voice: (703) 847-7058 | | Northern Telecom +-------------------------------------| | Federal Networks Division | Opinions expressed do not | | Vienna, Virginia 22182 | represent Northern Telecom. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 03:38:10 -0600 From: Anton Rang Subject: Answering Machine "Calls Back?" My officemates and I have noticed a curious phenomenon when we call our answering machines from the office to check if we have messages. After we hang up, our office phone (which we just called from) often starts ringing almost immediately. When we pick it up, all we hear is the hangup "click". What causes this? Please respond by E-mail to rang@cs.wisc.edu, as I don't always have time to read this group. Thanks in advance! Anton [Moderator's Note: But please copy the Digest with your replies. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 08:53:32 -0800 From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 Subject: AT&T Multi-line Cordless Telephones The electronic phones on an AT&T System 75 can use up to 4 pair. If it's a hybrid phone they use one pair for analog, one pair for digital in, one pair for digital out, and if it's running an accessory, like a speakerphone another pair for distributing central power. If you have no accessories the power pair is unnecessary (this can also be handled by having a PS local to the device). If you're using a digital set, then the analog pair is not necessary. ------------------------------ From: Michael Hui Subject: SONET Revisited Date: 13 Dec 89 19:39:36 GMT Reply-To: hui@mprgate.mpr.ca Organization: Microtel Pacific Research Ltd., Burnaby, B.C., Canada Could someone recommend a trade journal or magazine comparing the architecture of the various SONET compatible transmission products being offered on the market right now? I have searched through a few libraries' journal collections already, and have not come across a single article on SONET, except the original IEEE Communications Magazine article. I am interested in actual product comparison, not a tutorial on what SONET is and how it could be used in the future. Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Dec 89 15:47 EST From: denber.wbst@xerox.com Subject: Sorry, Wrong Number We've all heard jokes about people who leave obscene phone calls on answering machines. Well, today someone left a "wrong-number" on my answering machine. I found a recording today that went "This is Mr. Fnord (name changed to protect the seriously confused). Please call me at xxx-xxxx." So I call him back and get his secretary. I tell her I got this message. She doesn't know what I'm talking about and puts me on hold. Several minutes later the conversation went like this: "Mr. Fnord didn't call you." "But I have his message right here - how would I have known to call him?" "Oh, it must have been a wrong number." "Then why did he leave a message?" "He was calling someone else." "Oh." At this point I decided to quit before we got to the old line about "Well if it was a wrong number, why did you answer the phone?". Makes you wonder. - Michel [Moderator's Note: Too bad you don't have an answering machine like Anton Rang (see two messages above). :) PT] ------------------------------ From: "Otto J. Makela" Subject: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number Date: 14 Dec 89 01:28:47 GMT Organization: Justice HQ, Mega-City One Does anyone have an idea how to get the "real", out-of-country- callable number for a company which only has published the 1-800 number ? This came up like this: We have a very funny kind of a problem with a Bell Technologies multi-RS-232 card. It's pretty late and we should try to get the machine and the card to the customer in the morning, of course in a fully operational status. The people who delivered this card to us are not at work at this time (not surprising, it being 1AM!). However, Bell Technologies has a customer help line number on their manual. On the forlorn hope that they have seen this problem before, we dial them. We get an answering machine saying they no longer are Bell Technologies, but a part of Intel Corp. AND THEY ONLY GIVE A 1-800 NUMBER ! We of course cannot call this number from Europe. After some messing around with Finnish outlands directory assist and American directory assistance operators, we are told: a) one cannot direct-dial a US directory assistance (areacode + 555 1212) from outside the United States (we tried). Why ? a) A 1-800 number cannot be traced back to the owner's "real" number, since there is no 1-800 directory assistance. True or false ? b) There are no services which we could call who could make us a almost-free (for them) call to a 1-800 number, while charging us for this service. Really, no-one has thought of this great business opportunity ? Finally, I called a good friend of mine in the US and had him call the Intel 1-800 and ask what their "real" number is. THEY REFUSED TO TELL THIS, SINCE THE NUMBER WAS "INTERNAL" EVEN AFTER HE EXPLAINED WHAT THE SITUATION WAS ! What they did give him was two numbers to the UK and Finland Intel offices. I can make a bet that the Finnish Intel has never even heard of BellTech, and I'd be surprised if the UK Intel can help us with this problem at all. Anyway, it's way past business hours in Europe at this time, so these numbers are no use to me now. Is Intel customer service always this sticky ? Anyone care to comment ? * * * Otto J. Makela (otto@jyu.fi, MAKELA_OTTO_@FINJYU.BITNET) * * * * * * * * Phone: +358 41 613 847, BBS: +358 41 211 562 (CCITT, Bell 2400/1200/300) * * Mail: Kauppakatu 1 B 18, SF-40100 Jyvaskyla, Finland, EUROPE * * * * freopen("/dev/null","r",stdflame); * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * [Moderator's Note: I will only respond to (a): Yes there is 1-800-555-1212 for obtaining listed 800 numbers. You can't call it or most 800 numbers because the called party has not agreed to accept charges from outside the United States (or Canada). PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #571 *****************************   Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 21:51:28 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #572 Message-ID: <8912142151.aa24326@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Dec 89 21:50:28 CST Volume 9 : Issue 572 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Los Angeles to Get a Third Area Code (310) (A. R. White) A Hart Attack (TELECOM Moderator) Wanted: Experiences with RCI Long Distance (Robert Freimer) Remote Parts of Area 619 (Carl Moore) 3CL's Wanted (Ken Ganshirt via Randy Bush) Telephone Message Waiting Signal From CO (Doug Corey) Options With Cellular Phones (Mark Solsman) Re: First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice (Dean Sirakides) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Los Angeles to Get a Third Area Code (310) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 12:44:21 PST From: nomdenet@venera.isi.edu On Tuesday Pacific Bell and General Telephone jointly announced that on February 1, 1992, 2.4 million telephones in the western and southern parts of Los Angeles will be assigned area code 310. The cause is L.A.'s "voracious" appetite for new technology -- cellular telephones, pagers, facsimile machines, and modems. "Simply put, we are running out of telephone numbers," said Dominic Gomez, Pacific Bell area vice president. This marks the first time demand for technology has been more important than population growth in the introduction of a new code. "It looks like we use this technology more intensively here in L.A. than in New York," said Larry Cox, a spokesman for GTE California. In 310 will be the coastal areas -- from the Ventura county line on the west to Long Beach on the south -- Westwood (UCLA), Beverly Hills, and South Central L.A. Downtown L.A. and Hollywood will remain in 213. 213 will border 310 at La Cienega Blvd. on the west, El Segundo Blvd. on the south, and 818 on the north & east. Small parts of Culver City and Beverly Hills will be split between 213 and 310; 213-255, -257, -258, and -852 won't become 310. "They" tried to divide 213 so that the two pieces would grow at similar rates. 310 was chosen because seven of the nine area codes available already were assigned as prefixes in 213, leaving 210 and 310 -- and they judged 310 was easier to distinguish from 213. There will be the usual three-month grace period between Feb. 1 and May 1, 1992, when phone calls to former 213 prefixes still will go through. A. R. White USC/Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina Del Rey, California 90292-6695 (213) 822-1511, x162 -- (310) xxx-xxxx after 1/31/92 (213) 823-6714 facsimile ARPA: nomdenet @ ISI.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 0:26:46 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: A Hart Attack Former Senator Gary Hart is stringing telephone wire across the Soviet Union. Hart, who is a close personal pal of Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, is trying to bring the Soviet telephone system into the fast approaching twenty-first century. In conjuction with *US WEST*, he is working on setting up fiber optic lines across the Soviet Union, and international phone lines from Hamburg to Tokyo. "Hart and Gorbachev signed a letter of agreement for the phone system a few days ago," said my source for this news. "And if Hart isn't getting a nice commission on this deal, he's nuts!." Da! Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 12:37:30 -0500 From: Robert Freimer Subject: Wanted: Experiences with RCI Long Distance I would like to know if anyone has had any experience with RCI Long Distance, a subsidiary of Rochester Tel, either good or bad. They are offering a new program, Empire 750, designed for people who call mostly within New York State. Their rates to anywhere within the state are $.13/min daytime and $.11/min evenings and nights. These are significantly cheaper than AT&T's intrastate rates. They are further sweetening the offer by discounting the first month's bill by 50%, switching you over for free, and switching you back after 60 days if you are not satisfied. This sounds like a very good deal, but how is the quality of their lines, and their billing? Robert Freimer ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 14:55:49 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Remote Parts of Area 619 Are there certain groups of exchanges starting with a common set of 2 digits in the remote (i.e., away from San Diego) parts of area code 619 in California? Example is 37x: 372 Trona 373 California City 374 Randsburg 375 Ridgecrest 376 Kernville 377 Inyokern 378 Weldon 379 Lake Isabella ------------------------------ From: Randy Bush Date: Mon Dec 11 23:00:35 1989 Subject: 3CLs Wanted Reply-To: Ken.Ganshirt@f20.n140.z1.fidonet.org (Ken Ganshirt) Organization: SaskTel Yep, you read it right .. Northern 3CL Cord Boards! I'm looking for some. Need them desperately. We've chased down every source we can think of and have come up absolutely dry so far. Any leads (pun intended) anyone can give me, no matter how tenuous, will be greatly appreciated. Since alternative solutions to my problem are also quite acceptable, here's my problem. We are relocating all of our operator positions to another city. Most of the positions are TOPS or TOPS/MP running off our DMS-200 toll switches so those present no problems. However, we have some services that are inconvenient to do on a TOPS position (tie up a position for too long), would require extensive (ie: expen$ive) mods to TOPS, or are just flat impossible to do on TOPS in any useful fashion in any reasonable time frame. The service giving us the worst fits is General Mobile Telephone Service (GMTS). And we have _lots_ of GMTS all over the province and it isn't likely to go away any time soon. So far it appears that there really isn't any other convenient way to provide GMTS service than with a cord board because of its nature, and that's the way we are doing it right now. The characteristic that is the killer is the requirement for a "revertive calling" capability. For those who don't understand "revertive calling" (I didn't until a couple of weeks ago, and barely do even now ), an example may serve best. When a GMTS mobile wishes to make a call, s/he calls the mobile operator to set up the call. At the time the calling mobile places the call, they may say something like "George is out at the well-site and probably won't be able to answer right away so let it ring for awhile.". The operator plugs into the trunk associated with the channel the called mobile should be on and then she will let the thing ring for up to 3 minutes (mobile users _are_ quite frequently unable to answer in much less time than that, and mobile phones are usually wired to make the horn beep when the phone rings). If there is no answer, the calling mobile may then say something like, "Well, George may be over on the other channel .. could you please try that one." (We have many areas where there are as many as 4 channels available so you can iterate this last scenario up to four times!) Of course if the operator had to actually sit there and listen to the silly phone ring for 3 minutes each time through the loop, s/he wouldn't get a heck of a lot done, right?! Which is where the cord boards are so well suited to this task. While the phone is ringing, s/he can go on and handle other calls and simply plug into the one that s/he left ringing periodically to see what's happening. A good mobile operator can have some number of calls on the go at any one time ....[ ....and most importantly, ALL OF THOSE CALLS _STAY_ AT THAT POSITION so s/he can manage them all and doesn't lose any of them. And _there's_ the flaw with most of the other possibilities we've looked at. With any ACD- or PBX-based alternative we have looked at, you can't keep the call at that position without staying "plugged into" it, and in most cases you can't keep it there under any circumstances. In most cases with the "agent" positions on ACDs and PBXs, as soon as you set up the outgoing loop, the operator is dropped out of the call automatically, with no way to monitor progress or get the call back. In the few cases where the operator can hold the call at that position, they can only do it by staying hooked into the call, making it impossible to do anything else for the entire duration of the call, which could be more than 10 minutes (see above). Why would she have to stay hooked in for the entire duration, even when the call is connected to the called party? Well, the billing on these calls is done with manual tickets so the operator is also timing the call(s) and needs to know when they're finished. All of the ACDs and PBXs we have looked at so far either have no "billing" capability at all, or the "billing" system is only looking at "lines" and not "trunks" (the GMTS channels are all coming and going on "trunks"), and/or comes up way short in some other area(s) that makes it unusable. So if anyone knows of a system that can have "trunks" connected to it and has operator or "agent" positions that will handle multiple simultaneous calls at each position and let the operator keep the call at that position (with a light or some other indication that the call is still present there) without having to stay plugged into the call so s/he can handle other calls concurrently, I would be overjoyed to hear about it. And if you actually sell a product that will do what I need, so much the better!! Otherwise, keep those leads on where I can get some Northern 3CL cord boards coming in....please!! Ken Ganshirt, Network Standards Manager - Switch/MUX SaskTel, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada Voice 306-777-2155 (days, CST) FidoNet: 1:140/18 Compuserve: 76247,230 Envoy: GANSHIRT.KJ I can also correspond via uucp-FidoNet gateway at: "keng@m2xenix.uucp" or "..!uunet!m2xenix!keng" uunet!{ tektronix!nosun!qiclab, oresoft, intelhf }!m2xenix!news Randy Bush ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 18:00:24 MST From: Doug Corey Subject: Telephone Message Waiting Signal From CO There was a question a short time back about how to replace stutter dial tone with a message waiting light. This is available at least to certain US customers with Centrex, Centron, or single line service provided that service is off an appropriate switch (1AESS, 5ESS and, I believe NT switches, running the appropriate generic) and provided the voice mail system sends the right signals to the switch (if you get stutter dial-tone, it probably does). AT&T (I think) came up with this service a couple of years ago. In general its called "Message Service System" and includes "The Bulk Calling Line Message Service", "Individual Calling Line Message Service", "The Visual Message Waiting Indication Service", and "Message Waiting Indication via the I/O Channel for Bulk Calling Line Message Service". The specifications and message formats are described in an AT&T Technical Description, CIR 231-099-022TD (the copy I'm looking at is labeled "Issue 3", and dated February, 1987). As far as "turning on the light" goes, the voice mail provider sends a request to the switch which tells it to provide stutter dial-tone, and/or send a message over the customer's line (using FSK signalling) to alert a "light box" which is bridged on the line at the customer's premise. Messages are only sent while the phone is on-hook or during the silent interval of ringing (latter case I suppose for calling number ID). AT&T (and perhaps others) sells a "light box receiver" and a telephone equipped with the equivalent circuitry. I seem to have tossed the flyer I had so I don't recall the model numbers but as I recall the light box lists for around $50, the phone with the light for a few dollars more. I've never tried to buy one. I suppose you could start with your friendly neighborhood AT&T phone center. ------------------------------ Subject: Options With Cellular Phones Organization: Penn State University Date: Thursday, 14 Dec 1989 11:32:38 EST From: Mark Solsman I am in the same boat as the rest, I would like a cellular telephone in my car. Does anyone know if a telephone with an elapsed time counter is made? Preferably two of them- one to keep track of the peak and one for the off-peak. Thanks in advance! Mark Solsman US mail -> 1012 Whippoorwill Drive Clarks Summit, Pa 18411 BitNET -> MHS108 @ PSUVM.BITNET InterNET -> MHS108 @ PSUVM.PSU.EDU RelayNet -> Mark Solsman (direct mail to node OUTER) ------------------------------ From: Dean Sirakides Subject: Re: First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice Date: 14 Dec 89 15:51:10 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL pml4791@rouge.usl.edu (Landry Patrick M) writes: >I am considering the purchase of a cellular phone for my father and >would appreciate it if a couple of things could be explained to me. I >will be purchasing a portable unit (as opposed to a car-mounted one). >I understand the way cellular works but I don't know some of the >admisistrative details. >1) Do the Bell Companies actually own the cells? A quailfied *yes*. In each cellular service area there are two licenses, one wireline and one non-wireline (this is attempt to allow for competition in any given service area). The wireline licenses are used by the local Bell Companies, the other license is used by the company that was lucky enough to win the right in the FCC lottery. This brings us to your second question: >2) What is all the hubbub about subscribing with a certain carrier? > What are the differences between different carriers? > What questions should I be asking to find the right carrier for me? Each carrier may offer different features depending on which type of equipment they own (even though it is not uncommon for each to have identical CO equipment). The best question to ask is in regards to ROAMING: how much $, can your phone be tracked automatically when you leave your home area... >3) What is the maximum power (watts) cellular phones are allowed to > transmit? What kind of power can I expect to find in the consumer > market? Cellular phones come in there power levels: 4.0, 1.6, 0.6 watts (ERP). 4 watts is used by most car phones and bag phones. 0.6 watts is used by most portables. Bottom line: usually all phones of the same type use the same power levels. >4) How can I get my hands on a cell map? You got me with that one, I'm not sure they are public information. >5) Anything else a novice should know before purchasing? Buying a cheap cellular phone is like buying a cheap house phone don't kid yourself that "a phone is a phone". Ask the dealer which phones are always coming back for repair. Dean Sirakides uunet!motcid!sirakide Motorala Cellular Arlington Heights, IL Of course I speak for myself, not my employer... ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #572 *****************************   Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 22:58:16 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #573 Message-ID: <8912142258.aa31623@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Dec 89 22:57:05 CST Volume 9 : Issue 573 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Finding out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (John R. Covert) Re: Finding out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (Scott D. Green) Re: Data Over Voice (Steven J. Morris) Re: Slick 96? (Herman R. Silbiger) Re: Fiber Optics and ESS?? (Brian Capouch) Re: PacTelesis Power Grab (Fred Goldstein) Re: PacTelesis Power Grab (Lang Zerner) Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? (Marion Hakanson) Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? (Seth Zirin) Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? (Scott D. Green) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 08:03:15 -0800 From: "John R. Covert 14-Dec-1989 1048" Subject: Re: Finding out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number >Does anyone have an idea how to get the "real", out-of-country-callable >number for a company which only has published the 1-800 number ? If you know the name of the company and the city it's in, you should be able to call your own country's international directory assistance number in order to get the regular listed directory number of the company (which may or may not be answered by the same people who answer the 800 number). Although some 800 numbers have a corresponding regular number, this is not always the case. Historically, when there was one phone company, 800 service was provided by routing the 800 number to a local central office. However, depending on the destination, the translation may have been to a dialable number or it may have been to a completely fictitious number which could not be reached except with the 800 number. Even in the cases where there was a real number, in the old days it was contrary to the tariffs to dial it, because the old-style billing on 800 Service was generated based on the usage to this number. If you called it as a regular number, the 800 customer still paid for the call (and you did, too), and the wrong amount of revenue was generated (a real big no-no for a regulated monopoly). Now that there are many long distance companies providing 800 service, it is more common for there to be a regular number and the billing is usually handled in a more rational manner. However, this still is not always the case. The 800 service may be provided on trunks directly from the long distance carrier, with no regular number associated with it, or the fictitious numbers may still be used, or the real numbers may "belong" to the long distance carrier, not to the customer. Even when there is a regular number, the customer may not wish it to be given out, so the long distance companies are not authorized to provide the translated number. And finally, 800 Service is pretty sophisticated. If I call 800 221-2000 to reach TWA Reservations, I will reach a different reservation center depending on what part of the country I'm calling from and what time of day it is. As Patrick already mentioned, there is 800 Directory Assistance, but giving out translated numbers is neither part of their job nor possible for the reasons stated above. >one cannot direct-dial a US directory assistance (areacode + 555 1212) >from outside the United States (we tried). Why ? This is not unique to the United States. I know of no case where customers in one country can call the directory assistance number in another country. Your own country's international directory assistance operator should be able to provide you any information the NPA+555-1212 operator could provide. The reason? Mainly because CCITT recommendations suggest that local operators should handle international directory assistance calls. This is done to ensure that only "trained" persons are on the line dealing with a possible language barrier, and to ensure that the information is presented in the CCITT approved format. (Whether operators are really trained to do this or not is another story. See my article in V9#543.) Also, your local telephone company or PTT may not be willing to spend money on international circuits being used for a service that cannot be charged at the full international call rate -- and many European countries will have a large set of foreign directories in their own international directory assistance bureau to use rather than making the call. >There are no services which we could call who could make us a almost-free >(for them) call to a 1-800 number, while charging us for this service. I've seen ads in some airline magazines for companies which do provide services similar to this. In fact, they provide local or toll-free numbers in many European countries that you can call and be connected to their message center, where they will connect calls, relay messages and so forth. Maybe someone remembers the name of one of these companies. I don't think their service is cheap. >Finally, I called a good friend of mine in the US and had him call the >Intel 1-800 and ask what their "real" number is. THEY REFUSED TO TELL >THIS, SINCE THE NUMBER WAS "INTERNAL" EVEN AFTER HE EXPLAINED WHAT THE >SITUATION WAS! Well, now you're just dealing with a person whose ability to handle a customer located outside the U.S. is less than satisfactory. If this customer service department is not willing to give out the number for their local switchboard, then there's not much else we can say about it. Too bad your friend in the U.S. didn't have three-way calling or call forwarding. He could have connected you. >Is Intel customer service always this sticky? Sounds like this is beyond the scope of TELECOM Digest, and I hope the Moderator will not permit this rathole to develop. /john [Moderator's Note: Customer service problems *within the realm of telephone companies, telephone equipment manufacturers, etc* is okay here. But as Mr. Covert points out, if a company does not wish to give out their phone number in order to receive calls from customers, there is little more we can say about them here. Write them off and find another equipment supplier if possible. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 11:23 EDT From: "Scott D. Green" Subject: Re: Finding out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number I was involved in a similar situation in the UK - it was the middle of the British night when I needed to book a flight back to NY. Everything in Europe, it seemed, shut down before midnite. Directory assistance (800, 212, 718, etc) only had 800- numbers to call, with not a clue as to how to reach them from overseas. ========================== [Moderator's Note: You might also try 312, and 202. Most large airlines with offices in NYC will probably have offices in Chicago. For the two largest carriers in the USA, you can call their Chicago offices as follows: United Airlines 312-569-3000; American Airlines, 312-372-8000. British Airways only has an 800 number here. PT] ------------------------------ From: sjm <@sun.acs.udel.edu:sjm@sun.acs.udel.edu> Subject: Re: Data Over Voice Date: 14 Dec 89 14:08:29 GMT Reply-To: sjm <@sun.acs.udel.edu:sjm@sun.acs.udel.edu> Organization: University of Delaware Here in Delaware I have been told that it costs $100 to install a DOV line and $25/month afterwords. We are installing a campus wide fiber optic backbone so in a year or so most of the DOV lines will go away. Eventually the Centrex system will too. (Oh goody, then we have to learn a new phone system again.) Steven Morris ------------------------------ From: Herman R Silbiger Subject: Re: Slick 96? Date: 15 Dec 89 01:30:19 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories A predecessor to Subscriber Loop Carrier systems was Subscriber Loop Multiplex (SLM). The SLM-40 provided 40 channels, and used Delta Modulation coding. As far as I know, this was the only use of delta modulation in the US telephone network. Herman Silbiger ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 17:20:14 -0600 (CST) From: Brian Capouch Subject: Fiber Optics and ESS?? In TELECOM Digest #570, Marvin Sirbu writes: >Replacement of existing copper to the home with fiber is a decade (at >least) away. I wish he would have marked this as an opinion. This topic, of course, has been the subject of hot debate amongst telco and networking techies, not to mention savvy venture capitalists, for the past year at least. There is definitely *not* yet a consensus. I am of the "sooner" frame of mind. With the advent of FDDI, SONET, and other high-bandwidth fiber technologies, coupled with a decreasing premium for the cost of installing fiber, there is bound to be a move on the part of *all* common information carriers to wire everything new with fiber. This will, IMHO, cause an upsurge in demand on the part of business and residential consumers, and that resultant demand will push providers into rewiring the rest of the plant with fiber. The bigger question is *who* is going to do the wiring. Will it be TV cable companies, local telcos, or some other innovative entity that is out there on the fringes right now, waiting for the cashflow equations to work out right? The "50 Megabit Living Room" that the folks at the Media Lab have been talking about will be here sooner than most think. "Telecommunications" magazine carried a very informative article about the financial aspects of fiber to the home a year or so ago, and I'm sold on the 5-year timespan as being most likely. But of course, this is just an opinion. I'm inviting flames. ------------------------------ From: goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com Subject: Re: PacTelesis Power Grab Date: 14 Dec 89 16:02:05 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Littleton MA USA In article <1863@accuvax.nwu.edu>, ktl@wag240.caltech.edu (Kian-Tat Lim) writes... > Pacific Telesis ran a full-page ad in today's Los Angeles >Times. Here's the text (there is no copyright on the ad): >[Big headline] Can you imagine living in a country that limits the > flow of information to its students? >[Big headline] You do.... >[Headline] Why is the U.S. behind? > In 1984, an agreement between AT&T and the U.S. Justice >Department split up the nationwide Bell system, forming Pacific >Telesis and six other regional holding companies. At that time, very >narrow limits were imposed on the services that their phone company >subsidiaries, like Pacific Bell, could offer. Cute. PacTel is simply doing the usual pressure-job on the courts. Under the judicially-imposed regulations (i.e., the consent decree's a settlement to an antitrust suit, and implies previous guilt), "Bell" companies are allowed to have monopolies on local telephone service, but are not allowed to manufacture or own information providers. They have to buy their goods from the free market (what's that, they wonder?). Indeed Naason Sanches is allowed to have information services, available by phone. What PacTel isn't allowed to do is sell the information. They can sell the access to third parties who provide the information. But Bells are common carriers, who carry information for a price, and not information providers. The court has ruled, in effect, that if they were to be both, they'd have too much clout to compete with other information providers. If they really guaranteed fairness, they'd probably be given more leeway. (The FCC has relaxed its rules, but the court is now the limiting factor.) It takes time for a monopoly to learn to compete fairly. fred Disclaimer: I speak for me. Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ From: Lang Zerner Subject: Re: PacTelesis Power Grab Date: 14 Dec 89 06:29:21 GMT Reply-To: langz@asylum.UUCP (Lang Zerner) Organization: The Great Escape, Inc In article <1863@accuvax.nwu.edu> ktl@wag240.caltech.edu (Kian-Tat Lim) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 555, message 2 of 5 > Pacific Telesis ran a full-page ad in today's Los Angeles >Times. Here's the text (there is no copyright on the ad): For the future reference of all posters, the United States has joined the Berne International Copyright Convention, which means that the text is copyright by default, even if not explicitly stated. I doubt PacTel would be too upset about this message getting spread 'round, but forewarned is forearmed. Be seeing you... Lang Zerner langz@asylum.sf.ca.us UUCP:bionet!asylum!langz ARPA:langz@athena.mit.edu "...and every morning we had to go and LICK the road clean with our TONGUES!" [Moderator's Note: The only one I have trouble with here is Dow Jones and Company / The Wall Street Journal. Those people have screamed a couple times about stuff 'reprinted without permission' on the net in one news group or another. Other papers seem to like us discussing their articles. But Mr. Zerner's point is a good one worth remembering. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 11:14:36 -0800 From: Marion Hakanson Subject: Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR In article <2121@accuvax.nwu.edu> Randal Schwartz writes: >I've lived in the Pacific Northwest all my life, and had never *heard* >of 411 as the number for info until I began taking business trips to >the Bay Area two years ago. And then, I had exactly the *opposite* >shock. >So, is the Pacific Northwest the *only* place in the country that >*doesn't* use 411? (And we still don't!) I've also lived in the NW (in Southern Oregon 'til recently) all of my life, but I remember when 411 did work. And when it stopped working. We lived in the 503-459 prefix area (or whatever you call it), and one used to be able to dial "9" for the prefix if you were calling inside the local area. My memory is hazy, as this was when I was "just a kid," but I think you could dial neighboring prefixes using just the last digit, as well. Anyway, my best guess is that both of these things stopped working sometime in the late 1960's. I remember getting a recording that reminded you to dial "459" when you'd just dialed "9", along with my parents receiving mailed announcements warning of the cutover. No doubt an expert could tell us which old piece of switching equipment was replaced with which new one. Marion Hakanson Domain: hakanson@cse.ogi.edu UUCP : {hp-pcd,tektronix}!ogicse!hakanson ------------------------------ From: Seth Zirin Subject: Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? Date: 14 Dec 89 18:04:03 GMT Reply-To: szirin@cbnewsm.ATT.COM Organization: CCS Consultants, Inc. In article <2121@accuvax.nwu.edu> merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal Schwartz) writes: >So, is the Pacific Northwest the *only* place in the country that >*doesn't* use 411? (And we still don't!) Nope. My local loop connects me to a "Back Woods" telephone company named "United Telephone of NJ" and they also use 555-1212 for DA. They *just* upgraded to a "modern" switch from what surely must have been an old crossbar. I no longer hear 90 bazillion clicks before a dial tone and my answering machine no longer records 60 seconds of busy signal before IT drops incoming calls. Calling home from civilized areas of the global network no longer result in three and sometimes four fast pulsed switching (routing?) sequences. Now if only they could clear up the static I hear on my underground line when the wind blows... I recently made a local credit card call from one of United's payphones and heard only "Thank you". No "for using AT&T" or "for using New Jersey Bell". I'll probably have a coronary when the bill comes... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 11:19 EDT From: "Scott D. Green" Subject: Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? Here in 215 (Bello PA) one dials 1-555-1212 for *any* number in 215. Isn't that a little ridiculous? That's what I love about standards, there are so many of them. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #573 *****************************   Date: Fri, 15 Dec 89 0:02:26 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #574 Message-ID: <8912150002.aa05617@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 15 Dec 89 00:00:58 CST Volume 9 : Issue 574 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (Dave Horsfall) Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (Bob Clements) Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (David Robbins) Re: Dumb Question on Caller*ID (Mark Robert Smith) Re: Dumb Question on Caller*ID (Dave Levenson) Re: Caller ID Question (Russell McFatter) Re: Caller ID Question (Anthony Lee) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Horsfall Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy Date: 14 Dec 89 08:26:24 GMT Reply-To: Dave Horsfall Organization: Alcatel STC Australia, North Sydney, AUSTRALIA In article <1806@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: | The word "Luddite" comes to mind: A person who automatically resists | change, particularly technological. I was under the impression that the Luddites resisted the introduction of technology because it would put them out of a job. Can't really blame 'em - no such thing as unemployment benefits in those days. This got discussed to death in sci.space on NASA vs. Christics. Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU), Alcatel STC Australia, dave@stcns3.stc.oz.AU dave%stcns3.stc.oz.AU@uunet.UU.NET, ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 15:51:08 -0500 From: clements@bbn.com In article <2064@accuvax.nwu.edu> michael@stb.uucp writes: > [... cites emergency calls from unknown numbers ...] >You cannot just ignore phone calls from numbers you don't know. > [...] >ANI [sic, really CLID] gives no effective new features to end users. This is just silly. There are five cases: A) Call is unidentified, "Number refused by caller" B) Call is unidentified, "Out of area, number not available" C) Call is identified, and I (the callEE) know the number and like it. D) Call is identified, and I know the number and dislike it. E) Call is identified and I don't know whose number it is. Given that, I can totally ignore categories A and D, always answer category C and route B and E to an answering machine for screening and possible answering. You might choose a different selection. I might change the selections depending on whether I am going to be awake or not. But that is certainly an effective new feature. >It gives plenty of ABUSE to people compiling information and >selling it. That's why selective blocking by the callER is a requirement in my view. It must be possible to CHOOSE whether you will give out your number. If it's an emergency, I think the caller would not be so foolish as to block the calling number. In any case, I would arrange to give a message "I don't take unidentified calls" when I get such a call. Then the caller could redial from an unblocked phone if it were REALLY necessary. (I don't expect this case to arise in practice, but that's how I would handle it if it did. You might choose some other option. It's a free country.) Bob Clements, K1BC, clements@bbn.com ------------------------------ From: David Robbins Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy Date: 12 Dec 89 17:05:21 GMT Organization: GTE Laboratories, Inc., Waltham, MA I find it faintly amusing that one aspect of Caller ID is regularly ignored in the midst of all the heat it periodically generates; Caller ID is in fact nothing of the sort: it identifies the *telephone line* from which the call originated, but says nothing reliable about the *person* who originated the call. If you assume that Caller ID will tell you who is calling, you will at least occasionally be surprised. You really can never be 100% confident that you know who is calling from the number that Caller ID displays: there is always the possibility that someone has tapped into someone else's line to make their call. For those of you who will rely upon Caller ID to, in effect, tell you whether or how to answer the call: If I call you from a friend's house, or from a pay phone, will you refuse to answer the call because you don't recognize the number I'm calling from? How can you ever be sure that a call coming in from a number you don't recognize is a call you can safely ignore? Those of us (myself included) who presently have *unpublished* directory numbers are *paying* the telephone company to refuse to disclose our numbers to the *public*. We are allowed to choose whether and to whom to disclose the numbers, and we are *never* *forced* to disclose the number as a consequence of our using the telephone. While it is true that our number is known to the local telco and the LD carrier, we have some expectation as a result of past and present practice that the number will not be given or sold to the general public. My number has been unpublished for quite a few years, and it has yet to fall into the hands of telemarketers. I don't call the 900 sleazebags, so they won't get my number. I have no doubt that a resourceful telemarketer could, with sufficient expenditure of effort, obtain my unpublished number -- it's not exactly classified TOP SECRET. But the whole idea of unpublished numbers is to give the customer a certain level of control over the disclosure of the number. Caller ID does, in fact, change that, and does so to a degree I am personally uncomfortable with. The bottom line is that Caller ID is being oversold -- it promises something that it in fact cannot deliver, namely identification of the *person* who is calling (why do you think they call it *Caller* ID?) -- and it takes something away from those of us who pay for an unpublished number. The more I think about it, the less value I can see in having Caller ID. What on earth would I do with it? ------------------------------ From: Mark Robert Smith Subject: Re: Dumb Question on Caller*ID Date: 14 Dec 89 15:57:37 GMT Organization: Rutgers - The Police State of New Jersey The caller ID box I have will hold 10 calls in it's memory. When a call comes in, it displays the number for about 10-20 seconds, then the display reads "CALL" until you actually review the numbers later. To delete a call, you hit the delete key twice. To review calls, you hit the review key, which cycles you back in time call-by-call. The first time you cycle through a given call, a little "NEW" indicator appears. To see the time and date of the call, you hit the Time-And-Date key. Calls remain on the box until you delete them, or memory is full. When the memory if full, a new call will push the oldest call out of memory. If a given phone number calls you twice before you review, only the latest time and date is kept and a "REPEATED CALL" flag is activated. Note that if you have an old call with the same number, it is considered a separate call from the new one, and the repeated call flag is not activated. This way, if Aunt Grace keeps calling you, she doesn't bump all other calls out of memory. Any other questions? Send mail to msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu Mark Smith, KNJ2LH All Rights Reserved RPO 1604 You may redistribute this article only if those who P.O. Box 5063 receive it may do so freely. New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5063 msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Dumb Question on Caller*ID Date: 15 Dec 89 05:07:55 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <2099@accuvax.nwu.edu>, wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil (Will Martin) writes: > I don't recall the following point being mentioned in the ongoing and > longstanding Caller*ID discussion: If the calling number is displayed, > how long does it remain on the display?... The information is only transmitted once, in a single burst, after the first ring. I suppose that different display units act differently. Mine (AT&T logo, made by Colonial Data Systems) displays the number for about fifteen seconds after the first ring, whether or not I answer. > Do any of these displays remember the last "n" numbers shown, so if > you get a string of calls in rapid succession, you can look back > through the history of received numbers to locate, say, the third-last > caller's number? If so, how big is "n" and do they store the > "unidentified" label the same as if it was a number? Are any of these > fancy enough to store the date/time along with the number, or do you > have to hook your own computer or automated logger on the line to get > that degree of service? Again, individual products may be different. Mine remembers the last 30 calling numbers, and the date/time for each. Note that I wrote "last 30 numbers" and not "last 30 calls". If the same number calls several times the same day, it is stored only once, with the most recent date/time, and with a notation that it was a repeat call. The date/time is sent by the CO and does not depend upon a local clock in the display unit. Push-buttons on the unit allow the user to scroll backward in time through the memory, and view the number, date/time, whether or not it was a repeat caller, a NEW notation if it hasn't previously been viewed in review mode. When I return to the office, the device lets me see who called, and when, while I was out. The answering machine also date/time stamps its messages, so it is easy to correlate them with the Caller*ID display. I can also correlate the display with messages taken by the answering service (they only pick up on the main line) but their wallclock is apparently less accurate then the answering machine! The notation OUT OF AREA is considered a calling number. It, too, shows up with the most recent date/time when I scroll back. It, too, shows RPT if more than one arrived the same day. 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: Russell McFatter Subject: Re: Caller ID Question Date: 13 Dec 89 18:56:18 GMT Reply-To: Russell McFatter Organization: Alliant Computer Systems, Littleton, MA I distinctly remember that the first time I saw Caller ID mentioned in the press, New Jersey Bell was working on it. The description of the service was very complete (for an article that came out at least five years before the product itself): it even showed a picture of a telephone set with a tiny 10-digit LED (this is before LCD displays hit it big!) display where the number card usually goes. The text of the article explained what would happen with unlisted numbers: If you were called by a person whose number was unlisted, the display would show a numbered code (such as "A51033") which the telephone company, under court order or for their own investigations, could translate into the actual number. Years later, after the big breakup, New Jersey Bell actually does introduce the service, and this time the story is different. The company has decided that the right to know who is calling supersedes the right to keep your number secret. (I'll agree with that, particularly in the context that if I pay for Caller-ID service, I want just that. Peephole analogy and all.) I want to change the topic: I think that while Caller ID is an improvement over no identification at all, it doesn't really resolve the ACTUAL issue at hand: knowing who is at the other end of the phone. No matter how much effort we put into identifying the PHONE that a particular call comes from, we will never be able to solve certain problems: 1: If you are blocking/ignoring "unknown" caller ID's, you may not be able to get an emergency call from a person you know if they are using an "unknown" phone. 2: If you specifically block a particular number, you can't be sure that the next call from that phone isn't one that you want. If you block a pay phone because some creep is making prank phone calls, your daughter might decide to use that phone (which was at a highway rest stop) to tell you that she was just in an accident and needs help. 3: If you block specific numbers, like the creep calling from the pay phone, nothing stops the creep from moving to the next phone and trying again. The same goes for telemarketers with dozens of outgoing lines. In order to stop them, you'd have to block ALL calls from unknown numbers, which brings us back to problem #1. 4: Even if you DO happen to recognize the caller ID that flashes on your display, you have no idea WHO is calling you. An apparent (oh so obvious) fix to all these problems is to identify the CALLER, not the phone being used to make the call. In the UNIX world, we don't identify people by the TTY they're using, do we? We have usernames and passwords. Why not eventually implement this idea for the dial network as well? This would solve a host of problems... 1: Fixes 1-4 above. We can allow our example daughter to call us from any phone anywhere, even if we are blocking "unknown" calls. 2: A tremendous fix to the privacy problem. When placing a call, the use of a personal ID is OPTIONAL... If I don't want to voluntarily give away my identity, I don't dial a PID. I then take the risk that the number I am calling may not be accepting "anonymous" calls, of course. 3: Replaces calling cards; I can request that any call I place using my PID is billed to me regardless of where I call from. 4: Personal defaults: Your default long-distance company, for example, can apply to you even away from home if you use your PID. 5: Makes dozens of features that we've always wished for possible. For example, reverse call forwarding: Forward calls FROM my own phone to me HERE! I always thought it a stupid concept to have to forward my phone before I leave home, and not to be able to change/cancel the forwarding until I return. If I want to get my calls at a friend's house, I have to forward it before I leave, and for the duration of my trip, my friend gets any call intended for me, even though I'm not there yet! (And I would have to pay for this! No wonder I don't get this feature myself!) 6: Ultimately: Call placement to PEOPLE instead of LOCATIONS. ("I want to talk to my friend; I don't care where he is right now.") A minor extension to reverse call-forwarding. 7: Destination routing / forwarding based on the caller's ID. ("Send all calls to my answering machine EXCEPT for my stockbroker, who should get forwarded here immediately!") Solves the premier problem of call forwarding; having to pay for forwarding of "junk" calls. My answering machine will know not to answer calls from family/friends if I am home (so I will answer them myself). 8: Security and other authentication functions (good for data calls, lets my answering machine know it's OK to playback my messages, etc.) Being able to change passwords "online" would be a nice touch (a big gripe with telephone calling cards: too easy for someone to discover, too difficult to change if I suspect it has been compromised). Russ McFatter [russ@alliant.Alliant.COM] My opinions don't necessarily represent anyone else's. Sorry. ------------------------------ From: Anthony Lee Subject: Re: Caller ID Question Date: 15 Dec 89 00:23:29 GMT Reply-To: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au GREEN@wharton.upenn.edu (Scott D. Green) writes: >What is the interaction with Call Waiting? Now *that* would be I don't see how there would be any interaction between Caller ID and Call Waiting. Actually does the Blue Book say anything about Caller ID and Call Waiting ? Anthony Lee (Humble PhD student) (Alias Time Lord Doctor) ACSnet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz TEL:(+617) 3712651 Internet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (+617) 3774139 (w) SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4067, Australia ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #574 *****************************   Date: Sat, 16 Dec 89 1:50:21 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #575 Message-ID: <8912160150.aa02815@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 16 Dec 89 01:50:08 CST Volume 9 : Issue 575 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson JCS Phone (David Dodell) Enterprise Numbers? Zenith Numbers? (Martin J. Shannon) Kids, Call Santa For $2/minute (Bill Mihalo) Case in Point (John Higdon) Looking for PBX w/ CPC or Ground Start (Jim Gottlieb) AT&T, MCI, Sprint Rates to South Asia (Gihan Dias) Re: Los Angeles to Get a Third Area Code (310) (David Gast) Re: Los Angeles to Get a Third Area Code (310) (Carl Moore) Re: Phone Connections East/West Germany (Piet van Oostrum) Re: A Tangled Tale (David J. Buscher) Re: Fiber Optics and ESS?? (Hector Myerston) Re: AT&T Multi-line Cordless Telephones (John Higdon) Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? (Jon Solomon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 08:12:02 mst From: David Dodell Subject: JCS Phone A couple of weeks back, someone made an inquiry about the JCS Portable Telephone, asking what it was since it claimed to be non-cellular. I made a phone call to JCS and received their literature, and in addition spoke to someone in sales. The portable phone is simply a half-duplex radio with touchtone pad and proper signaling to be used on either an IMTS/MTS phone system in the UHF/VHF services. The short antenna is not for 800 mhz, but is just one of the newer style short stubby antennas you see used on HT these days. For $2300 (I think that was the price), I would go cellular anyday, or if you are in an area that doesn't have cellular service, just get a 30 watt mobile, you'll probably be better off. My last IMTS phone I bought reconditioned for $300 with a one year warrantee. David ------------------------------------------------------------------------- St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona uucp: {gatech, ames, rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell Bitnet: ATW1H @ ASUACAD FidoNet=> 1:114/15 Internet: ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org ------------------------------ From: Martin J Shannon Subject: Enterprise Numbers? Zenith Numbers? Date: 14 Dec 89 18:26:21 GMT Reply-To: mjs@cbnews.ATT.COM (martin.j.shannon,59112,lc,4nr10,201 580 5757) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <2121@accuvax.nwu.edu> merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal Schwartz) writes: >In article <1966@accuvax.nwu.edu> somebody writes: Stuff about 411 & 611 in the northwest USA. But what *I*'d never heard of is referred to in Patrick's moderatorial note: >[Moderator's Note: Hah! *He* thinks 611 gives calling-number-ID! Here >in Chicago we know it reaches the Illinois Bell Repair Service. And >for many years, 211 reached the Long Distance Operator for 90 percent >of the subscribers, while 811 reached Long Distance for the other 10 >percent or so. And what we used to call Enterprise numbers *he* >probably called Zenith numbers. Just a local yokel myself! :) PT] Well, I've spent all my (phone-aware) life in either Staten Island (now 718), and northern NJ (201), and I've never heard of either Enterprise *or* Zenith numbers. What are they? Marty Shannon; AT&T Bell Labs; Liberty Corner, NJ, USA (Affiliation is given for identification only: I don't speak for them; they don't speak for me.) [Moderator's Note: Enterprise and Zenith were the same difference. Some telcos used one name; other telcos used the other. These numbers were the granddaddy of 800 service. In mostly manual, pre-dial-direct times, companies offered Enterprise xxxx or Zenith xxxx numbers as a way to induce customers to call them. They were automatic reverse billing numbers, functioning just like 800 numbers do today. You would raise the operator, and ask for Enterprise xxxx. The operator would consult with Rate & Route to find the 'real' number (remember that phrase from the past few days here?), and she would connect the call. Getting permission from the called party to accept the charges was not necessary. Like 800 numbers today, the old fashioned style could be set up to accept local, regional, intrastate, interstate or international calls, or various combinations. Believe it or not, there are a few companies still listed in the Chicago phone book with Enterprise numbers, but they are few and far between. In the early 1970's, I had Enterprise 5479, which rang my office phone, WEbster 9-4600. The charges came on the regular long distance phone bill. PT] ------------------------------ From: nmpwem2@apcvxa.uchicago.edu Subject: Kids, Call Santa For $2/minute Date: 15 Dec 89 14:38:14 GMT I just saw a TV ad on one of the cable channels where somebody dressed in a Santa suit is asking kids to call him at a 900 number. The charge is $2/minute. My four-year-old son saw the ad and immediately wanted to call Santa. We had a long discussion that the person in the ad wasn't the real Santa. Although we've taught our four-year-old to dial the phone (for emergencies), he can't remember the string of 11 digits needed to make a 900 call. Bill Mihalo uucp: att!chinet!calumet!wem ------------------------------ Subject: Case in Point Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 15 Dec 89 12:25:27 PST (Fri) From: John Higdon What on earth can be done? Last week, an associate ordered a simple 8KHz audio circuit from Pac*Bell, who promised an install date of 12/19. Today we learn that because the far end terminates in GTE territory (and GTE has expressed a total non-willingness to perform on this according to our Pac*Bell rep) we won't have the circuit until January 4. My experience with GTE in the past is that this is probably the first of many missed due dates to come. We all talk about whether GTE has this latest equipment or that, or that one-line residence POTS customers seem to be satisfied with their simple service, but it's the GTE *attitude* that is the major problem here. The impression here is that the people associated with GTE genuinely don't give a damn whether they provide useful service or not. When I checked into GTE rates, I was given a third degree regarding the purpose of my inquiry, whereas Pac*Bell cheerfully sent me a detailed brochure. It is truly amazing that GTE can screw up virtually everything it is involved with, and yet defenders seem to come out of the woodwork. I am convinced that even more than Pac*Bell (and I've certainly made no secret of how I feel about them), GTE has got to be the real ball and chain on the legs of telephonic progress in California. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Looking for PBX w/ CPC or Ground Start Date: 15 Dec 89 23:58:41 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles As we outgrow our KX-T1232, we are looking for a new PBX. Of course we want all the normal PBX features like ARS and DID; what we want that is a bit unusual is the ability to have station lines that are ground start or at least provide a CPC signal (a momentary open) when the calling party hangs up. The only switch that I have personally witnessed this on was a NEC NEAX 2400. The analog ports on the NEC received CPC. However, a friend reports that he checked another NEAX 2400 and found that not to be the case. Perhaps there are several varieties of analog station cards. I would appreciate hearing from anyone that knows of a switch that does what we want. Thanks... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Dec 89 11:48:20 PST From: Gihan Dias Subject: AT&T, MCI, Sprint Rates to South Asia Patrick, I hope you can help me with some info. Recently dhk@teletech.uucp (Don H Kemp) sent a message on comp.dcom.telecom about an AT&T rate change to South Asia. I called AT&T international rate info, but they wouldn't confirm it. Do you know anyplace I could find out if this rate change has been approved and is going into effect? Also I'd like to know if MCI and Sprint are following suit, do you have contacts for these Co's too? Thanks, Gihan [Moderator's Note: Can anyone help this fellow find what he wants? PT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 21:43:28 -0800 From: David Gast Subject: Re: Los Angeles to Get a Third Area Code (310) Just out of curiosity, why is it that when an Area Code becomes full, it is split when it might make more sense to alter the boundaries of neighboring area codes. There are many examples. 201 is being split, yet 609 its neighbor to the South in New Jersey is almost empty. 312 has just been split, yet 815 which used to surround 312 in Illinois has plenty of room. Similarly it was just announced that 213 would split into 213 and 310, yet 714 and 818 are hardly busting at the seams and 805 and 619 have plenty of room. On a related note, the 213 split is said to have occurred because of the growth of cellular and fax lines (and probably centrex and numbers which are used but not associated on a one to one basis with physical lines). It seems to me that rather than pass the cost of this split onto every individual in the country, that the cost should be born by those who are causing the trouble. Given the prevailing socialism for the rich and powerful, however, everyone will pay. Finally, the LA paper seemed to gloat over the fact that LA would be the first city with 3 area codes and 4 if you include 714 in Orange County. It obviously never appeared to the editor that NYC has 2 area codes and 5 if you count contiguous, metropolitan areas. 201 is right across the Hudson; 516 is on Long Island just past the city boundary. 914 includes Westchester County which is just North of the Bronx. Finally, 203 is in Conn. I can't remember for sure if it touches NYC; I seem to recall that Conn is only a few miles away from NYC. (Note: I do not believe that Orange County ever touches LA either). As far as I can tell, an extra area code just means more dialing; it is not great accomplishment. [ The minor geographical issues involved are not worth many follow-ups. This is TELECOM Digest, not alt.geography.trivia. Please send me your information. I can then summarize to the Digest if necessary. Please do not copy the Digest. ] David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu {uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Dec 89 17:23:52 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Los Angeles to Get a Third Area Code (310) Is 310 to: Border area 805 on the west? Include Malibu? When 818 was formed, JSol (a former Telecom moderator) pointed out that there are some "Los Angeles" prefixes which serve as "foreign" exchanges in places like Burbank, with such "foreign" prefixes staying in 213 although the other exchanges serving that (e.g. Burbank) area went into 818. Are there any such "foreign" exchanges in what will become 310 area? ------------------------------ From: Piet van Oostrum Subject: Re: Phone Connections East/West Germany Date: 15 Dec 89 14:27:16 GMT Reply-To: Piet van Oostrum Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands In article <1979@accuvax.nwu.edu>, HGSCHULZ@cs (Henning Schulzrinne) writes: `The following are excerpts translated from the November 18 edition of `the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Frankfurt, West Germany (translated `without permission): ` `"Calling the GDR is almost hopeless" `==================================== ` A few days ago the PTT-ministers of the FRG and GDR governments met. The FRG is offering upgrades to the GDR telephone system (especially Berlin) and to the connections between the two. Piet* van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands. Telephone: +31-30-531806 Uucp: uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!ruuinf!piet Telefax: +31-30-513791 Internet: piet@cs.ruu.nl (*`Pete') ------------------------------ From: "David J. Buscher" Subject: Re: A Tangled Tale Date: 15 Dec 89 17:09:04 GMT Reply-To: "David J. Buscher" Organization: The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory It seems that the tangled tale may be more far flung. I live in Clarksville, MD between Balt and Wash. and am in Balt LATA. I have an FX line in Wash. It is a 596 exchange and I frequently call a 484 exchange in Wash. In Nov. my usual $30 phone bill went to $178 with a bunch of 484 calls to Pikesville (Balt) listed. I called the business office and after going round and round finally got the appropriate credit. Dec the same thing happened and C&P said the problem should now be fixed. Perhaps there is a relationship to the Ashton problem. ------------------------------ From: myerston@cts.sri.com Date: 15 Dec 89 09:19 PDT Subject: Re: Fiber Optics and ESS?? Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA 94025 [(415)326-6200] When I read Marvin Sibu's original comment (No fiber to the home for a decade (at least)) I thought he was being wildly optimistic. Now Brian Capouch sees it within 5 years. Opinions being what they are... Here is mine: Facts: [Maybe Factoids :-)] o We are a long way from rudimentary steps like digital local loops to provide even "ISDN-like" services. Read the actual NUMBERS behind the trials, announcements and PR BS. o While fiber may be getting cheaper vis-a-vis copper the terminal equipment isn't. How is the fiber going to support grammy's black 500 POTS set?. Lets see... a fiber network interface, a fiber mux, a fiber-to-copper converter, an ISDN Terminal Adapter... plus, of course an uninterruptable power source. o Market tests show that most of the general public is not as impressed as us techies by things like HDTV. How many people do you know have megabuck TVs connected to rabbit ears or tolerate third rate CATV systems? Check the history of Teletex services, bank-at-home and interactive video in the US. I wish it were not so, but I think that fiber-to-the-home or even its cousin fiber-to-the-curb are much more than 10 years away. I doubt if things like ISDN, HDTV standards, or even Calling-Party ID ( :-) ) will be settled by the year 2000. Of course, the 37th re-incarnation of the AT&T Picture Phone will be "just over the horizon" by the year 2000. Just an opinion. ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: AT&T Multi-line Cordless Telephones Date: 14 Dec 89 23:28:20 PST (Thu) From: John Higdon Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 writes: > The electronic phones on an AT&T System 75 can use up to 4 pair. If > it's a hybrid phone they use one pair for analog, one pair for digital > in, one pair for digital out, and if it's running an accessory, like a > speakerphone another pair for distributing central power. If you have > no accessories the power pair is unnecessary (this can also be handled > by having a PS local to the device). If you're using a digital set, > then the analog pair is not necessary. But why, Why, WHY, can't they put data send, data receive, and power on ONE pair? Every other manufacturer in the known civilized world seems to be able to do this. An exception is Mitel, who puts analog voice (full duplex), send data, receive data, and power over A SINGLE PAIR. The question wasn't "what is on the pairs", but rather "why do they have to use so many when others don't for the same amount of information conveyance"? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Dec 89 11:35:53 EST From: jsol@bu-it.bu.edu Subject: Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? In Connecticut, you dial 1-411. jsol [Moderator's Note: Jon Solomon (jsol) was the founder of TELECOM Digest and the moderator for several years. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #575 *****************************   Date: Sat, 16 Dec 89 2:44:04 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #576 Message-ID: <8912160244.aa15406@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 16 Dec 89 02:40:27 CST Volume 9 : Issue 576 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping (John Higdon) Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping (Russell McFatter) Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping (Dean Sirakides) Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping (Jim Gottlieb) Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (Ken Jongsma) Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (David Lewis) Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (Jim Gottlieb) Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (Wm. R. Franklin) Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (Jon Solomon) Re: 9600 Baud Modem Standards (Randolph J. Herber) Re: 3CLs Wanted (Julian Macassey) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping Date: 14 Dec 89 23:55:26 PST (Thu) From: John Higdon "Kevin P. Kleinfelter" writes: > What if he gets one one the same frequency, and puts it next to his > stereo (which he leaves running 24 hours a day)? Who gets priority? > Is this a first-come/first-serve situation? This is what cooperation is all about. "Professional" users of the airwaves have known for decades that the only way maximum use can be made of the spectrum is by mature, enlightened interaction. If your scenario can resemble reality, it is good motivation for *not* turning over the airwaves to the masses. To answer your question, if the people involved couldn't get together and work out an arrangement (change frequencies, time share, etc.) then I guess they'll just have to slug it out or go back to the jungle from whence they came. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Russell McFatter Subject: Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping Date: 14 Dec 89 23:50:31 GMT Reply-To: Russell McFatter Organization: Alliant Computer Systems, Littleton, MA In article <2111@accuvax.nwu.edu> msa3b!kevin@gatech.edu (Kevin P. Kleinfelter) writes: >What if he gets one one the same frequency, and puts it next to his >stereo (which he leaves running 24 hours a day)? Who gets priority? >Is this a first-come/first-serve situation? There are actually plenty of FCC regulations to cover situations of this type. The general overview, as I understand it, works like this: Although FCC regulations even prohibit low-power (Part 49) stations from causing intentional interference to each other, it's very unlikely that they would get involved in such a case. One of the two stations would have to prove not only that the interference exists, but that the intent of the other party is malicious. Even if a formal complaint were filed with supporting information, the FCC's first act would usually be to suggest a peacable, voluntary coexistence (possibly by getting one of the stations to switch to a different frequency if possible). Beyond that, a civil suit would probably have to be filed to get any action. What, then, of the guy with the baby monitor next to his stereo? Nothing will probably happen to him, unless the neighbors decide to take him to court (where, if they can prove intentional interference, the FCC's regulations will be on their side). Many questions would be asked in such a case: Was the defendant using this setup for a legitimate purpose, or purely to harass and annoy? (Did he listen to the monitor's receiver 24 hours a day?) Was it actually necessary? Did either party consider alternate measures, such as a wired intercom, or remote (wired) speakers for the stereo? The cost of doing all this would most likely outweigh (by a few thousand times) the cost of a wired intercom. How many people bought a CB radio and gave up on it because of all the interference and noise? The baby monitor in this case would probably end up in the attic next to the CB. Russ McFatter [russ@alliant.Alliant.COM] Std. disclaimer applies. ------------------------------ From: Dean Sirakides Subject: Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping Date: 15 Dec 89 17:21:51 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) writes: >In Tom Clancy's "Clear and Present Danger" one of the intelligence >gathering methods used was intercept of cellular phone conversations >by satellites. How real was this use in a fictional story? Is it >possible. I would assume it's picking up the cell transmitters, not >the 4 watt portables, but... In his book, you'll recall, the bad guys used *portables* to make their calls. Portable cellular phones transmit at a maximum of 0.6 watts and usually less to conserve battery life; it seems hard to believe that this would be detectable from space. The base sites use 50+ watts, so detecting them may be more feasible, although, it is commonplace to use directional transmit antennas, further complicating things. The whole situation is made worse by the pleathora of frequencies used and the variety of cell locations. When I read the book, I wondered why everyone went through the trouble of a satellite and supercomputer. After all, cellular calls still make use of land lines. Why not just tap the trunk at the EMX where ALL cellular calls pass? Dean Sirakides uunet|motcid|sirakide Motorola Cellular Arlington Heights, IL Of course I speak for myself, not my employer... ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping Date: 15 Dec 89 19:26:03 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles In article <2058@accuvax.nwu.edu> jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) writes: >In Tom Clancy's "Clear and Present Danger" one of the intelligence >gathering methods used was intercept of cellular phone conversations >by satellites. How real was this use in a fictional story? Is it >possible. It's very real. And it's not just cellular conversations. I was rather surprised when I visited a satellite dish-owning friend and he showed me how he could listen in to _regular_ long distance telephone calls. And it didn't take any fancy equipment. I guess we can be thankful that the use of satellite for telephone calls is declining (these calls were all from Alaska to Florida), but this is just a reminder that you can never assume that ANY call is completely private. Jim Gottlieb E-Mail: or or V-Mail: (213) 551-7702 Fax: 478-3060 The-Real-Me: 824-5454 ------------------------------ From: ken@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number Date: Fri, 15-Dec-89 05:33:21 PST I had a similar experience on a recent trip to Melbourne, Australia. I had forgotton to reconfirm my return seat the next day and the Sydney ticket office was closed. I tried using AT&T's USA Direct to get the US International Desk, but the operator wouldn't put the call through to United's 800 number. As a last desperate measure :), I had the local operator get me the local United number in Chicago, then placed an international call to that number. Seems to me it cost about $8, but at least I didn't lose my seat! Ken Jongsma ken@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number Date: 15 Dec 89 16:44:08 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <2130@accuvax.nwu.edu>, otto@jyu.fi (Otto J. Makela) writes: > Does anyone have an idea how to get the "real", out-of-country- > callable number for a company which only has published the 1-800 > number ? I can recommend the technique suggested by Anna Robrock in an article on international telecom in the latest issue of IEEE Communications Magazine. (Paraphrasing, cause I don't have the article on me. Note that Ms. Robrock lives in Italy). "I call the Italtel operator and, in my best colloquial Italian, swear at these idiotic self-centered Americans who think they're the whole world, and see if I can get him or her to get through to a US operator and look up the number. If she/he won't, I hang up and try again in a few minutes to see if I get another operator." David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number Date: 15 Dec 89 19:14:34 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles In article <2130@accuvax.nwu.edu> otto@jyu.fi (Otto J. Makela) writes: >AND THEY ONLY GIVE A >1-800 NUMBER ! We of course cannot call this number from Europe. Spending most of my time in Japan lately, I come across this problem constantly. In fact, I had a DISA (Direct Inward Station Access) installed on my home Centrex here in L.A. to help with this problem. Unfortunately, I have problems breaking its dial tone from Japan. So I'm back in the same boat. It just does not occur to people in the U.S. that people outside North America can not call their (800) number. Recently, I saw an ad in the Far Eastern Economic Review directed towards business people in Asia. And the only number given in the ad was their U.S. (800) number! Since computer hardware in Japan is twice the price, we try to buy everything in the U.S. and ship it over. I use magazines like Byte, Unix World, and PC to track down what we need. The advertisers who do not provide a non-(800) number can't get my business. Perhaps one more example of American businesses not doing what it takes to get more international business (but again, this subject is beyond the scope of this group). Jim Gottlieb E-Mail: or or V-Mail: (213) 551-7702 Fax: 478-3060 The-Real-Me: 824-5454 ------------------------------ From: Wm Randolph Franklin Subject: Re: Finding out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY Date: 15 Dec 89 20:00:23 GMT In article <2156@accuvax.nwu.edu> covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert) writes: >And finally, 800 Service is pretty sophisticated. If I call 800 >221-2000 to reach TWA Reservations, I will reach a different >reservation center depending on what part of the country I'm calling >from and what time of day it is. That feature really bugged me a few years ago when I, living in CA at the time, wanted to check on my IRS return, which had been filed in NY. The IRS 800 number connects to a regional office, they'd won't give out the non-800 equivalent for other offices, and each office has access to only the records for its region. (I finally persuaded them to transfer me on an internal tie line, but they were reluctant to.) So its not just international callers who have problems with 800 numbers. Wm. Randolph Franklin Internet: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (or @cs.rpi.edu) Bitnet: Wrfrankl@Rpitsmts Telephone: (518) 276-6077; Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU; Fax: (518) 276-6261 Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Dec 89 11:32:50 EST From: jsol@bu-it.bu.edu Subject: Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number Some Boston area airlines have 617-XXX-XXXX numbers which ring directly at the airport (most of them were downtown Boston numbers, but that could change now that the Airport exchange is ESS (it was crossbar before). Depends on how many lines there are, and how much they want to save money vs. change their phone number. jsol ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 9600 Baud Modem Standards Organization: Leptons and Quarks, Winfield, IL 60190-1412 Date: 14 Dec 89 23:48:58 CST (Thu) From: Randolph J. Herber In article <1865@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 555, message 4 of 5 >(Telenet is starting to >offer 9600-baud service -- how do I make sure >that their modem is compatible with mine or with one I might call from >their network when >they get around to adding 9600 baud outdial as well?) >Ted Lee 1. Telenet's customer service number is 1 800 336 0437 (1 703 689 6400). 2. From their Winter 1989 booklet, "U.S. Access Telephone Numbers": a. The modems are Microcom V.29 compatibles b. The 9600 baud service is available in * Phoenix, AZ * Los Angles, CA * San Francisco, CA * Denver, CO * Washington, DC * Maimi, FL * Atlanta, GA * Chicago, IL * Kansas City, KS & MO * New Orleans, LA * Baltimore, MD * Boston, MA * Ann Arbor, MI * Detroit, MI * Minneapolis, MN * St Louis, MO * Newark, NJ * Princeton, NJ * New York, NY * Cincinnatti, OH * Cleveland, OH * Columbus, OH * Kent, OH * Portland, OR * Philadelphia, PA * Pitsburgh, PA * Dallas, TX * Ft Worth, TX * Houston, TX * Seattle, WA * Milwaukee, WI 3. From discussions with their customer service department, I learned that the modems were neither PEP or V.32 compatible, that they have received many requests for V.32 support, and that they were considering installing V.32 capacity in early 1990. Randolph J. Herber, @ home: {att|mcdchg|laidbak|clout|obdient|wheaton}!yclept!rjh, rjh@yclept.chi.il.us ------------------------------ From: julian macassey Subject: Re: 3CLs Wanted Date: 15 Dec 89 20:20:34 GMT Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood CA U.S.A. There are some places in the U.S. that are still using Cord Boards. Crown City Plating, Rosemead CA, used to have one - may still do. You can call them at (818) 444-9191 and ask. I once told them they would be happy with a Mitel, they scowled. They are a pretty high tech plater of plastics etc. Kinda funny to see an attendant (telephonist) sitting at a board in the eighties. But I digress. About five years ago when I was meeting with some British Telecom people from Martlesham, they told me that BT was still producing cord boards. So try giving BT a bash. Maybe a BT type will write in and give an address/number where these devices can be bought shiny and new. Some countries in Europe were still using cord boards in COs up till the seventies. I remember seeing a creaky old mahogany board in a Norwegian CO. Screwed to the mahogany top was a Touch Tone pad. Yup, you rang the operator and she dialled Oslo for you on the Touch Tone pad. So maybe some Europe telcos have warehouses of these things -- Cord boards, not TT pads. Now Northern Telecom U K has been selling switches into Europe, Africa and Asia where they have replaced cord boards. Maybe they have taken these things away as a trade in deal. Ask them if they have any, when they have stopped laughing maybe they will let you have them cheaply. NT UK Tel # (628) 33211. By the way, in my kitchen I have an old Western Electric operators high chair. Built like a battleship. Good luck with the search. Julian Macassey, n6are julian@bongo.info.com {ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian N6ARE@K6IYK (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #576 *****************************   Date: Sat, 16 Dec 89 3:21:20 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #577 Message-ID: <8912160321.aa16019@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 16 Dec 89 03:20:32 CST Volume 9 : Issue 577 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (Really Caller-ID Once Again) (David Gast) Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (Really Caller-ID Once Again) (John Higdon) Re: Caller ID Question (Bernie Cosell) Re: Phone Wiring and Voltage Levels in Britain/Ireland (John Hughes) Re: Data Over Voice (Richard Steele) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 16 Dec 89 00:39:34 -0800 From: David Gast Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (Really Caller-ID Once Again) Unfortunately I cannot remember exactly who made this arguement and I must admit it was very persuasive for a while, but I just realized why it is not cogent. The arguement is that a telephone number is not private because the telephone company, not the individual controls it. I suggest that the individual does not have significant control over much private information. Most people would agree that a Social Security Number is private, yet the individual has no control over it. The government assigns it; if they wished they could change it. Since some SSN's have been given out more than once, I suggest that the government has excercised that right. Most people would agree that a person's salary is private, yet most individual's cannot unilaterally change their salary. The list could go on, but I suggest that privacy does not only concern information the individual has complete control over. David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu {uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast [Moderator's Note: Well David, you would be happy with phone service here in Chicago, then. Illinois Bell today announced that while many CLASS features are being implemented during the last half of 1990 here, including my own CO, Caller-ID will *not* be available in the IBT LATA in the forseeable future. Bah, humbug! PT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (Really Caller-ID Once Again) Date: 15 Dec 89 00:31:05 PST (Fri) From: John Higdon Michael Gersten writes: > * Grrr. That's two non-thinking replies to the same point I just read. > [...] > ANI gives no effective new features to end users. It gives plenty of > ABUSE to people compiling information and selling it. And thank YOU for your comprehensive and throughly-thought-out pronouncement concerning Caller-ID. I'm an end user and I can think of plenty of uses. 1. When callers talk to my computerized answering machine, it can recognize their number and give them an appropriate outgoing message, or even a particular message that I have wanted to deliver to them. Unrecognized numbers would still go to a general recording. 2. I am on call and my answering machine can page me. With Caller-ID, the machine could page and insert the caller's number in my pager, eliminating a confusing and error-prone step in the paging process. 3. A list could be prepared of "hang-up calls". This would provide me with evidence of how effective my answering system is in encouraging clients to leave their pertinent information. Also, I could return calls from those retiscent to leave information. 4. Since I have irregular hours, I am frequently sleeping when the world at large is doing business. However, there are some people that I must speak to when they call, regardless. Caller-ID would help my machine to deal with that problem much more effectively than it does now. Believe it or not, I will concede that there are legitimate concerns about the implementation of Caller-ID. But I will not stand still for one second when short-sighted people catagorically dictate that they can't see any reason why we, the public, don't need something they don't like. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Bernie Cosell Subject: Re: Caller ID Question Date: 15 Dec 89 17:00:16 GMT russ@alliant.com (Russell McFatter) writes: Ah... the topic that won't die... >I want to change the topic: I think that while Caller ID is an >improvement over no identification at all, it doesn't really resolve >the ACTUAL issue at hand: knowing who is at the other end of the >phone. No matter how much effort we put into identifying the PHONE >that a particular call comes from, we will never be able to solve >certain problems: [... the mostly-clear problems inherent in CID...] >An apparent (oh so obvious) fix to all these problems is to identify >the CALLER, not the phone being used to make the call. In the UNIX >world, we don't identify people by the TTY they're using, do we? We >have usernames and passwords. Why not eventually implement this idea >for the dial network as well? This would solve a host of problems... Just as I opined, about a year ago: the I-can't-deal-with-answering-the- phone-and-just-hanging-up crowd will figure out that CID really doesn't do much for any _real_ problem, and that the "ansering a phone is *privacy* but doing electronic identifying isn't" folks will soon be asking for things like: >2: A tremendous fix to the privacy problem. When placing a call, the use > of a personal ID is OPTIONAL... If I don't want to voluntarily give away > my identity, I don't dial a PID. I then take the risk that the number > I am calling may not be accepting "anonymous" calls, of course. Won't that be good --- a nice, nation-wide electronically-tracked database of *everyone* who wants to __USE__ a phone. Not even a matter of conditions on *having* a phone.... and he calls this a tremendous "fix" to the privacy problem... I guess in his worldview the "problem" is that it might still be possible to do *somehting* without the gov't tracking you every step of the way. >5: Makes dozens of features that we've always wished for possible. Yeah... everything except privacy.. :-( [PS, as an aside I'm curious: when did this notion that "answering the phone" was somehow related to "privacy" in the Constitutional sense? It seems totally bizarre to me. People keep talking about the "peephole" analogy, but the reality is very different: peepholes protect you from *physical* threat, and in some sense DO have to do with your privacy [since the person can see if you're dressed or not, or where the stereo is, or if your new copy of the heavy breathers journal is on the coffee table]. Answering the phone embraces no such threats --- it seems that asking who is calling and if you don't get an answer you like hanging up more than adequately protects your "privacy". Now, you can complain that your *peace* has been disturbed, and I totally agree, but the peephole analogy doesn't work there at all. IF the doorbell rings, you have to go figure out who is there ANYWAY [and if it is an otherwise undistinguished person, you'll STILL have to ask them who they are and what they want... just like answering the phone. [Unless your world is different than mine: no one is "ID"ed on my front porch... the very best I can do is only the crudest of physical guesses about who's there [thereby displaying all your latent fears and prejudices about which book-covers conceal real threats inside-the-book]. That stranger on the porch is as liable to be a new neighbor from the next block as another Jehovah's Witness as a person selling storm windows]. Accepting privacy threat (as I see it) of CID as the response to the breach of your *peace* sure seems like overreaction --- killing a fly with a sledgehammer. There are MUCH easier ways [IMHO] to effect some kind of effective screening of your incoming calls [probably better than CID could ever dream to be unless the CID-likers get their apparent wish and we go to a fully-electronically-tracked society]. When we should be up in arms about the abuses to our privacy *already* being done, it is astonishing that there are knowledgable folks seriously arguing that that we should have *less*. If anything, instead of lobbying my PUC to get CID available, I'd be fighting to get *tougher* laws to make it mucho mucho mucho harder to let **ANYONE** see the CID info. Oh well... sorry to flame on again on this long dead topic, but that turn of phrase: that to really "fix" the privacy problem we need *better* electronic tracking of us all really got to me... :-( /Bernie\ ------------------------------ From: "John H." Subject: Re: Phone Wiring and Voltage Levels in Britain/Ireland Date: 15 Dec 89 19:52:56 GMT Organization: Axis Design, 135 rue d'Aguesseau 92100 Boulogne France In article , lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) writes: - UK uses a different dial layout from the rest of Europe and the USA. - I would expect Ireland to follow England in this respect. - In the US, a "1" is a single pulse, and "0" is ten pulses. - In the UK, a "0" is a single pulse, "1" is two pulses, - and so on, until "9" which is ten pulses. To find out the status - of this, ask your parents to look at the dials on rotary telephones. - If "0" is to the left of "9" rather than to the right of "1", - then dialling in pulse mode may require translation of the keys. - This is usually not convenient for older people. Well, I think you're confusing the UK and Sweden. Pulse dialing in the UK is just like everywhere else, I.E. "1" sends one pulse, "2" sends two and "0" sends 10. John Hughes (British expatriate, ex owner of BT). ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Dec 89 14:16:18 -0500 From: Richard Steele Subject: Re: Data Over Voice Reply-To: Richard Steele Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network Thanks to everyone who replied (both by mail and news) to my query about "data over voice" (DOV) units. I'd like to reply to everyone who responded, but since it's finals week here (I'm sure everyone remembers those), I'll save time by responding to [Michael.Fryd@g.gp.cs.cmu.edu] since his experience with DOV is very close to mine: >Around here, DOV means "Data Over Voice" and refers to the Gandlaf DOV >640 modems that provide 64kb synchronous communications over a >standard voice pair, without interfering with normal voice service. This is exactly the unit we have here. >In Pittsburgh, this service is known as Metropolitan Campus Network >(MCN) and is provided by some combination of Carnegie-Mellon >University (CMU) and Bell of PA. This is similar to the arrangement Purdue has... >Two DOV modems are actually used for each house served. One is placed >at the Bell of PA Central office(CO), between the switch and the cable >pair to your house. The second DOV is installed in your house, >electrically between the Network Interface Jack and your existing >household phone wires. >+---------+ >| Central | voice +--------+ data and voice +---------+ voice +---------+ >| Office |-------| CO DOV | ----------------| user DOV|-------|telephone| >| switch | +--------+ +---------+ +---------+ >+---------+ | | > |data |data >Port Selector in CO--- + +-------Home terminal or PC >The modems communicate using frequencies above the voice band. The >DOVs completely ignore all of the normal telephone signals, allowing >uninterrupted data communications regardless of whether the phone line >is in-use, ringing, or idle. The DOV operates as 64Kb synchronous. >In order for the DOVs to work you must be within a pre-set distance (I >think on the order of a few miles) from the CO. I believe this was the general concensus of the many replies I've gotten. Perhaps my biggest problem was that I didn't realize the simple twisted pair could handle such large bandwidths. Why is there a limit on the distance to the CO? Is there any reasonable way to increase this? >The real problem with this setup, is that it only allows you to communicate >with the CO. Bell of PA installed port selectors in three of the COs >near CMU. These were connected by fiber to CMU. [more info deleted] This is where the Purdue system differes (slightly) from the one at CMU. Since Purdue effectively owns the local network (i.e. we have to dial "9" to get an off-campus number), the "CO" is actually on-campus, very near the computer setups. Our hookup is to an ISN (Integrated Services Network), which is, I believe, a product from AT&T. We can go from there directly to most campus networks or go to the SDS (Serial Data Switch) to get to others, including those off campus. (I could, if I had the desire and the account, log onto a computer at Indiana University from the comfort of my own home! Life _is_ wonderful...) >When I left the program, only 9600 and 19.2 kBd async was supported, >with plans for 64Kb, possibly using Serial Line IP. Unfortunately, ISN (I think as Purdue has it configured) only supports 9600 baud. Unless I'm doing a _big_ file transfer to my home PC, this is very acceptable. Of course, there's the old programming adage that a project will fill the time alotted; a loose corollary would be a user always fills the bandwidth provided... :-) :-) >The most amazing thing was that the system worked very well. Voice >and data operated independently on the same copper pair. Incoming and >outgoing calls did not affect data at all. I definately agree. The system is _much_ slicker than using a 2400 baud dialup. Not only is it faster, but my roomates are much happier now that they have a phone again. >I have no idea what the applicable tariffs were. Payments were made >to CMU, but installations and service was provided by Bell of PA. I >was always amazed that the Bell service operators (just dial 611) were >able to cope with MCN trouble reports. We make our payments to our residence hall; the program right now is limited to most of the housing units, with plans to expand to off-campus users. I'm not sure how this would affect the CO connections, since Purdue has its own CO -- I hate to think of the mess it might cause! My roomate (_he's_ the expert in telephony) insits we should just go to ISDN; I'll bring him back to this century sometime before lunch. :-) As for cost, we pay $100 for the academic year, which includes charges from the CO. The unit is rented and there is no monthly fee. From several responses I've gotten, I'd say this is a competetive deal... >Michael Fryd >President Voice: (412) 751-5557 >MEFCO, Inc. Fax: (412) 751-8403 >2401 Coulter Road Email: Michael.Fryd@CS.CMU.EDU >McKeesport, PA 15131-4251 Thanks for the helpful response... Richard A. Steele Purdue University ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #577 *****************************   Date: Sun, 17 Dec 89 0:01:13 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #578 Message-ID: <8912170001.aa08566@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 17 Dec 89 00:00:01 CST Volume 9 : Issue 578 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Answering Machine "Calls Back?" (John Higdon) Re: Answering Machine "Calls Back?" (Anton Rang) Re: 9600 Baud Modem Standards (Herman R. Silbiger) Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (David Lewis) Re: Slick 96? (Mark L. Milliman) Re: First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice (John Higdon) Cincinnati Bell Used 411 for Ringback (Tony Schaeffer) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Answering Machine "Calls Back?" Date: 14 Dec 89 23:45:14 PST (Thu) From: John Higdon Anton Rang writes: > My officemates and I have noticed a curious phenomenon when we call > our answering machines from the office to check if we have messages. > After we hang up, our office phone (which we just called from) often > starts ringing almost immediately. When we pick it up, all we hear is > the hangup "click". You have left out a considerable amount of information, such as: 1. Are you using single-line phones behind a PBX or proprietary phones? 2. What, if any, calls did you make immediately preceeding your call the the answering machine? 3. If single-line, what type (flash, standard, etc.)? When I sold PBXs, before we started using "flash" phones (phones that have a timed hookswitch "flash" for feature activation and a timed disconnect to prevent an inadvertant flash) we had a lot of customers complain of similar occurances. It goes like this: You make a call on the single line phone. It's busy, or doesn't answer, or you are otherwise in a hurry to check your machine. You hang up on the previous call for the length of time of a "flash", putting the first call on hold. You get (second) dialtone, dial "9", then dial your call. In the meantime, the hold timer has determined that your previous call has been on hold long enough, but can't do anything about it. Then you hang up on your answering machine. The switch now sees your idle line and rings you (hold callback) to remind you that you left a call on hold. When you answer, you get what ever junk was left from that first call. Maybe a busy, ringback, or just clicks. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Dec 89 10:05:24 -0600 From: Anton Rang Subject: Re: Answering Machine "Calls Back?" John Higdon writes: >I said: >> [ When I call my answering machine from the office, my office phone >> rings after I hang up. ] >You have left out a considerable amount of information [ ... ] We have standard single-line phones, running through a Centrex system (don't know any details about that, except that it's activated by special dialing sequences and/or using a "flash"). This happens whether or not we've made other calls recently. > [ PBX possibility deleted ] This isn't what's causing our problems, as far as I can tell -- we're not making any other calls before this.... Thanks for your help! Anton (rang@cs.wisc.edu) ------------------------------ From: Herman R Silbiger Subject: Re: 9600 Baud Modem Standards Date: 16 Dec 89 19:06:40 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <2205@accuvax.nwu.edu>, rjh@yclept.chi.il.us (Randolph J. Herber) writes: > In article <1865@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: > >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 555, message 4 of 5 > >(Telenet is starting to >offer 9600-baud service -- how do I make sure > 2. From their Winter 1989 booklet, "U.S. Access Telephone Numbers": > a. The modems are Microcom V.29 compatibles > that the modems were neither PEP or V.32 compatible, that they have > received many requests for V.32 support, and that they were considering > installing V.32 capacity in early 1990. The V.29 modem is standardized as a private line 9600 Kb/s modem. The V.29 configuration is also used in Group 3 facsimile. I assume that Telenet is installing these for receiving and sending fax messages, since it does not seem to be a private line application. The V.32 is intended for dial-up applications. Its price seems to be coming down steadily. Current work in Group 3 standardization has settled on the V.33 configuration for speeds up to 14.4 Kb/s. Herman Silbiger hrs@batavier.ATT.COM ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy Date: 16 Dec 89 19:17:31 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <2168@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dcr0@gte.com (David Robbins) writes: > Those of us (myself included) who presently have *unpublished* > directory numbers are *paying* the telephone company to refuse to > disclose our numbers to the *public*. We are allowed to choose > whether and to whom to disclose the numbers, and we are *never* > *forced* to disclose the number as a consequence of our using the > telephone. Brrrp. Well, define "the public". If by "the public" you mean "any joe schmuck who can read", you're right. If you mean "anyone outside the telco or LD carrier", you're wrong. Any call through an IC, if that IC offers an ANI delivery service, and the called party subscribes to the ANI delivery service, results in your unpublished phone number being disclosed to the called party. Immediately. Irrevocably. Without any possibility of blocking on your part -- even if your local telco offers calling number delivery blocking, you've subscribed to it, and you've blocked CND on this call. Congratulations; you've just been forced to disclose your telephone number by using the telephone, and this has been going on for several years. (Anyone know exactly when ATT-C started offering ANI delivery?) > While it is true that our number is known to the local telco and the > LD carrier, we have some expectation as a result of past and present > practice that the number will not be given or sold to the general > public. Again, define "general public" and see my above comment. > My number has been unpublished for quite a few years, and it > has yet to fall into the hands of telemarketers. Of course, you have no proof of this -- you haven't been bothered by any telemarketers, which is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that they don't have your phone number -- but you have absolutely no way of knowing who knows your phone number. > But the whole idea of unpublished numbers is to give the > customer a certain level of control over the disclosure of the number. > Caller ID does, in fact, change that, and does so to a degree I am > personally uncomfortable with. Again -- Caller*ID doesn't change that; it's been changed for several years. The general public just hasn't been aware of it. > The more I think about it, the less value I can see in having > Caller ID. What on earth would I do with it? I've had it on my work phone for three months now. Yesterday I had some conversations with other people at Bellcore about it, and we talked about the value. I realized that in the three months I had not rejected any calls because I didn't want to talk to the person or didn't recognize the caller -- but that for the past week (while I've had the service temporarily turned off -- it's not really Caller*ID, but part of an experimental package of services we're playing with internally) I've missed it. It was not so much the ability to screen calls that I liked, but just the knowledge of who it was calling so I could prepare myself mentally for the call. If it was my boss, I'd be in a different frame of mind than if it was a drinking buddy... I just felt more comfortable answering the phone knowing in advance who I was going to be talking to -- even if it didn't overtly affect my behavior in answering the phone. If I could have CND, with the number able to be delivered from 80%+ of the phones in the US, with an expectation that no more than about 10% of callers would have blocking, I'd be willing to subscribe, and probably pay about $3 a month for it. David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ From: Mark L Milliman Subject: Re: Slick 96? Date: 16 Dec 89 20:47:02 GMT Organization: AT&T-Bell Laboratories Here is one additional reply to the many others on AT&T's SLC(r) 96 Subscriber Loop Carrier System. SLC is a registered trademark of AT&T Technologies, Inc. As stated by others, the SLC 96 carrier system is a digital subscriber carrier system that provides for up to 96 subscriber channels, when fully equipped, between a central office terminal (COT) and a remote terminal (RT). The subscriber channels are pulse code modulated and then time division multiplexed into DS1 (1.544 Mb/s) type signals. The DS1 signals are then processed for transmission facilities. In addition to single and multiparty message telephone service, the system can provide coin service, voice-frequency special services, digital dataport service, and voice-data circuit switched digital capabilities. The system can operate in three modes: Mode I - Provides 96 dedicated lines over 4 T1 lines. Mode II - Concentrates groups of 48 lines onto 24 channels or 1 T1 line. Mode III - Provides 48 special service, coin, or dataport channels per system. The signals can be transported between the COT and RT electrically or optically at the DS1, DS2, or higher order optical rate. This system was introduced in the early '80's as an economical replacement to the single copper pairs that run from the line card in the exchange to each subscribers home. Since that time a number of other vendors have introduced similar systems to the SLC 96. Because what once took 96 pairs of wires now takes 5 pairs (4 service and 1 protection), this equipment is called a pair-gain system. There is a sucessor to SLC 96 called SLC Series 5. This new system is similar to its predecessor but it serves twice as many subscibers in the same space with less power. It also has many enhanced features over SLC 96. One of those features is the capability to replace those copper pairs that extend from the RT to the home with fiber optic cable. Mark L. Milliman Internet: mlm@homxc.att.com AT&T Bell Laboratories UUCP: att!homxc!mlm Holmdel, NJ 07733 (201)949-0796 I want my ftp! ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice Date: 15 Dec 89 00:14:12 PST (Fri) From: John Higdon Landry Patrick M writes: > 1) Do the Bell Companies actually own the cells? In each cellular market, there are two sets of channels. One set, the "B" set is supposedly for use by "the landline telephone company". This could be a Bell Company, or more correctly a subsidiary of the Regional holding company. For instance, Pacific Telesis is the holding company for both Pacific Bell (my friendly telephone company) and PacTel Cellular, the abomination in Los Angeles that extorts money from people under the guise of providing mobile telephone service. Oops, sorry. The other set, the "A" channels, are for an independent company, such as an RCC or paging company. Therefore, there can be a maximum of two carriers in any given market. The distinctions are somewhat arbitrary, however. In San Francisco the wireline provider is GTE, who has an insignificant share of the telephone subscribers in this area; the non-wireline provider is Cellular One, owned primarily by Pacific Telesis, the major telephone service provider in the Bay Area. > 2) What is all the hubbub about subscribing with a certain carrier? > What are the differences between different carriers? > What questions should I be asking to find the right carrier for me? Shopping for carriers is like shopping for anything else. Who provides the best coverage in the areas you intend to travel in? What pricing packages do they offer? Ask customers in both systems how they like the service. > 3) What is the maximum power (watts) cellular phones are allowed to > transmit? What kind of power can I expect to find in the consumer > market? Car phones and transportables (luggables) all have a maximum of three watts. I say maximum because the unit does not always transmit at maximum power. Its output is under the direct control of the cellular system which will turn your transceiver's output power down to the lowest usable level to prevent it from interfering with other cells. Handhelds are limited to .6 watts. Power is not important. The design of the cellular system is much more significant. My handheld works just fine in this system with its 600 MW anywhere I go. > 4) How can I get my hands on a cell map? Unless you are an experienced RF engineer, a cell map won't tell you much. They use very directional antennas, massive beam tilt, and other tricks. If you weren't in on the design concept of the system as a whole, you would be wasting your time trying to find such a map. > 5) Anything else a novice should know before purchasing? Use it. If you like it, buy it. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Dec 89 20:11 CST From: TONY SCHAEFFER Subject: Cincinnati Bell Used 411 For Ringback This may be an anachronism, but: In the mid fifties, when I was in high school, Cincinnati Bell used 411 as a ring back number. If you dialed 411 and hung up, your phone would ring back. This worked well because it was easy to "dial" 411 by pushing the hook on a phone without a dial. Then someone else would have to answer - nothing. Life was simpler then! :) Tony Schaeffer Eastern Illinois University [Moderator's Note: It sure was simpler, and the phone service was much better, relative to the technology available at the time. Chicago used to use 571 (pause for new tone), 6 for ringback. We could also test the accuracy of the touch tone buttons by entering (after the 6) the digits 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-0. If they were all on the proper frequency, the CO would respond with two short tone spurts. Now we use 1-571 through 1-577 followed by the last four of the calling number. Whether it is 571, 572, 573....577 depends on your CO. Thanks for your note. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #578 *****************************   Date: Sun, 17 Dec 89 0:46:16 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #579 Message-ID: <8912170046.aa27214@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 17 Dec 89 00:45:22 CST Volume 9 : Issue 579 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Executone Equity II (Bruce E. Howells) Information Services (was Re: PacTelesis Power Grab) (David Lewis) Abuse of Information (was Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy) (David Lewis) Re: Caller ID Question (John Higdon) Re: Caller ID (Ken Levitt) Re: Caller ID (Alonzo Gariepy) Re: How Were Telephone Sounds Chosen? (John Higdon) Re: CLASS Services in Central NC (John Higdon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bruce E. Howells" Subject: Executone Equity II Date: 16 Dec 89 08:10:12 GMT Organization: Boston University Information Technology At work (not at all computer-related, a CVS/Pharmacy), we have an annoying beastie called an Equity II - 5 CO lines, intercom, and not much else documented. If you've ever heard of this thing, a couple questions... Is there a way to keep it from dumping routinely (about once a week)? I've got to go back and load half a page of binary into it with pushbuttons every time it does it, and answer all 5 incoming lines from the "main" phone. Not a good thing, especially when I've got better things to do than push buttons - like run the store... Can this thing do anything else than switch intercom calls? There are Call Forward, Do Not Disturb telltales, and a Page button, but no documentation locally, and all the Executone service guy will do is push the buttons to get it going again when it dies... Thanks for any info! Take care- Bruce Howells, beh@bu-pub.bu.edu | engnbsu@buacca (BITNet) Me? I'm just a random undergrad! ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Information Services (was Re: PacTelesis Power Grab) Date: 16 Dec 89 18:46:33 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <2161@accuvax.nwu.edu>, goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com writes: > What PacTel isn't allowed to do is sell the > information. They can sell the access to third parties who provide > the information. But Bells are common carriers, who carry information > for a price, and not information providers. The court has ruled, in > effect, that if they were to be both, they'd have too much clout to > compete with other information providers. The problem with this "neat" breakdown -- telcos are information common carriers, therefore they can't be information providers -- is that the telcos also "own" information that they could potentially "sell". (Of course, the question of who really owns information is still very thorny...) Should you restrict the telcos from selling, say, online white pages service? If you do, the service is never going to be available -- no one else has the information to offer it. Should you make the telco give the service away? It costs money to provide it -- where does this money come from? Conceptually, the information common carrier idea is a nice one. But it raises some unintended effects in its implementation... David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Abuse of Information (was Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy) Date: 16 Dec 89 19:01:21 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <2167@accuvax.nwu.edu>, clements@bbn.com writes: > In article <2064@accuvax.nwu.edu> michael@stb.uucp writes: > >It gives plenty of ABUSE to people compiling information and > >selling it. > That's why selective blocking by the callER is a requirement in my > view. It must be possible to CHOOSE whether you will give out your > number. Here's something I don't get. One argument against calling number delivery and/or in favor of calling number delivery blocking is the potential for abuse by the called party. The argument is essentially (and if I mistate it, please correct and not flame -- I'm really not trying to set up a straw man) "Called parties can abuse calling number delivery by using the calling number to compile customer lists, harass me by phone, sell my phone number to telemarketing companies, etc. Therefore, [calling number delivery shouldn't be permitted | I should be able to selectively block calling number delivery]." Like I said, I don't get this. There is potential for the service to be abused, therefore, the service should be shut off (or blockable). Isn't the problem (in this case, anyway) the *abuse* of the service, not the *existance* of the service? Wouldn't it make more sense to outlaw the abuse of caller information, whether delivered automatically or manually? If you call a mail order company, and the agent says "and may I have a phone number where you can be reached", and you give it to the agent, the potential for abuse exists. (Yes, you have the potential to "block" the "delivery" of the calling number in this case; some people may do this.) My point is, it seems somewhat of an overreaction (typical of a great many overreactions by the american public and "public servants" these days) to attempt to quell a potential abuse of technology by attempting to restrict the use of the technology. What's needed is not the outlawing of calling number delivery -- what's needed is a clear statement of policy about the (I seem to be dwelling on this a lot lately) ownership of information and the rights of parties to use or sell information that "belongs" to someone else. David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Caller ID Question Date: 16 Dec 89 10:57:22 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon Bernie Cosell writes: > Won't that be good --- a nice, nation-wide electronically-tracked > database of *everyone* who wants to __USE__ a phone. > [...] > There are MUCH easier ways [IMHO] to effect some > kind of effective screening of your incoming calls [probably better > than CID could ever dream to be unless the CID-likers get their > apparent wish and we go to a fully-electronically-tracked society]. Bad news, Bernie. The tracking has long been in place and will be made much more sophisticated in the years to come regardless of the Chicken Little rantings of the Preserve our Privacy crowd. The question before us is not whether this network should be created and put into place, but rather if some of the information traveling on that network should be made available to you and me. Obviously you think it shouldn't; only the "big boys" should have it. I disagree. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Dec 89 11:18:55 EST From: Ken Levitt Subject: Re: Caller ID The solution to the Caller-ID controversy seems obvious to me. So here is the Ken Levitt plan for ANI. 1. Every line should have a parameter set at the CO to indicate the default selection for that line. By default the ID will either be sent or not sent depending on this setting. There would be no charge to establish your default the first time when you install a new line. There would be a small charge to change your default setting. 2. There would be two special codes that could be entered prior to each call to force ANI on or off for that one call. 3. Calls that have ANI turned off at the source should be identified on the receiving end with some code different than the code used to indicate that ANI information is not available. 4. Subscribers should be able to request an alias ANI for each line. The alias would be a unique number with a special area code to indicate that it is not a real number. All calls from that line would transmit the alias number unless ANI is suppressed for that call. The alias system could also be used to transmit the main number for a location that has several lines. If such a system existed, I would want the following system installed at my home: 1. A programmable computer would check ANI on all incoming calls. 2. Based in the ANI information and the time of day, the call would be routed to one of the following: a. A real phone b. An answering machine c. A modem d. A FAX machine. 3. I would be able to reprogram the computer at any time to meet my needs at that point in time. I would also want the system to send all calls destined to the real phone to my answering machine after some specified number of rings. It would also be very nice to be able to pick up any extension in the house and enter a code to tell the computer to switch to some special program like "Do not disturb" which would force all calls to the answering machine. Some people say that calls from the police or a hospital should not be ignored because I have not listed them as calls that I want to take. This is the ultimate in "Big Brother Syndrome". It is my business and no one else's as to which calls I choose to take. There is no law on the books that requires me to talk to the police or a hospital if I have decided not to take calls at that time. I do not wish to be a slave to my telephone. I would be interested in knowing if anyone can find a flaw in my plan. Unless you believe that I should be forced to answer some calls, I don't think that anyone should have an objection to such a system. Ken Levitt - via FidoNet node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Dec 89 13:16:40 -0500 From: microsoft!alonzo@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Caller ID We have been discussing all these problems with telephone solicitation, caller ID, privacy of the caller, privacy of the receiver, robot calls, sequential autodialing, etc. Perhaps we should consider some kind of licensing arrangement. This way, the caller ID feature can display a license number instead of a telephone number. Telephone solicitors would have to have an appropriate license. Your phone could be programmed to reject all calls from licenses of a certain class. Privacy of callers is maintained as there is no way to map a license onto a name or telephone number without the licensees prior consent. The receiver's privacy is maintained because no one can make a call without disclosing their license number. If you receive an obscene call, the license can be reported to authorities and the problem dealt with in an appropriate manner. In the meantime you have the ability to reject calls from that source. The key thing here is that one has a telephone number to receive calls and a license for making them. Most telephones would have both. One can imagine the license encoding several pieces of information, especially for commercial users: 1. owner id License owner 2. service type Licensed uses 3. telephone Sublicense for a particular line The service type can encode such things as: solicitation, computer communications, general business, emergency services, private residence, local only, operator, language preference. Use of a telephone for solicitation without an appropriate license would be against the law. Other license notations such as for language preference and computer use can be on a voluntary basis. If you get a line for your computer it will have a license indicating its use. Non-computer users can reject all such calls. There is some potential here for dealing with phone abusers in a way more lenient than taking away their service altogether. You can imagine various special services such as: -outgoing only service (no telephone number) -incoming only service (no license) -licenses that are rejected by default unless specifically enabled -license as phonecard (with extra password) not necessarily tied to a phone -automatic collect call approval -automatic routing based on language Alonzo Gariepy alonzo@microsoft ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: How Were Telephone Sounds Chosen? Date: 14 Dec 89 22:51:21 PST (Thu) From: John Higdon tell@oscar.cs.unc.edu (Stephen Tell) writes: >The Duke phone system (their own 5ESS) gives reorder for this case, also for >the case of dialing only 7D when 1+7D is required. The latter may be more the >problem, since GTE in Durham (around Duke, off-campus) doesn't want the >leading 1. >I explain "that's not a busy signal" and get funny looks from people who >never heard of reorder, but I wonder how many calls I miss this way? >(Perhaps this is an item for RISKS?) Hasn't an organization the size of Duke University heard of intercept recordings? It's not at all surprising that people are confused by getting a reorder every time they do something wrong. A reorder conveys little useful information to the caller except the absolute assurance that the call isn't going through. Here in PacTelLand, tariffs forbid you, as a DID subscriber to simply have invalid numbers go to reorder. You MUST have an intercept recording, preferably with SIT. Pac*Bell (and GTE, although they're more used to it) got tired of having tons of "call fails" rack up on their network tally devices. Since the lines are monitored for busies, reorders, and SITs, a high number of reorders looks real bad. Even on the PBXs that I tend, I use the ARS to send wayward calls to various Pac*Bell intercept recordings, which are available in a convenient bank of non-supervising numbers. Tell the telecom administrator at the university that the telephone users are not psychic and need to be given a clue as to why their calls fail. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: John Higdon Subject: Re: CLASS Services in Central NC Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 15 Dec 89 11:00:51 PST (Fri) In article <2103@accuvax.nwu.edu> "Gregory G. Woodbury" writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 569, message 8 of 10 >The GTE satrapy in Durham is finally advertising that they have the >disable call waiting service in place, but it is not generally enabled >in the switches - you have to specifically order it. Maybe that's because, as in California, they charge extra for it! It's a $1.50/month option that they will include free if you buy the entire package of custom calling. >GTE spokespersons said that CLASS services will become available in >Durham in about 6 months or whenever the PUC finally decides the issue >of CNID. This is their usual crock. This gives them no end of reprieve in providing services to the customer. A notable example: 976. Their excuse for not providing it in the area code for which they were responsible (805, 714) was that there were too many unresolved issues. In other words, let everyone else battle it out and do the pioneering, we'll sit back and just collect the money when it's cool. BTW, I'm not interested in discussing the pros and cons of 976 and furthermore it's not up to a regulated monopoly to make those judgements, either. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #579 *****************************   Date: Mon, 18 Dec 89 1:06:55 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #580 Message-ID: <8912180106.aa01308@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 18 Dec 89 01:05:06 CST Volume 9 : Issue 580 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Looking for PBX w/ CPC or Ground Start (Dave Levenson) Re: Looking for PBX w/ CPC or Ground Start (Macy Hallock) Re: Information Services (was Re: PacTelesis Power Grab) (John Higdon) Re: Fiber Optics and ESS?? (Dave Levenson) Re: Kids, Call Santa for $2/minute (Tad Cook) Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? (Tad Cook) Re: Case in Point (Macy Hallock) 411 in TV Beer Commercials (Roy Smith) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Looking for PBX w/ CPC or Ground Start Date: 17 Dec 89 19:51:54 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <2187@accuvax.nwu.edu>, jimmy@denwa.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) writes: > As we outgrow our KX-T1232, we are looking for a new PBX. Of course > we want all the normal PBX features like ARS and DID; what we want > that is a bit unusual is the ability to have station lines that are > ground start or at least provide a CPC signal (a momentary open) when > the calling party hangs up. The AT&T System 25 provides a 500 msec open loop on its Tip & Ring station lines when a call is disconnected. I don't know any way of getting ground-start station lines, but CPC is definitely available. 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: fmsystm!macy@hal.cwru.edu Subject: Re: Looking for PBX w/ CPC or Ground Start Date: 16 Dec 89 22:20:10 GMT Reply-To: macy@fmsystm.UUCP (Macy Hallock) Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA In article <2187@accuvax.nwu.edu> Jim Gottlieb writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 575, message 5 of 13 >As we outgrow our KX-T1232, we are looking for a new PBX. Of course >we want all the normal PBX features like ARS and DID; what we want >that is a bit unusual is the ability to have station lines that are >ground start or at least provide a CPC signal (a momentary open) when >the calling party hangs up. >The only switch that I have personally witnessed this on was a NEC >NEAX 2400. The analog ports on the NEC received CPC. Wow, this is a tough one. Most XBAR and SXS systems had this, of course. Even 101ESS Centrex CU appliques had it. But on a modern electronic PBX in the 100 line range? If you were big enough, you could get the PBX version of the 5ESS or DMS-100 (SL-100), and they could be equipped with the right station cards to do it... The only system I know of that might have it (definite maybe here) is Redcom. As a manufacturer of small CO's, you might be able to fit their system with the right kind of line cards, if the software could handle it. You might ask National Telecom / Solid State Systems (in Atlanta) if their Jr. Exec or other switch could do it. These systems are somewhat specialized.... There's a lot of similarity between some of the Northern Telecom systems and their small CO's....but you'll have to talk to their engineering people to confirm this. A hint: If the switch can be fitted to provide answer supervsion (reverse battery) on the ports, then it's probably going to do the job. Wanna buy an old OKI 200 line crossbar switch? I'm pulling one out in January from a hotel... Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone) (Insert favorite disclaimer here) (What if I gave a .sig and nobody cared?) ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Information Services (was Re: PacTelesis Power Grab) Date: 17 Dec 89 02:37:46 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon David Lewis writes: > Should you restrict the telcos from selling, > say, online white pages service? If you do, the service is never > going to be available -- no one else has the information to offer it. Information passes freely to and from telcos. For instance, they don't think twice about telling every Tom, Dick, and Harry that pretends to be you on the phone to the business office anything they would like to know about your account. Why couldn't the telcos simply sell the info to an online service, who would administer the actual product? They have no problem selling you the data one number at a time through their "online" voice directory assistance; why not just sell the whole thing to a data information provider? The rule of thumb should always be to prevent the regulated monopoly from engaging in any competitive service that utilizes its regulated network. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Fiber Optics and ESS?? Date: 17 Dec 89 19:44:32 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <2193@accuvax.nwu.edu>, myerston@cts.sri.com writes: > When I read Marvin Sibu's original comment (No fiber to the home for a > decade (at least)) I thought he was being wildly optimistic. Now > Brian Capouch sees it within 5 years. Opinions being what they are... > Here is mine: ... > I wish it were not so, but I think that fiber-to-the-home or even its > cousin fiber-to-the-curb are much more than 10 years away. In my neighborhood, they already run T-1 to the curb -- actually to the SLC-96 buried beneath the curb a couple of blocks from here. In the bundle of cables that feed the SLC-96 vault from the CO, there is one bundle with little red plastic markers hanging from it next to every poll. The marker warns repair crews that the bundle contains optical fiber! Walking the pole line, I have followed the fiber to where it goes underground, a block from the AT&T Bell Labs complex at Liberty Corner! Not exactly fiber to the home, or to the curb, but it's out there in the street. The conversion to copper, and to metallic base-band DC loop technology, is available in the SLC-96 equipment. When a service that is of some value to ordinary comsumers (other than Bell Labs!) is offered, the technolgy appears to be in place to deliver it. 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: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Kids, Call Santa For $2/minute Date: 18 Dec 89 00:23:32 GMT Organization: very little Regarding calling "Santa" on 900 and 976 services, there was a HUGE flap here in Seattle a couple of years back when a local UHF station ran an ad that not only asked kids to call Santa, but even instructed the kids to hold the phone to the TV speaker while the ad produced the DTMF tones necessary to automatically dial the call! No one ever explained to me what would happen with the same number being dialed at EXACTLY the same moment from all of those phones at once, but I can imagine. There was a big investigation, involving lots of refunds from the telco and dial-a-porn operator that ran the ad. The TV station also got a black eye, as they helped produce the ad! Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP MCI Mail: 328-8544 ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? Date: 17 Dec 89 23:55:59 GMT Organization: very little Regarding Andrew Schwartz's comments about never hearing of 411 used for DA in the northwest, they used to use it, along with 611 for repair. That was back when DA (information) was free. Then sometime in the 1970s Pacific NW Bell filed for new tarrifs, saying that they had to employ too many operators and that their studies had shown that most folks were dialing 411 rather than look it up. So part of the change was, if they were going to charge for the service, they made it so you were at least aware of change by making it 1+ and just like dialing DA for parties outside the NPA, 555-1212. Recently I tried dialing 411 from within the 881 NNX in Redmond, WA. It is served by GTE, and you do get an ID of the line you are calling from by a mechanized voice. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP MCI Mail: 328-8544 ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!macy@hal.cwru.edu Subject: Re: Case in Point Date: 16 Dec 89 22:05:58 GMT Reply-To: macy@fmsystm.UUCP (Macy Hallock) Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA In article <2186@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 575, message 4 of 13 >....[details of poor due dates from GTE deleted]... >My experience with GTE in the past is that this is probably the first >of many missed due dates to come. We all talk about whether GTE has >this latest equipment or that, or that one-line residence POTS >customers seem to be satisfied with their simple service, but it's the >GTE *attitude* that is the major problem here. The impression here is >that the people associated with GTE genuinely don't give a damn >whether they provide useful service or not. >It is truly amazing that GTE can screw up virtually everything it is >involved with, and yet defenders seem to come out of the woodwork. I >am convinced that even more than Pac*Bell (and I've certainly made no >secret of how I feel about them), GTE has got to be the real ball and >chain on the legs of telephonic progress in California. [Well, since I've recently flamed John about his attitude, I guess I'd better act as an equal opportunity troublemaker...] Mr. Chairman, I heartily second gentleman's motion. GTE can and will screw up most anything, it would seem. GTE's personnel appear to be less qualified and less diligent in their efforts to serve the lowly ratepayers. In addition, they seems determined to hang on to monopoistic attitudes more suited to the 1950's than the next century. To be fair, anytime a service order affects more than one telco and/or carrier things slow down...and the mean time to repair goes up, too. I have seen the same problem John described occur time and time again when telco boundries are crossed...be they BOC, GTE, United, Contel, Centel, or other independant telco. What seems to set GTE apart, in my mind, is their attitude. All attempts to escalate problems, be they repair, missed due dates or any other matter, are met with stalling, bumbling, and excuses. The poor morale of many GTE employees seems to be part of the problem. I have another axe to grind with GTE, since I compete with them in equipment sales. They barrage the customer with "we are the phone co., buy from us 'cuz we can do it better" and then go out of their way to provide exceptional services as part of the sales (from both the regulated and deregulated services)....and neglect us normal ratepayers... I still have an off premise station from my office to house that cannot be used for data (even 1200 bps!) due to noise bursts. GTE cannot find the problem...they say they have replaced everything! This on a 6000' metellic circuit with only a repeater in the CO ! I first reported the problem in May after a thunderstorm...and I pay $64.00 per month for this? And they tell my customers that they will have less problems if they buy from the phone co? I still have to explain proper procedures on line polarity, identification and location routinely to GTE installers. GTE personnel WILL NOT mark or identify circuits/lines on their demarcation jacks 90% of the time! Its been how many years since FCC type-acceptance...and GTE personnel still do not know how to properly set up demarcation jacks? The only field people who do decent work for GTE, IMHO, are the contractors! All other decent GTE line personnel seem to leave, quit, get promoted to elsewhere or transfer! Now GTE knows how to perform...look at Mobilnet...they should give lessons to the rest of GTE. The sharpest GTE central office field engineer I know transferred from GTE Ohio telco operations to Mobilnet because his supervisors at the telco were only concerned with paperwork and procedures, not service to the customers. He was constantly in trouble for fixing things in the GTD-5 CO's that regional said weren't broken. Mobilnet actually encourages his efforts.......the effects of honest competition might just help the telcos, I think. I have literally dozens of stories in this same vein about GTE. I have far less horror stories about Ohio Bell, and I have more systems installed in OBT territory than GTE. This is more than just sour grapes from a competitor, really.... (I tend to get carried away on this subject...I even worked for GTE for two years...and quit in utter frustration) Then, again, there's Alltel (Mid-Continent Telephone)..and United Telephone of Ohio...IMHO, they are little better than GTE most of the time. I'm no fan of Ohio Bell, but if I judge by results, they are the most consistiently reliable and easy to deal with. Now lets talk about long distance carriers...and attitude... Macy M. Hallock, Jr. macy@NCoast.ORG uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy F M Systems, Inc. {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy 150 Highland Drive Voice: +1 216 723-3000 Ext 251 Fax: +1 216 723-3223 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone) (Insert favorite disclaimer here) (What if I gave a .sig and nobody cared?) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Dec 89 09:57:17 EST From: Roy Smith Subject: 411 in TV Beer Commercials There is a series of beer commercials on TV lately for a brand whose name I can't remember (really effective advertising, right?) in which they use somewhat absurd "wouldn't it be great if ..." one liners. In one of the commercials they have "wouldn't it be great if the boss called you at home looking for some information and you told him to call 411?" I wonder if they run different versions of the commercial in different parts of the country, or if the 555-1212'ers are just left not knowing what's going on? Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "My karma ran over my dogma" ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #580 *****************************   Date: Tue, 19 Dec 89 0:53:16 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #581 Message-ID: <8912190053.aa28889@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 19 Dec 89 00:52:51 CST Volume 9 : Issue 581 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Enterprise Numbers? Zenith Numbers? (John R. Levine) Re: Enterprise Numbers? Zenith Numbers? (Mike Morris) Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (John Stanley) Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (John Chew) Re: 9600 Baud Modem Standards (J. J. Wasilko) Re: Case in Point (John Higdon) Re: Existing FXs in New 310 Area Code (Mike Morris) Re: Answering Machine "Calls Back?" (Jerry Durand) Calling Yourself? (Cliff Coombs) Transmission Textbook Wanted (Fred R. Goldstein) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Enterprise Numbers? Zenith Numbers? Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 18 Dec 89 14:47:41 EST (Mon) From: "John R. Levine" Enterprise numbers (known as WX numbers near Philadelphia, there'a another trivium for you) do offer one thing that 800 numbers or remote call forwarding don't -- very precise control of where you will accept calls from. For example, Pakistan Airlines has an Enterprise number that one can call from downtown Boston or East Boston (where the airport is) but from anywhere else you have to call their number in New York. The real utility of this is of course open to debate, but there it is. Does anyone know how much an Enterprise number costs? Can you still order them or are the existing ones grandfathered? One other thing. You call the local telco operator and ask for the Enterprise number, she puts the call through. I presume they use AT&T. Is there an equal access waiver? Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl [Moderator's Note: What you say about flexibility is not true. 800 numbers can be configured for local calls only; intrastate calls; interstate calls only from certain regions (the old 'band 1', 'band 2' ....'band 6' method of assigning numbers), or various combinations thereof. I think Enterprise service is grandfathered, and no longer available to new subscribers. Regards the placing of the call, my phone book says 'dial your long distance operator and pass the number'.....which leaves the question can MCI/Sprint/miscellaneous AOS types also handle Enterprise calls? PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Dec 89 12:39:18 PST From: Mike Morris Subject: Re: Enterprise Numbers? Zenith Numbers? >[Moderator's Note: Enterprise and Zenith were the same difference. >Some telcos used one name; other telcos used the other. These numbers Wouldn't ENterprise have been confusing back when numbers were given out in AAN-NNNN format? I was tolds that Zenith was used 'cuz there was no "Z" on the dial.. >international calls, or various combinations. Believe it or not, there >are a few companies still listed in the Chicago phone book with >Enterprise numbers, but they are few and far between. In the early The California Highway Patrol still has Zenith 1-2000. I remember my father telling me how it worked 30 years ago during a cub scout tour of the Pacific Bell central office on Grand street in downtown LA... "The switchboard girl has a card file of the most common ones, the rest she has to get from an operators' operator. She has probably memorized the CHP number by now... Mike Morris Internet: Morris@Jade.JPL.NASA.gov Misslenet: 34.12 N, 118.02 W #Include quote.cute.standard Bellnet: 818-447-7052 #Include disclaimer.standard Radionet: WA6ILQ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Dec 89 09:06:11 EST From: John Stanley Subject: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number jimmy@denwa.uucp (Jim Gottlieb) comments, in regard to 800 numbers not dialable from overseas: >Perhaps one >more example of American businesses not doing what it takes to get >more international business Or, perhaps, a realization that international business is more expensive and complicated than most small businesses want to deal with. First, shipping is not free. Maintaining a staff to follow up on mis-routed or lost orders is not free. Dealing with wire transfers or monetary conversions is not easy nor free. Maintaining a staff to process export licenses is not free. The time to figure out that an export license is not needed is not free. Hiring a lawyer to defend oneself when one exports non-exportable material is not free. Hiring staff to cover the phone after normal business hours is not free. In order to compete, small companies have to cut costs. They could not afford to do all this and provide adequate support without raising prices. Too high a price decreases sales, poof, scratch one more company. >It just does not occur to people in the U.S. that people outside North >America can not call their (800) number. And what makes you think everyone with an 800 number WANTS people outside NA calling them? If I had a small company struggling for survival I certainly wouldn't want a bunch of overseas calls on top of all the other expense and headache of overseas sales. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Dec 89 16:04:32 EST From: John Chew Subject: Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number Organization: Trigraph Inc., Toronto, Canada Nits: 1. Jim Gottlieb said in <2202@accuvax.nwu.edu>: > It just does not occur to people in the U.S. that people outside North > America can not call their (800) number. There are plenty of people *in* North America who cannot call American 800 numbers. Many of them are called Canadians. They inhabit a few sparsely-populated area codes off the north coast of the United States, and are saturated in the broadcast and print media by instructions to dial unreachable American 800 numbers. We sometimes feel like complaining, but it's such a trivial example of American ethnocentricity that it rarely seems worth the trouble. 2. In Volume 9, Issue 569, message 7 of 10, our moderator wrote: > ... And regards Winnepeg, Manitoba, *thank you* Winnepeg? Winnipeg. WINNIPEG. TWO EYES AND ONE EE! ARGHHHHH.... john j. chew, iii phone: +1 416 425 3818 AppleLink: CDA0329 trigraph, inc., toronto, canada {uunet!utai!utcsri,utgpu,utzoo}!trigraph!john dept. of math., u. of toronto poslfit@{utorgpu.bitnet,gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca} ------------------------------ From: "J.J. Wasilko" Subject: Re: 9600 Baud Modem Standards Date: 15 Dec 89 16:58:07 GMT Reply-To: "J.J. Wasilko" Organization: Information Systems and Computing @ RIT, Rochester, New York In article <1865@accuvax.nwu.edu> lee@tis.com (Theodore Lee) writes: >Could someone please describe what 9600 baud modem standards, >including error-correction, are now current? (Telenet is starting to >offer 9600-baud service -- how do I make sure that their modem is >compatible with mine or with one I might call from their network when >they get around to adding 9600 baud outdial as well?) Telenet's 9600 baud indials are supported with Microcom's AX/9624c modems. These modems are async/sync modems, with support for MNP classes up to 6. These classes are: (paraphrased from my AX/9624c manual) MNP Class 2: Utilizes asyc framing for data transmission. Actual throughput less than bps rate of modem. MNP Class 3: Utilizes syncronous framing techniques, removing the start and stop bits prior to transmission. Results in a (claimed) 20% increase in performance over MNP Class 2 service. Actual throughput may reach 2600 bps. MNP Class 4: Utilizes syncronous framing techniques, plus a redesigned packet header to reduce overhead. Class 4 includes Adaptive Packet Sizing, which adjusts the size of the data packets based on the quality of the telephone line. Actual throughput may reach 2900 bps. MNP Class 5: Provides data compression, allowing throuput at up to twice the connection speed. MNP Class 6: Utilizes half-duplex, fast-train high-speed reliable connections with other MNP Class 6 modems at speeds of 4800 to 9600 baud. Uses Universal Link Negotiation to connect with other MNP modems at the highest common speed. Uses Statistical Duplexing to adjust the line bandwidth (?) and data traffic flow during reliable connections. Unfortunately, the Microcom modems do not support the now-emerging standard V.32. Telenet is supporting 9600 baud indials in some of the larger cities (I used the Los Angeles, CA 9600 buad indial when I was there). In their usual style, Telenet would not commit to supporting the Microcom AX/9624c modems one a 9600 baud standard emerged. They also would not comment on plans for 9600 baud outdials. My experience with the AX/9624c has been pretty good (it was purchased specifically for a Telenet connection to an information service), but it sees more use in 2400 baud MNP Class 5 (4800 bps throughput). Every AX/9624c I have seen has tended to run very warm (even though it has an external power supply), but I haven't seen any adverse affects. Jeff ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Case in Point Date: 18 Dec 89 15:56:14 PST (Mon) From: John Higdon macy@fmsystm.UUCP (Macy Hallock) writes: > What seems to set GTE apart, in my mind, is their attitude. Well, I'm glad it isn't just me! > Now GTE knows how to perform...look at Mobilnet...they should give > lessons to the rest of GTE. Funny you should mention that. Mobilnet is my cellular provider and I will second that statement. They bent over backwards helping me solve a roaming problem with another provider--and it wasn't even their doing. Within my home area service is so good, I don't even think about it. Calls complete within two seconds, they stay up, and coverage seems flawless everywhere I go in the Bay Area (and that's using my .6 watt handheld). I have nothing but praise for Mobilnet. And I repeat: they should drop GTE from their name--it would help business, I'm sure. A fellow radio engineer recently dropped out of broadcasting to go to work for Mobilnet. He travels all over the country solving cell site coverage problems, recently in Hawaii. He says that it is an outstanding operation to work for, mainly because they really seem to be interested in providing first-cabin service. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Dec 89 12:53:20 PST From: Mike Morris Subject: Re: Existing FXs in New 310 Area Code >Is 310 to: >Border area 805 on the west? >Include Malibu? >When 818 was formed, JSol (a former Telecom moderator) pointed out >that there are some "Los Angeles" prefixes which serve as "foreign" >exchanges in places like Burbank, with such "foreign" prefixes staying >in 213 although the other exchanges serving that (e.g. Burbank) area >went into 818. Are there any such "foreign" exchanges in what will >become 310 area? Disclaimer: I do not work for PacTel and therefore my crystal ball is probably fogged/cracked/etc. Based on what happened when 213 split, and some personal experiences, I believe that exsisting FX lines will keep their "home" area code. Case in point: (pre-818/213 split): 24X is Glendale, CA. 245 is the downtown LA FX exchange. Post-split, 245 is still in the 213 area code, all of the other 24X numbers are 818. To this day, there is not a 245-prefix in 818, probably to avoid confusion. In fact, if you dial 245-1234 from within 818, you get a recording "The number you have dialed is not in service in this area code". I hope this answers your question(s). Mike Morris Internet: Morris@Jade.JPL.NASA.gov Misslenet: 34.12 N, 118.02 W #Include quote.cute.standard Bellnet: 818-447-7052 #Include disclaimer.standard Radionet: WA6ILQ ------------------------------ From: JDurand@cup.portal.com Subject: Answering Machine "Calls Back?" Date: Sun, 17-Dec-89 11:32:48 PST >My officemates and I have noticed a curious phenomenon when we call >our answering machines from the office to check if we have messages. >After we hang up, our office phone (which we just called from) often >starts ringing almost immediately. When we pick it up, all we hear is >the hangup "click". > What causes this? Please respond by E-mail to rang@cs.wisc.edu, as >I don't always have time to read this group. > Thanks in advance! > Anton I just finished interfacing a voice-mail system to a customer's Mitel phone system that has the same problem (as well as others). It seems that when an outside line calls in, it controls the disconnect in the Mitel switch, so when you hang up before the calling party, it assumes you wanted to do a flash/hold. The way you normally reconnect to a call on hold is to hang up and it rings you back. In this case it does both flash/hold and ring-back in the same operation. We couldn't find and way to disable this in the version of the switch they have. Jerry Durand jdurand@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ From: Cliff Coombs Subject: Calling Yourself? Date: 18 Dec 89 16:02:51 GMT Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J. Friends, Romans, Netlanders! Is there a way of calling your own phone number, so that someone would be able to ring an extension on the same line. I think I remember doing this when I was a kid by calling a certain number. If it matters (someone told me it did) the area code is 201. May the packets be with you! Cliff Coombs ccoombs@pilot.njin.net Campus Network Coordinator admp03@turbo.kean.edu Kean College of New Jersey, Union, NJ, USA, Earth. Fax (201) 355-5143 Disclaimer: You can't quote me, I'm still on lunch... Voice (201) 527-2729 [Moderator's Note: This question comes up quite frequently. There is no one single universal standard for this. What works in one community does not work in the next, and it doesn't even continue working where it was very long before it gets changed to something else. The only way to solve this is by asking locally. ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Transmission Textbook Wanted Date: 18 Dec 89 22:20:59 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Littleton MA USA I'm planning to teach a course on Telecommunications Transmission Systems (CEU level). The previous instrutor had specified the book, "Telecommunications Transmission Handbook, 2d edition" by Roger Freeman, which was quite the book when it came out in 1981. Alas, it is not only out of date but out of print. I've been to some university bookstores and haven't seen any good replacements, though. Does anyone have any recommendations? Does Lee's ABC's have something in this order? I'm looking for a non-mathematical survey of the whole area, including twisted pair, analog FDM, microwave (digital and analog), satellite, and optical fiber. There are some good specialized books, but I think the class would much prefer to have only one book. Thanks for any help. fred ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #581 *****************************   Date: Wed, 20 Dec 89 0:35:29 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #583 Message-ID: <8912200035.aa19535@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 20 Dec 89 00:35:02 CST Volume 9 : Issue 583 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice (Doug Davis) Re: Finding out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (David Singer) Re: Why Not 00 as the International Prefix in the US? (Bob Goudreau) Re: Hunt-groups vs Busy-forwarding (John Higdon) Re: GTE vs. Pac*Bell (John Higdon) Re: Information Services (was Re: PacTelesis Power Grab) (David Lewis) Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? (Ed Morin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Doug Davis Subject: Re: First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice Date: 17 Dec 89 03:41:16 GMT Reply-To: doug@letni.lawnet.com Organization: Logic Process Dallas, Texas. In article <2155@accuvax.nwu.edu> motcid!sirakide%cell.mot.COM@uunet.uu.net (Dean Sirakides) writes: >>3) What is the maximum power (watts) cellular phones are allowed to >> transmit? What kind of power can I expect to find in the consumer >> market? >Cellular phones come in there power levels: 4.0, 1.6, 0.6 watts (ERP). >4 watts is used by most car phones and bag phones. 0.6 watts is used >by most portables. Bottom line: usually all phones of the same type >use the same power levels. Er, I believe that *three* watts is the maximum legal power that a cellular radio may transmit. >>4) How can I get my hands on a cell map? >You got me with that one, I'm not sure they are public information. Most companies publish a simple one as part of their sales brochures. Depending on who you talk to sometimes it's just a phone call away. At least thats what it took me, with Southwestern Bell. I'm sure your milage may vary. >>5) Anything else a novice should know before purchasing? >Buying a cheap cellular phone is like buying a cheap house phone don't >kid yourself that "a phone is a phone". Ask the dealer which phones >are always coming back for repair. Also, call the carrier, or better yet write them a letter. Most dealers will sell you the unit they are getting the best spiff off of this week. Most of all shop around, have several different places show you the same unit, ask about where accesories for that unit may be purchased. You'ed be suprised how many companies sell just the phone, and can't even *ORDER* an extra antenna, or battery pack for it. Also, and I hate to company bash here, (except for GTE) especially since a representive of the company I am about to bash gave very good answers to your questions.. But... Motorola cellular customer service *sucks* *rocks*.. (whew, that felt good) Let me explain, I am the ideal cullular customer, I constantly run bills in the 500-800 minute a month range. I have sold several phones to associates of mine and they too run rather large bills. At the time I purchased my phone I shopped around and the general consenses was that Motorola made the best/most reliable phones. This may be quite true, my phone still functions just fine after well over 100,000 hours of time. But.. When I purchased this phone I was assured that it would take an adapter that would allow hands free communication in a car, (like a normal telephone speaker box) In the box with my phone was a brochure that has a picture of and about 1/2 dozen other options I could buy for it. Now then, this Christmas I was going to treat myself to a hands free adapter, I called the same people I purchased the phone up and had them order me one. They called back a few hours later and said that Motorola, NEVER MANUFACTURED THE HANDS-FREE ADAPTER FOR THIS PHONE. Needless to say I was a bit miffed over this and gave Motorola a call about it. The nice lady on the phone proceeded to explain to me that *they* didn't put that brochure in the box with the phone, the fact that it was sealed in the same plasic as the owners manual, in a sealed box, and it was pretty much obvious that it was the first time the box had been opened when the dealer pulled it from stock for me. Didn't seem to phase her one bit. Matter of fact, the *ONLY* thing she could do for me was sell me another phone for 4000.00 that WOULD do hands free in the car, of course that little option was a mere 1500.00 more. Oh yeah she also told me that I should *NEVER* buy a phone from a dealer since they obviously wouldn't know if the phone could support hands free. (I guess that must be right if they look at the brouchures that come in the box with the phone.) Well at 5500.00 dollars I can buy several portable phones from almost anywhere and most of those have hands free adapters for < 100.00. Anyway, now that I've vented my frustrations a bit, I will say that I have put this unit through h*ll and it still works like the day I bought it. So, technically the phone is great, just that Motorola doesn't know the meaning of the word's "customer service." Oh, yeah, I did write a very nice letter, including a photo-copy of the brochure, to several places inside of Motorola, if something interesting comes back I will be sure to follow up with it to Telecom. Doug Davis/1030 Pleasant Valley Lane/Arlington/Texas/76015/817-467-3740 {texsun, motown!sys1, uiucuxc!sys1 lawnet, attctc, texbell} letni!doug ------------------------------ From: David Singer Subject: Re: Finding out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number Date: 18 Dec 89 17:44:11 GMT Reply-To: David Singer Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center Many airlines have "city ticket offices" in cities all across the country; here in San Jose, the yellow pages have reservations listings for American, Canadian, China, Continental, Delta, Iberia, Japan, Korean, Lufthansa, Mexicana, TWA, UTA, United, and Varig, as well as many strictly domestic carriers. Also, your friendly neighborhood travel agent probably has a local phone number you could use from abroad. [I realize this isn't strictly Telecom-related, but thought it would help answer the specific question.] David Singer (singer@ibm.com) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Dec 89 12:45:26 est From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: Why not 00 as the international prefix in the US? Reply-To: goudreau@larrybud.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC In article <1904@accuvax.nwu.edu> ge@sci.kun.nl (Ge' Weijers) writes: >>As someone has already pointed out, there are a lot more people and >>phones here in the NANP (US, Canada, much of the Caribbean) using 011 >>as the prefix than there are in Europe using 00 as the prefix. If >>such a change is really needed (and I don't agree that it is), it >>sounds like *you* should change to conform to the majority, not us. >>(And no, I'm not advocating such a change, I'm merely pointing out the >>absurdity of the rationale.) >There are a lot of places using 00. A short list: [omitted] >To make my point: this makes for a lot of telephones. So why make all >those people convert to 010. If you had even bothered to read my message, you would have noticed a few of *my* points: 1) I'm *not* advocating that "00" countries change to "011". I was merely pointing out that telephony does not begin and end in Europe. (In fact, the inventor of the telephone, Alexander Graham Bell, was a *Canadian* immigrant to the *US*, so how's that for NANP credentials!) 2) 300 million people in the (mostly prosperous) NANP makes for a *lot* of telephones. How many phones are in use in the "00" countries you cited? Remember, except for the Western European ones, most of those on the list are third world countries and usually have comparatively very few phones. 3) For the second time, it's "011", not "010", that's used as the usual international access code in the NANP. The United Kingdom uses "010" -- add another 50-60 million people to your non-00 hit list. >The Dutch system uses 00x for special >services like operator assistance, the time, the weather and the >likes. They are moving these services to 06xxxxxx numbers though. >Maybe we are converting from 09 to 00 for international access. Does >anyone know? (maybe someone from DNL cares to comment?) In the >meantime use a good agenda. I'm not sure what is meant by the last sentence; please elaborate. >6525 ED Nijmegen, the Netherlands tel. +3180612483 (UTC-2) Does the Dutch PTT also advocate running all of a number's digits together without using any intervening whitespace or punctuation to make it easier for people to read? This practice is not exactly what I'd call good human-factors engineering. 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 ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Hunt-groups vs Busy-forwarding Date: 19 Dec 89 06:53:42 PST (Tue) From: John Higdon rfarris@serene.uu.net (Rick Farris) writes: > Well, somebody let the cat out of the bag at PacTel, because by the > time I called, the install charge for busy-forwarding was $10.00 and > the monthly fee was $3.50! Needless to say, the economics of the > situation was considerably skewed, so I ordered a hunt-group. I don't > know why I didn't do it sooner, it works like a charm! Oops! I may have a red face over this one. You have to understand that I have had Commstar since 1981 (formerly Premiere--home Centrex) and sometimes forget that the custom calling features pricing for Commstar lines is different than for "stand-alone" lines. The price for practically any optional custom-calling feature is $5.00 to install and $2.00 per month. Call waiting, call forwarding, speed call, busy call forwarding, etc., etc. are all that price on Commstar. What you confronted was "real world" pricing of the feature. Sorry 'bout that. > I asked the business attendant what was the difference in the > services, and she claimed there were no differences, other than the > fact that busy-forwarding could forward to a business number. That > doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I suppose they're just trying > to gouge the person that needs a personal and a business number > forwarded to each other. Are there a lot of those people? From a tariff standpoint the difference is significant. Hunting may only occur between lines with the same prefix, with the same class of service (business or residential; measured or unmeasured), billed to the same party. In mechanical offices, there are even additional restrictions concering the "hundreds" group. Busy forwarding effectively drops all of those restrictions. However, busy forwarding is not available from a mechanical office, either. When my business was considerably more complex than it is now, I had a salesman in Concord who had a listed number in my company's name. We had busy call forwarding on that number such that if it he didn't answer it within about 3 or 4 rings, it would forward to our 800 number in San Jose. It took them days to make it work, but it finally did. You can't do that with hunting. (Busy forwarding is actually busy/no answer forwarding, with the number of rings predetermined at installation.) John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: GTE vs. Pac*Bell Date: 19 Dec 89 07:17:05 PST (Tue) From: John Higdon Scott Alexander writes: > My impression is that Pac*Bell serves most of California with pockets > being served by GTE. (And very small pockets served by independents.) > How large are the pockets served by GTE? Is there any easy way to > find out which company serves an area (without visiting the area)? In southern California, it's not pockets but major infestations. A friend of mine who lives in that area once remarked that GTE controlled all the places in the LA Metro area that were worth living in. GTE handles the beach cities, and major areas more inland. Unfortunately, there's no easy way to tell in advance anymore. You used to be able to call a given prefix and hear that dreaded "GTE ringback", but now they're even using AT&T 1AESS switches right out of the box. You mentioned Pasadena; it's served by Pac*Bell. Or you could play it safe--come live in the Bay Area. Safe, but boring, telephone-wise. Areas to avoid: Long Beach, (or most of the beach cities), Santa Monica, West LA, Diamond Bar, most of the "Inland Empire" (San Bernardino, Ontario, etc.), Westminster. Frankly, it's a jungle down there. Pac*Bell areas include LA proper, Hollywood, Santa Ana, Pasadena, Alhambra, Orange, Anaheim. If you look at a map, you'll practically see a checkerboard pattern. > Given all the California telephone horror stories, I'm not sure that > I'm looking forward to dealing with either company. Tut, tut! If you're looking for good, reliable, plain vanilla telephone service, then Pac*Bell will do the job nicely. They are even fairly pleasant to deal with. But don't expect any CLASS features, or ISDN or anything else that is au currant. > Pinnacles from Pasadena? Can I get a foreign exchange line to there? :-) Hah! Pinnacles is up here, just south of the Bay Area! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: Information Services (was Re: PacTelesis Power Grab) Date: 19 Dec 89 14:43:44 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <2236@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > The rule of thumb should always be to prevent the regulated monopoly > from engaging in any competitive service that utilizes its regulated > network. Not quite, according to the FCC. The rule of thumb is more like the regulated monopoly should not be able to engage in any competitive service that takes undue advantage of its monopoly power. Three Computer Inquiries have tried to find ways to enable telephone companies to utilize their regulated networks to engage in competitive services... David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ From: Ed Morin Subject: Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? Date: 19 Dec 89 18:56:42 GMT Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc.; Seattle, WA Here in Woodinville Washington (a GTE suburb of Seattle), 411 works great. I think we have one of the newer phone switches though because when call waiting beeps in my ear the calling party can't here the obvious click that one gets on other (presumably) older switches. Ed Morin Northwest Nexus Inc. "Unix Public Access for the Masses!" edm@nwnexus.WA.COM ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #583 *****************************   Date: Wed, 20 Dec 89 1:32:02 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #584 Message-ID: <8912200132.aa31098@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 20 Dec 89 01:30:58 CST Volume 9 : Issue 584 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: 7kHz Voice and ISDN (David Stodolsky) Re: High-Seas Communications (Kent Hauser) Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (Charles Buckley) Re: White Pages (David Tamkin) Re: Enterprise Numbers? Zenith Numbers? (Jon Solomon) Of Interest to Time Freaks (Roy Smith) Call Forwarding (Steve Elias) 800 Number Phone Solicitors (Steve Elias) Caller ID on 800 Service (Steve Forrette) LADS Service (Joe Stong) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 19 Dec 89 23:11:47 +0100 From: David Stodolsky Subject: Re: 7kHz Voice and ISDN goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com in <2002@accuvax.nwu.edu> writes >Funny you should ask. Yes, there's a new ISDN 7 kHz audio bearer >service. It makes use of 64 kbps ADPCM encoding. Mermelstein, P., (1988). G.722, A New CCITT Coding Standard for Digital Transmission of Wideband Audio Signals (IEEE Communications Magazine, v. 26, n. 1) describes a way to split audio input into two 4 khz bands using ADPCM coders. Audio data can be transmitted at 64, 56, or 48 kbits, thus allowing simultaneous transmission of other data. The system is targeted toward "audio- visual conferencing applications where one would like to approach the quality of face-to-face communication (p. 8)." My interest, is not the improvement in audio quality, but the use of data-speech multiplexing. This is projected in the article, for speaker identification or fax on the established connection. One of the major problems in teleconferencing is speaker selection, how to decide on the next speaker without using the normal cues one has when face-to-face. The Danish Telecommunication Research Labs. produced a pre-ISDN prototype with separate lines for audio, and speaker id and queuing data via modem, some years back. It turned out to be too complex for practical use. A version of my equal-time resolution rule was programmed into that system (Stodolsky, D. (1987). Dialogue management program for the Apple II computer. _Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers_, _19_, 483484.). This rule has been show to yield benefits in both emotional tone and group performance in controlled experiments. I would like to see the rule applied in one of these new ISDN conferencing systems, but its hard to get the attention of the equipment suppliers on this point. They typically resort to centralized control by a chairmen, without even the ability to run on "auto pilot", where people queue themselves up by pressing a "request" button or just by starting to talk with a voice-operated switch "pressing" the button for them. Central control of speakers was strongly disliked in the prototype system. In fact, all units were eventually rebuilt, so each one could be the "master" in a multi-unit conference. Chairmen management seemed a bit clumsy, even when the queuing was automatic and the chair just announced the name of the next speaker. From a psychological standpoint, fully distributed control is the only way to go, and it is quite feasible with ISDN, any takers? 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: Kent Hauser Subject: Re: High-Seas Communications Date: 19 Dec 89 20:57:41 GMT Organization: Twenty-First Designs, Wash, DC In article <2084@accuvax.nwu.edu>, thomas%mvac23.uucp@udel.edu (Thomas Lapp) writes: > In several of the messages in the last week or so, it has been > mentioned that the Pittsburgh International Operator was used for > making high-seas calls. There is also satellite communications to ships at sea. Three country codes exist for ships: 871 = Atlantic, 872 = Pacific, & 873 = Indian ocean. Calls are placed just like a normal int'l call: e.g. (in the US) 011 871 1234567 # All ship numbers are seven digits (octal representation of a 21-bit ID number). When a ship moves from one ocean to another, it's number doesn't change, only it's `country code'. In the US, the ground stations for INMARSAT (as the system is known), are located just outside of Danbury, Conn. & Ventura, Calf. Other countries also have ground stations. The American stations are directly connected to the ISCs for AT&T, Teleglobe, & MCI. (Who says there is only one country code in North America?) Further technical info can be obtained out of the CCITT docs. I believe that Q.170 is gen'l info. Also one of the previous versions of the CCITT docs (I think it was the yellow books) had a supplement to the No. 5 signalling spec (Fascicle VI.2) showing some additional info. On an non-technical note -- a real problem for the system is that when someone calls the operator (AT&T Employee) & asks for a ship, they are normally connected with the high-seas operator (AT&T Run), not the INMARSAT system (non-AT&T). Kent Hauser UUCP: {uunet, sun!sundc}!tfd!kent Twenty-First Designs INET: kent@tfd.uu.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Dec 89 22:00:47 PST From: Charles Buckley Subject: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number [Moderator's Note: I will only respond to (a): Yes there is 1-800-555-1212 for obtaining listed 800 numbers. You can't call it or most 800 numbers because the called party has not agreed to accept charges from outside the United States (or Canada). PT] But no-one's *asking* them to pay for the call - just accept it. The restrictiveness of this practice boggles my mind, too. Do there exist 800 numbers you can call from abroad at all? I don't think so. ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: White Pages Date: Tue, 19 Dec 89 10:17:22 CST John Cowan asked in TELECOM Digest, Volume 9, Issue 582: | Where does Trans Western get its white page info? It matches | Taconic Telephone's exactly. The two local telcos here share white pages information with one another, and the independent books that proliferated here in late 1987 credit the telcos with the info. For example, Community Telephone Directories' 1987-88 book for the near northwestern suburbs of Chicago has these two paragraphs on page 2: :Listings for 296, 297 [rest of list elided], 825, and 827 prefixes :were transcribed by Community Telephone Directories, Inc. pursuant to :a license from Central Telephone Company of Illinois, from :compilations copyrighted by Central Telephone Company of Illinois and :may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent :of Central Telephone Company of Illinois. :Listings of the Illinois Bell Telephone Company contained within this :directory were transcribed by Community Telephone Directories, Inc. :pursuant to a license from Illinois Bell Telephone Company (from :compilations copyrighted 1987 by Illinois Bell Telephone Company) and :may not be reproduced in whole or in any part, or in any form :whatsoever, without :written consent of Illinois Bell Telephone :Company. National Suburban Directories' books have similar language. Fairly likely Trans Western has a similar arrangement with the telcos in Columbia County. The local book from Illinois Bell (the Chicago white pages) contains listings for Centel service within the city of Chicago, and the local Centel directory (Des Plaines/Park Ridge) includes listings for Illinois Bell service within the city of Des Plaines. However, neither telco's directory has a notice of license such as those above for use of the other telco's listing information. David Tamkin P.O Box 813 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-0813 | BIX: dattier dattier@chinet.chi.il.us (708) 518-6769 (312) 693-0591 | GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN Everyone on Chinet has his or her own opinion about this.| CIS: 73720,1570 [Moderator's Note: In addition, Centel publishes a directory for Chicago which is entitled 'Chicago-Newcastle', and the information therein is duplicated in Illinois Bell's Chicago White Pages. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Dec 89 11:41:58 EST From: Jon Solomon Subject: Re: Enterprise Numbers? Zenith Numbers? Telecom readers, What John Levine was talking about is really true. I know a radio station in Connecticut which used enterprise numbers to determine which exchange it would accept incoming calls from on a talk show. "Today's exchange is Middletown", for example. They didn't give out their real number, so only if you called enterprise 9842 would the call go through. Incidentally the call letters for that station were WTIC, and their enterprise number spells out that call. 800 numbers don't provide the granularity this sort of thing offers. Also, the telephone companies probably won't let you change the 800 number's calling area every day like the Enterprise numbers would. Enterprise numbers (at least in CT) were billed as collect calls. jsol ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Dec 89 20:01:03 EST From: Roy Smith Subject: Of Interest to Time Freaks Organization: Public Health Research Institute, NYC This has nothing directly to do with tcp-ip, but I know a lot of time freaks hang out here. If you care about keeping accurate time, in particular the history of said endevour, you will probably want to get your hands on the following interesting little book I found in the library today: %T Sky With Ocean Joined: Proceedings of the Sesquicentennial Symposia of the U.S. Naval Observatory, December 5 and 8, 1980. %E Steven J. Dick %E LeRoy E. Doggett %I U.S. Naval Observatory %C Washington, D.C. %D 1983 No, they don't discuss NTP, but they do talk about earlier ventures in that direction such as Western Union clocks (discussed at length in TELECOM Digest in the past) and time balls, as well as more modern devices such as atomic clocks. ------------------------------ Subject: Call Forwarding Date: Mon, 18 Dec 89 09:17:21 -0500 From: eli@pws.bull.com Subject: Re: User Control of Feature(s) Reply-To: John Higdon >Not generally true. When the forwarded call supervises (is answered) >then the forwarded phone will pass another call. And so on. The reason >this was done (they used to forward any number of calls, regardless of >supervision status) was to prevent forwarding loops. Try it; place a >call to your forwarded number and when it answers, place another--it >should forward as well. This isn't correct, at least in the Boston area switches. A couple of years ago, one could have many calls being forwarded through a single line. Now, only one call can be active through a call forward at one time. I just confirmed this moments ago, John! If the first forwarded call is still active, subsequent callers get a busy signal. This is for my residential service -- I've heard that you can indeed ask that multiple calls be allowed through, but the phone company people are baffled when I try to explain the situation. steve elias / 508 671 7556 / 617 932 5598 ------------------------------ Subject: 800 Number Phone Solicitors Date: Mon, 18 Dec 89 09:17:21 -0500 From: eli@pws.bull.com Have any other 800 number owners out there been receiving calls from some bonehead in Missouri who is trying to sell something? I got a very strange message from this individual a few days ago. He "instructed" me to write a letter containing all sorts of information about my company and to send it to him at some obscure address in Missouri. Naturally, I ignored him. If this keeps up, I'm going to begin to get peeved at the thought of solicitors dialing my 800 number! steve elias / 508 671 7556 / 617 932 5598 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Dec 89 05:10 EDT From: STEVEF Subject: Caller ID on 800 Service Does anyone know what the service is called or where to get more information on AT&T's offering of Caller ID on 800 service (the service used by American Express in the previously posted story)? I have spent about 2 weeks talking to various people at AT&T, but nobody even acknowledges that it exists. Other questions: Is this service available to 800 Access Line subscribers? (This is where incoming calls get routed to your regular local lines, instead of coming in on dedicated trunks). I have gotten various responses, such as "You need ISDN to do that" I don't believe this is true. Anyone know for sure? Does this service use the same boxes used for Caller ID CLASS service offered by the RBOC? Do you have to be in a CO that has Caller ID? Thanks in advance - please mail responses to: stevef%walker_richer_quinn@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: Joe Stong Subject: LADS Circuits Reply-To: jst@cca.ucsf.edu (Joe Stong) Organization: Computer Center, UCSF Date: Tue, 19 Dec 89 05:10 EDT I would like to hear of people's experiences with LADS (solid copper 4 wire or 2 wire circuits only for sites local to the same central office). In particular, I'm curious about what you can get through them in the way of frequency response. My understanding at the moment is that T1 is delivered on a regular 4 wire connection to one's building. Are there equalization networks along the "subscriber loop" of a T1 that make it "better" than a LADS circuit? Here's the scenario: I'm wondering if I/others can connect a LADS circuit to an ARCnet board on a PC, running the Phil Karn (KA9Q) software, with the ARCnet-TCP/IP driver in place (don't worry, we're a non-commercial outfit) to get a TCP/IP connection between home and work. The 1 megabaud (nominal?) rate from the ARCnet board should be lower rate than a T1 at 1.544 megabaud; will it make it in terms of frequency response? If this setup would work, it would let everybody use relatively CHEAP interfaces and software to make a FAST connection. An old story: Back when 9600 baud modems were horribly expensive, we arranged a remote terminal on a LADS circuit for a customer in Arcata, CA. The "couplers" (not modems) that got purchased seemed to be transformer coupled, and mostly seemed to convert to/from some RZ coding scheme at a fixed baud rate (9600) onto the LADS line. The whole setup was horribly sensitive to electrical noise (changing the interior wiring that PacBell had done from silly "quad wire" (NOT twisted pair) to twisted pairs helped some, but it was still subject to garbage occasionally. Would current-loop couplers have been better for this 6 mile circuit? (Traditional sillyness, the offices were only 2 blocks apart, but the phone company would only make the connection into the office on the other side of town, and back out again) I notice that some other high-speed devices use RS422 (like microwave transmitters), but I've had better luck with current loop lines than differential or single-ended lines. At least in San Francisco, LADS circuits are extremely cheap, namely $200 initial installation and $18 a month, when I checked a couple of years ago. Joe Stong jst@cca.ucsf.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #584 *****************************   Date: Thu, 21 Dec 89 0:31:11 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #585 Message-ID: <8912210031.aa31569@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 21 Dec 89 00:30:47 CST Volume 9 : Issue 585 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behidn a 1-800 Number (David Tamkin) Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (John Bruner) Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (John R. Levine) Re: First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice (Dean Sirakides) Re: Telephone Security in Colleges (Gabe Wiener) Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? (David Tamkin) Re: LADS Circuits (Syd Weinstein) Re: Caller ID (Gregory K. Johnson) Info Needed: Natural Microsystems VBX Speech Board (Jose Diaz-Gonzalez) ISDN User Interface Group? (Dru Nelson) PBX / Keysystem With RS232 Control? (Steve Elias) Anyone Know Of "Reserved" Suffix 0020 (Steve Forrette) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number Date: Wed, 20 Dec 89 21:22:20 CST John Stanley wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 9, Issue 581: | And what makes you think everyone with an 800 number WANTS people | outside NA calling them? If I had a small company struggling for | survival I certainly wouldn't want a bunch of overseas calls on top of | all the other expense and headache of overseas sales. The original question, as the title of the thread ("Finding Out the `Real' Number behind a 1-800 Number") indicated, was not why companies wouldn't accept reverse-charged international calls; the answer is fairly obvious, along the lines of Mr. Stanley's logic. The question was why some companies give out only their toll-free numbers and refuse to give out another number that an overseas caller can dial at the caller's own expense. David Tamkin P.O Box 813 Rosemont, Illinois 60018-0813 | BIX: dattier dattier@chinet.chi.il.us (708) 518-6769 (312) 693-0591 | GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN Everyone on Chinet has his or her own opinion about this.| CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Dec 89 08:21:18 CST From: John Bruner Subject: Re: Finding out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number Twice I've had problems similar to those experienced by out-of-country callers when I wanted to call a special phone number from the wrong state. The first time I was calling from California concerning my soon-to-be-established service in Illinois, and the only number I had was an 800 number that (naturally) only worked within the state of Illinois. Fortunately in that case I had a Champaign-Urbana telephone book which listed the general office number in area code 312. (They couldn't handle my request, but they did give me a different 800 number.) The second incident occurred when I needed to clear up a billing problem on my just-disconnected Pacific Bell service. I was now in Illinois. Pac*Bell (at least in the part of the Bay Area where I was living) had instituted a special 811 prefix for all of its office numbers. I guess that the goal was to route calls to the nearest office. Naturally, these 811-xxxx numbers didn't work long-distance. A call to directory assistance yielded the 811 number; however, after I explained my problem they gave me another number (with a different prefix but the same xxxx). (Perhaps the fact that it had something to do with money for them motivated the provision of this unlisted information.) John Bruner Center for Supercomputing R&D, University of Illinois bruner@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu (217) 244-4476 ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number Date: 20 Dec 89 18:28:43 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Littleton MA USA In article <2288@accuvax.nwu.edu>, ceb@csli.stanford.edu (Charles Buckley) writes... > [Moderator's Note: I will only respond to (a): Yes there is 1-800-555-1212 > for obtaining listed 800 numbers. You can't call it or most 800 > numbers because the called party has not agreed to accept charges from > outside the United States (or Canada). PT] >But no-one's *asking* them to pay for the call - just accept it. The >restrictiveness of this practice boggles my mind, too. Do there exist >800 numbers you can call from abroad at all? I don't think so. Accepting a