Date: Tue, 2 Jan 90 1:01:18 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #1 Message-ID: <9001020101.aa14792@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Jan 90 01:00:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 1 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Service Quality in Corpus Christi (Mark Earle) Demark Termination Problem (Mark Earle) Texas BBS's vs Phone Company (Ken Levitt) The Operator's Beep (Gabe Wiener) Direct Dialing the USSR (Gabe Wiener) Hayes 9600 v.42 (Jason Goldberg) 800 Wrong Numbers (William Degnan) Wrong Number at Directory Assistance (Jay Maynard) Re: Multiple Call-Forwarding Error (Brian Kantor) Re: Phone Frustration (Peter da Silva) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 30 Dec 89 11:32:48 CST From: Mark Earle Subject: Service Quality in Corpus Christi I don't have handy the original poster's name...but this is a geneal comment about service. I live in Corpus Christi, TX, a town of about 200,000, give or take. We're served by Southwestern Bell (with major rural areas immediately north of the metro area being served by GTE). Upon changing apartments, I ordered a second residential rate line. They were having, after all, a Christmas season special on 'Teen Lines'. The lady taking the order, however, directly asked me if part of the reason was modem useage. I answered, yes, that my work requires me to access the computer at the office from home; so the second line would allow my main line to remain clear. No problem, she probably marked that down on a data base. In reality the line is for Fidonet 160/50, my bbs... On business lines, we generally get 4 hour promised response, but the longest I've waited ever is 2 hours. Residentail, after they go through the questions (usually stopped if my mention you've trouble-shot to the demark point) usually is "same day" and they try hard not to leave ya in a bind overnight without dialtone, although by my choice, they did once (I just coudn't see getting an insaller out at 8 p.m. on a 20 degree night, just for the bbs line.) But, they *would* have sent one had I wanted /needed it up. So, that's a summary of how it is down here in Texas. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Dec 89 11:36:04 CST From: Mark Earle Subject: Demark Termination Problem Upon having my second line installed, in the demark, there is a circuit across the tip/ring which is a 47 uf cap, a 1n914 diode, and a 15k resistor in series. Aparently, this allows some sort of loop testing. It was screwing up my 2400 baud calles (but 3, 12, and 9600 HST worked fine!). Aparently, there is another of these test circuits on the block outside--there should not have been another at my demark; the installer just forgot to check it. I removed it, then called customer service and confirmed that the test circuit was still on my line, from her end..so it must be outside in the box... the installer admitted he was a manager, catching up on the 'Teel Line Christmas Special' so a regular full time installer probably wouldn't have made this mistake. Just thought y'all might find it of interest. Mark Earle ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Dec 89 14:50:26 EST From: Ken Levitt Subject: Texas BBS's vs Phone Company The following article is being reposted from the FidoNet Law echo. I did not write it, please don't respond to me about it. ============================================================================ Date: 12-18-89 (18:19) To: ALL From: ED HOPPER Subj: PROGRESS REPORT Progress report on status of negotiations: On December 8th, the period in which the Texas BBS case (Texas PUC #8387) was held in abeyance for the purpose of negotiation expired. Shortly thereafter, conversations between the petitioner group and Southwestern Bell resumed. We (the COSUARD board) have been advised that an agreement on the issue of compensation may be possible. Southwestern Bell has indicated a willingness to agree that residence rates apply to BBS systems that do not *REQUIRE MONETARY COMPENSATION*. (Please note those three critical words). Southwestern Bell continues to insist that BBS operations be limited to one line. (I should state that there is confusion and inconsistency on the question of whether or not "separate" BBSs could be co-located in the same home. Southwestern Bell's responses on that issue in the past have been poorly phrased and difficult to relate to real world BBS operations). Last Thursday (December 14), the COSUARD board met to consider the latest statements from Southwestern Bell. While we were encouraged and pleased to see the new position regarding compensation, we continue to be troubled by the complete insistence on one line. A single line was not one of the considerations first raised by Southwestern Bell when this issue was first raised in October 1988. Since it first surfaced, in the spring of 1989, Southwestern Bell has never provided a justification for this position other than statements that BBSs using over one telephone line "seem like a business". Southwestern Bell will not force other residential customers to business rates based upon the number of telephone lines installed in the home. In fact, Southwestern Bell is currently engaged in a marketing effort to sell additional phone lines to residential customers. This is supported by television and radio advertising. As president of COSUARD, I am greatly concerned about the inequity of the basic "one-line per BBS" proposition put forth by Southwestern Bell. I am also very much aware that certain types of BBS systems ("Chat" boards and UNIX based systems, among others) virtually require more than one phone line to operate properly. These systems are a part of our BBS nation and are deserving of the solidarity and support of all. All of the officers of COSUARD seek your input on this issue. Should we continue to stand firm on the one line issue? Should we accept some other limitation or should we insist on treatment that is equal to that received by other residential customers? Member and non-member, in Texas or the rest of the world, we want to hear your views. Sincerely, Ed Hopper, President COSUARD-The Coalition of Sysops and Users Against Rate Discrimination RNet 1.02R: COSUARDNet:Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Tx - 713-782-5454 Origin: Ed Hopper's BBS (PCBoard 1:106/889.6) ============================ End of FidoNet Message ======================= Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu ------------------------------ From: Gabe Wiener Subject: The Operator's Beep Reply-To: Gabe Wiener Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research Date: Mon, 1 Jan 90 02:04:54 GMT Occasionally I'll call some AT&T number or directory assistance line and hear that "beep" sounded by the operator before they get on the line. I used to hear it on all operator calls pre-breakup, but it has pretty much gone by the wayside for 0 and 00 calls. Can anyone tell me its purpose? Moreover, why did they stop using it? Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ. "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings gabe@ctr.columbia.edu to be seriously considered as a means of gmw1@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu communication. The device is inherently of 72355.1226@compuserve.com no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877 ------------------------------ From: Gabe Wiener Subject: Direct Dialing the USSR Reply-To: Gabe Wiener Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research Date: Mon, 1 Jan 90 02:09:39 GMT Just for the hell of it, I tried dialing that Estonian BBS # directly, and sure enough, I got an intercept saying, "Direct dial service is available to Moscow only." That sparked a few questions: 1. Why direct service only to Moscow? 2. How are international trunklines set up with countries with which we have less than an amicable relationship? Who pays for and maintains such lines? 3. What is the state of technology of the telecom system in Russia? Do they build their own hardware? or import it? 4. Does subscriber trunk dialing (to use the British term) exist inside the USSR? Or must all long-distance still be placed w/operator assistance? Thanks, and happy new year! Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ. "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings gabe@ctr.columbia.edu to be seriously considered as a means of gmw1@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu communication. The device is inherently of 72355.1226@compuserve.com no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877 ------------------------------ From: Jason Goldberg Subject: Hayes 9600 v.42 Date: 1 Jan 90 19:02:37 GMT Reply-To: Jason Goldberg Organization: University of California, Irvine I have a few questions about modem protocals I was trying to sort out. First does anyone have any suggestions on how I can get ahold of a power transformer for a Hayes 9600 (Its a long story but I need it ASAP and I think delevery from Hayes will take a while.) Anyway, according to the Hayes 9600 v.42 manual it does error-checking and compression. Is it compatible with MNP style modems (to what level?). I know that US Robotics have a "Dual Standard" modem, is my Hayes going to be compatable with most 9600's out there. Will I get error checking on most 9600 connections? Will I get error checking on monst MNP 2400 connections? Thanks, -Jason- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Dec 89 22:21:00 CST From: William Degnan Subject: 800 Wrong Numbers A client was getting dozens of wrong number calls on his 800 number. It turned out that his number was a cross-polination of two numbers printed (too close to each other) on Southern New England Telephone's bills. To place an order: 1 800 555-2345 Billing questions: 1 203 555-1234 (numbers changed to protect the innocent) If the caller dialed, 1 800 555-1234, they got the unhappy client. We asked the nice folks at SNET to put "a little air" between the numbers (or pay for a number change, stationary printing and advertising costs), but they were uncooperative, at best. In desperation, I hinted that the client might have no other choice than to tell callers what they wanted to hear: "You are moving your offices from Danbury to Hartford on Monday and want to keep the same number? NO PROBLEM!" "Can't pay your bill? NO PROBLEM! Just send us what you can, when you can. We won't cut you off..." SNET managed to find a way to fix the unfixable. They just needed a little motivation. And to understand that some problems are less expensive than other problems. Regards, Bill Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com !wdegnan@at&tmail.com Communications Network Solutions | William.Degnan@telenet.com P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766 | voice: 512 323-9383 William Degnan -- via The Q Continuum (FidoNet Node 1:382/31) UUCP: ...!rpp386!tqc!39!wdegnan ARPA: wdegnan@f39.n382.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ From: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard Subject: Wrong Number at Directory Assistance Reply-To: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX Date: Mon, 1 Jan 90 19:17:09 GMT I have been getting sporadic calls for someone with a completely different name over the past year or so. The callers all tell me that they got the number from directory assistance. Today. I finally got enough information to track down the listing - and, sure enough, the number they have for that person is my number. I've lived here for 3-1/2 years now, and had the same number for all of that time. How do I go about getting the erroneous listing removed? A complicating factor is that DA in this area is run by Southwestern Bell, but my area is served (?) by GTE. (Oh, for those who are interested: DA used to be 411 in the Houston area, until a charge [5 free calls, then 25 cents each per month] was instituted; then it was changed to 1411. This goes anywhere in 713.) Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- Here come Democrats...here come Democrats...throwing money a-way... ------------------------------ From: Brian Kantor Subject: Re: Multiple Call-Forwarding Error Date: 31 Dec 89 17:53:23 GMT Reply-To: Brian Kantor Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. Our campus Ericsson MD110 &*^$^%#%^ switch currently allows exactly one forward; when it was first installed you couldn't forward to a phone that was forwarded to you, but you could make a three-number loop and then crash the switch by calling any of the three numbers (complete crash: no audio paths, no ringing, no dial tone, DEAD!). Now you can set up a such a loop but the call will only forward once, and the switch won't crash. Actually, since they use divert-on-no-answer to provide voice mail, that means that I can't use my secretary's voice mail to answer my line, since even if I forward my phone to her number, it won't divert a second time to the voice mail. - Brian ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Phone Frustration Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Mon, 1 Jan 90 03:04:12 GMT In article <2497@accuvax.nwu.edu> tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) writes: > Our PUC has an 800 number. A call to the PUC with the location and > telephone number of the phone has resulted in DISCONNECTION of the > non-complying phone every time. Pretty nasty thing to do to some individual or small businessman who (as you later pointed out) may have NO idea of the legal requirements. How about trying to talk to the person running the thing, first? It's only common courtesy. Of course if you *have* tried this route, I apologise for jumping to conclusions. But you didn't give any indication you have. For other people: before using the power of the state, how about trying old-fashioned *communication* first... in this and other cases? You're all communications experts (or at least talented amateurs) after all... `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . 'U` Also or . "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V9 #604 *****************************   Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 0:03:11 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #2 Message-ID: <9001030003.aa15232@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Jan 90 00:00:13 CST Volume 10 : Issue 2 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: "First" BBS in USSR (Dave Hughes) Re: "First" BBS in USSR (Andrei Kolesnikov) Re: Hi-Rise Joe (Tad Cook) Re: Phone Frustration (John Higdon) Re: The Operator's "Beep" (Steve Forrette) Caller ID Prefixes in PA (Sten Peters) Question About Area Code Split (Dean Sirakides) Area Code 908 Lives (Dave Levenson) Cordless Phone Recommendations (Andrew Palfreyman) Telephony in Greece (Hector Myerston) Re: 800 Wrong Numbers (Roy Smith) Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (James Cowan) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Hughes Subject: Re: "First" BBS in USSR Date: 1 Jan 90 22:32:36 GMT In article <2494@accuvax.nwu.edu>, karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: > I was interested to read of the claim that the BBS in Estonia is the > first in the USSR. This is incorrect. Earlier this year, an amateur > packet radio bulletin board system was established in Moscow with the > callsign RA3AT. I believe it can be accessed over HF radio through a > HF/VHF gateway switch also in Moscow. Well Phil, I knew, from my contacts with the local packet radio ham community - such as Andy Freeborn, President of the Tuscon group (TAPR) and Bdale Garbee - that there had been such packet radio bbs set up in Moscow. But it requires a ham license! And for years I have struggled with the contrast that modem users can be anybody, while packet radio users have to be licensed hams, or use pretty pricey commercial systems. So, yes the Packet BBS was the 1st - but only for a closed group. The Estonian BBS is 1st for just about anybody. I did something about that, by going out to get a business packet radio license for my area, and then assembling amateur-design packet controllers with low cost commercial radios. And *then* doing a 'patch arrangement' whereby the base station, instead of terminating with a computer (BBS) terminated with a properly configured modem, so I could go out to any other modem-answering system. (In fact we have had a company make a set of packet controllers with radios and modems to our specifications under our label). An 'extender' of phone modem communications via packet to a field or mobile location. Rather than just phone to phone, or radio to radio. But computer to radio to radio to phone to computer. Which seems to me to be one of the few practical answers for a lot of countries which do not have good enough telephone service. As well as many places in the US where either phone service is poor, party lines exist, or costs to extend phone service is prohibitive, or the cost of phone service itself is prohibitive. Such as in about every school in the world. If that Estonian BBS was packet-radio connected to Moscow at say, 9600 baud, terminating in a radio-packet-modem-Moscow-phone callable direct dial from the US, the noise would be less of a problem, and even the costs would be less (direct dial rather than operater assisted, which is about $7.00 for the first three minutes). But what is it going to take to get recognition that packet radio as (1) a general communications service (2) as an extender of phone-modem service is a desirable communications policy goal, not only for the US (FCC) but for PTT's elsewhere? And get laws and regulations amended accordingly. The solution cannot be for everyone to go get a ham license, code or no code - since one cannot do business over such nets, or encrypt to give even rudimentary privacy. (And the Estonian BBS is for business more than anything else.) You hams have done a wonderful job inventing the technology of packet radio, but the Berlin Wall of Licensing-Use-Policy is still up. Dave Hughes dave@oldcolo.uucp ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jan 90 05:45:40 -0800 From: sfmtmoscow@cdp.uucp Subject: Re: "First" BBS in USSR Yes, correct. But Estonia BBS is the first for public access. It is very long story about packet radio in the USSR. Right now there is a net in Armenia for coordination of several projects. Leo Labutin was the first who open a packet link between Soviet Amateur Center and the Institute for Automated Systems. Now we plan to continue these experiments, but after we received a permission from Soviet PTT and frequency. (Not amateur frequency.) Thanks, Andrei ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Hi-Rise Joe Date: 2 Jan 90 20:35:03 GMT Organization: very little Regarding John Higdon's remarks about Cap'n Crunch, I ran across him on USENET last year! His name is John Draper, and I actually exchanged mail with him for awhile. Unfortunately, I don't have his network address any longer. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Phone Frustration Date: 2 Jan 90 02:38:15 PST (Tue) From: John Higdon peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > Pretty nasty thing to do to some individual or small businessman who > (as you later pointed out) may have NO idea of the legal requirements. > How about trying to talk to the person running the thing, first? Don't you think that we, the public, are put upon enough with COCOTs in general without having to hold the hand of someone who should be aware of the rules and regs of his business BEFORE he foists his instrument of annoyance on us all? In the matter of COCOTs, I have wasted way too much time trying to track down owners of same to inform them of things they should already know. My clients' listeners go straight to the FCC for perceived violations, as well they should. Ignorance of the law, no matter how small the business, is no justification for not following the rules. > For other people: before using the power of the state, how about > trying old-fashioned *communication* first... in this and other cases? > You're all communications experts (or at least talented amateurs) > after all... In other circumstances I might agree, but the public has little enough support as it is from regulatory bodies concerning COCOTs. If it became known that violation of the few customer protections in place would result in summary disconnection, maybe more COCOT operators would obey them in the first place, instead of trying to see what they could get away with up front. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jan 90 12:27 EDT From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: The Operator's "Beep" Regarding the message someone posted about the "beep" heard before the operator comes on the line when you dial 0, 00, or calling card calls, my experience has been that they have NOT gone away, at least for AT&T operators. My recent experience is for calls from the Seattle, Sacramento, and Oakland areas. Calls to the local operators do not seem to do this. ------------------------------ From: sp@pro-deli.cts.com (Sten Peeters) Subject: Caller ID Prefixes in PA Date: 2 Jan 90 09:56:19 GMT Pennsylvania has finally introduced Caller ID the the 215 area code. Unfortunately Philadelhia and Harrisburg will be the only ones with the service. These are the telephone exchanges where Bell of PA's caller ID service initially will be available: Harrisburg Area- 231, 232, 233, 234, 236, 237, 238, 255, 257, 540, 541, 545, 558, 561, 564, 652, 657, 691, 697, 731, 737, 761, 763, 766, 782, 790, 795, 975 Philadelphia Area- 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 232, 233, 235, 236, 238, 242, 243, 246, 247, 248, 271, 276, 281, 288, 289, 291, 324, 329, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 338, 339, 342, 349, 351, 365, 379, 382, 386, 387, 389, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 438, 452, 455, 456, 457, 462, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 476, 477, 482, 483, 487, 492, 533, 535, 537, 545, 546, 548, 549, 551, 552, 553, 556, 574, 578, 581, 585, 590, 592, 596, 597, 621, 624, 625, 627, 629, 632, 634, 635, 637, 662, 663, 671, 673, 676, 677, 684, 697, 698, 722, 724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 729, 732, 735, 739, 742, 743, 744, 745, 747, 748, 753, 755, 763, 765, 769, 782, 786, 787, 790, 823, 824, 829, 831, 836, 841, 842, 843, 844, 848, 849, 871, 875, 877, 878, 879, 893, 895, 897, 898, 922, 923, 924, 925, 927, 928, 932, 934, 937, 951, 952, 961, 969, 973, 976, 978, 985, 991 Suburban Philadelphia Area- 237, 244, 245, 248, 259, 284, 352, 446, 449, 461, 522, 528, 532, 534, 572, 576, 583, 586, 622, 623, 626, 638, 639, 734, 789, 853, 881, 884, 885, 886, 887 (Copied from a notice which was added to my last phone bill) Sten Peeters 2005 Buckman Ave Wyomissing, PA 19610 ProLine: sp@pro-deli Internet: sp@pro-deli.cts.com UUCP: {rosevax, bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!pro-abyss!pro-deli!sp Arpanet: {rosevax, bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!pro-abyss!pro-deli!sp@nosc.mil Fidonet: {rosevax, bungia, crash}!f101.n273.z1.fidonet.org!Sten.Peeters Talk: {rosevax, bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!pro-abyss!pro-deli!talk!sp ------------------------------ From: Dean Sirakides Subject: Question About Area Code Split Date: 2 Jan 90 16:32:54 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL As I am sure most people know, the Chicago area has undergone an area code split from 312 to 312 and 708. Of course, most radio and tv ads now have to give an area code with their phone numbers to keep things clear -- usually. *Question* : I have heard several ads for stores where the phone number is given out and the annoucer qualifies the number by saying, "in either 708 or 312". This is also true for most of the radio request lines in Chicago: you can always dial them without an area code. (I assume this will remain true after the grace period ends). How is this done? And as a related question: how do companies get phone numbers like "dial LAWYERS" when the prefix for the spelled out number is not used in the area that services the address of the business? Thanks. (notice this article offers no opinion on Caller-ID) Dean Sirakides | Cellular Infrastructure Division ...uunet!motcid!sirakide | Motorola, Inc. | Arlington Heights, IL Of course I speak for myself, not my employer... ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Area Code 908 Lives Date: 3 Jan 90 03:48:19 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA Right on schedule, 1/2/90, our shiny new area code began working in Central New Jersey. I forget when it's supposed to become mandatory, but folks who choose to use it can now call us on 908. Others can still use 201. Dave Levenson Voice: (201 | 908) 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: Andrew Palfreyman Subject: Cordless Phone Recommendations Date: 31 Dec 89 02:09:23 GMT Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara Does anyone have specific recommendations which would assist a neophyte buyer of a cordless phone? Email if you please. .......................................................................... Andrew Palfreyman a wet bird never flies at night time sucks andrew@dtg.nsc.com there are always two sides to a broken window ------------------------------ From: myerston@cts.sri.com Date: 2 Jan 90 16:19 PDT Subject: Telephony in Greece Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA 94025 [(415)326-6200] From time to time items appear in this newsgroup which defy intelligent analysis. Volume 9 Issue 597 is the first to contain not one but TWO such items. Congratulations to both contributors. [Moderator's Note: Uh, Hector, would you kindly share your wisdom on this with us? If you'll cite the items in particular, perhaps someone can explain them to you. PT] ------------------------------ From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: 800 Wrong Numbers Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Tue, 2 Jan 90 15:26:20 GMT wdegnan@f39.n382.z1.fidonet.org (William Degnan) write: > In desperation, I hinted that the client might have no other choice > than to tell callers what they wanted to hear [...] SNET managed to find > a way to fix the unfixable. They just needed a little motivation. This is somewhat off the original subject, but... my mother recently told me a cute story. An organization she works with was having a day-long seminar. They printed up flyers giving a phone number to call for information and reservations. Unfortunately, they printed the wrong number, and some bakery was getting all their calls. Neither party was happy about the screwup and tensions mounted. Then somebody got a bright idea and a deal was struck -- the bakery agreed to politely redirect calls to the proper number and in return, the group agreed to use the bakery to cater all their danish etc. for the coffee breaks. 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" ------------------------------ From: John Cowan Subject: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) X-Subject-Explanation: Thurbing is, of course, what a Thurber does. Reply-To: John Cowan Organization: ESCC, New York City Date: Tue, 2 Jan 90 16:33:32 GMT In article <2492@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >Idiot calls to my 800 number now fall into two categories: >1. Callers wishing to reach a local (SF) ferry and public >transportation service; >2. Callers wishing to reach the Hilton Hotel chain. >After blowing my stack when awakened at 5:45am by a woman who said, >"Isn't this ferries?" (I beg your pardon!!), I developed a new >approach. The moment I realize what the person who is on the line is >after, I take their reservation or give them what (made up) >information they seem to be seeking. Great fun! James Thurber, in one of his short stories, discusses a similar type of wrong-number strategy. His hero deals with a call from a woman who wants to know when the next train leaves for such-and-such a place. (Presumably she was meaning to call the train station.) He tells her that there will be no further train until 2:30 A.M. When she protests that such a departure hour is unreasonable, he says, "That's true, but as a special service to you, madam, we will send a taxi for you at 1:30 A.M. sharp. Please be ready to go when the taxi arrives." Mollified, the woman hangs up. What happened to her after that? Thurber doesn't say. But surely it must have changed her life in more ways than one. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #2 ****************************   Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 21:00:29 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #3 Message-ID: <9001032100.aa16508@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Jan 90 21:00:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 3 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson One-armed Bandits (Steve Forrette) Telephone Companies in the US Besides the RBOCs (Anthony Lee) Request For Info About Dowty Information Systems (Dan Hall) Help! (John Higdon) The MDF....RIP, and a Quiz! (Bernard Mckeever) Modem Tax (Again? Again!) (Allyn Lai) Tariff Change on International Calling (Deepak Sabnis) Special Issues Planned for Digest (TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 00:59 EDT From: Steve Forrette Subject: One-armed Bandits The topic of COCOT's has been popping up here lately, so I thought I'd offer my comments on the matter: IMHO, COCOT's provide nothing but a disservice to the calling public. The vast majority of callers have trouble enough with all the dialing sequences and choices we have today, and adding misprogrammed and faulty equipment to the problem is in nobody's interest. I have *never* heard of someone who had anything positive to say about them, and almost everyone has had nothing but bad experiences. These one-armed bandits seem eager to eat your money at the drop of a hat, and overcharge you when they do work. I was surprised to see someone *defending* a COCOT owner who had not properly programmed their phone for the refund number. The excuse that the person that owned the phone probably knew nothing about telephones doesn't cut it. Someone not in-the-know about telephones should not be operating what amounts to their own telephone company. [How does GTE get away with it? :-) ] When the phones charge what amount to *illegal* rates, ignorance is no excuse. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for competition in the telecom industry. The competitive marketplace in long distance carriers has brought substantial rate reductions and improved quality (if you pick the right carrier) over the past few years. But COCOT's are a different story. Most of the time, they charge MORE than "real" payphones, and for this added cost, you get LESS service and quality. Is this what competition is supposed to bring? Here's my list of gripes that I've run across at various COCOT's (mostly in California): - No call completion detection (a timeout instead). - No incoming calls. - No address posted. - At least in CA, they are allowed to charge up to 10 cents for calling card calls, collect calls, and 800 calls. That's right, you must deposit 10 cents cash to use your AT&T card if the owner chooses to require it. - Having the internal time-of-day clock set wrong so you get billed daytime rates at night or on weekends for coin long distance. - Blatant tariff violations, such as requiring local call deposit for 950 numbers charging long distance for "special" prefixes (such as to cellular phones) that are local from a real payphone. - Charging for directory assistance. - Passing to their own operator (as opposed to the BOC operator) upon dialing of "0". - Blockage of DTMF after call completion, so you can't use interactive services, answering machines, pagers, etc. The one that really gets me is the 10 cent deposit for calling card and collect calls. We spend 100 years developing the technology to allow coinless calls, and it is undone by an act of law by the PUC so that someone can make 10 cents off a call that costs them nothing. What about the kid that's stuck at the mall and needs to call home collect for a ride? Or how about me when my car breaks down, need to call AAA, and don't have any change? Granted, I am using someone else's equipment, but it seems like the traditional purpose for businesses for having payphones is for customer convenience and to bring new customers into their establishment that would not otherwise have come. Clearly, there is a public interest in having kids being able to call home in an emergency or me being able to call a tow truck, and the PUC does not seem to be looking after this very well. And a substantial number of the COCOT's are replacements for old BOC sets, so they are not "adding more convenient locations" as some would say. So by not allowing free collect/calling card calls, the replacement phones have removed what I consider to be a substantial service in the public interest that the phone network had previously provided. It's not that much of an issue for me since I got a cellular phone, but most people don't have one, and most people use payphones when they are in the least opportune position to deal with problems. Most people don't know the difference between real payphones and COCOT's, and blame the proverbial "phone company" for the problems they have. Pacific Bell's attitude to problems is "fill out this form, send it in, and if we get 3 complaints on the same phone, *maybe* we'll disconnect it." I can understand 3 complaints for money-eating, poor quality, etc., but for blatant tariff violations? If a phone is charging 60 cents for a call which by law can cost at most 25 cents, why does it take 3 complaints to have it shut off? Granted, they will probably look into it on the first complaint, but for something as serious and reproducable as that, why three before guaranteed action? Actually, I believe that the PUC has set the 3 complaint threshold; and they're the ones that are supposed to be looking after us in the first place? My beef is with the COCOT operators and the PUC for letting them get away with it, not with Pacific Bell. And these tariff violations are not as uncommon as you may think. A couple of years ago, I got a copy of all the rules from Pacific Bell (so I would know what I was talking about), and did a little testing. Out of the 20 phones I tested, NOT A SINGLE ONE was compliant. (Yes, by the way, I usually *do* have something better to do with my time, but I'm sure we'll all had pet peeves with the BOC or whomever that we've spent a couple of hours looking into. Besides, if nobody takes the time to uncover tariff violations, these cheesy companies will continue to operate they way they do now.) I say feed these folks to the lions along with the AOS people (probably the same in many cases!) And I thought one-armed bandits were only allowed in Nevada and Atlantic City... ------------------------------ From: Anthony Lee Subject: Telephone Companies in the US Besides the RBOCs Date: 3 Jan 90 11:29:39 GMT Reply-To: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au Wonder if anyone could post a summary of all the major telephone companies in the US besides the RBOCs. Particularly Nynex (sp??), I read recently that Nynex have made a deal with Telecom Australia. Anyone know more about the deal ? 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 [Moderator's Note: There are over a thousand telephone companies in the United States. Many are *very* small, serving only a few hundred subscribers. The largest, following the Mother Company and her former children are GTE, with several telephone operating company subsidiaries; United, Continental and Centel, although not necessarily in that order. I think the smallest telco is one with eight subscribers. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 15:33:28 -0800 From: Dan Hall 03-Jan-1990 1732 Subject: Request For Info About Dowty Information Systems I am considering the purchase/recommendation of some products manufactured by Dowty Information Systems of Cherry Hill, NJ. Specifically, I am interested in the Multirate CSU/DSU, P/N 7055000, the T-1 CSU, P/N 7055020, and the ESF CSU, P/N 7055060. Can anyone offer their experience with any of these units? More importantly, can anyone comment on experiences with Dowty? In particular: 1) How responsive has Dowty been? 2) Does someone return phone calls in a timely fashion? 3) Is the person on the phone capable of fielding questions, or does it take several calls to several people? 4) Are repairs processed satisfactorily? 5) Are installations "clean", and are field personnel competent? 6) Are orders filled on time and completely? 7) Does the product arrive intact? 8) Do the different departments within Dowty appear to communicate effectively? 9) Is the product reliable? 10) What kind of problems have been encountered? 11) How many DOA's have been found? 12) Are there inexplicable performance irregularities? 13) How does the reliability of Dowty products stack up to that of the other products in the network? 14) Based on experience, what sort of recommendation seems appropriate to a prospective Dowty customer? Please reply to me at one of the addresses below. I will post a summary of the responses received later. Thank you in advance for any information you may have to offer. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ | Dan Hall | Email: hall@state.enet.dec.com | | Digital Equipment Corp. | -or- hall%state.dec@decwrl.dec.com | | Merrimack, NH | -or- ...!decwrl!state.dec.com!hall | \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ ------------------------------ Subject: Help! Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 1 Jan 90 12:20:02 PST (Mon) From: John Higdon Since I made my little aside about Capt'n Crunch, my mailbox has overflowed with people informing me that Capt'n Crunch and High Rise Joe are not the same person. I KNOW that. I know the Captain personally and have long known about High Rise Joe. My comments were a response to Andrei's mention of someone who had been in Moscow, done time in jail, and used a "special sound generator". That fits Capt'n Crunch; I was unaware that High Rise Joe had been in Moscow. Thanks for all the cards and letters, but I'm not that far out of it, yet! Sorry if my mention was ambiguous. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Bernard Mckeever Subject: The MDF....RIP, and a Quiz! Date: 3 Jan 90 17:57:39 GMT Reply-To: bmk@mvuxn.ATT.COM (bernard.mckeever,54236,mv,3b045,508 960 6289) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories The Main Frame, may it rest in peace. Southern Bell announced last month that they have cut over a central office that uses 100% optical fiber for interoffice and feeder facilities. What's more, by using digital cross connect systems, they have been able to eliminate the MDF. Taken a bit further, although not mentioned, they have eliminated the Central Office Technician. With today's Intelligent Network Elements [INE] provisioning and maintenance tasks are performed from remote operations centers. The only requirement for a technician [in most cases] is to replace known bad circuit packs under the direction of a tester or automatic diagnostic. When the fiber reaches your home, and you own the terminal adaptor, the outside plant technician will also pass into history. When this takes place circuit designers will be gone as well. Can test boards be far behind? Who does that leave? Before we get too sad let me explain who that leaves. It leaves a group of technicians that will have one of the most challenging and rewarding jobs in the industry. They will manage and control the network using the latest support systems and the newest performance monitoring equipment. Expert systems will be required because all the old experts will be gone, but knowledge will be the key factor in the new network. Tomorrow when something brakes, and it will, automatic systems will attempt to re-route service but the key to the situation will be the employee that KNOWS what must be done to restore service. Today's challenge, for anyone in the industry, is to design, build, and manage, new technology that will allows us to evolve from todays mostly digital network to tomorrows intelligent network. Here's a quick quiz for all you OLD Telco people that worked on large over crowded MDFs'. WHAT IS A STICK MAN ?....... HOW ARE THE HORIZONTALS LABELED ?....... WHAT DO THE FOLLOWING STAND FOR A. G&T [SXS] B. LL [XB5] C. MG [ESS] D. CXR E. DLL F. TL1,TL2 G. PN1,PN2 H. E,M,SG,SB. I. 2W 10W BRG That's it for now. Happy New Year! Bernie McKeever 598-960-6289 ------------------------------ From: Allyn@cup.portal.com Subject: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) Date: Wed, 3-Jan-90 10:59:44 PST Ok folks what is the definitive answer on the modem tax? Is it being considered again or is this a rumour? Someone on a local system claims to have checked (who? The FCC?) and they say that it IS being reconsidered! I remember an article was recently posted to TELECOM which seems to have put the subjet to rest. Unfortunately, I can't the article on my local system. Can anyone help? Allyn Lai allyn@cup.portal.com [Moderator's Note: It was not a modem 'tax', but rather, a requirement by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company that users of modems in general, and BBS operators in particular, pay business rates for their phone service. This first came up a few years ago, presumably was squashed, then the issue was raised again lately. Ken Levitt, a Fidonet participant in the Digest, passed along a report from a group of BBS sysops in SWBT territory implying the threat was again present. The following day, a message appeared here which referred to the earlier message as just a rumor that supposedly had long since been killed. Levitt sent along another anouncement last week stating that a group of sysops was actively negotiating that issue and others with SWBT. I'm sure more news will be forthcoming soon, and that the sysop's organization will keep us informed. PT] ------------------------------ From: Deepak Sabnis Subject: Tariff Change on International Calling Date: 2 Jan 90 23:36:43 GMT Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA Used to be that the most economical time to call India from U.S. on AT&T was between 11:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.. Effective December 31, 1988 AT&T has changed it to between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.. As a matter of fact the rate structure has dropped from three tiers to two tiers (6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. is now the most expensive times to call India). A lot of folks will be surprised next months when they see their bills. They would be making calls during what they thought was the most economical time to call only to discover that it is the most expensive time. AT&T tells me that they have ads in most new papers today 1/2/90 announcing the changes. Wonder if similar changes (not the rates but the time when it is most expensive etc) have hit the tarrifs for calling other countries. What about other carriers? Deepak Sabnis hplabs!hpda!deepak ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 19:30:50 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Special Issues Planned for Digest The year is less than a week old, and already, two special issues of TELECOM Digest are in the planning stages -- Ben Lippolt has kindly provided a bibliography of publications relevant to AI Applications. This bibliography is in bibtext format. William Degnan has provided a lengthy press release from the Texas Office of Public Counsel (the rate-setting organization in that state) which responds in detail to complaints and other comments by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company regarding a proposed across the board rate reduction in that state. Watch for these special issues of the Digest when they are distributed during the next week. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #3 ****************************   Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 0:02:08 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #4 Message-ID: <9001040002.aa32226@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Jan 90 00:00:31 CST Volume 10 : Issue 4 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (Roy Smith) Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (Bob Sutterfield) Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (Jamie Hanrahan) Re: The Torsten & Jim ISDN Chat Show (was ISDN & TCP/IP) (Jim Breen) Re: Multiple Call Forwarding vs Call Multiple Forwarding (Blake Farenthold) Re: Running Out of Area Codes, and How to Dial Long Distance (David Lewis) Re: Area Code 908 Lives (Seth Zirin) Re: The New Decade (Steven Tenney) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 15:48:50 GMT In <2534@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Cowan writes: > I developed a new approach. The moment I realize what the person who is > on the line is after, I take their reservation or give them what (made > up) information they seem to be seeking. Great fun! Shame on you! Put yourself in the place of the person calling. They have made an honest mistake (maybe it wasn't even their mistake; maybe some place listed the wrong number in an ad or whatever) and you take it out on them like they were some evil person calling you on purpose to annoy you? Imagine if you called to make an important train reservation. At the right time and date, you show up at the station, baggage in hand, only to find out that they have no record of your reservation and there isn't space on the train, and there isn't another train until tomorrow, by which time you'll miss your important meeting or whatever. Pretty cruel joke to play on some random unfortunate person. 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" [Moderator's Note: Your point is a very good one. Some readers may recall the columns by {Chicago Tribune} writer Mike Royko on this subject. Royko complained that his centrex extension at the Tribune (312-222-xxxx) was the same as a very heavily used number at AT&T, less the 1-800 on the front of it. He complained that AT&T should change *their* number due to the several people calling locally who failed to prepend the 1-800 to the number and wound up annoying him instead. His way of 'getting even' with evil old AT&T for refusing to cater to him was to pretend to be an AT&T service representative, and make nasty, ignorant and crude comments to the callers. AT&T put him on notice, telling him he was free to say whatever he wanted to people who reached him via a wrong number, except that he was not free to purport to be an employee, representative or agent of AT&T, either by direct statement or insinuation. He was told if he was caught making such a misrepresentation of himself or AT&T while discussing the service of present, past, or potential subscribers of AT&T he would get sued. That simple. The eventual outcome was the Tribune changed his extension number, and sent the other one to an intercept on their switch. PT] ------------------------------ From: Bob Sutterfield Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) Reply-To: Bob Sutterfield Organization: Morning Star Technologies Date: 3 Jan 90 13:28:19 When my dorm room phone was one digit off that of the Better Cab Company (serving Chicago's near north suburbs), I often received calls at bar closing time. I would mumble something like "we'll be right there" and hang up. When I finally got too fed up with the game (probably during finals week), I stormed the local IllBell office. They changed my number while I waited, and posted an operator to answer my old number and discern who was the caller's intended recipient. Our company's WATS number is one digit off that of Texaco's customer service hotline. We keep wanting to say "don't worry, ignore that bill and we'll take care of everything" but nobody's gotten up the nerve just yet. Somehow corporate life is different from a dorm room at 2:00am. ============================================ [Moderator's Note: I admit it sounds funny....but it is not funny! As Mr. Smith pointed out, it is a dreadful joke to play on an unsuspecting person. Even a drunken patron of a public house deserves the courtesy of being told 'wrong number', even if you say it angrily and slam the receiver in the process. Yes, I've done it too, years ago when I was a Young Man with an attitude problem. In 1972, my business number was 312 - WEbster 9-4600. Sears, Roebuck Chicago Region Credit Services was WAbash 2-4600. I had two lines; they had a five position cordboard which rocked around the clock with 65 incoming trunks in rotary hunt. One day IBT/Chicago-Pullman cut over to ESS, and some fool of a CO maintainence employee didn't know his 922's from his 939's. For six hours one day, I was *saturated* with calls from people wanting to gripe about their Sears credit card and I had a little fun with them....considering the volume of calls, Sears didn't even notice they were losing any. (How could you when you ordinarily get 350 calls per hour...or like Amoco Oil's sales authorization reps, closer to 1000 calls per hour?) PT] ------------------------------ From: jeh@simpact.com Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) Date: 3 Jan 90 11:47:21 PDT Organization: Simpact Associates, San Diego CA In article <2534@accuvax.nwu.edu>, cowan@marob.masa.com (John Cowan) writes: > James Thurber, in one of his short stories, discusses a similar type > of wrong-number strategy... Here's another tale in a somewhat similar vein. (On second thought, it's not similar at all. But John's story reminded me of this one!) Opening night of a particularly dreadful play -- intended to be a comedy -- in NYC was attended by, among others, the well-known humorist Robert Benchley. Benchley was sitting near the front row and was fast asleep by the end of the first act. The second act opened on a set devoid of actors; the sole "performer" visible was a ringing telephone. Benchley stirred and said, loud enough for much of the audience to hear, "Will somebody please get that? I think it's for me." A review the next morning commented that "The funniest line of the evening was spoken by Robert Benchley, who unfortunately was not in the cast." (I'm not sure, but I think I got this from a little book called "The What To Do While You're Holding The Phone Book", by Gary Owens -- yes, the LA-area DJ and tv personality. Those old enough to remember 60s-era tv, and those fond of watching Nik at Nite reruns, will remember him as the hand-on-the-ear announcer on Laugh-In.) --- Jamie Hanrahan, Simpact Associates, San Diego CA Internet: jeh@simpact.com, | Future shock: A sense of bewilderment or if that fails, jeh@crash.cts.com | felt by those who were not paying Uucp: ...{crash,decwrl}!simpact!jeh | attention. -- Analog (Jan 90) ------------------------------ From: jwb@cit5.cit.oz (Jim Breen) Subject: Re: The Torsten & Jim ISDN Chat Show (was ISDN & TCP/IP) Organization: Chisholm Institute of Technology, Melb., Australia Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 00:15:45 GMT In article <2353@accuvax.nwu.edu>, euatdt@euas17c10.ericsson.se (Torsten Dahlkvist) asks: > P.S. Jim: has Telecom Australia made any introduction of BRI yet? As > far as I know, Ericsson has only sold PRI to them; hence the MD110 > stuff. The short answer is no, not yet. PRI was under trial for a year or so (it kept being delayed by you-know-who's AXE software), and was formally introduced last August. Telecom has announced "BRI" for mid-1990, as a "supplementary service" wherein a PRI will be demuxed into 14 2B+Ds in a local exchange. Just how much this will differ from true BRI, I don't know, but I have to spend some time soon finding out. I guess the mux will have to sort out the SAPIs, TEPIs, etc. In article <2361@accuvax.nwu.edu>, goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes: > "ISDN Phones" are a classic example of technology missing the market. > ISDN makes a terrible desktop data solution. Most terminal-host > connectivity is within the building (local area). ISDN, no matter how > you slice it, costs more for this than a LAN with terminal servers. [etc] ... and > ISDN's strength in the data world is when you go beyond the LAN. ISDN > to the home, or ISDN between locations. It makes a great modem > replacement. But who in their right mind uses modems to dial down the > hall? [etc] Exactly. The applications I am looking at for ISDN involve using it for WANs, as either a replacement for modems and DDS NTUs, or as a standby to back-up our 2.048 M services. This is why I would like some TAs, either to go on separate BRIs or to go on our P(A)BX. There *is* a demand for ISDN phones, provided they supply this sort of wide area data connectivity. _______ 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 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 16:18:31 CST From: Blake Farenthold Subject: Re: Multiple Call Forwarding vs Call Multiple Forwarding In-Reply-To: message from wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu >1) How many hops can a forwarded call take? >2) If ending in a hunt group or rotary, can more than one call >be forwarded at the same time? >Item one has some uses. Item two is very nice if you run a dial-in >bank, shall we say in Metro DC, with 10 modems. You can get one line, >in a 'straddle' zone (maybe Howard County) and always forward calls to >the bank. Then up to ten people can benefit from the extended area of >local calling available. There was a 14 or so line CB Simulator in Ft. Worth that tried this a few years back. As it was explained to me they had about 14 business lines that "hunted" (or whatever term is in vogue now) in Ft. Worth. They wanted to extend service into Dallas without an expensive "metro" number (numbers that can be reahed toll free from the entire Dallas Ft. Worth metroplex) so they rented a closet or somthing in one of the mid cities (Arlington, Irving, D/FW Airport [yes D/FW Airport, Texas is a city], that is a local call to/from both Dallas and Ft. Worth) and set up fowarding. It worked for a while and would multiple forward. Then the phone company caught on (or just coincidently changed their software) and it started only forwarding one call and be busy for any additional calls 'till the first one hung up. The sysop then (or so he claims) set up a PC in the "closet" and when it "heard" the short ring indicating a call is being forwarded it picked up the line, dialed *73 (cancel call forwarding), hung up, picked the phone back up, then dialed *72 (activate call forwarding). This only "sorta" worked as often a caller would call into the Dallas number while the PC was in the process of re-establishing the forwarding. I have no idea if they are still doing this and have lost touch with the people involved since they sold the system. Judging by SWBell's attitude towrds BBSers they have probably found a way to stop this, if they know about it. UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake@nosc.mil INET: blake@pro-party.cts.com Blake Farenthold | Voice: 800/880-1890 | MCI: BFARENTHOLD 1200 MBank North | Fax: 512/889-8686 | CIS: 70070,521 Corpus Christi, TX 78471 | BBS: 512/882-1899 | GEnie: BLAKE ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes, and How to Dial Long Distance Date: 3 Jan 90 15:55:30 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <2486@accuvax.nwu.edu>, msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: > The thing that most distresses me about this whole > area-code-exhaustion business is that it'll mean that we'll LOSE the > possibility of a leading 1 ACTUALLY meaning, as it still does where I > am, "long distance". However... the distinction between "local" and "long distance" is becoming more and more vague. *Generally*, the distinction is useful because long distance service is measured (pay for each minute), and local service is unmeasured (a flat fee gets you unlimited minutes of calling). As time passes, though, more and more telcos are moving more and more in the direction of local measured service. (Just ask Patrick...) Plus, marketing organizations come up with a near-infinite number of "local calling areas", "extended calling areas", "message rate service", "low usage message rate service", etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. So a leading 1 could indicate "long distance". But should this mean "measured service call"? "Outside local calling area call"? Something else? The North American Numbering Plan is a *numbering* plan. It provides an unambiguous syntax for *numbering* -- not for cost of calls, or for billing method, or for marketing distinctions. Yes, it would be nice to know, as you are making a call, whether that call will cost you a flat amount, an amount proportional to the length of the call, or whether it's covered in your normal monthly bill. It would also be nice to know, in real time, how much that call is costing you. But I think that "1+" is not an appropriate solution. > Now, finally, my question. Can anyone comment on the relative > prevalence of the four syntaxes that I have called 1, 2, 3, and 4 in > North America, or better yet, actually provide a list of what areas > use what syntax? Of course not -- Why should I answer the question you asked when I can answer another one? Seriously, I doubt that anyone can completely answer the question. I can tell you the "recommended" method (1+10D for calls outside the home NPA; 7D for calls within the home NPA), but this is another case where the recommendation is one sentence and the exceptions would fill a good-sized book... David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ From: Seth Zirin Subject: Re: Area Code 908 Lives Date: 3 Jan 90 14:55:49 GMT Reply-To: szirin@cbnewsm.ATT.COM Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <2530@accuvax.nwu.edu> dave%westmark@uunet.uu.net (Dave Levenson) writes: >Right on schedule, 1/2/90, our shiny new area code began working in >Central New Jersey. I forget when it's supposed to become mandatory, >but folks who choose to use it can now call us on 908. Others can >still use 201. Not in the areas served by United Telephone. Those people are lucky when 201 works! ------------------------------ From: 10e@hpcvia.cv.hp.com (Steven_Tenney) Subject: Re: The New Decade Date: 2 Jan 90 22:31:11 GMT Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Corvallis, Oregon This is why Arthur C. Clarke named 2001: A Space Odyssey thusly instead of 2000: A Space Odyssey. Just a little trivia! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Steve Tenney | They asked me if I could Hewlett-Packard Corvallis, ORE| Talk the Talk 10e@hpcvia.CV.HP.COM | 'n Walk the Walk \ == /// | I said, "Neither--so you'll ||||\\\ | 'cuse me while I slide on through!" ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #4 ****************************   Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 23:46:30 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #5 Message-ID: <9001042346.aa03798@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Jan 90 23:45:42 CST Volume 10 : Issue 5 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Modeming on Electronic Switch System (John Heckendorn) Free Local Phone Calls (Voice News, December, 89 via malcolm@apple.com) Airfone Service by GTE (Billy Bradford) "Calling" Card Charges (Theodore Lee) TV News Mates With Cellular Phones (Wayne Hamilton) Two Questions About Caller ID (Steve Forrette) Re: Direct Dialing the USSR (Thomas E. Lowe) Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) (Miguel Cruz) Re: Telephone Companies in the US Besides the RBOCs (John R. Levine) Re: Telephone Companies in the US Besides the RBOCs (Bob Goudreau) Re: Area Code 908 Lives (Tad Cook) Re: Area Code 908 Lives (Louis J. Judice) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BMUG Subject: Modeming on Electronic Switch System Reply-To: BMUG Organization: University of California, Berkeley Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 04:02:40 GMT Perhaps someone from Northern Telecom or someone else familiar with this situation can point me in the direction of a solution... We have installed on our site an electronic Northern Telecom DMS100 telephone system. Because the system does not recognize normal tones, the system as configured will not work with standard modems, FAX machines, answering machines, etc. It *is* possible to get individual lines massaged to enable use of these devices, but said massage costs over $10/line/month (which gets to be kind of expensive when we're talking about ~25 lines). One thing I'd love to do is to connect a dialing device to our Macintoshes to enable our staff to use a software address book/ dialer. On a standard phone system, of course, there are myriad possibilities, such as modems and devices like HyperDialer. I'd like to find out whether a hardware interface to the NT electronic system exists, or better yet, whether someone has written a utility which will convert standard tones to whatever digital language the telephone system understands -- preferably under the Mac OS :-) -- to which the output from our dialing software can be sent and translated. Please respond via email, as this newsgroup is virgin territory to me. However, I promise to post a summary if info and interest warrant. Thanks! John Heckendorn /\ BMUG ARPA: bmug@garnet.berkeley.EDU A__A 1442A Walnut St., #62 BITNET: bmug@ucbgarne |()| Berkeley, CA 94709 Phone: (415) 549-2684 | | ------------------------------ Subject: Free Local Phone Calls Date: Wed, 03 Jan 90 22:01:08 -0800 From: malcolm@apple.com The following annoucement was sent to me by a colleague. I thought it might be of interest to the list. Maybe the blipvert isn't as far away as we thought..... Malcolm Isn't technology wonderful? -- Phone Spots Inc. (Weston, MO) has received a patent for a device that places recorded messages in the four second interval between rings of a telephone. The company is in the early stages of developing one application, called Freephone Service, for its invention. The Freephone concept involves distinctively marked, coinless public telephones that allow anyone to make free three-minute local calls. Callers will hear short advertising messages between rings while waiting for the phone to be answered. When the called party picks up their receiver, the messages stop. Sites for the phones include airports, hotels and convention centers. Currently there are over 48,000 public pay phones in these areas. Phone Spots expects advertising revenues to support the service. VoiceNews, December 89 ------------------------------ From: Billy Bradford Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 12:47:44 EST Subject: Airfone Service by GTE [Moderator's Note: This was forwarded from Telenet's Net Exchange. PT] I flew to Texas for Christmas vacation. On all of the flights (round-trip), after the cabin attendant had finished the usual oxygen mask/saftey flotation cushion lecture, she said "For those of you who would like to make a phone call, there is now a public phone installed in the back of this aircraft. The card in your seat pocket has more information." I got the card and started reading. "The AirFone (or AirPhone, I can't remember which) is a new service being offered by GTE. It allows you to make phone calls from most of the many inter-US airline flights. Rates are printed on back." It then gave information about how to use the phone. You have to use a credit card, US calls are $2.00 a minute, and international calls are $4.00 a minute. Apparently the AirFone is similar to cellular, it said that it worked on a radio network that had stations placed at strategic locations throughout the US. "Occasionally, due to weather conditions, noise may occur in your call or you may get disconnected. If that occurs, please call your AirFone representative and your bill will be credited." That's all that I can remember off of the card, I left it in the seat with my six bucks worth of magazines! +-----------------------+---------------------------------+ | Billy Bradford | "What are you trying to do, | | P. O. Box 1374 | change the world?" | | Anadarko, OK 73005 | "No, just my little corner | | (405) 247-7016 | of it." | | | ---A Digest contributor | +-----------------------+---------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 21:12:56 EST From: Theodore Lee Subject: "Calling" Card Charges Can someone explain who determines how "calling" (aka credit) card charges are billed? I have a USWest card (Minneapolis RBOC). Almost all calls I make using it, e.g., from either East coast or West coast back to Minneapolis, show up on my AT&T bill. Recently I made a couple of calls between Virginia and Maryland using it, both ends within the DC LATA. Those calls showed up on my local (USWest) bill. If the DC RBOC (C&P) can manage to get the bill sent back to USWest, why can't AT&T??? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 17:45:58 -0600 From: Wayne Hamilton Subject: TV News Mates With Cellular Phones Last nite I saw a promo spot for a local TV station's news department. They (WCIA, Channel 3, Champaign, IL) have arranged with Ameritech Cellular for "*3" dialed on cellular phones in this area to connect to WCIA news, toll-free, so that motorists can report unusual news events as they happen. wayne hamilton U of Il and US Army Corps of Engineers CERL UUCP: {att,iuvax,uunet}!uiucuxc!osiris!hamilton I'net: hamilton@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu Lowtek: Box 476, Urbana, IL 61801; (217)384-4310(voice), -4311(BBS) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 12:47 EDT From: Steve Forrette Subject: Two Questions About Caller ID 1) Long distance and Caller ID How well does Caller ID work with incoming long distance calls? I would imagine that it would depend on how much information the carrier passes to the local service provider, which probably varies between carriers? 2) Caller ID on DID lines Is this possible? ------------------------------ From: Thomas E Lowe Subject: Re: Direct Dialing the USSR Date: 4 Jan 90 13:45:50 GMT Reply-To: tel@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (thomas.e.lowe,ho,) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <2515@accuvax.nwu.edu> Gabe Wiener writes: >That sparked a few questions: >1. Why direct service only to Moscow? I was trying to reach the Estonia BBS and the circuits to USSR were very busy. I got to talking to one of the operators in Pittsburgh (where they route international calls....there is also a center in Denver) and they said that ever since Moscow went to direct dial, the circuits have been incredibly busy. I suspect that if all of USSR went direct dial, that would just compound the problem. As it is now, there is at least a limit to the number of attempts for circuits to non-Moscow sites. The operator also told me that more circuits via satelite are supposedly soon to come. I did eventually get through to the bbs and got as far as entering a password and got disconnected. I tried and tried again all day till the afternoon and someone ended up answering the phone. I talked to him for a couple minutes. I told him I would try again another day to get the bbs. I don't know if it was the sysop or not, but it was apparently the correct number. 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!!) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 03:35:08 EST From: Miguel_Cruz@um.cc.umich.edu Subject: Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) > [Moderator's Note: It was not a modem 'tax', but rather, a requirement > by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company that users of modems in > general, and BBS operators in particular, pay business rates for their > phone service. This first came up a few years ago, presumably was > squashed, then the issue was raised again lately. Ken Levitt, a > Fidonet participant in the Digest, passed along a report from a group > of BBS sysops in SWBT territory implying the threat was again present. > The following day, a message appeared here which referred to the > earlier message as just a rumor that supposedly had long since been > killed... PT] Au contraire... The "modem tax" is something the FCC rumbles about every few years when the phone companies start complaining. It was apparently put off the last time because of the flood of letters which came in to FCC people and legislators, presumably as a result of a national BBS campaign. The campaign has started again, because the FCC is apparently considering levying an additional hourly charge (like $6) on companies like Telenet which make use of the phone network for information transit. Also, apparently (though I'm fuzzy on this) there is something involving a similar fee for any modem use over phone lines. I'm sure others out there know much more about this. [Moderator's Note: This is true, but the key here is the writer had asked about a message which appeared in the Digest just a few days earlier saying the 'tax' was only a rumor. The message he made reference to was one sent in response to Mr. Levitt's regards SWBT vrs. the BBS'ers using residence lines. But indeed, the suggested 'tax' you remind us of is still a possible threat also. Eternal vigilence is required, friends. PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Telephone Companies in the US Besides the RBOCs Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 4 Jan 90 11:23:55 EST (Thu) From: "John R. Levine" In case nobody else tells you, here are the names of the RBOCs: NYNEX New York and New England Bell Atlantic middle Atlantic states BellSouth south east Ameritech northern midwest Southwest Bell Texas and southwest U S West mountain and northwest states Pacific Tel California and Nevada There were a lot more operating companies than this; U S West has merged all of its operating companies into U S West Communications, the rest still have the operating companies as subsidiaries, e.g. Bell Atlantic still has New Jersey Bell, Bell of Pennsylvania, Diamond State Tel (Delaware), and the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone companies of, respectively, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. This is a long list, several of the holding companies have only one or two operating companies. The various companies have taken different diversification strategies. BellSouth and Southwest Bell have bought into a lot of cellular telephone companies outside their home area, Bell Atlantic has bought software and computer maintenance companues, NYNEX has a chain of computer stores, Pacific Tel is in undersea cables, and U S West is doing all sorts of miscellaneous stuff. It is my impression that the ones that have stuck most closely to telephony have been the most financially sucessful. Two other of Ma's heirs that bear mention are: Southern New England Telephone most of Connecticut Cincinnati Bell small area around Cincinnati Ohio They were affiliates rather than subsidiaries of AT&T (i.e. AT&T owned a minority rather than a majority of the stock) and so are not subject to the restrictions placed on the holding companies, even though before the breakup they acted as part of the Bell System as much as anybody else. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 19:48:20 est From: Bob Goudreau Subject: Re: Telephone Companies in the US Besides the RBOCs Reply-To: goudreau@larrybud.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC In article <2543@accuvax.nwu.edu> anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au writes: >Wonder if anyone could post a summary of all the major telephone >companies in the US besides the RBOCs. Particularly Nynex (sp??), I >read recently that Nynex have [sic] made a deal with Telecom Australia. >Anyone know more about the deal ? I don't know any more about that particular deal, but I can tell you that NYNEX is NOT one of the major non-Bell telcos like GTE; rather, it is one of the 7 RBOCs spun off from AT&T during the breakup. Its regional subsidiaries are New York Telephone (which serves most of New York state and a little bit of Connecticut, I believe) and New England Telephone (which serves almost all areas in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts and Rhode Island). New York and New England -- hence the name "NYNEX". 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 ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Area Code 908 Lives Date: 4 Jan 90 07:27:40 GMT Organization: very little When the new area code in Illinois arrived last fall, Illinois Bell had a nationwide WATS number that you could call which would prompt you to dial a 3 digit prefix, and then tell you whether or not it was in the new area code. Is there any service like this for the new 908 code? Any other way of finding out some exact definitions of the area it covers? I need to update my mailing list at the office, and also a list that I use to cross reference the first three digits of a postal Zip Code to the telephone area code. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: "Louis J. Judice 04-Jan-1990 0842" Subject: Re: Area Code 908 Lives Date: 4 Jan 90 00:00:00 GMT > re: message indicating that in United Telecom areas, A/C 908 is not > working yet. Another problem is that many PBX's are programmed to reject area codes (to reduce phone abuse). Since public knowledge of 908 is virtually non-existant, most system administrators have not turned 908 on yet. Incidentally, while on a 411 call to get a number from NJ Bell information I asked "is the 908 area code working fully now?" - and got the response "what are you talking about, there is NO 908 area code here in my list"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NO KIDDING! Lou Judice Digital Equipment (908/201) 562-4103 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #5 ****************************   Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 0:44:44 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #6 Message-ID: <9001050044.aa01825@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Jan 90 00:43:58 CST Volume 10 : Issue 6 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson COCOT Scam (Dave Brightbill) Re: One-armed Bandits (Lars J. Poulsen) Re: Phone Frustration (Peter da Silva) Re: Phone Frustration (Todd Inch) Re: Phone Frustration (Tad Cook) Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) (Bennett Todd) Re: How Are Inter-LATA Calls in the Same Area Code Handled? (David Esan) Telephone/Computer Interface (Roger Clark Swann) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 14:17:07 EST From: Dave Brightbill Subject: COCOT Scam I just had an amazing conversation with a PSC (state utility regulation) person about COCOT's in Florida (which, for some strange reason, they call "PADS"). I was calling to bitch about a pay phone with evil alignment and we got to talking about some of the newer COCOT scams which they are currently investigating. There is a guy who is selling installed COCOT's to folks who want to immigrate to this country and need an excuse. The deal is that he sells a phone for around $50,000. The buyer now owns a business in Florida and under US immigration law, can enter the US to attend to his business affairs without having to have a green card. I also learned that COCOTs are a fav of folks with large clumps of cash to launder. They put in a phone and report huge takes in the coin box. Sort of like the vending machine business used to be. ------------------------------ From: Lars J Poulsen Subject: Re: One-armed Bandits Reply-To: Lars J Poulsen Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 07:46:29 GMT In article <2542@accuvax.nwu.edu> STEVEF%WALKER_RICHER_QUINN@mcimail.com (Steve Forrette) writes: >IMHO, COCOT's provide nothing but a disservice to the calling public. Agreed. >So by not allowing free collect/calling card calls, the replacement >phones have removed what I consider to be a substantial service in the >public interest that the phone network had previously provided. Agreed. >Pacific Bell's attitude to problems is "fill out this form, send it >in, and if we get 3 complaints on the same phone, *maybe* we'll >disconnect it." I can understand 3 complaints for money-eating, poor >quality, etc., but for blatant tariff violations? If a phone is >charging 60 cents for a call which by law can cost at most 25 cents, >why does it take 3 complaints to have it shut off? Because any single violation could be an honest keystroke error in configuration. Technically, each business hosting a COCOT is the operator of that service, and each must be given a chance to clean up their act. Never mind that you and I know that the real operator is the device manufacturer who knows better and preprograms all of them in violation of the rules. >Granted, they will probably look into it on the first complaint, but >for something as serious and reproducable as that, why three before >guaranteed action? >And these tariff violations are not as uncommon as you may think. A >couple of years ago, I got a copy of all the rules from Pacific Bell >(so I would know what I was talking about), and did a little testing. >Out of the 20 phones I tested, NOT A SINGLE ONE was compliant. If it's that clearcut, we should be able to put them all out of service within a month!!! How long is the list of rules, what are the typical violations, and did they guarantee to shut them d~rown after 3 complaints ? An afternoon a week would be very well spent shutting down COCOTs. Here in Santa Barbara, (GTE country) we're a bit behind in COCOTs; I don't think I have seen any yet, but when they start coming, I'd love to nail them. / 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 !! [Moderator's Note: The above message had to be substantially edited to remove excess quotes. May I remind everyone that messages which contain more than a 50/50 ratio of quotes to new text will NOT pass the Usenet gateway, thus cannot be used here. Keep quotes to a minimum, or better still, don't quote at all; just paraphrase earlier remarks. PT] ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Phone Frustration Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 19:47:18 GMT John Higdon described how he got certain COCOTs owned by small businesses disconnected by complaining to the guvmint. I responded: Pretty nasty thing to do to some individual or small businessman who (as you later pointed out) may have NO idea of the legal requirements. How about trying to talk to the person running the thing, first? John's response: > Don't you think that we, the public, are put upon enough with COCOTs > in general without having to hold the hand of someone who should be > aware of the rules and regs of his business BEFORE he foists his > instrument of annoyance on us all? Well, he could just not provide a public telephone at his place of business at all. That's a valid option. Lots of places do that. I'd much rather have a little problem with a privately owned COCOT than have to put up with "no, we don't allow phone calls... but the laundromat across the street there has a public phone: there's a traffic signal a block east". The guy's providing a service. There's no law saying he has to make a phone available to the next guy who walks in off the street. > In the matter of COCOTs, I have > wasted way too much time trying to track down owners of same to inform > them of things they should already know. Well, if you're there you can walk up to the person behind the counter and say "Excuse me, do you know that the law says so-and-so? Could you let the owner know?". If that doesn't get results, go ahead and use your nuclear option. But it doesn't take *any* time at all for you to try the easy route first. > My clients' listeners go straight to the FCC for perceived violations, > as well they should. Ignorance of the law, no matter how small the > business, is no justification for not following the rules. One of the biggest problems in this country, in my opinion, is people like you who think that it's OK to bring the force of the law to bear on someone. Yes, ignorance of the law is no excuse. But a measured response to an irritation is only common courtesy. More courtesy and less legal excrement can only help the situation. [ If it were known that violating the law, even accidentally ] > would result in summary disconnection, maybe more COCOT operators > would obey them in the first place, instead of trying to see what they > could get away with up front. You're attributing motivations to the owners of these COCOTs that might not be there. Many people can't even program a VCR reliably, you know. And the very people who are likely to be the subject of your ire are the people least likely to know they're in danger of summary disconnection. No matter what you do. And you might find that the response will be for them to pull the phone out completely, and direct walk-ins to the laundromat down the block and across the street. I'm sure you have no problems with that. No legal ones, anyway. _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / `-_-'\ Also or \_.--._/ v ------------------------------ From: toddi@gtisqr.UUCP (Todd Inch) Subject: Re: Phone Frustration Date: 4 Jan 90 22:18:31 GMT Reply-To: toddi@gtisqr.UUCP (Todd Inch) Organization: Global Technology International, Inc. In article <2520@accuvax.nwu.edu> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <2497@accuvax.nwu.edu> tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) writes: >> Our PUC has an 800 number. A call to the PUC with the location and >> telephone number of the phone has resulted in DISCONNECTION of the >> non-complying phone every time. >Pretty nasty thing to do to some individual or small businessman who >(as you later pointed out) may have NO idea of the legal requirements. >How about trying to talk to the person running the thing, first? Although this would be the polite thing to do, and I would probably try it first myself, I disagree that a person is being unreasonable or rude by calling the PUC instead. Since I'm not at all connected with the telecom biz I may misunderstand some of the details, but it seems that if you are going to provide telephone service of any type to the public, through a privately owned coin phone in this case, it is your responsibility to know what you're doing and to make sure you've followed all the regulations. The public should be able to hold you accountable for this. If you don't know what you're doing, you should hire a knowledgable consultant. If I were in the restaurant business, for instance, I'd have to understand sales tax, health regulations, etc. (Hmmm . . . should a customer tell me about gross things he found in the hamburger, or just call the Health Dept?) There are plenty more examples. I assume that the phones in question are intended to make profits or to support another business (hotel, etc) which make profits. I wouldn't feel quite so strongly about this if the phone were truly a public service rather than a revenue-generator. There is already too much confusion in the telecommunication business which the consumer has to deal with. I can do without more naive business people trying their hand at these new markets. It IS reasonable to try to keep others from having trouble with a problem (billing, operation, or whatever) phone by having it shut off. How easy would it be to find the owner/operator of the phone, let alone convince him of the problem? Most of the times I've tried to convince a business that they have a problem, either I can't find the right person or they don't care. I've found this to be true of even very small business that you'd think would want your input. Kinda sad. That's my $.02 worth, anyway. 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: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Phone Frustration Date: 4 Jan 90 07:13:56 GMT Organization: very little I was interested to read Peter da Silva's comments about my posting regarding disconnection of COCOTs. At the time that I wrote it, I was a bit concerned that my posting sounded a little heavy handed. Actually, I have tried communication with the owners of the offending COCOT phones....but get nowhere. Often the guy at the gas station or convenience store says they don't know anything about it. Also, in this state it is a requirement that these phones have the name, address, and phone number of the COCOT owner displayed, along with a coin-free method of reaching them for repair or refund. In each case, my complaint revolved around the fact that the phone could not reach these numbers. Actually, I am not anti-COCOT. I also think that the tarrifs on COCOTs are awfully steep, especially since the telco wont give them answer supervision. But I also expect to be able to reach the operator of each COCOT, as provided by law. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: bet@orion.mc.duke.edu (Bennett Todd) Subject: Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) Date: 4 Jan 90 18:55:10 GMT Reply-To: bet@orion.mc.duke.edu (Bennett Todd) Organization: Diagnostic Physics, Radiology, DUMC In-reply-to: Allyn@cup.portal.com I think two different issues have gotten confused with one and other here. 1: A couple of years ago the FCC was considering a ruling that would require services like GTE's PC-Pursuit to pay an access charge, similar to that paid by alternative LD carriers. This has been hooted down, and I haven't heard any new news about that in a couple of years. As far as I know that one's dead. 2: In a completely unrelated piece of news, SWB has been battling for a while now to force individuals to pay business rates if they use a modem. They particularly targeted BBS owners. That issue appears to be open still, though it looks like the sysops have succeeded in making major headway. -Bennett bet@orion.mc.duke.edu ------------------------------ From: Dave Esan Subject: Re: How Are Inter-LATA Calls in the Same Area Code Handled? Date: 4 Jan 90 15:09:23 GMT Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY In article , johnl@esegue.segue. boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: > How many multi-lata area codes are there other than 609? I know that > 914 in New York is one, as is 408 in California. Are there many > others? Yes, most NPA's have more than one lata in them. As a matter of fact, according to my last search 99 NPA's have more than one lata. They are: 201 219 317 412 509 608 704 805 901 203 301 318 413 512 609 705 806 902 205 303 319 414 513 612 706 807 904 206 304 402 417 515 613 712 809 905 208 305 403 419 516 614 715 812 912 209 307 404 501 517 615 716 813 913 214 308 405 502 601 618 717 814 914 215 309 406 503 602 619 719 815 915 216 313 407 504 605 701 801 816 916 217 314 408 505 606 702 803 817 918 218 316 409 507 607 703 804 819 919 ____________________________________________________________ --> David Esan rochester!moscom!de ------------------------------ From: Roger Clark Swann Subject: Telephone/Computer Interface Date: 4 Jan 90 05:55:27 GMT Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics, Seattle WA I seem to remember that someone was asking about an interface box here recently. Today I came across an ad for a box that some of you out there might be interested in. All I know about the device is from the ad.... TELEPHONE/COMPUTER INTERFACE T-130 Telephone Access unit with 2-way Touchtone/ASCII conversion: * Intelligent dialer for PC's and other DTE devices. Responds to call progress tones, voice, and other calling signals. ASCII controlled DTMF and audio input. * Intelligent answering device reports incoming rings for auto or commanded answer. Answer tone, audio port, and DTMF to ASCII conversion for remote phone data entry. For more info call: 1-800-426-3926 (in Washingtion State: 206-827-9626) TELTONE (R) 10801 120th Avenue NE, Kirkland, WA 98033 Roger Swann | uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark @ | The Boeing Company | ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #6 ****************************   Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 1:39:02 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: AI Applications Message-ID: <9001050139.aa31616@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Jan 90 01:25:00 CST Special: AI Applications Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Summary of AI Applications in Telecommunications (Ben Lippolt) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ben Lippolt Subject: Summary of AI Applications in Telecommunications Date: 3 Jan 90 15:23:33 GMT Organization: PTT Research Neher Laboratories Lines: 558 A few week ago I posted an inquiry about publications on AI-applications to telecommunications network management. I got several responses. Thanks to everybody who replied. Here follows a summary and a list of titles in bibtex format. The most important sources for this topic are: * the book "Expert System Applications to Telecommunications", by Jay Liebowitz (ed), Wiley, 1988. * proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Communications, June 1988, Philadelphia. * proceedings of ICC'89: International Conference on Communications, 1989. * proceedings of Avignon'89: specialized conference on Artificial Intelligence, Telecommunications & Computer Systems, May 1989, Avignon. (also the 1987 proceedings contain some articles on this topic. The same specialized conference will be held again in 1990). * the journal "IEEE Journal on selected areas in communications" of june 1988 is a special issue on this topic. I hope this information is useful. Ben Lippolt PTT Research, Neher Laboratories || E-mail : BJ_Lippolt@pttrnl.nl PO Box 421 || EARN/BITnet : LIPPOLT@HLSDNL5 2260 AK Leidschendam || UUCP : hp4nl!dnlunx!lippolt The Netherlands || Tel : +31 70 3435439 --------------------------- cut here ----------------------------------- @article{K614, AUTHOR = {{C. Cynar}}, TITLE = { Computer desing networks by imitating the experts}, JOURNAL = { Data Communications}, YEAR = {1985}, VOLUME = { 4}, NUMBER = { 4}, PAGES = { 137-145}, } @misc{K360, AUTHOR = {{G.J. Garwood}}, TITLE = { Role of Expert Systems in the Maintenance of Telecommunication Networks}, BOOKTITLE = { 6th European Conference on Electronics EUROCON'84}, YEAR = {1984}, PAGES = { 9-13}, } @inproceedings{K575, AUTHOR = {{F. Ghazvinian} and {J.J.M. Wang} and {R. Godfrey}}, TITLE = { Application of expert system in CLASS}, BOOKTITLE = { IEEE Int. Conf. on Comm.'88}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, PAGES = { 1745-1749}, ADRESS = { Philadelphia}, } @article{K482, AUTHOR = {{D. Gross}}, TITLE = { Applications of AI technology in communications networks}, JOURNAL = { Expert systems}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 5}, NUMBER = { 3}, PAGES = { 248-251}, } @article{K018, AUTHOR = {{C.N. Klahr}}, TITLE = { An expert system can greatly reduce expenditures for telecommunications}, JOURNAL = { Data Communications}, MONTH = {july}, YEAR = {1985}, PAGES = { 155-167}, } @article{K615, AUTHOR = {{L. Mantelman}}, TITLE = { AI carves inroads: network design, testing, and management}, JOURNAL = { Data Communications}, YEAR = {1986}, VOLUME = { 5}, NUMBER = { 7}, PAGES = { 106-123}, } @inproceedings{K570, AUTHOR = {{H.T. Mouftah}}, TITLE = { Expert systems for the performance evaluation of communication networks}, BOOKTITLE = { IEEE Int. Conf. on Comm.'88}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, PAGES = { 1719-1723}, ADRESS = { Philadelphia}, } @inproceedings{K572, AUTHOR = {{B. Pagurek} and {A.R. Kaye} and {D. Helmy}}, TITLE = { Knowledge based fault location in a data communication network}, BOOKTITLE = { IEEE Int. Conf. on Comm.'88}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, PAGES = { 1729-1733}, ADRESS = { Philadelphia}, } @article{K089, AUTHOR = {{D. Probert}}, TITLE = { Towards expert systems for telecommunications policy analysis}, JOURNAL = { Computer communications}, MONTH = {april}, YEAR = {1983}, PAGES = { 58-64}, } @inproceedings{K567, AUTHOR = {{S. Rabie} and {T. Bult} and {V. Snarr Carter} and {B. Cavan}}, TITLE = { DRESS: diagnostic repair expert system shell}, BOOKTITLE = { IEEE Int. Conf. on Comm.'88}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, PAGES = { 1467-1472}, ADRESS = { Philadelphia}, } @inproceedings{K571, AUTHOR = {{B. Roberts}}, TITLE = { A network analyst's assistant}, BOOKTITLE = { IEEE Int. Conf. on Comm.'88}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, PAGES = { 1724-1728}, ADRESS = { Philadelphia}, } @article{K499, AUTHOR = {{W. Sayles} and {J. Thomas}}, TITLE = { Finding and fixing network faults with an expert system}, JOURNAL = { Data Communications}, MONTH = {june} YEAR = {1988}, PAGES = { 149-165}, } @article{K329, AUTHOR = {{M. Thandasseri}}, TITLE = { Expert systems application for TXE4A exchanges}, JOURNAL = { Electrical Communication}, YEAR = {1986}, VOLUME = { 60}, NUMBER = { 2}, PAGES = { 154-161}, } @inproceedings{K573, AUTHOR = {{E.J. Zakrzewski} and {R. Quillin}}, TITLE = { Applications of expert systems to network control}, BOOKTITLE = { IEEE Int. Conf. on Comm.'88}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, PAGES = { 1734-1739}, ADRESS = { Philadelphia}, } @article{K627, AUTHOR = {{Shri K. Goyal} and {Ralph W. Worrest}}, TITLE = { Expert systems in network maintenance and management}, JOURNAL = { IEEE}, YEAR = {1986}, VOLUME = { 39}, PAGES = { 1225-1229}, } @article{K629, AUTHOR = {{JY. Brossier} and {B. Faller} and {A. Fron} and {G. Garcia} and {P. Kirsch}}, TITLE = { A communication network trouble-shooting expert system}, JOURNAL = { IEEE}, YEAR = {1986}, VOLUME = { 39}, PAGES = { 1238-1240}, } @article{K632, AUTHOR = {{Y.V. Ramana Reddy} and {Shankar B. Uppuluri}}, TITLE = { Intelligent systems technology in network operations management}, JOURNAL = { IEEE}, YEAR = {1986}, VOLUME = { 39}, PAGES = { 1220-1224}, } @inproceedings{K662, AUTHOR = {{David Leinweber}}, TITLE = { Real-Time Expert Systems and Communications Network Applications}, BOOKTITLE = { Sixth Annual International Phoenix Conference on Computers and Communications, IEEE}, MONTH = {feb}, YEAR = {1987}, PAGES = { 548-550}, ADRESS = { Scottsdale USA}, } @inproceedings{K663, AUTHOR = {{Sol J. Greenspan} and {Clement L. McGowan} and {M. Chandra Shekaran}}, TITLE = { Toward an object-oriented framework for defining services in future intelligent networks}, BOOKTITLE = { IEEE International Conference on Communications '88}, MONTH = {June}, YEAR = {1988}, PAGES = { 867-873}, ADRESS = { Philadelphia USA}, } @inproceedings{K664, AUTHOR = {{A. Taylor}}, TITLE = { How expert systems can support network diagnostics, management and control}, BOOKTITLE = { International Conference on Private Switching Systems and Networks}, MONTH = {June}, YEAR = {1988}, PAGES = { 159-164}, ADRESS = { London}, } @inproceedings{K665, AUTHOR = {{Roman O. Yudkin}}, TITLE = { On testing communication networks}, BOOKTITLE = { GLOBECOM Tokyo '87}, MONTH = {Nov}, YEAR = {1987}, PAGES = { 1843-1850}, ADRESS = { Tokyo, Japan}, } @inproceedings{K666, AUTHOR = {{N.A. Khan} and {P.H. Callahan} and {N.S. Lee} and {R. Dube} and {J.L. Tsay} and {W. van Dusen}}, TITLE = { An engineering approach to model-based troubleshooting in communication networks}, BOOKTITLE = { GLOBECOM Tokyo '87}, MONTH = {Nov.}, YEAR = {1987}, PAGES = { 1818-1824}, ADRESS = { Tokyo}, } @inproceedings{K667, AUTHOR = {{T. Bult} and {D. peacocke} and {Sameh Rabie} and {Vicky Snarr}}, TITLE = { An interactive expert system for switch maintenance}, BOOKTITLE = { Proc. Int. Switch. Symp.}, MONTH = {March}, YEAR = {1987}, PAGES = { 59-65}, } @article{K668, AUTHOR = {{Wei-Dong Zhan} and {Suchai Thanwastien} and {Lois M.L. Delcambre}}, TITLE = { SIMNETMAN: An expert workstation for designing rule-based network management systems}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Netw.}, MONTH = {Sept.}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 2}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 35-42}, } @article{K669, AUTHOR = {{Kenneth J. Macleish}}, TITLE = { Mapping the integration of artificial intelligence into telecommunications}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on selected areas in communications}, MONTH = {June}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 2}, PAGES = { 892-898}, } @article{K670, AUTHOR = {{Paul H. Callahan}}, TITLE = { Expert systems for AT\&T switched network maintenance}, JOURNAL = { AT\&T Technical Journal}, MONTH = {Jan-Feb}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 67}, NUMBER = { 1}, PAGES = { 93-103}, } @article{K671, AUTHOR = {{T.E. Marques}}, TITLE = { STARKEEPER network troubleshooter: an expert system product}, JOURNAL = { AT\&T Technical journal}, MONTH = {Nov-Dec}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 67}, NUMBER = { 6}, PAGES = { 137-154}, } @article{K672, AUTHOR = {{A. Pitchai} and {S. Chaganty} and {T.W. Morgan}}, TITLE = { NET-HELP: An online rule based help system for the network}, JOURNAL = { Proc. SPIE - Int. Soc. Opt. Eng.}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 937}, PAGES = { 666-670}, } @inproceedings{K685, AUTHOR = {{A. Benicourt} and {V. Crommelynck}}, TITLE = { CENTAURE: an expert system for monitoring the French Railways nationwide computer network}, BOOKTITLE = { 9th International Workshop on Expert Systems and their applications}, MONTH = {May 29 - June 2}, YEAR = {1989}, PAGES = { 17-34}, ADRESS = { Avignon}, } @inproceedings{K686, AUTHOR = {{C. Baird} and {T. White}}, TITLE = { A real-time network monitor}, BOOKTITLE = { 9th International Workshop on Expert Systems and their applications}, MONTH = {May 29 - June 2}, YEAR = {1989}, PAGES = { 35-44}, ADRESS = { Avignon}, } @inproceedings{K687, AUTHOR = {{L.M. Cross} and {T.S. Dillon}}, TITLE = { A knowledge-based approach to network traffic management in a national telecommunications network}, BOOKTITLE = { 9th International Workshop on Expert Systems and their applications}, MONTH = {May 29 - June 2}, YEAR = {1989}, PAGES = { 45-62}, ADRESS = { Avignon}, } @inproceedings{K688, AUTHOR = {{B. Lutticke} and {D. McArthur} and {A. Neuhaus} and {S. Sachs} and {A. Swanson}}, TITLE = { An interactive graphical configurator for networked systems}, BOOKTITLE = { 9th International Workshop on Expert Systems and their applications}, MONTH = {May 29 - June 2}, YEAR = {1989}, PAGES = { 119-130}, ADRESS = { Avignon}, } @inproceedings{K689, AUTHOR = {{E. Hausen-Troppen} and {S. Pierre}}, TITLE = { An expert system for designing large scale computer networks}, BOOKTITLE = { 9th International Workshop on Expert Systems and their applications}, MONTH = {May 29 - June 2}, YEAR = {1989}, PAGES = { 131-143}, ADRESS = { Avignon}, } @inproceedings{K690, AUTHOR = {{G. Fleischanderl} and {G. Friedrich} and {J. Retti}}, TITLE = { Model-driven fault localization in audio routing systems}, BOOKTITLE = { 9th International Workshop on Expert Systems and their applications}, MONTH = {May 29 - June 2}, YEAR = {1989}, PAGES = { 173-184}, ADRESS = { Avignon}, } @inproceedings{K691, AUTHOR = {{F. Ferrara} and {F. Giovannini} and {E. Paschetta}}, TITLE = { IAS: an expert systems for packet-switched network monitoring and repair assistance}, BOOKTITLE = { 9th International Workshop on Expert Systems and their applications}, MONTH = {May 29 - June 2}, YEAR = {1989}, PAGES = { 185-198}, ADRESS = { Avignon}, } @inproceedings{K692, AUTHOR = {{L. Goffaux} and {R. Mathonet}}, TITLE = { Providing object-oriented systems with automatizable knowledge representation formalisms. An application to network troubleshooting}, BOOKTITLE = { 9th International Workshop on Expert Systems and their applications}, MONTH = {May 29 - June 2}, YEAR = {1989}, PAGES = { 199-211}, ADRESS = { Avignon}, } @inproceedings{K693, AUTHOR = {{C. Radcliffe}}, TITLE = { An expert system for integrated network management}, BOOKTITLE = { Proceedings of the international conference on Network Management}, YEAR = {1988}, PAGES = { 137-148}, ADRESS = { London}, } @inproceedings{K694, AUTHOR = {{D. Chivers} and {I.P. Sharp}}, TITLE = { Experience of an expert system for network management}, BOOKTITLE = { Proceedings of the international conference on Network Management}, YEAR = {1988}, PAGES = { 149-160}, ADRESS = { London}, } @article{K695, AUTHOR = {{L. Bernstein} and {C.M. Yuhas}}, TITLE = { Expert systems in network management - The second revolution}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 784-787}, } @article{K696, AUTHOR = {{K. Ganesan} and {M. Ganti}}, TITLE = { A multimedia front-end for an expert network management system}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 788-791}, } @article{K697, AUTHOR = {{N.A. Khan} and {P.H. Callahan} and {R. Dube} and {J.L. Tsay} and {W. van Dusen}}, TITLE = { An engineering approach to model-based troubleshooting in communication networks}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 792-799}, } @article{K698, AUTHOR = {{D.M.D. Liu} and {D.A. Pelz}}, TITLE = { I-test: Integrated testing expert system for trunks}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 800-804}, } @article{K699, AUTHOR = {{R.O. Yudkin}}, TITLE = { On testing communication networks}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 805-812}, } @article{K700, AUTHOR = {{D. Peacocke} and {S. Rabie}}, TITLE = { Knowledge-based maintenance in networks}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 813-818}, } @article{K701, AUTHOR = {{K.E. Brown} and {C.F.N. Cowan} and {T.M. Crawford} and {P.M. Grant}}, TITLE = { Knowledge-based techniques for fault detection in digital microwave radio communicatio equipment}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 819-827}, } @article{K702, AUTHOR = {{J.J.P. Tsai}}, TITLE = { A knowledge-based system for software design}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 828-841}, } @article{K703, AUTHOR = {{K. Takahashi} and {N. Shiratori} and {S. Naguchi}}, TITLE = { An intelligent support system for protocol and communications software development}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 842-849}, } @article{K704, AUTHOR = {{T. Kinoshita} and {K. Sugawara} and {N. Shiratori}}, TITLE = { Knowledge-based design support systems for communication systems}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 850-861}, } @article{K705, AUTHOR = {{M.T. Harandi}}, TITLE = { Buiding a knowledge-based software development environment}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 862-868}, } @article{K706, AUTHOR = {{K.H. Muralidhar} and {B.W. Irish}}, TITLE = { MAPCON: an expert system for configuration of MAP networks}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 869-873}, } @article{K707, AUTHOR = {{Y.X. Zhang} and {K. Takahashi} and {N. Shiratori} and {S. Naguchi}}, TITLE = { A knowledge-based system for protocol synthesis (KSPS)}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 874-883}, } @article{K708, AUTHOR = {{B. Chandrasekaran} and {W.F. Punch}}, TITLE = { Hierarchical classification: Its usefulness for diagnosis and sensor validation}, JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications}, MONTH = {june}, YEAR = {1988}, VOLUME = { 6}, NUMBER = { 5}, PAGES = { 884-891}, } --------------------cut here---------------------------------------- [Moderator's Note: My sincere thanks to Mr. Lippolt for producing this special issue of the Digest. I hope you'll find his research useful, and take the time to drop him a note if you are able to use it. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: AI Applications ****************************   Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 20:31:16 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #7 Message-ID: <9001052031.aa25815@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Jan 90 20:30:38 CST Volume 10 : Issue 7 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (John Higdon) Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (Ken Levitt) Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (John Cowan) Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (Tad Cook) Re: TV News Mates With Cellular Phones (John Higdon) Re: TV News Mates With Cellular Phones (Edward Vielmetti) Re: Caller ID Prefixes in PA (Gordon Burditt) Re: Airfone Service by GTE (William Payne) Re: Airfone Service by GTE (John R. Levine) Re: How Are Inter-LATA Calls in the Same Area Code Handled? (John Levine) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) Date: 4 Jan 90 01:58:34 PST (Thu) From: John Higdon roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > Shame on you! Put yourself in the place of the person > calling. No! You put yourself in my place. Just this morning I have received five calls for Hilton. Each of these calls costs ME money, disturbs my peace, interupts my tranquility. Is it my fault that idiots out there can't dial their damn phone? > [Description of consequences to unsuspecting person being duped by my > dark humor.] > Pretty cruel joke to play on some random unfortunate person. The only thing cruel about it is that I would not have the satisfaction of seeing it happen. > [Moderator's Note: I admit it sounds funny....but it is not funny! As > Mr. Smith pointed out, it is a dreadful joke to play on an > unsuspecting person. Even a drunken patron of a public house deserves > the courtesy of being told 'wrong number', even if you say it angrily > and slam the receiver in the process. It is ceasing to become funny. It's now damned annoying and I even called Hilton and told them what was happening and what I was doing about it. They said they were sorry, but they weren't responsible (they aren't) and whatever I did with the callers was up to me. Pac*Bell informs me that it will cost $30 to have my number changed. That's really wonderful. And after I have had my number changed (and suffered all the screwups that will go with it), will I then get Sheraton's calls? No, there's no point in having it changed. It would probably be trading a headache for an upset stomach. Late word: One of the last callers, after questioning, has informed me that *my* number is listed as Hilton reservations in their local phonebook. I'm going to get a copy of that book. If this is true, I am really going to be unhappy paying $30 because of a Pac*Bell mistake. And who do we refer *my* old number to, Hilton or me? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Jan 90 11:26:34 EST From: Ken Levitt Subject: Re: Thurbing (Was: 800 Wrong Numbers) In Telecom V10 #4 Roy Smith writes: "Shame on you" {for misleading people who dialed a wrong number} I think it depends on the situation and the type of business involved. We all must take responsibility for our actions and live with the consequences. Anyone who dials a number at 3am better make sure they are dialing the correct number. If I wake up in the middle of the night it may take me an hour or two to get back to sleep. In this case no punishment is too severe for the the offending caller. (wouldn't Caller*ID be great?). Many years back there were only two exchanges in my town (653 and 655). One day we started getting a very large amount of wrong numbers on one of our two lines. It turned out that a catalog store had just opened that week and they had the 653 number that corresponded to out 655. I called the phone company and they said that we could pay to change our number which we had been using for 9 years. I then called the store manager who was very arrogant and told me I should change my phone number. I pointed out to him that we had this number for 9 years and he had his for one week. It would be a lot easier for him to change his number than for us to change ours. I also suggested that it would not be good for his business if callers ended up talking to an irate person on the phone. He seemed not to care. The people calling were interested in knowing about products for sale or orders that they had placed. These were not urgent items. For a while I did take some orders and told people that other orders had come in. The theory was that one of two things would happen. Either the store would get a lot of flack about this or people would stop doing business with them. After a while I got tired of this game and just left an answering machine on the line. I changed the message to something very generic so that it did not identify who had been reached. Some callers did seem irate that they has called sever times and had not been called back. The funniest message that was ever left was from an employee of the store who said that he would not be in that day. You would think that an employee would know that the store did not have an answering machine. The store finally went out of business after about two years and things have been mostly quiet since then. Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu ------------------------------ From: John Cowan Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) Reply-To: John Cowan Organization: ESCC, New York City Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 21:00:34 GMT In article <2556@accuvax.nwu.edu> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: >In <2534@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Cowan writes: >[quoted nastiness deleted] [flame in response deleted] [comment by Digest Moderater deleted] Please be more careful when editing messages! The [quoted nastiness] was >not< by me, but by John Higdon . Furthermore, the flame actually responded to a stretch of material written by me but paraphrasing a >fictional< story by the well-known author James Thurber, as indicated in the text itself. I have >not< told a wrong-number caller I was a railway station. John Higdon has apparently misled some wrong-number callers. A fictional character in Thurber's short story has done the same. ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) Date: 4 Jan 90 07:23:49 GMT Organization: very little I spoke with a woman in Chicago recently that was constantly getting calls for the bus station on her cellular phone. She claims that one time she took a reservation from a woman, and told her that there was a special "buffet service" available, and that the bus would pick her up at her house! Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP [Moderator's Note: That is weird. The Chicago Greyhound-Trailways Terminal gave schedule information on 312-FInancial 6-5000 for about forty years. Only recently they installed a centrex system, in the 312-781-29xx series, and give schedule/fare information on 781-2900. Does her cell phone number come anywhere close to that? PT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: TV News Mates With Cellular Phones Date: 5 Jan 90 02:17:20 PST (Fri) From: John Higdon Wayne Hamilton writes: > They (WCIA, Channel 3, Champaign, IL) have arranged with Ameritech > Cellular for "*3" dialed on cellular phones in this area to connect to > WCIA news, toll-free, so that motorists can report unusual news events > as they happen. About two years ago, Cellular One set up a similar service with a "newstalk" radio station in San Francisco. To report (mainly traffic) events one dials "*KGO81". The airtime is picked up by the station. Not to be outdone, Mobilnet turned around and offered a similar arrangement with the other "newstalk" station. Mobilnet customers dial "*CBS" and of course, KCBS picks up the tab. Apparently this arrangement has paid off, since both operations are still in force after these two years. They usually give air credit to a "traffic spotter" when the report they are giving comes from a cellular subscriber. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Edward Vielmetti Subject: Re: TV News Mates With Cellular Phones Date: 5 Jan 90 17:18:46 GMT Organization: University of Michigan Math Dept., Ann Arbor MI. > WCAI Channel 3 in Champaign is toll-free *3 WWJ Radio in Detroit has a similar arrangement, dial *WWJ (*995) to get their traffic bureau to report accidents or big pot-holes or the like. Seems like they get more traffic reports by phone than from the helicopter these days. --Ed ------------------------------ From: Gordon Burditt Subject: Re: Caller ID Prefixes in PA Date: 4 Jan 90 03:23:47 GMT Organization: Gordon Burditt In article <2528@accuvax.nwu.edu> sp@pro-deli.cts.com (Sten Peeters) writes: >Pennsylvania has finally introduced Caller ID the the 215 area code. >Unfortunately Philadelhia and Harrisburg will be the only ones with >the service. >Harrisburg Area- > >231, 232, 233, 234, 236, 237, 238, 255, 257, 540, 541, 545, 558, 561, 564, >652, 657, 691, 697, 731, 737, 761, 763, 766, 782, 790, 795, 975 (I presume that although the article mentions area code 215, that's for Philadelphia and the Harrisburg exchanges are really in 717.) Does this mean that exchange 717-697, the one (but I'm not saying only one) where you can't get touch-tone at any price without changing your number out of that exchange (according to relatives who live there, as of a few weeks ago) is going to get Caller-ID? What switch supports caller-ID and not touch-tone? Gordon L. Burditt ...!texbell!sneaky!gordon ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 15:37:06 CST From: William Payne Subject: Re: AirPhone Service By GTE A while ago I asked for any info on GTE's AirPhone service after using it during a Thanksgiving flight. Lo and behold the following article showed up. I reproduce it below w/o permission. From Electronic Engineering Times; Issue 571; January 1, 1990, page 8. AirPhone Creator Proposes Flight FAX Washington- Jack Goeken, the man who started the GTE AirPhone service in 1976 and thus ensured that no one could get away from it all, has another plan up his sleeve for making flight time more productive. His new company, In-Flight Phone Co., has petitioned the [FCC] to allow air travelers to send facsimiles from air to ground, check on flight schedules and seat availability and transmit data from portable computers, all without leaving their seats. -Cheaper than AirPhone- The proposed services, designed to be available at passenger seat backs, would cost less than present AirPhone charges, which are about $4 for the first minute and $2 per each additional minute. In-Flight estimates that computer data - requiring less bandwidth than a voice channel - could be transmitted for $1 or less per minute. Goeken expects the new service's power to permit air travelers on delayed flights to check flight-connection alternatives while still airbound will make the system attractive to customers and airlines alike. AirPhone - which permits travelers to make, but not receive, in-flight calls - is the only chartered air telephone carrier at present, a situation which Goeken plans to remedy with his own VHF two-way systems in 1990, pending FCC approval. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Airfone Service by GTE Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 5 Jan 90 11:30:58 EST (Fri) From: "John R. Levine" I have used Airfones a few times. You walk to the phone (unless it's in the back of the next seat, as on some Trump shuttle planes) and put in a credit card, then it unlocks and you can take the handset, which resembles a cordless phone, back to your seat. It takes the usual cards, Amex, MC, VISA, but not any telco calling cards. You wait, sometimes a long time, for it to seize a channel and get a dial tone, then dial calls the usual way. They're very expensive, $7.50 for the first three minutes for calls withing the U.S. and about $2/minute after that. (The rates may have recently been changed, but not by much.) Directory assistance is free, 800 numbers are not. International calls are possible but I haven't tried any. The bad news is that they don't work worth beans. The connection is terrible, sort of like talking to East Germany, with lots of static and distortion, often to the point where you can't understand the other person. There is interference on the plane itself, and I've found that you hear a lot better if you keep the phone next to the base rather than going back to your seat. The phone only works when the plane is actually in the air, so the time when you most need it, when you're stuck on the ground for an hour waiting for a landing slot so you can take off, you can't use it. In short, I don't think it merits the radio channel that the FCC has assigned it. The Airfone company has had a checkered career. There used to be some connection with GTE, since severed. It is run by Sandy Goeken, who I believe is the daughter of the guy who started MCI, who like her father had to overcome innumerable technical and political barriers to get the service started. I only wish she'd turned her talents to something more worthwhile. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ Subject: Re: How Are Inter-LATA Calls in the Same Area Code Handled? Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 5 Jan 90 12:02:19 EST (Fri) From: "John R. Levine" In article <2600@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >Yes, most NPA's have more than one lata in them. As a matter of fact, >according to my last search 99 NPA's have more than one lata. They are: There's something wrong with this search algorithm. Looking at the list, I see 403, 613, 705, 807, 819 and 902 which are in Canada. 706 and 905 are pseudo-area codes for Tijuana and Mexico City which are being phased out in favor of 011 5266 and 011 525. 809 is the odd area code for most of the Carribean (although I have no idea whether equal access is supposed to apply to Puerto Rico and the USVI, the two American pieces of 809.) Within the US, some of the ones look wrong. The last time I looked, Utah (801) was one LATA possibly except for some little independent telcos around the edge. 203 is mostly served by SNET, a non-Bell telco, except for Greenwich which is New York Tel's -- I don't know whether toll calls between Greenwich and other parts of Connecticut are carried by SNET or inter-lata carriers. But actually, I was really wondering if most multi-lata NPAs have something like 1+number for interlata calls or if it's like 609 where you dial everything with 7 digits and can't really tell until the bill comes who carried it. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #7 ****************************   Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 21:16:38 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #8 Message-ID: <9001052116.aa21142@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Jan 90 21:15:30 CST Volume 10 : Issue 8 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Question About Area Code Split (David Lewis) Re: Phone Frustration (John Higdon) Re: One-armed Bandits (David A. Cantor) Re: COCOT Scam (John Higdon) Re: The Operator's Beep (Paul S. R. Chisholm) New England Telephone Massachusetts Rate Restructuring (John Covert) 976 in Massachusetts (Steve Elias) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lewis Subject: Re: Question About Area Code Split Date: 4 Jan 90 15:06:26 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <2529@accuvax.nwu.edu>, motcid!sirakide%cell.mot.COM@uunet.uu.net (Dean Sirakides) writes: > As I am sure most people know, the Chicago area has undergone an area > code split from 312 to 312 and 708. > *Question* : I have heard several ads for stores where the phone > number is given out and the annoucer qualifies the number by saying, > "in either 708 or 312". How is this done? [I have a feeling this is one of those questions that about 17 people will answer. Apologies for any unwanted duplication...] There are several ways I can think of doing this; I'm not sure which, if any, are *the* way it's done in any particular instance, but I think they'd all work... First of all, I don't *think* that a single exchange can overlap NPAs, so that (for example) 708-888 and 312-888 would refer to the same central office. I can't find anything explicitly excluding this in my references, though, so I could be mistaken -- if anyone knows this is definitely the case, please let me know... That means if (for example) you want your phone number to be 888-8888 in both 708 and 312, you have to have some sort of service in both 888 exchanges. The simplest way I can see would be to get service in the appropriate exchange in the "other" NPA (if your office is in 312, get service in 708) with the desired phone number, and forward it to your office. A second solution would be to get foreign exchange (FX) service in the other NPA, with dial-in capability and the appropriate phone number. A third solution would be to get service in the other NPA with the appropriate phone number and use private or leased facilities to tie it to your office, but that's getting into the category of Serious Hack. Then, of course, there are all sorts of ways using services that haven't been implemented yet, but that's not really relevant... > And as a related question: how do companies get phone numbers like > "dial LAWYERS" when the prefix for the spelled out number is not used > in the area that services the address of the business? Same ways, I presume. > Thanks. (notice this article offers no opinion on Caller-ID) Thank you. Sincerely. 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: Phone Frustration Date: 5 Jan 90 03:02:17 PST (Fri) From: John Higdon peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > John Higdon described how he got certain COCOTs owned by small businesses > disconnected by complaining to the guvmint. I would be proud to claim credit for disconecting one of these monsters, but unfortunately you are miscrediting someone else's success to me. But moving on... > Well, he could just not provide a public telephone at his place of > business at all. That's a valid option. Lots of places do that. I'd > much rather have a little problem with a privately owned COCOT than > have to put up with "no, we don't allow phone calls... but the > laundromat across the street there has a public phone: there's a > traffic signal a block east". What you seem to be saying here is "better a COCOT than nothing at all." Well, that's debatable, but not an issue. I can't speak for your area, but here in the Bay Area the onslaught of COCOTs did not mean an increase of public phones, but the wholesale replacement of Pac*Bell phones with COCOTs. This is my main complaint. If all the *real* public phones remained and COCOTs showed up where there had been no pay phones before, your argument would be valid. Actually, in some cases COCOTs did show up near Pac*Bell phones, but eventually the Pac*Bell phones were removed because the COCOTs couldn't survive with real phones within sight. Yes, I checked with the store owners; it was that way, not the other way around. > The guy's providing a service. There's no law saying he has to make a > phone available to the next guy who walks in off the street. No, but the Pac*Bell phone he used to have was somewhat superior to the COCOT which took its place. His shiney new COCOT may cough up more money for him, but it is certainly not as much service for his customers. > Well, if you're there you can walk up to the person behind the counter > and say "Excuse me, do you know that the law says so-and-so? Could you > let the owner know?". If that doesn't get results, go ahead and use > your nuclear option. But it doesn't take *any* time at all for you to > try the easy route first. Invariable answer: "I don't know anything about the phone. You'll have to call the number on the card." Card says call "211". Reaches disconnect recording, doesn't answer, or reaches answering machine. Leaving message is futile. There was one notable exception on a phone outside of a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet. I reached a live person to whom I complained about not being able to access AT&T. I was given a lengthy discourse on how they wouldn't make any money of they allowed this. "How would you like it if you had people using your telephone all the time and you didn't get anything out of it?" In other words, the kickbacks weren't big and fat like those from his ripoff AOS. It was much nicer when that was a Pac*Bell phone. I even used it then. > One of the biggest problems in this country, in my opinion, is people > like you who think that it's OK to bring the force of the law to bear > on someone. Yes, ignorance of the law is no excuse. But a measured > response to an irritation is only common courtesy. More courtesy and > less legal excrement can only help the situation. Don't you think it is a bit naive to think that the average person is supposed to be more knowledgeable concerning telephony regulations than those in the business? How many people do you suppose a misprogrammed COCOT will rip off before a knowledgeable person finally uses it and does something about it? Of the somewhere between 50 and 100 times I have complained to COCOT operators about their non-compliant phones, not one has ever done anything to correct the condition(s). Your even-handed approach is wasted on this particular breed of businessman. Oh, and I wish you would avoid the phrase, "people like you". Those who know me are fully aware that in matters concerning "legitimate" businesses, I am most patient and long suffering. As a broadcaster, I almost never involve the FCC in any problem with a fellow broadcaster. But we're talking about people who are well informed and have a desire to comply with the standards of their business, not the "get rich quick" people in the COCOT racket. > You're attributing motivations to the owners of these COCOTs that > might not be there. Many people can't even program a VCR reliably, > you know. True, but they aren't in charge of a television station, either. If a person doesn't know anything about the telephone business, why is he subjecting the public to the consequences of his ignorance? I always thought that people got into business because they had some expertise to contribute or at least some interest in their endeavors. Lacking any of that, IMHO their motivations are indeed suspect. > And you might find that the response will be for them to pull the > phone out completely, and direct walk-ins to the laundromat down the > block and across the street. I'm sure you have no problems with that. As a matter of fact, a COCOT was yanked from a 7-eleven near my home. A Pac*Bell phone took its place. I certainly had no problem with that! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 13:31:27 -0800 From: "David A. Cantor 05-Jan-1990 1220" Subject: Re: One-armed Bandits In TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 3, Steve Forrette () writes: >These one-armed bandits [COCOTs] seem eager to eat your money at the drop of a >hat, and overcharge you when they do work. > - Blatant tariff violations, such as requiring local call deposit > for 950 numbers charging long distance for "special" prefixes (such > as to cellular phones) that are local from a real payphone. >And I thought one-armed bandits were only allowed in Nevada and Atlantic City. That last whimsical statement has more truth to it than the author realizes. Two weeks ago, I was in Atlantic City International Airport (ACY) and tried to use a payphone for a 950 call. I dialled 950-1022 (MCI) and the phone said "Please deposit NINE DOLLARS AND NINETY-FIVE CENTS." (emphasis is mine). I used MCI's 800 number instead. Dave C. ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: COCOT Scam Date: 5 Jan 90 03:11:26 PST (Fri) From: John Higdon Dave Brightbill writes: > I also learned that COCOTs are a fav of folks with large clumps > of cash to launder. They put in a phone and report huge takes > in the coin box. Sort of like the vending machine business used to be. Ah, but unlike the old vending machine scam, it would be possible to audit one of these babies and nab the perp. Remember, the cash in the box would have to be at least loosely related to the local charges on the line and the charges from the AOS or LD carrier. A clever IRS man could nail one of these laundramats in a hurry. And the more cash reported, the greater chance an audit would be triggered, particularly if receipts seemed way out of line from the rest of the industry. Just a thought. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: "Paul S. R. Chisholm" Subject: Re: The Operator's Beep Date: 5 Jan 90 06:29:08 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <2514@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gabe@sirius.ctr.columbia.edu (Gabe Wiener) writes: > Occasionally I'll call some AT&T number or directory assistance line > and hear that "beep" sounded by the operator before they get on the > line. I used to hear it on all operator calls pre-breakup, but it has > pretty much gone by the wayside for 0 and 00 calls. > Can anyone tell me its purpose? Moreover, why did they stop using it? I have no idea what it *used* to mean. Nowadays, it's generated any time you go through AT&T; if you don't hear it, you've got some other company. (And some other company's rates. My in-laws called collect from a payphone in Charleston just after the hurricane, to tell us their phones and power were out but they were okay. The five minute call went through an "Alternative Operator Service" company that charged me six dollars!) Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm Disclaimer: I do e-mail software for AT&T, not telephony; I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 05:17:18 -0800 From: "John R. Covert 04-Jan-1990 2205" Subject: New England Telephone Massachusetts Rate Restructuring N.E.T. had filed a complete rate restructuring of almost all services in Massachusetts, to take effect 31 December 1989. The D.P.U. has suspended these tariffs until 1 July 1990, and is holding public hearings. The first of these was tonight at the State House; future hearings are 24 Jan in Springfield, 25 Jan in Lee, 30 Jan in East Sandwich and (date missing) in Worcester. I attended the hearing tonight, at which little clarity appeared. I had expected some sort of handout with the new rates to be available, but I was wrong. I had expected N.E.T. to make some sort of presentation of the rates, but I was wrong. I was able to briefly borrow State Rep. Galvin's copy of the tariff to get an idea of what is proposed. This is truly a strange filing. The cornerstone of the filing is an increase of approximately $3/month in all categories of residential service, whether measured or otherwise. There are little things like an increase in the Touch-Tone charge from $0.58 to $0.98. But the truly strange stuff has to do with the "rate experimentation" as N.E.T. calls it. Disclaimer: all the new rates which follow are approximate, since I didn't get a chance to write it all down. Intra-LATA toll rates are proposed to remain the same for residential customers in Eastern Massachusetts, but business customers will get a new toll rate structure. Whereas intra-LATA toll currently varies from .19(1st min)/.09(addl min) to .55/.23, and is the same for both residence and business customers, and the same in either eastern or western Mass., the rate filing proposes to eliminate WATS and basically make all business lines pay roughly the current WATS rate, something like .01 per call and .12/minute, regardless of distance. Volume discounts apply. In Western Mass., both residence and business customers will pay something like .01 per call and .055/minute for any intra-LATA toll, regardless of distance. Message unit pricing remains the same in Eastern Mass., .111 for business customers and .0898 for residence customers (regardless of time of day), but the existing 3-message unit area in Boston Metro is folded into the 2-message unit area. But in Western Mass, local message units change to .01/call and about .012/minute during the peak period (9AM to 9PM) and less off-peak. These same peak/off-peak periods apply on Western Massachusetts intra-LATA toll and I think on Eastern Massachusetts business intra-LATA toll. It was a truly strange filing, and a truly strange hearing. I was one of the few people who spoke about the propriety of the rates, emphasizing that the national trend was to reduce or eliminate the Touch-Tone charge, not to increase it, asking if it was proper public policy to have toll rates different in different parts of the state or to lower business toll rates while keeping Eastern Mass residential toll rates higher than inter-LATA rates to almost anywhere outside the state. Most of the attendees were CWA or IBEW reps or members, every one of whom was angry with N.E.T. and dead set against allowing their employer any rate increase while N.E.T. is attempting to cut costs by reducing staff and hiring contractors from out of state. The mood of the employees is very, very bad, and they were very, very unruly, shouting down the N.E.T. attorney whenever he said anything they didn't like. /john ------------------------------ Subject: 976 in Massachusetts Date: Fri, 05 Jan 90 08:22:38 -0500 From: eli@pws.bull.com The Massachusetts DPU has apparently just given the OK for 976 (and more) tariffs. Also, 940 tariffs for "adult" messages. Initially, all telephones will be blocked from making 940 calls. Blocking for 940 numbers, as well as 1-900 numbers will initially be available for free. Steve Elias work phone: 508 671 7556 ; email: eli@pws.bull.com , eli@spdcc.com voice mail: 617 932 5598 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #8 ****************************   Date: Sat, 6 Jan 90 0:02:42 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #9 Message-ID: <9001060002.aa11301@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 6 Jan 90 00:00:12 CST Volume 10 : Issue 9 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Western Electric Maternity Leave Litigation (Clerk of US District Court) AT&T Planning Computer Access To Phone Numbers (James Price Salsman) 201/908 Split Dates -- Official Word (John R. Covert) AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (David Dodell) Equinox Data Switch (Alan Bell) One Modem, Multiple Lines (Kevin P. Kleinfelter) The People Side of Managing Your Network (Sharon Lynne Fisher) Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) (Martin J. Shannon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 2:27:07 CST From: Clerk of US District Court Subject: Western Electric Maternity Leave Litigation This is a legal notice, and may affect your rights. Please read it carefully and ask your attorney for advice if you have questions about this notice. In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division ************************************************* Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, * Communications Workers of America, et al * Plaintiffs * Consolidated 78 C 3951 * Dockets: 82 C 1542 * -- vrs -- * * Hon. James H. Alesia * Special Master: AT&T Technologies, Inc., et al * Frank J. McGarr Defendants * * ************************************************* N O T I C E ===================== If you took a maternity leave from Western Electric Company between July 2, 1965 and August 7, 1977, and were employed by Western Electric on or after March 23, 1971, you have a right to receive money, employment at AT&T, seniority and other benefits. The Basis of the Lawsuit: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a United States government agency, the Communications Workers of America (CWA), and several Western Electric employees as individuals are plaintiffs in a lawsuit claiming that Western Electric's maternity leave policies discriminated against female employees. The Court has ruled that certain policies were discriminatory against women by: o Forcing pregnant women to stop working at a specified time regardless of whether they were still able to work. o Failing to reinstate or delaying the return to work of women on maternity leave. o Giving women on maternity leave only 30 days of seniority. Who May File a Claim: You may file a claim if you took one or more maternity leaves between July 2, 1965 and August 7, 1977, and if you were employed by Western Electric on or after March 23, 1971. If you were on leave or layoff status as of March 23, 1971, you may also file a claim. If you took a maternity leave from facilities in Watertown or Southboro, Massachusetts; Burlington or Winston-Salem, North Carolina; the State of New Jersey or the State of Arizona, you are NOT entitled to file a claim. The terms of your union contract, and/or state and municipal laws in the aforementioned places governed labor practices at your facility. If you were employed at any other facility of the Western Electric Company in the United States, then you ARE entitled to file a claim. How to Present Your Claim: To present your claim, you must fill out a Claim Form. Claim Forms have been mailed, but the passage of time has caused the records of the Plaintiffs and Defendants to become out of date and inaccurate. If you believe you are entitled to file a claim, and have not received a Claim Form in the mail, you may request one by one of the two methods listed below. A Claim Form and instructions will be sent to you by return mail. Attornies for the Plaintiff Will Assist You: If you have any questions or want legal counsel before submitting the Claim Form, you may telephone toll-free to attornies representing the female employees in this case. The attornies are: Julie Bowman Michael Erp Arthur Benson Their telephone number is 1-800-628-2289. Or, you may consult your own attorney for advice. Show this notice to your attorney and request an explanation and assistance. If you prefer, you may WRITE and request a copy of the Claim Form and Instructions, by writing to: H. Stuart Cunningham Clerk of the United States District Court ATTN: Western Electric Claims Post Office Box 909703 Chicago, IL 60690 << Include your Social Security Number in your correspondence >> Timely Notice Required: The Request for Claim Form and Instructions must be mailed promptly. The deadline for submitting your claim is March 22, 1990. The Court will not consider claims submitted after that date. The statements made in your claim will be verified against the employment records of the Defendant, and you may be asked to prove the statements you make in your claim. The only persons authorized to discuss your claim are the attornies noted above or the Clerk of the United States District Court. Correspond only with the persons named above. Do not telephone the Court. Do not telephone, write, or otherwise contact the Western Electric Company/AT&T Technologies, Inc. /signed/ H. Stuart Cunningham Clerk of the United States District Court Chicago, Illinois ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 15:02:45 -0500 (EST) From: James Price Salsman Subject: AT&T Planning Computer Access To Phone Numbers [Moderator's Note: Mr. Salsman forwarded this message to us which was posted earlier today in a news file at andrew.cmu.edu PT] NEW YORK -- American Telephone & Telegraph Co. is seeking permission from the Federal Communications Commission to offer corporate customers nationwide computer access to local phone listings. If approved, the service will be the first of its kind in the country, as local phone companies are barred by law from offering access to facilities outside their own service areas. Moreover, AT&T's service could eventually alter the way local phone companies staff their directory assistance operations, because corporations, which account for most calls to operators, will be able to get access to phone numbers anywhere in the country without human intervention. "It's just like directory assistance today, only you access the information using a computer instead of talking to the operator," said Nora Glover, product manager for the new service. AT&T plans to begin offering the service, dubbed AT&T Find America, on Jan. 18, when the FCC's normal 45-day period for public comment on the request expires. It will be available initially to companies seeking listings of customers in the five-state territory of Southwestern Bell Corp., the St. Louis-based regional Bell telephone company. By the end of the year, however, AT&T plans to cement agreements with all seven regional Bell companies and offer the service nationwide. By mid-1990, AT&T plans to begin talks with overseas telephone administrations about extending the service internationally, Glover said. AT&T made its request to the FCC on Dec. 4 in a special tariff filing, but chose not to publicize it because "We didn't have a name for the service" at the time, Glover said. The FCC said the tariff has been unopposed. AT&T is aiming the service at the banking and credit industries first, said Kimberley Partoll, marketing manager for the new service. Secondary targets will be the retail and transportation industries. All that a customer will need is a computer terminal or mainframe computer to get access to the same listings from phone company data bases that operators use, with one exception: Unlisted numbers won't be made available. Partoll said customers have shown an interest in the new service, but can't sign up until after midnight Jan. 17, when the tariff is expected to take effect. AT&T is offering to waive for one month the $2,200 monthly fee for any customer that subscribes by Feb. 28. AT&T also will knock off the $100 charge for listing the customer's password. Besides these regular fees, AT&T will charge 35 cents for each computer screen of information and $22 an hour for transmission. Glover said each of those transmissions should take about 3.6 seconds to retrieve a listing -- about one-tenth the time that a regular directory assistance call takes today. In its FCC filing, AT&T estimated that first-year revenue from the service will amount to at least $12.6 million, or 3.2 million minutes of usage. After three years, AT&T estimated, revenue could hit $82.8 million a year. A spokesman for Southwestern Bell said the company also is offering other long-distance carriers, such as MCI Communications Corp., the opportunity to provide computer access to its local phone listings. Regarding the services' potential effect on operator staffing, he said: "This is a new service. We don't really know that now." At MCI, a spokesman said the company is studying AT&T's proposal, but doesn't have any immediate plans to offer similar service. US Sprint Communications Co., a unit of United Telecommunications Inc., didn't have any comment. [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell has offered a similar service for several years but using only its own directory database. The service here, called 'Directory Express' allows access to the same information the operators use, using a terminal or PC. It is not cheap, the charge is by the hour of connect time, and about the only subscribers are some large credit grantors and collection agencies. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 12:53:47 -0800 From: "John R. Covert 05-Jan-1990 1526" Subject: 201/908 Split Dates -- Official Word OK, here's the official word on what's happening with 908, from the responsible people in the Bellcore and NJ Bell network planning departments: The "network event" beginning permissive dialling was 1 Jan 90. It should be working from everywhere, however, due to the next item, reporting a trouble may not always be effective. For now, it's really a "network event" for people in the telecom industry only. The general public should _continue_to_use_201_ for now. For this reason, I was unable to get _any_ information from normal business office sources. In July 90, NJ Bell will start talking about it in new telephone books. On 6 Jan 91, customers will be told that their numbers are 908 numbers (and I infer that new 908-only prefixes may begin to open). On 8 June 91, the permissive dialling period ends, and 908 must be used for any of the codes transferred in the split. /john ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Jan 90 20:48:18 mst From: David Dodell Subject: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid I'm sure other members of the conference have seen the recent AT&T ad showing some guy at a telephone both trying to call Phoenix but getting Fuji instead. Checking with AT&T, the country code to Fuji is 679, while Phoenix is area code 602 ... on top of this you need to dial 011 to get international access. I figure that this ad is just plain stupid, since if someone can't dial a number correctly, it has nothing to do with the carrier they are using. The ad implies otherwise. Oh well, advertising at its finest. 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: abell Subject: Equinox Data Switch Reply-To: Alan Bell Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 19:38:54 GMT We have an Equniox DS-5 Data PBX and are looking for either replacement parts or a complete system. The main boards of interest are the 24-line CS and 24-line-XS boards. Let me know if you have boards/system which you would like to dispose of, or know of where we can get reasonably priced boards. Alan C. Bell (abell@polyslo.calpoly.edu) Computer Science Department ..!ucbvax!voder\ California Polytechnic State University ..!sdcrdcf!csun |!polyslo!abell San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 (805)756-7185 ..!lll-crg!csustan/ ------------------------------ From: "Kevin P. Kleinfelter" Subject: One Modem, Multiple Lines Date: 5 Jan 90 16:04:45 GMT Organization: Management Science America, Inc., Atlanta, GA We have two phone numbers (a local and and 800) which our clients use to dial-up our computer. We have n lines connected to n modems on the local line, and m lines connected to m modems on the 800 line. (Both the local and the 800 roll to the next number when busy.) Of course, sometimes all n local lines are busy, and 0 of the 800 lines are busy or vice versa. Is there a device which allows one to connect two phone lines to a single modem (or single-line telephone, for that matter) such that when one line rings, the other line is busied out, and the ringing line is connected through to the device? Is there a better way? (Our 800 is provided as a channel on a T1 from AT&T, and our local number is just an extension on our PBX. What I wish we had, but do not think we can get, is a deal where the 800 number rings on our local extension.) Kevin Kleinfelter @ Management Science America, Inc (404) 239-2347 gatech!nanovx!msa3b!kevin ------------------------------ From: Sharon Lynne Fisher Subject: The People Side of Managing Your Network Date: 5 Jan 90 18:51:08 GMT I'm working on a story for a magazine called Connect; it's a quarterly that's put out by 3Com. The story is on the people side of managing a network. How do you find and train people to do this? Is it difficult? How is it determined who manages what, as voice and data networks become increasingly merged? You can reply to me here or via mail to slf@well.sf.ca.us or sharon@asylum.sf.ca.us Thanks! ------------------------------ From: Martin J Shannon Subject: Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) Date: 5 Jan 90 18:14:50 GMT Reply-To: mjs@cbnews.ATT.COM (martin.j.shannon,59112,lc,4nr10,201 580 5757) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Several folks have made mention of the FCC's recurrent proposed tax on modem use, and the SWBT fiasco with BBS users and operators, and I'm sure that various & sundry regulatory agencies have proposed surcharges and/or taxes on modem use in the past, and will continue to do so until the modeming community makes itself heard. How to make ourselves heard, you ask? (I'm *so* glad you did!) Consider the following for a moment: How much revenue would the local phone companies (*and* long distance carriers) lose if most modem use were to cease for a month? How many BBS users regularly run up a $100/month bill? $200/month? $500/month? I can't remember the last time my BBS hopping cost less than $100/ month; in fact, only 1 month in the last 8 or so was under $200! I can't really believe that I'm particularly pathological in my modeming habits, so I'd figure that a protest of voting with our wallets would carry a great deal of weight. Now, I'm not (necessarily) actually proposing such a stunt, but if the FCC (or any of the state PUC's) were to make the mistake of penalizing BBS users and/or operators, it would seem to me that the only "right and proper" thing for us all to do is "Just say no!" Do any of you TELECOM folks have access to ballpark figures of just how much the "little people" (BBS users & operators) actually pay to the various phone companies? I'd love to see some figures! 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.) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #9 ****************************   Date: Sat, 6 Jan 90 23:26:46 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #10 Message-ID: <9001062326.aa05534@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 6 Jan 90 23:25:56 CST Volume 10 : Issue 10 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) (John Higdon) Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) (Allyn Lai) Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) (Peter Marshall) Re: The Operator's Beep (Steve Forrette) Re: Direct Dialing the USSR (Sakari Mattila) Re: Free Local Phone Calls (Alonzo Gariepy) Re: One-armed Bandits (Peter da Silva) Re: One-armed Bandits (David Tamkin) Re: One Modem, Multiple Lines (Macy Hallock) Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (David Tamkin) Re: Telephone Companies in the US Besides the RBOC's (William Degnan) Re: Special Issues Planned for Digest (Peter Marshall) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) Date: 6 Jan 90 14:32:18 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon Martin J Shannon writes: > Do any of you TELECOM folks have access to ballpark figures of just > how much the "little people" (BBS users & operators) actually pay to > the various phone companies? I'd love to see some figures! I'm sure everyone's mileage varies, but I know how much I spend to support my computer habit. My home computer uses four lines, two measured and two unmeasured. This comes to about $50/month with all the tax and license. Plus, my machine is in regular contact with several systems in southern California to the tune of about $100/month. Simple arithmetic would indicate that my home computer spends $150/month with "the phone company". But in all fairness to Pac*Bell, I have to say that there have been no rumblings whatever about screwing modem users. Furthermore, sometime this year Pac*Bell and GTE California will drop all charges for touch tone (as opposed to raising them as I have heard some other telcos are doing). Pac*Bell is fully aware of the use to which I put my phone lines and I have never had any crap about upgrading to business, "one line limit" per machine, or any of the nonsense that SWBT seems to be laying on its customers. This is, after all, Silly Con Vallee. As one Pac*Bell rep admitted to me, it is very common in this area for people to have many residential lines and have them heavily used for modem traffic. If Pac*Bell were to pull any of the horsehooey that seems to go on elsewhere, they would find many people up in arms. There are a lot of Pacific Telesis buildings in San Francisco to picket in front of, not to mention the State building down the street! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) Date: 5 Jan 90 20:29:53 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA There are two things. One is the FCC Enhanced Service Provider (ESP) surcharge, which they don't call a surcharge, but is one. That is what the latest "modeming" chain letter was about. It is a false rumor, as my message of last week sought to squash. The other is Southwestern Bell's idea that people who use modems at home are really doing business with them, and not qualified for residential rates. That's a state issue and totally separate. SWBT is losing there too, but seems to fight on. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 ------------------------------ From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!Allyn@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) Date: Fri, 5-Jan-90 22:55:42 PST Ok it looks like there are really two similar issues being discussed. One is the SouthWestern Bell vs. Texas BBS operators issue and the other is the FCC "access charge" issue. I think the people on my local BBS are talking about the FCC access charge. So I presume that this issue is being discussed in Congress right now? Anybody know how to check up on such things? Doesn't seem likely to pass what with all the businesses in the U.S. that depend on common carriers (i.e. Telenet, Tymnet)... Anyway, thanks! Allyn Lai allyn@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ From: Peter Marshall Subject: Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) Date: 6 Jan 90 15:30:52 GMT Reply-To: Peter Marshall Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA In Lai's 1/3 post and moderator's note regarding so-called "modem tax," the moderator seems to be confusing and blending two different, yet conceptually similar, matters. The so-called "modem tax" affair was an FCC thing; it was, and is, unrelated to the SWB-COSUARD matters referenced in the moderator's note. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Jan 90 02:55 EDT From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: The Operator's Beep In previous posting, Paul S. R. Chisholm indicates that the operator's beep lets you know that you've got AT&T. Does this mean that it is a registered trademark of AT&T? If not, what is to prevent some AOS cheese from using it? As an aside, I always wondered why AT&T didn't file for trademark status for the calling card "ka-bong". Now that others are using it to trick people, I've noticed AT&T added a voice "AT&T" with a short tune (not tone!) so you know BEFORE you enter your card who you're dealing with. (by the way, I do believe that such things may be registered. My favorite example is the red stripe on the top of some zip-closure bags. It's a registered trademark of a specific manufacturer) ------------------------------ From: Sakari Mattila Subject: Re: Direct Dialing the USSR Date: 6 Jan 90 13:27:23 GMT Organization: Technical Research Centre of Finland, Laboratory for Information Processing (VTT/TIK) In calling Estonia BBS try Bell 102 modem at 300 b/s. This good old modem goes thru almost any telephone system. Sakari M. Mattila 71307.1525@CompuServe.COM mattila@hemuli.tik.vtt.fi ------------------------------ From: alonzo@microsoft.UUCP (Alonzo Gariepy) Subject: Re: Free Local Phone Calls Date: 6 Jan 90 09:26:11 GMT Reply-To: alonzo@microsoft.UUCP (Alonzo GARIEPY) Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA In article <2580@accuvax.nwu.edu> malcolm@apple.com writes: > The Freephone concept involves distinctively marked, coinless public > telephones that allow anyone to make free three-minute local calls. I view payphones as an essential public service along the lines of mailboxes, trashcans, fire hydrants, and ...ahem, we won't mention that... Free local-only phones have the potential to drive pay phones out of locations where most of the revenue is generated by 25 cent local calls. That includes almost everywhere but airports and hotels. The result is reduced service. The 25 cents you normally pay for short local calls justifies the existence of a full service telephone that can be used for toll calls and longer local calls. This also bears on the claim that a COCOT shouldn't charge ten cents for 800 calls because they don't cost the owner anything. Ridiculous!! The costs of a tollfree call are the same as a local call to the owner: a monthly line cost and paying the lease on the phone. COCOTs look much better in the long run then these free phones. Most free things are worth what you pay. Commercial television is a good example. Alonzo Gariepy // Think of something original to say; alonzo@microsoft // endless debate is so boring... ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: One-armed Bandits Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 12:05:39 GMT Let's get this straight. I'm not defending folks who are deliberately ripping off the public. I'm attacking the attitude that it's OK to sic the law on someone without even trying to find out if they've made an honest mistake. That's the attitude that fills the courts with technically legitimate but nonsensical lawsuits. This is getting off the subject of telecommunications. If you folks have anything further to say on the subject send me email. _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ Also or \_.--._/ v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-' ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: One-armed Bandits Date: Sat, 6 Jan 90 4:06:26 CST During the course of 1989 two COCOT-related events occurred within a quarter mile of my home: 1. A COCOT-owning pharmacy closed when its owner decided to retire. The COCOT was torn out and Central Telephone installed an additional real public telco coin phone next to the existing one outdoors. Several months later Centel put a third real public telco coin phone in next to the first two. (In addition, there has been another telco coin phone all along inside a tavern in the same shopping strip.) 2. Down the street a gasoline station owner had the two Illinois Bell true public payphones taken out. I saw someone working with wiring at the hole in the ground where they had been: his equipment was in an unmarked van. I said, "That's bad news." He asked me what I meant. I said, "You're taking out the Illinois Bell coin phones and putting in private ones." He replied "No, these are from Illinois Bell." Well, the hell they were. The next day one COCOT had replaced the two telco payphones. It bore no number on its face (and still doesn't); later when I tried it it didn't disable the pad after an 800 number, but if you attempt to dial 950 it interrupts after three digits and a badly digitized voice tells you, "Invalid number. Invalid number." I saw the same installer there that second day; I looked at the COCOT and looked at him, and he acted as if he had no idea of what was on my mind. Perhaps he truly didn't. Shortly thereafter another identical COCOT appeared at the gasoline station, so now there were two phones to replace the two removed phones, but I would have a hard time deciding which is worse: one COCOT and no other phone or two COCOTs. David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@chinet.chi.il.us BIX: dattier GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Date: Sat Jan 6 16:19:44 1990 Subject: Re: One Modem, Multiple Lines Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA In article <2635@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 9, message 6 of 8 > ....request for a method of terminating two lines groups on > one set uf modems... In your specific case you have apparently: - DID incoming local lines thru your PBX - AT&T Megacom lines via T1 that terminate directly on the modems. This is a fairly common situation in order entry systems... The most common solution is to have your AT&T T1's terminate on your PBX as DID lines, too. This is very common. Where the DID number dialed into the PBX is different than the DID dialed in on the outside lines, set up a call forward to the correct desired group. AT&T actually prefers that Megacom services act as DID's, its easier for their 4 ESS's to do. Depending on the type of PBX (or Centrex) you have, the T1's can terminate directly into the switch or channel banks with tie line type channel cards terminating on your PBX as tie lines or DID trunks will be req'd. Talk to your equipment vendor. 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?) ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 90 3:55:09 CST Amid all the tales of pretending to be the business whose phone number was misprinted and making promises to callers that the called party isn't going to keep, are there any tales of the callee's simply saying, "Sorry, they've gone out of business"? It seems that would stop the caller from dialing but would cause a lot less damage. David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@chinet.chi.il.us BIX: dattier GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Jan 90 19:05:00 CST From: William Degnan Subject: Re: Telephone Companies in the US Besides the RBOCs In an article of <3 Jan 90 11:29:39 GMT>, munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au! anthony@uunet.uu.net (Anthony Lee) writes: >Wonder if anyone could post a summary of all the major telephone >companies in the US besides the RBOCs. Particularly Nynex (sp??), Well NYNEX is the holding company that owns to BOCs: New York Telephone (NY) and New England Telephone (NE). The "X" part may stand for Xtra money? Or, X as in cross connection? >I read recently that Nynex have made a deal with Telecom Australia. >Anyone know more about the deal ? This isn't the deal where they going to put cellular phones on the kangaroos? :) :) Regards, Bill Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com !wdegnan@at&tmail.com Communications Network Solutions | William.Degnan@telenet.com P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766 | voice: 512 323-9383 ------------------------------ From: Peter Marshall Subject: Re: Special Issues Planned for Digest Date: 6 Jan 90 15:23:57 GMT Reply-To: Peter Marshall Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA A small correction: please note that the Texas Office of Public Counsel is not "the rate-setting organization in that state," but the "public advocate" for utility matters. The "rate-setting organization," of course, is the Texas PUC. [Moderator's Note: Thanks for the correction on this. And this is as good a time as any to remind readers this special issue of the Digest will be issued and in your mailboxes sometime Sunday. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #10 *****************************   Date: Sun, 7 Jan 90 0:22:36 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #11 Message-ID: <9001070022.aa02544@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 7 Jan 90 00:22:14 CST Volume 10 : Issue 11 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Test Lines (was 0020 Suffix lines) (Macy Hallock) ISDN Sets (Macy Hallock) Default Long Distance Carrier Override (Steve Forrette) Clarification on COCOT Disconnection (Steve Forrette) DC Area AC Usage (David Lesher) Cutting the Overhead (John Higdon) Demise of Telephone Museum (Curt Larock) Where Can I Buy a Caller*ID Box Now? (John Boteler) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Subject: Test Lines (was 0020 Suffix lines) Date: Sun Jan 7 00:00:00 1990 Reply-To: macy@fmsystm.UUCP (Macy Hallock) Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA [Moderator's Note: This was mailed to the Digest on December 25. It arrived January 5!! The dating above was changed so it will have a couple days life in Usenet. PT] In article <2352@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 587, message 6 of 9 >> I noticed a couple of years ago in PacBell land in Northern CA that >> the 0020 suffix in just about any prefix always went to a loud, >> continuous tone, which has about a 1/2 sec gap every 15 secs or so. >This tone is known in the biz as the "miliwatt". It is a 1004 hz tone >that originates with a power of .001 watt in the CO. It is a standard >so that by dialing that number, a field tech can readily measure the >loss on that particular circuit. There are several other "standard" test lines that are commonly used. Working from memory here are a few...( it's been a few years...) 1004 Hz milliwatt tone (commonly known as 0.0 db tone) Quiet line, terminated Quiet line, unterminated Quiet line, synchronous 1004 Hz low level, -20 db I think Sweep tone, for frequency response test Various progress tones (busy, intercept, etc) for equip. test Responder lines (send them 1004 Hz. 0.0 db and they respond) Dial test lines (pulse and DTMF), respond with beeps is dial is OK ANI line Ringback line (these have been talked to death here) Automatic analysis line (call it, hang up, the line you called from is checked and you are called back with "reading" info) GTE's Fourtel has an option like this, too. Of the above, 1004 and terminated quiet line are the most freqently used. >There was a number that a phone man used once on some PBX trunks that >I had installed that produced the strangest sounds I had ever heard. This was probably a "sweep" line, which uses a set of tones to check the frequency response and phase envelope delay characteristics of a line, usually a special test unit is used at the site. These were often used to setup and test "conditioned" lines and "program" lines. They do sound very odd when you listen to them. These lines often are set up to require a test set to interact with the CO unit, or they won't respond. Calling one with a 2500 set usually gets a simple beep, then they hang up. And then there is automated testing... GTE has several "access" lines here to use the automation, but few of the craftsmen use them. Their common gripe is the Fourtel is "too sensitive" and responds to many type of equipment as "trouble". At one time, GTE dispatched a repairman on every Fourtel ticket...and they found alarms, data sets, fax machines, key sysetms, PBX's and even a few single line phones created tickets... So now the GTE people run them in a more traditional format...each Fourtel ticket is checked by a human on the test board first before it is dispatched. Now they use Fourtel to spot "trends" on groups of lines (like spotting wet cable) primarily, and individual lines are checked individually. A GTE foreman told me that a recent upgrade to the system had solved a lot of these problems. Automated line testing still tends to set off a lot of alarms with "telephone line cut monitors", especially if it's a long loop. We've had to tell GTE to "bypass" several of our customers (it's actually a class mark in the CO database). Ohio Bell line test stuff has caused us few problems. Craftsmen are still resisting the use of automated test and respond lines, though. They still want to talk to a testboard operator. (Gives them time to drink their coffee, while they wait on hold...) I always used to get mad at holding, and have the frame open the pair, and then use my trusty old Simpson 260 along with some 22 volt batteries to clear the pairs.... I'd be very interested in hearing anyone else's info, experiences, and problems with test lines and/or automated testing. 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?) ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Subject: ISDN Sets Date: Sun Jan 7 00:00:00 1990 Reply-To: macy@fmsystm.UUCP (Macy Hallock) Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA [Moderator's Note: This message likewise was delayed 12/25 ==> 1/5. PT] In article <2353@accuvax.nwu.edu> Torsten Dahlkvist writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 587, message 7 of 9 >My question: Does any net.reader know if they're available in the >U.S.? If not: Does anybody know why? My own hypothesis so far is that >they're slowed down by those very same "oddities" of the U.S. ISDN >spec as have deterred us. Knowing the capacity of these Japs I'd >expect US-type TAs shortly unless your own import restrictions prevent >them :-) Fujitsu is doing something in this area, I am told. We do not use/sell their ISDN stuff, but rumors are they are preparing to introduce several new "applications oriented" versions of their ISDN customer site gear. The way I heard it, Bellcore and the CO manufacturer's cannot agree on the CO sofware end of things, and Fujitsu cannot proceed. Since Fujitsu has entered the CO switch market in the US, they could go ahead and introduce these units as proprietary applications, but since ISDN and CO switching are two different Fujitsu US divisions, that seems unlikely. (Note: I am not cross-posting this to talk.rumors, but that's what this is: unsubstantiated gossip, nothing more...) 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: Sat, 6 Jan 90 08:24 EDT From: Steve Forrette Subject: Default Long Distance Carrier Override In a previous posting, John Higdon indicates that a COCOT did not allow him to access AT&T. I don't know when this occurred, but I'm relatively sure that a year or two ago the FCC made a rule that said ALL phones (COCOT's, hotels, etc.) MUST allow the caller to specify the ld carrier of his/her choice (presumably with an 10xxx access prefix). It is a crime to block this (but as we know, some are getting away with highway robbery). (John mentioned that the phone's operator stated that they wouldn't make any money if they allowed this. That rep should know better than that; how much of the calling public in general knows what 10xxx is?) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Jan 90 08:12 EDT From: Steve Forrette Subject: Clarification on COCOT Disconnection A couple of people have indicated that disconnection by PUC upon report of a tariff violation is a bit much. Here's what I meant by my previous posting: If a COCOT is found to be in violation of tariff and the PUC is notified, they should contact the owner, who should fix it IMMEDIATELY (a day or two), or face termination (of the phone, that is). If the phone is being maintained by a company that does such things, and they are notified by PUC that one of their phones is in violation, any reports of the same violation on other phones under their care should result in immediate termination (in this case, shoot first, ask questions later). I agree with the other posters that small operators should not be yanked upon a first violation, which they *may* not have known about. But they should be told in no uncertain terms by PUC that they are expected to be 100% compliant with tariff, and that if they can't handle that, they are in the wrong business. I have a copy of the Pacific Bell documentation and agreement that the operators sign, and the rates they can charge are spelled out quite clearly (examples along with the jargon so non-techies can understand it). The application that they sign also makes quite clear that they are expected to follow *all* of the rules, and that it is *their* responsibility to see to it that it is done. Of course, nobody reads the "fine print", right? The companies who are in the business of putting many phones in various places and maintaining them have no excuse for violations. However, I am willing to grant them a warning on the first instance of a particular violation on any of their phones (aren't I nice?). But, if they fix just that one phone and leave others in violation of the same tariff, it seems quite clear cut that they are *knowingly* in violation of tariff, and IMHO deserve to have all remaining phones that are in violation disconnected without notice. If this happened a couple of times to some of the larger operators, how long do you think it would take before almost all COCOT's were in *complete* compliance? I think that the above guidelines would not be unreasonable to the small operators, yet would go a long way in bringing order to the anarchy that exists today in the COCOT world. ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: DC Area AC Usage Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 23:46:34 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher As other have reported, the {202,301,703} DC metro area is starting to require area codes on intra-area calls to ease the prefix shortage. Prior to this, LD calls to 202 xxx-yyyy worked even if the number was 301 or 703 (IF it was a local DC call) Well that's no longer true -- sometimes. A normal 703-455 (Newington) call cut to intercept today when dialed as 202-455. But a 202 call to a DID (system 85) number in that same building did complete. Now that 85 is linked to several others in the DC area to provide 5 digit internal dialing, etc. This includes one in 202 itself, and another couple in Rosslyn (703) VA. Now, I'd guess at least 50% of the phones in that area are on one or another govt or large private {PBX,Centrex,DID system}. If they extend this reserved prefix treatment to all of them, have they REALLY gained that many prefixes?? 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 ------------------------------ Subject: Cutting the Overhead Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 6 Jan 90 00:32:06 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon Now that the PUC has ruled that Pac*Bell can keep its "excess" profits, the Chronicle reported today that Pacific Telesis will reduce its workforce by 11,000 over the next five years. This amounts to 16% of the total employees. This will be done by offering early retirement or "exit" packages and by not replacing those who quit. They did not, however, rule out the possiblity of layoffs. Company officials insisted that the job cuts will be accomplished without any decline in the quality of telephone service. [I'll leave that one alone!] This amounts to the deepest personel cut by any of the RBOCs. Gee--who is going to keep all that crossbar running? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 12:04 EST From: Curt Larock Subject: Demise of Telephone Museum While in Chicago over the holidays I attempted to visit the Telephone Museum. The museum, alas, has been closed - permanantly. According to the Illinois Bell receptionist the museum was dismantled due to the renovation of the building now underway. Some of the exhibits were given to the Chicago Historical Society, but there are no plans at present to put them on display. [Moderator's Note: The museum closed permanently a couple months ago when the IBT Headquarters Building was in the process of being renovated. The loss was extremely unfortunate. The people at IBT who seemed to have some say-so about whether the museum should be there or not apparently have no interest in any link with the past. Its as though they feel the telephone somehow came into existence 1/1/84 or thereabouts. Their own internal history -- let alone that of the industry in general -- is fascinating, but I guess no one there felt it had anything to do with telephony as we know it today. Even the Telephone Pioneers were given no choice in possibly supporting the museum at some other location. PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Where Can I Buy A Caller*ID Box Now? Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 10:45:31 EST From: John Boteler [Moderator's Note: Mr. Boteler shares a letter with us he recently sent to hsu@eng.umd.edu. PT] Hi, it's me again, the thing that wouldn't leave! Having received the notice from C&P announcing a $16 service charge waiver incentive for activating CLASS features, I decided I can't wait for other promised products to hit the market. My question: where can I buy any Caller*ID box now! Even with its flaws, the one you have would be an acceptable alternative in the interim. I haven't seen nor heard of any others, anywhere. Someone mentioned Sears, Roebuck, & Co. the other day; they must be cheaper than Hello Direct's $100 price tag! p.s. I talked to a ham operator named 'John' the other day who seems to be into computers at UM@CP. In fact, half the ham radio club there seems to be. I'll check to see if we know some people in common. Thanx now, til then! Bote Common Sense Computing 703-241-7818 NCN NudesLine 703-241-BARE -- VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #11 *****************************   Date: Sun, 7 Jan 90 1:32:04 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #12 Message-ID: <9001070132.aa19331@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 7 Jan 90 01:30:15 CST Volume 10 : Issue 12 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Obscene Callers Plague MCI 800 Subscriber (Macy Hallock) One Solution to 800 Wrong Numbers (Lars J. Poulsen) Marking COCOTS Out of Order (Brian Kantor) A Bad Time to Fall Asleep (TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu Date: Sat Jan 6 15:59:10 1990 Subject: Obscene Callers Plague MCI 800 Subscriber Organization: F M Systems Inc. Medina, Ohio USA In article <2611@accuvax.nwu.edu>: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 7, message 1 of 10 ...discussion of wrong numbers on 800 lines and effects thereof.... >Late word: One of the last callers, after questioning, has informed me >that *my* number is listed as Hilton reservations in their local >phonebook. I'm going to get a copy of that book. If this is true, I am >really going to be unhappy paying $30 because of a Pac*Bell mistake. >And who do we refer *my* old number to, Hilton or me? We had a similar problem which still haunts me to this day...we have had to refer the whole thing to the attorney, in fact. When the OCC's were first starting up 800 numbers, I worked with my local MCI rep and F M Systems was assigned (800) 727-3000... (real close to 723-3000, which we have had for almost 20 years as out local number...a story in itself)...and I was real proud of myself 'cause good 800's are hard to get. Of course no good deed goes unpunished. And almost immediatly we began to get "strange" phone calls. On answering the 800 line, our receptionist would get people (always a male voice) with requests like: "I'd like a blonde" and "I want someone who likes to play..." and worse. This went on for weeks. On most days we would get three to five times as many "odd" calls as legitmate calls. The "odd" callers would be strangely unresponsive and even rude if you asked questions about where they got the number and why they were calling. I contacted MCI and requested assistance in this...they were no help. I called a friend at MCI (informally) and asked him to help...he ran a few checks and told me the calls were from all over the country, but mainly from a few major cities (we have most of our customers in Northern Ohio), so this was a little bit of help. We now knew that we were not being "pranked" by one person. One day my receptionist got one of the callers to give him the number he was calling by acting like an intercept operator (she was getting very tired of this by now, too). Turns out that the number was (800) 727-3300. I called this number and asked a few questions...what I got was basically an answering service that did not want to answer my questions...but the name of the service was Date-Line. Well, I was getting fed up with this, too. So I called the 3300 number back and used my best "intelligent, helpful telephone repairman" personality and then pointedly asked for a supervisor. I was given a local number in the 718 area code as a local business office number for Date-Line. After some further investigation (the details of which I will leave a an excerise for the student) here is what I found: The number (800) 727-3300 (note the one digit difference from (800) 727-3000) was being advertised in "Village Voice" and several "underground" newspapers as Date-Line, a dating service for those with "unusual" requirments. While I did not get into the exact details of the nature and working of Date-Line, I now knew what was happening and why...this was the next best thing to having my number one digit away from a sex line (or kinky pizza shop, I guess) At least I knew why the callers on these wrong numbers acted so strangely. And why they had made several specific suggestions to my receptionist. About this time Ruth, our receptionist, had ceased to see the humor and educational value in all this...probably brought on by the male caller who responded to Ruth's polite greeting with a husky "I'm wearing panty hose..." Ruth's reply was a rather brusque "Well, so am I!" and she slammed down the phone...and screamed. Well, I had talked to MCI about this three or four times. They did not even have the courtesy to suggest changing our number (much less doing anything to Date-Line) until I called to drop the service....All my accounts with them, as matter of fact. I contended they had an obligation to me to assist...they should not assign heavily advertised, much less sexually oriented numbers adjacent to normal businesses. So, two years later, they still contend that I owe them several thousand dollars more than I paid (I paid one-third of the bill, probably much more than my actual business usage). They even agreed to settle with me on that amount at one point, and then sent the account to collection...a year later. Needless to say, they'll have to fight for it, especailly after agreeing to settle. I can tolerate mistakes, but not lies. This is another instance of a larger company using tariffs to shield itself from irresponsible behavior. Pity....until this, I had encouraged my customers to use MCI, because I thought they were more innovative and agressive and more service oriented than their competitors. Well, take note, and beware...we now advise our customers on several points about 800 numbers: - Do not commit to the number until it is installed and you have lived with it for a couple months. This is the only way to prevent this nonsense. - Get a reverse 800 listing from the carrier to see who your 800 neighbors are. I know the company who accidently got the number that was 800 F*CKYOU....I now use a program I wrote check the cute letter combinations that arise. - Place test calls from various cities regularly. Routing problems do occur... - Be prepared to eat wrong number charges. You will get neither credit nor sympathy from your carrier. - Ask for a "tough" number, not an easy one. You will have less problems. - Consider detailed billing service, which gives the oringinating numbers of the callers on the billings. Very helpful for tracking abuse and the marketing types love the demographics they can derive from this. - Always expect the bill to be bigger than you think... usage always rises on 800 numbers. It's the old WATS is free battle... Its a shame I could not post the audio log tapes of some of the calls we got...maybe we should sell them to Playboy Channel for one of their comedy shows. And there is no truth to the rumor that I had this number reassigned to John Higdon's or Dave Lesher's home phones...they are responisible for their own weird calls. :) 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?) ------------------------------ From: Lars J Poulsen Subject: One Solution To 800 Wrong Numbers Reply-To: Lars J Poulsen Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California Date: Sun, 7 Jan 90 06:02:20 GMT While "wrong number" calls at odd hours are a great nuisance to residences, they are no big deal to businesses. Maybe the solution is to move towards separation of residential number space and business number space. Most people expect an 800-number to be a business number, and may be less careful when dialing than they would for a regular number. How about assigning a separate NPA for residential use ? 810, anyone ? With new technology, and lots of small long-distance carriers to compete, residential 800-service is going to boom, and I think it would be better to have separate prefixes for residential and business than to have multiple mixed NPAs. / 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: Brian Kantor Subject: Marking COCOTS Out of Order Date: 7 Jan 90 06:10:33 GMT Reply-To: Brian Kantor Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. I wonder if perhaps the best solution to noncompliant COCOTs isn't to just hang an OUT-OF-ORDER sign on all that you encounter, with perhaps a written explanation of what's wrong with the phone. I suspect COCOT owners will pay attention to an empty coinbox more quickly than almost any other thing. And it's much more polite than repairing the phone with an axe. - Brian [Moderator's Note: But the proprietor may come along and rip the sign down. Better to use some *very sticky* pre-printed (office copy machine?) labels which say "Out of Order Due to Misprogrammed Routing/Rates" which you slap on the phone across the coin slot area. Make sure you cover the coin slot. Once you have thus affixed the notice, be sure to visit the location in a day or two to see if the phone is still marked out of service, or if some creature came out of the swamp and scraped off the notice; if so, you will need to affix a new sticker after checking the phone to see if it is now 'repaired'. Minimum repair requirements will be considered met if dialing 10288-0 produces you know who, and if dialing a sample 800 number produces a 'thank you' without demanding a deposit. If you have the time and money to stand there and perform further diagnostics, please do. In your new role as trouble-shooter, you may also wish to get cozy with the manufacturer of the COCOT as a potential buyer of several hundred units. With the installer's manual at hand, perhaps you can liberate -- uh, I mean reprogram the firmware yourself. :) PT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 0:31:10 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: A Bad Time to Fall Asleep There were simpler times in the history of telephony, and simpler problems to deal with. During the several years I lived in the Hyde Park neighorhood on the south side of Chicago during the 1960's, my favorite neighbor was Lauri Fermi, widow of Enrico Fermi, known for his work on the Atomic Bomb. Mrs. Fermi and I lived in the same apartment building on East 56th Street, directly across the street from the Museum of Science and Industry, and we chatted and dined together frequently. In the fall of 1965, on the occassion of the twentieth anniversary of the completion and first testing of the bomb, Mrs. Fermi told a fascinating story of that summer day, twenty years earlier. Her comments were tape-recorded, and are transcribed below: "The testing was of course kept closely under wraps, you know, the government was awfully sensitive about it. All the papers were giving reports that a monster-like weapon was in the final testing stages, but some of the newspaper accounts were ridiculous. Enrico was given his orders only two days earlier as to exactly where we were to be stationed in the test zone area. Even the local people in New Mexico were told as little as possible; I think the governor and some state officials were told, and sworn to secrecy. "In Alamogordo, we checked into the hotel then drove out to where Enrico had been assigned. It was set up that the scientists were deployed over about a two hundred square mile area; we were about fifteen miles from the target. "The test was set for 4:30 AM the next morning, so we returned to the hotel and went to bed early. We got up at 3 the next morning and drove out to the location, since it took about an hour to set up the test gear Enrico would use....I suppose it was about 4:15, when a fierce rain storm developed. It lasted only five or ten minutes, but was quite a downpour, and Enrico remarked he hoped nothing would go wrong with the test because of it. "Well, the time came and went, everything was quiet, no bomb, nothing. About 4:45, Enrico decided we had better return to town and see what was what, and we drove back. He wanted to make a phone call and see if the test had been cancelled or not, and the only place open in town at that time of night was the hotel where we had stayed. There was a payphone in the lobby, and Enrico went in the booth, but he didn't get anywhere. I heard him flashing the hook and swearing softly, then he came out and said he could not get the operator. (Alamogordo had manual service at that time, just a small switchboard.) "We got in the car, and Enrico had me drive while he leaned out the window and kept looking overhead at the phone wires. He'd have me turn down one street, then turn back up another street, and finally he said pull the car over and stop. "Where we stopped was in front of a house on one of the residential streets there, but what looked odd to me was on the side of the house, there were hundreds of wires converging, coming in from a dozen telephone poles which all seemed to meet in the back yard or on the side of the house. And all these wires came down out of the sky you might say, and went in the side of the house in a big bundle. "The front porch light was burning, and when we went up on the front porch, the front door was open, but the screen door was latched from the inside. A radio was playing music very softly, and the room was rather dim with just a single light burning. A switchboard sat on one side of the room, and the signal lights on it were flashing off and on like Christmas tree lights. Over by the other corner was a sofa, and a woman was laying on the sofa, obviously sound asleep. This was right about five o'clock, I guess, or a few minutes after. "Enrico banged on the screen door a few times, then kicked it once or twice with his foot. All of a sudden, the lady woke up; she looked over at us very startled, standing at the door; she looked over at the switchboard; looked back at us; jumped up and rushed over to the board and sat down, pausing long enough to light a cigarette and she started frantically answering all the flashing signals. "We got back in the car, and drove out to where we had been before. We were there about five minutes, and the test was conducted. Everything the poets have said about the brilliance and beauty of that first explosion was true.... later, we got together with the others who had been assigned there and found out that it wasn't the rain that delayed things; it was that woman asleep; you see, the main people responsible were linked by phones through Alamogordo; they had to coordinate what they were doing and sychronize their work. All of them got the same thing on the phone we got: no answer from the operator for 45 minutes! "Really, I can't blame the lady much. The whole summer of 1945 was just horrid. When we arrived the day before, the temperature was over a hundred; the poor lady probably couldn't sleep at all that day from the heat, and still had to go to work that night exhausted. Then the rain cooled things off twenty degrees in fifteen minutes; that sofa was just too tempting for her; and probably every other night she only got two or three calls in the whole eight hour shift.... "No one ever said anything to her or the woman who owned the phone exchange there, so I suspect to this day, twenty years later, she doesn't realize she was responsible for causing the first atomic bomb explosion in the world to be delayed for a little over an hour....but as I think back now, probably someone should have told her ahead of time about that very special morning, and sworn her to secrecy until the test was completed. "When I was there in town two weeks ago for the (twentieth anniversary) reunion, just from curiosity I went past that house; it took me awhile to remember where it was. No wires anywhere like before; and I asked someone there if the phone exchange was there. He told me the 'telephone lady' had been gone for years; Bell or someone had bought it and moved it to a building in the downtown area." ===================== End of Transcription ======================= And that was Laura Fermi talking about the summer of '45 in the desert of New Mexico, in the fall of '65 at a dinner. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #12 *****************************   Date: Sun, 7 Jan 90 2:23:11 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: Texas OPC/SWBT Message-ID: <9001070223.aa27904@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 7 Jan 90 02:17:00 CST Special: Texas OPC/SWBT Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Preface and Introductory Remarks (William Degnan) Texas OPC Responds to Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. (William Degnan) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 05 Jan 90 19:06:00 CST From: William Degnan Subject: Preface and Introductory Remarks >William Degnan has provided a lengthy press release from the Texas >Office of Public Counsel (the rate-setting organization in that state) To clarify: The Ofice of Public Utility Counsel (OPC) was created by the Public Utility Regulatory Act -- the same legislation which created the rate-setting organization-- the Public Utility Commission. The OPC: "(1) shall assess the impact of utility rate changes and other regulatory actions on residential consumers in the State of Texas and shall be an advocate in its own name of positions most advantageous to a substantial number of such consumers as determined by the counsellor; "(2) may appear or intervene as a matter of right as a party or otherwise on behalf of residential consumers, as a class, in all proceedings before the commission; "(3) may appear or intervene as a matter of right as a party or otherwise on behalf of small commercial consumers, as a class, in all proceedings where it is deemed by the counsel that small commercial consumers are in need of representation; "(4) may initiate or intervene as a matter of right or otherwise appear in any judicial proceedings involving or arising out of any action taken by an administrative agency in a proceeding in which the counsel was authorized to appear;" (and so on) The Texas OPC initiated docket 8585 which is a general inquiry into the reasonableness of SWB's rates and tariffs. This is a departure from "tradition" where rate cases result from the Telco's request for a rate increase. SWB was preparing to ask that rates be frozen and that they be given additional "incentives" to modernize the network. OPC and PUC staff testimony in 8585 has called for massive rate decreases and refunds. Regards, Bill Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com !wdegnan@at&tmail.com Communications Network Solutions | William.Degnan@telenet.com P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766 | voice: 512 323-9383 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Jan 90 3:39:00 CST From: William Degnan Subject: Texas OPC Responds to Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. The following information was received from The Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel (OPC), and is distributed for your information/comments. PRESS RELEASE Contact: C. Kingsbery Ottmers (512)475-3700 PUBLIC COUNSEL SAYS SOUTHWESTERN BELL LOCAL TELEPHONE CHARGES SHOULD BE REDUCED Newly-released plans provided by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWB) confirm that the telephone utility's rates should be reduced substantially, according to testimony filed today by the Office of Public Utility Counsel (OPC), a state agency which represents residential ratepayers. The latest testimony filed by OPC accountant Randy M. Allen evaluates the effect of SWB's recently)released 5 year Business Plan on OPC's previously recommended revenue reduction of $595 million. SWB had claimed that its latest plan and its testimony based on that plan effectively rebutted much of the testimony filed by various intervenors. After reviewing this newly avail- able information, OPC accountant Randy M. Allen testifies that the new information substantiates his conclusion that SWB's revenues should be reduced at least $595 million. Earlier testi- mony filed by five other OPC experts suggested that the reduction should be used to reduce rates for each major service category by approximately 16.9%. For example, a 16% reduction to the local service charge would reduce the average local rate from $9.69 to $8.14. Those previ- ous filings included the testimony of Washington D.C. economists Dr. Marvin Kahn and Dr. Charles Johnson, Boston engineer Dr. Frank Collins, and OPC economic analysts Clarence Johnson and Dr. Carol Szerszen. The determination that SWB's revenues can be reduced was the culmination of a major investigation by Mr. Allen and other OPC experts in conjunction with two major consulting firms that specialize in telecommunications economics. The testimony is part of the Public Utility Commission's hearings established to determine whether SWB is earning excess profits. SWB responded to the hearing by proposing a plan that would minimize rate reductions. Referring to SWB's so)called "Texas First" plan, Ms. C. Kingsbery Ottmers, the Public Counsel, said "the phone company's insistence on keeping its monopoly profits should really be called `South- western Bell First'". She said that traditional regulatory controls on monopolistic profits provide the best opportunity to further the economic development of Texas. "Our proposal will put money back in the pockets of consumers and businesses throughout the state," she pointed out. "Under SWB's plan, excess profits would be funneled to the tele- phone company's St. Louis-based holding company, Southwestern Bell Corporation," the public counsel said. "Contrary to SWB's self-serving description of `Texas First', the corporate game plan is to diversify into competitive enterprises all over the world and that means siphoning off excess profits from its Texas monopoly and investing in businesses from Australia to Europe", she continued. OPC's recommended revenue level includes suffi- cient funds for SWB to upgrade the Texas telecommunication system -- an investment that the utility believes will cost $340 mil- lion. Ms. Ottmers stated that economically justified improve- ments to the telephone network should be performed -- and that high-tech services which are made possible by the modernization should pay for the upgrades. Ms. Ottmers stated "the quality telephone service can be enhanced, the telephone equipment throughout the state, including rural areas, can be improved, the rates can be cut by almost 17%, and the Company would still make a totally reasonable profit". She noted that Southwestern Bell Telephone Company did not offer to provide service improvements in rural areas, until their overearnings were questioned by the Public Utility Commission. "Public utilities are obligated to invest in facilities that are necessary to provide reasonable and efficient service -- that is why they earn a profit", she said. "Now SWB wants permission to spend ratepayers -- not investors' -- money on its investment, in addition to earning excessive profits". OPC is particularly critical of SWB's recent claim that proposed rate reductions would force them to lay off employees and cut service. Ms. Ottmers said it is important to "distinguish sound business plans from pure public relations". OPC points out that its proposed revenue reduction includes sufficient expense levels to meet currently expected payroll. "Bell is trying to confuse the public", she said. "The telephone company does not point out that 5,700 employee reductions occurred since its last rate case -- without any rate reductions". Ottmers also branded as "preposterous" Bell's claim that a reve- nue reduction is illegal. According to the Public Counsel, SWB's version of "doublespeak" ignores the purpose of regulation. "SWB makes the incredible claim that regulation is intended to promote excess profit rather than the fair and reasonable profit required by law", Ms. Ottmers responded. She also denies that revenue reductions will reduce SWB's level of service. She said that traditional regulation operates to calculate revenue required to cover reasonable expenses plus a reasonable return on investment. "If rates are reduced to cover the utility's cost, including a fair profit margin, and the telephone company responds by cutting service, that means the telephone company is diverting funds required for utility service into its excess profits", Ms. Ott- mers said. "I do not think the Commission should stand for that". OPC's testimony defends traditional ratemaking as a sound ap- proach which equally protects ratepayers and the utility's share- holders. "It is ironic that SWB argues, on the one hand, that traditional regulation is outmoded, while at the same time admit- ting that traditional regulation has allowed SWB and Bell compa- nies throughout the United States to offer quality telephone service at affordable rates", Ms. Ottmers added. "Ratemaking" as practiced in Texas is mandated by Texas law, which was passed by the Legislature of Texas, according to OPC. Hearings in the SWB case are expected to start in January of next year. -30- FACT SHEET: TEXAS FIRST 1. Is SWB'S "TEXAS FIRST" PROPOSAL A GOOD THING FOR TEXAS? Without a revenue reduction, Bell's profits will be far too high to be called "reasonable". Many of the Texas First service changes have merit. Incentive rate regulation is not a prerequi- site for technological advancements. A modern telephone system is possible under traditional regulation. 2. IF WE DO NOT ACCEPT SWB'S TEXAS FIRST, WITH SWB'S PRICE TAG, ARE WE CHOOSING STAGNATION - AS SWB CLAIMS - INSTEAD OF GROWTH AND PROGRESS? Of course not. SWB's current profits will be far too high. SWB is understandably trying to hold on to as much of the excess as possible. Their claims of less growth and progress, and even of reductions in present levels of service, are nothing more than scare tactics. SWB is a monopoly, and the fundamental purpose of utility regulation is to prevent the telephone company from extracting monopoly profits out of Texas consumers. 3. THE COMMISSION STAFF AND VARIOUS INTERVENORS ARE PROPOSING REVENUE REDUCTIONS OF $392 TO $702 MILLION. WITH CUTS THAT DEEP, WON'T BELL HAVE TO CUT SERVICE AND LARGE NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES IN ORDER TO COMPETE FOR INVESTORS, AS BELL CLAIMS? Not at all. In rate cases at the PUC, Bell's rates are set at a level to pay for all its legitimate business expenses necessary to provide reliable service to its customers. That includes new digital equipment, where required, and all necessary employees. In addition, the rates are set to include a reasonable profit to the Company (a return on the utility's investment), so that investors will continue to invest in the utility. The utility's federal income tax on that profit is also paid by the ratepayers, to make sure the utility nets enough profit. The point is this: Bell has no good reason to cut any necessary service or employee, because the rates are set high enough to cover all legitimate expenses, plus a reasonable profit. 4. IF THE RATES ARE SET TO GIVE BELL ONLY A REASONABLE PROFIT, WHY ARE THEY MAKING EXCESS PROFITS NOW? There are several reasons. Bell's present rates were set about four years ago. Since that time, the federal income tax rate has been reduced from 46% to 34%. Ratepayers have continued to pay Bell for those taxes at the 46% rate, even though the most Bell would pay is at the 34% level. Some of Bell's operating expenses have increased and some have decreased since rates were last set in 1986. For example, Bell has already reduced its employment level by 5,700 employees. OPC has recommended an increase in some expenses and a decrease in other expenses to arrive at a total level of legitimate ex- penses less than the level requested by SWB. SWB's rate base (remaining investment) has also changed, and the resulting cost of capital, including the cost of borrowing money, is less than the cost at the time of SWB's last rate case. Because the rates were set high enough to cover taxes and other expenses no longer being paid by Bell, Bell's revenues are now too high. No matter whether Bell uses the excess revenue to pay for something not required to provide good service, or uses it as excess profits for shareholders, the result cannot be justified so long as Bell remains a protected monopoly. 5. SWB SEEMS TO THINK THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH TRADITIONAL RATEMAKING. IS THERE? Traditional ratemaking provides a reasonable profit for utilities that provide reliable service. Sound ratemaking principles and state laws balance the public interest by not allowing SWB to earn excessive profits at the expense of Texas citizens. Texas First is SWB's attempt to keep its excessive profits. In fact, most of Texas First can be accomplished under traditional rate- making. 6. IS SWB RIGHT WHEN THEY SAY THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC UTILITY COUNSEL IS DISREGARDING TEXAS LAW BY RECOMMENDING THESE CUTS IN BELL'S PROFITS? That claim by SWB must have been made from anger rather than reason. The claim is preposterous. This office has no reason at all to disregard the law, and it does not disregard it. It is Bell which would like to avoid the mandates of Texas regulatory law - and the utility regulatory laws in Texas are based squarely on traditional ratemaking. Any contention that utility regula- tion is intended to promote, rather than restrain, monopoly profits disregards the historic antecedents of regulation. 7. SWB SAYS THE RATES IN TEXAS ARE 20% BELOW THE NATIONAL AVER- AGE. DOES NOT THAT SUGGEST WE ARE ACTUALLY GETTING A GOOD DEAL NOW ON OUR TELEPHONE RATES IN TEXAS? Bell is also claiming Texas rates are bargains because the typi- cal monthly bill is less than the cost of a pizza. Those com- parisons are not very relevant. If SWB's claim were correct, then it is also true that SWB's costs are more than 20% below the national average. Of course, too many factors prevent valid comparisons of that type. The way utility rates are set under traditional ratemaking, and under Texas law, is to set the rates based on what it costs that utility to serve its customers. Anything more is a gift from the telephone customers to SWB. 8. DOES THE CURRENT LAW ALLOW FOR THE COMPETITIVE NATURE OF SWB'S BUSINESS? Yes, S.B. 444 has been incorporated into the Public Utility Regulatory Act and rules promulgated by the Commission. SWB has not been hesitant to use these rules and other Commission proce- dures to implement many new services. Public Counsel has not opposed implementation of these new services so long as they comply with the law and monopolized services, e.g., basic serv- ice, are not used to subsidize them. OPC's concern is that the new services be fair to SWB's customers and competitors. 9. DOES SWB NEED A FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO PROVIDE RELIABLE SERVICE? No. SWB, as a regulated utility, has a moral and ethical respon- sibility to provide adequate and reliable service at the least possible cost with regulatory constraints. After all, SWB is in business to provide service to and support the citizens of Texas, not the other way around. SWB would earn a reasonable return under OPC's proposal that is sufficient to attract investment capital. _Reasonable_ return constitutes adequate incentive to conduct business properly. 10. HAVE OTHER STATES ADOPTED INCENTIVE RATE PLANS SIMILAR TO TEXAS FIRST? While many Bell Telephone Companies have proposed similar plans, most state regulatory commission have only adopted such plans after ordering significant rate reductions and changes similar to those proposed by OPC and other intervenors. =========================================================================== Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com !wdegnan@at&tmail.com Communications Network Solutions | William.Degnan@telenet.com P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766 | voice: 512 323-9383 William Degnan -- via The Q Continuum (FidoNet Node 1:382/31) UUCP: ...!rpp386!tqc!39!wdegnan ARPA: wdegnan@f39.n382.z1.FIDONET.ORG [Moderator's Note: My thanks to Mr. Degnan for passing this along and for his efforts in producing 'digest-ready' copy. Special issues of the Digest are prepared without number referencing so that they can be kept in your reference files without an interupption in regular Digest numbering. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: Texas OPC/SWBT *****************************   Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 1:20:59 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #13 Message-ID: <9001080121.aa05596@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 8 Jan 90 01:20:13 CST Volume 10 : Issue 13 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: 976 in Massachusetts (John Higdon) Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (William Degnan) Re: Obscene Callers Plague MCI 800 Subscriber (John Higdon) Re: Phone Frustration (Bernie Cosell) Re: Phone Frustration (Peter da Silva) Re: Area 908 Lives (Tad Cook) Re: Enterprise Numbers? Zenith Numbers? (Paul Fuqua) Re: The Operator's Beep (Jim Gottlieb) Re: Where Can I Buy A Caller*ID Box Now? (George H. Martin) Re: Texas OPC/SWBT (John Higdon) 1990 Area Code Directory Available (TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: 976 in Massachusetts Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 6 Jan 90 22:30:27 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon In article <2628@accuvax.nwu.edu> eli@pws.bull.com writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 8, message 7 of 7 >The Massachusetts DPU has apparently just given the OK for 976 (and >more) tariffs. Also, 940 tariffs for "adult" messages. >Initially, all telephones will be blocked from making 940 calls. Excuse me, but how is a "940" provider supposed to make any money if no one can call his number? Since the whole premise of 976, 900, "940", etc., is to allow casual, impulsive calls and provide a surefire billing mechanism, who would bother setting up a service that would require clientele to go through elaborate preparations in order to make calls? >Blocking for 940 numbers, as well as 1-900 numbers will initially be >available for free. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Unlike 900 & 976 which are by default open and blocked on request, the 940 numbers will be blocked by default and opened on request. The 940 numbers will generally be explicit -- very explicit -- in sexual content, and subscribers who want to avail themselves of the phone-sex service will need to specifically ask to have their lines authorized. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Jan 90 18:04:00 CST From: William Degnan Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid In an article of <5 Jan 90 03:48:18 GMT>, ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org (David Dodell) writes: DD>AT&T ad...trying to call Phoenix but getting Fuji instead. DD>...ad is just plain stupid... I wonder if this is a carefully targeted ad? I know _I_ feel insulted by it, but are they looking to gain (or retain) the business of those people who aren't bright enough to direct-dial a call to Phoenix? I object to the "slice of fear" advertising that AT&T uses. I rarely meet people who regard the LEC or AT&T as some kind of protector from technical and financial adversity. Would AT&T continue to run these ads if they didn't work? Would reliance on fact-laden ads place them in a more favorable position? Is it an outward sign that AT&T still thinks it is 1959? Regards, Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com !wdegnan@at&tmail.com Communications Network Solutions | William.Degnan@telenet.com P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766 | voice: 512 323-9383 UUCP: ...!rpp386!tqc!39!wdegnan ARPA: wdegnan@f39.n382.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Obscene Callers Plague MCI 800 Subscriber Date: 7 Jan 90 11:35:28 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon fmsystm!macy@cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu writes: > - Be prepared to eat wrong number charges. You will get > neither credit nor sympathy from your carrier. I feel fortunate in this instance. My AT&T 800 number (which is administered by Pac*Bell) has had it's share of wrong numbers and billing errors. I have had no trouble convincing Pac*Bell reps that I am fully aware of the amount and origin of legitimate traffic on the line and they have not hesitated to remove any and all charges that do not correspond to my known usage. BTW, the 800 number I *really* wanted was an MCI prefix. I gave it up because I wanted AT&T. After reading Macy's narrative, I'm glad I did. 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: Phone Frustration Date: 7 Jan 90 15:22:51 GMT john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: }peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: }> Well, he could just not provide a public telephone at his place of }> business at all. That's a valid option. Lots of places do that. I'd }> much rather have a little problem with a privately owned COCOT than }> have to put up with "no, we don't allow phone calls... but the }> laundromat across the street there has a public phone: there's a }> traffic signal a block east". }What you seem to be saying here is "better a COCOT than nothing at }all." Well, that's debatable, but not an issue. I can't speak for your }area, but here in the Bay Area the onslaught of COCOTs did not mean an }increase of public phones, but the wholesale replacement of Pac*Bell }phones with COCOTs. This is my main complaint. If all the *real* }public phones remained and COCOTs showed up where there had been no }pay phones before, your argument would be valid. I don't understand quite how this applies at all. Are the various RBOCs under some obligation to provide "public phones"? Could not *all* public phones, telco and cocot alike, all go away tomorrow if the various owners/operators chose? There are two kinds of pay phones in the world as far as I can tell --- really public ones [which means NOT on private property: like an outside phone booth on the corner] and public-service ones [where some private person has made arrangements to have a publicly accessible phone on their property]. For the latter, much as I despise COCOTs, I'm not sure I have anything to say about it, just as Peter points out. As for the former ones, I don't have a clue if there is some real set of public regulations requiring some density of those suckers or not, but it seems to be the only place where we can legitimately have a gripe: if there *is* such a standard, then I think it is exactly right that we bitch if there are not an adequate number of the really-public phones of a "socially reasonable" type, either real-local-telco, or COCOT with rational firmware. If there is NOT such a standard [or if the reality is that there are already "enough" of the public-public phones in the area], then there's not much to complain about [other than to try to get the standards changed]. In either event, I don't think we should have any particular way to tell the local hardware store what sort of phone they must/cannot provide. }> The guy's providing a service. There's no law saying he has to make a }> phone available to the next guy who walks in off the street. }No, but the Pac*Bell phone he used to have was somewhat superior to }the COCOT which took its place. His shiney new COCOT may cough up more }money for him, but it is certainly not as much service for his }customers. Sounds like the American way. Why should he have one type of phone service or another for YOUR convenience? It pisses me off that I can't get "New Scientist" at the local news stand, but that's life --- he runs his business as he sees fit, and I take my business where I think my needs are best served. How else would you have it? /bernie\ ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Phone Frustration Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Sun, 7 Jan 90 14:36:53 GMT > I was interested to read Peter da Silva's comments about my posting > regarding disconnection of COCOTs. At the time that I wrote it, I was > a bit concerned that my posting sounded a little heavy handed. Yeh, a little. :-> I also seem to have gotten you confused with John Higdon. > Actually, I have tried communication with the owners of the offending > COCOT phones....but get nowhere. That's different, then. I withdraw my complaint with you. I still think that there's a general problem with people shooting from the hip and calling the law in long before it's reasonable. Legal action should be a last resort, not the first thing you consider. First, I apologise for confusing you with the person who really posted the article, but... > Invariable answer: "I don't know anything about the phone. You'll have > to call the number on the card." Card says call "211". Reaches > disconnect recording, doesn't answer, or reaches answering machine. Then you've got a reason to call the PUC. But my point is that there was no indication that the person involved had made such an attempt. And that's what I was complaining about. > Oh, and I wish you would avoid the phrase, "people like you"... Again, I publicly apologise for the misunderstanding. Thinking back on it, what with I remember of your stand on Caller ID and similar subjects, getting lumped in with people like that must have really hurt. _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ Also or \_.--._/ v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-' ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Area Code 908 Lives Date: 7 Jan 90 20:57:06 GMT I tried calling 908 from my office (served by GTE in WA state) and got nowhere. Also my Sprint line at home will not accept 908 calls. I have the Bellcore letter announcing 908, but it seems to have a LONG period of permissive dialling...til June 1991! When I called GTE about it, they claimed that there was NO 908 area code. When I read the Bellcore letter, I was passed to a supervisor who claimed that New Jersey Bell had decided not to implement it "just yet"! Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Jan 90 18:23:42 CST From: Paul Fuqua Subject: Re: Enterprise Numbers? Zenith Numbers? Date: Thursday, December 14, 1989 12:26pm (CST) From: mjs at mozart.att.com (Martin J Shannon) Subject: Enterprise Numbers? Zenith Numbers? [Moderator's Note: Enterprise and Zenith were the same difference. 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. PT] The only Enterprise numbers I see any more in Dallas are the ones on the "don't dig here, there's cable/pipes underground" signs that seems to be everywhere. Most recently, there was one on the telephone junction box (or whatever) attached to my old apartment. Since it was built in 1985, I guess they're not phasing Enterprise out very quickly for their own stuff. Paul Fuqua pf@csc.ti.com {smu,texsun,cs.utexas.edu,rice}!ti-csl!pf Texas Instruments Computer Science Center PO Box 655474 MS 238, Dallas, Texas 75265 ------------------------------ From: Jim Gottlieb Subject: Re: The Operator's Beep Date: 8 Jan 90 04:35:19 GMT Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles All operator systems provide an audible warning to the operator that a new call has arrived. Only the AT&T TSPS lets the caller hear the beep. I have always liked it, but I'm not even sure it was intentional. Most BOCs these days are installing Northern Telecom's TOPS (their answer to TSPS). TOPS does not let the customer hear the beep. It's as simple as that. Jim Gottlieb E-Mail: or or V-Mail: (213) 551-7702 Fax: 478-3060 The-Real-Me: 824-5454 ------------------------------ From: "George H. Martin" Subject: Re: Where Can I Buy A Caller*ID Box Now? Date: 8 Jan 90 05:27:31 GMT Reply-To: "George H. Martin" Organization: Homer Dodge Network Systems, Inc. I should be able to post information about a real nice Caller*ID display unit very soon. If I receive permission to advertise this unit, I will post the ordering information, etc. This unit stores the last 64 calls (including the date and time) and will sell for under $100 ($70-90 ?). Give me a week. I am also considering having a unit developed that will provide an RS-232 interface, for connection to a processor or printer (i.e., ASCII). I would like to here from anyone who would be interested in this capability. George H. Martin uunet!hodgenet!georgemartin Homer Dodge Network Systems, Inc. +1 201 454 3333 Moderator's Note: Although the Digest is not usually a forum for advertising commercial products, some definitive information about sources for purchasing the boxes would be welcome. PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Texas OPC/SWBT Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 7 Jan 90 21:31:03 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon That whole preceding with SWB sounds very familiar. Looks like Pac*Bell started something with this new breed of "deregulation". It's nice to know that Pac*Bell is a pioneer in something: screwing the public. Unfortunately, the CPUC bought Pac*Bell's package and went the SWB proposal one better. In addition to the already exhorbitant rates that Pac*Bell charges, they are allowed to *raise* their rates AUTOMATICALLY every year. No questions asked. Notice how they got their SWB-style regulation package through the commission and THEN they announced the elimination of 11,000 jobs. So now Pac*Bell's excessive profits turn into obscene profits. Oh, in case you doubt, check Pacific Telesis' last few quartarly reports. It will blow your socks off. They will have plenty of capital to explore new international ventures, all courtesy of the California ratepayer. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 1:11:32 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: 1990 Area Code Directory Available The 1990 edition of AT&T's 'Area Code Handbook' is now available. The most recent edition shows communities in area code 708. In addition, this publication gives brief information on country codes involved in international dialing, a map, and some other interesting items. The price is $2.95 each, plus applicable state tax . You may send your check, or request a charge to your VISA, Master Card or American Express. When you write, ask for publication Select Code 999-600-111. You might also ask for your free copy of the International Calling Guide, which lists very detailed instructions for placing/receiving calls from other countries. Write to: AT&T Customer Information Center Marketing Department Post Office Box 19901 Indianapolis, IN 46219-0901 Orders must be prepaid, or charged to credit cards. For credit card orders only, you may phone 1-800-432-6600. Allow about two weeks for delivery by mail. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #13 *****************************   Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 23:40:52 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #14 Message-ID: <9001082340.aa03693@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 8 Jan 90 22:40:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 14 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Free Local Phone Calls (John Higdon) Re: Marking COCOTS Out of Order (John Higdon) Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (Tad Cook) Re: 976 in Massachusetts (John R. Levine) Re: 976 in Massachusetts (Wolf Paul) Re: Controversy Over Area Code 213 Split (Carl Moore) Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (Brian Matthews) Re: TV News Mates With Cellular Phones (Tad Cook) Texas BBS/SWBT News in Alt.Cousard (was: Modem Tax) (Blake Farenthold) Another Meaning for 'NYNEX' (Edward Greenberg) Re: Phone Frustration (John Higdon) Definition of "IT"? (Will Martin) SDL Diagrams for LAPB (Mike Gertsman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Free Local Phone Calls Date: 7 Jan 90 11:05:58 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon alonzo@microsoft.UUCP (Alonzo Gariepy) writes: > This also bears on the claim that a COCOT shouldn't charge ten cents > for 800 calls because they don't cost the owner anything. > Ridiculous!! The costs of a tollfree call are the same as a local call > to the owner: a monthly line cost and paying the lease on the phone. Not true. COCOT owners are charged for local calls the same as any other business. What the COCOT owner makes off local calls is the difference between what he charges and what the telco charges him. 800 calls, on the other hand, cost him nothing at all. Just as 950, local and intralata information, emergency, and repair service cost him absolutely nothing. One of the costs of doing business in the COCOT world is providing the facilities for those free calls. In the case of emergency and repair service, the PUC mandates that these calls be permitted without charge. If you consider public phones to be a necessity of life, how can you justify COCOTs being less of a service to the public than telco pay phones? One of the reasons I have an 800 number is to check my messages from anywhere in the state without being gouged by AOSs. Another is so that I don't have to have change handy. If the only phone in the area requires a dime that I don't have, I am not served. If COCOTs can't provide *at least* the level of service as the telco pay phones, they are extra baggage to society and should never have been allowed in the first place. I have no problem with creating a new industry as long as it doesn't displace a public service that has become traditional over past decades. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Marking COCOTS Out of Order Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 7 Jan 90 23:22:48 PST (Sun) From: John Higdon In article <2669@accuvax.nwu.edu> Brian Kantor writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 12, message 3 of 4 >[Moderator's Note: But the proprietor may come along and rip the sign >down. Better to use some *very sticky* pre-printed (office copy >machine?) labels which say "Out of Order Due to Misprogrammed >Routing/Rates" which you slap on the phone across the coin slot area. As a matter of fact, a couple of years ago one of the inhabitants of essug.*, our statewide telephone news group, had a bunch of stickers printed up and sent them around to everyone that wanted them. I just ran across the few that I had left. There were some notorious COCOT violators and when all else failed, I started sticking it to them. These people were uncanny in their ability to remove them as fast as I stuck them on, usually the same day. There was one phone that charged for everything, including repair service and information, had no mention of who owned it, and required coin for all long distance no matter how paid. It was a vile thing and I would put stickers on it daily that invited people to take their telephony business elsewhere, but it was uphill all the way. Needless to say, I soon gave up. Even though the shopkeeper professed to know nothing about the phone, I suspect that it was he who was removing the stickers. "I don't know nuthin 'bout da fone, just putchya money in an' shuddap." John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) Date: 8 Jan 90 03:30:22 GMT Organization: very little The moderator asked if my aquaintance with the cell phone who was getting bus station calls had a cell phone number anything like 781-2900. I don't know. But it sure was an entertaining story, at least the way she told it. Remember that this person was in SALES, were they like to tell funny stories, so she may have made it up. :) Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP [Moderator's Note: I don't believe that sales people in the telecom industry make up stories. Do they? They do? :) PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 976 in Massachusetts Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 8 Jan 90 09:30:04 EST (Mon) From: "John R. Levine" My impression is that the phone sex crowd are dedicated enough to send in a postcard one time to get the 940 numbers turned on. I have philosophical problems with all of the 900 style surcharged numbers because unlike any other number you can dial, the number itself gives you no idea of how much the call will cost. I think they should do something like prefixing each call with a message: "This call to will cost per minute, starting at the third beep" followed by three slow beeps to give you time to hang up. Truth in labelling and all that. Regards, John ------------------------------ From: wolf paul Subject: Re: 976 in Massachusetts Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 13:47:05 MET DST Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria In TELECOM-DIGEST 10/13, John Higdon writes: > >Initially, all telephones will be blocked from making 940 calls. > Excuse me, but how is a "940" provider supposed to make any money if > no one can call his number? Since the whole premise of 976, 900, > "940", etc., is to allow casual, impulsive calls and provide a > surefire billing mechanism, who would bother setting up a service that > would require clientele to go through elaborate preparations in order > to make calls? If enough consumers want this kind of service, someone will probably provide it. I am sure the phone company will be glad to provide a count of unblocked subscribers to potential service providers who can then decide if it is worth it. Allowing casual, impulsive calls just simply is not suitably for all types of materials, since there would be nothing to stop children from impulsively calling such numbers, nor does anyone who casually misdials a number need to be confronted with certain materials. Wolf N. Paul, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Schloss Laxenburg, Schlossplatz 1, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe Phone: [43] (2236) 71521-465 BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@cernvax.BITNET UUCP: uunet!tuvie!iiasa!wnp INTERNET: wnp%iiasa.at@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 15:01:40 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Controversy Over Area Code 213 Split I heard there were some adjustments made along the then-proposed 213/818 border because of communities otherwise facing split along that border. I realize this was from the article, but when 310 comes into use, it will be 8, not 5, years since the 213/818 split. But that's still shorter than the 11 1/2 years between N0X/N1X prefixes coming to 213 (covering what is 213 & 818 at this writing) and the 213/818 split. ------------------------------ From: 6sigma2@polari.UUCP (Brian Matthews) Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid Date: 8 Jan 90 18:42:58 GMT Reply-To: 6sigma2@.UUCP (Brian Matthews) Organization: PolarServ, Seattle WA In article <2632@accuvax.nwu.edu> ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org (David Dodell) writes: |I'm sure other members of the conference have seen the recent AT&T ad |showing some guy at a telephone both trying to call Phoenix but |getting Fuji instead. |I figure that this ad is just plain stupid, since if someone can't |dial a number correctly, it has nothing to do with the carrier they |are using. The ad implies otherwise. Not that I want to stick up for AT&T's advertising department, but when I first saw the ad, I thought the point was that having called Fiji instead of Phoenix, he had to call the billing department of whatever long-distance company he was using, while an AT&T operator would give him instant credit. Brian L. Matthews blm@6sceng.UUCP ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: TV News Mates With Cellular Phones Date: 8 Jan 90 03:32:57 GMT Organization: very little A friend of mine works for the local ABC affiliate, and they put in this kind of service for reporting of traffic problems to their AM radio new department. He claims the service has turned out to be a big pain for the radio station....most of the calls are from cellular customers asking why the traffic is slow, rather than giving information! Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 12:29:21 CST From: Blake Farenthold Subject: Texas BBS/SWBT News in Alt.cousard (Was: Modem Tax) >[Moderator's Note: It was not a modem 'tax', but rather, a requirement >by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company that users of modems in >general, and BBS operators in particular, pay business rates for their >phone service. >... I'm sure more news will be forthcoming soon, and that the >sysop's organization will keep us informed. PT] Actually if you are really interested in the issue find a site that carries the usenet newsgroup alt.cousard which started out as the tx.cousard. That group carries all the info about the ongoing battel w/SWB. Thr group has a s/n ratio with a lot of messages that don't contain what I'd concider useful info. The group is, however, interesting as it has a lot of "non-usenet" sites (mainly bbs's) that have hacked gatewats. I beleive it is carried as a fidonet echo-mail conference as well. We carry it as a conference on pro-party (512/882-1899 3-9600 HST). UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake@nosc.mil INET: blake@pro-party.cts.com Blake Farenthold | Voice: 800/880-1890 | MCI: BFARENTHOLD 1200 MBank North | Fax: 512/889-8686 | CIS: 70070,521 Corpus Christi, TX 78471 | BBS: 512/882-1899 | GEnie: BLAKE ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 08:13 PST From: Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com Subject: NYNEX Well NYNEX is the holding company that owns to BOCs: New York Telephone (NY) and New England Telephone (NE). The "X" part may stand for Xtra money? Or, X as in cross connection? - Anthony Lee I thought NYNEX was how much your phone bill went up with divestature (9x). ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Phone Frustration Date: 8 Jan 90 07:29:28 PST (Mon) From: John Higdon Bernie Cosell writes: > Sounds like the American way. Why should he have one type of phone > service or another for YOUR convenience? It pisses me off that I > can't get "New Scientist" at the local news stand, but that's life --- > he runs his business as he sees fit, and I take my business where I > think my needs are best served. How else would you have it? Why, no other way at all. And I am perfectly entitled to take my business else where if the merchant demonstrates his attitude toward his customers by have a COCOT. This is no joke. A COCOT was replaced by a Pac*Bell phone in a restaurant that I frequent. When I enquired of the owner (whom I know personally), she said that the complaints that she was getting indicated to her that customer relations were being damaged slightly. Since her customers meant more to her than some extra nickels from the pay phone, she switched. Yes, she did it for her customers' convenience because she values her customers. I would assume that if you can't get "New Scientist" at your local news stand, you go somewhere else rather than throw up your hands and say, "that's life". And let your local merchant know it! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 10:00:30 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Definition of "IT"? The recently-made-available acronym lists and glossary files don't list "IT" as an abbreviation with a definition. So, in the moderator's posting in issue 590 that mentions "a big IT in the basement", what does "IT" mean? Regards, Will [Moderator's Note: Many installers, or at least the older ones, use 'IT' to mean 'inside terminal', and this is typically the demarcation point in a (large) building where the cable first comes in from the street, is punched down on several strips to be mated with appropriate house pairs. The ones I have seen, specifically in older, large apartment-hotel type buildings, have the incoming cable punched down on the left side on three or four strips of 40-50 terminals each. The house pairs terminate on the right side on three or four similar strips. Then jumper wires cross connect the two sides of the IT, or inside terminal. The jumper pairs will usually have little tags tied on with string saying things like 'second pair to apartment 903' or 'OPX to 123 Main Street, circuit 903-V'. To install a new line to someone in the building, the installer goes to that box, finds the cable and pair assigned and jumps it to the desired house pair. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 11:09:29 EST From: Mike Gertsman Subject: SDL Diagrams for LAPB Can anyone point me to a source of SDL diagrams for the LAPB (X.25 level 2) data link control protocol? The X.25 specification (in the CCITT Red Book) does not seem to have these diagrams. I would think that they would be available since Q.921 (in the CCITT Blue Book) has such a set of diagrams for LAPD. Please reply directly to me if possible. Thanks. Michael Gertsman gertsman%spock@mitel.uu.net or uunet!mitel!spock!gertsman ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #14 *****************************   Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 0:37:01 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #15 Message-ID: <9001090037.aa11153@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 9 Jan 90 00:35:19 CST Volume 10 : Issue 15 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Mobile Communications in the Soviet Union (Andrei Kolesnikov) Robust Answering Machines? (Jerry Leichter) Old Speakerphone Information Needed (Larry Bierma) Telephone Voltage Information Needed BBS a Business? So What? (John Boteler) San Marino / Trinidad & Tobago Code Change? (John R. Covert) Area Code Mapping (John Boteler) How To Dial Long Distance (Greg Monti via John R. Covert) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 14:09:43 -0800 From: sfmtmoscow@cdp.uucp Subject: Mobile Communications in the Soviet Union Anybody know more about the following announcement on the Nokia Telecommunications venture? Two interesting points: 1. That the Nokia deal did involve coverage for international cellular communications inside Moscow or other big cities..... 2. Did not involve cellular communications; using existing analog lines with radio waves overlay..... If first is correct, good deal! If only second - no big deal, no new technology. ======================================================================== MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS IN THE HEART OF THE SOVIET UNION MOSCOW GETS ITS FIRST RADIOPHONE LINK-UP AS THE AMT JOINT VENTURE TAKES TO THE AIRWAVES Work has begun on the construction of a mobile radiotelephone network in the Moscow City area under the auspices of a new joint venture company formed between Nokia Telecommunications and the Soviet Union's Moscow Telephone Network. In the initial stage, AMT, in which Nokia has a 40 % share, is supplying its services primarily to international companies and diplomatic missions in the Soviet capital. The company is also offering maintenance and installation services for the equipment delivered by Nokia. Nokia Telecommunications is delivering both the network infrastructure and end-user equipment. Offering ease of use of automatic mobile networks, the Moscow system provides complete coverage of the city area, together with connections to the fixed domestic and international telephone networks. Construction of the mobile network got under way this autumn, with the first subscribers planned to go on line early in 1990. At the second stage, AMT will also install a paging system and provide other modern speech and data transmission services. Moscow Telephone Network holds a 60 % share in the joint venture. For Nokia Telecommunications, this collaboration marks the company's entry into the service provision sector of the industry. ==================THANKS================= andrei ...!labrea!cdp!sfmtmoscow ...!hplabs!cdp!sfmtmoscow ------------------------------ From: Leichter-Jerry <@venus.ycc.yale.edu:Leichter-Jerry@cs.yale.edu> Subject: Robust Answering Machines? Date: 8 Jan 90 13:30:50 GMT Organization: Yale Computer Center (YCC) I have a cheap answering machine (made by Conair). I picked it up at a clear- ance sale for about $20, in a concession to modern technology - I had managed for years to do without one. The thing works reasonably well most of the time, but has an annoying sensitivity: The briefest power glitch (and we have those every couple of weeks) resets the machine to a state in which it doesn't answer calls at all. (According to the instructions, the only way to reset this state is to re-record the answer message, thus also losing any messages taken before the glitch. Fortunately, experimentation has revealed that you don't have to do that.) Anyhow...now that I've gotten used to having the machine, I find this annoy- ing. (Ah, how indulgences become necessities!) Presumably better-quality machines are not so sensitive. However, I have yet to see anyone advertise "robustness in the face of power failures" as a feature of their machines, so I'm not about to shell out four or five times what I paid for this one for a fancy machine with the same vulnerability. What is the collective experience out there with answering machines? Do some of them survive power failures more intelligently? If so, which ones? (Side-bar for the "central office lovers": Yes, a central office voice mail service would not have this problem. However, I don't see such a service offered in my area....) -- Jerry [Central Office Lover's Note: I love my voice mail from Centel. The price is right ($5.95 per month for a 'front end' with two partitions in it); ability to retrieve from any phone and change outgoing messages from anywhere; date stamping; it can handle several calls at once, etc. PT] ------------------------------ From: Larry Bierma Date: 8 January 1990 1329-PST (Monday) Subject: Old Speakerphone Information Needed Reply-To: bierma@nprdc.navy.mil Greetings, I've rescued from the trash an old speaker phone (originally hooked up to 5-button dial set). The identification on the bottom is: 108 Loudspeaker set. I have two pieces, the speaker box and the little on/off volume control (appears to have the mic it it also) both terminate in "sawed off" 25 pair connectors. The question is can I make what I have work with a basic plain pushbutton phone that connects to an rj11 jack? (I do have an old 5-button dial set if that is needed to make the speaker phone work). Thanks! Larry ARPA: bierma@nprdc.navy.mil UUCP: ucsd!nprdc!bierma PSTN: (619) 553-7915 ------------------------------ From: sp@pro-deli.cts.com (Sten Peeters) Subject: Telephone Voltage Information Needed Date: 8 Jan 90 13:16:18 GMT Just a simple question. but, What is the ring voltage on a telephone line? And also, what is the voltage on the line when the phone is on the hook and off the hook. The info would be appreciated. Sten Peeters 2005 Buckman Ave Wyomissing, PA 19610 ProLine: sp@pro-deli Internet: sp@pro-deli.cts.com UUCP: {rosevax, bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!pro-abyss!pro-deli!sp Arpanet: {rosevax, bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!pro-abyss!pro-deli!sp@nosc.mil Fidonet: {rosevax, bungia, crash}!f101.n273.z1.fidonet.org!Sten.Peeters Talk: {rosevax, bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!pro-abyss!pro-deli!talk!sp ------------------------------ Subject: BBS a Business? So What? Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 11:33:12 EST From: John Boteler This article concerns the discussion of the SouthWestern Bell position that modem users, specifically BBS operators, should pay business rates, and no other matter. The question which has not been answered, because it was never asked is: Why should a BBS operator care that business rates could be imposed? In my operating company area (C&P), monthly business rates are cheaper than residential, presumably because the anticipated message unit income would easily recover costs for the phone company. If the BBS receives incoming calls, how can a similar rate structure be detrimental? No message units would be incurred. Email me, if the answers are too obvious for me to see. Thanx Bote NCN NudesLine 703-241-BARE -- VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 20:58:22 -0800 From: "John R. Covert 08-Jan-1990 2359" Subject: San Marino / Trinidad & Tobago Code Change? Corroboration requested on the rumour that San Marino (now reached via Italy) will change to country code 295 and that Trinidad & Tobago (now in area code 809) will change to country code 296. /john ------------------------------ Subject: Area Code Mapping Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 12:13:19 EST From: John Boteler From: nvuxr!deej@bellcore.bellcore.com (David Lewis) >In article <2529@accuvax.nwu.edu>, motcid!sirakide%cell.mot.COM@uunet.uu.net (Dean Sirakides) writes: >> *Question* : I have heard several ads for stores where the phone >> number is given out and the annoucer qualifies the number by saying, >> "in either 708 or 312". How is this done? >[I have a feeling this is one of those questions that about 17 people >will answer. Apologies for any unwanted duplication...] >First of all, I don't *think* that a single exchange can overlap NPAs, >so that (for example) 708-888 and 312-888 would refer to the same >central office. I can't find anything explicitly excluding this in my >references, though, so I could be mistaken -- if anyone knows this is This is my answer to an answer to a question: A single exchange may indeed be accessed by different area codes via mapping. A present and fast vanishing example is the 202 area code serving your Nation's Capital (TM). The Washington Metropolitan Calling Area covers the District of Columbia, and parts of suburban Maryland and Virginia inside the Beltway. Telephone dialups in the WASHMET zone are mapped into 202, including those in 301 or 703 for the benefit of the sanity of John Q. Public. For example, to call a telephone in Falls Church, Virginia, one has the choice of dialing 703-241-xxxx or 202-241-xxxx; both work at present, until number conservation goes bye-bye next year! This has flabbergasted many phone phreak friends of mine, and may very well be one of the last relics of a more peaceful time in the life of the phone network. Naturally, Bote NCN NudesLine 703-241-BARE -- VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 21:04:32 -0800 From: "John R. Covert 09-Jan-1990 0002" Subject: How To Dial Long Distance From: Greg Monti, National Public Radio; forwarded by John R. Covert How to Dial Long Distance Mark Brader writes: > Our moderator writes: >> ... area codes *as we know them* will be used up is 1995. I think 1993 >> might be a better estimate. From that point on, area codes will resemble >> prefixes, and dialing 1 before long distance numbers everywhere will be >> mandatory. ... > Presumably by "long distance" he meant here "to another area code". Actually, one or both can currently apply. My understanding of the North American Numbering Plan is that a leading "1" was *always* intended to mean "area code next." The use of it with a seven-digit number after it is a hack implemented by phone companies originally as a "get out of this central office" code in the old, step- by-step days in many areas. Later, as people got used to it meaning "long distance next," the telcos and their regulators kept the "1" for that purpose. 1+7 digits only works FROM area codes where there are no interchangeable codes (prefixes that look like area codes). Once interchangeable codes are implemented, users within that area code can no longer use 1+7 digits. Once the *whole NANP* goes to interchangeable codes in 1995 (or whenever "Time T" it turns out to be), 1+7 digit dialing will have to be eliminated in *all* NANP area codes. > The thing that most distresses me about this whole > area-code exhaustion business is that it'll mean that we'll LOSE the > possibility of a leading 1 ACTUALLY meaning, as it still does where I > am, "long distance". Not necessarily. The standard seems to have been laid out already. Those places will go to your "Syntax 3" system so BOTH effects of the "1" will apply. "1" will mean "long distance" *and* "area code next." 1+7 digits will be replaced by 1+10 digits. > To be complete I should mention Syntax 4, which I think was formerly > common and is becoming rare: leading 1 is never used, and one dials > NNX-XXXX for any call within one's area, 10 digits for calls to other > areas. You are correct. See below. > Can anyone comment on the relative prevalence of the four syntaxes > that I have called 1, 2, 3, and 4 in North America, or better yet, > actually provide a list of what areas use what syntax? (Note: My > interest here is in major operating companies, not, say, Pinnacles.) Okay. First a summary: Syntax 1: Local within area code: 7 digits Toll within area code: 1 + 7 digits Local to another area code: 7 digits Toll to another area code: 1 + 10 digits Syntax 2: Local within area code: 7 digits Toll within area code: 7 digits Local outside area code: 1 + 10 digits Toll outside area code: 1 + 10 digits Syntax 3: Local within area code: 7 digits Toll within area code: 1 + 10 digits Local outside area code: 7 digits Toll outside area code: 1 + 10 digits Syntax 4: Local within area code: 7 digits Toll within area code: 7 digits Local outside area code: 10 digits Toll outside area code: 10 digits "Syntax 1" is the most common in the USA and Canada. It generally applies in areas and states and provinces where the area codes are so large that most, or many calls within it are toll. Population density is small enough that prefixes can be assigned in a "conserved" way, so that prefixes in nearby parts of adjacent area codes are not ambiuguous with the same prefixes in the home area code. This allows 7 digit dialing across the area code boundary, but only for local calls. VIRTUALLY ALL places that now have Syntax 1 dialing will convert to Syntax 3 dialing in 1995, or whenever "Time T" is. Massachusetts' 617 is currently a variation on Syntax 1 (local outside area code is now 1 + 10 digits) which will change to Syntax 2 eventually, according to previous posttings on this Digest. Neighboring 508 has the same Syntax 1 exception, but is staying that way indefinitely. Michigan's 313 is a Syntax 1 area code moving to Syntax 2. There, the 1 + 7 digits has become a mess, with some local calls requiring it and Michigan Bell is going to straighten it out by eliminating 1 + 7 digits. "Syntax 2" is used in the biggest of the big cities where many area codes may be within the local calling area and where mandatory local measured service is common and where interchangeable codes are now used. Most places with Syntax 2 now had Syntax 4 up until about 1980 when the first interchangeable codes were issued as prefixes. Syntax 2 areas are 213 (and the new 310, when implemented), 818, 415 (and 510), 212, 718, 201 (and 908), 312 and 708, I believe. Area 609 in New Jersey is a variation of Syntax 2. Its exception: local calls outside the area code are also 7 digits. "Syntax 3" is the "new standard" for after "Time T". It is already in effect in 404, 919, 703, 202, 301, 214 (and the new 903?) and soon 416. Some areas which use this already are adding variations due to the number crunch: 214, 202, 301 and 703 will use 10 digits for local outside area code. That appears to be a new standard for crowded areas already using Syntax 3. "Syntax 4" is a rarity: places that still don't have interchangeable codes but do have large calling areas with mandatory local measured service. 516, 914 (maybe not all of it, though) and 408. Syntax 4 areas switch to Syntax 2 after "Time T". Did I get everything? Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia work +1 202 822-2459 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #15 *****************************   Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 0:45:41 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #16 Message-ID: <9001100045.aa28073@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Jan 90 00:45:32 CST Volume 10 : Issue 16 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: BBS a Business? So What? (John Higdon) Re: Modeming on Electronic Switch System (Dave Livingston) Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (Joel B. Levin) Re: The Torsten & Jim ISDN Chat Show (was ISDN & TCP/IP) (Peter Desnoyers) Re: TV News Mates With Cellular Phones (John Wheeler) Re: How To Dial Long Distance (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (Tad Cook) Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (Robert P. Warnock) Re: 976 in Massachusetts (Ted Ede) Re: The Operator's Beep (John Boteler) One After 909 (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: BBS a Business? So What? Date: 9 Jan 90 10:35:08 PST (Tue) From: John Higdon John Boteler writes: > Why should a BBS operator care that business rates could be imposed? > In my operating company area (C&P), monthly business rates are cheaper > than residential, presumably because the anticipated message unit > income would easily recover costs for the phone company. If the BBS > receives incoming calls, how can a similar rate structure be > detrimental? No message units would be incurred. In my area, and I suspect others, the basic rate for business measured is higher than residence unmeasured. Furthermore, most BBSs call out quite often, so I don't understand your argument that no message units would be incurred. It was frequently pointed out in all of the SWB flap that business service was considerably higher than residence service. In my case, I don't have a BBS, but I do have a well-connected UNIX machine. It uses four lines. It calls out at least as much as it receives calls. It is not used for business, but for hobby purposes. If I had to pay business rates, it would become unaffordable. The question remains: Why should anyone have to pay more for telephone service simply because they allow a modem to speak over the line? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Modeming on Electronic Switch System Date: 9 Jan 90 13:41:15 EST (Tue) From: Dave Livingston In article <2579@accuvax.nwu.edu>, bmug%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax. berkeley.edu (BMUG) writes: >Perhaps someone from Northern Telecom or someone else familiar with >this situation can point me in the direction of a solution... We >have installed on our site an electronic Northern Telecom DMS100 >telephone system. Because the system does not recognize normal tones, >the system as configured will not work with standard modems, FAX >machines, answering machines, etc. It *is* possible to get individual >lines massaged to enable use of these devices, but said massage >costs over $10/line/month (which gets to be kind of expensive when >we're talking about ~25 lines). Before we can find a solution, we must first define what the problem is. The first thing that must be defined is the terminology, normal tones. To me, normal tones are the tone definitions that have been established by Bellcore as standards. The examples that come to mind here are, of course, digitone (dual tone multi frequency), mf (multi- frequency), busy tone, etc. With that definition, then we can determine that the problem is not that the DMS-100 will not recognize standard tones. All Northern Telecom digital switches meet the standards defined by Bellcore for tone generation/reception. Based upon what I do know, I think that centrex service has been provided to the office, and that the service has been provided on Electronic Business Sets versus a standard 2500 telset. This can cause some confusion. The EBS is not a standard telset, since it has a 19.2 digital data link to the switch where all the signaling, off-hook, ringing, etc is passed. The EBS will require that a different type of line card be used within the DMS-100. As far as the rest of the problem, the solution to me is quite simple. For those systems that need to be connnected with the telephone network, like the fax machine, order a standard IBS line. For modems, the question then must be asked if it is for data communication or some type of telephone dialing system. For data communications, I opt for a dedicated line, as for the fax. For dialing systems, I would investigate the features that Meridian Digital Centrex has to offer, especially with EBS. Your customer service rep should be able to help you. I realize that answers were requested via E-mail...But I feel that the question and answer might be of benefit to the digest.. Dave Livingston Standard Disclaimer Applies Northern Telecom - DMS-10 Research Triangle Park, NC EMAIL ...!uunet!mcnc!rti!ntpdvp1!davel 919/992-3322 ------------------------------ From: Joel B Levin Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid Date: 9 Jan 90 19:46:38 GMT Reply-To: Joel B Levin Organization: BBN Communications Corporation In article <2708@accuvax.nwu.edu> 6sigma2@.UUCP (Brian Matthews) writes: |In article <2632@accuvax.nwu.edu> ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org (David Dodell) |writes: ||I figure that this ad is just plain stupid, since if someone can't ||dial a number correctly, it has nothing to do with the carrier they ||are using. The ad implies otherwise. |Not that I want to stick up for AT&T's advertising department, but when |I first saw the ad, I thought the point was that having called Fiji |instead of Phoenix, he had to call the billing department of whatever |long-distance company he was using, while an AT&T operator would give |him instant credit. Of course that's the point of the ad; what we complain about is the ludicrous strawman they set up, that someone might confuse calling Fiji with calling Phoenix. And of course the alternate implications, that the ordinary user is stupid enough to make that mistake, or that the alternate long distance carrier would make that mistake. This is only one of a number of moderately sleasy long distance ads, most of which are perpetrated by AT&T. /JBL Nets: levin@bbn.com | "There were sweetheart roses on Yancey Wilmerding's or {...}!bbn!levin | bureau that morning. Wide-eyed and distraught, she POTS: (617)873-3463 | stood with all her faculties rooted to the floor." ------------------------------ From: Peter Desnoyers Subject: Re: The Torsten & Jim ISDN Chat Show (was ISDN & TCP/IP) Date: 9 Jan 90 20:50:21 GMT Organization: Apple Computer, Inc. In article <2353@accuvax.nwu.edu> euatdt@euas17c10.ericsson.se (Torsten Dahlkvist) writes: > But I must ask a question to the net, U.S. readers in particular: I > know for a fact (= I was there when it happened!) that Ericsson has > been approached by one of *the* major Japanese electronics > manufacturers (no, I'm NOT going to say which one - I'm far out on a > limb as it is already!) which wanted to sell a line of ISDN phones > with built-in TA functions. Essentially a small feature-phone with a > V.24, X.21 or (I think, but memory is vague) X.25 connector. We tried > it and found that with minor changes in CO software it could be used > with our CO (remember I said our implementation is *very* close to the > international standard. We like to think it's *the* closest one on the > market at present!). Sorry to come into this discussion so late (I had a rush project before Christmas and am just catching up on news). Anyway, this sounds similar to the AT&T 7500 set with the optional rate adaption card. I imagine that it would cost lots-o-bux, but I know they are selling them to real people (i.e. they're not just engineering samples) because I saw one in a hotel in Key West. It'll handle 5ESS BRI (of course) at the S interface and seems relatively reliable. I've never used the rate-adaption card - I think the physical interfaces available are RS232 and V.34. Peter Desnoyers Apple ATG (408) 974-4469 ------------------------------ From: John Wheeler Subject: Re: TV News Mates With Cellular Phones Date: 9 Jan 90 04:08:19 GMT Reply-To: John Wheeler Organization: Turner Entertainment Networks Library; Atlanta In article <2616@accuvax.nwu.edu> emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) writes: >WWJ Radio in Detroit has a similar arrangement, dial *WWJ (*995) to >get their traffic bureau to report accidents or big pot-holes or the >like. Here in Atlanta, on January 1, 1990, the "WGST NewsRadio Six-Forty BellSouth Mobility Traffic Center" became the "WGST NewsRadio Six-Forty Pac*Tel Traffic Center". Access is, of course, by dialing *640 from your Pac*Tel mobile phone. Apparently Pac*Tel outbid BellSouth for the advertising. At least it made the name shorter! * John Wheeler - Unix/C Systems Designer/Programmer/Administrator/etc... * * Turner Entertainment Networks * Superstation TBS * TNT * Turner Production * * ...!gatech!nanovx!techwood!johnw (404) TBS-1421 * * "the opinions expressed in this program are not necessarily those of TBS" * ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: How To Dial Long Distance Date: 9 Jan 90 22:49:34 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article <2724@accuvax.nwu.edu>, covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert) writes... > From: Greg Monti, National Public Radio; forwarded by John R. Covert >Syntax 1: Local within area code: 7 digits > Toll within area code: 1 + 7 digits Or, "1 for toll" >Syntax 2: Local within area code: 7 digits > Toll within area code: 7 digits Or, "1 for area code" >Syntax 3: Local within area code: 7 digits > Toll within area code: 1 + 10 digits Or, "1 for area code, but you dial your own for toll calls) >Syntax 4: Local within area code: 7 digits > Toll within area code: 7 digits >"Syntax 3" is the "new standard" for after "Time T". It is already in >effect in 404, 919, 703, 202, 301, 214 (and the new 903?) and soon 416. I don't think so; rather, Syntax 2 is the "standard". Syntax 3 is a hack for people who are so used to "1 for toll" that intra-NPA calls must be dialed as inter-NPA. I think it's a bad idea, and not the standard. In any case, 7 digits for inter-area is wrong, since you have to specify _which_ area code you want. (NYC has 4, for instance.) Whether 2 or 3 is adopted doesn't matter to Time T; Syntax 4 must go away, as must Syntax 1, since both fail to disambiguate between prefix code and area code. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388 ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) Date: 9 Jan 90 20:50:54 GMT Organization: very little The moderator, in connection with the story about the saleslady getting bus station calls on her cellular phone said that he didn't think telecom sales people make up stories :> This lady was a FAX salesperson! ;=) tad@ssc.UUCP [Moderator's Note: A FAX salescreature? Oh dear! I'm sure she wouldn't lie about anything. I chased one out of our office just last week. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 04:22:10 PST From: "Robert P. Warnock" Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) Reply-To: "Robert P. Warnock" Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA In article <2614@accuvax.nwu.edu> tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) writes: +--------------- | I spoke with a woman in Chicago recently that was constantly getting | calls for the bus station on her cellular phone... +--------------- I also get lots of wrong numbers on my cellular phone, and suspect that that in the Bay Area lots of PacTel Mobile customers do, too. You see, here in (415), PacTel Mobile numbers run "999-abcd", and for many "a"s (including mine), there *are* non-cellular "99a-" local exchanges. So if somebody's finger stutters (or they have a really cheap phone), instead of dialing 99a-bcde", they dial "999-abcd". Their local CO cheerily ignores the superfluous "e", and rings my phone (or one of the other few thousand cellular phones). In my case, one of the ten potentially confused numbers (e = 0-9, remember) happens to be a popular Mexican restaurant! And yes, I do get calls from people calling in sick or whatever, usually much earlier than my normal waking time. ("No, I *can't* get the manager for you. No, I *can't* take a message.") And worse, often in Spanish, which I don't speak. By now, I have just accepted several wrong numbers a week as part of the cost of using PacTel Mobile... Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510 rpw3@sgi.com rpw3@pei.com Silicon Graphics, Inc. (415)335-1673 Protocol Engines, Inc. 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. Mountain View, CA 94039-7311 ------------------------------ From: ted@mbunix.mitre.org (Ede) Subject: Re: 976 in Massachusetts Date: 9 Jan 90 19:05:00 GMT Reply-To: ted@mbunix.mitre.org (Ede) Organization: The MITRE Corp. Bedford, MA In article <2628@accuvax.nwu.edu> eli@pws.bull.com writes: >Initially, all telephones will be blocked from making 940 calls. >Blocking for 940 numbers, as well as 1-900 numbers will initially be >available for free. To clear up a minor point. Blocking will always be free. It's making a change to the blocking that the phone company will eventually charge you for. The pamphlet that they mailed was very interesting. In about six different languages on the cover it said something like, "This is very important information. Please have it translated." I'm surpised the don't put that on their bills. But what do you expect from a company that give you *net 45* to pay. |Ted Ede -- ted@mbunix.mitre.org -- The MITRE Corporation -- Burlington Road| | linus!mbunix!ted -- Bedford MA, 01730 -- Mail Stop B090 -- (617) 271-7465 | | - this line intentionally left blank - | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Subject: Re: The Operator's Beep Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 4:17:26 EST From: John Boteler Regarding the 'beep' tone which is heard when an operator's position is connected to a caller: the beep was named the 'high tone', frequency 480 cps. Since the original poster noticed its absence, it must have done its job of announcing the operators presence. :) John Boteler NCN NudesLine: 703-241-BARE -- VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 11:40:46 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: One After 909 Cavern City Tours in Liverpool, England, has, as the last 4 digits of its phone number, 9091. (From the song "One after 909".) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #16 *****************************   Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 1:26:18 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #17 Message-ID: <9001100126.aa11663@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Jan 90 01:25:43 CST Volume 10 : Issue 17 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Computer-Mediated Communication in Education (N. R. Coombs) The Big PUC Give-Away (John Higdon) Answer to Area Code Congestion (Daniel O'Callaghan) Odds and Ends (Daniel Leibold) CES Shows Cellular Phones With Caller-ID & RS232 Ports (Brian Litzinger) Caller*ID Display Sources (John Boteler) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "N.R. Coombs" Subject: Computer-Mediated Communication in Education Date: 9 Jan 90 21:06:26 GMT Reply-To: "N.R. Coombs" Organization: Information Systems and Computing @ RIT, Rochester, New York Announcement Computer-Mediated Communication in Education: An Electronic Conference sponsored by Comserve edited and moderated by Professor Norman Coombs Rochester Institute of Technology Members of the Speech Communication Association and other interested individuals are invited to participate in an electronic conference addressing the uses of computer-mediated communication for educational purposes. The conference will explore how electronic mail and computer conferencing might be integrated into college education. Among the topics considered will be: the techniques and technologies that are currently being used and new ones that are envisioned; uses of electronic mail and computer conferencing to deliver information, conduct class discussions, handle questions and answers; how these educational technnologies influence course content, teaching style, student participation; studies that have explored the success of these applications, etc. The conference will be edited and moderated by Professor Norman Coombs of the Rochester Institute of Technology. Prof. Coombs has used electronic mail and computer conferencing to teach college courses for the last four years and conducts research in the educational applications of information technology. Earlier this year, Prof. Coombs won a Masters of Innovation Award from Zenith for his innovative use of computer conferencing in an educational program for deaf students. The conference is scheduled to begin January 15, 1990 and continue through the Spring semester. Individuals with experience in computer conferencing applications in education, individuals who are interested in exploring such applications, and graduate students are encouraged to participate. The conference is sponsored by Comserve and will take place over the CommEd Hotline. For more information, send an electronic mail message to Support@Rpiecs, or write: Comserve Dept. of Lang., Lit., & Communication Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, NY 12180 ------------------------------ Subject: The Big PUC Give-Away Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 9 Jan 90 16:27:54 PST (Tue) From: John Higdon My mailbox has been filling up with messages from people who think that I am being overly mean to Pac*Bell concerning their recent "modern regulatory changes" that they whisked past the CPUC. One writer said that my comment about Pac*Bell being allowed unlimited profits was incorrect; that they indeed had to share with the rate payers. Well, yes and no. Granted, the wording on the ruling would indicate that, but who will determine how much of a profit has been made? Why, Pac*Bell, of course. There are so many tricks to hide a profit from one subsidiary by pumping up another that space forbids going into that here, not to mention the inappropriateness of the group. But let us just say whenever you have an intentional monopoly, it MUST be regulated or the public will suffer. Allowing a "rate of return" against the CPI as the sole standard for regulating a monopoly is most ineffective protection for the consumer. This is particularly true when you have a holding company that has as much diversification as Pacific Telesis. They are now into every form of electronic communications, including equipment supply. Which brings up an interesting scam. What would stop a Pacific Telesis supply arm from buying, for instance, Northern Telecom DMS100s at a steal of a price (quantity, someone sleeping with someone, whatever) then turning around and selling those switches to Pac*Bell at full list? And then when it comes time to compute rate-of-return for Pac*Bell they show exhorbitant costs for their CO equipment, reflecting a lower apparent rate-of-return. But Pacific Telesis made the profit at its other subsidiary, *totally at the expense of Pac*Bell's ratepayers*. Back to my question: What would stop them? Nothing. They do it all the time. Now that the PUC isn't watching them anymore, it will be even easier to get away with it. Pac*Bell's PR is most effective. I was reminded by some that they agreed to give up touch-tone charges in this package. Actually, that was the new PUC chairman's idea. It was an obsession with him to remove those charges, and Pac*Bell had to agree to it before the PUC would proceed with the give-away. In my case, it is meaningless. Touch-tone is included with Commstar II, and if anyone thinks that Pac*Bell will lower the cost of Commstar II to reflect that then I have some large artifacts near New York I would like to sell to you. I hate to be such a curmugeon on this topic, but where in the hell was the public (and, for that matter, the consumer advocacy organizations like TURN) when all this was before the PUC? The media spoke of the whole matter in glowing terms, printing verbatim what the Pac*Bell spokespeople spewed forth on the subject. The California telephone ratepayer was taken to the cleaners. Let's hope the good people of Texas are not taken for a ride by SWB the way we where here in CA. Remember, Pacific Telesis isn't in business to serve the public; it's in business to make money--any way it can. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au Subject: Answer to Area Code Congestion Date: 10 Jan 90 16:31:07 (UTC+11:00) Organization: The University of Melbourne Here is a way to ease area code congestion without being too difficult to implement in North America. It basically means that the affected area switches to 8 digit numbers without any other area needing to know. Most telephone numbers stay the same, with the addition of another digit, and for those that change, working out the new number is very easy. Taking Los Angeles area 213 as an example: 1. Abolish area code 213 and in its place establish areas 225 and 228. This will mean that all areas using 225 and 228 as prefixes must remove 1+7D toll dialling. 2. There is no geographical isolation of 225 and 228. Instead, the areas are assigned to the prefixes 2xx-5xx and 6xx-9xx. 3. Old numbers beginning with 5 and 8 have their first digit changed to 7 and 3 respectively. 4. Dialling within the 225-228 area *must* begin with either a 5 or an 8. Any attempt to dial a number beginning with 2,3,4,6,7,9 should be directed a recorded message to remind about the new system. This should last several months. The new numbering system would be: Old New 213-2xx- 225-2xx- 213-3xx- 225-3xx- 213-4xx- 225-4xx- 213-5xx- 225-7xx- 213-6xx- 228-6xx- 213-7xx- 228-7xx- 213-8xx- 228-3xx- 213-9xx- 228-9xx- There would certainly be teething problems, especially for people whose old numbers began with 5 or 8, since there can be no slow change-over for them. The benefits of this system are many, including the retention of LA as a large community, and an inexhaustible supply of new prefixes, by simply adding new pseudo-areas 22N when everyone was used to 8 digit dialling. 8 digit numbers could provide up to 80 million services, and I doubt that even the USA's voracious telephone appetite would use them all. Cellular sevices could all be moved to say 229, allowing easy identification of a number as mobile. Lastly, by using area codes in the series NXX (X not 1,0 ) 80 megalopoli could have their area code worries removed forever. It would even be possible to merge areas already separated. e.g. Assign 332 and 337 to 212 and 335 and 339 to 718. After a year or so, when everyone is used to 8 digits the old 212 and 718 areas would be part of the 33N area. Comments anyone?? Daniel O'Callaghan, u5434122@ucsvc.unimelb.edu.au ------------------------------ Subject: Odds and Ends Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 10:26:31 EST From: woody The following items cover various subjects; you may respond to whatever item(s) you wish, via email or posting as appropriate... News and notes... (1) Subject: Re: Enterprise Numbers? Zenith Numbers? > [Moderator's Note: Enterprise and Zenith were the same difference. > 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. PT] In Bell Canada territory, there is supposedly a service called Contac which runs like Zenith, but is intended for use by municipal governments. I have yet to see a single Contac number anywhere, however. (2) 416 goes from NNX to NXX As of 1st Dec 89, area 416 customers can use the 1 + 416 + number to call within their own area if they like (as well as previous 1 + number only). As of 1st Mar 90, dialing 1 + 416 + number will be mandatory. (3) multi-LATA/NPA zones I read about the area codes with multiple LATAs; i believe there are LATAs with multiple area codes such as one around Detroit where a LATA covers a bit of northwestern Ohio as well (thus, a multi-state LATA). (4) Phone Piracy Article The latest high-profile news item on phone phreaking can be found in the 7th Jan 90 issue of the _Toronto_Star_, for those of you with access to libraries that carry the _Star_. It begins on the front page. (5) COCOTS Haven't seen any COCOTS in Canada yet, though Bell Canada is trying out a nice card phone. Some day, COCOTS might infect Canada, though it's possible the greater regulatory hurdles up here might alleviate some of the COCOTS problems reported on this newsgroup. (6) 940 service 940 service has been mentioned as an "adult entertainment" service. Here in 416, 940 exchange is assigned as a regular exchange outside of Toronto. 940 is presumably not a universally adopted exchange for special service as 950 or 976 would be; the complications of wrong numbers can arise here... Requests... (6) area code splitting Area code 312 recently split into 312/708 and there's the new 908 code. What will be the next area codes to be assigned, and where? (7) 800/900 exchanges I notice that the 900 area code tends to use N(0/1)X codes such as 200, 410, 909, etc. while I haven't found any of these on 800 service. Are the NXX codes for 900 purposely chosen to be different from anything on the 800 service to avoid confusion? Also, is it possible to get a list of 800 and 900 exchanges (NXXs) and what they do (what cities, functions, which ones are Sprint, MCI, etc)? Please e-mail one (to djcl@contact.uucp) if possible (or it could be posted if there is general interest). (8) 10xxx + codes Does anyone have a list of the 10XXX codes used for alternate carriers? If so, please mail one to me (djcl@contact.uucp), or post the 10XXX list if it has not appeared in the past while. Thanx. || David Leibold....... "Art is anything you can get away with" || djcl@contact.uucp... - Marshall McLuhan ------------------------------ From: Brian Litzinger Subject: CES Shows Cellular Phones With Caller-ID & RS232 Ports Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 11:21:20 PST Organization: APT Technology, Inc. San Jose, CA, USA At CES last weekend, there was about 2400 square feet of floor space dedicated to consumer telephones, especially cellular. Motorola was showing there new ultra slim cellular phone. It folds up and fits in your shirt pocket for about $2300. For $3000 they offered the same unit with caller-ID builtin. [The $2300 model was discounted to $1300 only a few booths away.] There were also phones there with caller-ID and RS-232C ports which connected to a box. This box contained a hard-drive with a "reverse-directory" on it, which allowed the phone to look up the name and address of the caller when it received a caller-ID. Thus it displayed the caller-ID, name of the person and their address if available. There were also simple caller-ID capable phones there for as little as $28 dealer cost. <> Brian Litzinger @ APT Technology Inc., San Jose, CA <> UUCP: {apple,sun,pyramid}!daver!apt!brian brian@apt.UUCP <> VOICE: 408 370 9077 FAX: 408 370 9291 ------------------------------ Subject: Caller*ID Display Sources Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 2:59:07 EST From: John Boteler It appears that I am now the moderator of an impromptu survey to locate suppliers of Caller*ID display units of any description for consumer use. I currently have information on the way from Zoom Telephonics and Software Studios concerning their offerings. When that information arrives I shall analyze, homogenize, and summarize. Any reader who can email names of sources, features, and other pertinent information to the address BELOW will win one acknowledgment response, hand typed by me. I will summarize as needed. So far, the field of players consists of AT&T. That's it. But, after all, "aren't you glad you never left home?" :-/ John Boteler NCN NudesLine: 703-241-BARE -- VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #17 *****************************   Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 2:16:48 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #18 Message-ID: <9001100216.aa29817@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Jan 90 02:15:27 CST Volume 10 : Issue 18 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Don't Steal Phone Service, Or Else! (TELECOM Moderator) Supreme Court Rules Cordless Calls Not Private (TELECOM Moderator) Common Carrier Dialer (John Stanley) New Sleazy 900 Service (Edward Greenberg) Re: Phone Frustration (Tad Cook) Re: Phone Frustration (Dell Ellison) Re: Marking COCOTS Out of Order (Mike Morris) Two Jokes (Edward Greenberg) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 1:58:23 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Don't Steal Phone Service, Or Else! [Excerpts from the Chicago Tribune and New York Times, Sunday, January 7, 1990] By Calvin Simms With college students returning to campus after the holiday break, long distance telephone companies are continuing their nationwide crackdown on students who steal telephone services by using illegal credit card numbers and access codes. To combat telephone fraud, the companies are closely monitoring all long distance calls placed from college campuses so they can quickly detect patterns of abuse. The long distance carriers have also started an information campaign to let students know they will be prosecuted for stealing telephone service. In some cases, the companies have agreed not to prosecute students if they come forward and pay for the illegal calls. Two years ago more than 1000 students at North Texas State University in Denton confessed to using stolen telephone credit card numbers to make long distance calls and agreed to pay MCI Communications Corp. about $100,000 in restitution. The same year, about 400 students from American University in Washington, DC faced prosecution for using unauthorized codes, but under an amnesty program offered by MCI, they paid $32,000 in restitution. Although telephone fraud on college campuses has shown a slight decline in the last two years, law-enforcement and telephone company officials say many students continue to steal long distance service by charging calls to someone else's account, especially at the beginning and ending of semesters. College students are the second-largest group responsible for phone fraud according to Rami Abuhamdeh, executive director of Communications Fraud Control Association, an industry group financed by telephone companies. The group most responsible for phone fraud is prisoners. Telephones for inmate use in penitentiaries have a very high rate of fraud, and usually are monitored very closely, and have numerous restrictions on the types of calls which can be placed from them. Telephone fraud costs long distance companies more than $500 million per year, or about one percent of the industry's total revenue, the fraud control group said. Of that, colleges, military bases and penitentiaries account for thirty percent, or $150 million, and of those three groups, prisons are first, college campuses second, and military bases third. "A lot of students think it is impossible to trace back fraud calls to them, but the fact of the matter is we can, and we will," said Robert F. Fox, Vice-President, Corporate Security, of US Sprint. He pointed out that in many instances, Sprint has an agreement with schools to match the destination of illegal calls with the home addresses of students enrolled at that school. A spokesman for MCI agreed, saying that most colleges and universities will supply telephone companies with the home addresses and telephone numbers of their students. Providing phone service to students on college campuses is a very tricky problem, and to guard against lost revenues, phone companies often treat college students and prisoners the same: as high-risk customers of whom a large security deposit will be required. Or, they may require some third person to make a personal guarentee for the payment when it comes due. Ronald Potter, Manager of corporate security for AT&T, said that the company has begun a nationwide deterrent campaign that includes posters and leaflets warning students that they are breaking the law if they use stolen codes. And he noted, "We remind them that upon conviction for this in a federal court, the law provides for imposition of punishment including fifteen years in prison and a $50,000 fine." The fraud control group stated that techniques for discovery and prevention of fraud are 'becoming much more sophisticated than ever before.....we are catching people all the time, and college students in particular are watched closely'. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 1:08:46 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Calls Not Private The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a ruling that conversations on cordless phones are not private. Justices turned down an appeal by Scott Tyler, of Dixon, Iowa, whose conversations on a cordless phone were overheard by neighbors who called police when they suspected he had broken the law. Tyler was convicted in 1984 of criminal conspiracy and theft in connection with business arrangements that had been discussed over his cordless phone. He then sued his neighbors and the police, contending the eavesdropping was an unconstitutional invasion of his privacy. A federal judge in Davenport, Iowa threw out the suit, saying users of cordless phones should know that the technology used in their phones makes it possible to overhear a conversation without a wiretap. As readers of the Digest know, cordless phones use low-power radio signals in the 46-49 megahertz range that broadcast conversations a short distance and can be intercepted by other cordless phones, scanners and some other types of radio equipment. "Because there was no justifiable expectation of privacy, the interceptions did not violate the Fourth Amendment," the judge decided. An appellate court agreed and rejected Tyler's appeal. In the appeal to the Supreme Court, Tyler's attornies acknowledged that conversations on cordless phones are more susceptible to casual interception than traditional phone calls. But, they argued, that "does not justify ignoring the Fourth Amendment entirely any more than crossed wires in a phone exchange short-circuit all Fourth Amendment safeguards." The justices did not explain their decision, which was announced by an unsigned order. Nonetheless, the action can be used as precedent in other similar cases which may and have arisen elsewhere. Stephen Shapiro, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who argued the matter before the Supreme Court claimed "this decision deprives millions of Americans the privacy rights they *think* they have when they are talking at home on a cordless phone." (emphasis mine) He said it also takes away the privacy protection of callers using a regular phone who, unknowingly, speak with someone using a cordless phone. Cordless phones, which are in use in an estimated twenty-five percent of American homes are not covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), which protects conversations on wired and cellular phones from interception without a judge's permission. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 09:46:16 EST From: John Stanley Subject: Common Carrier Dialer Help. I have just come accross some interesting pieces of phone hardware and would like to know if I can use them for anything productive/intriguing. They are called "Common Carrier Access Dialer and Call Controller" with the name SMarT-1 and Mitel on them, and the claim they are manufactured by SMT Corp. I understand they are the way a local small-time long distance company got around equal access. Does anyone have any info on how to program them? nn m m RRR i John Stanley n n m m m R R New Methods Research, Inc. n n m m m RRR i 6035 Corporate Drive n n m m m R R i East Syracuse, NY 13057 n n m m m R R i (This space reserved for electronic addresses, #include when I finally figure out what they are.) [Author's note: isn't it interesting. We moved recently. Once we turned the systems on, uunet was happily bringing us our electronic mail. The US Mail is still hiccuping. Wouldn't it be nice if ...] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 10:40 PST From: Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com Subject: New Sleazy 900 Service Latest ad is for a service that will "add your name" to a communication to your legislators announcing your feelings (pro or anti) on the abortion issue. Call 1-900-xxx-xxx0 for one view and 1-900-xxx-xxx0 for the other view. In letters 3 pixels high for about 10 seconds, it states that the call costs $4.95. Otherwise, no audio mention of the cost. The announcer is a pretty lady with a soothing voice telling how important the issue is, and how the supreme court has put it back in the hands of the legislator and how disasterous it would be if your voice wasn't heard. Unsaid, but implied is the threat that if the other side calls in more times than your side does, legislators will be influenced against your position. Boy, this industry has hit new lows in sleeze. -edg ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Phone Frustration Date: 9 Jan 90 07:15:54 GMT Organization: very little In response to the posting by /bernie\, yes the PUC usually requires the telco to put payphones in lots of areas that they dont want to, for public convenience. The telcos complain that the COCOTs naturally take the "good" locations. Again, I am not anti-COCOT or pro-telco, even though I am the guy who calls the PUC and gets them removed. Oh, and another thing about removal. It doesn't happen without warning. The COCOT owner gets a letter explaining the problem, and is given time to correct it. Tad Cook tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Dell Ellison Subject: Re: Phone Frustration Date: 9 Jan 90 19:08:00 GMT Organization: gte In article <2596@accuvax.nwu.edu>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > ... I'd > much rather have a little problem with a privately owned COCOT than ^^^^^^ ??? Sorry, but that's where I differ in opinion, which might be what it comes down to: everyone's own opinion. But, (IMHO) I would much rather have a little problem of finding a valid payphone than have to deal with the rip-offs by mail. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 00:31:30 PST From: Mike Morris Subject: Re: Marking COCOTS Out of Order In article <2669@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >[Moderator's Note: But the proprietor may come along and rip the sign >down. Better to use some *very sticky* pre-printed (office copy >machine?) labels which say "Out of Order Due to Misprogrammed >Routing/Rates" which you slap on the phone across the coin slot area. >Make sure you cover the coin slot. Once you have thus affixed the >notice, be sure to visit the location in a day or two to see if the >phone is still marked out of service, or if some creature came out of >the swamp and scraped off the notice; if so, you will need to affix a >new sticker after checking the phone to see if it is now 'repaired'. >If you have the time and money to stand there and perform further >diagnostics, please do. In your new role as trouble-shooter, you may >also wish to get cozy with the manufacturer of the COCOT as a >potential buyer of several hundred units. With the installer's manual >at hand, perhaps you can liberate -- uh, I mean reprogram the firmware >yourself. :) PT] Somebody is reading your mind, Patrick! Yesterday I saw one at a local Union Oil gas station with a _professional_looking_ but laser-printed sticker across the coin slot, and upon looking closely, I saw that somebody had gotten even and had glued all the buttons with (what looked like) 5-minute epoxy! The sticker said "Out of order - crooked owner!". It would be interesting if it could be programmed without opening the case - the only info I have on the guts suggests that there is a switch inside that must be closed to enable programming mode. I know a couple of types can be remotely programmed - one of them is marked "Cannot receive incoming calls". When a new prefix was turned on here in LA I deliberately tried it on a couple of phones the following week, and then called the "repair number" and chewed them out for "preventing me from calling my mother" - one outfit thought I was the client!! They told me they would verify the new prefix, and "download the new database immediately. Would I like any other changes at the same time? No charge, since we have to add the new prefix." I was very tempted.... 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: Tue, 9 Jan 90 10:17 PST From: Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com Subject: Two Jokes The future: AT&T will announce its new "Intergalactic Direct Distance Dialing" system (IGDDD). Although no foreign galaxies will yet have been hooked into the system, it will be recommended that users begin placing calls immediately since the time lag to get a ring at the called party's phone may range up to hundreds of millions of years or more. When asked about charging for the new service, the official reply will be, "if you have to ask, you can't afford it - but you won't have to worry about getting a bill any time soon. In a dramatic event, a team of hard-core teenage computer "crackers" will be found to have spent over 10,000 man-hours attempting to break into what they thought was a high-security computer system. It will be revealed, however, that the youngsters were actually attempting to log in to a modem that was not attached to a computer at all. The local district attorney's office will announce that charges of malicious mischief will be filed against the crackers as soon as they have been deemd safe to be released from their rubber rooms, where they continue to babble, "Man, this is one tough system to crack..." ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #18 *****************************   Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 0:10:54 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #19 Message-ID: <9001110010.aa28670@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 11 Jan 90 00:10:12 CST Volume 10 : Issue 19 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Reach Out World (Don H. Kemp) The REAL Scoop on the FCC Surcharge Rumor (Glenn Popelka) Looking For a Good Installer (Jeff M. Cochran) CES - Request For Info (Peter Weiss) Caller ID Question (W.L. Ware) Phone/FAX/Modem Switches (gperkins@cdp.uucp) Question on Automatic Calling Devices (Mark Ahlenius) Wrong Numbers (Piet van Oostrum) Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Calls Not Private (John R. Levine) Re: NYNEX (Don H. Kemp) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Reach Out World Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 17:20:08 EST From: Don H Kemp [Moderator's Note: Mr. Kemp has forwarded another AT&T Press Release to us. Thank you, Don. PT] FOR RELEASE WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1990 BASKING RIDGE, N.J. -- AT&T today announced its international discount calling plan, called AT&T Reach Out (R) World. The FCC tariff for this plan has been in effect since July 1, 1989. Customers save 10 percent or more on calls made during Reach Out World's hours. For a $3 per month fee, customers receive discounts on calls to 25 of the most frequently called countries and overseas areas: Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Japan, Italy, Australia, France, Switzerland and the Netherlands. Other countries and areas in the program are Denmark, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Monaco, Brazil, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, the Philippines, Korea, Guam, Taiwan, Pakistan, Kuwait and Israel. Reach Out World customers also receive a 5 percent discount on direct-dialed interstate calls within the United States. AT&T also announced today it will soon add nine new countries and overseas areas to Reach Out World, including West Germany, Spain, Hong Kong, Greece and Thailand. John Berndt, president of AT&T International Communications Services, said, "The dramatic reduction in international prices over the last few years has democratized international calling. Our Reach Out World plan is an example of how inexpensive and convenient it has become. As the barriers between East and West and between the nations of the world come down, telecommunications is leading the way toward a world in which ideas flow freely." A nationwide advertising campaign in support of the Reach Out World plan will begin tomorrow in newspapers. Reach Out World is part of a continuing effort by AT&T to make international calling more convenient and affordable. On January 1, AT&T reduced international calling prices by $104 million. The AT&T Reach Out World calling rates also now reflect that reduction. AT&T has offered discount calls to Canada through its Reach Out (R) Canada program for three years. For the past two years, AT&T has offered Reach Out (R) United Kingdom and Reach Out (R) Philippines. The January 1 rate decrease and Reach Out World plan continues a decades-long trend toward lower AT&T international rates. The average price of an AT&T international call today is less than half the average price of 15 years ago. AT&T has also been working to make international calling easier by adding Spanish-speaking representatives, introducing multilingual capabilities and extending to more than 65 countries its USADirect Service, which allows people phoning the U.S. from overseas to be directly connected to an AT&T operator in the U.S. At the same time, AT&T has expanded its Worldwide Intelligent Network. In the next few weeks, AT&T will add the Philippines and Taiwan links to a fiber-optic network that now stretches from Europe to Asia. And later this year, AT&T plans to expand the fiber-optic network to include Hong Kong and Korea in the Pacific, and Colombia, Puerto Rico, Jamaica and the Dominican Republic in the Caribbean. # # # 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 ------------------------------ From: Glenn Popelka Subject: The REAL Scoop on the FCC Surcharge Rumor Date: 10 Jan 90 20:07:57 GMT Reply-To: Glenn Popelka Organization: University of Chicago The file MOBILIZE.ZIP has been circulating recently, urging you to write to a variety of beaurocrats and politicians about a proposed FCC surcharge on modem usage. The file mentions a talk show from KGO radio in San Francisco. I called KGO today (Jan. 10,1990) to get the real scoop on this issue. The talk show mentioned is several years old. In fact, its so old, they couldn't give me the date the show originally aired. KGO is aware that the issue has re-surfaced, and spent most of yesterday (Jan. 9,1990) talking about it. I will talk to the producer later today (again, Jan. 10,1990) to see if I can get a transcript of the show to post. So for now, sysops should take the file MOBILIZE.ZIP and put it away for possible future use. I can't fault people for being concerned and wanting to take action against this; I think it demonstrates one of the better qualities of the BBS community. But, we have to get our facts straight. Check your sources. Verify the facts. (And cite them.) Include dates on all postings. If you are concerned about dampers being placed on the free flow of information by malignant utilities, I suggest you follow alt.cosuard, and write a letter to Southwestern Bell. This is a current issue (as of Jan. 10, 1990) which could set a dangerous precedent for all of us. peace & peebs, glenn popelka from chicago's great south side. ------------------------------ From: "Jeff M. Cochran" Subject: Looking For a Good Installer Date: 10 Jan 90 08:18:55 GMT Organization: Cochran & Associates I am looking for someone who is capable of doing some phone installation work in West Caldwell, NJ. The first thing that must be done is the installation of a Panasonic KXT-123211 with two phones and a couple of lines. That part is simple. The next thing that needs to be done is the installation of a Newbridge 3612 Mainstreet Multiplexer. Then in addition to some voice lines the MUX will have to have some terminals and printers connected to it. I will need the work to be done in the next couple of weeks. If you do this sort of work or can recommend somebody to do it please email your response to me at: jeff@heltel.ati.com Thank you in advance. Jeff M. Cochran jeff@heltel.ati.com 415/327-6165 ------------------------------ Subject: CES - Request For Info Organization: Penn State University Date: Wednesday, 10 Jan 1990 15:12:33 EST From: Peter Weiss I would like to read of other C.E.S. attendees' impressions of the new/novel. There is already a trickle flowing to Usenet, but I think you can do better than CNN-TV. /Pete ------------------------------ From: "W.L. Ware" Subject: Caller ID Question Date: 10 Jan 90 18:25:37 GMT Organization: Information Systems and Computing @ RIT, Rochester, New York I live in Rochester NY, and have a question about caller ID. Rochester Telephone says that they are planning to implement thier own version of caller ID, the lady I talked to was not all to sure of exactly what would go into it but she said probably inthe next 6 months it would be out. We are on ISDN here so my question is can I buy a Caller ID box from some 3rd party and plug it in and expect it to work? Lance ************************************************************************ *W.L.Ware LANCEWARE SYSTEMS* *WLW2286%ritvax.cunyvm.cuny.edu Value Added reseller* *WLW2286%ultb.isc.rit.edu Mac and IBM Access. * [Moderator's Note: The answer is yes you can. Shop the catalogs. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 19:34:33 -0800 From: gperkins@cdp.uucp Subject: Phone/FAX/Modem Switches Has anyone had experience with the various phone/FAX switches that are being advertised lately in the U.S.? They run from $100 to $350 and allow you to call your home and switch past an answering machine to a modem or FAX. Anyone seen any comparative reviews? G. Perkins, Mpls, MN, USA ------------------------------ From: Mark Ahlenius Subject: Question on Automatic Calling Devices Date: 8 Jan 90 14:44:58 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL I recently moved and got a new home phone number. Each night at approximately 10:28 pm we get a call from some auto dialer device. It does not sound like any modem device I have ever heard before. It has a short beep (about 0.5 sec.) then pauses for 3-4 seconds or so and repeats until either I hang up or it gives up a minute or so later. It does not sound like any fsk device. It almost sounds like the type of beep you hear when someone is recording a phone conversation. Anyway it will try to call us 3 times and then finally give up. Maybe HAL or the WHOPPER were revived? I called Ma Bell (Illinois Bell in this case) and explained the problem. They told me that the previous owner of this number had it changed some time ago cause they got calls from some Bank's fax machine. And I could have it changed too. They couldn't resolve the problem at that time either. But alas we have already published our new number to a lot of folks and hate to change it again. A phone trap will cost ME bucks and we have to get the local police involved - something that I don't want to spend money on. I called our fax machine at work and it does not sound like this device either - so I am confused about it. If it is indeed a fax machine - perhaps I can borrow a fax machine or fax modem and hook it up and try to recieved their cover sheet and in effect - return the favor. My guess is that our number is programmed in some auto calling device by mistake and no one knows about it. Then I can call the culprits and tell them of the trouble and if that doesn't stop them I could fax them the whole Sears catalog - until they get the picture! Anyway does anyone have any ideas on what this problem could be? If so - please email me your suggestions and I will post any successful solutions if so desired to the group. Thanks in Advance. Mark [Moderator's Note: What you are suggesting is a fun idea, but then they could make trouble for you. I suggest instead that you have IBT trace the calls. If the service rep tries to tell you there will be a charge to you for tracing, start yelling loudly and demand to have a supervisor 'or someone who has been trained to talk to subscribers and correct problems' come on the line. Remind them that their own tariffs cover tracing of nuisance calls; they are there to serve you, not the other way around; and do they want to do their job or will you be put in the postion of having to appeal to the Chairman's office? They'll do the trace, and when it is completed, then go to the office of the Illinois Commerce Commission and file a complaint against the offender and request that the ICC order telco to disconnect the offender's service. I will look up the appropriate regulation number if telco can't find it for you. Then take your bill for what all this has cost you and file suit in Small Claims Court against the offending caller to collect for your expenses. I had an almost identical situation three years ago involving a computer at a bank in Chicago which was mis-programmed to dial my second line. All the pleading in the world did no good; I could reach no one in authority to correct the matter and was told they would do as they pleased. All of a sudden when one day they were notified by telco that they had a Commission complaint with a 48 hour 'correct or disconnect order' and the next day the Sheriff served them with my summons in Small Claims, they became very solicitous and eager to talk to me. PT] ------------------------------ From: Piet van Oostrum Subject: Wrong Numbers Can Be Profitable Date: 10 Jan 90 14:04:13 GMT Reply-To: Piet van Oostrum Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands A friend of mine got a telephone number that previously belonged to a building supplies company (they moved to a different exchange). He got several telephone calls for the company. After getting tired of it he called the company and offered them to give their new number to the callers in exchange for a 10% discount on any purchase. They agreed. 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') ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Calls Not Private Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 10 Jan 90 17:16:21 EST (Wed) From: "John R. Levine" Alan Dershowitz, normally a fairly reasonable guy, was all upset about the Court's decision and how it would inconvenience all of the users of cordless phones. I don't have to explain to any readers here that the technology used in cordless phones makes any expectation of privacy unreasonable and to attempt to legislate otherwise is spitting into the wind. If we step back a little here, what has really happened is that a technology has been implemented willy-nilly without a thorough understanding of what it really is or what its implications are, and when people find out later what has happened they get all upset. Is there anyone around trying to educate the population in general and the legal profession in particular about social implications of technical change? If so, they're not doing a very good job. I suppose if I really care so much I should do something about it myself. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl PS: I wouldn't dream of mentioning Caller ID again. Oops, I just did. Sorry. John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 864 9650 johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {ima|lotus|spdcc}!esegue!johnl "Now, we are all jelly doughnuts." [Moderator's Mote: Caller-ID? Gaak! You devil, you! :) PT] ------------------------------ From: Don H Kemp Subject: Re: NYNEX Date: 10 Jan 90 20:51:33 GMT Organization: B B & K Associates, Inc., Rutland, VT From article <2711@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com: >> Well NYNEX is the holding company that owns to BOCs: New York >> Telephone (NY) and New England Telephone (NE). >> The "X" part may stand for Xtra money? Or, X as in cross connection? >> - Anthony Lee > I thought NYNEX was how much your phone bill went up with divestature > (9x). While holding idle chit-chat with some NYNEX sales types today, I was told a little war story about the origin of the name. It seem that when New England Telephone and New York Telephone management were argui.. (sorry) discussing who would come first in the name of the new holding company, NYTel decided to be very gracious. "New England can come first in the name. See, N for New England, then Y for New York..... On a related subject, the front page story in the WSJ of 01/09 about Nynex Material Enterprises overcharging the two operating companies (to the tune of $120,000,000), brings to mind the name used for the holding company by many of it's current and former employees..... SlimeX 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #19 *****************************   Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 1:21:34 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #20 Message-ID: <9001110121.aa20265@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 11 Jan 90 00:20:41 CST Volume 10 : Issue 20 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (Henry Mensch) Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (Kent Borg) Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (Dimetri Vulis) Re: New Sleazy 900 Service (Gary Sanders) Re: New Sleazy 900 Service (Seth Zirin) Re: Don't Steal Telephone Service, or Else! (Thomas Lapp) Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private (Thomas Lapp) Re: Two Questions About Caller ID (David Lewis) Re: Texas PUC Responds to Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. (David Lewis) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 04:01:06 -0500 From: Henry Mensch Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid Well, maybe the example is stupid, but it is indeed possible for an unwary user to misdial the other way around (i.e., trying to get a foreign destination and getting a domestic one instead). My office phone in Australia was +61 75 951431 and at least one person told me that the number they dialed got them a disconnect message (in area code 617, 595-1431 "has been disconnected.") They obviously didn't dial the "+" (011) first... # Henry Mensch / / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # / / ------------------------------ From: Kent Borg Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid Date: 10 Jan 90 23:28:45 GMT Reply-To: Kent Borg Organization: Camex, Inc., Boston, Mass USA In article <2632@accuvax.nwu.edu> ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org (David Dodell) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 9, message 4 of 8 >I'm sure other members of the conference have seen the recent AT&T ad >showing some guy at a telephone both trying to call Phoenix but >getting Fuji instead. >Checking with AT&T, the country code to Fuji is 679... Wow! I knew Fuji had their own blimp, and I knew there were a lot of big and powerful multinational corportions out there, but this is the first time I have heard a company having its own *country* code! I don't approve--maybe we should all start buying Kodak film in protest. Kent Borg lloyd!kent@husc6.harvard.edu or ...!husc6!lloyd!kent MacNet: kentborg H:(617) 776-6899 W:(617)426-3577 "The wall has been opened. One of the most insurmountable borders in Europe has become a German dance floor." -Christoph Hein, NYT Magazine, 17 Dec 1989 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 00:12 EDT From: DLV@cunyvms1.bitnet Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid Brian L. Matthews said: >Not that I want to stick up for AT&T's advertising department, but when >I first saw the ad, I thought the point was that having called Fiji >instead of Phoenix, he had to call the billing department of whatever >long-distance company he was using, while an AT&T operator would give >him instant credit. Huh! Last fall I called my father in Leningrad, USSR via AT&T. As discussed previously on Telecom, you have to go thru an AT&T operator to call there. The operator dialed the number incorrectly. I immediately called the operator back and they said they won't charge us for this. Imagine our surprise (well, not much, really) when I accidentally looked at the itemized AT&T bill and noticed $6+ for that call! Unfortunately, I don't have the habit of checking the phone bill in great detail, and this one has already been paid. We're trying to straighten it out now. Moral: If the AT&T operator says you got instant credit, it ain't necessarily so. Dimitri Vulis Department of Mathematics City University of New York Graduate Center ------------------------------ From: gws@cbnews.ATT.COM (Gary W. Sanders) Subject: Re: New Sleazy 900 Service Date: 10 Jan 90 14:34:49 GMT Reply-To: gws@cbnews.ATT.COM (Gary W. Sanders,51236,cb,3D246C,6148605965) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories In article <2755@accuvax.nwu.edu> Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 18, message 4 of 8 >Latest ad is for a service that will "add your name" to a >communication to your legislators announcing your feelings (pro or >anti) on the abortion issue. Call 1-900-xxx-xxx0 for one view and I noticed another sleazy thing that is happening in the 900/976 world is on pricing. I have seen a number of ads stating a price of 50 cents a minute, that is about 1/2 of what other services are charging, but if you look closely there is a "*" and very small print at the bottom of the page that says cost is based on 1/2 minutes. The other sleazy item is get minimum number of minutes, you get this "great rate" but there is a 15 minute minimum on the call. With many of these chat/talk lines running $60 to $75 an hour I dont see how people can really spend that kind of money. Are people really that lonely? The quality of the phone lines and quality of the service overall is very poor. Gary Sanders (N8EMR) AT&T Bell Labs, Columbus Ohio gws@cblph.att.com 614-860-5965 ------------------------------ From: Seth Zirin Subject: Re: New Sleazy 900 Service Date: 10 Jan 90 14:26:24 GMT Reply-To: szirin@cbnewsm.ATT.COM In article <2755@accuvax.nwu.edu> Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com writes: >The announcer is a pretty lady with a soothing voice telling how >important the issue is, and how the supreme court has put it back in >the hands of the legislator and how disasterous it would be if your >voice wasn't heard. Unsaid, but implied is the threat that if the >other side calls in more times than your side does, legislators will >be influenced against your position. There are worse ads in the NY Metro area. 1) A "free" information kit for people with bad credit that desire a credit card. The call costs 6.95 and the warning is visual only and lasts 1 second. 2) Information on buying cars seized from drug dealers for $100. They show new Vettes, BMWs, etc and the call costs $59.00! Again, there is no audible warning. 3) WOR in NJ seems to bombard their evening viewers with ads for various date and love lines. They state that only women will be on the line. Since we never see ads geared towards women that claim only men will be on the line, we can only assume that the women are employees of the service provider and are not women calling in on some other number. Using 900 for these calls was a bad idea. Anyone dialing an off by one to a toll free 800 number can get zapped. Imagine trying to get credit for a $59 wrong number from one of the fly by night "telephone companies." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 19:16:16 est From: Thomas Lapp Subject: Re: Don't Steal Telephone Service, or Else! Reply-To: mvac23!thomas@udel.edu TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Excerpts from the Chicago Tribune and New York Times, > Sunday, January 7, 1990] > tricky problem, and to guard against lost revenues, phone companies > often treat college students and prisoners the same: as high-risk > customers of whom a large security deposit will be required. Or, they > may require some third person to make a personal guarentee for the > payment when it comes due. When I attended Ohio State University as a grad student, it was the first time I had telephone service installed. When I called to have service installed, I really expected to have to pay dearly for service. Much to my surprise, even though I let the order taker know that I had never had phone service before, I was not required to put down a down payment. Nor was I required to pay for service in advance (other than the usual billing for installation and the first month). Of course, I don't know if she took employment info or not, but I was employed by the University (as a teaching associate). ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 19:16:16 est From: Thomas Lapp Subject: Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private Reply-To: mvac23!thomas@udel.edu And in a comment on another posting in the same issue in which the Supreme Court ruled that conversations over cordless phones are not considered private: > A federal judge in Davenport, Iowa threw out the suit, saying users of > cordless phones should know that the technology used in their phones > makes it possible to overhear a conversation without a wiretap. As > [...] > who argued the matter before the Supreme Court claimed "this decision > deprives millions of Americans the privacy rights they *think* they > have when they are talking at home on a cordless phone." (emphasis > mine) What bothers me about this is that if users of cordless phones should be aware that they can be overheard, the Supreme Court should also apply the same reasoning to cellular telephones since it is OBVIOUS that carphones, etc. use radio waves (the antenna tends to give it away :-). It seems inconsistant that the ECPA protects cellular phones but not cordless phones; or vice versa, that the Supreme Court can rule that cordless phones are not private, but not strike down the ECPA on that same point. > He said it also takes away the privacy protection of callers using a > regular phone who, unknowingly, speak with someone using a cordless phone. Now I could see this side of it, although most of the time, the quality difference between cordless and corded telephones is such that most people can tell which is being used at the other end. And likewise, most people know that they are dialing a cellular telephone when they do so, although the quality difference is less noticable (in my opinion). - 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? [Moderator's Note: There is no logical reason why cordless phones are not protected by ECPA and cellular phones are. The only reason for this discrepancy is that cellular phone companies have big $$ to spend on aggressive attornies. Actually, there is no valid reason for ECPA, period, but that's a story for another day. PT] ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: Two Questions About Caller ID Date: 10 Jan 90 17:37:15 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ [What was it you said, Patrick? Two weeks before we start up again?] In article <2584@accuvax.nwu.edu>, STEVEF%WALKER_RICHER_QUINN@mcimail.com (Steve Forrette) writes: > 1) Long distance and Caller ID > How well does Caller ID work with incoming long distance calls? It doesn't. [Inasmuch as "long distance" is defined as inter-LATA.] None of the CLASS service package, of which Caller ID is one service, will work in any way with inter-LATA calls. However, some certain 800 calls will result in the billing number (which, in 99% of residential applications, is the same as the calling number) being delivered to the called party. AT&T offers billing number delivery (a.k.a. ANI delivery) over an ISDN BRI from their 4ESS to a customer's PBX; MCI is shortly going to begin delivery of billing number (ANI) via MF signaling to customers. Both of these are, so far as I know, offered only in conjunction with 800 service. 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: Texas PUC Responds to Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. Date: 10 Jan 90 22:16:19 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ An interesting point. The Texas OPC (Office of Public Counsel) claims that SWBT can modernize the network, and use the revenues from new services to pay for that modernization. The quote was... >Ms. Ottmers stated that >economically justified improvements to the telephone network should >be performed -- and that high-tech services which are made possible >by the modernization should pay for the upgrades. Unfortunately, those "high-tech" services cost money above and beyond that to upgrade the network. For an example near and dear to the hearts of the Digest, consider the CLASS service package. To deploy CLASS, you have to "upgrade the network" -- deploy CCS7 to all your end offices. However, you also have to purchase the CLASS software. The services then have to recover the cost of not only the software to provide the service, but also the network improvement. A case could even be made that this is *not* in the public interest, because all users of the telephone network are benefiting from the deployment of new technology, but not all users are paying for said deployment. However, it's been an accepted practice since the beginning of time for PUCs to permit (nay, encourage) this sort of internal subsidy, because it's the general public who receives the benefit. (General public pays for benefits to limited set of users == not good; limited set of users pays for benefits to general public == good.) This aside, I would go out on a limb and say that if PUCs accept the argument that telcos should put up the money for network improvements and expect to recover those costs in revenues from new services, it's going to be a cold day in El Paso before we see a slew of network improvements. Why? Because telephone companies are risk-averse. They attract investors precisely because they are risk-averse; regardless of their intentions, they will continue to be risk-averse for a very, very long time. Consider the reaction of Wall Street if SWBT made the following announcement: (The following is a simulation. Please do not adjust your set.) SWBT ANNOUNCES NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS Southwestern Bell Company today announced that it was reducing investor dividends for the third quarter by a total of $340 Million to fund its "Oklahoma First" network improvement plan. "We feel that there is sufficient revenue out there to justify the cost," said xxx, Vice President for Network Planning. "The PUCs aren't guaranteeing our usual 12% rate of return on capital investments, but our market research indicates that the Oklahoma market for advanced services is tremendous. We expect to recover our investment in two years." (This has been a simulation; we now return you to our regularly scheduled post.) Imagine the reaction of pension fund managers and mutual fund managers who have SWB stock because it's a nice, safe investment returning 12% a year. Now, they've gone and kicked $340M into an investment that's not nice, safe, guaranteed, and they're counting on market research for services that no one's ever sold before to pay it back... Sell! Sell! I don't know if the answer is new forms of regulation, or competition in the local loop, or more intelligent regulatory bodies, or what -- but I'm fairly certain it's *not* what the OPC thinks it is in this case... Industrial-strength disclaimer -- this is my opinion, not Bellcore's. David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #20 *****************************   Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 2:08:42 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #21 Message-ID: <9001110208.aa22828@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 11 Jan 90 01:50:34 CST Volume 10 : Issue 21 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Notes on the Network: Dialing Procedures (David Lewis) Why 8-digit Numbers Are Impossible in North America (John R. Covert) Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls? (Chris Johnston) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lewis Subject: Notes on the Network: Dialing Procedures Date: 10 Jan 90 23:45:57 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ Given the apparent resumption of the discussion of dialing plans to do with interchangeable codes, I thought it might be a good idea to present "the straight story", from Notes on the Network. I took the effort to get the following excerpts from Notes typed in. {However, this is an unauthorized reproduction. While I shouldn't get into *too* much trouble...} I would ask that: (1) all distribution in electronic form of the following excerpts reproduce the excerpts in their entirety, without change, deletion, or modification of any parts; (2) all distribution in electronic form of the following excerpts include the full citation and copyright notices; (3) no more than one hardcopy, for personal use only, be made by any reader of the following excerpts. [Moderator's Note: I appreciate your concern, and have prepended your note to me to the start of this article. I ask that readers observe your special requests under the circumstances. PT] ========================================================================= The following is excerpted from _Notes on the BOC Intra-LATA Networks - 1986 Issue 1, April 1986 TR-NPL-000275 Copyright (c) American Telephone and Telegraph, Inc., 1980, 1983 Copyright (c) Bell Communications Research, Inc., 1986 All rights reserved. 3.0 Interchangeable Codes 3.01 The subject of interchangeable codes is frequently misunderstood, perhaps in large part due to the terminology used. Some definitions of interchangealbe codes that will be useful in the following discussion are provided below: * Interchangeable CO codes: This refers to anygiven NPA in which codes of the format N 0/1 X (i.e., those codes traditionally used only as NPA codes) are used for CO codes, in addition to the traditional CO codes of the format NNX. Thus, interchangeable CO codes are of the format NXX. Interchangeable CO codes are currently in use in NPA 201 (Northern New Jersey), NPAs 212/718 (New York City), 213/818 (Los Angeles), 312 (Chicago), 214/817 (Dallas/Fort Worth), 905 (Mexico City), and 706 (Northwest Mexico). {Note -- as of April, 1986. I presume 718 is also using interchangeable CO codes; some others may be as well.} * Interchangeable NPA codes: This refers to codes of the format NNX (i.e., those codes traditionally used only as CO codes) are used as NPA codes in addition to the traditional NPA codes of the format N 0/1 X. Thus, interchangeable NPA codes are also of the format NXX. No interchangeable NPA codes are in use at this time. However, Bellcore has recommended that the NANP service area implement interchangeable NPA code capability by July 1, 1995. 3.02 The two interchangeable code situations together are often referred to as "full code interchangeability" or "fully interchangeable codes." The term "interchangeable codes" is frequently used to refer to either situation. Unlike the ANC (All Number Calling) situation, there are some significant effects on both caller-dialing procedures and the switching equipment when interchangeable codes are implemented. These effects are discussed in the remainder of part 3.0. 3.03 omitted 3.04 omitted 3.05 Interchangeable CO codes are implemented on an individual NPA basis without any resulting effect on the dialing procedures or switching system arrangements in any other NPAs. However, within the NPA in which the conversion takes place, all switching systems must be modified to accept codes of the format N 0/1 X as the first three digits of a 7-digit number, as well as the first three digits of a 10-digit number. 3.06 When interchangeable CO codes are introduced in an NPA, the ability of the switching systems to distinguish between a 7- and a 10-digit address by examing the first three address digit is impaired. Thus, some other method for making that distinction is required. Several possibilities exist. One possibility is to have the callers provide a positive indication of their intention by dialing "1" in front of the area code on all 10-digit (and only 10-digit) calls. This is referred to as the "1+" or "prefix" method. Another is to have the switching machine wait a fixed period of time (i.e. approximately four seconds) after seven digits have been received to see if additional digits are received. If no additional digits are received within the required period, the switching machine will time out and process the call on a 7-digit basis. This is referred to as the "timing" method. Yet a third possibility is a compromise between the prefix and timing methods. This will be referred to as the "hybrid" method in this document. The hybrid method is summarized below. CALL TYPE DIALING PROCEDURE TIMING REQUIRED Local 7D NXX-XXXX No Toll 7D 1+NXX-XXXX Only if NXX is also an assigned NPA code All 10D 1+NPA-NXX-XXXX No 3.07 Thus, the hybrid method requires timing only in those cases where a toll call is dialed on a 1+7D basis, and the dialed NXX code is assigne as both a CO code within the HNPA {Note -- Home NPA a.k.a. home area code} and an NPA code elsewhere in the North American network. The successful application of the hybrid method depends upon a switching system capabile of examining the first three digits received after a leading "1" to determin whether they are an NPA code only, an office code only, or an ambiguous code that is in use as both. Only in the latter case will the timing option have to be applice, after the seventh digit, to determine whether a 7- or 10-digit number is being received. 3.08 The 1+ or prefix method is the recommended standard dialing procedure. As expected, there are advantages and disadvantages for both the prefix and the timing methods. The decision to designate the prefix method as the standard for the future include the following considerations: * The prefix method has the disadvantage of requiring the dialing of an extra digit. However, this is applicable only on 10-digit calls, and over 90% of BOC main stations already use a 1+ when dialing 10-digit calls. * The prefix method avoids the need for imposing a four-second post-dialing delay scheme on some, or all, local calls. Avoidance of this extra delay on local calls is beneficial both to the telephone companies in the form of reduced holding time for the switching system's common control equipment, and to the caller in the form of reduced call-setup delay. * With the timing method, common control switching systems have the ability to avoid the need for timing except where ambiguous codes (i.e., those codes actually assigned for both NPA and CO use) actually exist. The need for timing would be minimized initially. However, as time passes and the quantity of ambiguous codes increases, the quantity of time-out applications will also increase. Also, for those callers with an ambiguous office code, all intra-NXX calls would be subjected to the timing delay. * With the advent of Common Channel Signaling (CCS), connections can be completed within a few seconds after dialing. As the average long-haul post-dialing delay continues to decrease, the existance of a 4 to 6 second delay on an increasing number of local calls would become increasingly irritating to callers. * Those areas with step-by-step switching equipment will have an additional penalty under the prefix scheme. HNPA toll calls will have to be dialed on a 1+10D basis instead of the 1+7D basis often used now. As the common control systems replace the step-by-step equipment, all HNPA calls will be dialable on the recommended 7D basis. * The recommended dialing procedure for use with interchangeable codes specifies 0+10D dialing for all operator-assisted calls, both HNPA and Foreign NPA (FNPA). The HNPA 0+ call is the one case where, even after step-by-step is replaced, customers will be asked to dial additional digits (other than the 1+) beyond their present dialing patterns (i.e., 0+10D instead of 0+7D for HNPA operator-assisted calls). The additional three digits will avoid the nominal 4-second timing period that occurs if only seven digits are dialed. 3.09 omitted Effects of Implementing Interchangeable Numbering Plan Area (NPA) Codes 3.10 omitted 3.11 ... Dialing procedures also will have to be changed in many areas. The same comments made in parts 3.03 through 3.09 for interchangeable CO codes apply to interchangeable NPA codes with regard to the requirement for 1+ dialing for 10-digit calls... The Prefix or 1+ Method As USed with Interchangeable Codes 3.12 It should be noted that, in this document, references to the prefix or 1+ method in connection with interchangeable codes mean that 1+ is used *only* for 10-digit calls and without regard to whether or not the 10-digit call is a toll or local call. With the prefix method, dialing 1+7D will result in a partial-dial situation once interchangeable codes have been implemented in an NPA. Many callers that are presently required to dial 1+10D are also required to dial 1+7D for 7D toll calls. The latter procedure will have to be eliminated (or the hybrid timing method implemented) prior to implementation of interchangeable CO codes in an NPA. Similar action will be required in all NPAs prior to implementation of interchangeable NPA codes in the NANP. The temporary use of 1+HNPA+7D may be required in some cases. TABLE D Type of call Without With Interchangeable CO Codes Local Direct Dialed HNPA NNX-XXXX R NXX-XXXX R* 1+NNX-XXXX NR 1+NXX-XXXX NR NPA+NXX-XXXX NR NPA+NXX-XXXX NR 1+NPA+NXX-XXXX P 1+NPA+NXX-XXXX P FNPA NNX-XXXX R NXX-XXXX R (protected codes) 1+NNX-XXXX NR 1+NXX-XXXX NR NPA+NXX-XXXX NR NPA+NXX-XXXX NR 1+NPA+NXX-XXXX P 1+NPA+NXX-XXXX P FNPA NPA+NNX-XXXX R NPA+NXX-XXXX NR (nonprotected codes) 1+NPA+NNX-XXXX P 1+NPA+NXX-XXXX R* Toll Direct Dialed HNPA NNX-XXXX R NXX-XXXX R* 1+NNX-XXXX NR 1+NXX-XXXX NR NPA+NXX-XXXX NR NPA+NXX-XXXX NR 1+NPA+NXX-XXXX P 1+NPA+NXX-XXXX P FNPA NPA+NNX-XXXX R NPA-NXX-XXXX NR 1+NPA+NNX-XXXX P 1+NPA+NXX-XXXX R* R = Recommended R* = Recommended, These are the recommended long-term procedures to be applicable after step-by-step equipment and protected codes are obsolete. NR = Not Recommended P = Permissive; may be permitted in addition to recommended procedure. Note: Code protection is discussed in part 4.02, item 4: 4.02 CO code conservation forestalls the need for code relief and the associated expenditures... The following is a list of CO code-conservation measures recommended for CO code administration: ... 4) Code protection is an arrangement wherein a CO code assigned in one NPA is excluded from assignment in an adjacent NPA, to permit 7-digit dialing across the common boundary. This is a permissible arrangement and has advantages where a community of interest bridges the boundary in question, but is acceptable only as long as it can be contunued without causing exhaustion of the CO code universe in the NPA protecting the code... ====================================================================== End of excerpt David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." [Moderator's Note: Thank you very much for the work involved in getting this prepared for the Digest. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 05:36:29 -0800 From: "John R. Covert 10-Jan-1990 0822" Subject: Why 8-digit Numbers Are Impossible in North America Daniel O'Callaghan at The University of Melbourne writes: >Here is a way to ease area code congestion without being too difficult >to implement in North America. It basically means that the affected >area switches to 8 digit numbers without any other area needing to know. Unfortunately, due to the presence of a large number of No. 5 Crossbar central offices throughout North America, changing the length of telephone numbers is not technically possible without billions of dollars in expenditure in other areas. Unlike countries where most telephone service is provided by either ancient step-by-step or modern electronic offices, the North American Integrated Numbering Plan Area (U.S., Canada, and the 809 Caribbean) is chock full of central offices of an intermediate type. These common control offices store the number dialled, the _entire_ number, in what is known as an Originating Register. This is a hardware register made out of relays, and it has the capability of storing three, seven, or ten digits, plus a flag indicating whether "1" or "0" was dialled first. To implement eight digits _anywhere_ in North America would require costly modifications _throughout_ North America to every originating register in every remaining No. 5 XBar office, many of which are not scheduled for retirement until sometime in the first two decades of the next century. >Cellular sevices could all be moved to say 229, allowing easy identification >of a number as mobile. It is not clear that it is desirable for mobile numbers to be identified as mobile numbers. Why should anyone care? /john ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 16:05:16 199 From: Chris Johnston Subject: Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls? When I was in Oakland (415) last summer I wasted nearly 20 minutes trying to call a San Francisco number. First I dialed 1-415-123-4567 and got an intercept "You do not need to dial 1 before this number". So I dialed 415-123-4567 and got the message "You must dial 1 before this number". Eventually I figured out I was already in 415 and was required to use the seven digit number. Yesterday something similar happened on the Howard "L" platform. One end of the platform is in Evanston the other in Chicago. Since I wanted to call a 708 number I carefully checked the number card on the (Illinois Bell) pay phone it (incorrectly) read 312. So I dialed 1-708-xxx-xxxx and got a recording which sounded like a local telco installer who gruffly said " dial 1 " I redialed without the areacode and got right through. Why can't I always use eleven digit dialing? Why must I know the local geography to dial a phone? Does anybody check these messages to see if they make sense? Is every switch message recorded locally? Could this be an old switch which is not centrally maintained? cj [Moderator's Note: Please double-check on this. The elevated platform is entirely in Chicago. Evanston starts about five feet west of the embankment on the north side of the street at that point. The Evanston boundary then runs parallel to the tracks on the west side up to where the turn-around is wedged in at the corner of Jonquil Terrace and Clark Street (aka Chicago Avenue in Evanston). The City of Chicago then has a little wedge about a block long terminating on the north side by the Calvary Cemetery. It is only at that point that Evanston moves east of the tracks. The pay phones on the platform and in the station downstairs were all HOllycourt 5 the last time I saw them, which is a Chicago exchange (312-465). This was about three weeks ago. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #21 *****************************   Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 19:31:08 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #22 Message-ID: <9001111931.aa26952@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 11 Jan 90 19:30:56 CST Volume 10 : Issue 22 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Cordless Phone User Vows New Fight (John Boteler) Picking on the BOCs? (William Degnan) Faxnet Info Request (Hank Nussbacher) National Telecom Policy (William Degnan) Conn./Mass. Cellular 911 Access Upgraded (John Boteler) Looking For a Used Panasonic KX-616 (John Kennedy) An Annenberg/CPB Special Funding Initiative (ROBERTS@umdc.bitnet) Re: Don't Steal Phone Service, or Else! (Carl Moore) Re: Reach Out World (Clive Dawson) Re: Modeming on Electronic Switch System (David Lewis) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Cordless Phone User Vows New Fight Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 4:13:06 EST From: John Boteler Excerpted from: UPce 01/08 1709 Phone user vows new court fight DIXON, Iowa (UPI) - An Iowan whose eavesdropping case was turned down by the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday the issue sets up affluent cellular phone users as a special class over average Americans using cordless phones. The high court refused to hear a case brought by Scott Tyler, of Dixon against some nosey neighbors and Scott County officials who listened in on his cordless telephone conversations for months in 1983. At issue is whether users of such phones, now in millions of homes, have an expectation of privacy in their conversations as they would when using a traditional phone. Tyler said he plans to refile the appeal before the Supreme Court Oct. 1 after mounting a publicity campaign backed by supporters in the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Tyler has already received invitations for national radio and television talks shows as well as news programs. National media such as Time Magazine and The Wall Street Journal plan feature stories. A local talk show host, Jim Fisher of WOC radio in Davenport, said he will tape cordless phone conversations he picks up and air them over his station to illustrate the problems with the Supreme Court's decision. Tyler said it's case of the justices lagging behind technological development. He noted almost 40 years passed between the time of the telephone's first widespread use and the first supreme court ruling in 1928 that phone conversations were covered by Fourth Amendment rights of privacy. Tyler said the refusal to extend those rights to cordless phones is a slap at the common citizen. Privacy rights have been granted to phone pagers and cellular communications already. "The cellular phone, the rich man's phone, is covered, but the average man's isn't," Tyler said. According to lower court records, the case began when Richard and Sandy Berodt, whom Tyler described as "political enemies," discovered in 1983 that their cordless telephone could intercept conversations on the cordless telephone in the Tyler household more than four blocks away. Tyler said he was suspected of narcotics dealing when the Berodts misunderstood "light load" for "white load." Tyler ran a wholesale food firm at the time. Based on what they overheard, the Berodts suspected Tyler of criminal activity and contacted the Scott County Sheriff's Department and were urged to monitor Tyler's conversations. The county eventually supplied the Berodts with recording equipment. Tyler was never charged with drug dealing but was convicted on theft and conspiracy charges stemming from his business. He served four months in prison. Tyler then brought suit against his neighbors and county officials, charging the eavesdropping violated his constitutional rights. Lower courts dismissed the case ruling he had no expectation of privacy when using a phone they knew could easily be monitored and he appealed to the high court. Tyler is currently unemployed. Three supporters in the Seventh Day Adventist Church are paying for Tyler's legal bills, which have amounted to more than $200,000, and giving him a stipend to travel the country publicizing his case, he said. He argued phone partylines are covered by privacy rights and also said the lower court's reliance on radio waves as a justification for not protecting cordless phones does not make sense. Cellular phones are entirely broadcast over radio while cordless phones are merely transmitted from the headset to the base unit, which is plugged into a regular phone jack. The other half of conversations could also be over regular landlines and would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, Tyler said. [ wrong - ed ] "This could take on Orwellian excesses," Tyler said. "Police could sit on a street with an AM radio and wait for a criminal conversation to occur." /* end excerpted text */ Interesting to Telecommers, notwithstanding some of the inaccuracies. John Boteler NCN NudesLine: 703-241-BARE -- VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote [Moderator's Note: I will comment for now only on the proposed activities of Jim Fisher, the talk-show host on WOC/Davenport. I can't believe he is as dumb as he sounds. *If* he plays those phone calls over the radio, he will risk the station losing its license, and being fined heavily. In addition, there could be fines against him. You may not broadcast a telephone call over the air without the knowledge and consent of the person(s) on the phone. Steve Dahl tried it in Chicago and had fines heaped upon his station by the FCC. You may not ever engage in an activity for personal gain based upon what you overheard in a radio transmission not intended for yourself. You may not discuss what you heard, or acknowledge that you heard anything. Please note a 'broadcast' is a radio transmission intended for you; a telephone conversation which uses a radio link in part or in whole is a radio transmission *not* intended for you, and while I disagree with the ECPA, and believe I have the right to decipher any electromagnetic radiation which comes my way, I still believe the FCC was correct in prohibiting the use of information overheard by third parties while tuning their radios, etc. Not in *listening* to it, mind you, just in acknowledging it or using it. Mr. Fisher seems to think its okay to personally gain from what he hears by using it for an 'interesting' program, and he certainly does not feel he needs to obtain permission from the telephone users. His proposed violations of the law are not merely 'cordless phone issues', but rather, violations of various other FCC regs. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 20:54:01 CST From: William Degnan Subject: Picking on the BOCs? john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >What would stop a Pacific Telesis supply arm >from buying, for instance, Northern Telecom DMS100s at a steal of a >price (quantity, someone sleeping with someone, whatever) then turning >around and selling those switches to Pac*Bell at full list? And then >when it comes time to compute rate-of-return for Pac*Bell they show >exhorbitant costs for their CO equipment, reflecting a lower apparent >rate-of-return. But Pacific Telesis made the profit at its other >subsidiary, *totally at the expense of Pac*Bell's ratepayers*. Back to >my question: What would stop them? Nothing. They do it all the time. >Now that the PUC isn't watching them anymore, it will be even easier >to get away with it. John, don't you think you're just a little paranoid? Nahhhhhh. From the MDF (Main Distribution Frame) Echo on Fidonet: 053/061 09 Jan 90 19:18:04 From: News Desk @ 382/39 To: All Subj: Cross-subsidization? Us? Nahhhhh. NYNEX AUDIT -- When Nynex ... set up a subsidiary to buy supplies for them, the idea was to save money: The purchasing unit could buy in volume, and the savings would be passed on to customers. From the start, regulators worried that it wouldn't work that way. Because profits of the purchasing unit wouldn't be regulated, Nynex might be tempted to have this unit charge the phone companies inflated prices. ... It was a temptation Nynex apparently couldn't resist. A year-long federal audit has concluded that ... Nynex has overcharged its own companies this way to the tune of $120 million. The FCC ... may act against Nynex as early as this week. ... The complex web of intramural transactions at Nynex ... reminds regulators of the cozy ties that AT&T's Western Electric unit had with the Bell operating companies, a relationship that helped prompt the breakup of AT&T. Since the breakup, such relationships have become increasingly common with the ... Baby Bells. ... New York Times, A1. =============================================== "Just 'cause you're paranoid, doesn't mean they ain't out to getcha." Regards, Bill Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com !wdegnan@at&tmail.com Communications Network Solutions | William.Degnan@telenet.com P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766 | voice: 512 323-9383 William Degnan -- via The Q Continuum (FidoNet Node 1:382/31) UUCP: ...!rpp386!tqc!39!wdegnan ARPA: wdegnan@f39.n382.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 18:24:45 O From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: Faxnet Info Request I am looking for information about Faxnet products and integration to PCs. I am aware of Fax machines that can maintain lists of numbers to dial so that one can have a distribution list via FAX. But what if I am on a PC and I want to send my data directly from my PC to a Faxnet machine so that certain copies will be sent via Fax but some will be sent via e-mail so that the destination user will receive the letter in computer readable format. What of the reverse? Someone feeding in a typed letter into a FAX and the FAXnet machine sending it to some people via straight FAX and others via e-mail. Is that posssible? I am interested in hearing of any papers, documents, articles on this matter. Many thanks, Hank ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 12:54:00 CST From: William Degnan Subject: National Telecom Policy The following summary was received in our office this morning. Does anybody here have access to the "notice"? I'd sure like to see it. ================================================================= COMMENTS, PLEASE -- The government has begun an inquiry into whether basic telephone service in the future should include technical innovations such as call-forwarding and access to data and video networks. ... The Bush administration said Tuesday it wants to have a policy in place a year from now. ... Key issues are how, how fast and which various elements of the industry can best improve U.S. competitiveness and the quality of life. ... In a 99-page notice published Tuesday, the policy-advising National Telecommunications and Information Admin. ... said it wants fresh comments within the next 90 days from the industry. ... AP, McGraw Hill, 1/9. Regards, Bill Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com !wdegnan@at&tmail.com Communications Network Solutions | William.Degnan@telenet.com P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766 | voice: 512 323-9383 William Degnan -- via The Q Continuum (FidoNet Node 1:382/31) UUCP: ...!rpp386!tqc!39!wdegnan ARPA: wdegnan@f39.n382.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Subject: Conn./Mass. Cellular 911 Access Upgraded Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 4:06:57 EST From: John Boteler UPI New England reports that cellular telephone users in Connecticut, as well as users in Springfield, MA, may now access local emergency dispatch centers directly via E-911. The article indicated that prior to January 1 an operator intercepted the calls to 911, rerouting them to the appropriate agency. It did not indicate exactly what will happen now, however the EMX (TM) switches have probably implemented call steering to route the call to the appropriate emergency communications center based on the location of the active cell site. It is my understanding that Metropolitan WashiMore subscribers to Cellular One have had this capability for several years, at least. John Boteler NCN NudesLine: 703-241-BARE -- VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote ------------------------------ From: John Kennedy Subject: Looking For a Used Panasonic KX-616 Date: 11 Jan 90 12:42:22 GMT Reply-To: johnk@opel.uu.net (John Kennedy) Organization: Second Source, Inc., Annapolis, MD Perhaps you're about to upgrade? I'm looking to spend around $500. John Kennedy johnk@opel.uu.uunet Second Source, Inc. Annapolis, MD ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 09:27:48 EST From: ROBERTS@umdc.bitnet Subject: An Annenberg/CPB Special Funding Initiative The Annenberg/CPB Project Announces A Special Funding Initiative: The Project seeks proposals from a broad range of 2- and 4-year colleges and universities that would use technologies to make academic programs more accessible to more types of students. Priority will be given to projects that can serve individuals who face constraints of schedule, distance, physical impairment, and/or cost. Submission Deadline: May 15, 1990 For guidelines, write or call: The Annenberg/CPB Project 1111 Sixteenth Street NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 955-5256 or send electronic mail to: roberts@umdc.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 10:47:29 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Don't Steal Phone Service, Or Else! The published item says "beginning and end of semesters". Let me add this: A caution I read several years ago was that at the beginning of a traditional spring term, students usually have less money available than at the beginning of the fall term; therefore, various forms of fraud (shoplifting, phone fraud, etc.?) are more likely to occur at the beginning of the SPRING term. ------------------------------ Date: Thu 11 Jan 90 11:49:06-CST From: Clive Dawson Subject: Re: Reach Out World A comment regarding ATT's new Reach Out World program. I called ATT to inquire what the discount rate would be for calls to Mexico. I was told that the rate under Reach Out World would be $.15/minute, with an additional 5% discount on calls over 10 minutes. I told the rep this was too good to be true, and sure enough, it was. He said, "Of course, this applies only to the U.S. portion of the call up to the international boundary. We have no control over the foreign country rates." Blah. From Austin, the U.S. portion of the night-time rate to Mexico is currently $.14/minute, and I don't have to pay $3/month to get it! (The Mexican portion is about $.75/min -- that's the real killer.) Does anybody have any info regarding a rumor that the Mexican telephone industry was recently de-regulated and/or that the government has relinquished direct ownership? Clive ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: Modeming on Electronic Switch System Date: 11 Jan 90 14:50:47 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <2736@accuvax.nwu.edu>, ntpdvp1!davel@rti.uucp (Dave Livingston) writes: [specifics omitted] > ...standards defined by Bellcore... While we're talking correct terminology... Bellcore doesn't define standards; Bellcore writes technical requirements. Committee T1, CCITT, and ISO write standards, to which Bellcore (and Northern Telecom/Bell Northern Research, among others) is an active contributor. I know what you meant, but the term is actually "Bellcore Requirements". David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #22 *****************************   Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 22:10:51 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #23 Message-ID: <9001112210.aa14314@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 11 Jan 90 22:10:30 CST Volume 10 : Issue 23 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson New Telephone Numbering System in Hong Kong (Albert Pang) Re: Answer to Area Code Congestion (John R. Levine) Re: Answer to Area Code Congestion (David Lewis) Re: Answer to Area Code Congestion (Steve Gaarder) Re: Why 8-digit Numbers Are Impossible in North America (Dan O'Callagan) Re: One Solution To 800 Wrong Numbers (David Lewis) Re: Caller ID (Keith Vitek) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: albert@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 13:32:03 EST Subject: New Telephone Numbering System in Hong Kong I have just returned from Hong Kong and have withnessed this historic event in telecommunication history in Hong Kong. As of Dec 30, 1989 00:01a.m. ("Easy Dialing Day"), no "regional code" will be needed in HK's phone numbers. Most phone numbers now have seven digits (with the exception of "999" the emergency number, etc). From then on, the "regional code" (a 3 for Kowloon, 5 for Hongkong Island or 0 for New Territories) will be stripped off from phone numbers with 7 digits. For those numbers with 6 digits, the "regional code" will become part of the telephone number. Example: 3-376756 will become 337-6756 (a 6 digit phone # in Kowloon) 5-8172780 will become 817-2780 (a 7 digit phone # HK island) The new way of writing phone #s is to divide the # into 2 groups: a group of 3 digits and a group of 4 digits. From news media, I learned that there will be a transition period during which you can still use the old # but you will hear a recording telling you about the change. Over two million numbers were changed overnight. All these changes were for the preparation of a all digital system by year 1995. From my observation, the general reaction of the public was favourable. Due to massive advertisement (since June 1989) in TV, radio, Newspaper etc, It is almost impossible to overlook the changes. albert@calvin.cs.mcgill.ca McGill University, Montreal, Canada. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Answer to Area Code Congestion Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 10 Jan 90 18:11:21 EST (Wed) From: "John R. Levine" In article <2748@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >Here is a way to ease area code congestion without being too difficult >to implement in North America. It basically means that the affected >area switches to 8 digit numbers without any other area needing to >know. ... It seems to be difficult for people from other countries to understand how deeply ingrained 3+7 digit phone numbers are in North America. It is not practical to suggest that we change to anything different. Both central office equipment and premises equipment such as PBXes, memory dialers, toll restrictors, etc. have the 7 and 10 digit lengths wired in. Also, now that every dialable phone number in North America has been ten digits since about 1955, an entire generation has grown up with 3+7 numbers and it's ingrained in our dialing fingers. I'm 35 and I don't remember anything else. By the way, on another thread, I suspect that the reason that some areas are going to 1+NPA+number rather than just the number for intra-NPA toll calls is due to the limitations of old exchanges that need a leading 1 for tandem access. As noted elsewhere, toll charging is complicated enough that "dial 1 for toll" really isn't very meaningful any more. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl PS: Didn't mention Caller ID at all. Oops, did it again. :-) ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: Answer to Area Code Congestion Date: 11 Jan 90 18:31:04 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <2748@accuvax.nwu.edu>, U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au writes: > Here is a way to ease area code congestion without being too difficult > to implement in North America. It basically means that the affected > area switches to 8 digit numbers without any other area needing to > know. Most telephone numbers stay the same, with the addition of > another digit, and for those that change, working out the new number > is very easy. > Taking Los Angeles area 213 as an example: > 1. Abolish area code 213 and in its place establish areas 225 and 228. > This will mean that all areas using 225 and 228 as prefixes must > remove 1+7D toll dialling. In effect, this means that all of the North American Numbering Plan must cutover to fully interchangeable codes. Although you restrict it to 225 and 228 at the start, you assume that farther down the line 22X is the next step, and 33X and other prefixes will be used in other areas. As time goes to infinity, the number of NPAs that have none of these prefixes assigned goes very, very rapidly to 0. Therefore, the entire NANP must cutover to fully interchangeable codes. This is, when it occurs around 1995, going to be *the* biggest and most expensive change to the NANP. > 2. There is no geographical isolation of 225 and 228. Instead, the > areas are assigned to the prefixes 2xx-5xx and 6xx-9xx. > 3. Old numbers beginning with 5 and 8 have their first digit changed > to 7 and 3 respectively. > 4. Dialling within the 225-228 area *must* begin with either a 5 or an > 8. Any attempt to dial a number beginning with 2,3,4,6,7,9 should be > directed a recorded message to remind about the new system. This > should last several months. Let me see if I understand this. The number that used to be 213-455-XXXX would now be 225-455-XXXX, but would be, within this NPA, dialed as 5-455-XXXX. From outside this NPA, it would be dialed 1-225-455-XXXX. Dialing within the NPA would be 8-digit; dialing to outside the NPA would be 11-digit (1+NPA+NXX-XXXX). > The benefits of this system are many, including the retention of LA as > a large community, and an inexhaustible supply of new prefixes, by > simply adding new pseudo-areas 22N when everyone was used to 8 digit > dialling. Here's a trap. You say above that, in a "pseudo-area" 2 2 5/8, CO codes can not begin with 5 or 8. So if you add "pseudo-areas" of the format 22N (I think you meant 22X -- N excludes 0/1, X doesn't), this restricts you from having CO codes beginning with N (X). Therefore, CO codes don't begin with any number (as CO codes cannot begin with 0 or 1). > Comments anyone?? Well, you asked for it. First, the implementation side. As mentioned above, this is not "easy to implement" -- it means cutting over the entire NANP to fully interchangeable codes. I've been trying to figure out how, exactly, to phrase the other problems I see with it -- the usability problems, as opposed to the implementation problems. I think what it comes down to is -- why bother screwing around with 8-digit dialing when we can go straight to 10-digit dialing, in a manner consistent with the current dialing syntax, continuing to provide 7-digit dialing for HNPA calls? The proposal here would: * Change on the order of 1.5M 7-digit phone numbers (all 5/8XX-XXXX numbers) * Change dialing syntax from 7-digit to 8-digit in some -- but not all -- NPAs, therefore removing the universality of HNPA dialing in the NANP (Now, in your home NPA, you dial 7 digits. In this proposal, in some home NPAs you dial 7 digits, in some you dial 8 digits.) * Provide less than an order of magnitude increase in available numbers, compared to more than two orders of magnitude increase by going to fully interchangeable codes * Not be any less expensive to implement than fully interchangeable codes. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but this seems to present all the disadvantages of fully interchangeable codes, add new disadvantages of its own, and not provide any advantages... David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 11:34:20 EST From: Steve Gaarder Subject: Re: Answer to Area Code Congestion If you really want 8-digit dialing in large cities, the way to do it is to use the last digit of the NPA code. To use the numbers in the last example, LA could get NPA codes 225 and 226 (after interchangeable NPA codes are activated). Local calls would be 5xxx-xxxx or 6xxx-xxxx. Long distance calls would use area code 22 followed by 8 digits of number. This would not require changes to any systems outside the local area. I don't think this is worth the trouble, though. We all have 7-digit phone numbers as a standard, and having 8-digit in parts of the country would add vast user confusion (almost as bad as the introduction of COCOTs). Steve Gaarder ------------------------------ From: U5434122@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au Subject: Re: Why 8-digit Numbers Are Impossible in North America Date: 12 Jan 90 11:30:52 (UTC+11:00) Organization: The University of Melbourne In article <2789@accuvax.nwu.edu>, covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert) writes: > Daniel O'Callaghan at The University of Melbourne writes: >>Here is a way to ease area code congestion without being too difficult >>to implement in North America. It basically means that the affected >>area switches to 8 digit numbers without any other area needing to know. > Unfortunately, due to the presence of a large number of No. 5 Crossbar > central offices throughout North America, changing the length of > telephone numbers is not technically possible without billions of > dollars in expenditure in other areas. > common control offices store the number dialled, the _entire_ number, > in what is known as an Originating Register. This is a hardware > register made out of relays, and it has the capability of storing > three, seven, or ten digits, plus a flag indicating whether "1" or "0" > was dialled first. I am not suggesting that subscribers' numbers be made 8 digits. What I propose is that two or more areas are not geographically distinct and have the same first two digits. Also, dialling 1+3+7 should be mandatory for *all* calls, except that '5' is an abbreviation for '1-225-' and '8' is an abbreviation for '1-228-'. Only those central offices in the affected area need to be changed so that the 'flag' register indicates '1','0','5' or'8'. All other central offices can continue quite happliy believing that (225) and (228) are totally different, and for wiring purposes they can be. Each central office in the affected area is in either (225) or (228), in *exactly* the same way COs were split between (312) and (708) in Chicago. Is impossible to convert the flag to handle 4 digits? If these COs are Stored Program Control Crossbar, can't they be programmed to substitute 1-225- for '5' and 1-228- for '8' on the first digit? >>Cellular sevices could all be moved to say 229, allowing easy identification >>of a number as mobile. > It is not clear that it is desirable for mobile numbers to be identified > as mobile numbers. Why should anyone care? In Australia the caller pays the charges for calling a mobile number. The charges are the same as long distance rate 165-745 km, 39c/min 8am-6pm, 26c/min 6pm-10pm and 15c/min 10pm-8am+Saturday night and all day Sunday. Since the caller pays, it is nice to know before you ring the number. Also, cellular phones are not wasting prefixes in the normal area codes. Daniel u5434122@ucsvc.unimelb.edu.au ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: One Solution To 800 Wrong Numbers Date: 10 Jan 90 22:28:51 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <2668@accuvax.nwu.edu>, lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) writes: > > While "wrong number" calls at odd hours are a great nuisance to > residences, they are no big deal to businesses. I think you'd get some argument on that, but I won't provide it. > Maybe the solution is > to move towards separation of residential number space and business > number space. Most people expect an 800-number to be a business > number, and may be less careful when dialing than they would for a > regular number. How about assigning a separate NPA for residential use > ? 810, anyone ? Actually, N10 codes (with the exception of 610) are in the set of usable area codes and not reserved as Service Access Codes (SACs, like 700, 800, 900). Whereas 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 are in the reserved set, so it would make sense to use one of them. How 'bout 400? Like, half of 800... > With new technology, and lots of small long-distance carriers to > compete, residential 800-service is going to boom, and I think it > would be better to have separate prefixes for residential and business > than to have multiple mixed NPAs. I think it's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure if it's a good one. (Haven't thought through the implications yet.) Would be interested in comments, and if there's anything useful (like, maybe a general agreement!?), I'd be willing to pass things along to the Numbering/Dialing Planning District here at Bellcore. (Although I'd greatly appreciate, if this is viewed as a Good Thing, if perhaps our moderator could compile all the appropriate posts into a single file and mail it to me -- I've had difficulty getting to the archives.) David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 10:57:53 CST From: Keith Vitek Subject: Re: Caller ID How can you stop Caller ID on your line? UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!kvitek ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-party!kvitek@nosc.mil INET: kvitek@pro-party.cts.com Keith Vitek | Voice: 512/852-1841 | I want my NeXT... 5914 LiptonShire | or: 512/852-1780 | I want my AmigaUUCP... Corpus Christi, TX 78415 | FIDO: 1:160/40 | I want .......... [Moderator's Note: Do you mean, how can you stop someone who is equipped with a Caller-ID readout from seeing your number? You can't, however at the present time, the display seems to be limited to calls within the local community. Long distance identification is not very common yet. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #23 *****************************   Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 2:01:59 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #24 Message-ID: <9001120201.aa01049@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 12 Jan 90 02:00:18 CST Volume 10 : Issue 24 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Common Carrier Dialer (William Degnan) Most Expensive 900 Call? (Curtis Galloway) Re: New Sleazy 900 Service (Louis J. Judice) Re: New Sleazy 900 Service (David Lewis) Re: New Sleazy 900 Service (John Higdon) 976 (Don't) Dial-It (Robert E. Seastrom) Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (John J. DiLeo) Re: BBS as a Business (Wolf Paul) Those Beeps _Are_ a FAX Machine Trying to Call (John R. Covert) Mobile Telephone Questions (Anthony Lee) Re: Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls? (Chris Johnston) Customer Support (Ken Levitt) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 20:45:01 CST From: William Degnan Subject: Common Carrier Dialer In an article of <9 Jan 90 14:46:16 GMT>, nmri!!stanley@uunet.uu.net (John Stanley) writes: JS>From: nmri!!stanley@uunet.uu.net (John Stanley) JS>Date: 9 Jan 90 14:46:16 GMT JS>Organization: TELECOM Digest JS>Message-ID: <2754@accuvax.nwu.edu> JS>Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom JS>They are called "Common Carrier Access Dialer and Call Controller" JS>with the name SMarT-1 and Mitel on them, and the claim they are JS>manufactured by SMT Corp. Call Jane Conti at Mitel, 555 Taxter Road, Elmsford, NY 10523 (914) 592-1110, if you're buying. She can probably point you in the right direction. (Ask her if she found that Pizza place near Amtrack in Rensselaer.) For literature, including installation practices: Mitel, Inc., Literature Center, 5400 Broken Sound Boulevard, Boca Raton, FL 33487 (407) 994-8500. Some of them have speed dial, an smdr port and ARS. Regards, Bill Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com !wdegnan@at&tmail.com Communications Network Solutions | William.Degnan@telenet.com P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766 | voice: 512 323-9383 William Degnan -- via The Q Continuum (FidoNet Node 1:382/31) UUCP: ...!rpp386!tqc!39!wdegnan ARPA: wdegnan@f39.n382.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ From: Curtis Galloway Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 10:10:02 PST Subject: Most Expensive 900 Call? The other day, I saw a commercial on cable TV for one of those "credit-repair" services. It seemed remarkably uninteresting, until I noticed the cost of the 900 number which you call for information on their service. For one telephone call: THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS. I'm curious to know if other Telecom readers have seen more expensive calls. (Gee, the Jose Canseco hotline seems like a bargain now!) Curtis Galloway | The Santa Cruz Operation | /\/\ curtisg@sco.com | I \ / DISCLAIMERS ...{uunet,ucbvax,ucscc}!sco!curtisg | \/ [Moderator's Note: Yes, there is one charging $58. See later article. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 07:23:05 -0800 From: "Louis J. Judice 11-Jan-1990 0916" Subject: Re: New Sleazy 900 Service Ok, here is a mega-buck idea for a 900 service... Set up an 800 number, 1-800-RATFINK and advertise that people should call to report crimes, indescretions, income-tax evasion and other nasty behavior. Then set up the 900 service, with a $49.95 charge and advertise that if you call it, we WON'T use any information we collect on you! It's sort of a post-de-regulation, post-devestiture variant of the Monty Python skit about the "Blackmail" show. /ljj ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: New Sleazy 900 Service Date: 11 Jan 90 15:06:01 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <2755@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com writes: [description of latest sleazy ad for 900 service -- "important issue, add your name to the list of people in favor", 3-pixel high notification that it costs $4.95 and will be billed directly to your phone bill -- omitted.] That's nothing. You know those ads you always see in the back of magazines about buying vehicles from the government for $49? Where, basically, you send them $5 and they send you a copy of a GSO printout of vehicle auctions. Lately on NYC TV I've been seeing ads for a "service" which will provide you information on how you can get vehicles from the government for exorbitantly low prices... starts sounding familiar... of course, this is TV advertizing, so they call it an "association" or something, and give you a fancy embossed credit card-type membership card with your name and "membership number"... The kicker? The "membership fee" is like $57.95. The number to call is a 900 number. In small print at the bottom of the screen is the disclaimer "fee will be directly charged to your phone bill." In other words, you call, they collect the money, send you a pile of stuff you could get for about $0.85 by writing to the GSO, and when you find out it's worthless, you have very little recourse... Sigh. P.T. Barnum is alive and well and selling 900 services... 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: New Sleazy 900 Service Date: 11 Jan 90 04:13:56 PST (Thu) From: John Higdon Seth Zirin writes: > 3) WOR in NJ seems to bombard their evening viewers with ads > for various date and love lines. They state that only women > will be on the line. Since we never see ads geared towards > women that claim only men will be on the line, we can only > assume that the women are employees of the service provider > and are not women calling in on some other number. While there are female employees of the service provider lurking on the line to keep things under control (get rid of obnoxious callers, keep a sagging discussion going, etc.), the ads are set up in this manner because it is difficult to get men to call. They need to make it look like the line is teeming with women, and it usually is. > Using 900 for these calls was a bad idea. Anyone dialing an off by > one to a toll free 800 number can get zapped. Imagine trying to get > credit for a $59 wrong number from one of the fly by night "telephone > companies." As the weary recipient of many 800 number misdials, let me say that this would be a great incentive to dial the right number, don't you think? But unlike other evils in the telephone jungle, the 976/900 sleaze market is something you can easily avoid. When your car quits on some lonely road and the only phone for miles is a misprogrammed COCOT, you're screwed. When your local telco is gouging you for local service, it's already too late. If you can't get any modern features because your telco is more interested in profits than modernization, well... On the other hand, 976/900 are easy to do without: just don't dial them. I have to say that regardless of how sleazy the TV spots are, no matter how much they charge for their questionable "service", or how much money I *could* waste by calling them, I have not lost one cent to these people. This is a truly *optional* evil. You need go to no pains to avoid spending a single dime. For this reason, I can't get too excited about this particular telephony annoyance. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 11:34:38 EST From: "Robert E. Seastrom" Subject: 976 (Don't) Dial-It I saw these really great stickers pasted up all over the place the other day and just *had* to peel a couple off and take them with me. They said: WARNING: *Please* Don't Call This Number 976-DONT 976-3668 (It's habit forming) $2.98 per call if you did ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 16:29:33 EST From: dileo@brl.mil Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid Reply-To: dileo@brl.mil (John J. Dileo (CSD) ) Organization: USAMSAA, APG, MD 21005 In article <2737@accuvax.nwu.edu> Joel B Levin writes: >Of course that's the point of the ad; what we complain about is the >ludicrous strawman they set up, that someone might confuse calling >Fiji with calling Phoenix. And of course the alternate implications, >that the ordinary user is stupid enough to make that mistake, or that >the alternate long distance carrier would make that mistake. This is >only one of a number of moderately sleasy long distance ads, most of >which are perpetrated by AT&T. If I am thinking about the same commercial, it seemed that his call was *MISROUTED* by the carrier, not misdialed by him. In fact, he dialed the number twice and received the same incorrect number both times. What AT&T was really doing was playing on two at once: that no other phone company is competent to handle long-distance service, and that no other company is as competent at handling complaints, billing, etc. I admit that the ad in question was quite melodramatic, but I don't think it was as stupid as previous posters have suggested. --John DiLeo dileo@brl.mil ------------------------------ From: wolf paul Subject: Re: BBS as a Business Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 14:22:06 MET DST Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria In TELECOM Digest Volume 10, Issue 16, John Higdon writes: > The question remains: Why should anyone have to pay more for telephone > service simply because they allow a modem to speak over the line? In the SWBT vs. COSUARD situation, that is not the question. SWBT argues that a BBS is a business not because it uses a modem, but because it advertises and offers a service. That the vast majority of BBSs are not making any profit, and are not charging for their service is immaterial -- after all, non-profit organizations like the Salvation Army also pay business rates. To illustrate their argument, they maintain that when a sysop imposes online time limits, but then gives time credit for uploads, that actually constitutes a business transaction. He accepts the upload as payment for increased online time. Needless to say, I don't share SWBT's opinion; however, even if business rates were imposed on BBS operators and users, telecommunications as a hobby would still be much more affordable in the US, and offer greater possibilities (even in GTE areas :-) than over here in Austria :-(. Wolf N. Paul, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Schloss Laxenburg, Schlossplatz 1, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe Phone: [43] (2236) 71521-465 BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@cernvax.BITNET UUCP: uunet!tuvie!iiasa!wnp INTERNET: wnp%iiasa.at@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 07:09:22 -0800 From: "John R. Covert 11-Jan-1990 0743" Subject: Those Beeps _Are_ a FAX Machine Trying to Call >I called our fax machine at work and it does not sound like this >device either - so I am confused about it. The sound you describe is the CCITT standard sound for "the device calling you is an autodialer." FAX machines generate this sound when making calls. They do not generate this sound when answering calls. >If it is indeed a fax machine - perhaps I can borrow a fax machine or fax >modem and hook it up and try to recieved their cover sheet ... Patrick is correct to point out that the phone company is required to help you find the source of an annoyance call -- at no charge. But your own idea above (except for the harrassment part which followed) is a good idea. Since these calls come at a specific time, if you have call forwarding, you could make arrangements with one of those P.O.Box/FAX drops (or anyone with a FAX machine) for you to forward your calls to their machine from 10:20 to 10:35 some night to receive the FAX and find the originator. /john ------------------------------ From: Anthony Lee Subject: Mobile Telephone Questions Date: 12 Jan 90 03:35:56 GMT Reply-To: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au In a normal telephone call, the destination can suspend the call by replacing the hook. Just wondering, in the case of a Mobile call, what does the dest. do to suspend the call ? Also I call setup procedure in the 79 Bell Journal a bit hard to follow. Does anyone know a good introduction text that explain mobile call setup in a more procedural way ? Thank you Anthony Lee (Humble PhD student) (Alias Time Lord Doctor) ACSnet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz TEL:+(61)-7-371-2651 Internet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au +(61)-7-377-4139 (w) SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4067, Australia ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 21:30:44 199 From: Chris Johnston Subject: Re: Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls? Organization: U. Chicago Computer Science Dept. In article <2790@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 21, message 3 of 3 >[Moderator's Note: Please double-check on this. The elevated platform >is entirely in Chicago. > (convoluted boundaries omitted) >pay phones on the platform and the station downstairs were all >Hollycourt 5 numbers, which is a Chicago (312-465) exchange. PT] Patrick is right the Howard platform is entirely in Chicago. I checked a couple of pay phones including 312-465-9810. The switch is programmed incorrectly and won't allow 1-708- (or 1-312-) calls. First it returned my quarter then rang about three times, the recording was "We are sorry you must dial 1 before ... ". The static was part of the recording. By the way the half dozen pay phones I checked in Wilmette and Evanston were incorrectly labeled with the 312 area code. >Why can't I always use eleven digit dialing? Why must I know the >local geography to dial a phone? cj ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 22:46:17 EST From: Ken Levitt Subject: Customer Support I am about to embark on a new business venture and money is rather tight. This venture requires that my partner and I provide an incredibly high level of customer support for 16 hours a day 7 days a week. I am seeking telecommunications solutions to this problem. The following items are givens: 1. 80 percent of the calls will be answered by either myself or my partner and will not need special processing. 2. Telling customers that "If you can't reach us, to call my beeper number", is not acceptable from a corporate image point of view. 3. We can not afford to hire an employee to help with the support. 4. We can not always be here to answer the phone. 5. 98 percent of the time a client should be able to talk with us within 15 minutes of their call. 6. We can not be calling in to an answering machine every 15 minutes to see if anyone has left a message. I have thought of three possible solutions but I don't know where to find the equipment for numbers 2 and 3. 1. Hire an answering service. Either tell them where I can be reached at all times or get a beeper and tell them to beep me if any calls come in. This seems like an expensive solution, but it should work. 2. Have a call forwarding device that would answer on one line and call out to me on another line. In order for this to work, I would have to be able to re-program the forwarding number remotely. I don't think New England Telephone offers a service like this. (do they?) 3. I understand that there is a type of answering machine that will take a message and then call some other number (like a beeper) to inform you that you have a message waiting. If anyone has any additional ideas or can tell me how to locate devices listed in #2 and #3 above, I would like to hear from you. Please contact me directly. If there are any interesting solutions, I will post them to the Digest. Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.ed ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #24 *****************************   Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 23:49:13 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #25 Message-ID: <9001122349.aa18445@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 12 Jan 90 23:45:59 CST Volume 10 : Issue 25 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Calls Not Private (Jim Breen) Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Calls Not Private (David Tamkin) Re: Cordless Phone User Vows New Fight (John R. Levine) Re: Cordless Phone User Vows New Fight (Bernie Cosell) Re: Faxnet Info Request (John R. Levine) Re: AT&T Advertisement Is Stupid (David Tamkin) Re: The Big PUC Give-Away (Tad Cook) Re: How To Dial Long Distance (Mark Brader) Re: How To Dial Long Distance (Kent Hauser) Re: Reach Out World (John Gilmore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jwb@cit5.cit.oz (Jim Breen) Subject: Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private Organization: Chisholm Institute of Technology, Melb., Australia Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 23:08:28 GMT In article <2784@accuvax.nwu.edu>, thomas%mvac23.uucp@udel.edu (Thomas Lapp) writes: > What bothers me about this is that if users of cordless phones should > be aware that they can be overheard, the Supreme Court should also > apply the same reasoning to cellular telephones since it is OBVIOUS > that carphones, etc. use radio waves (the antenna tends to give it > away :-). ........ It is interesting to note how Australian law differs here. We have no general right to privacy, but there is a strict law on phone tapping and on recording phone calls. Whether listening in to a cordless or cellular call on your el cheapo scanner constitutes a tap, or is just legitimate use of your right to listen to any frequency you like has yet to be tested in court (and may never be.) Recording of a phone call is a definite no-no. There was a very funny case a couple of years ago where the leader of the opposition Liberal (i.e. conservative) Party in Victoria had a long car phone conversation with Andrew Peacock, then Federal deputy leader (also in opposition) of that party. Andrew made a lot of highly uncomplimentary comments, complete with plenty of four-letter words, about his colleague and leader, John Howard. Of course, a ham with a scanner and recorder was listening in, and within minutes the choice bits of the conversation were being played on commercial radio. The fur flew, and Andrew lost his job. (He eventually rolled Howard and became leader. In his victory Press conference he promised to stay awy from car phones.) I believe the ham got a bit of a wrist slapping and was told not to do it again. No charges were laid. The US has a long history of listening to other people's phone conversations. For years the CIA happily read all the car phones of the Soviet leadership. This was one of the reasons behind the (understandable) distress over the release of the "Pentagon Papers". Some of the material in those papers could only have been obtained from car phone taps, and thus the release effectively blew (and destroyed) the whole sigint operation. _______ 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 Australia O-----O _/_\ /\ /\ (ph) +61 3 573 2552 (fax) +61 3 572 1298 ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Calls Not Private Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 17:03:14 CST Has anyone yet looked into the situation of a person who picks up a wired phone to place a call, but the callee answers on a cordless phone? Has anyone yet looked into the situation of someone who picks up a wired phone to answer a call that, it turns out, is being placed from a cordless phone? If the person on the wired phone has no rightful expectation of privacy (especially in the second situation, where the person on the wired phone didn't even place the call), how is he or she to know that the call is legally monitorable? Is one to assume that no telephone conversation is private at all? In ancient times recording devices were required to emit periodic beeps to warn the party at the other end that the call was being recorded. Maybe we need something similar for cordless phones. 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 No two Chinet users agree about this (or anything else). | CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cordless Phone User Vows New Fight Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 12 Jan 90 00:00:41 EST (Fri) From: "John R. Levine" In article <2794@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >You may not broadcast a telephone call over the air without the >knowledge and consent of the person(s) on the phone. My recollection of the ECPA is that it specifically prescribes no penalties for disclosing a cordless phone conversation. It is not at all clear how that relates to the traditional policy that radio transmissions not intended for the public may be intercepted but not disclosed. For that matter, the question of party lines is an interesting one. Do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy on a party line? How about if you pick up the phone wishing to make a call and, e.g. inadvertently overhear business plans or something of which you could take advantage, are you allowed to do so? What a mess. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl [Moderator's Note: Listening to a radio transmission is not the same as *disclosing* the contents of the transmission, and it certainly is not the same as *re-transmitting* the original transmission without the consent of the people involved. Forget cordless phones for a minute, and think 'radio transmissions' instead. PT] ------------------------------ From: Bernie Cosell Subject: Re: Cordless Phone User Vows New Fight Date: 12 Jan 90 04:55:58 GMT csense!bote@uunet.uu.net (John Boteler) writes: } DIXON, Iowa (UPI) - An Iowan whose eavesdropping case was turned }down by the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday the issue sets up affluent }cellular phone users as a special class over average Americans using }cordless phones. ...... } Tyler said the refusal to extend those rights to cordless phones is }a slap at the common citizen. Privacy rights have been granted to }phone pagers and cellular communications already. ...... } "The cellular phone, the rich man's phone, is covered, but the }average man's isn't," Tyler said. ...... This is probably a misc.legal matter, but I'll ask anyway: isn't this guy a bit confused? The "Privacy rights" for phone pagers and cellular phones are, I thought, *not* a matter of "rights" but a matter of "law". That is, that if cellular phones were *not* covered by the ECPA, the SC might well rule that they, too, don't carry such an expectation. / Bernie \ ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Faxnet Info Request Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Date: 11 Jan 90 23:36:44 EST (Thu) From: "John R. Levine" In article <2796@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >But what if I am on a PC and I want to send my data directly from my PC to >a Faxnet machine so that certain copies will be sent via Fax but some will be >sent via e-mail so that the destination user will receive the letter >in computer readable format. All of the major E-Mail services such as MCI Mail, AT&T Mail, and Compuserve do this already. Fax addresses typically look like email addresses to a pseudo-system named fax or something like it. To get data from your PC to the E-Mail system you can use something like Lotus Express which uses a proprietary protocol on top of X.PC to talk to MCI Mail or UUPC, a free PC implementation of uucp, which should be adequate to talk to AT&T Mail. >What of the reverse? Someone feeding in a typed letter into a FAX and >the FAXnet machine sending it to some people via straight FAX and >others via e-mail. Is that posssible? Not really. Current OCR technology, certainly current low-cost OCR technology, has a high error rate and I doubt anyone would be happy with an OCR interpretation of a document scanned in via a Fax machine. What is possible now is to receive faxes on your PC and treat the image as a graphic email message. One particularly clever implementation allows you to attach the fax card to a DID trunk so the fax card can have a whole lot of phone numbers, one per email user, and route the incoming graphics messages based on the number called. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement Is Stupid Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 18:05:33 CST Joel Levin wrote in Telecom Digest, volume 10, issue 16: | Of course that's the point of the ad; what we complain about is the | ludicrous strawman they set up, that someone might confuse calling | Fiji with calling Phoenix. And of course the alternate implications, | that the ordinary user is stupid enough to make that mistake, or that | the alternate long distance carrier would make that mistake. This is | only one of a number of moderately sleasy long distance ads, most of | which are perpetrated by AT&T. There is no alternate implication. The caller dials to Phoenix twice and reaches the same phone in Fiji both times. Clearly AT&T's fantasy has the carrier at fault. To top it off, horror of horrors, he has to call the carrier's customer service department for credit and look up (or, pain of pains, REMEMBER) a telephone number longer than "00". With AT&T, your *operator* can arrange credit. We couldn't live without that, could we? Thrust of the message: if you are (1) too stupid to follow calling card instructions; (2) dumb enough to think that AT&T's calling cards are easier to use than those of other carriers; (3) intimidated by dialing 1-800 plus seven more digits to reach your long-distance carrier's offices; and (4) closed-minded and angry at the notion of any change in your life, then American Telephone and Telegraph thinks you're important enough to have a special commercial targeted just to getting your business. 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 No two Chinet users agree about this (or anything else). | CIS: 73720,1570 ------------------------------ From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: The Big PUC Give-Away Date: 12 Jan 90 06:35:05 GMT Organization: very little Higdon mentioned something about what would happen if an unregulated subsidiary of a regulated telco bought equipment, and then sold it to the regulated telco at an inflated price. The Wall St. Journal had an excellent article on this on Tuesday, January 11 right on the front page. It looks like Nynex was doing just that...forcing the regulated telco to buy from their unregulated purchasing arm...at inflated prices! This came out in an FCC audit, and the article indicated that other telcos have been doing the same thing. So the rate of return on the telco to the holding company is guaranteed, and any expenses are covered by the ratepayers. The unregulated purchasing arm can sell to the telco at high prices, give the profits to the holding company, and the regulated telco (the ratepayers) foot the bill! Pretty slick! Or as Oliver North would say, "A neat idea!" tad@ssc.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Mark Brader Subject: Re: How To Dial Long Distance Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 03:37:49 EST Fred Goldstein writes: > In any case, 7 digits for inter-area is wrong, since you > have to specify _which_ area code you want. (NYC has 4, for instance.) Ah, but what Greg Monti said was that "7 digits for inter-area local calls" was used only where area codes cover a large area, and not in places like NYC. For instance, I was recently in Hull (area code 819) and watched my wife make a (local) call to Ottawa (area code 613) by dialing 7 digits. For instance, 239 is an Ottawa prefix; from Hull, 239-5000 would reach the Canada's Capital Visitor Information Centre in Ottawa. The trick is that if 239 exists in area 819 at all, it's in a location that is NOT a local call from Hull, and one dials 1-239-5000 to reach it. Mark Brader "...most mistakes are made the last thing before SoftQuad Inc., Toronto you go to bed. So go to bed before you do utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com the last thing." -- David Jacques Way ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 10:53:36 EST From: Kent Hauser Subject: Re: How To Dial Long Distance [ Discussion of various syntaxes used for toll dialing in US ] Of course, yet another syntax should be added. Syntax U (universal): 1 NPA NXX XXXX Should connect me with the unambiguously specified line. Allow me to give an example of it's use -- I have a modem with a `autodial' button on the front. I use it to call the office. However, I carry my modem around. Sometimes I need 7 digits, sometimes I need 11. Whenever I travel, I have to reprogram my modem's autodialer. This is stupid, because my number hasn't changed. For all of you that feel that 1+ dialing is a numbering plan issue & not a `toll call' issue, I suggest that you add the lack of `Syntax U' to your pet peeves. Kent ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 02:31:12 PST From: John Gilmore Subject: Re: Reach Out World > AT&T has offered discount calls to Canada through its Reach Out > (R) Canada program for three years. I looked at this program last year since I spend $60-80/mo calling utzoo in Toronto from hoptoad in San Francisco. Turns out that the Reach Out Canada flat rates were MORE expensive than the night direct-dial rate. Thanks a lot, AT&T! (It also took three calls to operators, and some excessive bills, before I could get a correct answer to "what ARE the night rate hours when calling Toronto from SF?" Midnight to 8 AM every day, and that's all.) [Moderator's Note: Reach Out Canada really is not a very good deal except for people in the geographical extremities of the US calling some geographically extreme place in Canada; i.e. a call from Miami, FL to Fort Nelson, BC would probably be cheaper via Reach Out Canada. I investigated it for my use calling between Chicago and Toronto/suburbs, and found the same thing as you: Regular rates were frequently less expensive. For that matter, even Reach Out America has a certain distance factor involved before it becomes useful: calling someplace less than about 400 miles away, interstate, during the overnight hours is cheaper when you use the 'regular' night rates, i.e. it is more of a bargain for people on the coasts than in the midwest. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #25 *****************************   Date: Sat, 13 Jan 90 0:32:51 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #26 Message-ID: <9001130032.aa25499@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 13 Jan 90 00:30:52 CST Volume 10 : Issue 26 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Re: Customer Support (Randal Schwartz) Re: Customer Support (Dave Levenson) Re: Customer Support (John Higdon) Re: Question on Automatic Calling Devices (Chris Johnson) Re: Question on Automatic Calling Devices (Peter da Silva) Re: Question on Automatic Calling Devices (David Lewis) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Randal Schwartz Subject: Re: Customer Support Reply-To: Randal Schwartz Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 16:03:37 GMT In article <2828@accuvax.nwu.edu>, levitt@zorro9 (Ken Levitt) writes: | I am about to embark on a new business venture and money is rather | tight. This venture requires that my partner and I provide an | incredibly high level of customer support for 16 hours a day 7 days a | week. I am seeking telecommunications solutions to this problem. | I have thought of three possible solutions but I don't know where to | find the equipment for numbers 2 and 3. | 1. Hire an answering service. Either tell them where I can be reached | at all times or get a beeper and tell them to beep me if any calls | come in. This seems like an expensive solution, but it should work. | 2. Have a call forwarding device that would answer on one line and call | out to me on another line. In order for this to work, I would have | to be able to re-program the forwarding number remotely. I don't | think New England Telephone offers a service like this. (do they?) | 3. I understand that there is a type of answering machine that will | take a message and then call some other number (like a beeper) | to inform you that you have a message waiting. | If anyone has any additional ideas or can tell me how to locate | devices listed in #2 and #3 above, I would like to hear from you. It's called a "cellular phone". I use a portable cell phone *all* the time (for the last 18 months) to do exactly what you asked for. But most of the time, I'm not paying airtime rates, because I have forwarded the call to a landline that I happen to be at. If I'm really concerned about expenses, I start to handle the call, and then get a number and call them back. And, as a benefit, I can make outgoing calls while walking around, if the time is more important to me than the money. Of course, I had the expense of getting the phone (Radio Snack CT300) in the first place, but that's life. I also happen to live in an area where prime-time charges are only $0.31/min, and call-forwarded calls are only $0.07/min on a $15/month fee. (Apparently, that's pretty low.) Believe me. I had a answering-service/pager solution before this, and there's no comparison. (I still have the service, but they refer people to my cell phone if the caller asks for me by name. And I forward the cell phone to the service when I'm not willing to take calls.) Just another cell-phone user. /== Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 ====\ | on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III | | merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn | \== Cute Quote: "Welcome to Oregon... Home of the California Raisins!" ==/ ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Customer Support Date: 13 Jan 90 03:14:16 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article <2828@accuvax.nwu.edu>, levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) writes: > I am about to embark on a new business venture and money is rather > tight. This venture requires that my partner and I provide an > incredibly high level of customer support for 16 hours a day 7 days a > week. I am seeking telecommunications solutions to this problem. I have been involved in a business with similar customer-support requirements, for several years. We have a business number which is covered by a full-time answering service. They have the beeper numbers and mobile phone numbers of the customer-contact people. The number also rings in my residence. The answering service costs $50 / month. Each beeper cost us $100 or so to buy (used). The beeper service charge, per number, is about $16.50 / month. The mobile service here costs $29.00 / month per phone, plus $0.55 / minute. I tried an answering machine with automatic outcalling message-notification features. It works, technically, but suffers from the ills that plague a lot of answering machines...people don't like to reach it, and often don't leave readable messages. (A high percentage of our callers speak English as a poor second language.) The human being at the answering service is a whole lot better at prompting an intelligible message out of most callers! Dave Levenson Voice: (201 | 908) 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 ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Customer Support Date: 12 Jan 90 12:25:54 PST (Fri) From: John Higdon Ken Levitt writes: > 3. I understand that there is a type of answering machine that will > take a message and then call some other number (like a beeper) > to inform you that you have a message waiting. From what you describe, a Watson (tm) from Natural Microsystems, located somewhere in MA, would fill your bill. I have one and it does essentially what you seem to require. I do freelance work, and the Watson does all of the call processing for that. I would heartily recommend a mechanical solution, such as a Watson, over any answering service. Over the past ten years I have had considerable experience with answering services, from cord boards to the now-trendy DID computerized type. All of that experience has been most negative. They hire complete losers to man the stations, they get names and phone numbers wrong, they page on wrong numbers and fail to page when a client is off the air, and they have no concept of how important your telephone is to your business. I wouldn't have a live answering service if they paid ME. Several months of answering service fees would buy your Watson. If you do get a Watson, I would be happy to share with you some of the programming tricks that I have learned regarding paging, etc. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Chris Johnson Subject: Re: Question on Automatic Calling Devices Date: 12 Jan 90 21:02:41 GMT Reply-To: Chris Johnson Organization: Com Squared Systems, Mendota Heights, MN, USA In article <2774@accuvax.nwu.edu> motcid!ahlenius%cell.mot.COM@uunet.uu.net (Mark Ahlenius) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 19, message 7 of 10 >I recently moved and got a new home phone number. Each night at >approximately 10:28 pm we get a call from some auto dialer device. It > < description deleted > >[Moderator's Note: What you are suggesting is a fun idea, but then >they could make trouble for you. I suggest instead that you have IBT >trace the calls. If the service rep tries to tell you there will be a > < stuff deleted > >They'll do the trace, and when it is completed, then go to the office >of the Illinois Commerce Commission and file a complaint against the >offender and request that the ICC order telco to disconnect the >offender's service. I will look up the appropriate regulation number...] Let me suggest that the original writer at least proceed to find the caller and ask them to cease and desist before calling in the government and hanging them high. There's far too much animosity in this world already; we really don't need any more. It may well be an honest mistake so there's no good reason in my book to screw someone for it. Besides, anyone who is reading this is already using an electronic network which makes extensive use of auto-dial modems, and you can bet your life that some of them on some occaision have been connected to the wrong number. If people make too big a stink about something like this, the legal risks of running an auto-dial modem could become prohibitive. For example, a friend of mine runs a BBS here in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis/St. Paul. He is part of a local and nationwide net of such BBS's. A month or so ago, he somehow got the wrong number in his database for a new network node. So for a day or three, his system autodialed a wrong number. He corrected the problem as soon as he discovered it. However, the called party was very irate. They called the phone company and the police and what not. Even though my friend wrote the victim a letter of apology, and offered to pay for any costs (of which there should be none, if indeed the phone company must trace nuisance calls for free by tariff), they are pressing charges in court! He stands to be one very screwed over ex-BBS operator in the near future, because they are not being the least bit understanding. Apparently they view him as one of those notorious, criminal and vile hackers out to do no good with malicious intent, instead of someone who made a simple mistake. Somehow I doubt they would be pressing the same charges against my company if one of our Usenet modems made such a mistake (and PEP tones are a lot more obnoxious than 1200 baud, let me tell you! :-), simply because we are a respectable company who made a mistake instead of young man with a hobby. I would suggest that the moderator's advice is good, but only when your civil and mannerly avenues have been exhausted. And certainly, the phone company ought to help you out with those, too. Maybe I interpret things differently than others, and perhaps the disconnect order suggested by the moderator is not as obnoxious as I am viewing it at the moment. I sure won't object to someone clarifying or correcting me. I have no qualms against throwing the book at someone who continues to do something harmful and annoying when they've been asked to stop, but when it might be an innocent mistake by someone who will be more than apologetic, why not try that approach first? Too often it seems with our legal system today, the more you get the law involved, the more freedom to do as we wish gets taken away. Certainly I don't think anyone here wants a return to the bad old days of having to pay the phone compay to connect a modem to your phone line for it to be legal, do they? Chris Johnson UUCP: chris@c2s.mn.org Com Squared Systems, Inc. ATT: +1 612/452-9522 Mendota Heights, MN USA FAX: +1 612/452-3607 ------------------------------ From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Question on Automatic Calling Devices Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 18:13:30 GMT Didn't we just go through this? > They'll do the trace, and when it is completed, then go to the office > of the Illinois Commerce Commission and file a complaint against the > offender and request that the ICC order telco to disconnect the > offender's service. Please, before you do this call the offender and ask them to stop calling you. You don't know who they are, and they don't know that they have the wrong number. Then if they are recalcitrant go ahead and call the cops. But most likely that won't be necessary. It's not in their interest to keep calling a wrong number. _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-' ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: Question on Automatic Calling Devices Date: 12 Jan 90 14:55:25 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ In article <2774@accuvax.nwu.edu>, motcid!ahlenius%cell.mot.COM@uunet.uu.net (Mark Ahlenius) writes: > I recently moved and got a new home phone number. Each night at > approximately 10:28 pm we get a call from some auto dialer device. It > does not sound like any modem device I have ever heard before. It has > a short beep (about 0.5 sec.) then pauses for 3-4 seconds or so and > repeats until either I hang up or it gives up a minute or so later. That sounds to me like a fax machine calling... > I called Ma Bell (Illinois Bell in this case) and explained the > problem. They told me that the previous owner of this number had it > changed some time ago cause they got calls from some Bank's fax > machine. Fits. > If it is indeed a fax > machine - perhaps I can borrow a fax machine or fax modem and hook it > up and try to recieved their cover sheet and in effect - return the > favor. Borrowing a fax machine or fax modem to get their cover sheet is a reasonable idea. General courtesy calls for putting a return phone number and fax number on a fax machine. You could then send them a fax notifying them that the number in their autodialer is incorrect and would they please change it, and call them and tell them the same thing. Then again, if there's some interesting information on the fax, maybe you could just keep the fax machine for a while and see what turns up... > [Moderator's Note about getting the service disconnected omitted] Chill out a bit, Patrick. I agree that a complaint to the PUC is a last resort, but first assume that it's just a mistake on the part of the "caller" and deal with *them* to resolve it. First try to talk to the people placing the fax calls. If they're uncooperative, unresponsive, or don't want to deal with you, *then* get in touch with the PUC. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." [Moderator's Note: But you yourself quoted part of the original message in which the writer said the earlier assignees of the number had to get it changed because of the same problem. If between telco and the original user of the number, the problem could not be corrected short of changing the number, why will it be different this time around? Nor do I think it is malice *or* stupidity. It is a situation where a large organization (the bank) has no provision for imaginative people on its staff to make changes of this sort without going through various levels of staff and chains of command. No one can do it if it isn't part of their job description, and people are frightened to make changes to job descriptions for fear of losing their own. When I had this problem, whenever I would call the bank, I would be transferred between people, round-robin style, getting no one who would admit to any authority or knowledge. You'd have thought it was the COCOT in the lobby of the building they were talking about! PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #26 *****************************   Date: Sun, 14 Jan 90 0:02:40 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #27 Message-ID: <9001140002.aa07144@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 14 Jan 90 00:00:32 CST Volume 10 : Issue 27 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Government Eyes Phone Service of the Future (Will Martin) Tariff Question (Steve Golson) London (England) Telephone Number Prefix Changes (Tony Walton) Re: Customer Support (John Higdon) Re: Customer Support (Paul Guthrie) Re: Area Code Mapping (Carl Moore) Re: Most Expensive 900 Call? (John Higdon) Re: Question on Automatic Dialing Devices (Henry Mensch) Re: 800 Wrong Numbers (Steven W. Grabhorn) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 13:47:28 CST From: Will Martin Subject: Government Eyes Phone Service of the Future In the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of 10 Jan 90: GOVERNMENT EYES PHONE SERVICE OF THE FUTURE Washington (AP) - The government on Tuesday began an inquiry into whether basic telephone service in the future should include technical innovations such as call-forwarding and access to data and video networks. Sure to fuel an intense turf battle among the phone, cable, broadcast, satellite, and newspaper industries going into the next century, the Bush administration said it wants to have a policy in place a year from now. Assistant Commerce Secretary Janice Obuchowski said the key issues are how, how fast, and which elements of the industry can best improve US competitiveness and the quality of life in an increasingly information- based world economy. In a 99-page notice published Tuesday, the policy-advising National Telecommunications and Information Administration that Obuchowski heads said it wants fresh comments within the next 90 days from the industry. Among the key questions, she said, is whether an emerging infrastructure of fiber optics, cellular phone systems, fax machines and other technologies is advancing fast enough on its own or requires, in effect, a government-sponsored telecommunications "industrial policy." "In the United States we have relied on customer pull or demand to set the pace for technology deployment," she said. "Some of our strategic competitors worldwide have rather more strongly relied on government push in setting the pace." Japan, for example, has set a goal of having a fully fiber-optic nationwide voice and data transmission system in operation within the next decade. The study will tackle head-on issues that have widely divided the telecommunications industry since the government-ordered breakup of the Bell system in 1984. Among them are whether the seven regional "Baby Bell" companies that were spun off AT&T into separate enterprises should be allowed to transmit video signals across their lines, a move that could put them into direct competition with the TV cable industry. Another is a current prohibition that allows regional phone companies to act as a carrier of data services but not as an originator. The phone companies are challenging those restrictions in the US Court of Appeals and legislation is pending in Congress that would remove them. The prohibitions, however, are supported by the newspaper industry, which has expressed fears that the phone companies would take advantage of their monopoly position to undercut their advertising market. ***End of article*** Regards, Will ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 11:39:40 EST From: Steve Golson Subject: Tariff Question During the "work stoppage" this past fall my home/business line was out for three weeks. I rented a cellular phone until my line was repaired, and now I'm trying to get New England Telephone (a NYNEX Company) to reimburse me for the rental and airtime charges. The response so far is "our Legal Department will investigate your claim and contact you regarding this matter." Does anyone know what the tariff says about reimbursement in a case like this? Is there anything concerning "reasonable expenses" or am I out of luck? Steve Golson sgolson@East.sun.com golson@cup.portal.com Trilobyte Systems -- 33 Sunset Road -- Carlisle MA 01741 -- 508/369-9669 (consultant for, but not employed by, Sun Microsystems) "As the people here grow colder, I turn to my computer..." -- Kate Bush ------------------------------ From: olapw@olgb1.oliv.co.uk (Tony Walton) Subject: London (England) Telephone Number Prefix Changes Date: 13 Jan 90 02:12:54 GMT Organization: British Olivetti Ltd.,AT&T Division, London, England. Please note that from one minute past midnight BST (01:01 GMT) on 6th May 1990 (GMT) ALL London (England) phone numbers will change. The London prefix (+44 1) will disappear and will be replaced by either +44 71 or +44 81 depending on the next 3 digits of the number (for instance +44 1 821 XXXX will become +44 71 821 XXXX while +44 1 785 NNNN will become +44 81 785 NNNN). Please either email me or contact your local international operator for details of specific changes. The change has apparently become necessary because London has run out of 01 (international +44 1) numbers - 071 (internat +44 71) has been allocated to "inner London" and 081 (internat +44 81) to "outer London". Tony Walton, OEM/VAR Division, British Olivetti Ltd. 154-160 Upper Richmond Rd, LONDON, SW15 2FN. Tel: (+44) 1 789 6699 Telefax: (+44) 1 785 6670 Telex:27258 Uucp : { ukc!uel | mcvax!olnl1 | ihnp4!cuuxb | iconet | olhqma } !olgb1!olapw olapw@olgb1.oliv.co.uk ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Customer Support Date: 13 Jan 90 03:42:03 PST (Sat) From: John Higdon Randal Schwartz writes: > It's called a "cellular phone". I use a portable cell phone *all* the > time (for the last 18 months) to do exactly what you asked for. But I have a portable phone as well. And unless you keep that phone on *all* the time and can guarantee that it will not be out of range or in a coverage hole, you will put some of your customers off, big time. Getting the "I'm sorry, the cellular customer you are trying to reach..." recording is an instant tip off that you are running the business out of your car. A possible solution is to invoke "no answer forwarding" which is available from some providers, but then you have to forward that call *somewhere*. > most of the time, I'm not paying airtime rates, because I have > forwarded the call to a landline that I happen to be at. Well, if you forward a cellular phone on most systems, you pay airtime for the call regardless where the forward actually terminates. > I also happen to live in an area > where prime-time charges are only $0.31/min, and call-forwarded calls > are only $0.07/min on a $15/month fee. (Apparently, that's pretty > low.) You're damn right that's pretty low. Try $39/mo and $0.45/min as is the case here. And then Dave Levenson writes: > I have been involved in a business with similar customer-support > requirements, for several years. We have a business number which is > covered by a full-time answering service. They have the beeper > numbers and mobile phone numbers of the customer-contact people. > The number also rings in my residence. I have been involved with business ownership ranging from sole propritorship to a corporation employing twenty people, always service oriented. I have had terrible luck with answering services. First, they have tremendous turnover, and are usually understaffed. Customers wait on hold, or are put on hold numerous times during the conversation. The mentally deficient people that answer the calls can't spell or even hear properly. I recall getting paged repeatedly when the call was for someone else, or when some salesman called, or even, as I mentioned before, over a wrong number. I made a routine call to the service only to find that one of my biggest customers had been off the air for over four hours. They weren't sure whether they should page me or not! I have been paged and then called in and put on hold so many times that I finally gave up. It goes on and on. Repeated talks with the supervisor netted most sincere apologies and promises for improvement, and then it would start all over. "But sir, we have such a turnover that it's hard to keep trained people." My customers would invariably complain about the answering service (with justification). The field has consisted of three "computerized" services, and one no-nonsense cordboard (direct connection) service. It was all terrible. > I tried an answering machine with automatic outcalling > message-notification features. It works, technically, but suffers > from the ills that plague a lot of answering machines...people don't > like to reach it, and often don't leave readable messages. (A high > percentage of our callers speak English as a poor second language.) > The human being at the answering service is a whole lot better at > prompting an intelligible message out of most callers! Interesting, but my experience has been exactly the opposite. My customers have been much happier interacting with my Watson. It is predictable, dependable, and the bottom line is that they reach me much more reliably. The "human beings" at the answering service would have had difficulty being intelligible themselves, much less prompting anything from anyone. When a customer would try to leave an even slightly technical message, the result after being filtered through an answering service pea brain was most humorous. With the Watson, the caller says his piece and hangs up, confident that his message will be delivered verbatim, rather than mangled beyond all recognition. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Paul Guthrie Subject: Re: Customer Support Reply-To: Paul Guthrie Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers Date: Sat, 13 Jan 90 17:40:31 GMT In article <2828@accuvax.nwu.edu> levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) writes: >I am about to embark on a new business venture and money is rather >tight. This venture requires that my partner and I provide an >incredibly high level of customer support for 16 hours a day 7 days a >week. I am seeking telecommunications solutions to this problem. Get a PC with some sort of voice mail board (watson, dialogic, etc). Have it take the call, and then beep you (easy to program). This solution worked for me for quite a while. Paul Guthrie chinet!nsacray!paul ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 11:04:26 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Area Code Mapping There is an Iowa prefix (Cedar Lake?) right next door to Omaha, Nebraska, which can be reached with 2 area codes: 712 (Iowa) or 402 (Nebraska). Area code 202 goes outside the beltway, too. However, when you get to outer fringes like Herndon (Va.) or Laurel (Md.), you are local to DC but outside of area code 202. Previous articles in Telecom have explained that 202 will be restricted to DC, and that local calls in DC area will become 10 digits when crossing area code boundary, and that the cases of 11-digit local calls (extended-area from Va. suburbs to Prince William, and from Bowie-Glenn Dale "foreign" exchanges to 569 in Severn, Md.) may later be reduced to 7 digits. ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Most Expensive 900 Call? Date: 12 Jan 90 11:51:41 PST (Fri) From: John Higdon Curtis Galloway writes: > For one telephone call: THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS. > I'm curious to know if other Telecom readers have seen more expensive > calls. (Gee, the Jose Canseco hotline seems like a bargain now!) Gotcha beat. Just last night I started seeing a TV ad for "the private numbers of beautiful women". Slides of models fade from one to the next while a voice says "you can have the private numbers of these beautiful women." FIFTY DOLLARS PER CALL!!! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jan 90 03:46:09 -0500 From: Henry Mensch Subject: Re: Question on Automatic Dialing Devices I agree with Patrick; how is the ordinary Joe supposed to identify someone who (when calling) only identifies themselves with tones or a carrier? It is unreasonable for me (Joe random pots user) to have to borrow a FAX machine or modem just to cause this disturbance to stop. There are procedures in place to handle exactly this situation; why not use them? (And yes, I've gotten calls from the phone company because direct marketing companies have dialed and gotten my modem ... "did you know that your number 437-xxxx ... ?" The phone company is in a position to identify callers; make them work for you ... ) # Henry Mensch / / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # / / [Moderator's Note: It is particularly annoying when someone else takes it upon themselves to decide your number is out of order and reports it to repair. A lady once called from a payphone and got my modem. Not content to lose 25 cents, she dialed *four times* and each time got the modem; then had the brass bedsprings to call up IBT Repair and report me out of order -- and ask for a refund of the $1 she 'lost' in the payphone!! I got a call from the repair supervisor, "Say Pat, you have a modem on the line, don't you?" I told him yes....he told me the lady reported it out of order. I asked him if she was calling from the lobby of the Hotel Screwball; the place where the management asks that you do not disturb the guests, because they already are. PT] ------------------------------ From: "Steven W. Grabhorn" Subject: Re: 800 Wrong Numbers Date: 13 Jan 90 07:01:25 GMT Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego Speaking of wrong 800 numbers, today's (1/12/90) San Diego edition of the Los Angeles Times had the following article (a little background, the San Diego Padres are up for sale by Joan Kroc): It started with a joking headline on Times sports editor Dave Distel's column on Thursday: "Have a Credit Card Ready and Call Now! 1-800-BUY-PADRES." Richard Cole, co-owner of Emslee Products of Cleveland, Ohio, is not laughing. His company sells sanitary napkins. Its number is 1-800-BUY PADS. "Our phone has been ringing all day," Cole said. "My secre- tary can't get any work done, I'm losing orders, I'm paying 12- cents per minute for every call, what in hell are you people doing out there?" Cole hopes people will stop phoning. He spent an exasperat- ing day telling callers he's not related to Joan Kroc. "I told them, `Listen, I can't sell you a baseball team, but if you need sanitary napkins, toilet seat covers or diapers, I'm your man,'" Cole said. "I didn't make a single sale!" Steve Grabhorn, Code 645, Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA, 92152 Phone:619-553-3454 Internet:grabhorn@nosc.mil UUCP:..!sdcsvax!nosc!grabhorn ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #27 *****************************   Date: Sun, 14 Jan 90 14:18:03 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest Special: SIGUCCS Conference Message-ID: <9001141418.aa16962@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 14 Jan 90 14:00:00 CST Special: SIGUCCS Conference Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson SIGUCCS CALL for PARTICIPATION (Amin Shafie) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 14:13 EST From: Amin Shafie - Univ of Cincinnati Comp Ctr Subject: SIGUCCS CALL for PARTICIPATION SIGUCCS User Services Conference XVIII Call For Participation New Centerings in Computing Services September 30 through October 3, 1990 Westin Hotel Cincinnati, Ohio >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attention Directors, Managers, Analysts, Consultants, Programmers, Technical Writers, Trainers, and Librarians! The higher education computing scene in the 1990s will present exciting challenges. To accommodate users' needs, computing service organizations are now visibly transforming in function and structure. The widespread adoption of personal computing by all disciplines, the increasing demand for desktop access to shared resources, the growth in demand for supercomputing capabilities, and the proliferation of powerful desktop workstations exert irresistible forces on central computing services. In response, the central site grows exponentially in staff and machinery at one academic institution; at another, the computing center is disbanded to provide distributed computing! At some sites increasing specialization is urged; at others, generalization is required. Regardless of the transforming strategy adopted by an individual institution, one fact seems clear: the user is the center toward which all computing services are directed. SIGUCCS '90 invites you to participate in the examination and discussion of the myriad challenges facing user services professionals as we enter a new decade and of the new centerings computing service organizations are discovering to meet them. Please join us! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can Participate Presentations Papers Panel Discussions Quick Workshops Educational Materials Competition Newsletter Competition Technical Writing Competition Documentation Display >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Important Dates March 1, 1990 Presentation proposals due April 1, 1990 Notification of proposal acceptance May 1, 1990 Final Papers due June 1, 1990 Newsletter entries due June 1, 1990 Technical writing entries due June 15, 1990 Notification of paper/panel acceptance September 1, 1990 Deadline for materials for documentation display >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Presentation Topic Areas Information Exchange Technology Information exchange may well be the most important computing activity of the 1990s. The infrastructure for information delivery, the National Research and Academic Network (NREN), is presently being developed. How do we meet the challenges of a world where the facilitation of information delivery may be a principal user services responsibility? Topics of particular interest include: new approaches to information exchange campus activity in implementing information exchange facilities that comply with emerging international standards research and development of computer-mediated information exchange methods Distributed Services As the role of user services shifts to providing distributed support, we must create new ways of providing traditional services as well as designing new services. Topics of particular interest include: providing support staff in departments and colleges funding issues if and how to charge back for services human networking of distributed support staff nonlabor-intensive support strategies cooperative efforts with other departments Management Strategies How do user services managers cooperate with other administrative and academic units that use or provide computing resources? How do they meet the many and diverse demands? Topics of particular interest include: reorganization interaction with faculty advisory groups delegating and distributing responsibility coordinating university computing resources staff professional development Marketing your Services Changing roles may require changing your services and, often, your image on campus as you provide new services to new users. Topics of particular in- terest include: promotional strategies conducting market research designing services for unique or special audiences Strategies for Small Schools How can a small liberal arts college have distributed user services and centralized user services? How do distributed and centralized services work together to provide computing services beyond word processing? The sciences have become computer literate; now, how do we reach out from the center to the humanities and fine arts? Are we getting out of the office and into the trenches? Are we making too many "house calls"? Should we make them at all? Security and Ethics As electronic mail and conferencing become more popular, computing systems are widely accessible to more users. How secure should academic computing resources be? What are the ethical guidelines provided for users of electronic mail and conferencing systems? Topics of particular interest include: promoting responsible and ethical use of computing resources security strategies adopting an ethics policy Serving New Audiences People from the humanities, the arts, and other traditionally nontechnical disciplines are discovering that computers can help in areas other than word processing. In an increasingly proactive stance in the central computing facility, what do we do to attract and support these new audi- ences? Topics of interest include: providing information about off-the-shelf specialized programs for music, fine arts, and the humanities facilitating technical support of nontraditional areas serving the computing beginner who wants to do sophisticated tasks Consulting, Training, and Documentation Supporting those who use the computing resources that we provide re- mains an important responsibility of user services organizations. Topics of particular interest include: new approaches to training providing distributed consulting documentation distribution services and/or other topics that would be of interest to your national and international colleagues >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Submitting Proposals Submit proposals via electronic mail to: SIGPAPER@OHSTVMA.BITNET or SIGPAPER@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU If you do not have access to electronic mail, send a printed copy to: Susan Jenkins Saari Instruction and Research Computer Center The Ohio State University 1971 Neil Avenue Columbus, OH 43210 phone: (614) 292-4843 fax: (614) 292-7081 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accepted Proposals Proposals must be received by March 1, 1990. Any submisson received after this date will not be considered by the Program Committee. You will be notified of the Program CommitteeUs decision by April 1, 1990. If your proposal is accepted, you will be asked to submit a full paper by May 1, 1990. Any papers received after this date will not be considered. You will be notified of the Program Committee decision by June 15, 1990. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How to Participate Proposals For each proposal, include your name, title, affiliation, mailing address, type of proposal (presentation or panel discussion) and its topic area. In addition, you must enclose the proper materials from the following requirements list: Description Papers Papers will be presented in 20-minute intervals, with three papers scheduled per 90-minute session. Speakers' papers will be published in the conference proceedings. Panels Panels will be in-depth treatments of a single topic by two to four speakers from at least two different schools, coordinated by a moderator. Allow ample time for audience discussion. Abstracts for panels should be submitted as a unit by the person who wishes to act as a moderator. Panelists' papers will be published in the conference proceedings. Quick Workshops Quick workshops provide 90-minute overviews of new technolo- gies, innovative applications, and creative strategies for addressing the needs of computer users on campus. Requirements Papers A 250- to 300-word abstract of the paper. Acceptance of a proposal does not automatically ensure acceptance of a paper for presentation; you must submit a full paper to be considered for the conference program. Panels A 250- to 300-word description of the panel, including each panelist's name, title, affiliation, and presentation topic. Acceptance of a panel description does not automatically ensure acceptance of the panel for presentation; each panelist must submit a full paper to be considered for the conference program. Quick Workshops A one- to two-page outline of the presentation and a 10-minute videotape excerpt from the proposed presentation. Acceptance of a proposal does not automatically ensure acceptance of a workshop for presentation; you must submit a full paper to be considered for the conference program. Only three or four presentations will be a ccepted in this category because it is highly competiive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other Ways to Participate Education and Training Materials Competition Interest in and the importance of user education and training have grown with each SIGUCCS conference. The 1990 SIGUCCS Conference offers, for the first time, competition for user education and training materials for colleges and universities.* We invite you to submit no more than two entries in any or all of the following categories: curriculum catalog, class- room printed materials, or self-contained printed tutorials. Although the first year of this competition includes only printed materials, we would like to know if there is an interest in expanding our future competitions to include video, audio, and computer-based tutorials. Deadline for entry is June 1, 1990. For more details and an entry form, or to address the issue of future competition categories, contact: Diane Jung-Gribble Indiana University 750 North State Road 46 Bypass Bloomington, IN 47405 (812) 855-0962 JUNG@IUBACS.BITNET JUNG@JADE.BACS.INDIANA.EDU *NOTE: this competition is not open to commercial materials Newsletter Competition Winning an award in the SIGUCCS Newsletter Competition is a mark of distinction for your institution, and for your editors, writers,artists,and designers. You will be asked to submit two consecutive issues published between June 1989 and May 1990. Deadline for entry is June 1, 1990. For more details and an entry form, contact: Jess Anderson Madison Academic Computing Center University of Wisconsin-Madison 1210 West Dayton Street Madison, WI 53706 (608) 263-6988 ANDERSON@MACC.WISC.EDU ANDERSON@WISCMACC.BITNET Technical Writing Competition If you have written or published a particularly good article in a computing newsletter, enter it in the Technical Writing Competition. Each computing center may enter one article. Deadline for entry is June 1,1990. To obtain entry forms and more details, contact: Donald J. Montabana University of Pennsylvania Computing Resources Center 1202 Blockley Hall Philadelphia, PA 19104-6021 (215) 898-9085 MONTABANA@A1.RELAY.UPENN.EDU Documentation Display The documentation room will feature an online system for submitted documentation. Conference attendees who have BITNET or INTERNET access will be able to email documentation to their university or college. Documentation may be submitted electronically to DOCUMENT@MIAMIU, by hardcopy, or diskette (IBM or Mac formatted) and must be received before September 1, 1990. Direct inquries to: Al Kaled Academic Computing Services Miami University Oxford, OH 45056 (513) 529-6226 AK75STAF@MIAMIU >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More Information General Information Amin Shafie, Conference Chair University of Cincinnati e-mail: SHAFIE@UCBEH.BITNET phone: (513) 556-9001 fax: (513) 556-0035 Call for Participation Susan Jenkins Saari, Program Chair The Ohio State University e-mail: SIGPAPER@OHSTVMA.BITNET phone: (614) 292-4843 fax: (614) 292-7081 Registration Ken Maccarone, Registration Chair University of Cincinnati e-mail: MACCARON@UCBEH.BITNET phone: (513) 556-9098 fax: (513) 556-0035 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ACM SIGUCCS The Association of Computing Machinery's (ACM) Special Interest Group for University and College Computing (SIGUCCS) is one of ACM's organizational units devoted to the technical activities of its members. SIGUCCS provides a link for guidance and the interchange of ideas among computing professionals in the full range of small to large institutions. Its newsletter, annual conferences, and workshops promote the discussion of mutual problems. networks, user services, and computer center management. This SIGUCCS conference emphasizes practical ways to improve services for those who use university and college computing centers. Amin Shafie Assistant Director Academic Computing Services UCBEH::SHAFIE University of Cincinnati SHAFIE@UCBEH.SAN.UC.EDU Cincinnati, Ohio 45221 SHAFIE@UCBEH.BITNET (513) 556-9022 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest Special: SIGUCCS Conference *****************************   Date: Mon, 15 Jan 90 1:10:38 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #28 Message-ID: <9001150110.aa00260@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 15 Jan 90 01:10:00 CST Volume 10 : Issue 28 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Archives Has Relocated (TELECOM Moderator) Home PBX/KSU Info. Requested (Curtis E. Reid) CLASS Approved in TN & FL (Ken Jongsma) FCC Threat Not For Real? (Dag Zalhastra) Re: Where Can I Buy a Caller*ID Box Now? (Bill Cerny) Re: Why 8-digit Numbers Are Impossible in North America (Paul Sutcliffe) Re: Free Local Phone Calls (Tom Napoletano) Re: Caller ID (Keith Vitek) Re: BBS as a Business (William Degnan) Re: Customer Support (Tony Carrato) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 90 0:32:19 CST From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Archives Has Relocated The TELECOM Archives has relocated to lcs.mit.edu. This change was required because the size of the archives was such that Boston University was no longer able to accomodate us. The usual ftp rules apply in the new location: 'ftp lcs.mit.edu' login anonymous; give your name and site as password; i.e. 'name@site.domain'. 'cd telecom-archives' 'dir' to see the selections 'get (your selections)' 'bye' One sad problem was discovered. Over the years, the archives have been stored at various locations, and the Digest itself has been produced from various locations; each with different machinery and different operating systems. This would pose no problem except that the 'compress' algorythms (we are now discovering) are not the same, and many cannot work with each other. What this means is a few of the old files compressed at cs.bu or maybe rutgers will not uncompress properly at lcs.mit.edu. I spent most of the day Sunday constructing what I could of the archives from various sources; archives here at eecs, some from cs.bu, some from jsol, etc.... and as a result of the corruption in some of the older files, we only have portions of volumes 1 through 5 at this time. We have none of volume 6 yet; all of volume 7; most of volume 8 and all of volumes 9 and 10. Persons with substantial experience in reconstructing corrupted files are welcome to go to the archives, to the directory 'oldarc' within the archives, and take the compressed files therein and see what they can do. Help will be appreciated. Likewise, if you have complete or partial sets of volumes 1 through 8 and would not mind sending a copy to the archives, let me know first, and I will arrange to get them. Fortunatly, at lcs.mit.edu there is enough space that there is no need to compress the files -- so eveything is easily accessible. What we have of the old files available is listed in the directory. Mike Patton, a system administrator at lcs.mit.edu tells me a mail server will soon be on line, so that our many non-internet users will also be able to access the archives files. Watch for news on this when it is ready to be used. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jan 90 10:35 EST From: "Curtis E. Reid" Subject: Home PBX/KSU Info. Requested Greetings, Telecom Folks! I have searched several TELECOM Digests but I found no comprehensive listing of PBXs/Key Systems for home use. I would like to seek your assistance in compiling this information by replying it to me. The typical configuration and requirements will be: Two-story house with Basement <= 3 telephone lines Six rooms and Basement excluding bathrooms (possible number of extensions: 7 ) Configurable to include voice, data, and fax. (Either separately or singularly.) SMDR, Hold, Forward, Pickup, Toll Restriction, intra calling, Memory dialing, Night service (to name a few) Reasonably Priced (Affordable) What I would like to ask you is to mail me directly the following information outlined below. Please try to limit to those that YOU have used it -- not those that you know about. For example, I know about but never used the AT&T Spirit and Merlin systems but I want to hear from someone who have used it. Make: Model: Price: Line/Trunk Capacity: Extension Capacity: Features: Product Reliability: Service Quality: Support Quality: Other: I would like to have all the information to me by January 19, 1990 so I can compile it. I will send the compilation by mail request. Thank you very much for your assistance!! Curtis Reid CER2520@RITVAX.Bitnet CER2520%RITVAX.Bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Internet) CER2520@vaxd.isc.rit.edu (Not Reliable-NYSernet) ------------------------------ From: ken@cup.portal.com Subject: CLASS Approved in TN & FL Date: Sat, 13-Jan-90 08:11:08 PST The Florida and Tennessee Public Service Commissions have approved the implementation of CLASS services, including Caller-ID. No availability dates or cities were listed in the announcement. Ken Jongsma ken@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ From: dag@pro-deli.cts.com (Dag Zalhastra) Subject: FCC Threat Not For Real? Date: 14 Jan 90 14:36:05 GMT There's been quite a bit of discussion going on about the FCC Modem use surcharge on the ProLine network.. here's a message I pulled that might be of interest... --- clip here --- CS-ID: #210.chat/net@pro-deli 1712 chars Date: Sat, 13 Jan 90 15:16:44 EST From: rich@pro-exchange.cts.com (Rich Sims) Subject: Why things should be checked out!! I don't usually do the "I told you so!" kind of stuff, but this is a prime example of what can happen when you see something and simply assume that because you read it on a computer screen, it must necessarily be true, without doing even the most rudimentary checking. This kind of mess may actually wind up doing harm, rather than just being ignored as "a bunch of idiots who don't know what they're talking about".... The following message was transmitted on the usenet 'news.announce.important' newsgroup in an effort to try and correct a problem that could have been avoided entirely with a bit of thought and effort.... ----- forwarded message follows ----- From: chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) Subject: FCC 'chain letter' -- please stop Recently a message announcing that the FCC is considering a surcharge on modem users has been showing up on USENET in various groups. Research has shown that there is no basis for this letter -- it seems to be an accidental re-release of a 2 year old message. The FCC is not considering any surcharge of any kind, and they are currently getting about 200 letters a day on the subject (that they would like to see stop coming). The Talk Show host mentioned in the letter (Jim Eason of KGO) has been pestered by a lot of calls (including the FCC) wondering what was going on, and hasn't been involved in the issue in two years. Please STOP posting or distributing this message. If you have a copy, destroy it. It is obsolete and causing problems on networks and BBSes nationwide. There is no proposal on the docket and none being considered. We need to wipe this silly thing out before things get further out of hand. chuq ----- end of forwarded message ----- --- clip here --- Dag Zalhastra Wyomissing, PA 215/777-8032 (pro-deli login: register) ProLine: dag@pro-deli Internet: dag@pro-deli.cts.com UUCP: {bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!pro-abyss!pro-deli!dag ARPANET: {bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!pro-abyss!pro-deli!dag@nosc.mil BITNET: dag%pro-deli.cts.com@nosc.mil ------------------------------ From: bill@toto.info.com (Bill Cerny) Subject: Re: Where Can I Buy A Caller*ID Box Now? Date: 15 Jan 90 00:36:22 GMT In article <2665@accuvax.nwu.edu> csense!bote@uunet.uu.net (John Boteler) writes: >My question: where can I buy any Caller*ID box now! Software Studios (Annandale, VA (703) 978-2339) is supposed to ship a device called "Clyde" this quarter. Clyde is a box with an RS-232 interface, and some pc software. Like thousands of others, I too am awaiting the product literature that was to be mailed last week. Btw, Colonial Data Systems (New England somewhere) has announced a Caller*ID RS-232 box with general availability in 2Q90. That's two vendors. Who else has announced a Caller*ID device? Bill Cerny bill@toto.info.com | attmail: !denwa!bill | fax: 619-298-1656 ------------------------------ Organization: Devon Computer Services, Lancaster, PA From: "Paul Sutcliffe Jr." Date: Sun, 14 Jan 90 23:14:14 EST Subject: Re: Why 8-digit Numbers Are Impossible in North America Daniel O'Callaghan at The University of Melbourne writes: +--------- | Cellular sevices could all be moved to say 229, allowing easy identification | of a number as mobile. +--------- You mean all cellular phones, those in both the A and B systems, in any given areacode should be 229-xxxx? That allows no more than 10000 phones. My "home" system covers less than 1/3 of the geography of the 717 areacode, yet has over 2500 subscribers alone. I'll leave the rest of the math to the reader. - paul INTERNET: paul@devon.lns.pa.us | If life's a bitch, then UUCP: ...!rutgers!devon!paul | we must be her puppies. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 08:05:07 est From: tsn@neoucom.EDU (Tom Napoletano) Subject: Re: Free Local Phone Calls Reply-To: tsn@neoucom.UUCP (Tom Napoletano) Organization: Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine The PUCO, public utility commission in Ohio, mandates that information calls be free to the user, however, the telco charges $0.30 to $0.60 per call to the cocot operator (1411 vs 5551212). [Moderator's Note: Really, I don't see how the telco can get away with charging the COCOT operator either, since technically the COCOT operator is the 'user' of the service he in turn is re-selling to his customer. If telco is required by PUCO to give information for free, then it has to be given for free to all, no? If the COCOT owners would push on this, I think they could get it for free also. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jan 90 11:56:58 CST From: Keith Vitek Subject: Re: Caller ID In-Reply-To: message from kvitek@pro-party.cts.com Well, I saw on 20/20 or some show like that said that the technology to stop Caller ID was here. I was wondering if anyone knew what they were talking about... UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!kvitek ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-party!kvitek@nosc.mil INET: kvitek@pro-party.cts.com Keith Vitek | Voice: 512/852-1841 | I want my NeXT... 5914 LiptonShire | or: 512/852-1780 | I want my AmigaUUCP... Corpus Christi, TX 78415 | FIDO: 1:160/40 | I want .......... [Moderator's Note: Well, it is news to me. Does anyone know of a way to legally (via some application of the tariff) avoid ID'ing themselves? I guess there are some places where possibly the more sensitive customers may be exempted, i.e. the 'women's shelter' example. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jan 90 0:38:00 CST From: William Degnan Subject: Re: BBS as a Business In an article of <12 Jan 90 08:56:12 GMT>, iiasa!wnp@relay.eu.net (wolf paul) writes: wp>To illustrate their argument, they maintain that when a sysop imposes wp>online time limits, but then gives time credit for uploads, that wp>actually constitutes a business transaction. He accepts the upload as wp>payment for increased online time. We have yet to test this principle. It has been suggested that we send in floppies with shareware along with our Southwestern Bell bills -- marked "paid in full". If SWB would accept this as full payment, they could charge whatever they want and we would not complain. :) Last I knew, they were willing to confine the definition to "requires monitary compensation". Meaning you could take donations but you couldn't require pay- for-play and still be classified as a residence customer. H o w e v e r ... they are still holding to the arbitrary one-line per bbs/machine/whatever requirement. You apparently could have 99 machines as long as they didn't share files with each other and if you couldn't do interline chats. One of the major objections to this is that SWB doesn't really understand what they are trying to control and the only way they could insure tariff compliance is to come "look". It could get bloody. I feel that it is SWB's responsibilty to provide dial tone to the network interface. They have no business looking around on the customer side of it. They, considering their traditions, have a somewhat different opinion. Regards, Bill Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com !wdegnan@at&tmail.com Communications Network Solutions | William.Degnan@telenet.com P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766 | voice: 512 323-9383 UUCP: ...!rpp386!tqc!39!wdegnan ARPA: wdegnan@f39.n382.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ From: carrato@mhinfo.UUCP ( tony carrato) Subject: Re: Customer Support Date: 13 Jan 90 19:28:33 GMT Reply-To: carrato@.UUCP (mhis - tony carrato) Organization: Mile-High Information Services, Inc. In article <2828@accuvax.nwu.edu> levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 24, message 12 of 12 >I am about to embark on a new business venture and money is rather >tight. This venture requires that my partner and I provide an >incredibly high level of customer support for 16 hours a day 7 days a >week. I am seeking telecommunications solutions to this problem. ... bulk of inquiry deleted but what it asks is how to get a call without knowing where you might be at the time... Two solutions come to my mind, one that I use and one that one of the folks here uses. 1) There are getting to be a number of voice mail services out that will also page you. On your voice mailbox you can leave a greeting that instructs the caller to leave you a detailed problem report and tells him that you'll call back shortly. My experience is that you get paged withing 5 minutes of the call depending on congestion at the voice mail services (their computer and phone system mostly). 2) Get a portable, cellular phone and forward your office number to that. As long as you are in range you will get the call immediately. Naturally this assumes you are available to answer it at all times but you can probably get that phone to forward to voice mail if you don't answer in four rings. Tony Carrato Mile-High Information Services, Inc. uunet!mhinfo!carrato ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #28 *****************************   Date: Tue, 16 Jan 90 0:02:11 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #29 Message-ID: <9001160002.aa30554@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 16 Jan 90 00:00:02 CST Volume 10 : Issue 29 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson Nationwide Long-Distance Outage (Rich Kulawiec) Who's Using Whom? (John Higdon) Hum Filter Needed (Ole J. Jacobsen) CCIS vs. Inband Signalling Question (Phil Lapsley) 900 and 976 Blocking (Andy Malis) Re: New Sleazy 900 Service (Peter Weiss) Re: Free Local Phone Calls (John Higdon) Re: Customer Support (Ken Levitt) Re: Cordless Phone User Vows New Fight (David Lewis) Re: Why 8-digit Telephone Numbers Are Impossible (David Leibold) Re: Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls? (Jeff Woolsey) [Moderator's Note: Our Usenet gateway machine, accuvax@nwu.edu has been down for three days, and the Digest is not making it out to the comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup right now. When accuvax is back in service the unsent messages will be distributed. Please advise any Usenetters you may know of the problem. Thanks. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 90 16:17:29 MST From: Rich Kulawiec Subject: Nationwide Long-Distance Outage CNN is reporting that AT&T says that some sort of major disruption of long-distance service started around 2:30 pm EST today. I've been unable to reach area codes 415, 317, 213, and 312; each attempt yields an "all circuits are busy" recording. CNN says that AT&T does not know the source of the trouble. Rich Kulawiec [Moderator's Note: As of 10 PM CST Monday night (as I am typing this), WGN-TV is interviewing an AT&T spokesperson who says the source of the problem is not yet known, but it is believed to be a software glitch. The problem is nationwide, resulting in many (most?) calls reaching an intercept message, 'Your call did not go through' (here in Chicago). The spokesperson said they are working frantically on the problem, but may not have service entirely restored before 'sometime Tuesday'. About half of my calls completed okay Monday evening, the other half failed. The network failure has caused considerable congestion on MCI/Sprint lines; and of course, as Higdon points out in the next message, some alternate carriers in fact use AT&T circuits for some of their calls. PT] ------------------------------ Subject: Who's Using Whom? Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 15 Jan 90 14:14:09 PST (Mon) From: John Higdon AT&T long distance has been severely disrupted today in the Bay Area due to a major cable cut, according to an AT&T operator I talked to. Why is this of any interest? Well, it seems that Sprint is down as well. Why? Sprint leases facilities from AT&T. So all of the ballyhoo about Sprint's fiber optics is, to some degree, actually AT&T's fiber optics. Sort of reminds one of the old story about how all gasoline comes from the same delivery truck. We have all of the advertising about product differentiation, and it turns out that aspirin is aspirin after all. So Sprint's advanced fiber optic network is, at least in part, AT&T's fiber optic network. Well, well. It is amazing what you can learn about someone when his pants are down! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: I really think the operator you interviewed spoke without full knowledge of the circumstances of the outage; that is, unless by coincidence there was also a major cable problem out there as well as the nationwide network problem. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon 15 Jan 90 20:04:08-PST From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" Subject: Hum Filter Needed I have a problem with hum on some of my telephones. This is probably caused by too long horizontal runs of unshielded "satin" cable (line cord). (I use that' instead of twisted pair since it is easier to install). 60hz is supposed to be outside the audible portion of the phone "spectrum", so can I get a filter (ready-made or I'll build it) to take care of this problem, or should I bite the bullet and rewire? Ole ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 90 09:52:01 PST From: Phil Lapsley Subject: CCIS vs. Inband Signalling Question Does anybody know what percentage of interoffice trunks now send signalling information out of band via CCIS? Before the breakup, Bell Labs made some comment like it would be 100% CCIS by 1988, but I still hear those MF tones in the background occasionally. Phil Lapsley phil@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU ...!ucbvax!phil ------------------------------ Subject: 900 and 976 Blocking Date: Mon, 15 Jan 90 13:23:20 -0500 From: Andy Malis In their recent phone bills, New England Telephone included information about Information Delivery Service lines, and offering free blocking (once you get blocking, you are charged for future changes). I just signed up for their comprehensive blocking; it blocks: 1-900-XXX-XXXX (general long-distance information programs) 976-XXXX (general local information programs) 940-XXXX (adult local information program) 550-XXXX (group talk lines) I have a five-year-old at home that's as gullible for TV ads as any other kid his age. When, for example, he wanted to call Santa on one of those 900 numbers advertised during December, we told him our phone didn't work for that phone number. Now, I'll be telling him the truth! By the way, 940 calls are automatically blocked unless you send a written request to have it enabled. Andy Malis UUCP: {harvard,rutgers,uunet}!bbn!malis ------------------------------ Subject: Re: New Sleazy 900 Service Organization: Penn State University Date: Sunday, 14 Jan 1990 13:57:15 EST From: Peter Weiss Found in ALT.PEEVES - From: bobc@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Bob Calbridge) Newsgroups: alt.peeves Subject: 1-900 come-on Message-ID: <10917@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> Date: 10 Jan 90 03:56:38 GMT Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas I just saw one of the most disgusting commercials today. Disgusting because it seems to say that anyone who falls for the line is a sucker. But I'm sure there are a few people who will follow through. If anyone out there does so plase post the result. The commercial has some jerk saying that there is a 1-900 number at the bottom of the screen. Whatever you do, don't call it. The guy jumps up and down repeating this plea. Finally he says he's getting down on his knees to plead for you not to call the number. Another voice is heard telling you to call the number. Guy number 1 hollers "NO! Don't listen. This guy is crazy." There is no mention of what you would hear on the other end. Of course, there is a charge for the call. I think it was about $2.95 for the first minute. Any takers? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- = More stupid questions available on request from = - bobc@attctc Your humble servant (real humble) - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Free Local Phone Calls Date: 15 Jan 90 11:19:50 PST (Mon) From: John Higdon tsn@neoucom.EDU (Tom Napoletano) writes: > The PUCO, public utility commission in Ohio, mandates that information > calls be free to the user, however, the telco charges $0.30 to $0.60 > per call to the cocot operator (1411 vs 5551212). Sounds like all the good people of Ohio need to save up all of their inquiries, walk down to their local COCOT, and make all those DA calls they were too cheap to make at home. They'll get two benefits for the price of none.:-) John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 90 15:26:08 EST From: Ken Levitt Subject: Re: Customer Support I received a lot of traffic on my customer support posting. Here is a summary of responses. 90% if the responses and people that I have talked to seem to think that answering services should be avoided at all costs. The list of horror stories could fill an entire digest. Sony, Panasonic and Phone Mate make answering machines that will call another number to indicate that a message has come in. Radio Shack and STARTEL have machines that will do call forwarding if you have two lines. You can subscribe to a voice mail service that will activate a beeper when a message come in. Many people have recommended using a PC based voice mail system. After considering all of the above options, the one that seems worth doing for me seems to be the PC based voice mail system. (since I have an old PC clone that I'm not using now for anything else.) I believe that my requirements are as follows: 1. Runs on dedicated 8mhz XT clone with 20mb (slow) hard disk. 2. Can call out to a beeper number. 3. Has good voice quality. 4. Allows calling in to pick up messages 5. Allows me to call in remotely and alter programming to some other pre-defined program. 6. Allows callers to specify the priority or disposition of a call by pressing a number on a Touch-Tone phone. 7. Security code for remote operations. 8. Costs under $1000 for all hardware & software excluding the PC. 9. Can answer a call on one line and forward it out on a second line. 10. Able to do different things based on the time of day. Items 1-8 are absolute requirements. Items 9-10 are highly desireable. I have been told that the Watson system will do all of this. Jeff Cochran reported having both the Watson and "The Complete PC". He reports the Watson is far superior. Mark Earle recommended "The Complete Answering Machine". Is this the same as "The Complete PC"? I've also been told about a product called BigMouth. If anyone has other devices to add to the list or experiences with any of the above devices, please send Email. I will summarize for the digest. Any information about suppliers having good prices on this type of equipment would also be greatly appreciated. Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu ------------------------------ From: David Lewis Subject: Re: Cordless Phone User Vows New Fight Date: 15 Jan 90 15:17:55 GMT Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ Sorry, but there are a couple of comments I feel I can't pass up... In article <2794@accuvax.nwu.edu>, csense!bote@uunet.uu.net (John Boteler) writes: > Excerpted from: > UPce 01/08 1709 Phone user vows new court fight > DIXON, Iowa (UPI)... > "The cellular phone, the rich man's phone, is covered, but the > average man's isn't," Tyler said. Hmm. The "average man" is going out and buying $150 cordless phones, but telcos are still compelled to provide virtually free lifeline service to low-income households... > Cellular phones are entirely broadcast over radio while cordless > phones are merely transmitted from the headset to the base unit, which > is plugged into a regular phone jack. Sorry, UPI. Cordless phones are *broadcast* from the handset, and the base unit merely happens to be tuned to the proper frequency to pick it up. This "merely transmitted from the headset to the base unit" implies some sort of directional link... David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower." ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Why 8-digit Telephone Numbers Are Impossible in North America Date: Mon, 15 Jan 90 14:37:06 EST From: woody covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert 10-Jan-1990 0822) writes: > Unlike countries where most telephone service is provided by either > ancient step-by-step or modern electronic offices, the North American > Integrated Numbering Plan Area (U.S., Canada, and the 809 Caribbean) > is chock full of central offices of an intermediate type. These > common control offices store the number dialled, the _entire_ number, > in what is known as an Originating Register. This is a hardware > register made out of relays, and it has the capability of storing > three, seven, or ten digits, plus a flag indicating whether "1" or "0" > was dialled first. How then would overseas numbers work? I believe the international standard for those would be 12 digits or so, including country code (after dialing the 01 or 011), at least the cutoff in dialing after the 011 here is 12 digits. Also, what about the 10XXX+ dialing for other carriers in the U.S.; would these intermediate switches not have the 10XXX+ dialing at all? Actually, it might get hard to remember local numbers if they were more than 7 digits (this might be the reason for the length of tel. #s in North America). Perhaps 4 digit area codes might be used instead (take an old Mexico code like 706, and use a 4th digit to make something like (7064) 555-0000). Of course, the country code could always be split (11 for Canada, 12 for eastern U.S., and California seems to be its own country :->). That gets to be a bit much, though. || David Leibold "That's not reality, but that, too, is news" || djcl@contact.uucp ------------------------------ From: Jeff Woolsey Subject: Re: Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls? Date: 15 Jan 90 17:55:01 GMT Organization: NetCom - The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 249-0290} The moderator missed the point completely in his footnote to the article about not being able to dial local 1+10D calls in one's home NPA. The rest of the world cares very little about which end of the L platform is in which areacode relative to the issue of why one is universally prevented from dialing the local area code in North America. In the Dialing Instructions article appearing elsewhere in this newsgroup I noted that the dialing of which I speak was listed as permissive, yet I know of nowhere that permits it. This dialing restriction is a problem for widely distributed communications programs and other applications that deal with autodialing modems. (It can be addressed with 800 and 900 numbers which can be dialed the same way almost everywhere, the leading 1 being the only variant.) It is also a problem, crudely handled, for pocket autodialers that travellers carry. I hope there's a really good reason and not just some silly technical problem somewhere, such as old stupid switches immediately handing the number off to a tandem, if indeed there is any reason at all. Jeff Woolsey Microtec Research, Inc +1 408 980-1300 ...!apple!netcom!woolsey ...!amdcad!sun0!woolsey ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V10 #29 *****************************   Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 0:25:27 CST From: TELECOM Moderator To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V10 #30 Message-ID: <9001170025.aa01616@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 17 Jan 90 00:25:19 CST Volume 10 : Issue 30 Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson AT&T Reliability (System Administrator) Reporting of the AT&T Outage (David Tamkin) Reach Out and Touch Someone? (Al Donaldson) Re: Nationwide Long Distance Outage (Bill Berbenich) Re: Who's Using Whom? (John McHarry) Re: Who's Using Whom? (John Higdon) USA Direct from France -- Terrible Service (eli@ursa-major.spdcc.com) Comparative Evaluation of Voice, Data Integration Over LANs (M. Yamajako) Help! T1 Advice in NYC (Owen Scott Medd) Who Owes Whom For 900 Services? (Anthony E. Siegman) $outhwe$tern Bell (Jordan Marc Kossack) Re: Area Code 908 Lives! (Or Does It?) (Bob L.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: AT&T Reliability Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: 15 Jan 90 21:45:45 PST (Mon) From: System Administrator It appears that AT&T has solved their "software" problem, since calls now go through. Their original statement about a cable cut was certainly an understatement. My question is this: what about those 800 customers who were promised (in all the TV ads) that if for any reason their 800 number went down, they would bring it up on one of their other lines within one hour. There are an awful lot of 800 numbers around here that were down all day without being restored on POTS lines, mainly, of course, because the entire network was down. Any recouse available to the customers? This whole mess sure points out the fact that even Mother has her days! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: David Tamkin Subject: Reporting of the AT&T Outage Date: Tue, 16 Jan 90 22:16:30 CST One thing has caught my attention about news reports of Monday's AT&T outage, whether on radio, on television, or in print: invariably promotions for upcoming news about it and the first few sentences of the item itself have talked about "problems for long-distance callers" or "long-distance troubles." It's presented as a problem with long-distance calling and then it segues to "AT&T spokespeople are saying" or "according to AT&T" as if the two were one in the same. Longer discussions of it get around to bringing up MCI and Sprint's situations (being overloaded because AT&T customers were seeking alternatives, for example), but most do not. Moreover, none introduced the item as an AT&T-only problem, nor even as an AT&T problem. It is called a long-distance problem with little or no acknowledgment that "long distance" and "AT&T Long Distance" are not synonymous these days. David Tamkin PO Box 813 Rosemont IL 60018-0813 708-518-6769 312-693-0591 dattier@chinet.chi.il.us BIX: dattier GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN CIS: 73720,1570 [Moderator's Note: The {Chicago Sun-Times} had as their headline in Tuesday's paper, "Calls Waiting!" and part of the human-interest side of the story were interviews with business people -- particularly telemarketing organizations -- who were pretty well out of action Monday. The airline and hotel reservation people with their 800 numbers were also pretty hard hit by the events of the day. The {Chicago Tribune} noted that AT&T spokespeople had *not* ruled out 'a "computer virus" or act of sabatoge by a phreak unknown...' as the source of their problem. PT] ------------------------------ From: Al Donaldson Subject: Reach Out and Touch Someone? Date: 16 Jan 90 04:05:48 GMT Organization: ESCOM Corp., Oakton, VA Word tonight that AT&T is having computer problems affecting phone service nationwide. I can just see it now: "Hello, Phoenix?" "No, this is Fiji..." Maybe they should spend more money on systems and less on advertising. Al Donaldson (ATT customer) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 90 10:33:37 EST From: Bill Berbenich Subject: Re: Nationwide Long Distance Outage Does anyone know how AT&T is handling their 800 WATS customers who are inaccessible as a result of this outage? I recall a television ad which said something like 'if you are an AT&T 800 WATS customer and there is an outage, we GUARANTEE that your service will be restored within an hour.' --Bill Berbenich ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 16 Jan 1990 18:40:07 EST From: John McHarry Subject: Re: Who's Using Whom? John Higdon wrote in V10 #29 that US Sprint was unaccessable during the AT&T outage yesterday due to their leasing facilities from AT&T. I don't know the specific access arrangements in his area, but I believe the following to be generally true. Carriers do lease trunks to one another; however, these are non-switched services. I don't think AT&T has a tariff for switched access carriage for other IECs. (Not too sure on that one) If that is the case, unless there was indeed a cable cut, the common mode failure lies elsewhere. Of course, this leasing of trunks doesn't obviate US Sprint's claim regarding an ALL fiber optic network if they lease only fiber optic trunks. There doesn't seem to be any claim that other networks don't have some, or even lots, of fiber trunks. What may be interesting here is the possibility of a shared BOC-AT&T switch being in the common path, eg. the access tandem. Unless I misread an old copy of Notes on the BOC Intra LATA Networks, or things have changed in the meantime, there are some switches that are either BOC owned and used by AT&T or (the interesting case) AT&T owned and used by the BOC. These are an artifact of the pre-1984 state of affairs, and represent cases where the split could not be neatly made on one side or the other of the switch. If Mr. Higdon's LATA is such a case, then US Sprint could be receiving service from the LEC, but with an AT&T owned and operated switch in the middle. In this case it is the LEC that is providing service by leasing switch capacity from AT&T. US Sprint might well be using all their own trunks to the point of presence. Beyond that, they have no choice or control. Of course, to the end user, this is cold comfort. If there is only one access tandem, you have no protection from a failure affecting it. I suppose large users could use direct trunks to two or more IECs, but, in most cases, that sounds like overkill, especially given the probablility of the failure being guarded against vs the probablility of backhoe fade knocking down both trunk groups. These are only my own speculations, of course, and don't necessarily reflect the views of anyone else. If I have erred, I am sure I'll be corrected. On second thought, omit the if clause. *************************************************************** * John McHarry (703)883-6100 McHarry@MITRE.ORG * *************************************************************** ------------------------------ Reply-To: John Higdon Subject: Re: Who's Using Whom? Date: 16 Jan 90 01:57:09 PST (Tue) From: John Higdon After writing: > AT&T long distance has been severely disrupted today in the Bay Area > due to a major cable cut, according to an AT&T operator I talked to. The Telecom Moderator wrote: > [Moderator's Note: I really think the operator you interviewed spoke > without full knowledge of the circumstances of the outage; That's, of course, an understatement. But it will be interesting to see over the next few days and weeks how that AT&T PR department will handle this one. It should also be fascinating to find out what the *real* problem was, if it ever is to be known by the public. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: USA Direct from France -- Terrible Service Date: Tue, 16 Jan 90 06:25:08 -0500 From: eli@ursa-major.spdcc.com Here are a few quick observations about USA Direct, after using it for one week from France: o About 20% of calls get cut off. o Service quality is the worst I've ever experienced. ATT must buy their stat-mux equipment from K-Mart. o Usually, the callee's voice was cut off for about 20% of their words. It was IMPOSSIBLE to hold a normal conversation. o I wonder if the problems are solely with ATT equipment? o I asked an ATT operator two questions: 1. Why was service so poor? Answer: it must be the lines. (duh?) 2. Is the inability to connect to 800 numbers a technical problem or a policy decision. Answer: both. ------------------------------ From: Mireille Yamajako Subject: Comparative Evaluation of Voice, Data Integration Over LANs Date: 16 Jan 90 13:52:04 GMT Organization: INRIA, Rocquencourt, France. I am interested in experience results and papers on comparative performance of LANs in data and voice integration. ------------------------------ From: Owen Scott Medd Subject: Help! T1 Advice in NYC Organization: Ocwen Trading, Inc. Date: Tue, 16 Jan 90 17:52:11 GMT From our office in Purchase, NY, we lease voice grade lines to several locations in nearby New York City. We have been looking into a NY Tel T1 line to save money while providing additional capacity for 56Kb data circuits. However, we do not have a location in NYC where we could terminate the T1 line. A "CO mux" has been recommended to us: our own T1 multiplexer in our Purchase office talking to a NY Tel owned multiplexer in a NY Tel CO, with analog lines fanning out from the CO. The problem seems to be that (in its infinite wisdom) NY Tel has determined that only analog data can be passed through such a configuration, which kills our idea of 56Kb data circuits. (Also in its infinite wisdom) NY Tel has offered to accept $1400 for a "feasibility study" of inserting a digital DS0 card into their CO mux. If they decide the idea is feasible, they'll then quote a price for providing us with this "special assembly" (in NY Tel terminology). Is NY Tel serious about (in these modern times) favoring analog over digital data? Are we looking at the right product? ------------------------------ From: "Anthony E. Siegman" Subject: Who Owes Whom For 900 Services? Date: 13 Jan 90 23:48:17 GMT Reply-To: "Anthony E. Siegman" Organization: Stanford University Suppose I make (or someone makes on my phone) an expensive 900 call and the charge shows up on my next phone bill. As I understand it, my phone company (Pac Tel) is not providing the "services" involved in this 900 call, merely acting as billing agent for the provider. So, if I refuse to pay, except maybe paying Pac Tel some small amount for the actual phone services involved, does Pac Tel have any further claim on me? I never contracted with them for anything except phone service. Can they shut off my phone service if I refuse to pay for this non-phone service that they just happen to be billing agent for? [Moderator's Note: No, they cannot make you pay, and they cannot cut your service. Make sure you let them know you are refusing to pay the 900 portion (or whatever AOS you are challenging), so that the payment you do send them is applied correctly, and not taken as a partial payment against the whole bill, thus leaving the bill partially unpaid. Here in Chicago, if you refuse payment on the 900 portion, Illinois Bell will charge it back uncollectible to the Nine Hundred Service Corporation, which is the service provider for many or most of those services here. On notice that you did not pay, the Nine Hundred Service Corporation will send you a direct bill. They are entitled, under the tariff, to have your name and address for their records from the telco, even if you have a non-pub number. When you then refuse to pay them, in most instances they will place you with a collection agency; you will ultimatly pay or they will sue you for theft of their services and get a civil judgment against you. Of course you may choose to defend the suit. And how far this is carried depends of course on the size of the bill and how much resistance you offer, your defenses, etc. But Illinois Bell is out of the picture once you notify them of your stance. It is no skin off their nose. The same thing has always been the case with Yellow Pages advertising. PT] ------------------------------ From: Jordan Marc Kossack Subject: $outhwe$tern Bell Date: 16 Jan 90 21:40:36 GMT Reply-To: kossackj@rice.edu Organization: Students for a Negative Population Growth Why does Southwestern Bell charge so @*!#-ing much to turn on telephone service? I could understand the $75- charge if I actually needed a phone lines to be installed in my apartment, but this is not the case. I think that $75- is a wee much to charge for some clerical type to do the magnetic media work ... uhhh 'paperwork' involved in setting up an account. I mean, hey, HL&P didn't charge me to begin service. OK, so they required a deposit - but I'll be able to transfer that deposit if I change apartments and if I should move out of town I'll get my deposit refunded. The same is not true with the SWB 'installation' fee. HA! Installation?! They didn't install anything in my apartment! ow, I guess some bozo is going to say that I have the option to not pay the HUGE fee and thus not recieve telephone service. True, but that is not the point. Why does the gov't allow them to have a _monopoly_ if they insist on making such huge profits. A case in point follows. ... ... ... 053/061 09 Jan 90 19:18:04 From: News Desk @ 382/39 NYNEX AUDIT -- When Nynex ... set up a subsidiary to buy supplies for them, the idea was to save money: The purchasing unit could buy in volume, and the savings would be passed on to customers. From the start, regulators worried that it wouldn't work that way. Because profits of the purchasing unit wouldn't be regulated, Nynex might be tempted to have this unit charge the phone companies inflated prices. ... It was a temptation Nynex apparently couldn't resist. A year-long federal audit has concluded that ... Nynex has overcharged its own companies this way to the tune of $120 million. The FCC ... may act against Nynex as early as this week. ... The complex web of intramural transactions at Nynex ... reminds regulators of the cozy ties that AT&T's Western Electric unit had with the Bell operating companies, a relationship that helped prompt the breakup of AT&T. Since the breakup, such relationships have become increasingly common with the ... Baby Bells. ... New York Times, A1. ... ... ... I'll admit that just because NYNEX is doing this kind of stuff doesn't mean that Southwestern Bell is too. However, both companies are BOCs and I wouldn't be surprised if this was something they both learned from their mother (Ma Bell). What would surprise me is if this wasn't being done by SWB. Disclaimer: This article contains theory, conjecture and opinion in addition to the occasional fact. You try and figure out which is which. In fact, this entire article may very well exist only in your mind; Staring at a CRT for too long can cause you to hallucinate ... or was that the 'shrooms? As usual, flames and other forms of communication are welcomed by: kossackj@rice.edu (The Master of Sureality) - JK ------------------------------ From: bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com (System Administrator) Subject: Re: Area Code 908 Lives (or does it?) Date: 16 Jan 90 08:56:22 GMT Lines: 29 In-Reply-To: message from tad@ssc.UUCP > I tried calling 908 from my office (served by GTE in WA state) and got > nowhere. Also my Sprint line at home will not accept 908 calls. I > have the Bellcore letter announcing 908, but it seems to have a LONG > period of pe